User talk:WaddlesJP13

WaddlesJP13 Talk 2019 talk archives 2020 talk archives 2021 talk archives 2022 talk archives

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|WaddlesJP13}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my talk page. If you are leaving a new message here, be sure to leave it under the last message left here. I can take new userbox requests, help you with any inquiries or accept comments regarding page reviewing, or discuss a mark for deletion on I left on your article (however, if there is a deletion discussion for your article, please consider leaving your message at that page so others can help assist you and discuss the deletion of your article, rather than directly messaging me here). Remember that I am not an admin but rather a regular editor with new page reviewer rights, and I do not have any authority over you nor can I directly delete your pages or block you from editing.

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, WaddlesJP13. Thank you for your work on Gawar people. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi there... and thanks for your herculean efforts. I unreviewed this because none of the sources talk in-depth about this ethnic group. In fact, 8 of the 9 don't even mention the group, only the language, Gawar-Bati, or the Gawar region. The ninth mentions it, but only in a passing sense. I think this should stay unreviewed for a while to give the creator time to add more sources (I left a message on their talk page). But if it remains in this condition for a week, I'll draftify it, or mark it for deletion.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query about NPP review of Four Seasons Private Residences Bangkok

Hey Waddles. I was wondering if you could talk me through your review of Four Seasons Private Residences Bangkok. Of the three citations in the article, I think only one meets our criteria for WP:SIGCOV. I've provided a source assess table below detailing my thoughts on the sources, but in summary; citation 1 fails to meet significant coverage, citation 2 is not a reliable source (it's a real estate listing) and very likely not an independent source, and citation 3 meets all three criteria to meet GNG. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assess table

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/four-seasons-private-residences/17893			Provides limited factual information about the building's construction only. Less than WP:100WORDS, and provides no other significant content on the building or its contents.	✘ No
https://www.richmontsthailand.com/buy/thailand/new-developments/four-seasons-private-residences-bangkok-chao-phraya-river	? Real estate listings are usually not entirely independent from the entity selling the building.	Richmont's is a real estate company. Per WP:VENDOR this very likely fails WP:RS	Contains a significant amount of information about the building and its contents.	✘ No
https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2019/02/01/four-seasons-is-returning-to-bangkok-this-year/	Content written by Business Traveller staff member	Business Traveller appears to be a RS		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Sources 1 and 3 seemed fine to me. Though the first one isn't a lot, it seems like enough to verify some facts. Didn't think the second source was unreliable, but the presence of the last source makes this page pass WP:SIGCOV in my book. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This is concerning to me. Just below this, Scope creep has just elaborated on the consensus surrounding entries like source 1 when it comes to establishing notability. In addition, that source has no prose whatsoever, it is merely a collection of facts about the building. Such entries do not tell us why a building is noteworthy, nor what others have said about it.

As for source 2, it's pretty obvious that it's a real estate listing, both from the URL and from other information gleaned on that page and elsewhere on that site. Per VENDOR, such entries are not reliable sources, because they are written to sell a product, in this case an apartment in the building.

When it comes to SIGCOV, there are two definitions at play. SIGCOV the redirect to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, and SIGCOV the contraction of "significant coverage". While the third source does in my opinion constitute significant coverage of the building, the presence of a single RS does not meet GNG. GNG requires multiple sources, i.e. at least 2, though some editors at AfD insist on at least 3.

Per the NPP flowchart, you should have done a Google search to search for any other reliable sources about the building. If there were such sources, then you should have tagged it with {{more references}} before reviewing. If there were no such sources, then you should have gone down the path that leads to either DRAFTIFY, PROD, or AFD. I've now done a quick search, and didn't find anything that met all of the criteria for GNG. However because this is a building in Bangkok, there may be local sources Thai that could be used. So I would have drafted this article.

If I were to review more of the 2083 articles you reviewed as part of the NPP backlog drive, aside from this article and the one listed below (Devuélveme La Navidad), am I likely to find more articles that should have had an alternate NPP outcome? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: I did some digging for sources for the article and found some sources:

ส่อง… Four Season Private Residence Bangkok คอนโด Super Luxury This one is from a real estate site but it's a news article describing the building.

CGD เผย Q1/65 พลิกเป็นกำไรหลังรายได้พุ่งกว่าเท่าตัว-มาร์จิ้นสูง This one appears to be discussing the profit the developer has earned from unit sales in the building.

กรุงเทพฯ โตไม่หยุด "10 ตึกสูงระฟ้า" ผุดเป็นดอกเห็ด This one talks about 10 new skyscrapers in Bangkok, briefly discussing Four Seasons Private Residences.

ไพรเวท เรสซิเด้นซ์ ริมน้ำแห่งแรกในเอเชียภายใต้แบรนด์ "โฟร์ซีซั่นส์" This one goes over the early construction of the project and its developers.

I'm not sure how many of these are reliable, but the first and fourth articles look good to me.

As for whether I have any other articles I reviewed that should have had and alternate NPP outcome, I can't answer because I don't know. I reviewed over 2,000, so it wouldn't be unlikely for there to be one if not a few more articles where I added incorrect maintenance tags or shouldn't have marked as reviewed. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the new sources and not withstanding machine fast machine translation issues; number 1 has the same problems as the property listing source currently in the article, number 2 is about the developer of the building but doesn't appear to mention the Bangkok property specifically, number 3 appears to be a local news station so I'll presume RS but the length of content about the specific building is at most 31 words long so not significant, number 4 is Thairath TV so I'll presume RS and the length of it seems OK to meet significant but I'm a little concerned that it might not be independent as it reads quite promotional in nature and may be a press release. Given the publication date of the number 4 (January 2015), I suspect that this could be an placed piece designed to drum up interest in the apartments ahead of their completion.

However, because I can't also rule out the overly promotional nature of number 4 as a Google Translate artefact and because DeepL doesn't support Thai, I would be minded to draftify the article, with a note pointing the article author towards this source for further evaluation and a more accurate translation.

On the NPP reviews, may I suggest that you take some time to re-review the articles you've already reviewed? If I look at your page triage log, on average you seem to be spending 1 to 2 minutes per page, which leaving aside reviews of redirects, is an incredibly short review time per page. For example (picked at random), I don't know how you reviewed Gulf United, Autolook Week, and Germany–Peru relations all in the space of three minutes, especially when Gulf United has 25 sources (many of which are social media), Autolook Week has 6 sources all of which are in Italian, and Germany-Peru has 6 sources in a mixture of English and German. Reading those sources and making sure they actually meet GNG takes time my friend :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I marked the article above as unreviewed and echo Sideswipe9th's concerns with the four refs provided being non-SIGCOV or promotional, at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Re-reviews 154 of WaddlesJP13's articles have been reviewed, most of which perfectly all right. I randomly checked six of their reviews and found no problems, so IMHO this is just a mistake. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Well, to clear things up with the short review time for those articles, the first one I only added a copyedit tag and left it unreviewed for the next reviewer, the second one was a short stub with only a handful of refs so it didn't take too long to review (it's been expanded quite a bit but still looks good to me), and the third one was well-written enough, used good sources, and didn't have any issues to me so I marked that one as reviewed. I'm not really sure why it should take more than 2 minutes to review something like a stub with 3 sources, that seems like plenty of time to do things like adding a short description, going through the refs, and leaving any maintenance tags. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early end of the backlog drive

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devuélveme La Navidad

Just a note about Devuélveme La Navidad- after I tagged notability you marked this as reviewed, though Scope creep unreviewed it. One of the criteria from WP:NSONG is Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, but per WP:CHART, the Tropical Airplay chart should only be used when: If a song has charted on Hot Latin Songs or Latin Airplay but not any other Billboard genre charts listed on "Applicable US charts". I don't think this is the case here as I couldn't find if this charted the Hot Latin Songs chart or the Latin Airplay chart (if I'm missing something please point me out, many thanks!). The Allmusic ref here is just a database without a critic review, whereas this is also a database. Therefore, are there any refs I missed? If so, please point out my mistake, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VickKiang: How goes it? @WaddlesJP13: How goes it. That is not a valid article with three database generated profiles references in it. The whole thing around reformatting WP:NSPORTS per the recent RFC was to reduce the number of sports artucles that used database generated profiles as references, a couple a time with no real secondary sources. There is absolute consensus wikipedia for zero acceptance of this practice. They are not real references. It is completely unacceptable. The article should either have been redirected, drafted or prodded or xfd'd. The band is notable so a redirect would have been ideal, but the editor's last four articles are in the same nick, so its really sloppy work. Xfd the whole lot. A message to the editor should've been left, but you might not know that. The editor might be going to Admin if they don't change their approach. I don't know why they have went down that road. I hope that provides some explanation to why I unreviewed it. scope_creep^Talk 22:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang and Scope creep: I had marked the page as reviewed due to the notability tag looking sufficient enough to imply that the article might not have any/enough sources that verify notability and may possibly be deleted later down the road. Since no other sources were found, should I redirect this article to the album the song is from? Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I'll have a chat with editor in the morning. It can't continue in this day and age. scope_creep^Talk 23:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question with Talk:KineMaster

I undid the user's removal of the talk page discussion, though if you agreed to remove your own comment please revert my edit. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: That was the right move to restore it, I think it's best to have an archive of older talk page messages whether or not they apply to the article's current situations anymore. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Page

Hello ! Thank you for Advise - I have updated the Page of Regional College of Pharmacy and added Citations too. Can you please have a look and guide Ansh.cardiff (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation articles

I suspect it will be many years before there is another occasion where I need to create a new disambiguation article that is itself the primary. WP:Disambiguation doesn't obviously describe this unusual case, specifically whether xyz should redirect to xyz (disambiguation) or vice versa [meaning which one has the content]. So I doubt that it is worth spending time trying to learn what I should have done, unless you think otherwise. Thanks for sorting out the confusion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, WaddlesJP13. Thank you for your work on Soteli Maamta. User:VickKiang, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello, WaddlesJP13! I'm unconvinced how this is notable. Ref 1 is unreliable, no editorial policies, about us states it's a blog, ref 2 is a routine image gallery (non-SIGCOV IMHO), ref 4 is a one-paragraph trivial announcement, ref 3 is possibly SIGCOV despite it being mainly a routine plot summary, though the Google translated version doesn't look good to me. If it's possible, could you walk me through on how this passes GNG? Many thanks for your help!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I won't mark it for AfD as I'm unfamiliar with this subject. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I wasn't sure whether it was notable or not, so I marked it as reviewed believing the notability tag would indicate that. I checked this page and its sources again, and I'm going to leave a PROD tag on this one. I feel like there might be sources out there but I'm not too sure. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the PROD. I've marked this as unreviewed, so that if the creator deprods this it will still stay in the queue (per WP:NPP: When tagging pages for proposed deletion do not mark the page as reviewed. PRODed pages should be left 'unreviewed' so that in the case the author removes the tag, it will be sent back to the new page feed to be checked again.) Many thanks, if my action is wrong please let me know. VickKiang (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Julie Rodde

Thank you for reviewing Julie Rodde. Very much appreciated. DrDavidLivesey (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Drive Awards

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This award is given to WaddlesJP13 for collecting more than 500 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo \| Talk (he\|him) 10:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Unnecessarily complicated Gears Award
		This award is given to WaddlesJP13 for collecting more than 150 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo \| Talk (he\|him) 10:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		This award is given to WaddlesJP13 for collecting the most points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo \| Talk (he\|him) 10:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Waddles. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zippybonzo and MPGuy2824 Thank you so much! Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Romanza+ África and List of Grupo Imagen telenovelas and series are already linked

Hello WaddlesJP13! I am here to let you know that the pages mentioned in the subject I am writing to you (Romanza+ Africa and List of Grupo Imagen telenovelas and series), I already link to important pages, in the case of Romanza, it is linked to TV Azteca, and in the the case of List of Grupo Imagen telenovelas and series is linked to the page Imagen Televisión and List of Mexican telenovelas, that would be all for today NewAngelDust2022 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]