User talk:Primefac

Article Patrol

Hi Primefac,

I just received a notification that you are patrolling a working article in my sandbox... Judging by your talk page, you have given out a lot of advice. Do you have any feedback on how to improve my article? This is my first new article, so I would really welcome any suggestions you have on making a good Wikipedia submission.

Thank you! Chief8 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Raphael RJ2

Thank you for reviewing the page "Draft:Raphael RJ2" I need help in the creation of that page and since you declined it maybe you can help me fix mistakes. You wrote "After deleting a dozen references that had absolutely nothing to do with RJ2, the only sources left refer to Lil Wayne's record. Thus, there is no notability established for RJ2 himself." The sources you erased you said had nothing to do with Raphael RJ2, yet they mentioned Raphael RJ2's works and are reliable sources I see wikipedia use all the time and they had his name mentioned in there and has his Credited Works mentioned also. You erased the sources that you thought were irrelevant yet left the sources that were relevant. With that being said, That means you see he is who he is so why not Approve the page and just erase all the mistakes you see because me and the other contributes need help because we don't understand what you need when we've gotten reliable sources that have the same info already approved on wikipedia saying the same thing about Raphael RJ2 . All the sources I had were Raphael RJ2's work that he did. Also His Facebook is Verifde, most the links I got were from Raphael RJ2 directing us himself to them. Me & a couple of other contributors just thought Raphael RJ2 needed his own wikipedia page. ( I see other Artist and music producers with the same type of sources that Raphael RJ2 has yet they were approved and the artistcals didn't mention their names only their works, so I'm confused as to why Raphael RJ2's page is not approved.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.4.218 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

While I normally wouldn't do a point-by-point reasoning for my edits, this time I'll make an exception since it was a rather large volume of removals.

1. http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/raphaelrj24 & the iTunes pages - sites where you can buy things are not allowed as references, as they are promotional.
2. Sites where RJ2 is not even mentioned (these are the "he worked with X" references)
   1. http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-on-my-job-feat-juvenile-snoop-dogg-new-song.1951808.html
   2. http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-wonderful-song.963040.html
   3. http://www.ea.com/news/reknown-artists-partner-with-ea-on-the-sims
   4. http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.23473/title.meek-mill-signed-lil-snupe-moments-after-hearing-demo
   5. http://www.mtv.com/news/1709386/lil-snupe-dead-shooting-details/ (Snupe's death has nothing to do with RJ2, and shouldn't be included)
   6. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/teen-rapper-lil-snupe-killed-north-la-19450867#.UcPF_vlQH54 (dead link)
3. Facebook photos. The only semi-valid one is the news article, but that should be sourced as news, not linked as a photograph.

To be completely honest, I should have removed the Lil Wayne references (half are dead links anyway) but they deal directly with Beats How U Want Em section so I left them in. At the end of the day, RJ2 needs to be referenced by independent reliable sources that talk about him in order to demonstrate notability. References that only mention him (called "name-drops") are perfectly acceptable sources for verifying facts (such as "RJ2 produced XYZ album for ABC artist") but do nothing towards the notability criteria. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

70.173.4.218 (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me understand, I'm understanding now what you mean. I will try to find more independent reliable sources that talk directly about him, but it's hard to, when artist don't really give producers credit like that. They work mostly behind the scenes. For Example Here is a Link with Flo Rida Mentioning the Song Raphael RJ2 Produced called "Fresh I Stay" yet he didn't mention his name http://hiphop-n-more.com/2010/08/flo-rida-interview-with-hollyscoop/ Yet it can't be used on wikipedia right? Also here is a listing of the Credits with Raphael RJ2's name on it about the same song Flo Rida is talking about in the video http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781488505577_sample_255049.pdf

I'm just trying to understand how Wikipedia work. For example do you mean like this Article from a independent reliable source to where the Artist Kat Saint John is actually saying Raphael RJ2's name? http://www.parlemag.com/2013/09/kat-st-john-star-in-the-making/

Here is another one from a independent reliable source about Rapper Styles P and they mention the Song Raphael RJ2 Produced for him called Murder Mommy and also has his name listed as the Producer. http://istandardproducers.com/istandard-blog/track-by-track-review-styles-p-the-worlds-most-hardest-mc-project/

Here is another one from a independent reliable source about Rapper Hurricane Chis mentioning working with Raphael RJ2 in the artical http://www.reupspot.com/review-hurricane-chris-unleashed.htm

Here is another one from a independent reliable source http://www.kevinnottingham.com/2013/07/03/fiend-flawless-diamonds-feat-max-minelli/

I even found this article where they are mentioning Raphael RJ2 amongst other notable producers http://24hourhiphop.com/next-in-line/l-a-h-entertainment-the-movement/1346673741000/

To be honest I have to actually thank you because now I'm finding more work done by Raphael RJ2 I didn't know he even did ha ha! Also Thank you for your point-by-point reasoning for your edits. Here are some corrections you might have missed.

1. 1. http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-on-my-job-feat-juvenile-snoop-dogg-new-song.1951808.html (Currection, click the picture, his name "RJ2" is mentioned in the credits, you must have missed it)

His name is also mentioned here on a official site http://www.audiomack.com/song/straightfreshdotnet/on-my-job-remix

1. A generic link to a website (http://www.cmonsontv.com/) (I understand, but I thought by RJ2's Voice and Production tag being in all the videos was some form of confirmation)

Also here is a website that Ed Love is working with that also mentions Raphael RJ2's name. http://www.comebackkings.net/about-us.html

You're definitely on the right track. RJ2 needs to be specifically mentioned on a page for it to be considered a valid reference. It sounds like you've made some good progress in finding better references. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

once again (talk) thank you for your help, is there anyway you can erase or really just just reword all that needs to be fixed because everything is true, maybe I just didn't word it right? Example: You mention the Rapper Lil Snupe that Raphael RJ2 produced. Only reason I wrote that the rapper was killed was because I thought I was helping people that didn't know about the rapper dying, but I understand where you are coming from about saying "What does Raphael have to do with Snupe's Death". So what if I or you just reworded the paragraph & just took out the part about the murder & just leave that Raphael Produced his songs since Lil Snupes name is clickable so people can find out about him by clicking his name.70.173.4.218 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Thank you for reviewing my article about alkylation of saturated cyclic amines. I am agree with your comment: that I have written that article in a scientific language and I will correct the style. I am a scientist, and to my knowledge WP is the first place where to start searching scientific information and I am really excited about that website as it was in help for my scientific work. Now WP is fully integrated not only into general public, but also in a scientific community. Still, I am not sure that I can explain it in a simple way, but the concept of C-H functionalization is too broad nowadays, and functionalization of cyclic amines via C-H activation approach cannot be integrated into applications part of the C-H bond functionalization article because, I am afraid that in this way it will simply confuse other scientists.

Thank you, I will update the article according to your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DASCA Project (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)

20:24:05, 31 January 2015 review of submission by Victhur69

• Victhur69 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ukamaka Olisakwe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Victhur69 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much primefac for giving me pointers. The name of the author appears on the Africa39 Wikipedia article. My point is this, can you assist me with proper citation and referencing? I'm sure the article has the ability to be approved if I get it right. I'll be most grateful if you can offer me assistance with the article. Thanks again for your review. Victhur69 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Template:Victhur69. You are more than welcome to use the references from the Africa39 article, but you cannot actually reference the Wiki page itself. The main issue with your references is that they link to the stories she has written. This doesn't actually give us any information about her, just that she wrote some stories. References should talk about her in depth (as opposed to simply saying "she wrote a book"). If you find some of these references your draft will be in much better shape. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Zencap

Hello, P. The article at the time of your revert back to Draft had references with substantial sourcing from Tagesspiegel, Der Spiegel, and Handelsblatt. These are all well-regarded, well-recognized, edited, high circulation classic media. It also has a reference from Información. According to guidelines, this level of sourcing would seem to meet WP:N, nor were there legitimate pressing concerns about advertisement tone, or spoofery, or copyvio etc etc. The article was not perfect but Wikipedia policy is quite clear that that is not required, so that's not the point. After I work on it some more I will carefully consider re-advancing the article back to mainspace, so I would appreciate learning of any specific concern you have, focusing on the individual article's encyclopedic content, as per policy. If there is something you can point to, I will consider your input, and make the suggested amendment(s) up to a reasonable level of engagement. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FeatherPluma, I find responding to your comments, with all of their added emphasis, very difficult, so instead I will tell you why I did what I did and you can feel free to make any assumptions you would like afterward. One of your recently approved drafts was brought to my attention, and upon realising that it was not yet ready for the article space I sent it back to the draft space. We have had an influx of new reviewers in the last week, and thinking that you might be one of them I looked at your recent contributions. I was surprised at the fact that you had approved 20/32 drafts you had reviewed over the previous three days. After finding four of the first five drafts I checked to be sub-standard, I decided to return them all to the draft space and deal with the fallout later. I do realise there were a few drafts that were perfectly acceptable (and, as you've since emphasised in various places, been re-accepted), but I decided it was better to return a small set of good drafts (which would be accepted by another reviewer) than to have a large number of sub-standard drafts which would be quickly deleted. Kikichugirl and I did manage to get through a few of these drafts and accept them ourselves, and I see that the remainder have since been looked at. I realise nuking all of the articles was not the best way to proceed, nor was failing to inform the draft creators that their draft was back up for review, and I take full responsibility for that, but I make no apologies. If approached with this situation again, I would handle it differently, but at the time I felt I was taking the correct course of action. Hopefully the next time our paths cross it will be under better circumstances. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

All of what you say is already quite evident, and you might have saved yourself time by assuming I grasp the fundamentals. I apologize for my mistakes - I had an off day. The call to arms to get the backlog addressed got me caught up in a whirlwind. Your pointed linguistic decision "not to apologize" is your prerogative, although I can see that you are doing your best despite the rhetoric, so I accept your functional apology. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Siyaram Silk Mills, Ltd

Hello, P. The article at the time of your mass revert back to Draft had extensive references from traditional media that demonstated unequivocal substantial exposition in the sourcing. The article was not perfect, nor is it now, but Wikipedia policy is clear, unless (of course) you can explain otherwise. After I work on it some more I will carefully consider re-advancing the article back to mainspace, even though I obviously have concerns about reversal again. According to the guidelines, it should NOT be necessary that I personally complete this level of work before advancing to mainspace - this is abundantly clear in the guideline criteria, but you can of course present your opinion (although that really isn't the core issue as I see it). I would therefore appreciate learning of any specific concern you now have concerning this article being placed to mainspace, focusing on this individual article's encyclopedic content as it presently stands, as per policy. If there is some exact thing(s) you can point to, I will be pleased consider your input, and make the suggested amendment(s), up to a reasonable level of engagement. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reformatted the Draft. As a courtesy, I will hold off advancing the article to mainspace for a few days, although the initiating editor is naturally expressing bewilderment by the revert experience. (I presume you somehow see that as my issue. The absence of any explanation to said editor must have been a bit jarring. I have extended brief but supportive outreach.) In order to move forward with content edits rather than too much talk page analysis, I will take it if there is no pertinent response about the article after a few days that you have no encyclopedic issue. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE - the article was advanced to mainspace upon attaining consensus approval.

You can stand down. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Interlude (Interactive Video)

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review Interlude's page, Draft:Interlude (Interactive Video). I just have some questions about why the page was rejected. After the previous rejection for similar reasons, I went back and edited the document, adding references from what I believed to be reliable secondary sources. Now, after the page has been rejected again for unreliable sources, I would love more information on where these occurred. I feel that I used sources that were unbiased and showcased the company from well known and reputable sources. Please let me know if you have more insight to help me get the article to a place where it can be accepted. Deebs90 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2015 (EST)

Hi Deebs90, the main issue I found with this draft is that the sources, while perfectly valid for verifying the facts found in the text, do not actually talk about Interlude. I know this can be difficult with computer software (or their related companies) but there should be something out there, especially if it's been used in such a wide array of places. As a small note, make sure you watch out for promotional language - it's not an article trying to sell Interlude, it's there to talk about what makes it notable. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Keith Hill Luthier

Primefac,

Thanks for your prompt to continuing editing.

The Draft in question which began life as Keith Richard Hill was originally written by John Rutledge. It was his first attempt to post anything on Wikipedia. He asked me to take it over when his original submission was declined. Indeed, his draft was a bit too promotional. However, I rewrote the text attempting to be as accurate factually and brief yet complete as possible in describing the accomplishments in the various areas of expertise. I suggest that you remove the offending text and either post it or delete it as I am no longer able to understand the somewhat subjective nature of how the editors at Wikipedia form their judgements. I was able to obliged MatthewVanitas in all his criticisms. But your comments bring me to a halt. I have looked at a host of already published entries of biographical nature and found many of them as far more promotional, improperly cited, and poorly written. So I can no longer proceed with this entry.

Thank you,

Pictagoras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.223.162.19 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictagoras and/or Keith R Hill, the one huge issue with the "fixes" that were made to the draft was that the references did not actually discuss Hill. Almost all of the sources were links to other luthiers, random musicians, etc. In an article about Hill, we don't need to know that person B exists (though if you find a source mentioning both of them, obviously that's good). There is nothing subjective about my decline rationale - after removing completely unnecessary references, there were not enough sources to verify what has been written (which are the BLP rules). While I could remove everything that does not meet the criteria, that would result in a lot of your time and effort wasted. If Hill is as notable as it appears, there should be a wealth of sources available. However, if you really would prefer to abandon the draft, I will see about doing some copyedit to salvage what is left. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC Approved : Purna Wildlife Sanctuary

Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting article on Purna Wildlife Sanctuary. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 05:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC accepted

Primefac sahib, I thank you for having accepted my AFCs. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Keith Hill Luthier

Thank you, Primefac,

You are right. Now that I understand the rationale, it is not subjective. To an ignoramus like me, it did so until you explained it. It still doesn't explain why there are Wikipedia Biographical entries that are taken lock, stock and barrel from a personal website, yet doing that appears to be declineable. Perhaps there is some unfathomable rule that allows that to happen...like personal preference or bias. Not that you had anything to do with it. But I have found such entries of folks in this field that Hill is in. I will let you know if I have to abandon the entry, so you can salvage anything from it.

Thanks again,

Pictagoras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.223.162.19 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We have a phrase at Wikipedia called "other stuff exists," which basically means that just because there is a bad article on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that you should create another one. There are loads of articles created before the AfC process was in place, and we're doing our best to find them and either improve or delete them. As for primary references - they can be used, but only for uncontroversial material and should only be used infrequently. If you find any bad articles, feel free to tag them for deletion or let someone like me know (easiest if you stop by the IRC channel). Primefac (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:59:00, 4 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by HungryMann78

• HungryMann78 (talk · contribs)
  • User:HungryMann78 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I just wanted to get more information on an article I am trying to create: Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West. It was rejected because it "included copyrighted information." I'm just trying to figure out what portion is considered copyrighted. Thank you.

HungryMann78 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

HungryMann78, almost the entire draft was copied directly from another site, with only minor alterations in verbiage. Usually I try to just remove copied information and keep the rest intact, but the violation so so vast that it cannot be salvaged in its current state. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

08:23:21, 5 February 2015 review of submission by JOHN LANE (ATHLETE)

• JOHN LANE (ATHLETE) (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Lane (athlete) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

JOHN LANE (ATHLETE) (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me, I have need waiting for approval since you declined first submission nearly 2 months go. I have provided what he wanted. He mentioned nothing about in line citations and footnotes.

When does this merry go round stop. When you have decided something else is required after a next submission and so on

You are messing with peoples lives here.

John Lane, the biographies of living persons are held to a much higher standard than any other type of article specifically because the person is alive. Also, when Cloudz declined your draft, there were no references whatsoever, so how could they mention a lack of inline citations? I'm not sure how "writing a good draft" is "messing with people's lives," since I'm pretty sure no one's livelihoods (or actual lives) are impacted by the presence or absence of a Wikipedia article. I know it can be frustrating, but if we allowed any old article to be submitted, without verification, people could say anything about anybody (which would be bad). The rules are in place not only to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, but also to ensure that people's names aren't being slandered.

On the subject of references, you will need more independent reliable sources that discuss Lane himself. They're all valid, but the interviews, press releases, and stats logs do not demonstrate notability. The best references are the ones that discuss Lane himself and are not from him or those who sponsor him. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Camellia Posoncuy

Dear Primefac,

Thank you for reviewing my submission on Dr Camellia Posoncuy's article. We have already added the footnote citations as requested. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljolar (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:01:20, 5 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by John Conte Jr

• John Conte Jr (talk · contribs)
  • User:John Conte Jr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To who it may concern, Hello, how are you? I received your message about why the article I sent for a review was rejected. I am unsure about which citations in particular were not cited properly. If you could elaborate on which ones specifically need to be changed, I will be sure to fix those citations and resend the article for review. Thank you for your time.

John Conte Jr (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

John Conte Jr, the reason I marked your draft as not having inline citations is because, technically speaking, you don't have any references. While I commend you on your effort to catalogue and link to every other page's references, you actually need to provide those references on the draft itself. Since you have them already linked, you know which references to use, so all you have to do is replace the wikilinks with the reference code from the individual pages. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

George Chakravarthi

I don't understand why you have re-graded my article George Chakravarthi as 'Start', the example of this grade is Dirty Laundry (Bitter:Sweet song) in which all the content is in one section, is very basic and has minimal citations to potentially unreliable sources. The article had originally been graded B-class, which seemed more appropriate. Can you please explain your logic? Emerald (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

EmeraldRS, on the pedantic side, it is not "your" article, but regardless, I made a minor mistake. I was fixing a number of rankings and gave the wrong rank to the page. It is not quite at B-class yet, but it is definitely better than a Start-class article so I have ranked it as C. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. By "my article" I meant that, as it stands, it is all my own work. I would like to know "what [content] is still missing..[or is] irrelevant material" and what "may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup", that would be very helpful when I attempt to improve it as the editing suggestions for C class are not helpful as I am not aware of any gaps in the content or clean-up requirements, hopefully you can point them out to me. Emerald (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am still awaiting the detailed comments you kindly offered to post a few days ago, I hope you get an opportunity to write them down soon. Regards, Emerald (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue, EmeraldRS, we're all volunteers here. Anyway, I've chatted with a few people, looked at the article again, and am sticking with the current ranking. I should mention that article rankings are not the end-all be-all of articles - the content itself is more important. Until an article reaches GA or FA status, the specific ranking doesn't really matter. The main issue with the article that is preventing it from reaching B status is that two of the sections are entirely unsourced. The Themes section especially needs sources, as it counts as original research otherwise.

On a side note, given that the Career section is so large, I would consider shifting that to its own page as a list. It breaks up the article and makes it harder to read. Just my personal opinion though. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It is very helpful and has given me quite a lot to think about. I'll have a look at more artists' articles before making any decisions. If you don't mind, when I do make any substantial changes I will let you know, I would then be grateful for your comments about whether I am moving it in the right direction. Best wishes. Emerald (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Palance for deletion

Hello. Thanks for you notes about the page. I am new to wikipedia and have read all the instructions and made sure to follow all the guidelines, providing references and other resources for this individual's page. He is pretty notable and I am still collecting references and other material that can be added to the page. I recently added a new reference link to IMDB with more coming. Please let me know if there is anything wrong with the format, language, reference or anything I can improve to help increase the chances of this page staying on wikipedia. I can assure you I didn't take the decision to create a page for him lightly as it takes much time and effort to get all this done and I was sure he is notable enough as he is a well known actor in the community. Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoptimizer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Kingoptimizer. Just a note - remember to provide a wikilink to the article when inquiring about it, so that it's easier to find. First of all, IMDB is not a reliable source, unfortunately, because anyone can put information up there. Also, the user who accepted your draft is pretty new to AfC and probably shouldn't have accepted it - they've been removed from the participant list for the time being. The problem with the article as it is, is that there is only one reference. If there's only one reference in the references section, how are we to know that what is said is true? How do we know that all these awards are important and not lies or made up - how do we know that Palance's works are legitmate? Wikipedia requires significant coverage. That is how you meet notability criteria. Without providing enough sources, it's hard to assert notability. I've removed the list of works and stuff for the time being; feel free to restore it when you have references (or if it's cleaned up and written in prose form... I think your article actually looks better this way). And.. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kikichugirl for your comments. They are very constructive! I understand that the IMDB link is not a reliable source as you mentioned. I am having a hard time finding more references because most of what Michael Palance has done was in a time prior to the internet and therefore any references are scarce. There are many youtube videos of him but that is not a reliable source as well. What is the best way to approach this? - I am still digging for some more references. Thanks for any help in advance! Kingoptimizer (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingoptimizer, offline sources are perfectly acceptable for use on a page, as long as there is enough information to be able to find it. Keep searching, but at the end of the day there are just some people who do not meet the requirements for having a Wikipedia article (note that I'm not saying Palance is not notable, but if there are no valid sources then in the eyes of Wikipedia he isn't). Primefac (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for rejecting the Draft of "Donald E. Harkness"

I have made adjustments to my second submission of “Donald E. Harkness” per your rejection comments, though honestly didn’t find any wording unworthy of a collegiate or WP article – including the examples provided in your comments. As I re-read my second submission, I don’t see anything that is being promoted – not even a hint of it. Please enlighten me. FYI: The non-fiction book that I co-authored is cited in the Reference section where it is not mentioned or referenced anywhere in the article, and, although necessary to include, is virtually ignored by readers. In fact, the reader would have to read my first submission or Mr. Vanita's comments to even suspect a promotional connection. Yes, I am a member of the pen-name “House of Harkness” but that should not exclude the book from being properly cited in the article. Please note that I received the criticisms of my first submission with open humility, and said so at the time, because they were true and I am an honest person. I see no hint of my prior faults in my subsequent submissions.

Knowing why an historic figure did something and went somewhere is genuinely useful, valuable and even necessary information, which is confirmed and validated in one or more of the cited references. In fact, without the ‘offending’ phrase, “Missing the sense of adventure from his war years”, the paragraph is disjointed, leaving the reader to wonder how and why he went from working as a civil engineer to working for his passage on steamer ships (4th paragraph). None-the-less, I removed it for my next submission but the article clearly suffers for it. Please be assured, there is no conjecture, hearsay or supposition in my article – just historic, neutral fact validated in the cited material.

I don’t wish to turn my article into a mess of unformatted, dry bullet points, so if that is what Wikipedia considers ‘WP-worthy’ and professional then please tell me now, and I won’t bother you anymore. In such a case, the cost of adhering to protocol would be too high for me.

I look forward to reply and I thank you for your understanding. 74.103.165.66 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, please remember to provide a link to your article when inquiring about it, to make it easier for the person you're talking to. I agree with Primefac's decline because while everything you say may be factual and true, it is written more like an essay that would belong in "The life and times of Donald Harkness" and less on Wikipedia. Your article also is devoid of inline citations - see WP:REFBEGIN to learn how. Also, your article does not begin to address the notability issues: why do we care? have there been enough news mentions or book mentions? You need third-party reliable sources, to prove notability and significant coverage that isn't just the book itself, or something you wrote. Also, you appear to have a conflict of interest which may impede your ability to edit neutrally anyway. Please take a look at WP:PSCOI - it is recommended that you wait until someone without a COI writes the article in a neutral, non-flowery-language manner. Take a look at all of these links and understand them before resubmitting - perhaps your chances will then be much improved. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Best of luck! — kikichugirl ^speak up! 02:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

About AfC

Hello. I have noticed your rejection of Draft:Sir William Garth and I find it to be incorrect as he is clearly notable. His article in A & C Black's Who's Who confirms that he was indeed knighted in 1914. As a knight of the realm, he (easily) satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. That guideline is satisfied by any honour of or above the rank of CBE. If an AfC submission claims that a British person has received a relevant honour after 1897, that publication should always be checked as a matter of course. Please review the submission again. Thank you. James500 (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi James500, Sir William is a Knight Bachelor, which is below CBE (as it is not an Order of Chivalry). According to the KB wiki page, all male judges are awarded this rank. It is not inherited, and appears to be given to anyone who meets the criteria. While I am not saying that Sir William is not notable in his own right, the sources provided do not demonstrate that (which was why I declined your draft). Primefac (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly is not my draft that you declined. Secondly, according to the table of precedence in Dod's Parliamentary Companion (1998, p 504), knights bachelor rank several places above commanders of the British Empire. As far as I am aware, only judges of the High Court or above and above are automatically knighted. The said table of precedence places circuit judges immediately below knights bachelor (implying that they are not necessarily knights). I was told, by User:Necrothesp (admin with 79,000+ edits), that High Court judges automatically satisfy criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO because they are automatically knighted. That appears to mean that all knights are notable. James500 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Primefac you have misread the Knight Bachelor article. Kt is only awarded to judges of the High Court of Justice, not all male judges. It is an award below KBE, not CBE.Emerald (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

James500, you are correct, I appear to have misinterpreted a few things. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft: BODYARMOR SuperDrink

Hi, you stated that my draft for BODYARMOR SuperDrink posted on my sandbox reads too much like an advertisement. Can you please provide suggestions for which sections sound too much like an advertisement or what can be added to have the article sound less like an advertisement? I would like to make edits to the article to have it fit the guidelines for submission. Ianvor (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ianvor, when I read your draft it sounded like an advertisement I'd read in a fitness magazine. (slight exaggeration) "Bodyarmor contains all these great nutrients, comes in six exciting flavours!" The main ingredients ("electrolytes, vitamins, and coconut water") and the number of flavours (6) are fine for inclusion, but specific details like the flavours themselves are unnecessary.

As an additional note, while you continue writing the draft, is that three of your four references aren't valid. The first two are Press Releases, and the final is Bodyarmor's own website; these are primary sources and are generally discouraged. You'll need to find some reliable sources in order to demonstrate notability of the product. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

22:47:43, 11 February 2015 review of submission by Cdettman64

• Cdettman64 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kimberla Lawson Roby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've added more footnotes and citations. What is the correct amount? Cdettman64 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Cdettman64 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Cdettman64, there is no "correct amount," but rather an amount that allows a reader to verify facts and find more reliable information should they wish. I haven't actually looked at your sources, but you appear to have improved the quality of the sources. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

16:33:07, 12 February 2015 review of submission by Danielkahena

• Danielkahena (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sears Outlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Primefac. Thanks for reviewing the Sears Outlet draft. I do not agree with your reasoning for the rejection of this draft. Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores (also known as "SHOS") is a parent entity that only exists as a holding company for it's 4 daughter brands - namely: "Sears Outlet", "Sears Hometown Stores", "Sears Appliance and Hardware Stores" and "Sears Home Appliance Showroom". The 4 company formats operate as different brands, with different product ranges, pricing and operations. The "Sears Outlet" brand is the only type that encompasses both physical stores as well as an eCommerce site - the remaining 3 store formats only operate as physical stores.

Due to these aforementioned facts addressing the difference between the parent and daughter formats - I believe that there is a strong case for a separate Wikipedia article. I agree that there is some content overlap and I am prepared to fix this with your guidance. Can you please provide us some guidance as to how to build a separate page?

Potential additional facts that I could add (where I found references) include:

"Dealers and franchisees are paid commission based on their net sales of inventory consigned to them. Dealers and franchisees are authorized to sell post-sale services, such as extended-service plans, for which they also receive commissions." (retrieved from 2014 annual report - http://quote.morningstar.com/stock-filing/Annual-Report/2014/2/1/t.aspx?t=XNAS:SHOS&ft=10-K&d=5e61278408bd4350f80372d6be0d7dfe).

"In 2013, Outlet’s most significant merchandise category was home appliances, which made up 78% of Outlet's sales revenue." (ibid).

Thanks so much for your help!

Danielkahena (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Danielkahena, if you feel you can further expand this draft to include more information, and that it should not be included in the main article that already exists, you are more than welcome to do so and resubmit. Unless a significant amount is added to the draft, I do not believe that it will be worth having as a separate article, but that is just my opinion and another reviewer may feel differently. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft Review: Fair Stone

Hello Primefac,

thanks for reviewing the Fair Stone article. I added a couple of sources as external links, not as references. Will these suffice to establish notability? Unfortunately they are in German. The standard has begun to expand to the United Kingdom, which is why an English Wikipedia Article makes sense. FairStoneLabel (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FairStoneLabel, foreign language articles are perfectly acceptable as sources, but in order to demonstrate notability you will need to use them as references, not external links. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)