User talk:Devonian Wombat

Archive 1 Archive 2

Russia's War: Blood Upon The Snow

Hello Devonian,

Thank you for not deleting the article - I was astonished that anyone would propose doing that. I agree that the episode summaries are very long but as I noted in the talk page "The episode summaries are obviously more than summaries. I want every person, place and preferably event mentioned in the programs to be identified and linked back to an article about them. As such, I hope this article will be a companion to the television programs to allow further research instead of a mere overview." To give just one example, the program spends perhaps one minute on Tanya Savicheva - a Soviet version of Anne Frank - and I want anyone that sees the show to be able to find her story as it deserves to be better known.

I've spent a lot of time already reviewing the first 5 episodes and finding everything that should be linked. This program deserves way more recognition that it has had so I really believe that it deserves its own page on Wikipedia. Peter4Truth (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Article creation.

Dear Devonian Wombat, just wanted to say thank you for your prompt review, helping with cleaning and accepting the article "Valery Alexandrovich Volkov". Much appreciated! - Otherart (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

ASTRO Gaming draft

Hi Devonian, thank you for the taking the time to review the draft for the ASTRO Gaming page. We have been continuously working on this and making the changes as advised, but it still gets rejected. Can you provide some guidance/help on the areas in the draft of what needs to be changed? Meguatastro (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and question (how to remove/relocate Comment/response to comment from an article)?

Thank you for approving the article "Marc Tyler Nobleman." How do we remove the Comment and response to that comment that appears at the top of the article itself (or just move it to the Talk page)? The issue has been fixed, it seems. I'm fairly new to Wiki procedure, obvs! Robamcnamy (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Robamcnamy:, the comments are not supposed to be there after the draft is accepted, either there was some formatting issue or I closed the tab too quickly while accepting, either way you were correct to remove it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Robamcnamy (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Kwaisulia

Hi, URLs that contain "&Expires=<some number>" typically expire within an hour of being generated (hosted at Amazon AWS). You recently replaced one such dead URL of this type, with another URL of the same type, which of course immediately expired. I added a dead link (again). Is it possible to find a source that doesn't immediately expire? -- GreenC 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC:, The work's listed on Google Books, and I can confirm it is searchable there, would that be sufficient? Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

National Treasure (film series)

WP: MOSFILM says not to create film series articles when there are less than 3 films. Why did you move National Treasure (film series) out of Draft space?

Please put it back in draft space. -- 109.76.143.245 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@109.76.143.245, I moved it from draftspace because the franchise also contains an upcoming TV series, and that is one of the exceptions to the three-film rule mentioned under WP:MOSFILM. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear the Television series has started filming yet. -- 109.76.143.245 (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@109.76.143.245 While that is true, I do not consider that an impediment to the creation of a series article, since otherwise there would not be anywhere to put information about the TV series, even though it has been covered in reliable sources. Strictly speaking we should wait, but I consider it more of a WP:IAR situation. If you disagree with that, you are welcome to request the pages' deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by the repeated ignoring of the rules and apparent willingness to approve low quality film series/franchise articles without having given any thought to it. (This case isn't too bad, there are not so many obvious deficiencies as I've seen in other cases.) Clearly you have given it some thought, and the TV series does seem imminent, that'll have to do.

It's a shame that the edit summary approving the draft didn't make the reasons for allowing the article to be approved clearer, maybe we could have avoided this conversation entirely. -- 109.76.143.245 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Paul Manheim

Hi, Devonian Wombat. You recently declined article status on Draft: Paul Manheim, saying it was not written in “…the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.” I’d like to rewrite it and, understanding that the comments are from a template, am not quite sure how to proceed. I think Mr. Manheim is noteworthy; you did not seem to have a problem with that. Question: should I simply re-write and re-submit? I’ve pored over the “Wikipedia: Writing better articles” supplement, but wonder if you might provide a few specifics for me. I’d hate to redo the article only to have it rejected via template again. I’m pretty new to this and can use all the help I can find. Thanks.Letita Bodicia (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Letita Bodicia:, the main problem with your draft is the high concentration of promotional language in the opening paragraph, stuff like “instrumental”, “renowned” etc. Remove those, and the article will definitely be ready for mainspace, so just message me again when you have done that and I’ll review the article again. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Thanks for your insight and help. I rewrote Draft:Paul Manheim in accordance with your suggestions. I hope it's improved.Letita Bodicia (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rich Kleiman

Radically rewrote it. Im a huge kevin durant fan and hoping to get this published. Think hes very noteworthy and cleaned up hyperbole considerably. Thanks for any assistance and feedback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rich_Kleiman_(1) Skoskoexoso122122222a (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ising4jesus

On April 30, 2021, you declined the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AOZ_Studio.

1. You stated that it doesn't show significant coverage about the subject to be deemed worthy of publication. AOZ Studio is a new, modern version of AMOS Professional, which definitely has significant coverage, primarily in the late 1980s and early 1990s (and even today in the retro community). Would historical coverage of the predecessor of AOZ Studio (AMOS / AMOS Professional) be acceptable citations?

2. I also received several comments stating that the article is too promotional and/or too much like advertising. Admittedly, I do have a declared COI, since I work part time for AOZ Studio, however, I've tried to be neutral and matter-of-fact in the article as suggested in the Wiki documentation. I asked the poster what can I do to make it less promotional, but I got no clear response. So... I'll ask you: How can I make my article more neutral, less promotional, etc.?

3. Finally, a note was added to the article suggesting that I was paid for creating it. I was not. How can I get this note removed?

Ising4jesus (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ising4jesus:, unfortunately, anything more than a brief overview of AMOS would not be appropriate, as the page AMOS (programming language) already exists. While your article is not extremely promotional in my view, there are quite a few problematic statements, such as how AOZ is relatively simple for beginners which does not have a source to back it up, as well as things like “significant applications”, which are generally considered peacock terms.

However, the larger problem with the article is that there is only one reliable, secondary source listed. An example for a secondary source would be coverage in a newspaper or an established website, but of the four sources, only the Versailles Academy one could qualify. The others are an interview, which is considered a primary source, and a YouTube video plus one guys website, both of which are not considered reliable. If these sources do not exist, I would suggest expanding the AMOS to include a bit more information about AOZ page as a secondary option.

As for the paid editing, I would recommend talking to Theroadislong about removing the tag, since he was the one who placed it in the first place. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. They're very helpful. I have found other sources which are articles for popular magazines on AOZ, but they are based on interviews with one of the founders of AOZ Studio. So yes, they're reliable secondary sources, but the articles are based on interviews. For example: This link contains an article from PC Pro magazine (a popular PC magazine in Europe): https://medium.com/geekculture/brought-up-on-basic-try-coding-with-aoz-studio-c007c063dd6f Is this acceptable?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ising4jesus: unfortunately, no they are not, as interviews, no matter how reliable the source they are in, are considered to be primary sources for the purpose of notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

O.K. I've added a reference for BASIC being easy to use, and I re-worded "significant applications" as "sizable applications", which is more what I meant anyway. Hopefully, these changes will make the article more acceptable.

I do have an additional question though, if you have time:

What if an article contains interview material, but also contains information from the article's author - which I intend to reference. Would that be acceptable? For example: The previously mentioned article from PC Pro was largely from an interview with Laurant Wiell, also contained the following, in the words of the article's author:

"So how does it fare? Well, once it’s up and running, it’s simple to grasp. AOZ Studio uses a retooled version of the desktop text editor Atom for its integrated development environment (IDE) and any code can be instantly run in a browser window or as an app in its own window, allowing for testing on the fly and giving you immediate results.

Anyone who ever created software in AMOS will also be able to import their files into AOZ and have the sprites, sounds and images extracted and exported as PNG and WAV files."

I was going to reference the above regarding AOZ being easy to understand, producing fast results, and being able to import AMOS programs and media. Since the quote is from the article's author, is this then considered to be a secondary source, even though the bulk of the article is from an interview? Ising4jesus (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ising4jesus: it would depend on how much coverage there was prior to an interview. If there are a couple of paragraphs before the interview starts, that would be good, but if there's only a couple of sentences that would not be enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Kostka Bajana

Regarding my article" Kostka Bojana"

Dear Devonian, after reviewing my article, you left a comment about how the article appears more to be an advertisement than an actual article. As I am writing about a person I don't personally know and about her accomplishments, all the info I have on her I found from independent reliable sources, such as news articles and I double-checked if there is any PR sign on them. Considering I noticed there is not enough coverage about the nail industry and the person I am writing about is the most famous Nail artist in the world, that's why I wanted to write about this subject and this person. The same article is accepted on other language Wikipedia and it's under the license "Creative Commons". At this point, I am not really sure anymore how to proceed further and I will kindly ask you for your help. Dusan Rajic (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Dusan Rajic

@Dusan Rajic:, while the sourcing may be there to show notability, I'm afraid that the problem is simply the content of the article, which I believe may be an artifact of the translation. A lot of the article is spent describing the political situation in Serbia unnecessarily, and the article as a whole seems to be based around describing Bajana in very laudatory language, rather than keeping descriptions short and neutral. The article also uses a lot of Peacock terms to describe Bajana, which is a problem. I would recommend removing any source that does not talk about Bajana at length and cutting out anything from the article that does not seem particularly important, and trying to describe her as boringly as possible, if that makes sense. Once you think you've done that, leave another message on my talk page and I'll review it again. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Midcoast Community Council

I can provide reliable secondary sources in the form of newspaper articles about the Council, and cite the original San Mateo County version of the resolution creating the Council, instead of a link to the one on the Council website. After reading the suggested articles, it's not clear to me if that would be sufficient. The council has been very active in a number of areas, so I have quite a few newspaper articles to choose from. Would that resolve the issue that you have raised? Thanks, DaveOlson-EG (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@DaveOlson-EG:, the newspaper articles would be excellent, they are the sort of things that are considered to be reliable secondary sources for a subject such as this. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Asom Barta

Only fair to let you know that this article that you accepted is up for deletion, and that I have started an SPI affecting the three accounts associated with it. Thsi is just a heads up. I'm not expecting you to comment at AfD for or against the article, though you are welcome to do either Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OKAY, THAT IS SO UNFAIR!

WHY did you delete my cite on Roblox Corporation? It was perfectly fine! It's SO unfair that everybody reverts my good edits. Signed, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@DinosaurTrexXX33: unfortunately, the reference you added didn't support the content I wanted to add to the article. Don't be down about it, the fact that you added a reliable source to the article in the first place shows that you've got a good grasp on the basics of editing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 20:16:35, 1 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kathynof

• Kathynof (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sandra L. Richter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Devonian Wombat. Thank you for reviewing my AfC for Sandra L. Richter. I've made some edits and I was wondering if you might be able to have another look at it at your convenience.

Thank you! Kathynof

Kathynof (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kathynof: looking over the article, it looks notable and not excessively promotional to me, so I’d say it’s ready, though moving it to mainspace would require placing a couple of cleanup tags on the article. Submit it again and I’ll review it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Thank you! I just resubmitted.

@Devonian Wombat: Thank you so much, Devonian Wombat.

Request on 14:06:40, 3 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dman1988

• Dman1988 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Todd Ellison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You've rejected my proposed article, saying that it doesn't show significant coverage of the subject (questioning notability). In my sources, only one citation is from the subjects official website, the rest are indeed independent sources. Notability in the world of Broadway/Theatre/Music is often measured in terms of where you are hired. It won't always be a newspaper. So my citations are often large nonprofits which have recognized the subject as indeed notable. What other kinds of sources are required? The subject is one of the most notable music directors on Broadway currently living.

Dman1988 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dman1988: the problem is that the references you have cited are either directory listings or short bios written solely to promote the subject, neither of which would contribute to notability. Quite simply, you need to cite secondary coverage, such as this, as these types of references are considered necessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The source you put in is, interestingly, the only purely negative piece on the internet about the subject. I’ll be happy to insert that. The “directories” you speak of are not intending to promote the subject, as they are not editable by the subject. They are actually historical record keepers, specifically playbill. Ibdb.com is another such “directory”. They aren’t there to promote a subject any more than a court case docket is there to promote a defendant. I checked out a few other people who do this exact thing. Very few, if any, have the sorts of independent sources you are asking for. David Loud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Loud) is one. If anything, most of the other subject pages read as overly promotional, where as this page I created is merely listing major accomplishments of the subject. I would like to appeal your decision on this to the community, as I have seen done in the past on other pages. Dman1988 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:10:52, 3 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ecksdfp

• Ecksdfp (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Monomorphization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission of Draft:Monomorphization was declined as not being notable. I disagree with this reasoning. Admittedly, I am new to editing wikipedia and the article's quality is questionable. That being said, I will attempt to argue that it is notable enough to be worth an article. My apologies if going to talk pages to argue about these things is considered rude; like I mentioned, I am new to editing wikipedia and am not experienced with the AfC process.

first, monomorphization is a common pass in (many) programming language compilers. I would liken it to defunctionalization in that respect, which already has an article. You can find a wealth of academic literature on the process going back to at least 1990's. Interestingly enough, there is a wikitionary article on it (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monomorphisation). (note the spelling is slightly different, there seems to be no consensus to use a z or an s among sources I have read). Considering the word is a neologism, I think this is also evidence that it warrants an article. here is another article on it, which maybe I should have considered citing in the article somewhere.

Again, my bad if I should not be arguing on your talk page. Any help improving my draft is very welcome.

Ecksdfp (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ecksdfp (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ecksdfp: no worries, communicating about stuff like this is exactly what talk pages are for. I see your point about scholarly coverage, and if you want you can submit the article again and I'll accept it, but it would be great if you could add some of this coverage to the article first, so it can showcase notability within itself. A quick look on google scholar shows some coverage that would be easy to cite, and once you've done that the article would be on much sturdier ground. When you've submitted, leave another message on my talk page and I'll give the article a review. Devonian Wombat (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Alright, very fair. I will do my best to improve the article then resubmit. Ecksdfp (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Via channel

Hi, it's insidus I'm still working on the page it would be nice if you could share it, contribute and more references to it thanks;-)

Questions

Thanks so much for all of your help on my new page Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr.

I did notice this at the top of the page

I am trying to figure out what needs to be changed or corrected in order to have that notice removed. I haven't seen anything specific identified on the talk page. If you can figure it out, please let me know ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Devonian Wombat:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Draft:Galenicum

Hello Devonian Wombat! I would kindly ask you why my draft about Galenicum has been declined. Everything I explained in there is referenced with newspapers, or different sources from different sites (independent from the company). Please, if it's possible, could you clarify me what should I change in order to be accepted? I wanted to include this article in Wikipedia since I read an article from the European Investment Bank talking about the contribution of this company during all COVID crisis, because I thought it could be helpful for users trying to find relevant articles about COVID. Thanks in advance Lluís Tintorer Jaso (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lluís Tintorer Jaso: the problem with the article is that is heavily promotional, there are laudatory italicised quotes everywhere that should be removed and pretty much every link in the article is bolded inappropriately. More broadly, the article is largely not focused on explaining what Galencium does, instead it focuses almost entirely on listing all the times that people have praised it. The article also contains numerous peacock terms. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Karen Anand

Hi Devonian Wombat, you have just accepted the AfC for this article. A previous editor raised COI concerns of the original author and tagged the article accordingly when moving it to draft. The tag remains on the article which, IMO, is a contradiction to being accepted at AfC. Can you double check if you are sufficiently satisfied COI has been addressed and the article is written neutrally? If so, the tag should be removed as part of post publication clean up. If not, it may need further work or go back to Draft. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: the author of that article quite probably has a COI, but in my view the article they have written is neutral enough to remain in mainspace with the COI tag, rather than being moved to draftspace again. The article is a bit of a mess, sure, but it would survive AfD in its current form, which is the criteria that AfC reviews are supposed to be made with. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you, with my thanks!

Thanks for saying 'yes' to having my work on this platform. I am glad to contribute! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 New York City Public Advocate special election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ron Kim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on Chuggaaconroy Draft

Hey, Devonian Wombat. First off, I forgot to thank you a couple months back for accepting my article for Alpharad. It was the first Wikipedia article that I worked on almost entirely by myself, and the very first one I ever submitted on Articles for Creation, so I was pretty nervous; I made sure to follow the guidelines for sourcing and notability as much as I could, and I’m glad it could make it to the mainspace.

For my next big Wikipedia project, I’ve been working on restoring an article which was previously deleted, specifically the gaming YouTuber Chuggaaconroy. A couple months back, the article was deleted due to there not being a case for his notability, despite the fact that he had two articles which significantly covered him on Wired and the New York Times, among other sources. After a couple months I searched for multiple sources and rewrote most of the article from scratch, following the WP:BASIC criteria and WP:WEB. And while I’ve gotten a lot done, there are still a couple things I wanted to address before moving on to the next part of it (adding information for his second YouTube channel, TheRunawayGuys), which is why I wanted to message you today. Before I continue further and eventually submit the draft, I was wondering if you could take a look at it so far and leave any feedback, in terms of how the sentences flow, what seems promotional or written from an unneutral point of view, and whether or not it establishes his notability as a content creator enough. I tried to address these concerns beforehand as much as I could, but I think seeing the perspective of another editor would help me, especially one who hasn't had any involvement with the subject before (presumably).

A few notes if you do decide to look at it:

• References 2, 3, and 21 are the WP:THREE sources that cover him in at least two or more paragraphs beyond a one-sentence name drop; they’re the two sources I already mentioned along with a scholarly article from the University of Brasilia (that source is in Portuguese so you might want to translate it). I also added articles from The Atlantic, The Irish Times, and The Independent among others which covered him briefly but contained some usable detail about him, fulfilling WP:BASIC.

• I’m planning on taking off some of the puffery on it, like in the Reception section (“Critics have praised him…”), and also add what other YouTubers have said about him instead. I put three articles which featured him on a “best Let’s Play channels” list too; however if those sources aren’t considered reliable I’ll omit them. I'm also planning to remove the "and legacy" part for now until more sources arrive.

• In lieu of a Videography section, I put a paragraph listing the games he has made a Let’s Play of which have either been covered by reliable sources or used for illustrative purposes. I haven’t finished adding sources and/or deleting parts of it yet.

• I made sure to limit the amount of YouTube/self-published sources used in the article, only using ones to support basic facts about his personal life.

So if you decide to check it out, could you please leave some feedback? Either here or on my talk page would be fine.

Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 17:24:09, 16 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Annalisemara

• Annalisemara (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Pennsylvania State University College of Nursing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thank you so much for helping me review my article. I just wanted to reach out and ask a couple question is – I really believe this content is notable and deserves a space in the Wiki-world, so I want to see how to best edit it! I think I'm struggling to understand what language in my article is being portrayed as advertisement. Would you be able to point out some examples for me? Additionally, I am using many Penn State sources because those are the ones that most accurately display the College of Nursing and what it entails. Do you have other recommendations for other sources to use? Thank you so much!

Annalisemara (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Annalisemar: The reason the draft is getting declined as an advertisement is because it largely consists of lists that look like theyve come straight from the university website, and much of the article contains of highly promotional language, especially in the latter sections, which quite frankly read like they were written exclusively to promote the institution. The article also relies far too heaily on primary sources, while Penn State might be the most detailed source, that does not mean it is the best. In order to showcase notability, references need to be added from secondary sources, such as newspapers not based out of Penn State. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft August Kiehl (review last evening)

Hi there! This morning I found my Draft:August Kiehl declined again, and decided to take a better look at it. As it turns out, two fairly important sources -- certainly no passing mention; they both cover pretty much everything that's on the page -- had somehow not been saved back when I added them. I have added them again just now, so if you could take another look at it it would be much appreciated! Kindest regards, Goran.Mont (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain, please?

Your user page says you're a deletionist (an admirable stance, if you ask me!). Meanwhile your record at the current AfC backlog drive is 52.8% accept. What's that about, Wombat? :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Ha, guess I’ve just been in a good mood lately :). I find myself to be much tougher on stuff that’s already in mainspace. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Review

Hi Devonian Wombat, thank you for your review and acceptance of Santa Lucia Preserve!

Rosenbergwrite (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:01:15, 23 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sean Gallen 88

• Sean Gallen 88 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Leaps by Bayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly with the feedback. The client I represent wishes to try another draft so I will take all your criticisms on board and try once more. I've been looking at the Wikipedia entry for Atlas Venture for inspiration and would like to follow the same structure. If the article was written like this entry, would that be closer to the guidelines? Thank you for your time,

Seán

Sean Gallen 88 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sean Gallen 88: this version is better as it is less promotional, and there are more sources, but unfortunately I do have to echo CNMall41's judgement in that it is largely a list of investments, which is also promotional, and as such the sources given really don’t talk about Leaps by Bayer in any depth. Only reference 25 would be considered to contribute to notability in the articles current state, so if more coverage like that exists I would recommend you add it to the article. I would also recommend you shorten the article, removing most of the Notable investments section, because even if there are good sources on a draft, a reviewer who sees 20 sources that don’t really talk about the company isn’t likely to accept the draft. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for acceptance of Akshit Sukhija submission

Hi Devonian Wombat. Thank you for reviewing, accepting and publishing my AfC on Akshit Sukhija. I have registered myself and will be editing using this account Thanks a lot for your acceptance and publishing of my submission and wishing you too a happy editing!--Creativitylove (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on Chuggaaconroy Draft (part 2)

Hello once again, @Devonian Wombat:, I have mostly finished the Chuggaaconroy draft and plan on submitting it either tonight (PST) or tomorrow. If you want to read the draft once more, that would be great; otherwise I'll just leave a note about the draft on the talk page. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Coach Me!!

Oklo Adiga (talk)user:Devonian Wombat, can you please coach me on becoming a good wikipidian? i'd really appreciate. I really want to help in the development. I need a veteran like yourself to teach all i need to know on getting my articles approved. Thanks Oklo Adiga (talk)