User talk:Robertsky: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:07, 13 March 2022

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Response to Comment

Hi, thank you for commenting. I am still very new to Wikipedia so I'm not 100% sure on how to reply to comments sorry. In regards to your comment, I am making this page for an assignment for my university so I'm unsure whether I can merge my work. I will have to discuss this with my teacher if that's alright with you. Sorry for any inconvenience --LReinn86 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LReinn86: Sure! I am ok with you discussing with your teacher. Just two things: Wikipedia is an open collaboration platform and ideally we edit on each other's work on the same subject, rather than have different versions. Also, if anything, the Draft version was last edited about 150 days ago, and is likely to be abandoned (it takes 6 months from the last edit though for abandoned drafts to be deleted). Even still, there is still a possibility of having the two versions merged together.

Putting on my reviewer's hat, your version may not be accepted due to its sourcing. Only the eighth source (variety.com) is independent while the rest can be considered as primary sources and do not denote the podcast's notability. Find at least two other independent and reliable sources to support the notability of the podcast (you may wish to peruse Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a list of websites to avoid in general).

@Ian (Wiki Ed): fyi, in case this student is part of a wiki edu course. User sandbox and draft in question. – robertsky (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Robertsky. Student editors in classes we support should have a template on their userpage and talk page indicating they are part of a course. But definitely let me know if you encounter students I might be able to help with.

@LReinn86 - you should suggest to your instructor that they might want to leave a note about their course on the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. That way they can be put in touch with people who support education projects on Wikipedia in whichever country you're in. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry for my delayed response, I live in a different country so my time zone may be different to yours. I have discussed with my teacher about merging the articles and they said that it's fine for me to do so, so yes I'll be happy to merge the draft articles. Yes, unfortunately, my draft was rejected for that reason. Again, I'm still new to this and I was struggling at the time to find many resources on the topic, but thank you for informing me about this. --LReinn86 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on adding non-primary sources when there is a lack of them

Hi Robertsky, I appreciate your quick review of my article submission. You rejected the submission for lack of reliable non-primary sources which was correct all the sources were QuidditchUK announcements or tournament schedules. I have now added a few links to some news articles in a Harry Potter themed news website to the page. Additional secondary sources are basically impossible to find as no other news outlets seem to have covered these events.

This lack of secondary references is a trend across all QuidditchUK tournament Wikipedia articles as the quidditch tournaments are only very rarely covered by journalists so most references come from QuidditchUK announcements or schedules. For example, the page for the Northern and Southern Cups has I believe only one source which is not a QuidditchUK announcements or tournament schedule. The Development Cup article even had no sources at all until I added some the other day.

I was wondering if you have any advice on what to do in this situation before I resubmit my article as I believe the Community League is something that deserves its own article (especially given the other tournaments have their own articles) but I don't see a way to add any more secondary sources. I'm still very new to Wikipedia so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. - Twodonotsimply (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Twodonotsimply: My only advice is to wait for secondary coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is applicable here. just because the other articles exists, doesn't mean that they may not be deleted some time in the future. As an alternative, maybe have a small paragraph somewhere in the main article describing the competition(s), i.e. where're they being held, since when (year), how many teams, etc. When the press coverage picks up in the future, we can revisit creating a separate article. – robertsky (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately I find it unlikely there will be much secondary coverage. It is already tricky to find secondary coverage on the Northern and Southern Cups which are equivalent quidditch tournaments that have been running for many years and what does exists is often local news coverage. Since this Community League is made of teams that are not affiliated with a university they often have players from a much wider area so may not be covered by local news. We will just have to wait until the next season's fixtures in late 2022 to see I suppose. For now I will update the main QuidditchUK article to briefly mention the Community League and will put the full tournament details and results in a new section in the existing Northern and Southern Cups article (since they are equivalent tournaments). - Twodonotsimply (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you from Soman

		Great workz Barnstar
		Good to See your workz, keep going dude Rahulsoman (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulsoman thank you! Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia as well! – robertsky (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Mario El-Khoury draft page

Hi Robertsky, Thanks for the quick review of my draft Wikipedia page about Dr. Mario El-Khoury. The draft you reviewed was not complete. I found no “Save” button to save my intermediate work except the Publish one. I sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. As for M. El-Khoury, he successfully led the CSEM over the last 12 years. CSEM is one of the most prominent technology research center in Europe, known by experts for its contribution to electronics, to space instruments, to great innovations in the watch industry, and more recently to the renewable energy and medtech under the leadership of M. El-Khoury. As such, I think it’s certainly a plus to have this page in the English Wikipedia, mainly that CSEM and M. El-Khoury have their base reputation only in French-speaking media.

As this is my first contribution in the English Wikipedia, I will be very pleased to receive any improvement suggestions from you. Thanks in advance. Lilliek (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilliek: Hmm... if possible, add citations for the Education, Career, Marriage and Children, and Recognition sections. Thereafter, you can resubmit the draft for review again when you think it is ready. – robertsky (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's now done and completed. Thanks for the advise. Lilliek (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy link: Draft:Mario El-Khoury – robertsky (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding article for deletion

I would like to have your opinion on whether this article should be keep or deleted [1] Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 03:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Btspurplegalaxy sigh... it is a tough one. – robertsky (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your commentary. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 06:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: PV Lehtinen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PV_Lehtinen

@Ruutanaonki: Each article is evaluated on its own basis. The existence of similarly written articles doesn't mean that the similarly written article is sufficient by current day's notability standards. These articles may have been created before the notability criteria have been tightened to what it is now. Stubs of course can be accepted, provided that the subject meets the notability criteria. In this case, WP:DIRECTOR.

But in my opinion it does not. His film won awards at one festival, how about at other festivals, or had his work been critiqued by multiple peers? (point 1 of WP:DIRECTOR). It is not immediately clear from the stub. I don't see anything that he originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique (point 2). Despite having a number of short films listed, it is not cited (imdb unfortunately cannot be a source per WP:RSP), neither is there reference to show that at least one other work (than the Diver film) is notable (another film another award, perhaps?) (point 3). Ditto for point 4.

Now on the advertisement tag, that's because of last couple of sentences. My interpretation was that was 'thus far his works involves element of water in huge manners, but doesn't mind future work that doesn't emphasis on water as long as the subject interests him.' In my opinion, it has a promotional vibe to it.

Feel free to request for other reviewers' opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. By the way, typically AfC reviewers review drafts once due to the constant stream of new submissions coming in, barring exceptions. – robertsky (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Sorry for the messy AFC tags. I'm a new editor and this has been a confusing mess!. Thank you for the clean up. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WillsEdtior777: No problem. However, do note that the removal isn't a stamp of approval of the articles. I didn't review the articles and was just cleaning up. :) Another editor may review your articles as they go through the WP:NPP backlog. – robertsky (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:07:45, 13 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Pbwelch

Pbwelch (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John N. Miksic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I have removed the 'Ibid's as requested, and have added more resources. I would consider the New York Times, Straits Times, and other published sources including academic journals verifiable sources, which I hope you will agree with and have added several more although they all do seem to repeat the same message: that this is an incredible high-performing archeologist who has changed our understanding of Singapore's early history and deserves a page on Wikipedia. I hope you will agree. Thank you.

Pbwelch (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 :@[[User:WillsEdtior777|WillsEdtior777]]: No problem. However, do note that the removal isn't a stamp of approval of the articles. I didn't review the articles and was just cleaning up. :) Another editor may review your articles as they go through the [[WP:NPP]] backlog. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky#top|talk]]) 22:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
+== Request on 08:07:45, 13 March 2022 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by Pbwelch ==
+{{anchor|08:07:45, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Pbwelch}}
+{{Lafc|username=Pbwelch|ts=08:07:45, 13 March 2022|declinedtalk=Draft:John_N._Miksic}}
+<!-- Start of message -->Hi. Thanks for your comments. I have removed the 'Ibid's as requested, and have added more resources. I would consider the New York Times, Straits Times, and other published sources including academic journals verifiable sources, which I hope you will agree with and have added several more although they all do seem to repeat the same message: that this is an incredible high-performing archeologist who has changed our understanding of Singapore's early history and deserves a page on Wikipedia. I hope you will agree. Thank you.
+<!-- End of message -->[[User:Pbwelch|Pbwelch]] ([[User talk:Pbwelch|talk]]) 08:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)