User talk:BuySomeApples

Reliable sources

Hi @BuySomeApples, why does my draft not qualify due to not enough reliable sources? Why are my sources not considered reliable? Draft:Serena Terry? Saussure4661 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Saussure4661: The sources you used so far are mostly reliable, but there's some unreliable ones like WP:DAILYEXPRESS and then there's uncited info about living people which is not allowed. This information will either need to be cited or removed because potentially controversial topics like mental health and personal experiences should always be cited. The page is off to a good start, it just needs a little more work. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the specificities and the booster. As for the unsourced information, all information comes from sources, albeit they are separated by paragraphs. I guess a good start is to lump them together. I have no problem removing Daily Express. Will do so. Thanks for reviewing the draft :) Saussure4661 (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem @Saussure4661: once you finish that feel free to submit for review again, it'll probably be ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Labour (song)

On 17 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Labour (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the song "Labour" started a TikTok trend of women sharing their experiences with sexism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Labour (song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Labour (song)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Marvin Guy

Hi @BuySomeApples, I have addressed your concerns regarding tone and inline citations. Also, I reviewed the WP:CRIME. Are you saying that since the subject has not been convicted a living biography is not appropriate? Perhaps this article would be better published as "Case of Marvin Guy", since it is the police action and subsequent judicial process that is the primary focus, not the person. If you agree, please reject this and I'll rewrite and submit as "Case of Marvin Guy". Mbcoats (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mbcoats: I'm not certain what naming convention to follow, but I think the title is fine for now (it's a draft anyway). Generally, it's best if each statement has an inline citation next to it for verification and on a page like this it's required. IMO the Mother Jones quote can go back on the page because it was cited. That said, the page does need a little more tuning up. I'll take a look at it when I have more time and do some editing on it. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing the title would make it not a biography and thus not subject to the living persons guideline. When you say 'inline citation' do you mean something different than a reference tag? Either way can you be more specific and indicate which content you're referring to? Mbcoats (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mbcoats, WP:BLP applies to all pages with information concerning living persons on Wikipedia, not just those specifically marked as biographies. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know. Mbcoats (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BuySomeApples, I've restored the Mother Jones quote. I'm grappling with your suggestion that it is best if 'each statement has an inline citation'. I've peppered the content with reference citations. At some point I believe one must balance the noise factor of repeating a reference repeatedly. Where sentences are not immediately followed by a citation, it is because several sentences are typically share one common citation. The next reference is for several sentences. If you could clarify specific content that you see as an issue, I'd much appreciate it. Mbcoats (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mbcoats: thank you for putting the quote back. Including an inline citation at the end of each paragraph (even if it's a one sentence paragraph) is not going to make reading the page difficult imo. The problem is that it's not apparent to readers which source they should look at to verify the info unless it's cited inline. A page like this needs to be WP:Verified, even if it is not packaged as a biography. If you're really concerned about overcitation, you can bundle some sentences related to the same source into one paragraph. Most lines have inline citations now, so this might be the easiest solution. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I am mystified by your WP:Verified concern. The references consist of three newspapers, two television stations and Mother Jones magazine. Which is not a reputable source? Did you try to track down the source of each statement to a particular reference and were unable to? Is this why you object to publishing this page? If so, I'd appreciate it if you would be specific about which statements you cannot trace back to a verifiable source. Perhaps I made an error when moving content around to improve my draft. Everything in the article came from reputable sources. I've written numerous articles and I am scrupulous to avoid including any facts that I cannot find published by a reliable source. Mbcoats (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mbcoats: Using reliable sources is one important part of references, the other is using inline citations. The reason why inline citations are used is because readers can't be expected to go through each article linked when verifying a specific claim. By placing the ref at the end of a paragraph or sentence, you're saying "here is the original source for this specific part". Like I said, you've mostly fixed the problems with inline citations, it should be trivial to fix the rest. It will also make it easier for the next reviewer who assesses the page, meaning that the page will probably be published sooner! BuySomeApples (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Request on 01:24:02, 23 June 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Genly Ai

• Genly Ai (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dren McDonald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for reviewing this article and giving me feedback on how to improve its quality! I have gone through and made the changes you suggested – adding citations and removing uncited material, and editing portions of the text to have a more neutral tone. I just resubmitted the article for another review. Since you're acquainted with the article now, would it be possible for you to review it to confirm the changes were adequate? Thanks for your help!

Genly Ai (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Genly Ai: I try not to review the same page twice most times so that another reviewer can look at it with fresh eyes and you can get a second opinion. It does look like you've done great work improving it so far though. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Assassination of Omar Menéndez

On 24 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Assassination of Omar Menéndez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in February 2023, Ecuadorian entrepreneur Omar Menéndez was elected the mayor of his canton the day after his assassination? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Assassination of Omar Menéndez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Assassination of Omar Menéndez), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources etc.

Hi @BuySomeApples, noticed you declined my article for unreliable sources which has happened to me with every new article I try to add, so I have clearly been doing things wrong. Every time, though, I try to improve the quality of my sources and each time it fails. I was wondering if you could provide some specifics as to how I could improve the sources (i.e. which sources in my draft are no good and what kind of sources are good for such articles) on Draft:Paul_Rivett. Thanks so much Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Qgrunklebert: some sources (like Twitter) are unreliable. Others might be reliable but don't demonstrate that Paul Rivett is notable which is the main issue. Once you do some tweaking on the article, feel free to resubmit for a second review! BuySomeApples (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks @BuySomeApples. Most of the sources were articles that had a few paragraphs each on Rivett, are those no good? Also, in terms of his philanthropy, the only source I could find to back up the money he raised for Covenant House was a tweet from Covenant House about it - obviously a Twitter source isn't a good source but I figured it would be worth adding to back up the fact that he raised the money. Should I just remove that then?

Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Qgrunklebert: You can remove that and should also read Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines for more information about what makes a subject notable. Once you're ready, you can resubmit the draft. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BuySomeApples: I've read the notability guidelines and think that he meets the criteria, so I will resubmit with some tweaks. In terms of removing the Twitter source: should I just remove the source, or the entire philanthropy section?

Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Qgrunklebert: Go ahead and remove anything that is unsourced or only reference unreliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BuySomeApples: Thanks for your feedback; I have resubmitted with an additional reliable source, removed the unreliable source and related text, and have tweaked some phrasing to ensure neutrality throughout the article. Please let me know if there are any other changes to make.

Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Best Served Cold

Excuse me, but thanks for the comment you gave me on the draft i'm fixing up. It was originally a film article before there's two articles that have the same thing. So I had to change the original as a novel article than a film article. This Draft is the novel article while This Draft is the film one. I've done a lot of progress on the novel one and I won't do the film one til new sources pop up about the cast and it's filming progress. You sure you wanna help clean-up the article to make more like you said in your comment or no? 64.56.17.172 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)