User talk:MatthewVanitas

For undated/unsigned posts not archived, see User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 23a.

Move of a User talk page

Hello MatthewVanitas

when you recently moved a draft from user space to draft space, [1], you also moved the User Talk page which should not be done. Can you move the talk page back? Thanks! 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Building (1949).

Hi Matthew. Hope you are doing well. You recently reviewed my draft article for the Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Building (1949). I appreciate your comments but I think you missed a critical point. There are *TWO* (2) *SEPARATE* Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Building’s in Los Angeles. The first building was constructed for the company in 1928 - this is the what the existing Wikipedia Article covers and appears to be it sole focus. The second building was constructed in 1949, this is what the new article is about. Both have their own historic designations, history, architects, etc. In light of this, I would think it makes sense to have a separate article for both. Perhaps the first article could be titled "Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Building (1928)" and the second "Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Building (1949)" - I'm not sure what the best convention is. Happy to answer any other questions you may have. Doug D (joeconsumer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeconsumer (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matthew. Hope you are doing well. I'm not sure if this gets routed back to you or not but I went ahead and resubmitted the article. Again, this is an entirely *different* building than the Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Building the current Wikipedia article is on. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or additional needs. Doug D (joeconsumer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeconsumer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Puzzle Rings

Hello Matthew, I hope your having a nice day. I notice you declined my submission on Puzzle Rings and was wondering if you could tell me why. This is the first time I have ever submitted anything and appreciate any feedback you could offer me. Do I not create the submission in the Sandbox?

Thank you for your time,

ilovezozo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovezozo (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ilovezozo, as posted at the top of your draft, it was declined because we already have an article entitled Puzzle rings. AFC is indeed the place to submit a draft, but it's for drafts of new articles, not to modify or replace existing articles. If you have facts about puzzle rings that the article Puzzle ring is lacking, please add them.

However, note to that the facts you submitted, you provided zero WP:Sourcing for. We can't simply accept things you personally know. Where did you read this explanation of puzzle rings? If you got that information from a reliable book or article, please add the info with a clear footnote to the source where you learned it. See WP:Referencing for beginners for how to make a footnote.

Anything you add to Wikipedia must be clearly sourced so that readers can ascertain its truth. A good place to start looking would be GoogleBooks. And note you can instantly turn any GoogleBooks URL into a full footnote using http://reftag.appspot.com

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Arturo D. Hernandez

Hello Matthew The material that you refer to as copyrighted has been placed in the Wikipedia Commons so it is available for this article. Please take a look at that page. I cannot give proper citation to the original article at this point because the Wikipedia article has been frozen and I can't amend it. If you will release the draft article, I will put in proper citations and credits. Wisdom of Ages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom of Ages (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The article is back, (so Matthew doesn't have to do anything.) See User talk:Wisdom of Ages. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Article for Tressa Silguero

Hi Matthew, thank you for reviewing my submission. I need help making this article ready to go live on wikipedia. What can I do? Are there others that would be willing to add to it? This is my first article so I don't really know what I'm doing, yet. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Smartalecpotato (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Etienne Boulanger, new article

Hi, in your note to me, you accuse me of citing "the artist's" page. However, Association Etienne Boulanger was formed after his death, in 2009, and is composed of a board that is half family, half not, with an unrelated president. It's purpose is encyclopedic/historic in nature. Are you quite certain it is not an appropriate source?

Like others on your talk page, I am also trying to use this page as a carrot to lure out more info and collaboration, on a subject with barely any existing literature in English. It's surprising to me to learn that this is not an objective of wikipedia. Ees2112 (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

08:14:08, 22 June 2015 review of submission by AndreXuereb

• AndreXuereb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Quantum thermodynamics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Matthew,

I am a physicist working in the nascent field of quantum thermodynamics. Apart from my technical work, I am also responsible for the public outreach campaign of a very large EU-funded project (technically a COST-funded Action) on Quantum Thermodynamics. I would like to add my voice in questioning the judgement that has been handed down on the draft article on quantum thermodynamics. The current article takes a point of view that is very far removed from the work that is being done in the field by physicists around the world. There are hundreds of recent peer-reviewed journal articles that take the point of view of Rkosloff and not the alternative viewpoint that is present in the current article which, as is hinted in the very first line, discusses Quantum Statistical Mechanics, and not Quantum Thermodynamics as the term is understood in the field.

I have no vested interest in this article other than the desire to see our field becoming a more familiar matter amongst undergraduates and even the interested general public. In my considered opinion, and here I represent the 220 scientists who are part of this network, whereas the current Quantum Thermodynamics article does not any justice to the field, the draft by Rkosloff provides a much-needed and very good start for achieving that goal. I very much welcome a discussion on the merits of the article, but amongst physicists and scientists and in the technical literature, the relevance of the subject matter is never questioned.

In summary:

• The current Quantum Thermodynamics article discusses Quantum Statistical Mechanics, which is not what is understood by Quantum Thermodynamics in the literature
• There is no Wikipedia article which addresses what is understood by Quantum Thermodynamics
• The draft by Rkosloff addresses both these needs and is backed by over 220 scientists that form a Europe-wide network

Regards, AndreXuereb (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @AndreXuereb:, this is out of my area of expertise, so I strongly advise you to post this comment, and a request for feedback as to your draft, at WT:WikiProject Physics, to get more advice from people with knowledge in this area. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mariana Vassileva

Dear MatthewVanitas, I've been working on an article on artist Mariana Vassileva. If you would be so kind to check the links to for instance Artfacts http://www.artfacts.net/en/artist/mariana-vassileva-22291/profile.html you will find that Vassileva is prominent artist. Also links to catalogues with ISBN-numbers are correct and valid.

Best

stressrelief https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stressrelief (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Stressrelief, I'm leaving some comments at the top of your draft. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

12:35:48, 22 June 2015 review of submission by Stressrelief

• Stressrelief (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mariana Vassileva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stressrelief (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for advices, I will go through them and alter the article.

stressreliefStressrelief (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hawaiian shirts

Aloha Matthew,

I just wanted to first and foremost say thank you for your feedback. You have been truly the only editor on Wikipedia with positive feedback and I really appreciate the advice you sent and will most definitely use the advice as well. Again, thank you, wish there were more editors on Wiki like you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawnijirvine (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:SportVU

Can you please help me write this article since you were the one to decline it?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhokin (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Jhokin:, did you read the comments in the pink box at top of your draft? It's been declined because you've not proven that outside, objective experts have found this site worth discussing and examining. We don't care at all what the site has to say about itself, anyone can claim what they want on their website. What you must show is other, uninvolved experts saying "hey, we here at Sports Magazine Weekly have been looking into this SportVU thing, and we think...".

So news articles, articles in sports magazines, academic papers about stats, etc. which explicitly discuss SportVU and at length. Not blogs, forums, FaceBook, homepages for the company or its fans. Not brief passing mentions, not business directories, etc. You need to show that experts have found this website literally remarkable, that is, worth commenting on, examining, explaining for their audience. If no neutral experts have found this site discussing yet, this means that it's not significant enough yet for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Again, I strongly advise you read WP:Notability (companies) which will answer most of your questions. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you... and oops!

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for reviewing my first attempt at building the User:Dbarak/David Barak page. I believe I made the change you wanted to see. However, I accidentally submitted the page twice after making the change. I don't know if you'll be reviewing the page, but I did want apologize for the double submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarak (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dbarak, I took a look, but it doesn't appear you added anything. The "reflist" code helps compile the footnotes, but you didn't actually add any valid sources. All you have is his IMDB page (not admissible, see WP:IMDB for why), and a link to the company he works for. Those are not at all WP:Independent sources; instead you would need to show serious media or academic coverage/examination/criticism/analysis of Barak's work. As noted in the pink box, you really need to read WP:Notability (people) to understand the benchmark to meet.

Also, if you happen to be writing about yourself, be advised doing so is a very bad idea, and we explain why here: WP:Autobiography. A page about someone is not at all a page for someone, and a Wikipedia page has no obligation to say nice things, or avoid saying negative things, about any subject so long as said facts are documentably verifiable. Seriously, read the warning page about autobiographies if that's your situation.

Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, yep, it does help. For one thing I'm learning I don't know much about editing for the Wiki.  ; ) I'll leave that page in its current pending state and maybe there will be enough supporting material for it to go live. Thanks again! - Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarak (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ask

Where are you from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalacute16 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Kwalacute16:, I don't get into personal stuff on Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

11:48:25, 23 June 2015 review of submission by Benswain

• Benswain (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Snipers Table Tennis Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Benswain (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Benswain:, did you have a question for me? MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas

Oh okay fine I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalacute16 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability Authors.

Hello, Matthew: I saw you sent some corrections about the article for John Kenneth Turner. I saw the list of requirements for WP but did not get what was the problem. He may not be well known in American literature, if that is the issue, because of his political views but he did have an important role during the Mexican Revolution. Nowadays some of his works are still printed and can be found in University libraries on that country. He even has an article in Wikipedia in Spanish and also in German. Also, if checking the Mexican Revolution article in English, he can be found there. Any help you can provide me to understand and correct will be of great value. Thanks!. Raul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.209.243 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't forget to be logged-in when posting Talk messages, as otherwise you just get recorded as an anonymous IP address. But since you're talking about the Turner draft I presume you're Rfsumano

Hello @Rfsumano:, I see where the confusion is at Draft:John Kenneth Turner. I'm not at all saying that he doesn't meet Notability, I'm saying you have to demonstrate that he meets Notability. That is, the article needs to have citations to historians, journalists, literature academics, etc. who've discussed him, examined and analyzed his career, etc. Right now all you have is links to his own works/publisher, and a WordPress blog (WordPress is generally not admissible since just anyone can make a Wordpress page). For example, if you wanted to note the fact that Turner's socialist perspective led him to criticize US involvement in World War I, you could cite this book and page: Ross A. Kennedy (22 January 2013). A Companion to Woodrow Wilson. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 285–. ISBN 978-1-118-44540-2.

That's just one example from a second of poking around GoogleBooks, and then putting the link into http://reftag.appspot.com which turns it into a full footnote. Like it literally took me longer to write the explanation than to do it. It gets pretty easy when you get into the rhythm of it. :) In any case, the guy is certainly worth writing about, it's just we need facts cited to serious scholarship, not to casual bios, personal blogs, etc. I suggest you poke around GoogleBooks, and also any formal/official websites which are subject to peer review. Something like a fan association we can't just straight out trust because they could be selectively choosing only positive things to say, whereas an academic book from a serious publisher has to undergo peer-review, rebuttals, examination by the scholar's department, etc. This isn't to just make your day harder, it's to ensure that Turner has the strong, clearly-sourced bio he deserves, and where any reader who wants to fact-check it can just go right to the academic sources you footnote and assure themselves they're getting the full story.

Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

meiji kinenkan

Hello MatthewVanitas,

Thank you for taking time to read my article about Meiji Kinenkan. To be honest, I tried to copy the style of Chinzansou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Chinzanso_Tokyo) as it was accepted before.

The problem I have regarding more serious citations from books is that mainly all of them are in Japanese. English books don't mention often Meiji Kinenkan, but prefer its headquarters Meiji Jingu.

Are Japanese citations ok if I translate them ?

Thank you so much for your help;

Kind regards

Samantha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lassaux.samantha (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Lassaux.samantha:, forgive the delay since I missed your message. Your answer is right here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Yes, you are quite welcome to use sources in any language, especially if good English-language sources don't exist. I would suggest you make sure to include the Japanese spelling of the subject next to the subject's name in the beginning (so reviewers can search more easily). Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I'll start as soon as possible ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.35.84.50 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

07:26:09, 24 June 2015 review of submission by Nilimam

• Nilimam (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sundari Venkatraman; (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings MatthewVanitas, Thank you for reviewing my article about Author: Sundari Venkatraman. You have marked it as Declined. Please may I know why & how can I correct it? What other information is needed or what have I done wrong. Waiting for your revert. Thank you in advance. Nilimam (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Nilimam:, did you read the guidance in the large pink box at the top of the draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ReSubmission of NRCC (National Research Centre for Citrus)

Hi! About 2 yrs ago I had prepared a draft for the stated article, and it was rejected by the hon'd reviewer. Not intending to sound sour, but I could not really concur on the reasons for rejection ("Notability using third party references" because as I see now I have put ample TP references, further the Centre is a notable topic: it is a nodal research institute of the Indian Govt)

I see now that the article has recently been re-submitted for review, not by me. I find it very confusing to find my way through wikipedia's extremely convoluted ruleset and have recused from making new articles ever since. I do minor corrections to improve the qualities of articles, not under this username. To that extent I wish to confirm if I can delete NRCC from to-be-reviewed articlespace for good, to preserve precious server space and prevent further notifications. Thanks! Pokedora (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph W. Papin

I have done a lot of work on the page since you looked at it on the 19th. Prior to 1970 books did not have an ISPN number. If I am listing all the books he illustrated to I need to link them to something? Many of the publishers have changed and no longer list the book. I can find random links on the web but typically they go to a site that is selling old books. I don't want to appear that I am selling anything, just documenting his vast amount of published works. Do you have a suggestion? Can I just list and not link each book to something? Thank you for your time. SIncerely, Janine PapinJaninepapin (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Janinepapin:, it's fine to just mention the title/publisher/date of books. You are correct that it is inadvisable to link them since that comes across as commercial.

There is the larger concern though that your sourcing looks pretty weak. A lot of the news articles, and a couple books, that you footnoted only mention Papin in passing, or have his name on photo credits. I strongly advise you read WP:Notability (artists) or WP:Notability (people) again to get a feel for it. For an article to publish, the person must' have been the subject of substantive discussion of them, their career, their impact, in serious published works.

This is yet another one of the many reasons we tell people not to write about organizations/people they're directly involved with. It makes it very hard to write neutrally, and also people get personally upset when an article about the charity they work for, or a family member, isn't accepted because the sourcing just isn't strong enough.

I'm not saying it's a given that Papin doesn't meet WP:Notability (people), but noting that just being mentioned in passing, even if in a large number of places, and being listed as an illustrator, does not on its own meet the threshhold to have an article. Have there been media articles that actively discussed him, interviewed him, books that spent more than just a sentence or two talking about his work? That is the sort of coverage you need. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back with me. There are articles about him from Newspapers that I have referenced that are not live links because the papers are not on line. Should I upload a copy of the paper for better proof? Janinepapin (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am 100 percent sure that the he will meet the Notability requirements after I make whatever corrections need to be made. The Library of Congress is accepting his vast amount of Courtrooom Art work into their collection in July. And the over 45 books that he has illustrated also probably would also qualify him. Can I upload PDF files of the articles about him as references? I wasn't sure if that is alright to do. Thanks again for your help and suggestions. Here are the articles without live links, I have PDF files of the papers if they will do. Denton-Record Chronicle Scenes of Life by Joe Papin by Ken Atkins June 1, 1979 Asbury Park Press Panorama A Fine Line in the Courtroom: Artist Draws on Human Drama July 17, 1989 COURTROOM ARTISTS The East Hampton Star, "Opinion" section, East Hampton, New York, May 23, 1985 Janinepapin (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) I have linked quite a few of the books to oclc worldcat library to demonstrate that he illustrated the books. Should I continue to do that with as many as I can, or is that overkill? Janinepapin (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Janinepapin:, in answer to your questions:

• For how best to list the biography, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. Note too Help:Columns so you can list them more cleanly rather than being a huge long stack of single items per row.
• You don't need to upload the paper copies of articles, and uploading them to Wikipedia itself would be a copyright violation, so instead just make sure when you cite offline sources (which is perfectly fine provided they're reputable published sources) that you give all the clear details: the name of the paper/book, date, page number, publisher, author, all the full citation jazz. (Note that's for your references, bibliography items for his own works are far simpler).
• Speaking of copyright, I'm a little iffy on the images you have there right now. Especially the second one where it looks like it's been published by someone: if he did that for a magazine or book presumably the publisher holds the rights, not him, so that would be violating copyright. For his self-portrait, do you have some reason to believe he never surrendered copyright, was not paid by anyone else to make/publish it? If so, you need to give very clear info in the Details box for the image file, asserting that its copyright is not held by anyone outside the family, and honestly I'm not even sure how you would go about asserting that you are the particular person who has the right to its copyright. But let's set images aside for now.
• For Notability, I want to emphasize again, it doesn't matter if he illustrated 1 novel or 1,001 novels, that's not what makes Notability. What makes Notability is if other experts talked about his work. He could be listed as illustrator for thousands of books, but if nobody ever got into detail discussing his lengthy career, he wouldn't meet WP:N. Conversely, if he'd been the illustrator for just one trial, and newspapers around the country had gone ballistic over the controversy as to whether his amazing illustrations were biasing the trial, and it was in all the news, and academics and pundits wrote papers examining the role of media in affecting trials and frequently discussed him as an example case, that would meet Notability. So please do not confuse the two. And really don't just guess what Notability means, it's just way easier if you give a quick readthrough of the WP:Notability (people) and/or WP:Notability (artists) policies; I say maybe both because a journalist-artist isn't quite the same as a gallery guy, so looking at both policies would be clearest.

Does this answer the main part of your current questions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I am finally getting it. Thanks again for your patience and help. I have added something that I believe fits the bill. I also have contacted some T.V. and Radio stations to find out the dates of some of the interviews he did. I have the years, but not the dates...yet. I am hoping the the notoriety that he received during some Mafia trials is exactly the type of thing you need to establish notability. The story was picked up by the UPI (United Press International). I do believe you are on vacation right now but I did want to touch base. Janinepapin (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kerrygold Irish Cream Liqueur page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:02:18, 25 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Greenston25

• Greenston25 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Greenston25/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a page ready here but when I submitted it I was told it was blank so I must have done something wrong but I am not sure what. I went back to make sure it was there and it is but I must be in the wrong spot because now I do not see a submit button at all.

Greenston25 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Greenston25:, the Submit button is gone because you pasted over the pink Decline box. Don't remove those, we need them to track progress; just leave them there and when you click Submit you'll get a new Yellow box showing it's awaiting review (sometimes the box appears at the bottom of the page but that's fine).

Your page might've been blank because you may have hit Preview but not Save. If you click the History tab at the top of the page, you'll see that before I declined it you'd only added a few bytes of information, not a full article at all until you pasted one in after my Decline. So make sure you hit save after making changes. Hit Preview first to make sure it looks how you want, but hit Save after that.

I've left y'all some extensive comments, so please give those a look so you know how to proceed. I did some format cleanup to and moved your draft to Draft:Le Roy Junior-Senior High School. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Keep up your good work, Sir. Soumyajitdawn24 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:26:53, 25 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 76.9.231.204

• 76.9.231.204 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Back of the Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I get back to the original draft to list the references?76.9.231.204 (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

76.9.231.204 (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @76.9.231.204:, use the "History" tab at the top of the page, and you can look back on any version of the page ever saved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Gender equity in determining "notability"

An article I've submitted on a notable female American biblical scholar has been rejected. I note that there are numerous male biblical scholars with less prominent profiles who have been included in wikipedia. Does wikipedia track gender equity in the acceptance and rejection of new articles? Is wikipedia concerned with gender bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mygdonia (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Mygdonia:! Yes Wikipedia is concerned with gender bias, clearly, but to have any ability to comment on this particular case, you'd have to demonstrate specifically which articles you're talking about. I assume you're referring to Draft:Meira Z. Kensky? Please do WP:Assume good faith here: by submitting a draft you asked a volunteer reviewer (in this case, me) to come tell you if your draft was in compliance with Wikipedia standards. I checked out your sourcing, and two of your links are just to websites that mention that she has books out, and one to her faculty page at Coe University, which is not an impartial source since it's her employer. Accordingly, your draft as it currently stands doesn't meet WP:Notability (academics), the guideline pointed out to you in the pink Decline box.

I'm not at all saying that Kensky doesn't meet Notability, I'm saying your draft does not provie evidence of it. I'm not saying she's literally "not notable/important/significant", I'm saying the draft doesn't meet a specific policy benchmark. It's really nothing about the scholar herself.

That said, like basically any Western (or for that matter, global) organization, Wikipedia is subject to WP:Institutional bias that probably does disfavor women and minorities, and that's one thing Wikipedia is working consciously to fix. Though this is complicated by a chicken-or-egg issue, in that if mainstream academia pays less attention to female scholars than male scholars, then it could in that case artificially create a higher bar for female scholars to meet Notability due to less coverage of their work, that's also an issue.

However, in this particular case I feel confident in saying your draft simply does not currently meet WP:Notability (academics). I would strongly advise that you read that policy, because that's the first issue anyone will want to look at when deciding whether your draft passes muster or no.

So far as other scholars having articles despite weak sourcing: the standard Wikipedia answer is WP:Other stuff exists. That is, someone else's poor work on an article isn't a justification to lower the overall bar, especially since you've requested a reviewer give you honest feedback on it. If you see any bios of male theologians that are improperly written or sourced, please feel free to link them here and I will take a look and propose them for deletion if they fail to meet WP:Notability (academics), the exact same standard that your draft is being held to. Wikipedia is massive and only has so many volunteers, so I'm sure easily 5% of our articles are not properly sourced and need to be corrected or deleted, which is why it is incumbent on readers to consider the sourcing of Wikipedia articles, and, bringing us right back to the beginning, why it is so vital that drafts like yours have the strongest possible sourcing before being published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response -- that's helpful. I had thought that this scholar (not theologian, by the way -- that's a different field) would be a slam dunk because she holds an endowed chair at a prominent liberal arts college. I notice, though, that the college's website doesn't have that updated information. Once the college's website does note her endowed chair, will that in itself be sufficient? Also: you note that the college's website is not impartial because it's her employer -- but what other form of evidence could there be that she holds an endowed chair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mygdonia (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help. These guidelines can be a bit hard to digest at first, so always good to assume good faith in reviews until proven otherwise, since the vast majority of people are just trying to maintain a consistent system of standards. Again, not to be a broken record, taking the 20 minutes to read Wikipedia:Notability (academics) will save you a ton of hassle. Note especially that it's not just about meeting the criteria, it's about how you evidence their meeting the criteria. Give it a thorough look and I venture to guess your way forward will be much clearer. I think things like "having an endowed chair" can be sourced to the school itself since it's not a contestable opinion, she either has a chair or no and the school would know if she did, whereas evidence for her impact on the field would require some kind of outside observer saying "Kensky's research had a profound impact on our understanding of XYZ, and let to follow on studies by Smith and Kaplinsky which were cited by the Ecclesiastical College of Foo in their decision on..." that sort of thing.

I'm really not an expert on academic bios, I just know about about general notability guidelines to recognize your draft needed strengthening, so I suggest getting a feel for the policy, deciding how to address it, and then awaiting next review. If you feel you gain a good handle on the policy, if you want to avoid any risk that a generalist like me doesn't grasp how you meet it, in some cases on technical articles like this it helps to have, at the very top of the page, short message saying "She meets WP:Notability (academics) criterias #7 (ABC) and #9 (XYZ), as well as meets sourcing requirements #3 and #2" to make it clear that you've done the due diligence to check the boxes. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Karakol

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

03:16:14, 27 June 2015 review of submission by Anjumjalal

• Anjumjalal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Professor Masud Ahmed Cheema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AnjumJalal 03:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Matthew, Thanks for your comments. I have made the changes regarding inline references as advised by use. I shall add some interesting photographs demonstrating Prof. Cheema's innovative techniques of mitral valve repair once I get his copyright permission. Please re-review the article.

Regards

Hello @Anjumjalal:, this is certainly much better. As general practice, for next reviews I like to let a different reviewer take a look, so I'll hold off for now. I will say though, you do want to fix some other things in the article. The language right now has too much of what we call WP:Peacock in it, that is it has too much subjective phrasing. You need to go through and remove any emotional/laudatory phrasing, and stick to pure facts. You need to remove any words like "amazing, and any opinion words like "unfortunately". The facts need to speak for themselves without any editorializing by us. So please go make that small change while awaiting your next review. You're definitely on the right track so far, but be aware even the best articles often receive a few Declines before they are polished enough to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

plz acepted request

jash reem 03:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have made the changes regarding inline references as advised by use. 

Regards and see https://www.facebook.com/umer281/info?tab=page_info 0k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jash reem (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A question from references

Hi I am writing an article that one source used several times in the article. I added the source every time. I think that it has bad format. Is it correct?Saff V. (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Saff V.:, there's a great tool to simplify multiple uses of the same citation; just see WP:Refname for how to code those to be much cleaner. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

00:53:20, 28 June 2015 review of submission by Kerrisdalian

• Kerrisdalian (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Richard Rohac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now that I know about auction sites etc. being not useful, I have deleted them. I considered Christie's a point in favour of "notability". The principle problem with the fame of Richard Rohac is that a book published in 1996, widely referenced by collectors and auction sites, wrongly attributes the Rohac maker's mark to a different person with the same initials. Thus the fame is not his. How does an artist begin to be notable? This man's work is sought-after (and, indeed, counterfeited) 60 years after his death. Just looking for advice!Kerrisdalian (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kerrisdalian (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Kerrisdalian:, sites selling items related to the subject can't be considered impartial sources of information, so we don't generally accept those.

So far as erroneous information about Rohac's stamp, you raise an important thorny issue. If every published source of info says the RR stamp belongs to somebody else, and it's only "folks in the know" who know it's Rohac's, we can't really do anything about that until some journalist/scholar publishes a clear rebuttal.

If, however, some books say the RR is Rohac's and others say differently, you can cite the books that explain how it's Rohac's, and maybe have one sentence mentioning that the topic is disputed and cite that to a book mentioning the other argument.

Fundamentally though, Rohac himself must meet WP:Notability to have an article. Please do take a quick look at that guideline, it is distinct from just "notable/important/significant", it's an actual detailed guideline. If Rohac's work is important, surely some people have written about his work in trade/art journals, academic papers, news articles? Those are what we're asking you to cite: neutral, expert, objective discussion of his importance. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Link in page's history page not working

Hi MatthewVanitas,

This is somewhat a technical question. A link available in every page's history section is not working from many days: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?article=Jhansi&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia. My query is there is any technical forum in Wikipedias where we can post his issue to get it resolved.

Thanks and Regards,

--Work2win (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Work2win:, I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

RootsTrust

Dear Matthew, Thanks for reviewing my article. It is not clear to me why the article draft has been rejected? Is it just a question of building out the sources section? Or is something in the text objectionable?

Kind regards, Wayne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne brooke nelson (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wayne, I've replied at Draft:RootsTrust. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding a picture?

How do I add a picture and info to the right side of the page for my artists page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStudio336 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @TheStudio336:, see WP:Uploading images for info. Bear in mind, you must own the copyright for the image. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks alot. The picture upload worked. Now I'm just wondering how to make the graph outline including Birth name: Born: Origin Genres Occupation(s) Rapper actor Years active Labels

Thats has become the norm for all musical artists?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStudio336 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @TheStudio336:, please see Template:Infobox musical artist for the layout for such a box. They are called "infoboxes", and we have formats for all kinds of them, whether for musicians, politicians, companies, buildings, etc. They're not mandatory, but in some articles they can be a useful summary. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Vijay Jaju concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Vijay Jaju, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The verse of brotherhood

Can you read my new article (Draft:Verse of brotherhood) and help me for publishing?Saff V. (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

13:37:46, 30 June 2015 review of submission by Raghav 2313

• Raghav 2313 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Raghav 2313/Jaycees public school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I couldn't understand the reason for it to be rejected can you please make the reasons clear so that i can make necessary changes Raghav 2313 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Raghav 2313:, did you read the guidance I left in the large pink box at the top of your draft? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Page for Keenan Wallace Dunham

Hello Matthew. It is kind of weird that you would mention media coverage. Just a simple search and its all there. https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Keenan+Wallace+Dunham%22&num=50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4uxO1INV0Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK1ShNJfGG8

This is just a few, should I send more?Gtsforchange (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gtsforchange:, nothing you've offered remotely resembles a WP:Reliable source. "Some dude's webcam show" is not the kind of source we can base an article on. I took a good-faith poke around Google, and I can't find anything resembling serious news coverage of this person's candidacy. Until he gets covered in multiple sources that meet the guidelines WP:Reliable source (please take a look at this guideline), he absolutely cannot have an article until such point. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

19:37:54, 30 June 2015 review of submission by Derrin Tanser

• Derrin Tanser (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Captain Brock: Space Badger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Derrin Tanser (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Just wondered if you could tell me a little more about why it was rejected this time. The sources quoted were verifiable external independent sources. The Book Awardshttp://thebookawards.com/awards/ is an independent site. It is distinct from sites such as Goodreads, Everywriter or other sites where users write or submit the content or pay to have their work included. Similarly the Miskatonic Press is also an external independent site. The other source cited was a newspaper, which again is am independent, external site.

It would be extremely helpful to know why these sources in themselves did not help the article meet the notability requirements. The feedback you can give me will be valuable in meeting the requirements and resubmitting the article

Many Thanks

Hello @Derrin Tanser:, I took a look, and I'm not seeing any indications that Miskatonic is a widely-recognized granter of awards, nor The Book Awards. Then you footnote one Wikipedia article (please don't footnote Wikipedia articles, that's circular logic), and then one piece of local news mentioning the author. That really doesn't meet the guidelines yet. I strongly advise you read WP:Notability (books) as suggested to better understand what criteria do qualify a book for its own article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

14:17:25, 1 July 2015 review of submission by Davefromlondon

• Davefromlondon (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arthur Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Davefromlondon (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering how we can make the wikipedia page more acceptable to guidelines. Can we cite back to our own blog and website as references, or do we need to have third party references?

Many thanks,

Sam

Hello @Davefromlondon:, the big pink box at the top of your draft exactly answers your question. Please check that first, and visit WP:Teahouse if you have further questions, as I am on-break for the month. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

15:29:15, 2 July 2015 review of submission by TheGild2014

• TheGild2014 (talk · contribs)
  • User:TheGild2014/sandbox/TheGild2014/Business Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Matthew. Thank you for the feedback on our Wikipedia page submission. Please could you tell us what we might do in order for you to deem this submission suitable for publishing? Is it simply a case of replacing the references with notable links, i.e. ones to things that have been written ABOUT The Gild, rather than BY The Gild? I look forward to your feedback so we can try and achieve something suitable. TheGild2014 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) TheGild2014 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @TheGild2014:, please see extensive comments added at Draft:The Gild, both at the top and in the body. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 00:33:37, 3 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Black Yodel No.1

• Black Yodel No.1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike Johnson (yodeler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editing

I can remove the indentations, but I don't know how to do those other functions you mentioned. This is frustrating because a prior submission was rejected claiming I had used copyrighted material written by Matt Gallanger, or something like that. As I stated, to no deaf ears, Matt did not write that material. He copied it from my website and posted it on his! He did not write that biography, I did.

Black Yodel No.1 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)