User talk:K.e.coffman

Roman Töppel on Franz Kurowski

The paper by Roman Töppel on Franz Kurowski has recently been published. doi:10.15500/akm12022018. I thought you might want to take a look. There is an abstract in English. Let me know if you need further help with the language. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer: The article is also posted to the online portal of the Military History Working Group, so I was able to read with with the help of Google translate: The whole war as an adventure: The writer and "historian" Franz Kurowski.

It was interesting to see Töppel's comment on how Kurowski's tales made it into even serious literature in the English language, such as "Dennis E. Showalter, Armor and Blood. The Battle of Kursk, New York 2013, p. 188, 203, 208f". I read this book, and, while it was generally pretty good, I recall wondering where the "up-close-and-personal" bits were coming from. They sounded a touch Über-Soldat to me. Now I know :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Atayants, Maxim

Hi, Could you explain me more detailed why this page declined and advise me what shall I do to improve it? What part of article seems like advertising? What part needs more references? Лев Усыскин (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Лев Усыскин: The article reads like it could be the subject's own website that he would use to promote his portfolio. It's too long and filled with extraneous detail, resulting in a promotional page. Some sections are completely unreferenced such as Draft:Atayants,_Maxim#Recovery_of_the_village_of_Karaglukh.

Same for Draft:Atayants,_Maxim#Rewards (which I think should be "Awards") -- just pick a couple of the more important ones and remove the rest. The exhaustive listing of various exhibitions is not needed; again, pick a few that secondary coverage exists for, and focus on that. Etc. The article could probably be reduced by 75 per cent and be better for it. Separately, are you affiliated with the subject in any way? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. K.e.coffman. Thanks for assistance – I'll try to mend the article according your advice. (The article reads like it could be the subject's own website) – It sounds nice because subject still have no own website, but anyway I understand your criticism. (Separately, are you affiliated with the subject in any way?) I am not a relative, partner or employee of the subject, but I know him personally – I am a journalist and made some interview with him and so on. It was my idea to mend his article in Ru-Wiki as well as create the same articles in En-Wiki, It-Wiki and Armenian Wiki. And I do convinced him to register his own account on Wiki to easy upload his own pictures. I have some reasons to regard his person rather important to have his own en-wiki page. First of all, he is a prominent or may be central figure in the discussion (or fierce competition) between modernistic and neoclassical architects in Russia. It is a world process, world discussion but “Russian wing” of it takes subject in it's focus. Hi is a main speaker , ideologist, main target of criticism, hero of professional scandals end so on on behalf of neoclassical minority. From the other hand – he is a famous person in the international community of neoclassical architects and got some international rewards like 2018 International Urban Design Award or 2016 Premio Europeo Cap Circeo. Formally, the subject is an acknowledged present-day Russian architect: he is awarded with honorary title of Merited Architect of Russia according the proper decree of Russian President etc. Also he is one of sponsors of Nagorno-Karabakh – a disputed area between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think it could be interesting for different type of public. At least it is important for all English-reading people of Armenian descent. I can give some ext. links for this part of article, but it will be links to Armenian-speaking media. Is it correct? Лев Усыскин (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Лев Усыскин: Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to use foreign-language sources in an article, and they may be used for demonstrating notability per WP:GNG. Catrìona (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I made some amendments. Could you check is it OK? As for 2.1 Graphics -- I am going to illustrate it by 1 or 2 subject's pictures just after permissions sent by him will be accepted. Shell I resubmit it now or after you write your opinion? Лев Усыскин (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Лев Усыскин Please read Wikipedia's biography of living people policy: the article needs many more inline citations to fulfill policy. Also, are you affiliated with the subject in any way? Catrìona (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

On affiliation I wrote above. Now I add some inline citations and kindly ask you to point me by finger where article needs more. By now: &Biography 1st paragraph – supported by 1 ref. 2nd paragraph – supported by 2 ref 3d paragraph – supported by 1 ref 4 – no ref, sorry – but to the certain extent it being proved by pictures which are now waiting acceptance of permission 5 – 1 ref &Graphics no ref , sorry. But uploaded proper pictures are waiting acceptance of permission &Selected projects All 3 statements supported by ref &Urbanism All 2 statements supported by ref &Restoration & Renovation Statement supported by ref &Selected Architectural Competitions Statement supported by ref &Educator No refs, sorry. &Exhibitions All 5 statements supported by ref $Awards All statements supported by ref &Recovery of the village of Karaglukh supported by 5 ref May be it's enough to accept the article?Лев Усыскин (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, K.e.coffman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JC7V-talk 18:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I would decline. The subject lacks notability independent of his company, while the sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. The creator, Special:Contributions/Central_Midfielder, also appears to have a COI, which they have not declared. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Julian Agyeman

Hi, You tagged my draft for speedy deletion and I understand your concerns, but I was wondering if there is any way that you could remove that tag and instead mark it as needing editing? I understand your concerns but most of the article I modeled after other academic pages and I believe the problem came when I tried to show that the person met notability standards, which I believe he does (I am happy to explain which specific criteria are met if you want to discuss his notability), and that led to some phrasing that may have sounded promotional. I think that the issues can be fixed and I will work to create a more neutral-sounding draft with any input that you have if you do remove the tag. I would really appreciate your help!

Thanks! Rnf1811 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rnf1811: you've submitted the draft four times. In neither of these occasions, it was suitable to be moved to main space, due to lack of notability and promotionalism. In short, it's a non-viable draft that is being resubmitted disruptively. Separately, are you affiliated with the subject in any way? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For quiet, unassuming, largely thankless and tireless work. Carefully citing, carefully understating and getting on with what needs doing. Wikipedia, and probably the world, is the better for your efforts. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Marek Holeček

• Vdrapalova (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marek Holeček (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I just got a message today that my draft:Marek_Holecek has been rejected because of the potential COI. I am actually quite sad dn crushed as I have been working on the article for over two months tapping into tens of published articles, watching various TV and online interviews and reading multiple books to create a notable entry on the best Czech climber who was awarded with the most important global mountaineering prize this year. I can't by any means imagine having a COI issue as I don't know him personally, I am only genuinely interested in the subject of mountaineering and climbing (loving mountains and climbing myself) and felt the most accomplished person in the Czech Republic deserved a mention on Wiki in English. His Czech WIki page already exists.

As I believe my draft would bring value as a source of information, I would really appreciate you indicating to me what should be changed or modified so it meets the publishing criteria. I am truly lost as clueless as I can't think of anything that would not be mentioned in public media, newspapers or anything being promotional or not neutral...I tried my best to tap into as many sources I could to make the article as good as I could.

Thank you so much in advance for your advise.

Vdrapalova (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vdrapalova: Your draft has not been rejected because of the potential COI; it has been rejected because it does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you would like your article to be published, please read the policy and edit the article to comply with it, then submit again. Catrìona (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vdrapalova: correct; the article was too promotional to have been accepted. I see that it has now been improved and published here: Marek Holeček. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

AfC

May you please contact the original writer - I am not the one writing it but it's the one who moves or from the Chinese namespace. The original author is User:Yanilau

Many thanks! 1233^Talk 18:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC) @1233: thank you for letting me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:BevSpot ‎

Can we please talk about why my article was declined? So when I edit SeatGeek's page, it's fine all good, but edit a different company, no no no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadburgess (talk • contribs)

@Chadburgess: The draft was declined because the article comes across as an advertorial, while the sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and / or self-promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Solar-PuTTY

• UrsusLuin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Solar-PuTTY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello K.e.coffman, I'd like to ask, why my article about Solar-PuTTY has been declined as being "advertisement" more than "neutral point of view". To be honest, I can't agree with this statement, as far as the article was written based on research upon the similar published articles (see articles about PuTTY, mintty, and WinSCP). The article has got a lot of hyperlinks into the Wikipedia itself, as well as 4 external references that leads to independent articles around the internet. I'd like to ask you to considering the fact that my article is more or less the same as articles already published and have a look at the review process once more. In the case, you still think that this article does not fit to Wikipedia standards, please, I'll be glad for any specific feedback (the current one is too general to use it for improvement).

Thanks, Ursus

UrsusLuin (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@UrsusLuin: Please note an article in mainspace does not mean it has met the requirement of Wikipedia and it should not take it as the benchmark article but one should seek to meet the guidelines of what is required. Notability guidelines have been significantly tightened in the past couple of years.

Secondly, any articles in the main space in Wikipedia could subject for nomination of AfD (articles for deletion) it the nominator deems the article to fail the notability guidelines. When I reviewed the draft, I concluded that the subject does not meet the current guidelines for notability. The coverage is in passing and / or self-promotional, while the content is largely uncited and is advertorial in nature. You can ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Marcus Claudius Gilcia

Hi,

I have a couple of queries re. the declined article on Marcus Claudius Gilcia.

The only comment left was that briefly serving as Dictator would not satisfy notability. Seeing as under WP:POL, any national politician would qualify as notable, it would seem strange that an extraordinary and plenipotentiary magistrate would not, regardless how long his term was. Are ancient politicians held to a different standard?

Secondly, I believe this would more than satisfy WP:GNG, meaning that WP:POL is merely a happy extra. Given the difference between modern and ancient sources, it is rare to have any information handed down in detail on individuals; there are quite simply far many famous people today than there were in the past. That said, in this case, though we have lost the primary source (Livy), the fact that a three line summary of that book of Livy (Periochae 19) mentions Gilcia would point towards a large role played in the narrative by him. Given the low number of names handed down, and the fact that this specific case was deemed important enough to be mentioned in a summary, could you please clarify how GNG affects Roman politicians. As this is an area of particular interest to me, this would be very useful.

Thanks LarciusFlavus (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@LarciusFlavus: I see that it has been accepted by another contributor. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Craig_Proctor

Thank you for reviewing my proposed page on Craig Proctor. You have deleted the page, marking it as unambiguous advertising. When I wrote this page, I researched to understand Wikipedia guidelines and to write the page objectively. My goal was to present only factual information that I could back up with acceptable third party sources. As a specific guideline, I paralleled the format of another Wikipedia page for an individual in the same field (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry). There are many similarities between Craig Proctor and Tom Ferry both in terms of the work they do and their international presence, so I felt this would be a relevant page to parallel. I do know Craig Proctor but I am not being paid by him to generate his page, and I have nothing personally or financially to gain from its creation. I would like to revise the page so it passes Wikipedia standards but it is not clear to me which part of my deleted entry is considered advertising/promotion and would appreciate your help in highlighting which statements are problematic. Thank you in advance for your guidance.ProducerSMS (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@ProducerSMS: the draft was deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in re: this subject, please declare it on your user page. Please see the message on your Talk page: User talk:ProducerSMS#Managing a conflict of interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I do understand that you deleted the draft as you felt it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, but I would like to understand how the Craig Proctor draft page is any different from the published page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry which is a page on an individual in the same field as Craig Proctor. Why is this page authorized and not the Craig Proctor page. If there are subtle differences that are significant enough to cause acceptance of one and rejection of the other, it would be helpful if you would let me know what phrases are problematic so I can revise them. I don't believe there is anything in the Craig Proctor page write up that is promoting him - all the information is fact and I ensured I had objective, Wiki-acceptable citations for the facts. Thank you in advance for your guidance. ProducerSMS (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello K.e.coffman - Thank you for your reply. I do understand that you deleted the draft as you felt it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, but I would like to understand how the Craig Proctor draft page is any different from the published page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry which is a page on an individual in the same field as Craig Proctor. Why is this page authorized and not the Craig Proctor page. If there are subtle differences that are significant enough to cause acceptance of one and rejection of the other, it would be helpful if you would let me know what phrases are problematic so I can revise them. I don't believe there is anything in the Craig Proctor page write up that is promoting him - all the information is fact and I ensured I had objective, Wiki-acceptable citations for the facts. Thank you in advance for your guidance. ProducerSMS (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Kastle Systems‎

Hello K.e.coffman.

I received your notice of speedy deletion of my draft page, Kastle Systems, which you feel violates Wikipedia Policy for promotional content. This is blatantly unfair and i suggest you take a look at these pages that Wikipedia happily allowed to be posted by some of our biggest competitors (ADT, Vivint, Honeywell, HID Global). Please explain to me what the difference between their post and what I created that you deemed ready for speedy delete. This seems like anti-competitive behavior on your part. Please explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADT_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HID_Global https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Security_companies_of_the_United_States

18:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kmcadams1: Honeywell is a $40blm public company, while Kastle appears to have generated $100mln in revenues in the most recent year. Wikipedia has a related essay that would be relevant: Wikipedia:Einstein. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in re: this subject, please declare it on your user page. Please see a note on your Talk page: User talk:Kmcadams1#Managing a conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Aces (book series)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editor of the article Panzer Aces (book series) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Iyad Hajjaj

Hello K.e.Coffman, Thank you for reviewing my articles and leaving a comment on it, also thank you for the education/links you submitted, definitely, I will read it all. but I think, you took me wrong! I write about people I may know but of course, they are not my friends, family or hired me to write about them! I just work on the materials from my own side without any connections with them, I write here in a way like a Journal Press work, I call his office I ask his manager to provide me with information about him and I contact his friends or his family (I don't know them too), I check here and there to build at the end an enough references and sources to write a good article! without any real connection, maybe I met the person once or twice in general events but definitely, I am not hired by him to write an article about him. It's just a project from scratch! my interest all about to have a nice article about someone who lives in the same country and same state! I spent a long time doing this work, trying to practice journalism on Wikipedia English + Nobody wrote anything about him (Iyad Hajjaj) while I can help Wikipedia by providing some info I know about this man who won several awards in the film industry! please advise me what to do to take this article out of deletion! Thank you again for making Wikipedia a great clear accredited source.

Oshotoxx (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oshotoxx: while your dedication to tracking down information on your subjects is admirable, I think you may be misunderstanding a key Wikipedia policy, which is verifiability. Coverage on Wikipedia must be based on the person's coverage in reliable sources, not your own investigations. In addition, we will not have an article on anyone who is not notable. Catrìona (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: Hi Catronia, Thank you for stopping here to help me with my article, I really appreciate your helpful tips and advice! However, I believe that I added enough reliable sources rather than my "my own investigations". I have so many reliable sources + Iyad Hajjaj he is a notable person, try to google his name and see it by yourself! I am really so open for any changes in my article to be verified by Wikipedia! advice, please. Thank you.Oshotoxx (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Elena Nikitina (author)

Hello K.e.coffman,

I hope you're well. I just noticed your rejection of Elena Nikitina (author).

I thought I'd ask for a re-consideration on your part. In the rejection, there was the following text:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia

I'm requesting that you re-consider your decision (hopefully without a months long re-submission process), based on the fact that Elena Nikitina is the lead story on this week's radio documentary programme Outlook, from the BBC World Service. As you are likely aware, the BBC World Service is probably the premiere news organization in the world, with hundreds of millions of listeners each week. That they chose to cover the life of Elena Nikitina as part of their flagship programme Outlook, and further, as the lead story, certainly seems to confirm the notability of the subject. There would be few, if any, more reliable secondary sources than the BBC World Service. And being the subject of a BBC World Service radio documentary is well more than a passing mention.

Nikitina has also been covered by numerous news magazines in Britain and the US, as well as newspapers and TV shows in her home state of Ohio, as indicated in the original article. She has also previously appeared on Ohio Public Radio and Radio America. My skill in putting these sources together is not ideal. But I will put links to the BBC World Service show below:

This is the 18 minute segment itself.

This demonstrates it as the lead segment on this week's 53 minute show.

Actually, I was able to track down the Ohio Public Radio and Radio America segments. It wasn't even that hard. Both are stories about Nikitina from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The Radio America segment also appears to include a printed transcript of the interview, or maybe it is just a companion article.

Here is the Radio America segment.

And here is the Ohio Public Radio segment.

I have no idea when this message will reach you, but I look forward to your response.

Thanks very much for your time.

Good-otto (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Good-Otto

(talk page stalker) @Good-otto: Typically, interviews are not considered an independent source. It seems like this person may well be notable, but you will need to find and cite more independent sources in the article for it to be accepted. Catrìona (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Good-Otto - see and read: WP:RS and WP:V. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Good-otto: The book is self-published, so the subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR, while interviews are not sufficient for notability. You can ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Okay. Thank you. I will dig into these links as soon as I can, so that I can understand the policies you describe better.

Best,

Good-otto (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for article quality improvements in October! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Global Wireless Solutions

Hi,

I submitted the draft for the Global Wireless Solutions wikipedia page, and have seen your comments. Before the Global Wireless Solutions Wikipedia page was taken down, I was working to make it an entirely encyclopedic page void of any advertising language. In this draft for the page, I worked more to remove any promotional wording or content and make it completely encyclopedic. I would greatly appreciate any feedback as to where specifically the draft can be improved. As I said, my aim is to remove all advertising language and have the page meet the Wikipedia standards.

In regards to your second point about the significance of the subject - Global Wireless Solutions has been widely regarded as the leading benchmarker in the telecommunications industry. Global Wireless Solutions is the oldest and largest wireless network benchmarking firm and has been covered hundreds, if not thousands, of times in press articles. Other firms in the industry, with far less press coverage, have Wikipedia pages (e.g. RootMetrics, OpenSignal)). How can this point be resolved appropriately in a new draft? Would more sources/footnotes suffice?

Thank you, Scwiki3 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scwiki3: The article is strongly promotional and resembles a sales brochure, especially the section: Draft:Global Wireless Solutions#Products and services. Beyond that, the company is not yet notable: the sources are directory listings, in passing, routine notices and / or self-promotional. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lidia Vianu

Hello,

In the article Draft:Lidia Vianu you declined the submission by comment: "The article is creation protected due to repeated recreation." The article was originally created (in 2010? 2005?) by the subject, then recreated by the subject's daughter, then repeatedly recreated by the subject's students, none of whom had any experience on Wikipedia, and believing that the article could be a Europass CV that does not need sources. Of course, it has been deleted many times. The few sources cited at the initial creation were very poor, but now (2018) the subject's activity is much better reflected in media. The article is much better referenced as in previous cases.

Knowing the situation of previous deletions, I asked how to proceed. According to your resolution, we will never be able to create this article because it was repeatedly deleted. What you propose that this article can be created, because the subject is a notable person, is one of James Joyce's scholars, who have pages about them. Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Turbojet: I would reach out to the administrator who protected the page; you can do it on their Talk page here: User talk:ReaderofthePack. You can see a full list of administrators who interacted with the page by clicking on the red link: Lidia Vianu. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ben O'Brien, Physician

Dear Mr Coffman Many thanks for your efforts curating Wikipedia content. I recently submitted content for a new entry on a colleagues of mine, who I firmly believe to merit such recognition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ben_O%27Brien,_Physician

Some years ago, someone (and I am actually not quite sure who!) created a wikipedia page on me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Montgomery_(physician)

Professor O'Brien contacted me to point out some inaccuracies on my page, which have now been corrected. I want to create an entry on Prof O'Brien which is factually accurate. I have contacted him to gain access to some source material, including a photograph, which he shared and signed the release for.

I would be very grateful for some guidance by an experienced Wikipedia curator and editor as to how I can improve the draft entry so that it might be accepted for publication.

With thanks and best wishes! H.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montgomery007 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Montgomery007: Wikipedia discourages the creation of articles on one's colleagues or friends. Please see a note on your Talk page User_talk:Montgomery007#Managing a conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panzer Aces (book series)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Aces (book series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panzer Aces (book series)

The article Panzer Aces (book series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panzer Aces (book series) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Lexikon-der-wehrmacht and ww2.dk

Are these sources legit and good for use? They seem OK content-wise, but I think they fail WP:SPS. ww2.dk in particular is important to me because its used in Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), so I used it in Jagdgeschwader 52. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that they are not RS and I would fail a GA review if the nominator used them. Even if the content is accurate, that doesn't make the source reliable. I'm surprised a site like that would have information that you can't find elsewhere, for instance in German-language books. Catrìona (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anina Pinter

Thank you for reviewing my first wikipedia article submission, I understand why it was not approved based on notability concerns, but I want to point to a reference that you may not have seen which contains a 15 page article and interview with Anina Pinter.

The link I gave did not specify the exact page number, which didn’t help. Here it is again with page number: https://issuu.com/mzsk.hu/docs/szemle15_2_netre/75 Possibly also this is because the magazine I linked to, Szemle, is in Hungarian! But I think if you look at the publication, you can see that it is an independent, long running Hungarian culture and arts magazine. (Here is its list of quarterly publication by year http://www.mzsk.hu/szemle/ ) And you can see that the article is about only Pinter, with photos and interview.

In cases like this (where a costume designer has broken through to Hollywood work from another country where they are better known) it can be hard to find English language articles to show notability, but hopefully in context with other sources of information, you can see that this is a case where notability is shown in a foreign language, which I believe wikipedia’s criteria allows for.

If I correct the link in the article so that it directs you to the page of the article / Interview, would you be ready to reconsider the approval? I know the article needs more work and references, which I can continue to do.

Thanks for your help. 67.201.9.50 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

67.201.9.50: it does not matter per WP:gng what language the sources are in. However, an interview does not count as a independent source. Catrìona (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Catrìona - I described it as an Article/Interview, but it is better described as an article where the writer has interviewed the subject and quotes her over some of the pages. Other pages are about her background, her move to Hollywood, etc. So, am i correct in thinking that if the source is third-party, secondary source but with quotations of the primary source, then it is an independent source because it has no vested interest in the subject?

67.201.9.50 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)