Jump to content

User talk:Arthur goes shopping

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Casius12 (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 4 December 2013 (→‎Pension led funding page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for creation/Ebadur Rahman

Hi, thanks for the feedback, I am still not clear, why my article did not meet the minimum standard for inline citations. I think I have used the referencing templates accordingly. Please help me out, understanding a bit more about the problems of citations in my article, so that I can redo it. Thanks again!Khondokar kalachand (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Early life and Education" section still completely lacks any inline citations, and contains a large number of potentially controversial assertions which could be challenged. Also, you should not be using descriptions like "legendary" unless an indepenedent reliable source is cited which says that the thing mentioned is indeed legendary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur, I just reworked the early life section and the kept the information to a bare minimum...and this information is also culled from Ebadur rahman's writing. I have also omitted words like 'legendary' when there is no independent source to second my opinion.. i am resubmitting the article. Thanks for the suggestion!Khondokar kalachand (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arthur goes shopping, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 14:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Propinquity (novel) - Your review Hi Arthur, You reviewed my article Propinquity (novel) – I've added/fixed references, and edited some of the quotes in the section "Reception" for length. In regard to the "similarities" section, it is derived from Propinquity's page on Amazon. However I have read both books and they seem to be accurate to me. So not original research, though verified by original research. I've resubmitted the article. --Anakowi (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Heavenly Christmas Tree Review Hey Arthur, You recently declined my article on the short story "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Dostoyevsky. You said that I needed to explain its historical significance in order for it to be accepted. I did so adequately, but I can definitely add more. One comment I had is that many of the other pages for Dostoyevsky's short stories contain little to no information about their historical significance (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Honest_Thief, which only has a synopsis). I realize that this doesn't in any way validate my article, but I really would like to understand what is needed, as my analysis and synopsis is much more helpful than the one that actually got published. Any help would be great!ChrisHeitzig (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur goes shopping, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Arthur goes shopping! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history

Hi Arthur Goes Shopping, I saw that you reviewed my article on Trace DeMeyer and denied it. Do you have any suggestions on how I can better the article so that it can be created? I know the amount of source material is an issue. I also wanted to address your edit history, as it appears there isn't any. Seeing as you are new to Wikipedia, how was it that you were able to have access to reviewing articles for submission? Thanks. Ame283 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Ame. I believe that these questions have been addressed at User talk:Ramaksoud2000#AFC and User talk:Vizjim#William S. Yellow Robe: Thank you!!, but if you have any further questions or need any help then please let me know. Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Homologous behaviors/Homology (psychology)

Hi Arthur goes shopping, Thanks for your response to my Articles-for-creation-help-plea; you rock. Thanks for the help! Dsmoore4 (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Jervis Livingstone

Dear Arthur goes shopping,

Firstly, thank you for reviewing the article I wrote on William Jervis Livingstone. However, I cannot agree that the C grade you gave it is correct.

The grading scheme typified a C grade article as, “The article… is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material”, and “it may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research.” Such an article is “useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.”

To take these points in turn:

1. The article contains all the information on W J Livingstone available in reputable sources and nothing that is not relevant to his story.

2. I can see no gaps, missing elements or contain policy violations (e.g. bias or original research). On the contrary, the article attempts to show a range of views on Livingstone and its sources are fully documented. At to whether it needs editing for clarity, balance, or flow, this is a question of opinion, but if you think it applies, could you be specific?

3. I would say it does provide a complete picture for a detailed study, because it contains all the available and credible information on Livingstone in one place.

I should that I have both lived in Malawi and undertaken academic study of its colonial history. As a result, I have added significantly to a number of existing articles and written several new ones which I believe are of a high standard. I do however hope and expect that they will be graded correctly.

I would therefore be grateful if you would reconsider your review and give the article a more appropriate grading

Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Shscoulsdon, and many thanks for your message. I've never rated an AFC submission higher than C class at the time of creation. I have never lived in Malawi or undertaken academic study of its colonial history; my military career in the 19th century mainly took me to South Asia, the Iberian peninsula, and north-west Europe, and nowadays I specialise in retail therapy. I don't therefore feel able to provide a detailed review of the article in question. However, I see that you have gone ahead and rated it as B class; I have no objection to this. Alternatives for future articles might be to ask for a rating at Wikipedia:WikiProject History, or to nominate your articles at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and/or Wikipedia:Did you know. Thank you for your work improving Wikipedia's coverage of these topics. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Film Academy Los Angeles Page

Hey Arthur,

I've made the required changes to the New York Film Academy Los Angeles page by adding an extra notable source as a reference but it's still automatically rejecting my proposed edits. Can you please take a look? Thanks so much for your help!

Marissa.lieberman (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Marissa. I'm not sure what you mean by "automatically rejecting my proposed edits". Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New York Film Academy Los Angeles is currently submitted to be reviewed again after your recent changes - it may take a week or two for someone to get round to reviewing it. You might want to look into citation templates for formatting your references - like Template:Cite news for example - in order to make it clearer which publication is responsible for each source. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi, Arthur. This is the only way I could find to send you a message. This is regarding the uber-local food article you rejected. I would love to add more citations, but the term was just coined a few years ago, and the Berger paper I used is the only citation I could find that specifically talks about uber-local food. What can I do if there are simply a lack of valid sources?

Thanks, Sunnydaze72 Sunnydaze72 (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Sunnydaze72. The usual way to leave a message is to click "New section", then enter your section heading and message, then sign with four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of your message, then enter an Edit Summary in the Edit Summary box, then save the page.
If only one source talks about the concept or term "uber-local food", then the term or concept may simply not be ready for its own separate article in Wikipedia yet. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby McGregor-Smith

Hi Arthur. There are a couple of facts missing from the Ruby McGregor-Smith article that I've included on the article Talk Page. Could you review these points and implement them on my behalf? I want to make sure that you agree with them before any changes are made. Thanks again for your help on the article so far. Vivj2012 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replied on the article's talk page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Again. I was hoping you could review a minor change to Ruby Mcgregor-Smith's article that I've left on the article talk page. Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF

Please read my comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Diane Goldstein. On the one hand, in reviewing articles about professors, you need to be aware of the special notability criteria applicable, which are explicitly an alternative to the GNG. On the other, you need to be alert for material that reads as if it were repurposed from another source. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, thank you for your advice. It hadn't occurred to me that being president of what describes itself as "an association of folklorists" would mean a person is automatically notable under the WP:PROF guideline, but I will keep this in mind for the future. However, in its state at the time I declined it, the article's only references were three that were not independent of the subject, and one that was not about the subject. Such references do not (cannot?) adequately establish the person's notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with John E. Jeuck. He holds a named chair at a major university, and that explicitly meets WP:PROF. No further checking is necessary, except to make sure it isnt copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I have not made any further checks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LoadStar Global Article

Hi Arthur,

I received notice that you denied my recent submission for an article on LoadStar. In the notice you cited three key items: 1) that press-releases from the company should not be cited; 2) paid-for content or blogs should not be cited; and 3) that cited articles should be about the topic.

With respect to #1, I have removed that citation. It was just to substantiate the services offered by the company, but it doesn't add any material value to article (other than substantiating that statement).

With respect to #2, I agree. I presume you are referring to citation #27. I have found another citation for that.

With respect to #3, I don't follow you. Every one of the 35+ citations are directly relevant to the article. Please clarify as necessary.

I have resubmitted the article after incorporating the feedback. If you have additional feedback, please try to make it as detailed/actionable as possible.

Thanks, Nick

Nickcova (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really my comment was aimed at suggesting how to make it as easy as possible for a reviewer to establish that the subject of the article (i.e., the organisation Loadstar Global) is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Having thirty-five cited sources that are relevant to the topic of, say, security in international shipping, is less useful for this than to have eight cited sources that are about the topic of Loadstar Global. So for example I've just done a quick scan of the source "Seaports Struggle With Cargo Security" by Dark Reading, and it doesn't appear to mention Loadstar at all (I may be wrong on this, please point it out if so). It is key for a reviewer to be able to establish whether there are multiple independent reliable sources that talk about Loadstar in detail. If a reviewer has to read all thirty-five sources in order to discover that two, three, five, or ten of them actually discuss Loadstar (rather than topics related to Loadstar), the reviewer might give up before completing that reading. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby McGregor-Smith

Thanks for getting back to me. I've left one more point for you on the Ruby McGregor-Smith Talk Page Best Vivj2012 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keaton Henson

thank you thank you thank you for submitting the page, I've been trying to finish it for ages and finally it's up. thank you so much. Keaton Henson finally gets the Wikipedia page he rightfully deserves.

Thanks Arthur

H Arthur,

As a gesture of thanks for your barnstar, I have done some work on cadazolid, an article you recently worked on. :) AshLin (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! The bats are truly awesome though. It reminds me of radio-operated doorbells and toy cars and communications devices and such sometimes having multiple user-selectable frequencies to avoid interference. Now it turns out that bats are just the same! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Perry Smith(Major General)

Perry Smith(Major General) has a red link from an existing article on Operation Tailwind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tailwind). Doesn't that suggest the man meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? Phillip Griffith (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the existence of a red link does not suggest (nor prove) notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Satyandra K. Gupta

Hi Reviewer, What was the reason for declining the article? Kaipakrishna (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for declining the article was that the references provided were almost all written by Gupta, not written about him. Thus they were not independent. Article submissions require multiple independent reliable references with coverage of the subject. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Great North 10K

Dear Arthur Goes Shopping,

You rejected my proposal for the Great North 10K, as it was not notable enough. However, I disagree, with the Great Run series all having pages except the Great North 10K

Yours sincerely,

Matty.007 (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matty, thank you for letting me know. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Dennis L. Kappen

Hello Arthur goes Shopping, Agreed that you have rejected the article but can you explain to me how to make this Industrial Designers page under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_industrial_designers similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_H%C3%A9bert Dekappitation (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should not make any pages like Julien Hébert because that article does not have any references at all. New article submissions require references showing the subject has been discussed in detail in multiple independent reliable sources.
An example of a recognised Good Article that is about an architect is Louis Laybourne Smith. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick D. Scott Article Submission

Arthur.... Thank you very much for the feedback provided. One of the most notable articles regarding Fredrick D. Scott's success was published by Ebony Magazine (May 2010). The article clearly details Scott's historic success (Youngest African American Hedge Fund Founder, at the time) and vision, all notable. Although not archived by Ebony Magazine, the article copy may be referenced from Scott's Press Kit (http://fredrickdscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Fredrick-D-Scott_Digital-Press-Kit_v21.pdf). We are hopeful that the revised information, and the article copy within the Press Kit will yield a positive result. Thank You Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.125.41 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be available online in order to be cited as references. You should add the Ebony Magazine piece as a reference in your article submission, giving author name, the title of the piece, page number and all other available details. The link to the article copy could be provided merely as a convenience link. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest for Totally Taekwondo entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Totally_Tae_Kwon_Do

What do you suggest to make this entry compliant and publishable?

I appreciate any of your help.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.e.swope (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. I would also suggest trimming the existing references (there are currently more than fifty) to remove references that cite only the magazine itself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alex Marshall

why did you decline this on the basis that the subject was anon-notable? He seems to be the author of several books from university presses, and if reviews can be found for them, he will clearly meet WP:author, &they should be fairly easy to find. (I think the submission reads like a copypaste from somewhere, so I am not simply accepting it--but I haven't found the source.) I am giving some focussed advice to the editor who submitted it. We need to give people appropriate reasons so they know how to improve the article. You can see what I said, at User talk:Rhcbiz. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. WP:AUTHOR specifically requires one of the following:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
My guess is that you are suggesting that being "the author of several books from university presses" means that either 3 or 4(c) are certain to be met, but I don't agree.
Aside from that, there is no "decline" option that points to WP:AUTHOR, and the option to add a custom "decline" message has been removed. I therefore chose the "decline" option for people, not just because the article is clearly about a person, but also because that decline template then both explains that adding citations to "secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject" will help, and also wikilinks to WP:VRS. Both of these are exactly what the article creator needs to know in order to further improve their article such that it could be approved.
I could instead have chosen the "submission is improperly sourced" decline reason, but I believe this would cause additional confusion because it implies there are no reliable sources provided at all (not true in this case) and I think it also does not link to WP:VRS and therefore is less useful for the article creator.
I do feel that the edit summaries provided by the AFC tool are misleading to the extent of being problematic, in that they imply an assertion by the reviewer that the subject is not notable. Such an assertion should not be implied; instead, what is being asserted is that the article as currently submitted does not evidence the subject's notability. These are two different things. I will ask the people responsible for the tool to make changes so that this is clearer for future reviews.
Thank you for your help and feedback with my reviews. Do you enjoy shopping? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On this specific point, the part you are not seeing, is "creating a significant work.". anything notable is significant. A notable book is one that has substantial reviews--NBOOK is very weak, weaker in fact than I would like. The last paragraph asserts significant criticism, though it has to be shown, as I told the editor. The author is therefore very likely to be notable, and it's a matter of getting the evidence.
But more generally: What is relevant to giving advice, is not whether something meets the apparent text of the written guideline, or the way one personally would interpret it, but whether or not the article is likely to be challenged and deleted. The way we actually interpret the notability rules can only be learned at AfD. The text of all the guidelines is very ambiguous if analyzed in detail, and it is possible to quibble about every word of them, but for most of them there is some degree of practical consensus there, and it has to be learned by observation and experience. What I said is the practical rule, as I have learned from 100s of similar discussions on authors. (The actual text of the rules are almost impossible to change, because one or two people will always raise stubborn objections to anything at all, but nonetheless practical decision are made fairly consistently). DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


afc in general

You are correct that the way AfC is set up is very inefficient and not oriented to giving appropriate advice. The people who set it up are not likely to change it, and I thinl the complaints about it will end by getting it replaced altogether. It is therefore necessary to work around it, as is actually rather common at many place in WP. I'm going to explain the way I do it--what you do is up to you, but I do have many years of experience removing or improving unsatisfactory articles. In 7 years, I've removed about 15,000, and rescued maybe 1/10 the number.

I generally do not use any preformed rule at all, and just fill in the additional comments--I only use the prebuilt reasons when the article is not worth detailed consideration and the explanation given is adequate. This is fairly rare: what people need is focussed help about specifically what they should do , not general comments, or ones listing all the possibilities. Take a look at the comment I left on the user talk--that's the important part. I leave it on the user talk page, with only a summary on the article. The system should make this the easy default way, but it doesn't.

But the basic rule about AfC is given properly in the instructions: Deal with the most serious issues. The most serious issues are the ones that will cause deletion of the afc: which usually amount to some aspects of WP:NOT, copyvio and promotionalism. For very clear cases, there's not even the need to review--I go directly to placing a deletion tag. For a hopelessly non-encyclopedic autobio of a schoolchild, I usually use "test page," which avoids any sort of wording that sounds insulting. If done with Twinkle, it leaves an appropriate message on the user talk page. For WP:NOT the prebuilt reason is totally ambiguous, and says nothing exact.

Anything that reads like it is formally written, or in the tone of a press release, and is about a person or organization, has about 50% likelihood of being copyvio from their web site, amazon listing, or facebook. Google testing finds some of it, but it is also necessary to look at their website, and check not just the home page, but the "about us" and the "history". Many articles accepted from AfC or directly entered in the past have been in large part copyvio,

Promotionalism is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than borderline notability. I think you should be more demanding about promotionalism--you're concentrating only on references, but promotionalism is a reason for immediate rejection and possible immediate deletion. For example, I would never have accepted AppsBuilder in the condition it was in when you accepted it--I've now done some drastic editing to remove the typical duplication of content, description of every exposition they presented at, and the standard paragraph on how they founders happened to have come across their first venture capitalist. The signs of this sort of writing are, again, something that is learned by experience.

for notability, the question is whether there is any chance the subject is notable. For example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blazed Union. There's no point saying it needs better references. The thing to do is see if the book or the author is conceivably going to be notable. The author isn't in WP, so I checked WorldCat and find neither the author, title, or series. The message to send is that this is not remotely likely to notable, and why. I added it as a comment. similarly for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zakti Media Services.

If it is a question of adding references, I have found by experience that new eds. do not understand the sort of references are needed. I find it necessary to direct them specifically. for author or creative people or books or movies or products, the references are normally published reviews. For most other topics, they're magazine or newspaper articles.

And, generally, the way I look at it for myself, is that if someone comes to the talk p. to ask a question about what is needed, I probably should have explained more fully in the first place.

The best way to learn this is to write articles yourself, or at least make major efforts at improving them. I do not see how people can expect to know the difficulties editors face unless they have done substantial editing themselves. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

I want to express my appreciation for your astute catch on the McCann related articles, and especially for your very appropriate decision to also bring this to the BLP noticeboard for wider attention.. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. I was rather horrified at the blatant malice of the individual responsible, but also, more importantly, at how easily this sort of thing can slip through. (In fact it had already slipped through on the article about McCann's latest novel, which is being published this month.) I don't actually remember what made me suspicious. Possibly I was already about to accept the submission and was just skimming the references quickly to check everything was in order. Or possibly I am so used to seeing positively biased promotional submissions that a submission full of nothing but strangely out-of-context negative review snippets set off alarm bells.
You may wish to keep an eye on Template:Did you know nominations/Dancer (novel) as it may get approved/queued for the main page while I am not around, and I wouldn't want the malicious unregistered editor to repeat his antics while it's much more visible on the main page.
I had many thoughts on your feedback about Articles for Creation above, but have not yet had time to write them out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dancer (novel)

The DYK project (nominate) 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the help :)

Gibwriter (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Arthur Goes Shopping for suggesting the need for further references on my submitted article on William Aldrich. I will gather more material and references. KXF (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new article Miriam Battista

Hi Arthur,

Many thanks for your help in cleaning up this article and getting it up to C-class! Would you have time to look at the new citations I just added for the obits of Russell Maloney and Lloyd Rosamond and make sure that they're correct? Also, is there anything that can be done about the Variety citations, which appear to require a subscription??Ailemadrah (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EmpireEntertainment

Hi, I noticed that you had a problem with the article I submitted. I will go over the citations, but is there anything (any section) in particular that is problematic or seems unreliable? If you could let me know, that would be great! Thanks

Mayukog (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and sorry for not replying sooner. There is no particular section of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Empire Entertainment; the problems with the entire article are described in the decline message at the top of the page. (Click the links in the message for more information about what is required.) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Arthur goes shopping. You have new messages at Rohijarohija's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

Thanks for helping out with my article on Suzanne Romaine, much appreciated! simontcope 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slim cop (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wise Care 365

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wise Care 365 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

rejected many times but the author do nothing to address the issues. submission is an advertisement of a software product (chat) techatology 09:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you please have a check at the following wiki page, which is about another similar software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCleaner So, would you please indicate which part of my article seems like an advertisement? I can modify it according to your opinion. Thanks in advance!

And please check the webpage below, in the "product ranking" section at the left column, it ranks #2 in Maintenance & Optimization freeware, which can prove something of its notability, right? http://download.cnet.com/Wise-Care-365-Free/3000-18512_4-75744630.html Looking forward to your reply:)

Transparent Eyeball (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Hi Arthur, I tried to contact the user named "Techatology" but he/she is already blocked. Can you help me?Transparent Eyeball (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately I don't consider information on download pages about the software they are offering for download, to be independent sources.
I have checked the CCleaner article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Arthur goes shopping. You have new messages at [[User talk:Rohijarohija (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Rohijarohija|User talk:Rohijarohija (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Rohijarohija]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N Mohamed Yahssir

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to understand more on N Mohamed Yahssir's article. So sorry... i'm a feature writer in a movie magazine myself so i guess i didn't quite understand the wiki style of writing. :)

Please help with the article and advise how i can get it published.

I was invited as a member of the press to a movie screening for this gentleman's latest offering 'lost in paradise' - that's how i got to know about him.

subsequently covered him in my magazine as well.

when researching him, i realized there was nothing on wikipedia although he's been extensively covered in the singaporean media from as early as 2005.

funny you can't access those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvchenteley (talk • contribs) 05:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the article is much better after your recent changes. The required encyclopedic writing style is very dry and boring compared with the writing style required for film industry magazines :)
My not being able to access the articles is probably only because the anti-malware software here is, as I describe it, "hyper sensitive". Hopefully other reviewers won't have the same problems. Good luck! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton Gillette Communications, Inc.

Although you turned down this request for an article for creation, the user has already created the article, which I'm not at all happy about. He/she has admitted that he works for the company but says the intention is merely to provide information, not to advertise. Do you feel that the article, with a few changes that have been made by another user, now meets the criteria for inclusion?Deb (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this.
The article does not provide sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Whether the topic itself is actually notable, I am not sure. Being a company that has been in continuous operation for more than a century probably suffices to ensure that the article is not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion WP:A7.
If you have time, you may wish to investigate whether significant other coverage of the topic exists; and if not, to nominate the article for deletion through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Silver article

Dear Arthur, thanks for reviewing the article. I have some questions about the issue of notability. I agree with the fact that having articles written by the gallery in which the artist has exhibited is not an independent source. However having a show in public institutions as prestigious as the Camden Art Center (and many others in the article) should testify notability, since if you're not notable you won't exhibit there. I added references from Flash Art International and Artforum, which are among the most important contemporary art magazines in the world, I hope this will be enough. Out of curiosity: it's my first article so I am very inexperienced, but I don't understand why the article I wrote keeps being refused while the following have been accepted (they don't look that better referenced than mine): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Houseago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_David

Thanks for your help!

valentina3000Valentina3000 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valentina. The existence of poorly referenced articles is not a reason to create even more of them. I also do not agree about notability being proved by temporary appearance in particular institutions. (WP:ARTIST says someone is notable if their work "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" or "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", neither of which seem to be the case here.) The two references you added look to be significantly better, so it's possible the submission will now be accepted. I will leave that up to another reviewer to decide. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation/Florence Mildred White.

Hello,

I am disappointed that my article on Florence Mildred White was not accepted. Much of the police content is based on papers, letters and documents available to the public at the West Midlands Police Museum. I would be grateful if you could advise me that viewing and listing these documents as I have done infringes the original research principal.


TimothyWF (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I feel that it does. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I would like your advice as to where to go from here. I can precise the Article omitting the Museum documents but I feel that would detract from the writings. Like her contemporary Dorothy Peto (who has a Wiki Article) Mildred White was a very forceful woman. She enlisted the help of the Chief of Constabulary of the time in order to get a post reference. She had the Chief Constable of Birmingham writing her personal letters. She had correspondence with Whitehall directly about her pension. Not being able to put this in the Article I feel misses the point of showing her notability and her being who she was. Agreed they are a Primary source, but that is because no one else but the Museum Curator and me has seen the papers, although they are available for anyone to view. What would you advise please? Thanks.

Any advice? TimothyWF (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyWF (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for submission

Hi Arthur, Thank you for your comments you left on my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tom_Davies_(author)) however I am struggling to know where to go with it now. I can show that the writer has published 18 books (they are all on Amazon) and there are reviews on various web pages but not sure where else to look. I have found 2 new web pages which mention things in gthe article already so i have added these as back up but any help would be greatly appreciated! I understand you must be very busy but hope you can point me in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerri mouse (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kerri. This is tricky. First of all, having written books does not make someone notable. Anyone can write a book and make it available on Amazon. Thus, anyone can write 18 books and put them on Amazon. That proves nothing.
To establish notability by Wikipedia's standards, you need the requirements described at WP:VRS which I hope you have already read as it is linked at the top of your submission. There is also WP:AUTHOR which says that an author is notable if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".
Now let's look at two of your sources on that basis. "Bono's mystical moment on the road with Merlyn the Magician" is a short article in a tabloid daily newspaper. That's not a great start, because such newspapers are not generally considered very reliable as sources. But it doesn't discount it completely as a source. Also the article, while it does not provide much detail about Davies, is entirely about him, his work, and its influence. So overall this is a passable source at best.
Second, the Librarians' Christian Fellowship review. This is fairly long and detailed, and discusses various aspects of Davies' work, career and life. It also appears to be independent, even though it provides a prominent link on where to buy the book. How reliable we should regard the LCF I'm not quite sure, but overall I would say this is a fairly good source. (Its balanced and non-promotional tone about his career is helpful here.)
I don't have access to the New Companion to the Literature of Wales, but discussion of Davies in it does prove that he is recognised in the Welsh literary world at least.
So perhaps your submission is already coming close to meeting the notability requirement WP:AUTHOR. (You should cite the Scotland on Sunday article as a reference too, if you can.)
However, even if it does, there is still a huge problem with all the uncited content and non-neutral wording in your submission. "now seen as one of the leading writers in Wales" - what reliable source said so? (Your wording implied it was not the New Companion.) "he received a standing ovation" - what reliable source said so? "a figure which was almost better than those who ever listened to Billy Graham" - what does this have to do with anything? "making him perhaps for a few years the only professional pilgrim in the land" - whose speculation is this? If it isn't from a reliable source then it shouldn't be in the article. "There he found his visions made flesh by a media..." - this and the countless other phrases like it are both too flowery for an encyclopedia, and too easily accepting of Davies' views as being correct. The article should neutrally summarise Davies' views, not expound them at length and try to persuade the reader of their accuracy and significance.
I've only created one article so far, but it too is on a literary topic related to an author from the British Isles - Dancer (novel). Do you see the difference in tone, neutrality, detail and sourcing?
I have asked User:Miss Bono, who I imagine is something of an expert on Bono, if she can help too. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will. Miss Bono [zootalk] 11:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots to think about there and work on so thank you all for your help! I can see that I need to be much more objective and include more references. I really appreciate the help as this is all a bit bewildering! Thanks again! Kerri Mouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.39.124 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur - I have made quite a few changes and also found reviews from The Standard, times and Telegraph so these are now included. I have submitted for review but could you take a look in the meantime and let me know if I need to do more to get it through? As always, your help is much appreciated. Thanks again! Kerri Mouse —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel K

Hello Arthur-

Thank you for the e-mail regarding my declined article submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Rachel_K_%28Musician%29 I am going to reward it and add more reliable sources. I am here to learn, so please feel free to help me in anyway after I make the changes. You also said that Red Pepper (newspaper) is not a news paper, but it is according to their web site http://www.redpepper.co.ug/ Thank you --DeeAfrican (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arthur-

I made the changes to my new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Rachel_K_%28Musician%29 and I wanted to see if you can please review it again and let me know your thought. thank you --DeeAfrican (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to allow another reviewer to review this.
I did not say Red Pepper was not a newspaper. I said it was not a reliable source for facts (especially potentially controversial ones) about a living person. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arthur- Thank you for your reply and thank you for allowing another reviewer to review my article, but since you're the one who declined it, I wanted to know if I addressed your concerns please. --DeeAfrican (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arthur-

Please take a look at my article again, I value your opinion, because you've done this many times, I added an infobox and I took out unreliable sources like the REDPEPPER/Matoke Nation and MP3 Round. lets finish what we've started, please.--DeeAfrican (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arthur- I don't understand... You declined my article days ago, I made all the changes you requested, but 3 days later you still have not go t back to me and let me know if I've done well or if I need to make some more changes.--DeeAfrican (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DeeAfrican. I do not currently have internet access on Saturdays and Sundays anyway. The Articles for Creation process is currently backlogged; there are over 950 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Therefore it could take as much as one or two weeks for your submission to be reviewed again. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Arthur goes shopping! You're receiving The Working Man's Barnstar because you reviewed 101 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

Hi, sorry, I accidentally removed a post of yours at the Teahouse, my mouse is playing up a bit at the minute. I only realised when you re-added it. Sorry, Matty.007 14:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matty, that's no problem. That page certainly does get busy! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy Rocks AfC

it seems to me a little unusual that you should have declined this article at this edit giving the explanation : "subject appears to be non notable." Surely you know that we consider all such named geographic features with a demonstrable existence notable. If you disagree, I look forward to the discussion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, that edit was well over a month ago, but this is still very useful to know! I will keep it in mind when considering other article submissions about uninhabited lumps of rock. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation: Development Alternatives

Hi,

I just noticed that you have rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Development_Alternatives_Group because it reads like an advertisement. Can you help me by pointing to specific areas that need to be corrected? I have been working in the development sector for a decade and have been trying to get some of the larger Indian NGOs on wikipedia as I noticed that the Indian community has not focused on them. This is my first article in the series as these guys are among the oldest and biggest.

Thanks a lot, Subirendra (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Subirendra. This is quite difficult to describe, but to a large extent it is the overall tone of the submission that is the problem. So for example, 'address the issues of sustainable development of institutional innovations, combining social and environmental objectives with business-like approaches, bringing together research and technology development establishing "practice to policy” connect' sounds like marketing jargon to me, it is not simple facts explaining to the ordinary reader what the organisation actually does.
More examples: "innovate and widely disseminate solutions", "major capacity", "empowering communities through strengthening people’s institutions", "closer to fulfilling the mission", "promises to be a milestone in a series of global multi-stakeholder consultation processes", "celebrated contributions", "highly successful and cost effective", "advanced learning and memory techniques", and so on. This sort of phrasing is particularly problematic when the statements are mostly not backed by an inline reference to an independent reliable source which has stated the fact in question.
Including a verbatim statement of both the "mission" and the "vision" is not really appropriate either.
You can look at Wikipedia's Good Articles (WP:GA) to see how others have written about organisations. An example is Baltimore Urban Debate League which does make mention of the aims of the organisation, but does so briefly and factually. That article does go rather too far in lauding the accomplishments of the organisation, but overall the tone is not too promotional, and the statements are largely well referenced. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for clarifying the points Arthur. Now that I have understood the issues, I will work on them and try to get some peer review on it too before submission :) Subirendra (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Article submission for Alive & Well television series

Hi Arthur, I will be the first to admit I am lost and overwhelmed here. I read the notes on my declined submission and feel the show is certainly notable as one of the earlier series to focus on green, vegan and sustainable living. The host is well known and has been on many magazine covers, etc. I read the page about referencing and it read like NASA or greek to me, all the stuff about javas and codes and such. IMDB seems to be a valid reference for television series. If you have the time please explain to this newb in the simplest terms possible what I need to add or delete and I will do my best. Thanks again for your time. MusicMafia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmafia (talk • contribs) 03:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Musicmafia. I'm sorry the referencing instructions are a little confusing. Really it is the result of trying to make things easier by having three different ways of doing it suitable for different people. So, if you try the "Using the refToolbar" section and it doesn't work, don't worry about trying to work out where to enable Javascript or whether it's Javascript that's the problem, just move on to the next section and try that instead. If "Using the refToolbar" does work for you, then great, use that and ignore the other sections. "Using the VisualEditor" to add references is not something I have done myself, but it's intended to be an easier way of editing Wikipedia for people who don't want to bother with, as you describe it, the "codes". Personally I use the method described in the "Manual referencing" section. But try all three - you can't break anything.
If the magazines that have featured the show's host on their covers also discuss the show itself in a reasonable level of detail, then all of those magazines would probably be perfect as sources to help prove the notability of the show. IMDB isn't a good source for that, because IMDB is not considered reliable, according to Wikipedia's standards.
You could also have a look at Wikipedia's Good Articles about television shows - try and find a similar show under "Other series" at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Television, and take a look at it to see the sort of sources that such an article would use.
Hope this helps! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Worsley

Dear Arthur: Good afternoon, and thank you for taking time out to review and clear my article on John Worsley (artist). I appreciate your swift response, and the generosity of your kind assistance. I have taken note of your advice, and will endeavour to locate suitable points of reference. I represented a portfolio of John’s children's illustrations after his death, and I should be able to locate physical references for the more obscure volumes. --Danger Woman (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from me also, but a search on John Worsley brings up the Lt-General only. Could you possibly put in a disambiguation link? - --Noyster (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a hatnote on John Worsley so that people can go to John Worsley (artist) if that's what they're looking for. I'm also going to add both of them to Worsley (disambiguation). At some point, a proposal may be appropriate that the former Lieutenant General is not the primary topic for "John Worsley", thus we would instead have a disambiguation page and two disambiguated John Worsley articles. Like this; John Worsley (disambiguation), John Worsley (artist), and John Worsley (Lieutenant General). However, for now, we just have the two articles, one with a hatnote leading to the other.
Perhaps we should also nominate John Worsley (artist) for WP:DYK? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/John Worsley (artist). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Mortgage Daily article

Hi,

I received a notice that my article had been rejected due to unsatisfactory citations. I'm confused about this since similar articles use even fewer citations that are less well known or official (such as the article about Mortgage News Daily, which only cites the site itself -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_News_Daily).

What other kinds of citations do I need to complete the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollyHimelright (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Holly! You can see a summary of the sort of citations required to prove notability of a topic by Wikipedia's standards at WP:VRS.
Thank you for alerting me to the issues with the existing article Mortgage News Daily. I have added two templates to this page indicating the problems. This article may be deleted if reliable secondary sources cannot be found.
When comparing with existing Wikipedia articles, it is best to look at Good or Featured articles as examples. You can find a variety of Good Articles relating to business and to publications at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Worsley (artist)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Navigator (Pocalyko novel)

Hello Arthur goes shopping. Thank you for your edits and moving my new article from AfC. Could I please ask you to review again and assist? I have added the jpeg graphic, but the graphic looks too large compared to other pages like this one, and I do not know how to re-size the jpeg appropriately on this page. Would you mind looking into it and fixing this? Thank you! SSHammond 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSHammond (talk • contribs)

Fixed. The issue is that the infobox template does not require the square brackets or "File:". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stoltmann Article

I submitted an article describing Andrew Stoltmann see below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andrew_Stoltmann I would to understand the notoriety of this particular lawyer and why their article was approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Zamansky_(lawyer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.185.212 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in that article (or anywhere else) claiming that Zamansky is notorious.
The article about Zamansky was created in 2007 when (I believe) the Articles for Creation process did not exist. In addition, the editor creating the article did so from a registered Wikipedia account, which I believe anyone can still do without going through the Articles for Creation review process. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Elimination Drive

Dear Arthur goes shopping:

I notice that you have done a fair amount of reviewing at the Afc, so I am leaving you this announcement:

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion going on about the drive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for the top on references needed for my new article. Now that I know what is wanted it will be easy enough to add it :-) Kslossner (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Southern Crossing (film)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Southern Crossing (film). I've gone through and converted the list of references, along with relevant external links, to inline citations. I believe this article is now good to go. I'd move it to article space myself, but I didn't want to mess up any AfC processes. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Subsentio

Hi, Arthur goes shopping, this is mokuri. A Wikipedia page drafted for Subsentio has been rejected 5 times by Wikipedia for inadequate references. I re-submitted the proposed page last night with 8 references, including articles written on the company. At the same time, I notice that many companies appear to have their Wikipedia pages approved with little or no references provided. One example spotted today: a new page for Guavus, a player in the big data analytics. I notice that the objective reference cited by Guavus is their website. That's an objective reference? Another company, a PR firm named Jaymie Scotto & Associates, uses references that include press release and links that go to 404 "page not found" error pages. If Wikipedia is so easy on this pair of companies -- and I'm sure I could find many more -- why is it so hard on Subsentio? I appreciate high standards and I don't mind tough editors - I happen to be one. In that vein Wikipedia should treat all candidates equally, and adhere to the same principles of objectivity that it touts. I look forward to your response. Best regards, mokuri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokuri (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mokuri. Could you provide a wikilink to the Guavus article? I cannot seem to find it.
The Jaymie Scotto & Associates article has a number of problems. These are noted in the templates at the top of the article, and they do indeed need fixing. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: Becca Albee

Please see revised article here. I added a book on the history of the riot grrrl movement that covers the subject of the article and citations from an art magazine with writers and editors. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Dougbremner (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. I'm not really happy to approve it as it is right now. However, I will leave the review open and perhaps another reviewer will be OK with it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki articles for creation: Derek 'DJA' Allen

Thank you for the feedback you gave. I'll address those issues before my next submission. Esietukeme (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you thank you thank you for approving the article (WeWi) I will keep at it in editing and adding more articles to come. Much appreciated! DSNR (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Arthur goes shopping! You're receiving the Tireless Contributor Barnstar because you reviewed 128 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

‎

George Halley Article

Thank you for the editing/cleanup, it really does look much better. I have a question though, the notice of your edit came to me at my email address with a reference that put me on the Scottish George Halley, a deceased footballer from the early 20th Century. Do you know why this is? -Thanks.

--Eric Albert 15:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semmes868 (talk • contribs)

Hello Eric. No, I am not sure why that is. The article George Halley is indeed about a Scottish footballer. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Halley is now a redirect to George Halley (couturier). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ted Neward

Hi Arthur,

After getting rejected first time, I've added a couple of links which talk about the books the author has written. As you suggested, I have added the sources which are independent sources other than Amazon and O'reilly. I will take a little more time to put some more links. I just wanted to know, how much time do I have to resubmit the article again, before it gets cleaned/deleted? Akatyayan (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, Artices for Creation submissions are only considered for deletion if they are not edited for six months. So you have quite a long time! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arthur.

Akatyayan (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pension led funding page

Hi Arthur. I understand you approved the Pension led funding page which is an area of interest for me, so thanks for the editing. I have picked up on the Multiple Issues you highlighted and addressed the Orphan problem. There are now links via the SIPPs, Intellectual property, Small Self Administered Scheme,cash flow and pension pages.

I'm not sure how I can help with the copy editing issues. Could you advise on what might need to be done here?

Casius12 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_goes_shopping&oldid=584526507"