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 JennaSys (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 12 February 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Draft: rsync.net

Hello User:Arthur goes shopping; Thanks for reviewing my article submission and for your comments. My goal was to err on the side of as many references as possible, and then cut them down later as editors suggested. Your suggestion to remove the quora reference and consolidate the rsync.net webpage references is well taken. Question: Would you like to consolidate the reference section for rsync.net, or would you like me to do it ? Thank you. Kozubik (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:46:32, 29 December 2014 review of submission by Jettte

Thank you so much for your detailed feedback on my article at the AfC Help Desk! Very very helpful! I'll get onto making the changes you suggest and then try again. :)

Jettte (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Doppler Studios

Hi User:Arthur goes shopping; thanks for reviewing my article submission. As per your suggestion, I've updated the copy to remove any remaining non-neutral language that I found, so hopefully it is now sufficiently neutral. However, you also indicated that I used too many references that were "produced by the creator of the subject being discussed", but none of the sources I referred to were produced by Doppler (or by myself, if that is what you meant), or have any connection to Doppler or myself other than the fact that some are recording industry-specific websites and Doppler is a studio operating in the recording industry. Five of the sources are established music or recording industry publications that discuss the particulars of the recording (or music) industry business, and to have so many mentions of Doppler over so many years (earliest one is 1995, and the most recent industry-publication article about Doppler is from 2013) seems to me like an indicator of notability, but perhaps I am misunderstanding either your statement or the Wikipedia rules...if so, I apologize, and please let me know. Or if you can let me know which of the listed sources you feel are inadequate, that would be appreciated; there are a couple of sources that could be considered questionable, but they seem to me to meet the criteria listed under "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" in the Sources section, based on their context.

It seems like that is all I should have to worry about to get this article accepted, so I am anxious to get them addressed, and your assistance is appreciated.

Thanks again, and I'll look forward to more info from you...Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drgonzo, sorry for the long delay in replying to your post here. It's best to start a New Section when making a new comment on a user talk page, as posting things at the top of the page tends to get missed. Anyway. Draft:Doppler Studios still seems to have lots of long lists of things that have been produced that happened to use the studio's facilities, without (mostly) any independent sources explaining why a particular production's use of the facilities was significant. It also still has some material like mentioning that equipment can be easily moved from room to room... this sounds like explaining the advantages of the studio to potential customers, instead of encyclopedic content like significant aspects of the studio's history or design that have been commented on by independent sources.
Regardless, unless you have the patience of very slow-moving glacier, it would probably be best to resubmit the draft so that it can get the eyes of a new reviewer in a week or two, rather than waiting for responses from me that may or may not solve the problem. The paragraph above is my suggestion as to some remaining issues, but who knows, maybe another reviewer will view it differently. It's possible to resubmit and then fix the issues I mention, or the other way round, or just resubmit now that you've made the changes you already mentioned. Either way, re-submitting is something that needs to happen. Good luck! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2014 (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.

British Isles

The geographic term British Isles is no longer used.

01:48:13, 11 January 2015 review of submission by 58.178.6.62


58.178.6.62 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Its me again about my aunt. Elizabeth Martin that you rejected. I am willing to revise this article however you want me to you said that you rejected her because she was a regional artist. I don't understand this at all for the following reasons. 1. My aunt was the instigator of the Low Show group which is a significant group in that in the 60'ies they were advocating for women artists to be recognised. And they were successful. A Phd thesis has been written on the impact of this amazing group. They were dubbed "The women of Dobell!" a very famous artist from Maitland in the Newcastle area. 2. My aunt was one of the prime exhibitors in the Von Bertouch Gallery in Newcastle and there is a Wikipedia page on Ann Von Bertouch. I can write a list of the exhibitions she had there and add photos of her with Anne Von Bertouch. 3. My Aunt had exhibitions with Judy Cassab who is also in your Wikipedia. 4. My Aunt wasn't just an amazing artist with a wide genre of applications of her art, She was also an amazing community spirited person and throughout her life she donated free of charge to the community by, painting scenery for local drama productions, Printing posters for the advertising of these productions. Painting murals on the walls of Newcastle and Stockton Hospitals, Volunteering with children's with special needs and promoting up and coming artists and supporting young women artists many of whom sought her personal assistance in her home. She donated sculptures to fundraising events.(58.178.6.62 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

WP:Co-op

Hey Arthur. I remember meeting you from the Wikimania discussion on retaining new editors from last summer. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring one or more editors during our pilot of the mentorship space called the Co-op. We plan to run the pilot in in Feburary for about one month. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach/learn comprehensively about Wikipedia. We also want to make to easier for new editors to find mentors as well. Your experience at AfC will certainly be valuable for new editors looking to start new articles. If you're interested, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jethro. It's great to be reminded of that discussion at Wikimania... I hadn't seen it mentioned much since the event. As I mentioned to a few people afterwards, I felt that the round table discussions were some of the most valuable aspects of Wikimania. And that one is particularly important.
Unfortunately I don't think I will be able to help with mentoring at the Co-op, but it's good to see the pilot going forward. I am rather too short on time to do proper one-on-one teaching ... in fact a lot of my advice to new article creators, although detailed, tends to be rather "drive-by". I do think that AfC, and in particular the AfC helpdesk, would be a good place for Co-op mentors ... or Co-op co-ordinators, depending on how it works ... to find new editors in need of help. There are a great many new editors who are given advice of one sort or another there, but in general no-one follows up to see if they even read the advice, if they made changes based on the advice, if they then re-submitted their draft or not, or if there is any other sort of help or encouragement they need. So, there may be lots of opportunities there for your pilot to carry out the sort of detailed follow-up that I and some other AfC-focused editors lack the time to do.
I hope all goes well with the pilot, and I will try to find time to at least check in occasionally and see how things are going. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wetherby Mares' Hurdle

Hi, not sure why I've had a message on my talk page an article for creation - not really sure why, I added a few bits and pieces to it but it's not my article and I'm not too bothered if it gets promoted or not - I tend to do my new articles straight into article space. You might be better contacting the user who created the draft maybe?? --Bcp67 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bcp67. The notifications go to the editor who most recently submitted the draft, which in this case was you in this edit. It's something of a minor annoying side effect of trying to get the endless backlog at Articles for Creation dealt with ... there are thousands of these drafts waiting to be reviewed, of which a great many have not been edited for a very long time. The original creator of this particular draft - a single purpose account - hasn't edited for about three months, so seems unlikely to be back. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you - that would explain it. I probably clicked the submit button after I did my little bit of editing. I'm kind of thinking I might try to get it in a reasonable shape and establish notability but depends on what time I have spare. Thanks again for the explanation. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've moved it into mainspace at Wetherby Mares' Hurdle ... things left in Draft often get semi-automatically deleted after a few months, which would be a bit of a waste in this case. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - looks like some more work has been done it today - thanks for your help with this article, and all the best!--Bcp67 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:06:14, 30 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by WendigoUK


Hi and thank you for reviewing the article Altered States: a cyberpunk sci-fi anthology. I have added more sources but am unsure if this is enough. Please if you can, take another look and let me know. Thank you.WendigoUK (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WendigoUK (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure that this is enough ... I suspect that the "Brainycat" link may not be a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, but I can't access that website to check. So I will leave it for review by another reviewer, which will happen in due course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:38:27, 1 February 2015 review of submission by 78.144.121.33


Hello, and thanks for reviewing this article. Can you explain why it has not been approved in a little more detail please? It's a 405-word article with 28 external references, all evidencing a public profile in established internationally significant experimental music festivals and recognised publications. I'm not sure how much more verifiable it could get :-). There was a very useful correspondence with the previous reviewer who advised resubmission as a result of the substantial referencing to these sources. I am a bit confused as to why it coming up against the same problem.

I looked at the criteria in the link, and he's in the category 'others' outside of mass music traditions - it may be this is where the confusion lies. Here are some additional points to document the notability:

Article on Saunders in Grove Music (now Oxford Music Online) which is the main musicological source of notability in classical music (including experimental music). Article about his work in MusikTexte by Max Nyfeller, one of Germany's principle new muisc publications, following an hour-long radio documentary on HR2 by the same author. See below for a list of commissioned work, festival performances, and national radio interviews. This is just an indicative selection. If you want to check ths significance of any of these please follow the links in the main article. As an example see http://www.swr.de/swr2/donaueschingen - this is the most prestigious experimental music festival in the world, founded in 1921, and Saunders has had two commissions from them in the last seven years. See also the 2007 entry on this page: http://www.swr.de/swr2/festivals/donaueschingen/englische-version/history-chronological-table-festival-for-new-music-since-1921/donaueschinger-musiktage-chronological/-/id=3503406/mpdid=2273452/nid=3503406/did=2150600/s0py7n/index.html

- Commissions - Westdeutscher Rundfunk (Germany) / Wittener Tage für Neue Kammermusik (2002) Arts Council of England / Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival (2002) Sheffield/Southampton Universities / Philip Thomas (2002) Project Arts Centre, Dublin (2003) Rhodri Davies (2004) Yorkshire Arts / Stephen Altoft (2004) Klangverein Stuttgart (2004, 2005) London Sinfonietta Blue Touchpaper Project (2005-7) Music weʼd like to hear (2005) Galerie Mark Müller (2005, 2006) Sudwest Rundfunk / Donaueschingen Musiktage (2007, 2010) Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich (2011) Basel Sinfonietta/Ernst von Siemens Musikstiftung (2011) World Saxophone Congress/RICO (2012) Arditti Quartet / Rainy Days Festival (2013) Spitalfields Festival (2014) SPOR Festival (2014)

- Summary of Performances in Festivals & Concert Series (1995-2011) - Brighton Festival (1995, 2001) Ryedale Festival (1997) Darmstadt Internationalen Ferienkurse für Neue Musik, Germany (1998, 2000, 2002) BMIC Cutting Edge, London (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006) BMIC Cutting Edge Tour (2001, 2004, 2005, 2008) Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011) Ostrava New Music Days, Czech Republic (2001, 2011) Gothenburg Arts Sounds, Sweden (2001, 2005) Inventionen Berlin, Germany (2002) Wittener Tage für Neue Kammermusik, Germany (2002) BBC Invitation Concerts (2003, 2009) Electric Spring, Huddersfield (2003) Ultima, Norway (2004) Roaring Hooves, Mongolia (2004) Leeds International Music Festival [fuseleeds04] (2004) Borealis, Norway (2004, 2009) Bludenz Tage für Zeitgenossiche Musik, Austria (2005) ensemble recherche 20th Birthday Concerts, Freiburg (2005) Music weʼd like to hear, London (2006, 2011) Rational Rec, London (2006) Aldeburgh Festival / Faster Than Sound (2007) Donaueschingen Musiktage, Germany (2007, 2010) Blurred Edges, Hamburg (2009) Soundwaves Festival, Brighton (2010) Sonorites Festival, Montpelier (2012) Rainy Days, Luxembourg (2013) SPOR Festival, Aarhus (2014) Spitalfields Festival (2014)

- Residencies- Künstlerhaus Boswil, Switzerland (May 1998) Experimental Studio der Heinrich Strobel Stiftung, Freiburg, Germany (January 2003) Experimental Studio für Akustiche Kunst, Freiburg, Germany (January/July 2007)

- Radio Interviews - Sarah Walker, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 07.10.00 Bjorn Gottstein, WDR3, 12 June 2002. Andrew Kurowski, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 30.11.02 Alwynne Pritchard, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 22 .01.03 Alwynne Pritchard, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 05.03.05 Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 16.12.06 Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 22.12.07 Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 21.03.09 Armin Köhler, SWR2, archived on SWR website. Max Nyfeller, Horizonte, Bayerischer Rundfunk, 22.11.10 (as part of a one-hour profile documentary) Robert Worby, Hear and Now, BBC Radio 3, 24.12.11



78.144.121.33 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove Music article and the article and documentary by Max Nyfeller may in themselves suffice to go most of the way to proving notability. I'm at a disadvantage here in that I can't access the former, and can't comprehend the latter.
Part of the problem with establishing notability is that of your 28 references the majority are not independent, they are things like the websites of festivals that his work has been performed at, or material he has published himself. These are adequate for verifying that his work has been performed at these events and that he has published the material mentioned, but verifying these things does nothing to prove notability by Wikipedia's standards. Equally, the majority of what you list under Further Reading is material written by Saunders, not about Saunders. Being a published author does not in itself confer notability. All of this makes it very hard to see the wood for the trees as a reviewer, and in my opinion it would be better to leave out the long lists of festivals and performers almost entirely.
As you can probably guess, I have very little knowledge of the subject area. It may be a good idea for you to resubmit the draft again ... perhaps trimming down the material somewhat first ... and I will also ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

194.81.80.52 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks, that's much clearer. I understand re documenting activities rather than evidencing notability, but I think the point is that this implied through the context. Inclusion in a significant (in this context) international festival evidences notability. The Donaueschingen page is evidence of that (the chronology also shows a number of well known composers for instance).[reply]

The subject's own writing is peer reviewed in academic journals or edited books, so does that qualify? It's not a personal blog or self-publishing. Perhaps it might be best to remove those completely as they are only 'further reading' if that complicates it? They're just there to provide routes to more information rather than explicitly as references to support inclusion. Only a couple of them are also there in support of the main entry.
That would be great if you could get some clarification, thanks. I have a feeling this is going to be a common pattern given it's (understandably) a different reviewer each time. Looking at a number of other composers who are active in the same field, there are lots of examples of current Wikipedia pages where there is no substantiation of the claims but they are published - far less than the propopsed entry. It's just a little frustrating as a result - but I fully support this process as it's important for the site to have verified data of course. Just struggling as to what to do next! Thanks again for your help, much appreciated.
No problem. The composers WikiProject feel that Saunders is clearly notable, and an editor from there has now accepted the draft. Thanks for your persistence with this! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Trent Article

Arthur goes shopping - You should be aware that there are well over 30 citations preserved in the Lawrence Trent's article history from January 10, 2015 for validation of content. Upon draft submission, it was suggested to reduce the number of citations to 1-3 for biographies. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page as there is some more context there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015 Wikification drive

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for your assistance Patience62 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:47, 11 February 2015 review of submission by Krivucko


Hi Arthur goes shopping, I must admit I'm not quite sure why the article is marked for the delation. THere is a list of 16 outside references in the article, in Google books search there is over 10 pages of results for NooJ as an NLP tool (not a fantasy character - which seems to be more notable and has a page on Wikipedia :) ). Could you please help with a bit more detailed explaination (example maybe) in how to improve the page. Thanks, KK

Krivucko (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krivucko. What Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Almost all of the 16 references you provide are either authored by, or edited by, Silberztein, and therefore are not independent of the topic. I am also not as impressed with Cambridge Scholars Publishing as I would be if the material was published by the rather similarly-named Cambridge University Press.
If you were involved in editing some of the provided sources yourself, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as it may be relevant to you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Early College Education Programs rejection

My article got rejected because it was not notable. I read the guidelines.

Can I cite other wikipedia articles to help with the notability? For example, there are 100+ articles for each specific example of an ECHS. Each Texas Academy also has its own articles. The Early College Option in Texas has no article (probably because it applies to individuals rather than an entity).

Could I just list 5-10 links for each? Listing them all would be so tedious, and there are additions each year. I provided a link to the Texas Education Agency which lists all currently approved schools. Listing the wiki articles would be to show notability.

The point of my article was to provide an overarching explanation of how these entities exist and are funded, to help parents sort through the confusing array of options. Last year I was a parent searching for an option and had trouble locating information in a timely matter. This is really needed. KV13579 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) KV13579 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KV13579 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing schools that are part of the program does not really help with notability. Writing an article that mainly re-iterates key points of Texas legislation, sourced to that legislation, is probably not the best approach.

How is the law not notable? KV13579 (talk) KV13579 — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Magnet school, a related program covered in Wikipedia at national level, or Specialist schools programme, a somewhat similar program in the United Kingdom. Using independent (third party) reliable sources as these articles have, is key to establishing notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The law of Texas is indeed notable, and Wikipedia has an article on that topic, Law of Texas. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:59, 12 February 2015 review of submission by JennaSys


Just prior to your review, Draft:Vocademy was recently restored after being deleted for sounding overly promotional. The restoring editor stubbed the content and in the process removed the references. I've since added the references back in and trimmed the content to (hopefully) change the tone of the article to be more encyclopedic. Before resubmitting as AfC again I would like to get your opinion on the current edit if possible. I'm new to wiki editing so I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks! JennaSys (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_goes_shopping&oldid=646869187"