Jump to content

User talk:Sulfurboy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ravpat3 (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 31 July 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


See an issue needing an answer on my talk page that you could help with? Feel free to answer!

I will absolutely not respond to your comment unless you follow the following simple rules in placing a comment on my talk page.

  • 1)You have read my FAQ below and haven't asked a question answered by it.
  • 2)Appropriately post a new section (see button/link above) at the BOTTOM of the page
  • 3)Do not ask me to just generically fix your page without a specific question, I'm not interested in fixing everyone's page for them.
  • 4)You need to hyperlink to the page you are discussing, this is probably most important. If it's remotely difficult for me to figure out what page you're talking about, I'm not going to waste my time.

Sorry if those four things seem harsh, but I review and patrol hundreds of pages a day and can't keep up with all the replies.

FAQ You declined a page I submitted for AfC and have a question... If that question is directly answered by one of the hyperlinks posted after I reviewed it, I will not answer you. You'd be surprised how often it happens. The posted links are posted for a reason!

Why did you not leave a comment when you tagged my page? I typically won't unless I think the issue may be unclear. New page patrol is overwhelmed (~50,000 pages to be reviewed with only ~1000 being currently reviewed every week) and if I spent the time to explain every tag, I wouldn't be able to review even a third of the pages I do now.

I completely disagree with a tag you placed on my page!! If you disagree with a tag, please state why on the article's talk page and leave a note here for me to review it. If you think the tag was a blatant error on my part (it happens, sorry), then please revert the edit and leave me a message letting me know that was the case.

I don't see a conversation or message I posted on your talk page... Check the archives, conversations are typically automatically archived after five days. If you wish to comment on an archived section, please move it back to the main page. I do not regularly monitor my archive pages.

Why do you keep tagging my page? Do you have something against me? No. Occasionally after you address certain issues, more issues will arise on my re-review. For example, let's say I first tagged your page for having no references, after you add references I may go back and add a tag for no in-line citations (which would have been irrelevant before there were references). Also, if there are multiple, small issues with your page and I can see you're new, I might just tag a few things at a time instead of overwhelming a new user. Please do not take any of my tags personally. I do not target people. I go straight down the list on the new page patrol. I do however regularly watch pages I review, which is why you might see me come up often in edits on your page.

Will you help me fix issues you tagged on my page? Typically not, unless I need a break from new page patrol. Why? I used to do this and it got to be very overwhelming. I feel the actual new page patrol needs my help more than helping to fix things on already existing pages (not to mention there's others much more qualified than me for most fixes suchs as categories, copyediting, etc). It doesn't hurt to ask though, but please do not be offended if I do not help or don't respond. The tea house is your friend, use it. Note: I will always clarify on tags, though. All in all,don't hope the house will build itself!

I would like to give you an award, thank you note, or barnstar... Thanks! You're awesome. And I always love the support. But please put it on my user page, not my talk page. :)

Declined- What exactly is wrong with my inline citations?

Hi Sulfurboy, Thank you for reviewing my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Richter. As the person aboved me has requested, do you mind specifically telling me what's wrong with my inline citations? I ask just so I know I am doing the write thing before I go through the process of adding and editing again. The facts (awards, education, ect.) are backed up by the citations I have, so when you get a chance please let me know the mistake I've made. Thanks, Keelsh01 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you fixed the citations. Good job. There is one more issues we have with PRs. Please see the page for mroe info. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sulfurboy, I fixed the sources that used press releases and added more reliable sources. Let me know how it looks now! Keelsh01 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sulfurboy, I have worked diligently to fix both citation problems. Can you please approve my article or direct me otherwise? Thanks, Keelsh01 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfur Boy.thank you for reviewing but please help me in publishing my article. Drphanichalla

18:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Review of submission by Reaason

Thank you for reviewing my draft (twice) at


I'm trying to establish, whether I should keep working on it or not. Basically, I've read the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles and asked for advice at the Teahouse (my question) and I'm still not sure.

As far as I can see, the subject of my draft meets (at least) the criteria defined in sections 1, 2 and 11. Would you agree with this and is it enough in terms of notability?

As for the sources, I think the ones used in the article are some of the most independent and reliable in the Finnish and Swedish context. Was the lack of sources in English(?) the/a primary reason for the rejection? Anything else that contributed to that decision?

Thank you, have a good day! :) Reaason (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sections are you talking about? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the numbered items under notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. Thanks. Reaason (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on 1 and 11, but it does pass 2. I'll approve it. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:58:42, 27 July 2015 review of submission by 195.169.108.143


Hello Sulfurboy, could you please elaborate why the included footnotes do not meet the minimal standard for inline citations. Please not that there is also a general publications list in the article, but the citations to support the claims made in the article are provided as footnotes in the References section. 195.169.108.143 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography section, which could be considered most contentious has no inline citations. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a few inline citations to that section, please have a look if you have the chance. 195.169.108.143 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review AFC submission Draft:Vanguard_Dutch_Marine

hi Graham, Bothering you again with an AFC (this being my second article if selected). Please have a look as and when feasible. Thanks in advance. Devopam (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi Graham, thought of sending you a reminder @Sulfurboy: as your talk page is pretty overwhelmed with requests :). Devopam (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:01, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Rye Giggs


Hi, Sulfurboy.

Thanks for your kindly review of the article, please share me more information about what kind of the references do we need to provide to verify the information, or can you tell me more about which information do we need to add reference to verify.

Thanks in advance!


Rye Giggs (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Reviews by software review sites aren't really considered to show notability, as they are routine and done for any piece of software. We need to see independent coverage of the impact of the software and why it is notable and important enough to be in an encyclopedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:43, 22 July 2015 review of Creative Mobile - Draft page by RadRacer20xx

Hi Sulfurboy - Thanks for looking at the article draft on Creative Mobile The article was not accepted due to This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability

I've made some edits and included more reference citations, can you review and make any further comments on how to improve the article for approval?

I believe everything should qualify for approval in comparison to articles for similar game studios: Halfbrick Studios, Kiloo, Backflip Studios, Rovio Entertainment

Thanks! User:RadRacer20xx 13:27, 28 July 2015‎

Press releases need to be removed. They are not considered credible sources. Further we need to see independent, substantial coverage of the company itself, not just articles that mention it in pass or as a routine mention due to the games. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply, I've removed the press releases and have included more references from independant / international media coverage regarding the company specifically. If there are no further corrections needed I will proceed to resubmit. RadRacer20xx 11:21, 30 July 2015‎

14:32:25, 28 July 2015 review of submission by CinaedThePict


CinaedThePict (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Can you clarify what 'Please clarify between the references and sources so we can confirm this custom.' means? This isn't readily evident - I can assure you (as a Scot), it's a long established custom, and I'm very happy to link to additional video footage if needbe.

Meaning you should combine and format the reference and sources section. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:10, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Cary.tanaka


I am confused as to how our references are unacceptable, as they are all links with credible postings from third parties outside of the company. I would like to know what we can do to improve the page. Thanks. Cary.tanaka (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As was already stated in a previous decline, you need to remove the press releases. Also the tone of the article needs to be neutral and formal which it is not. Reads more like a company's about page than an encyclopedic article. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:02, 28 July 2015 review of submission by 195.110.76.194


I don't understand why the notability or verification of this person has been declined, they are an elected politician with a number of controversial actions which have all bee linked, including the link to offical counil pages to verify: http://committees.westminster.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=152


195.110.76.194 (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up second round of edits for RW3 Page

Afternoon Sulfurboy. I got some help from the Wiki community and made a good amount of edits on the RW3 Technologies page. Looking forward to your comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RW3_Technologies

Cheers,

I think it is borderline, so I am going to allow another editor to review it. The backlog isn't bad so it should only be a couple days. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for publishing my article on the North Central RTD! Here's a kitten for you, because kittens are amazing.

P.S. It looks like this is showing up on your talk page, and I can't figure out how to send it to your user page instead. I'm new to this. Sorry.

Imagine Dragonflies (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's okay. I'll move it. Thank you! Sulfurboy (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:08, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Gautamrajeev


Hey, I wanted to know how many citations I need to get an article on Wikipedia. I sent 3 citations, two of them from India's leading national dailies- The Hindu and Deccan Herald. I haven't made any huge claims without citing. How much more is required? Gautamrajeev (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Gautamrajeev (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources only mention the org in passing. It's not an actual profile article about it. The third source is a blog which is questionably reliable. We need to see substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources, however many or few sources that takes. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:44, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Ruffsl


Ruffsl (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to ask for some aid the revision for the draft Draf tGazebo_simulator.

My goal is to keep the article short and factual similar in style to existing example open source articles:

If you have detailed specifics on this matter, or know of an editor knowledgeable in the subject, please do not hesitate to inform.

Thanks Ruffsl (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your very helpful comments to improve Amazingrace Coffeehouse. So far I have been able to add the InfoBox and extend links. Will tackle formatting next, if you can just specify for me which aspects you feel are not in the proper Wikipedia style.

VerySeldom (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more cleanup. Looks good now. Now all that is left is to find a couple other articles to link to it. You would probably know better than me where to find some. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:01:53, 28 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lakshitha Chathuranga Wikramage


please, I have made my "Lakshitha Wikramage" article with every steps INCLUDING REFERENCE catogory also. I requested 3 times to accept my page. please accept it. I have done it taking my valuable time. please..!

Lakshitha Chathuranga Wikramage (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the linked policies to see what are acceptable sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Question

Hi Sulfurboy,

When you need a break from new page patrol, can you please advise me on how to better improve my draft? I took your recommendation and created a sandbox draft for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjane214/sandbox

If you have free time, can you please let me know how to better improve it? Sjane214 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To start, you need independent, reliable sources that show substantial coverage of the center. Also, remove the external links within the article and either add them to an exlinks section if they're directly relevant, or otherwise just scrap them. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response Sulfurboy! I have created an External Links section and found sources. Here is the link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Center_for_Healthcare_Innovation Once again, if you have time, can you please let me know if I fixed the link/reference/any other type of problem? I know you don't have to review this draft so thank you for the first response! Sjane214 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:38, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Cleaver37


Cleaver37 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Hi not sure how to reference my article. I am the founder of the club.... (Cleaver37 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Links to resources are given in the declined message on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:45, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Aabbott


Hi Sulfurboy. I added the awards that Monica Brown has received and two additional sources to try to prove her notability. Before I put in further edits, could you point me in the right direction? Do you need quotes from and links to book reviews from industry periodicals (Kirkus/PW)? I don't want to keep barking up the wrong tree, but I do think that Brown is a notable author.

Aabbott (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the primary nature of the sources. The first two are interviews which aren't wholly independent. The third one is completely primary as it is written by the subject. The fourth for some reason I am unable to see. We need to see INDEPENDENT, substantial and reliable coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for the recommendations:) I have incorporated the exlinks section and added additional sources. Is there's anything else I can fix before I re-submit my draft so it can become an article once more?

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Center_for_Healthcare_Innovation&redirect=no

Sjane214 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's borderline, but you're welcome to resubmit it and see what another editor thinks. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:23:53, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Tim B Haigh


Hello there, would it be possible to give me some assistance with this ? Can you give me an example of where "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. " so that I can understand where I have gone wrong with my first article?

Many thanks for your help. Tim

Tim B Haigh (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tim, with biographies of living people we have very strict standards when it comes to inline citations. Particularly, we would like to see a citation for each individual claim (usually at the end of a sentence or point) made about the person. Obviously, you can reuse sources as needed, we don't need a different source for each claim, but we do need to know where to look to confirm the claim being made. Good luck. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:37, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Valery De Smedt


Can you advice me on the page Eric Joris? It has correct references and sources. No abuse of copyright and correct information. Valery De Smedt (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in all three of the rejections, you need inline citations. Please stop resubmitting it without fixing it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precision about the Régis Hauser page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Régis_Hauser You asked me to improve the sources and to try to ass categories. I've done it. Is that right? (few information exist about him so the sources are few too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperionMaxis (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:34:51, 29 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.184.216.47


Hello Sulfurboy, thanks for your comments. I have been working on making the Wiki page for the book and used content from the book website. As I am the author I thought it would be Ok to use content from there. I have been working hard to make the page neutral, but didn't expect a copyright issue to occur. Do you suggest I change the language on the Wiki page slightly in order to ensure the system doesn't think there is a copyright issue?

I did try to source and link any word-for-word language whenever I used it from Amazon or the book website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJacobi1121 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help through this process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Going_with_the_Pitch

Ken wiki: KJacobi1121

24.184.216.47 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be written in your own words. If you are referencing your own words, as seems to be the case, you should go through the proper CV channels to ensure that the source can be used verbatim without issue. Further, wikipedia tries to avoid WP:COI, or conflicts of interest and encourage people to not write about things they are directly connected with for issues such as this. I would advise for full clarity to post on the talk page that you are the author. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the criteria for passage at AfC?

I have to say, this is a bit worrying; I've seen your name pop up in two rather disparate topic areas (reality television and American politics) because of AfCs you've marked as passing. The first was Big Brother 18 (U.S.), a future season of a current series that are routinely left as redirects until actual sources exist to say more than "it will air". I had to take it to AfD to enforce a redirect against serial revert-warring IPs and SPAs The second, today, is Alleged Clinton Controversies (also at AfD, where most of the input so far is to speedy delete because it is so egregiously policy-violating). I'm sorry, but, what the hell? You just allowed a POV-pushing single-purpose-account to jam a fringe conspiracy nut-loving, BLP coatrack mess into article-space. Did you even read it? Like the part where there is a sub-header titled "Alleged Enemies List", which deceptively links to a "main article" that is actually a low-grade partisan novel titled HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton? Tarc (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I just want to say I completely appreciate your class and tact in your critique. You've named two articles that might have been bad calls out of 700 or so I've approved with little to no issue. WP:TOOSOON policy varies greatly between shows, some series like it done immediately on show announcement as soon as it can pass WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Clinton article obviously had issues, but my job is to make sure it passes the bare minimum guidelines set out for AfC approvals. One of the biggest community consensus amongst AfC editors is that it's not the worst thing in the world for an article to immediately go to AfD, we'd rather wrongly approve and it be corrected without missing a net, instead of scaring away editors who seem to be acting in good fiath. I advise you review AfC policy before trying to derail someone. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel this is troubling - Tarc is not alone, as you can see at the AfD, consensus is strongly against this article being approved. Not only that, but why would you move something like this with all that garbage on top to main space? Another editor NorthBySouthBaranof deleted this section immediately, as it had nothing to do with the Clintons. This doesn't make any sense; it is like you did not look at the article. The editor who created it has been around since 2006, so I don't see that there was any chance of scaring anyone away by declining it. Nobody is trying to derail you here - we're just trying to figure out how this occurred. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just the Big Brother thing, whatever, that's just a WP:TOOSOON tv show. But if you're letting egregious BLP violations into article-space, esp when they target a former president and a current candidate, then then you can expect to be challenged here. If AfC is beacing run like a fly-by-night diploma mill, then it may be time for a reevaluation of the process and its participants. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pile on but I also want to point out this article doesn't even have an introduction. Isn't there a basic AfC checklist? This article is now at the WP:BLP/N. Sulfurboy, Can you please respond as to what happened here in the AfC process? —МандичкаYO 😜 13:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not having a lead section is not a reason to reject a AfC an easy guide for the process can be found here. My intent (and what I thought I had done) is when I removed the remaining afc comments was to move the first section into a lead. Not to defend my decision (as I see now it was an egregious error) but instead to explain it...1) It was incredibly biased before and edits were made, I think seeing such a large improvement tricked my mind into think it was acceptable 2) If it did have continuing issues it would be caught by other editors and sent to AfD (the system worked fwiw). 3) Edits would be made other editors to counter or defend accusations in time. I did believe there was worth for convenience of research to compile the controversies, but obviously there was a better way to go about it. Please feel free to either copy and paste this response where applicable or ping me where I need to respond. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see how that would happen (seeing the huge improvement led your mind astray I think). If you were still arguing this article was good I'd be concerned, but I'm confident there are no problems. Thanks for explaining. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:31:07, 29 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cht0620


I am wondering if there is any other source of reference I can include besides press release? Because I guess it should be the most credible source? Kindly advise for that! Thanks!

Cht0620 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A press release by proxy is considered a primary source. We need to see credible, significant and reliable SECONDARY coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:17:39, 29 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Charushr89


Hi, we want to create Wikipedia page for our company HeadHonchos.com (an online search engine portal). After much editing and submissions, we are not getting the final approval on the submitted work . I request you to please specify the areas where we can apply scope of change or improvement. Also, the references used are taken from the verified sources. We have used online sources in support to content/information in regard to HeadHonchos.com as a product/company.  Need help so that we can improve on the areas asap. Thank you.


Charushr89 (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to conflict of interest issues, we highly encourage people directly related with a company or a subject not write an article about it. Beyond that, the article has a long way to go. As you could find in the links provided to you, we need reliable, independent and substantial coverage. The sources provided in the article are basically press releases which is just regurgitated primary sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 July review for Dimitris Paraskevas article

Hi Sulfurboy,

Thank you for reviewing draft article Draft:Dimitris Paraskevas. If possible, would you be able to elaborate on the reason for rejecting the submission? In my opinion the inline citation is adequate and proves the statements made. Could you please help me understand the problem? Specifically, can you please point out an example of an inadequate citation or a statement that needs to be footnoted? Thanks for your time and cooperation!Angelamarc (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph of early life section. Should be good after that. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Article

Hi, I have been working on this article for a while now and have had numerous comments regarding notability and references. If it wouldn't be a bother for you (and really only if it isn't), could you advise me on how I could get the article up to Wikipedia standard? With regards to notability, I have added all I can regarding his work etc. but can't reference anything other than the work on Emmerdale as all articles I can find on him now relate to the show as it's so popular and his most present work... I have been told I can't link to Wikipedia or the IMDb and when I referenced RottenTomatoes (which I believe to be independent and reliable), I was told it was only a mere name-drop and nothing else so was irrelevant though I only referenced the page to prove the role he played in the movie/series. Many thanks... Article -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ryan_Hawley JoshDunn98 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find the proper sources then that is evidence that this person is simply not notable at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:38:47, 29 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 154.69.162.175


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rockville_2069:_A_Rock_Musical

Based on your previous comment, the story and character breakdown were edited. Do you recommend that it is further condensed? Is there anything else in the article that should also be condensed?

Your kind assistance would be appreciated.

154.69.162.175 (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated before the article looks (and still does) like a playbill. I would almost cut out the character descriptions and act and scene descriptions entirely. You would only see something like that on the most famous of plays or Broadway musicals and even then not usually or done as a separate page. This play is not notable enough for that at this time. The article should focus on a brief summary of the play, reviews and why it is particularly notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medford_knife_And_tool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Medford_knife_And_tool


Hello sir, There seems to be a problem with the reliability of the sources, In the field of collectible knives There are not many reliable sources beyond professional reviews and forums but not much beyond. And trust me - I looked.

Also, I use sources by subject only in cases where it is necessary to the technical description of the elements - such as work space.

What exactly makes it look like an ad? Perhaps you could direct me better.


Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytankey (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neither neutral nor formal. Also the amount of pictures needs to be cut down dramatically to what is completely relevant. There also is probably an issue of notability. If there is not reliable coverage beyond routine reviews than the subject is likely not notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is not reliable coverage beyond routine reviews than the subject is likely not notable" - on that matter I disagree, If you have pages on other companies, there is no reason not to be a page about this company. Most people in the field are not exactly "computer people" this is a way to expose them to another medium.

on the other issues - I will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytankey (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It is wikipedia policy please see WP:42. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a person claims his own words he was a patriot and promote these values and preaches patriotism, it is enough to show the person as such. This means that the source of valid and reliable. That is what I am saying and displays. Quote sources.

And that's part of it. So that it meets the requirements.


Also, the wording refers to how the "he sees himself" and I do not place it as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytankey (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.
If you state that someone sees themselves as X then we must have citations to prove that thing. This is not susceptible to argument, it is simply something that we insist upon and which is enforced.
You are at liberty to seek to change policy. I commend WP:VPP to you for that. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


(talk page stalker) For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. so you are saying that if IS leadr - Al baghday, post a video, in which in own words he claim that he will kill all unbelivesr, I will have to wait for the BBC to publish it for it will be OK for Wikipedia?
If you state that someone sees themselves as X then we must have citations to prove that thing And I posted those proves. This is not susceptible to argument, it is simply something that we insist upon and which is enforced.
You are at liberty to seek to change policy. I commend WP:VPP to you for that. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 29 July 2015

I think this is irrelevant, this is an article about knife maker, there is a WikiProject on Blades, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Blades) so maybe some people do want articles about the subject, you are insist on something that is not important, this is not the issue.

1.I don't understand. over 3000 vids on the subject 'you tube' how can you ignore that?! 2.according to WP:SELFPUB his vids are valid.

Serianna

Hello Sulfurboy, my name is Metalworker14. I was asked to create the article that I really knew nothing about. I've never heard of or listened to Serianna. I was just asked by The Cross Bearer to do and decided to help him out with it. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 16:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be doing this already

One thing that helped me a very great deal when I was starting out in the AFC project was watching, then contributing to the AFC Helpdesk. I found that there were areas I expected to be clear to the editor I reviewed that were obviously not, judging by their reaction and cries for help. I'm still learning

I am cordially inviting you to come and join in there. And you may be there already. Your reviewing skills will improve and improve as you play there. Fiddle Faddle 16:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just bookmarked it, I'll have to keep an eye on it. Especially since we've gotten the backlog down. Thanks! Sulfurboy (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great place to see other folk answering questions that we all thought were too obvious to even be asked! We learn patience and humility, and even sometimes put those into practice! It's a great place to learn and learn from other reviewers and from the editors we review. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:55, 29 July 2015 review of submission by HayMerchant


I have a question about your review of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thom_Serafin

These are your reasons for rejection: External links should be removed from the article and either added to an exlink section or scraped. Other accomplishments should be made into a prose form and reduced to what is most relevant. Article should be formal and neutral, with all puffery removed.

I've fixed the first two, and I hope I've addressed the third, about puffery & neutrality. But, as a total noob, I'm not sure I've done an adequate job. For example, I (among other edits) replaced "kickstarting his career" with "beginning his career," removed information about some awards that he has won, and removed the name of another Hart spokesman as it's not relevant. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about or did I miss the mark?


HayMerchant (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah all those things are great. The next thing you can do to help your chances is try to track down some sources that deal with Serafin directly, such as articles about him primarily or profiling him. It seems the majority if not all the sources only really mention him in passing. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfurboy, I currently have four sources that are more or less profiles of him, do you suggest that I rewrite the article to rely more on these?

Also, thank you for the quick attention.

HayMerchant (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thnak you Eytankey (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New album page for Gaelic Storm's album "Matching Sweaters"

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_Sweaters

You mentioned that this article needs additional citations for verification. I have added another from the band's webpage... not sure what else is needed (I am kind of a rookie). I built the page based on the others before it and I thought I had everything that was needed.

If something else is needed it would be great if you could direct me as to what that might be.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theflash95 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tag wasn't meant to be a knock on you. The page is fine as it is, it doesn't have any worry for AfD or such. But on album pages like this, when I only see primary sources, I like to add the tag in hopes that someone will find secondary sources to add, such as a critique of the album or a discussion about it. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:16, 29 July 2015 review of submission by Elizabethwood4


I'm wondering what needs to be changed in the Christian Lopez Band wikipedia draft. I'm not sure if I need to change the subject material or just worry about finding other sources. The sources I have used, I feel are reliable, but please let me know what I need to specifically work on. Thank you!

Elizabethwood4 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently fails WP:NBANDSulfurboy (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you will consider another thought

I have found that it is better use of my time to try very hard to review the same draft once only. This does, of course, increase the backlog if few other reviewers are active, but it provides a better experience for the new editor. One can also argue that further eyes provide a better review. I moved to, mostly offering comments rather than reviews when I'd reviewed a draft previously. Fiddle Faddle 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might do that more often. Although, I do like it when I establish a rapport with an editor who is making an effort to fix things. And also to prevent backlog it's easy to just reject articles of people who haven't made any effort. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I try to work with the rapport folk and help them with drafting, simply because I will not re-review the draft. The second class, I find they react better to a different reviewer declining for much the same reason. I know what you mean, of course. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question about AfC decline , Draft:Michael_Elliott

Hello Sulfurboy, thanks for taking a look at Draft:Michael_Elliott. I'm quite surprised you declined as WP:FAILN, however.

  • Yes, I read the FAQ.  :-) You claim the draft suffers from a failure to meet WP:42, WP:V, and WP:N plus for good measure WP:BIO. I've read them, and they obviously don't apply.
  • new talkpage section, check
  • not asking you to do the work, check, WP:CHOICE
  • link to page, Draft:Michael_Elliott#References

Are you seriously suggesting that this fails WP:42, specifically The Guardian 2007 and 2010,[1][2] Huffington Post 2010,[3] New York Post 2011,[4] Politico 2011,[5] independent.co.uk 2015,[6] and NPR 2015.[7]

There are plenty of sources, with a range of many years, and considerable depth in terms of word-count / specificity / etc. I thought this was WP:SNOW for speedy-accept. Which refs do you dispute? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to resubmit and see what another editor thinks. But to me the first five are just routine coverage of a promotion. Would see this coverage of any person, doesn't make them automatically notable. Six is decent, but the only one out of the seven that's acceptable and it's not even incorporated into the article (neither are any of the seven for that matter). The last is a primary interview which can be used but doesn't help establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we are inherently going to disagree. Podunk Local Newspaper story about the promotion of the local Deputy Constable to their new job title of Assistant Sheriff, is routine coverage. Major national and international newspapers report *important* promotions. This guy was the #2 editor at TIME Magazine for five years, and his promotions started being real-world-notable when he achieved that status. I mean, you can argue that we have a presidential election every four years, yawwwwwn, who cares what the next president's name is gonna be... same old routine political coverage must not be REALLY notable right? ....but that's NOT what WP:RS actually means. I'll resubmit, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:30:27, 29 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by InstaSD


I need assistance as I believe the sources that I cited are reliable published sources and I do not have other sources to reference and I would really like to publish this article. I have read over Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and I don't see why these sources do not work. I have gone ahead and added more sources to the article. Please let me know your help is truly appreciated.

InstaSD (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the issue was with the fourth source which seems to be corrected. I would recommend though before resubmitting that you take out the promotional tone in the article and replace it with a neutral, formal tone. For example: "Instabuggy.com provides shoppers with an online portal to order groceries...", instead say "Instabuggy.com is an company that provides online groceries". The article should just be giving facts not giving an outlet for the company to speak. You also had issues with the headers, but I went ahead and fixed that for you. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erathna Mini Hydro Power Project

Hello. I saw your COI tag on this article. Please see Denawaka Ganga Mini Hydro Power Project. I believe their may be a COI too. I am concerned about the images as well. One is a Google image which is certainly copyrighted. The schematics are suspicious as well. It seems this author was heavily involved in the project and may be using their company or firm's information for the articles. I asked the author on their talk but no response.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I will look into it. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:55:15, 29 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dreafea


Hi! Just trying to get feedback on what didn't work within the article. Does any of it work? We're trying to build a historical perspective on what the hotel has been within the community as centuries have passed. Can you please provide some feedback and perhaps some advice?

Dreafea (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit to a footnote you created

Hi again Re 1st Australian Civil Affairs Unit General Peter Gration Peter Gration, one of our Unit's former commanding officers, has suggested some changes to our article. I have made the edits to the main body but do not know how to edit one of the footnotes you created for us. Would you please either (a) tell me how to do it, or (b) make the edits for us. If the latter, the requested edits are to Footnote 3. Firstly, delete "construction" between "engineer" and "squadrons". Secondly, replace "within" with "throughout" before "1 ATF". Thanks again for all your help with this project. Don Limn (aka 1acau)1acau (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one that helped you with that, but I'd be able to help now. Can you just write for me word for word what it should say? Sulfurboy (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:54:03, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Ochunter12


Hi Sulfurboy, I have made some changes to the article on Alice Creelman. I tried to take out all subjective language. I also reorganized to place more focus on her career as an art dealer, which I think is what makes her notable. However, she is often briefly mentioned in literature on James Creelman, so people may be interested in her because of this connection.

Please let me know if you think I have more work to do on this article. Also, since I'm a new user I wasn't sure whether to approach you here first or just resubmit the article, so I apologize if this isn't the correct way to move forward.

Best,

Olivia Ochunter12 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Ochunter12 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serianna

@Metalworker14: I recommended it to him to create their profile, and I addressed concerns with my edits to show GNG.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:50, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Raghav.khattar


Hi, I am not quite sure why the page is being declined again and again. I have added all possible sources but I am not quite sure where i am going wrong. Could you please help me out with this? I need to know which portion is not right. Thanks for your assistance. Best regards. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ashok_Chopra

Raghav.khattar (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All claims about the subject need to be cited. There are large chunks of text and statements that have no citations. It will continue to be rejected until this is fixed or the unsourced claims are removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:05, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Kenbloom01


Thank you for your review. You mentioned that the subject notability is not adequate. I apologize, but assumed that the recognition and proclamation from Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and the Michigan State Senate proved its notability with the bi-partisan proclamation making Blue Monday the kickoff of National Men’s Health Week, originally proclaimed by President Clinton in 1994. I believed that further evidence of notability was the recognition and promotion of Blue Monday within 5 states. The listed citations include the Senate Proclamation, statistics from the American Cancer Society, and national media coverage including the Huffington Post. I appreciate your time in reviewing the article and seek to make it worthy of approval. Can you provide more specific examples of how I can improve it for submission? Thank you. Kenbloom01 (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Kenbloom01 (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your above reasons don't necessarily make the subject notable. We need to see reliable, secondary coverage as already explained, see WP:42. If there is a huffpost article dealing with it, I'd recommend incorporating that into the article at the very least. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:33, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Richard Falkner


Hi Sulfurboy,

Good morning. I just managed to re-edit the 'Experteer' draft to make it less promotional and have a flow. I removed around 85 words especially under Company information to make it sound like information rather than promotion. I have added additional links where the author's name was not available.

Please let me know if this draft is fine or if more edits are required.

Richard Falkner (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the tone looks a whole lot better. But please remove any and all press releases such as this: http://news.careercloud.com/experteer-blog/content/experteer-smartphone-app-now-available-for-android/10989/ . Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:08, 30 July 2015 review of submission by C.T. Jasper


Dear Sirs,

I'm writing to you accorging the refuse of the second article on C.T. Jasper. The first account and the article was created and prepared by the intern and it was denied for formal reasons. I wanted to edit the article and send it again, but she forgot the user name and the password it seems also that she did not give the e-mail address, so now I cannot log in to that account. That is why I created a new account and wrote the article from the beginning. I would be very grateful, if you could delete the other account and review the new article which contains more references.

Thank you very much in advance. C.T. Jasper (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit any wikipedia page. You just need to go to the draft page and manually change or edit what you want. Also it should be noted that autobiographys are highly discourage on wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:49:00, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jesk.wood



The woman in red (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:49:46, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jesk.wood



The woman in red (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References Help

Hi Sulfurboy, I'm an intern at Loeb.nyc and have been working on trying to create a page for Nicole Williams. I'm new to Wikipedia so I still have a lot to learn and have been trying to read through all of the guideline pages, but I'm still struggling with showing her notability. I use Wikipedia all the time and was surprised to see that she did not already have a page since similar career experts do. It seems like Nicole Williams is notable in her field since she has created her own career development company, has written three books on women in the workplace, and has been interviewed in numerous mainstream news outlets as a career expert. I know you're very busy reviewing/helping other people with their pages but if you could take another look at my draft and tell me which (if any) of the references are actually what you're looking for that would help me a lot. My struggle right now is that while there are hundreds of articles and TV show segments featuring her on popular outlets, not many are "independent"/secondary sources. Does this mean that she will never be considered notable? I tried to look through other similar people's pages but many of them have interviews or articles with quotes as references (Should I be using references like that? From what I've read I thought links like those wouldn't work to establish notability, or am I wrong about that?). Thank you so much for working with me on this. I hope I can fix it up for my next submission! Works712 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the late response. I must have missed this when you first posted. The problem with the sources is that they aren't entirely secondary. They mostly are associated with her in a primary manner or a company/newspaper she has written for. We need to see independent, secondary coverage of her. Please see WP:BIO and WP:42 Sulfurboy (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:35:09, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Stephmcguinn


Hi! I'm not sure what else I need to do to prove Jay is notable. Would you be about to please tell me the specific issue? This is my first article. Thank you- Stephanie :)

Stephmcguinn (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:42. We need to see independent coverage of the subject themself. Not just coverage of the shows he has made.

14:56:51, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Archnotes


Hello,

Many thanks for editing my article. However, I am confused as to what I can add to have this article approved. I included footnotes and references inline with Wikipedia's guidelines. What details need citations that I did not already include? Archnotes (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Archnotes[reply]

Archnotes (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of teaching and research. Honors and awards. Exhibitions (which by the way should be moved just above publications) And also in the early education bits would be helpful too. Keep in mind you can reuse the same sources for inline cites, you don't have to find an individual source for each one of these claims. Page me when you've done this and I'll approve it. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I've gone back in and added to the sections discussed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archnotes (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:12, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Xanovsky


Could you point me more concretely in which part of the text you think citations are missing? Thanks!

Xanovsky (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the entire biography section. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix it, by adding the references I could verify and eliminating facts that are harder to provide references for... Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanovsky (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:26, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Drphanichalla


Drphanichalla (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem would be that they don't exist. Please read the linked articles on the page for information on how to create them. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:05, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Melissa Marie 2015


Hi Sulfurboy,

Thanks for reviewing the Alan Chebot page I submitted again. Can you please address my following comments replying to your "Any substantial coverage seems to be local. Can't pass it at this time. Would like to see coverage or articles actually profiling this person."

1. Alan was currently on NPR, which started at NPR's local station and went National on the air. 2. The Schlesinger Award was mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter - a national magazine. This award is huge and shared with celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg. 3. "Song for New Orleans" was written up in the Times Picayune in New Orleans AND in the Pittsburgh Gazette which are NOT local to Boston. 4. Alan was written up in the Boston Globe recently and although “local” to Boston, is one of the top 10 most important and influential newspapers in the country. 5. OZY.com is a national and international news site, is read by thought leaders all over the country and has a readership of over 4 million per month. They reviewed the film Alan directed AND talk about him substantially throughout the article.

Thanks for reconsidering. Melissa_Marie

Melissa Marie 2015 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Flatgradings (July 30)

I added 3 reference in my page. But still it's declined. Can you please help me with this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinuvvk88 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for helping me with the Caroline Gorman article. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:22, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Rodolfoyiu


Rodolfoyiu (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've just edited the page and added some more independent news site like Quartz and TheNextWeb, would you please check if it's okay or any improvement should be made? Thanks!!!

I would remove the reviews from users completely, that is not what wikipedia is for. I would also make the history section in prose form. Please remember the article should be as formal and neutral as possible. After that, you might give resubmitting it a try. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:19:53, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Gdow.sd


Hi Sulfurboy, my friend who set up the first Vallecitos page got a note that as a staffer for the district she could not create the page and her draft was being terminated. So I offered to create a version that I thought was more accurate (shorter -- let more people add info if/as they see fit) based on my work as a community volunteer on the San Diego Water Academy https://twitter.com/GabrielaDow/status/609846832340963328

I actually want to create more content on water agencies / issues in the San Diego region (as well as on tech startups, my other area of expertise) but it seems I messed up my first few attempts.

How can I improve the draft that I have created for Vallecitos? Not sure what I can do since your note says you will use the other draft created by the Vallecitos staffer and she told me an agency user is not allowed and thus her profile and draft are being rejected (deleted?)

Thanks so much Gdow.sd (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gdow.sd (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vallecitos_Water_District Gdow.sd (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the one I created that you put on hold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vallecitos_Water_District_(2)

Thanks so much! Gdow.sd (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to combine the two. But when you submit, submit the first one, not the (2) one. Also, be sure to not write about things too closely associated with you to avoid a conflict of interest. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:56, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Francionyc


Thanks for your review..

I have modified the wording especially in the lead, for a lay person to understand the subject

as you may know, the condition is very common and has no entry in Wikipedia. Infact, the tag systemic senile amyloidosis has been erroneusly linked to the page Transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis, which is very misleading and completely wrong

i have expanded all the sections

1 Natural Course of the Disease 2 Signs and Symptoms 3 Diagnosis 4 Treatment

I believe that the article is a great addition and complements the material already published on amyloidosis in general and the specific types.

A search of senile systemic sclerosis yields no correct resylts on wikipedia

if you don't think the article is ready, please help me make it better/publishable

Thank you very much for your attention

Francesco Santoni-Rugiu, MD

Francionyc (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Thanks for your hard work. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Francionyc, please see WP:MEDRS. Not a single one of your references is ideal for a medical topic--we need recent review articles, not primary research articles and patient guides. Additionally, some of the paragraphs are unreferenced. "No specific drug has been clearly shown to be able to arrest or slow down the process of this condition" is the sort of medical statement that needs an authoritative reference. The topic is worth writing on, and there probably are suitable references available. Find them and add them. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanca Draft

Sulfurboy could you please expand in detail what the issue is with the article: Draft:Esperança (non-profit). I find it particularly difficult to correct the article if the statement is broad and simply states, “Have not corrected previously mentioned issue”.

I added nearly 10 additional articles. All of which specifically speak to the organizations work. They are also all independent of the organization. Secondly, it seemed the last reviewed had issues accessing articles. All of the additional articles do not have that issue. Were you able to read the newly added ones? Is the accessibility for the other articles also an issue for you? I would again state, as I did to the past reviewer, that the article fits every facet of a non-commercial organization, according to Wikipedia’s standards. The sources included are from multiple independent journals, newspapers, and websites. I have read through the pages multiple times suggested by past reviews have found that it fits in with the criteria required.

If you could please point out the issue specifically it would help to make adjustments. Rtapscott (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the last two bios

Please notify me if you see any more written in that style. This is PR work, probably undeclared paid PR work. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what the big tipoff was for you DGG? I wanted to decline them, but it felt better since academia seems to be your expertise to just tag you to review them. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Style. I probably could specify it, but I usually spot the pattern as a gestalt, based on experience having seen a few thousand of them at WP and having had decades of experience with the style in the RW before I came here. Anyone in the academic world knows how people pad a CV, and knows the work of academic PR people; it's different from corporate PR, and usually much less competent. I should in fairness say that Princeton (where I spent most of my career as a librarian) was an exception, having remarkably effective and sophisticated PR. But some specific tricks, academic and general"
But I can tell you one trick that applies to both university and corporate PR. Executive bios -- and any bio written by PR staff -- normally say very early on what the previous employer was, but don't go into the earlier history, or add it at the end, & often do not give the years. When academics write their own CVs, everything is *always* in chronological order, and always gives the years.
But the giveaway for Eger was inconsistency. The career was not as extensive as typical of someone receiving a major award, and the award -- one that I was totally unfamiliar with -- sounded very major. So I checked the reference, and found it was one of 30 awarded that year. And then I saw the same author had just written an article on his new journal. Almost always, someone simultaneously writing an article on a person and his organization is being promotional. It's a good idea to check the editors contribution history.
A giveaway for Affolder was that she had just been appointed Associate Dean. Dean of a law school is head of the school & notable. Associate Dean anywhere is a purely administrative position of no particular importance. And then I saw that the same author had just written an article on the Dean -- who is of course notable, but I have to go back and remove the fluff.
A giveaway for anyone in any field is where the article prominently mentions a new position, or new book, or new enterprise. That;s usually the motive for writing a promotional PR. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, and it all makes sense. I'll have to keep an eye out for those patterns. And also to remember to use the word 'gestalt'. What a great word. Thanks as always. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:30:03, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Cap603


I added a citation for a local newspaper article about the trilogy. How many citations are required?

Thanks

Cap603 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single newspaper article (which can't even be viewed) is not even remotely enough. The other source is a wikipedia page, which can't be used. And the last one is a page about the book that can be created by author, thus not reliable. I think if you read over the links provided in the decline, you will see why this is nowhere near enough. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:24:26, 31 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by The trail music



The trail music (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am requesting assitance on why my page had been declined as i am not poromoting a business , i am giving reasons and true accounts of its cause, not information of retail

Before asking for help you should take the time to read some of the links that have already been provided to you. They should more than fully explain what is wrong with the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined on 28 July 2015

Hi Sulfurboy, thank you for reviewing my submission. I have removed press releases as you have requested and resubmitted for your approval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Make_It_Cheaper

Kind Regards

Smustieles

Hi Sulfurboy,

This is regarding the draft : Experteer. I have now re-edited and removed the press releases as per your suggestion and have re-submitted for review. Hope its fine. Thank you.

Richard Falkner (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:24, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Bobowikibobo


Thank you for the suggestion on using footnotes. I studied the tutorial about in-line citations and referencing in general, and I think I see how to improve this aspect of the article. It looks like if I can fix the footnotes method I'm using everything should be OK. This is what I did: In Section 1, I deleted the dates that followed the journal titles as this was unnecessary and just cluttered up the text. In Section 1.1 for the citations that had a footnote, I also deleted the date because this was redundant making it appear that I was combing two different referencing methods. I did the same in Section 1.2. Take a look at my corrections and tell me how it looks now. I think the overall appearance is much improved with the extraneous and redundant information deleted. ˜˜˜˜

Bobowikibobo (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I will let another editor review it. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:19, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Richard Falkner


Hi Sulfurboy,

I have now removed all press releases for : Experteer as advised by you and resubmitted it for re-review. Please let me know if this is fine. Thank You. Richard Falkner (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I will let another editor review it. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:34:28, 31 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ravpat3


I am not sure what your evidence is for tagging my article as reading like an advertisement. BioBuilder is a Foundation that offers services to support educational initiatives in synthetic biology and is affiliated with reputable academic institutions. This work does not sell a product, but details the structure of an experiential learning pedagogical model developed at MIT and implemented internationally. Please provide specific places where advertising is flagrant and I will be happy to adjust my article. Ravpat3 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravpat3 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&oldid=673962944"