Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aabbsshhiisshh (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 2 September 2015 (→‎Review of Submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aabbsshhiisshh/Royal_Industries_Indonesia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Onel5969's Talk
Phoenix ... It's a dry heat ...
Born
New York city
NationalityAmerican

Edit count

Hi! You might find these handy:

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrus Systems company page

Hello,

I understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gyrus_Systems submission was declined due to not non-objective language and/or opinion.

I reviewed the site and all the references for non-objective language and/or opinion so it would be very helpful if you can give me specific examples.

Last week we won the Training Industry Top 20 Learning Management Systems watch list award https://www.trainingindustry.com/learning-technologies/top-companies-listings/2015/2015-learning-portal-companies-watch-list.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virenkapadia (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in advance.

Viren Kapadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virenkapadia (talk • contribs) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Virenkapadia - First off, please always remember to sign your comments, using the 4 ~'s (that automatically signs and puts a time stamp on your comment). Second, there is a conflict of interest issue with the article. Wikipedia frowns on, but does not prohibit, COI contributors. The reason being that it is very difficult for such editors to remain objective. Look at the COI guidelines, you need to place a COI statement on the article. Third, I actually did not decline it for a lack of objectivity. I didn't get that far. In its current state, the article does not meet the notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Much of the article is based on a single article from a Richmond newspaper. There is another article from the same source. And the article from HR magazine, which is mostly about one of their pieces of software. That's it. The rest are brief mentions, or simple listings, or non-independent sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrus draft FYI

Someone happened to come in and ask about this on IRC while I was there. The editor is clearly associated with the company, and while I don't know who it is, I'd venture a guess that it was whomever is the main/most recent contributor to the draft. I see no need to open a COI on a draft article that was declined, but it should be noted therein that it is a distinct possibility. MSJapan (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSJapan - another editor has tagged the article with the COI tag. See the comment right above this one regarding the article. Thanks for the heads up though! Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:03, 31 August 2015 review of submission by RFreeman5713


I just wanted to ask the reviewer if any of the citations in this draft article meet the criteria and, if so, which ones. Also, how many approved citations there need to be.

Thank you,

21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)~Robin Freeman

RFreeman5713 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RFreeman5713 - There are two types of references/citations: those which are good to verify facts in the article, and those which are used to show notability. First of all, technically, you don't have any citations in this article. You have a list of "See also". But that's just semantics. If you had titled that section "References", then they would be references. But regarding them as valid references, let's call those which are good for verifying facts "A", those which are good for notability purposes "B" (which can also be used to verify), and those which aren't good for either, "C". You have 10 listed. In the "A" category are: 1, 2 (a very weak one), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10; in the "B" category - none; and in the "C" category: 4.
The book may or may not be useful. There is no page cited, so I have no idea. When a source can be used for verifying, it should be used as a footnote, not a general reference. If not, then your impulse to put it in a "See also" section is the right direction, although "See also" means that it points to another Wikipedia article. You'd want to create an "External links" section, and put them there. You should also learn how to format references. You can find out about citations at WP:CITE, and about formatting them at WP:CIT. You can also learn about what constitutes notability at WP:GNG, in general, citations should be in-depth from non-related sources. Typically those are newspapers, magazines, etc. (but not press releases). I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:22:04, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Wills473


Dear One15969:

I'm not requesting a re-review at this time, but I have some questions for the reviewer.

I see that the response paragraph outlining your reason for declining my submission is boilerplate, so I’m not sure if all of the violations enumerated are actually a problem in my submission. For example, I don’t see an example of a peacock term, and also don’t understand the problem with my references.

Respectfully, I would appreciate it if you could point to examples of what you have in mind as violations of encyclopedic style. Also, the reviewer of the previous submission of the article cited length as a problem, but this version is much shorter. Can I assume the article’s current length is acceptable?

Best regards,

wills473

Wills473 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Wills473 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wills473 - You're absolutely right, it is a canned response. To be more specific, peacock terms are those which build up the subject in a subjective way. Sometimes they are not grandiose terms, but are more simple, such as saying "major New York newspapers". Drop the major, it's subjective, and mean to puff up the comment. But I don't see a lot of peacock terminology. In your case, it's more of a style issue, phrases like "Edson’s father was educated, and driven to become wealthy", "the dream of a socialist paradise", "furnishing it on Edson’s modest salary was proving difficult", "He immersed himself in primitive backwoods life, fishing, raising corn, smoking his own meat, and cutting railroad ties for cash." "arrived in possession of the inside story of the Appeal to Reason debacle", "But Edson was not destined to remain long in this job either". These are examples of informal writing, not of an encyclopedia article. Your article is chock full of them.
In addition, you have quite a few statements in your article which make declarative statements, without any sourcing, such as: "a staple of newspapers at the time", "In the wake of a scandal Edson was dismissed, although he had nothing to do with the false reporting.", "But Brentano's, his publisher, felt that the book might stimulate more interest if promoted with a teaser advertising campaign." These are just a few.
Overall, there is way too much detail about his personal motivations, too much detail about each of the books. When you become overly detailed, that in and of itself is form of "puffing" up the subject. I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Koper

Thank you for reviewing and accepting Antoni Koper. I realize that I could have created the article without submitting it for review by AFC, but I am eager to become a better editor, and hoped to learn how to improve my contributions based on the feedback. I have to admit, as I review the examples of other start class and c class articles, I am a bit disappointed and confused by the start class designation. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't mean to challenge or question that determination in any way. I just want to better understand it. I know this is a lot to ask, but would you be so kind as to offer me some specific advice about how I might improve the article to a c-class article?( Due to the limited verifiable encyclopedic content available on the topic, I doubt it will ever qualify for b-class.) I know the article needs an image; I'm expecting one to be available in the commons by the end of the week. But otherwise, I'm unsure how to proceed. Thank you in advance for any assistance or advice you might offer. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom Gregory Scott - No worries. It was a borderline call, I relooked and moved it to a C. The difference is depth. I don't think anyone will argue with a C designation. Pictures are nice, but not required. There are C articles with no picture. No B articles, but C. Overall, nice job. Keep it up. And don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to reconsider. Your decision and your message are both very encouraging. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:35, 31 August 2015 review of submission by 108.222.145.105


Hi Onel5969, thank you for reviewing my article.

When writing this article, I made sure to follow Golden Rule and to use verifiable, independent sources (such as: Diario ABC Color and Primera Edicion Newspaper).

As far as the notoriety of the artist, if you simple Google "Pato Garcia" you can see pages and pages of results, including photos and videos. This is the biggest artist out for Missiones, Posadas and very well known not only in Norther Argentina, but in Paraguay, Italy and in the latin folk music world.

Please kindly re-review or provide me with suggestions as to how to improve this article. But it is a true shame that such an artist does not have his own wikipedia page.

Thanks!

108.222.145.105 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you simply need to add more independent sources, if they are that big, that shouldn't be an issue. You should have at least 4. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

review of submission of Tanveer Alam

please allow to create this page, u may find that he is have so many link on wikipedai and is notable person, please allow to creat this page,

Hi Mywhitefox - please see WP:GNG about how to show notability, and WP:RS as to what constitutes a valid reliable source (for example, imdb is not). And also take a look at WP:CIT about how to format citations. Onel5969 TT me 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review Crime & Punishment Brewing Co

Hi, Please could you take a second look at a draft page now that I've updated it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Crime_%26_Punishment_Brewing&redirect=no

I've included external references from Travel + Leisure (Time Magazine's leisure edition) and Philly.com (the online wing of the Philadelphia Inquirer). Let me know if you need any further supporting evidence of notability. Manc1234 (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I recently tried to post a page explaining what CoalFace Capital is and you kindly edited it for me - I understand it may read like an advertisement but we are a new start-up and wanted to explain to people what it is about - I guess we are bound to be enthusiastic about our own pet-project! Could you suggest or make some changes that would help us to get the page published please? Many thanks in advance! Regards, Declan McEvoy (my email is declan.mcevoy@coalfacecapital.com - we are based in Dublin, Ireland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoalFace Capital (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoalFace Capital - Those are good citations, but the requirement for notability says, "substantial coverage". While those mention the brewery in quite favorable fashion, T&L is just a mention, not in-depth coverage. The Newsworks article is nice, as is the Philly.com you just added. If you could come up with another 2 like the Newsworks I think you'd meet the notability requirement. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:39:01, 1 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Paul Berkowitz



Paul Berkowitz (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message

Hello, Onel5969! Thank you so much for your message regarding my article creation (Draft:HeliotropeBooks) that was declined. I will certainly be rewriting the article to comply better with Wikipedia's standards. Really appreciate your taking the time to reach out to me; I will be in touch at some point at the Teahouse. --Vitebella (talk)Vitebella —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Bingzhang

Hi Onel5969, Can you please kindly enough to explain why this submission is rejected? Thank you. Irene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireneeng (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:31:46, 2 September 2015 review of submission by JasmineJLM7


JasmineJLM7 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, May I ask for a review of the article? I'm the same author of the similar draft, which was actually deleted by Wikipedia. Therefore, this is the update. Please review it soon, thank you:)

JasmineJLM7 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acadamics impact

Dear Onel,

with your last cleanup you accidentally deleted my last comment - I have added our conversation again below - thank you for your time and attention.

—————————

Thank you for re-rewiewing my article:

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


I have gone through the notability rules now for the third time and asking myself what else to do to comply with them: I found the following: "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.

->> I thought that this could be proved by accessing the kvk (German university meta search engine - see the references) and showing the circulation of a textbook within German university libraries. This information should be reliable - or do you see any doubts?

5. Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments.-->> I tried to prove this by the official website of the university - why should a german state institution give false information on its website? Logically wiki states in its rules: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." So what else can I do? I have referenced the article, given numerous publications, researched the circulation of textbooks - what else could be done? Thank you so much!

− 89.0.28.28 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

− − : Hi. Check out a google scholar search. While you can't cite the search directly, it can help reviewers determine the notability of scholars (based on how often their works are cited. When it gets to that level, I usually let another editor who has more expertise in academics review. Here's a link. I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

− − : Thank you for you nice comment. As I would base the notability as suggested in the rules by the circulation of the textbook that is just what I did. The kvk (http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/kvk.html) is a german meta seaech engine powered by one of the leading technical universities in Germany. I just searched one textbook in the latest edition (there are two which have reached 4 and 5 editions respectively) and according to the kvk are circulated quite widely. With "wilhelm schneider" and google scholar (thank you!) you also find several articles and citations. With "wilhelm schneider" and jahresabschluss also some citations. Hope this helps 89.0.34.251 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:46, 2 September 2015 review of submission by Rockefellerbm


Rockefellerbm (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Hi Onel5969,[reply]

I'm not necessarily requesting a re-review, I'd just like a better understanding of why it is that you declined my article.

You say that the page reads like an advertisement when I use hardly any subjective language. I simply outline the company's purpose, their history, and a few other pertinent items. I can't think of any portion of the article that portrays the company in a positive or negative light. So, if you could point to a specific paragraph or sentence that you take issue with, I would appreciate it.

You also mention that I do not include enough reliable independent sources. I recognize that on the first submission this was true, but I amended this issue prior to the second submission. I list: Reuters, yahoo finance, bloomberg, thebaltimoresun, and the company's website. I would say that all of those sources are both independent and reliable; certainly enough to establish notability.

So if you could just show me what it is that I'm missing in these areas, that would be great.

Rockefellerbm

Hi there. I have been receiving decline notices for an article I am trying to write (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Wickham) regarding notability. I am not sure where else to add, all of the references relating to him are directorial credits for work he has accomplished, including Grammy nominations and large big-screen films for some of the world's most famous musical artists. I'm not sure what to add if these credits are not enough, since to me this level of achievement equates to notability... Please let me know if you have any suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PG1598 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and Holly

Hi Onel,

I noticed you undid my Ben and Holly edit... Yes I think I got confused between Ben and Holly and the Hunger Games, always confuse the two. They're just so similar, don't you think?

Anyway, thanks for that

Not2helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not2helpful (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aabbsshhiisshh/Royal_Industries_Indonesia

Hi, Greetings, as a new article contributor I would like you to re-review the article I have resubmitted and suggest if I need to address anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aabbsshhiisshh/Royal_Industries_Indonesia Aabbsshhiisshh (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=679103713"