Jump to content

User talk:AngusWOOF

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iorek100 (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 12 November 2019 (→‎least dangerous assumption (draft): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Draft: BAITSSS

Hi AngusWOOF,

Your suggestions had been incorporated in this draft, please let me know if it had been improved or anything needs to be done.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk • contribs)

129.130.88.169, how does "Estimating Water use by Vegetation is crucial for conserving water, managing Irrigation, and acquiring Water right information of individuals for Legal purpose. Farmers need these information to apply accurate Water in Crop for optimum Crop yield...." introduce what the BAITSSS is? It should start with the second paragraph and be more concise. It needs a history of the term / project. Who created it? How was it funded? How was it rolled out? Is it still active? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I have incorporated your various suggestions. I would appreciate if you review again.

Not sure about history and rolled out, this draft is based on the fact what is found in the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

129.130.88.169, the article already has a bit of the history and origins in the lead paragraph. It just needs to be explained in better detail in a History section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added small section of history as per found in web. Can you please let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know what is the problem in this draft, I have updated some? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IDKANS, it still looks overly technical like a journal report, see WP:NOTJOURNAL. It doesn't need to be a status update or a mirror of a website. I'm also concerned if any of the editors on this are connected to the program or the research group. If so, they should declare WP:COI. It's still in the submission queue, so other AFC reviewers can take a look from a fresh perspective. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about all these micro details, but for me, it looks a nice model description and better than many models described in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you have asked many things to add ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also promotional verbiage in the lead: "The estimation of water use by vegetation is crucial for conserving water, managing Irrigation, acquiring water right information, and crop production.[3][12] Farmers need these information for accurately applying water to crops for optimum yield." Other lines / bullet points read like they are advocating the advantages or using this model over others. This needs to be rewritten neutrally. Also it should be able to have some criticism from others in the scientific community. See WP:PROUD AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it seems accurate statement to me. "The estimation of water use by vegetation is crucial for conserving water, managing Irrigation, acquiring water right information, and crop production", there might many other literature to support that.

Regarding the bullet, I think, they are trying to make some distinctions between other models, at least it is from the published manuscripts, not sure about the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the bullets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IDKANS, I just realized the formatting of some other threads got mixed up with the BAITSSS one. Anyway, my point about the "estimation is crucial" phrase, and others like it, is that it carries a promotional advocacy tone. It's like saying "Clean drinking water is good for your health." See WP:NPOV. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited as per your points. Not sure, what can be done to make better. Overall, it seems widely published and mentioned in various places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IDKANS, another option is to put those opinionated statements as quotes from one of the researchers or reviewing writers, like: Ramesh said that "the estimation of water use by vegetation is crucial for conserving water, managing Irrigation, acquiring water right information, and crop production." (provided he actually said that) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think, removal of that line is safer. Thanks, Overall good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is that cite error referring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, anything needs to be done on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems, this draft is pending for year, not sure, the expectations of reviewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKANS (talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Page

Dear Please Unblock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_Megh_Arya to recreation because My Article is written by Wikipedia Experience Team from reliable Source

User:Liz Pls Remove Protected Tag.

You need to visit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rahul Megh Arya Page and plead your case there on why this should stay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create any more drafts for Rahul Megh Arya. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suite and Sour (The Loud House)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overnight_Success_(The_Loud_House)&action=edit

This episode is sumbitted to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Why Suite and Sour was declined ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.92.102.241 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

41.92.102.241, "Overnight Success" has a reception section that shows how the episode is separately notable for its LGBT themes and coverage. "Suite and Sour" doesn't show anything to stand out from the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need a reception in this draft for it's inclusion in Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.92.102.241 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, but it needs to show how this is separately notable from the list of episodes. A simple TV rating isn't enough. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This rating can be incrusted in this draft ?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6355288/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.92.20.138 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Regular_Epic_Final_Battle

There is not reception in this page

I just want to insert this draft to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.92.20.138 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

41.92.20.138, as I stated, a simple TV rating isn't enough to show notability. Do not reference IMDb as a source. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reception. Do I need to add the website for this reception ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.214.57 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

197.253.214.57, I suggest going to the current MFD and explaining why the article should be independently notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this draft is now deleted per the results of the MFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Manes Plum

I just spent some time trying to put Nancy Manes Plum in some kind of shape for publishing. Then I saw your declination. I am not disagreeing with you, just admitting my own ignorance. I don't see how anything in that article (as I reformatted it) is a promotion. As I read it, the biggest problem is finding references for notability, but the woman has died, so I can't understand the promotion. Nor do I see anything unusual in the verbage, that would indicate it is promotional, however I am inexperienced at evaluating articles and would appreciate any guidance, at the moment I am left scratching my head trying to figure out what is wrong with the article.Thanks. By the way check out my suggested edit on his talk page User talk:Steve Michelman Oldperson (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldperson, please see WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NCREATIVE and indicate on the article how she meets the criteria specified there. The biography looks like it was copied from some magazine article, complete with two-letter abbreviations for US states. That's what is giving the impression that it is advertising/promotional. It also needs more sources than a single magazine article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oldperson, please also note there are sections that appear to have been copied over from the website article at https://birgitzipser.com/2019/09/ that would be considered a copyright violation or close paraphrasing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BTW I am not advocating for anything. I am sincere, I am on a learning curve, actually I am truly awed by the ability of admins and RfC reviwers to assess an article. A lot of criteria to learn and absorb. I am not sure that my aged mind is up to the task. What gives me the jollies is helping people who are trying to publish their first article, but to do that I really have to understand the process and requirment for RfC review better. So I ask these questions. As regards the info you provided to me. It would be helpful if this was shared with Steve Michelman. Do you mind if I do that. Your comments to me were "meatier" than your comment on his talk page. Sincere thanks for the education. I intend to study the ref's carefully.Oldperson (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you are good.I read that link you provided, If anything it is a copyvio, almost word for word.. He could have done some paraphrasing. I am awed that you were able to find and read and compare the two.Oldperson (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Michelman: on this. I think Steve has corrected this already, but just in case. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Area International Children's Film Festival

AngusWOOF, thank you so very much for taking the time to review my page for Wikipedia inclusion, and also for your specific feedback. I'd like to discuss your note: "Need more news sources besides the local papers."

Most film festivals are regional events and thus only get local coverage. Only the largest festivals, such as the Sundance Film Festival, Toronto International Film Festival, or South By Southwest, garner significant national coverage. The local press links I have used are consistent with the references used by almost every other small-to-medium-sized film festival on Wikipedia, and those other festival pages are what I have been using as my examples. I just added two new links from two of the biggest major regional newspapers, but I want to make sure that this is adequate before I resubmit. Your feedback on this would be very welcome!

BTW, I see that you're a fan of The Facts of Life (TV series) -- I should tell you about my personal connection to one of the main performers from the show...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bay_Area_International_Children%27s_Film_Festival

FilmFestFan (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFestFan, East Bay Times and Mercury News are good, but I wanted to see if there were more national articles. A quick search brings up Animation Magazine [1] [2] and Kinema.sk (Slovakia) [3], The Epoch Times [4] although that one's borderline for reliability, it does show interest from outside. I want to make sure it's not just the local art and wine festival type of event. See WP:EVENT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, AngusWOOF, I resubmitted and included your suggestions! FilmFestFan (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool that you know one of the cast members. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Warden Wikipedia page

Hi there - Could you or someone make very specific editing suggestions. I studied a number of Wikipedia pages for Texas musicians and used them as models in writing this page. The sections of information included for Monte Warden appear in the Wikipedia pages of other Texas musicians with decades-long careers like him, so I am a bit stumped.

For example, the page for George Strait was a model I used. Could you please take a look at the opening section of that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Strait The tone of the language on that page is very similar -- one could say it's magazine style. So I worked to apply that same standard.

FYI, I am not being compensated for creating this page. I put a lot of research into it because Monte Warden is truly a notable musician, in the Austin, Texas music scene, and doesn't have a Wikipedia page. As his notable achievements go beyond The Wagoneers, they can't be contained on the band's page.

Would you be willing to redline the exact language that you believe needs to go? That would be super helpful. Thank you! Katherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgregoratx (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kgregoratx, It's mainly the multiple name drops, like "look at all the people he knows". Also the lead sentence talking about multi award-winning (see WP:PEACOCK), and "A band leader and live performer “known for his animated stage presence” that comes out of advertising/promotional material. That said, there should be some good potential with articles from Billboard magazine that focus on Warden's solo career, band and albums. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I deleted all the content that you suggested, including that quote from the newspaper. Cut the named associated artists, just kept a minimum to establish notability/credibility. Katherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgregoratx (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kgregoratx, can you remove references to Discogs and also the one about the business office? The latter is a source that isn't accessible or verifiable. Also take a look at other musician articles to see how they are structured so you can redo the headers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Smarsh

Hi - looking for a few pointers on this one.

Ms Smarsh's book was reviewed by NYT, Guardian, WashPost, LATimes, etc etc, sold very well, and was long-listed for this literary award and that, and has an article at Heartland (nonfiction book). Hmm, I see that article doesn't list the award stuff so I should enhance a bit. I'm a bit surprised, Heartland is definitely one of the more talked-about books of 2018-2019, certainly "notable" in the vernacular sense - does having written a notable book not make one notable?

I think being published in the NYT (several times), New Yorker, Guardian (several times) and lots of other places, should establish pretty high visibility as a journalist. The Guardian has an "author" page listing all a writer's works [5], so I guess I should use that. Got any recommendations for the best citations to establish "visibility as a journalist?"

As for the politician thing, 2020 United States Senate election in Kansas also lists Smarsh. Tim Bray (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bray, as she's an author/journalist, the notability criteria would be mainly from WP:AUTHOR (WP:JOURNALIST points to same). Author would be more than just that the book was published and reviewed. So that's a different standard than the book that she wrote WP:BKCRIT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ghost songs review

Hello ! I've changed my citations and added little details to my article (color, introduction, names...) It would be nice if you could review it, and maybe accept this new submission :) ! thanks !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_songs_recorded_by_Ghost — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHGS3000 (talk • contribs)

I've accepted the article and added a Loudwire list to help beef up notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Brownlee COI Tag Removal

Hello, AngusWOOF.

I'm reaching out to you as the original reviewer of this article, which has now been accepted, with a question about removal of the COI tag.

You counseled me at the time that the COI tag could be removed "after a neutral editor has scrubbed the article". The reviewer, Utopes, who moved the article into live space, removed the tag, stating, "Checked every source, and the article appears to be neutral, as claims are referenced. Removing COI tag."

However, a second editor, One15969, undid the removal of the COI tag. When I queried this editor, they replied, "The COI tag is not there to show that there is a bias (there isn't in my opinion), but simply that a major contributor to the article has a COI." They also stated, "If another editor, without COI, removes the tag, I won't complain about it, but my interpretation of COI is that it should stay."

I've read the information in the link from the COI tag, Learn more about how and when to remove this template message, and it states "Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently".

So, I'd like to get your opinion: If an article has been deemed to be without bias (by two editors), can a COI tag be removed because the issue (neutral point of view) has been addressed? And, if so, would you review the article once again and remove the tag?

Please advise, thank you.

MBAWilbins (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MBAWilbins, it depends on Utopes, Onel5969 and other neutral editors. If they've scrubbed the article and checked for neutrality then they can fill in the connected contributor tag "checked by" section on the talk page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF:, I'd check Onel5969's talk page to be filled in on the details here, which have been discussed. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like both editors there agree that the article hasn't been significantly rewritten to the point where the COI tag can be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's Everything (album) Draft

Hi, pretty sure I've done all I can do here. The album isn't out and was just announced about 6 hours ago, so i'm not sure how I find reviews. I have provided reliable sources to prove notability of the album and artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey125a (talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for reviews then. Also you can add reliable sources describing the development and production of the album. Who put it together, why was it made, and so forth? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joey125a, it looks like it's in mainspace now, so you can add reviews when it's close to released and chartings later. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello AngusWOOF,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 803 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Titiksha (Festival)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to check my article on Titiksha fest. It hurts to see it rejected but I hope you'll help me fix it. I wanted to ask if you can provide me with some example of reliable sources for which the article was rejected. I am looking to add the fest to the list of tech fests in India found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technical_festivals_in_India Local news which is working for the last 54 years should be pretty reliable I think. Considering the scale of the event, It's hard to find a national and international post about it but I still think considering it's biggest college event of the whole state of J&K and happens annually should be in Wikipedia with other technical fests. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Ahmed 00, I suggest reading WP:NEVENT and look for those national and international newspapers that cover the event in detail. It's very rare when a school-specific event gets Wikipedia-level coverage. Usually those will redirect to the organization that is sponsoring the event or the school itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, I see. Where I believe that it's not a big event compared to other events but it still is happening every year from the last 11 years. I think that makes it notable enough to be added on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(festival) set a precedent that articles like that are allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talk • contribs)
Shoaib Ahmed 00, then please find the news articles outside of the region that cover it. Otherwise it might be closer to WP:MILL like the local school festival. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Boomer article

Hello, May I ask what you mean by 'external news sources'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguaddict (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linguaddict, see WP:SECONDARY. It's mentioned briefly in some of the articles, but need more to show widespread use. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, Thanks for your help, I fixed it. Linguaddict (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linguaddict, it looks like the article is up and running now, and not needing a redirect anymore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generation of filmography tables

What method have you been using for your conversions of filmographies to the table format that I described on the WP:A&M talk page? There are a few anime seiyuu articles that I would like to either learn to convert or direct to you, depending on your answer. — Goszei (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goszei, it depends on how many entries need to be done. For the filmographies of folks who have a ton of references, I have this scheme in Excel where I paste in VADB results, rearrange columns, translate them into English, sort and then insert the format. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I think I will this leave this task to you and other editors in that case. If you are willing to share your Excel scheme, perhaps I could help out as well; either way, I've generated these two pageview lists as a proposed to-do list for future conversions: one for Category:Japanese voice actresses and one for Category:Japanese male voice actors. — Goszei (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goszei, you can go to WP:ANIME/BIO and there's a request list you can add the actors that you want me to try to construct a table for. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goszei, if you want to make it simpler, you can copy over a filmography table and a few entries such as that of Aya Hirano, then redo the other entries in the filmography to the same format. Don't worry about release dates if you don't know them, just leave them blank. You can also look up their entry on GamePlaza Haruka and then Google translate that entire table to get an idea what the works are. You could also look up their resume and just translate those. Usually those are the most notable entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declining my draft.

Hello, you declined my draft stating unless being in 1,2 or 3rd place that my article is not notable enough

but on wiki's guidelines a musical artist is relevant to have an article about them if they Have been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

the person i wrote the article about has been on 3 major TV show's and also appeared in a feature film.

you gave me no help with my article just simply declined and made an offensive comment with your opinion on why you chose to decline it.

this person also has verification on social platforms but you simply choose to decline

Liz — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantLizzie (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GrantLizzie, substantial segment is more like a national news segment like in 60 Minutes, not in the context of the contest show. Social platforms are not reliable sources to show notability. You need external news sources that write up specifically about the person, but they can't be WP:ROUTINE coverage as typically given to sports athletes and contestant of the week. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:50:26, 5 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wcg98


Hi, I updated the page on CodeSonar following your review on Sept 12. It's still awating review to be published. Can you take a look at it please?

Wcg98 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mychal Mulder

Any reason you unilaterally deleted this page? There are plenty of players who never made the NBA who nonetheless pass GNG. Mulder is one. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's moved to draft. Please provide sources to show he meets WP:GNG regardless of that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the article? There are plenty of sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They don't meet WP:NBASKETBALL and are WP:ROUTINE coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improved 'Yusuf Magaji Bichi'

Hello AngusWOOF,

I have improved my article 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yusuf_Magaji_Bichi' as you made some corrections. Please, can you assist me and check it again.Ibnadambici (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibnadambici, it still reads like a resume. Major parts of it need to be rewritten in prose. Readers don't need to know the exact occupational titles. The article needs more external news sources explaining what he has done that has made him notable, not just press release material that he now has a new position or is speaking on behalf of the organization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hua Wu (Computer Scientist) Article

Hi, thank you for reviewing my article quickly. It's my first article, so please forgive me for the mistaken Linked-in link, but I believe that Hua Wu is significant enough to warrant an article as she was in the "women in red" list. Also, any help with the article would be greatly appreciated Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchnauzerr (talk • contribs)

Making the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red list doesn't guarantee notability. Can you find other news articles that focus on her career that aren't executive position announcements or press releases? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Nail

See my: "Draft:Thomas Nail". The article has been rejected twice but no one has told me how to fix the issues. One comment suggests that academics need a "named chair" to be listed, which is clearly no the case for most entries. Another says I need reliable independent sources that are verifiable—but that was what I thought I just added with links to peer reviewed journals, etc. I am super confused. Other entries are way less supported than mine. Can you tell me specifically what I need to do here? Its all so mysterious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHSanborn (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NACADEMIC and indicate how this professor meets any of the criteria there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improved 'Yusuf Magaji Bichi'

Hello AngusWOOF,

Thanks for your contributions! I have improved my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yusuf_Magaji_Bichi based on your corrections, can you please recheck it for me again? This article seems the same with the biography of the previous DGs State Security Service (Nigeria). Ibnadambici (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:28:24, 8 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Satellitemusic


Is the referenced video of her performing on American Idol Season 13 not credible evidence of her being on the show?

Satellitemusic (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satellitemusic, she might have been on the show in one of the early rounds, but didn't made top 16, and certainly isn't a finalist per WP:MUSICBIO. Are there other articles to show notability towards WP:MUSICBIO? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Bhatt wiki

Is it possible I can get your help to rewrite the Raoul Bhatt Wikipedia article as I don’t know how? Tonystargazer (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonystargazer, I suggest you try rewriting it without using any primary sources. No websites, social media, or press releases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: ISA 315: Identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement through understanding the entity and its environment

Hello Angus,

Thanks for the feedback on my article, I'll work on improving the references, citations and context of the article before submitting it for the next review.

--Anthony Mutua (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toriko split?

I think we might need a consensus regarding split of the Toriko manga and anime series into different aspects (i.e. a manga page, an anime page and an episode list). As it stands now, the List of Toriko episodes is essentially an anime series article; the production was originally added without a proper consensus and most of it will need to be moved to a separate article (in this case, Toriko (TV series)). I'll see what can be done. I've also contacted Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for their thoughts on the matter. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sjones23, the original action from last month (October) was that the List of Toriko episodes was boldly renamed to Toriko (TV series), which I stopped and the result was the Request Move. That resulted in a month-long debate over whether the articles should follow WP:ANIME or WP:TV standards. During this period, the LoE article was reformatted to have the (TV series) sections with Production, Casting, Reception, Broadcast and other sections, but was reverted a few times in case the LoE was going to remain a separate article. The result by the admin was no consensus but that all parties are willing to try a standalone (TV series) article. So without having to reopen the entire box, I suggest that TV series be developed proper and to leave LoE alone. Maybe this can be attempted in a draft? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: I see; I was quite busy with other things, so I missed the discussion. Given your thoughts on the matter, do you think we should consider restoring the article to the way it was before the situation happened as per WP:STATUSQUO? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sjones23, I did fix up the LoE table structure and home media so that stuff should stay. But I think a draft would be a good idea as per Draft:School Rumble (TV series) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: My original draft was located at User:Sjones23/List of Toriko episodes (check the history page for it; it's a redirect now), but it was way back in 2011 when I spun it off from the main series article. Do you think we should restore the DVD cover and use the One Piece (season 5) (An FL) and the Naruto episode FLs as models to make it a potential FL? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sjones23, you can check with the others on the talk page for LoE. If there's enough material to create (TV series) then it would be put in the draft, and the LoE can then stay more like the LoE. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as a heads up, the WP:VPM discussion was closed with the result being that the project is "Interconnected, not subordinate". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sjones23, regarding the DVD covers, you and the others are good at ensuring those aren't having issues with NFCC or Commons, so I'll support whatever you want to place for those. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Like I said, I think we should restore the DVD cover for the article once the dispute has been worked out. I think everyone involved should review WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN, as noted in Anomie's closing statement regarding WP:ANIME. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm creating a new draft at User:Sjones23/Toriko (TV series) and have restored the LoE to the WP:STATUSQUO version for now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:57:07, 11 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Vladjanicek66



Vladjanicek66 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain the process to me as I have never created a Wikipedia page before and the conventions totally lose me.

1. I accept we do not have many citations yet, its early stages. Is there a way to hold this page from deletion until we can provide these?

2. While I understand you are treating this as a "spinoff band", technically this is incorrect as I never left the original band. As with many acts, one member used the band name without authorisation and traded under this name. This current band comprises most of the original lineup. The only reason we are called "The Nosferatu" and not "Nosferatu" is to protect ourselves from malicious legal nonsense and draw a line under matters.

3. If I copy and paste this article into a Sandbox, can I later republish if I can add more citations?

Vladjanicek66 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladjanicek66, here's my reply:
  • 1) You can continue to develop the draft where it is or move it to your sandbox. If nothing's been done on the draft for six months, then it might be deleted, but those can be easily recovered.
  • 2) As for the band naming, that's rather confusing and depends on who thinks they are the original band and which is a spinoff. If both are claiming to be the original band, then it should be explained how there are now two separate incarnations of the band. Depending on how much can be written, this can mean a split article or perhaps be merged into the same original article.
  • 3) You can copy it over to a sandbox, but it'll still be treated like a draft when you resubmit it.

Hope this helps clarify things. The second question you might want to ask around to other editors on how best to handle it, and if there are similar bands that were in this situation, you can copy their model. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like The Beach Boys#2000s: Band split? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Olivia Rodrigo

Where do you think we are with this one now? She has three bona fide "significant" roles released now, so she certainly technically meets WP:NACTOR. And the High School musical series is getting a lot of press... But when I look for profiles of just Rodrigo, I'm still not finding much. So... thoughts? (TIA!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, I see [6] which is echoed on TV Insider. That's got her birthplace but a paragraph-sized profile of what she's been in. I'm hoping there are some more detailed articles though. Here's a profile from See Jane / Geena Davis Institute [7] This article on AV Club is headlined how she and othe cast members are already stars [8] Lots of "meet the cast" articles from mainstream media though. Here's one from Columbus Dispatch about her career with Madison Hu on Bizaardvark [9] (same article at Fresno Bee [10] ) Here's one for Paved New World in J-14 magazine [11] and Variety [12] She in a ton of Just Jared Jr. blog articles, although that's not that good a source. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think one good profile piece or interview (from a decent-quality source) would get this one over the hump. But I've yet to find one that I really think does it (this LA Times piece makes some mention of her, but still not in enough detail)... However, it's possible with the Disney+ debut that somebody will write something substantive up on her over the next few weeks. I'll try to remember to keep an eye out... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a press release that mentions her middle school. [13] and this interview talks about that she's Filipino [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sweety High isn't the most RSP of sources but still worth an interview [15] Video interview with ET Canada [16] Popsugar cast interview [17] It looks like co-star Madison Hu has her own page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tfue

I've nominated into AFD this person, this is believed to be non notable due to huges unreliable sources like forbes and etc there, pls create Afd on that page, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.150.100.49 (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

least dangerous assumption (draft)

Hi AngusWOOF,

Thanks for your (very rapid) reviews of the page I'm proposing. The turnaround is appreciated.

This is an important page to get on Wikipedia. The phrase passes the criteria notability, verifiability, and reliability of sources. It's an important concept and it should be documented. I am at a bit of a loss to know where to go with it. As far as I can see I have set the context clearly (it's a pedagogic concept, particularly important in educational policy areas such as inclusion, and used in the filed of intellectual disability and communication disorder). I've described the contept in an encyclopic way (neutral, reling on reliable secondary sources), saying what it is and illustrating its meaning with an example. I'm not sure waht else I can do. Sure I could write more (way more) but some emtries surely need to be terse and to the point (I don't see what a history of its coining adds to the understanding of what it is). And I've never seen a journal abstract looking like this draft (maybe in terms of length, but not in terms of content). So I'd very much appreciate figuring out how to get this moving in a way that enables a terse, informative entry to find its place in wikipedia.

I very much appreciate the review process and the shared agenda of ensuring that wikipedia stays what it is intended to be - so none of this is 'moaning'. [[Draft:The_least_dangerous_assumption]

Andy

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&oldid=925792704"