User talk:Flat Out

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cybotik (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 25 January 2017 (→‎Draft: Whiskey Bards). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




It is approximately 9:02 PM where this user lives (Melbourne, Australia). [refresh]




Talk Page Archives

thanks

cool, thanks

take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisartguy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Ryder article

Hello.

I've added an additional reference, this time from The Huffington Post.

Irving Malin is a legendary critic, who's listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Malin

I also included D’Aoust’s review from the BROOKLYN RAIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brooklyn_Rail), and Robert Glick's review in AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Book_Review). These are all reputable sources, as demonstrated that they've been vetted as reputable by Wikipedia itself.

Please advise.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmadera (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:37:57, 19 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cybotik


Draft: Whiskey Bards

Please re-evaluate my draft according to the same standards by which the Wikipedia pages below were accepted. All of them have fewer sources than I do, and some of them use the same sources. You cannot claim I have too few sources when the articles below do not have as many. And you cannot claim that my sources are inadequate as some of them are shared with the articles below. I now have eight more sources than the first article on the list below, and the one valid source on that page is also one of my sources. If that article was acceptable, with only one valid source, then my article should be acceptable, since I used precisely the same source. If my article is not acceptable, then you are using different standards than other editors.

This Wikipedia page, Going_Overboard_(album), has only two sources, one of them invalid, the other is also one of my sources. If it is a good enough source for an already accepted page, it should be good enough for mine.

This music article, Rubber_Biscuit has only three sources, one of them You Tube.

This article about a band, Sparx_(US_band), has only two sources, plus a link to the band's website.

This musical show, EFX_(show) has only two sources.


Cybotik (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cybotik and thanks for your post. Pointing out the poor quality of existing articles is not a case for your draft being accepted. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you can see how the draft meets WP:MUSICBIO I would be happy to take another look. Flat Out (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The musical group my article is about meets this criterion. My reference to the other Wikipedia pages was not so much about the pages themselves, but about the particular sources they used.
rambles.net has been acceptably used as a source more than twenty times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=Rambles.net&searchToken=5shz9k66y4k300jvxsq8fu6f6
Bilgemunky has been acceptably used as a source five times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bilgemunky&go=Go&searchToken=21c6vutmvj5x0jzih41zpalgj
My article uses both of these sources. That makes multiple sources. They are non-trivial, published works, specifically album reviews. They are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the group. That fits the first criterion for musicians and ensembles. And since Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that an article about a musician or ensemble may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria, according to WP:MUSICBIO, then an article needs to meet only one. My article meets the first one.
Cybotik (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:46:21, 23 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Quokka123


Hi Flat Out, thanks for reviewing my article! Can you help me a bit so that I can improve it? You mentioned that: "Most of what is written is unsourced, and where sourced the link to the subject is tenuous. The History section, for example, barely mentions the subject." Do you mean that I need more sources for the History section? Should I focus more on the impact that Silverstack had on the challenges of digital film production? I had been in contact with the user OneI5969 who reviewed the article before and was told to take a look at the article of Final Draft as an example. Since this is my first article on wikipedia, I'd be very grateful for any advice! Thanks in advance!

Quokka123 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quokka123 and thanks for your post. Any article should be a summary of what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Until reliable sources are writing about Silverstack, its too soon to be creating an article. The history section is interesting but it's selective, and it unclear how Silverstack features in that history. Pls keep in mind, this is not the big issue - its the lack of reliable sources. Flat Out (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flat_Out&oldid=761871106"