User talk:Arthur goes shopping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Feb 24th 2015, approval of submission by MunozPinedo[edit]

Thank you so much for approving my article about Douglas R. Green. --Munozpinedo (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)munozpinedo

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

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

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

Draft: Doppler Studios[edit]

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

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

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

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

Keaton Henson[edit]

thank you thank you thank you for submitting the page, I've been trying to finish it for ages and finally it's up. thank you so much. Keaton Henson finally gets the Wikipedia page he rightfully deserves.

British Isles[edit]

The geographic term British Isles is no longer used.

17:57:11, 26 June 2015 review of submission by Mdenaux[edit]


I removed lines that were in any way promotional and the article is now limited to facts about the doctor. Could you re-review and let me know if there are still elements that are too much like an ad? Mdenaux (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Draft no longer has a problem with promotional tone. However, it still lacks references to significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, so it would be best if a different reviewer carried out the next review to establish whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards or has any other issues. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears to still be awaiting re-review, but do I need to do anything to request a new reviewer?

No, you do not need to do anything. It will be re-reviewed when the next reviewer gets around to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

10:21:58, 1 July 2015 review of submission by SeamusCro[edit]


SeamusCro (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing my recent article submission.

I am looking for a bit more information on why the article was rejected? Is it the whole article or just certain parts of it?

Thanks,

Seamus

I would say about 50% of the paragraphs in the current Draft still contain promotional language to some degree. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

15:11:23, 9 July 2015 review of submission by Bjfamilia[edit]


hello, my only evidence or reference for my submission is linkedin. Although i can provide copies of my credentials if needed for further clarification.Therefore my question is : what do i do to add to my reference as i just have linkedin as my only reference? Bjfamilia (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If the only published information about Sadiq is on LinkedIn, then Wikipedia does not need to have an article about Sadiq. You may also need to read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

13:09 est, July 9, 2015- Help to get my article accepted[edit]

Good Afternoon Arthur thanks for quick review of my article about ValueCentric although I'm disappointed it got rejected. Any input on how many more references I'd need to make it more notable or if you personally think I should add anything to the article? This is my first article I have ever written so any help you can provide would be great.

Thank you, Liam Liam.Callahan (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In this case it is less about numbers of references than about quality of references. What is required is independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. Almost all of the sources you provided thus far appear to be news outlets merely summarizing press releases issued by the organization itself or its partners and customers. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok I'll work on it then. Thanks for the help then.

Liam.Callahan (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Christmas with Scotty McCreery[edit]

If you want to revert edits, at least know what the guidelines are. Reviews are opinions, it is not the same thing as facts or BLP issues presented in article. They are reliable as statements of the author per WP:RSOPINION, and the criteria is whether the author is notable per WP:NEWSORG, and that would be a reason for removing it, not whether the source is Yahoo Voice. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo Voices does not fall into the same category as "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers". On what grounds do you argue that the author is "notable" in this instance? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A prime example does not mean the only example. The reviewer appears to be a writer who have written many reviews, but whether he is notable is arguable, and that you can reasonably cite as the reason for removal. I have no problem with you removing edits, just give a proper reason so that other people don't waste time spending time looking up things. Hzh (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Many reviews on... Yahoo Voices. It's interesting that so many reviews published on Yahoo Voices seem to give much higher "ratings" to commercial works than reliable sources do. I wonder why that might be. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


11:48, July 10, 2015- Help to get my article accepted[edit]

Good Morning Arthur I would like to thank you for your review of my article about the company I'm working with. I've try to make my best collecting all datas we managed to get for our 100th birthday of experience last year. The point is that it's really difficult to find information on the public web because the segment of the company is too technical. This is really not as Coca Cola for example. I managed to find some other sources but it comes from French, German and English newspaper. Please, could you have a look again and tell me how is it now?

Thank you very much for your kind help, Adrien

Desoutter Tools (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Adrien. Not just the sources are a problem, but also the tone. Encyclopedia articles should be written in neutral factual tone, not with phrases like "True to its philosophy" and "Constantly perfected" and "Since then it constantly innovates these production lines" and "Check out our Virtual Showroom".
Sources do not have to be in English to be acceptable... although it is preferred... nor do they have to be online.
You should take a look at recognized Wikipedia Good Articles about businesses, listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. For example Holt Manufacturing Company. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, thank you very much for the time you accorded me, I'll try to improve this presentation as best as I can.
I wish you to have a great day,
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien at Desoutter (talkcontribs) 13:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

11:48, July 10, 2015- Guide me to get my article accepted[edit]

HI arthur,

My article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Giresh_Naik_K&redirect=no) has declined, reason more references required, As this personality is an upcoming bollywood movie director, his first movie is scheduled to release in aug 2015, i have given new references for your information, www.dnaindia.com is an leading news paper in india. reference: http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=5&edcode=1310009&eddate=2015-06-28 kindly check the article" being a star child Infuence works" this article is about movie HERO & his film which mentions my it indicates the name of the "director" Giresh Naik K.

Hello Giresh Naik K. I accept that epaper.dnaindia.com can be a reliable independent source in some circumstances, but unfortunately I am unable to access the content at present due to its use of Adobe Flash. In any case, a single independent reliable source mentioning the person, is not enough by itself to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It would be quite normal and expected that if a director's first movie has not even yet been released, there might not yet be sufficient coverage of that director in independent reliable sources for Wikipedia to be able to have an article about them. Incidentally, your username and your Draft title being the same, suggest that you may need to read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

14:40:17, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Chase2015[edit]


Chase2015 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting a review of the article because the person that wrote this article did not use the correct format and wrote the entire thing incorrectly. So please consider reviewing it once more since the entire article is now revised. thank you for your help.Chase2015 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

08:02:44, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Smustieles[edit]


Hi Arthur, thank you for reviewing my submission and for the feedback.

Are there any particular aspects of the submission that are more like an advertisement? If you have the time and would like to rewrite it I would be more than grateful?

Smustieles (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Smustieles (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you have fixed all or most of the problems with promotional wording now. However, unfortunately, the Draft does not currently provide evidence of sufficient coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

01:51:22, 23 July 2015 review of submission by 108.6.16.29[edit]


Hello, I added the footnotes you requested, please let me know if there is anything else that needs changes. Thank you for all your help. 108.6.16.29 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

108.6.16.29 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying someone used to be a drug dealer is not something you can do on Wikipedia without directly citing it to an independent reliable source which says so. I am not even sure that the New York Daily News is a sufficiently reliable source for such a claim. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

20:19:39, 27 July 2015 review of submission by Klw565[edit]


We are not particularly requesting a re-review, we are just asking for help in what we should edit to have our draft not appear as an advertisement. We took care to make sure that all the information we wrote is factual, so we are just a bit confused as to which phrases/sentences we need to change in order to (hopefully) have our article eventually approved. Thank you in advance for any pointers you could give us! Klw565 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The problems for me were the following phrases:
  • "customized, tax-aware investment solutions employing a quantitative, multi-factor investment process that is grounded in economic theory and academic research"
  • "has more than two decades of experience creating solutions for the challenges faced by today’s investors"
Also the lack of references to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organisation. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the Signpost[edit]

Thanks for volunteering to help out with "In the Media" for the Signpost. You are welcome to contribute as much or as little as you want to that section. Here's a short style/process guide I will update soon, but you are more than welcome to jump right in. You can find links to potential stories to write about listed at the bottom of the current ITM draft Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to take a look soon! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

08:12:17, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Robin2437[edit]


hi

my submission was about an actress who had a good and full career. i provided references, and checked everything as much as possible. why has it not been accepted?

if i have made a coding error (and it is pretty complicated) please give me an example of what i should have done?

thanks

Robin (Robin2437) mail@cherryheaven.co.uk

Robin2437 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles are of no use in proving the notability of a topic. Take a look at Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET to see how to make wikilinks and for other formatting. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)