Welcome to Bradv’s Talk Page
Editor of the Week
||Editor of the Week
|Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Editor Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
I nominate Bradv to be Editor of the Week for a number of reasons. I first came across Bradv when he was trying to fix a tag and ended up mediating a dispute admirably. Looking at his contributions (10.000 edits plus), he spends the majority of his time helping, be it at the Teahouse or at Articles for Creation. He has been away for a while, but has recently returned and I'd like it known how much his work is appreciated.
|Improves the encyclopedia
|Editor of the Week
for the week beginning May 8, 2016
|10K to mainspace, uses the summary 97% of the time, recently re-activated, fights vandalism. The majority of his time is spent helping other editors.
Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Congrats! Welcome back, thank you for your help and hope you stay around. - NQ (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Congrats! Nice job. (And thank you for reviewing my AfC Draft:Maryland Psychiatric Society. I will improve the sources.) Drdaviss (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
14:40:45, 28 July 2016 review of submission by 22.214.171.124
I would like to engage with you on your rejection of the draft Appian Corporation page. You rejected based on a lack of notability (lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) and added the following comment:
"Please fix the style of references to conform to guidelines, and remove unreliable sources, such as LinkedIn. Also, be sure that every single statement listed in the article has a source (including the InfoBox). Also, if one of the editors is really a paid editor, I am reticent to ever approve this article without substantial review by other editors to make sure that all bias is removed. Bradv 20:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)"
(1) References can be conformed to guidelines. In lieu of the reference to LinkedIn for Appian's employee population, there are alternative sources like CrunchBase, and WashingtonPost  (Midsize company). Other than LinkedIn, do you consider any of the other sources unreliable? The InfoBox contains information that is already in the text and cited (the name of the company, identity of founders, employee size, product categories)
(2) With respect to notability, I note that previous reviewer Tseung Kwan O "had no doubt about the notability of the company"; DGG stated that the company "may possibly" be notable. DGG believed that the numerous references to Appian's software in the independent press were advertising in nature. However, the removal of those references probably has an adverse impact on notability. The language removed was:
The software is used as a platform to develop a variety of applications: Ryder Systems uses Appian to automate paper contracts, log an analyze equipment breakdowns and combine record keeping systems, Vitamin World uses Appian for applications related to store closures and remodeling, the Defense Information Systems Agency uses Appian for contract writing and acquisition applications, Crawford & Company uses Appian to crowdsource insurance adjustments.
Those are references to coverage of usage by Appian by fairly significant national sources: Wall Street Journal, CIO.com, FedScoop. In response to DGG's comments that it was "advertising", the references were removed. If notability is in question, I think those sources should be considered. In addition, please note the additional reference cited in the Tseung Kwan O talk page. I would imagine that source would have been convincing as to notability.
(3) With respect to your comment about one of the editors (including myself) being a paid editor, and your reticence to approve the article in light of that, I refer you to the statement made to DGG:
You also mention WP:NPOV. As you likely well know, there are third parties out there who you can pay to create pages for you. Appian didn't do that - it acted honestly and put in a reference to the fact that the original writer (a lower level marketing person) was paid by the company. In response to two rejections, the article was significantly changed and now reads a very straightforward description of the company and its product. By taking the position that you do, you are encouraging companies to hide their identities or engage third parties to create articles for them. WP:COI is not a prohibition on creating or editing content. If you question the neutrality of a statement, please provide comment and the draft can be revised. If there are the "usual faults of this manner of writing" please highlight them.
I reiterate that WP:COI is not a prohibition on content and that the review process has a significant impact on the neutrality of articles. I have worked now with other editors to revise the content substantially such that it is a neutral representation of the company. In this regard, working with these editors should qualify as "substantial review by other editors."
I have also moved copies of the discussions with other reviewers to the Talk page of the Draft for ease of further reference. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
sorry - the post I created was one of the auto-generation posts you make when you have a rejection. It looks like it messed up the formatting on your talk page. I apologize, but I won't touch because I don't know enough about formatting to fix it.188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @184.108.40.206: Thank you for your comprehensive reply. The two things I am most concerned about are that the references are not properly formatted, and LinkedIn is being used as a source (see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source.)
- For the rest, I have to defer to DGG on whether paid editing is a problem here - I'm just saying that for myself I'm unlikely to endorse it unless no evidence of paid editing can be found in the article, and the article is completely neutral. Bradv 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure where that leaves us. Where do you come out on notability? Would you endorse notability if the substantial references to usage were put back in or is this discussion enough to convince you of notability?
I don't want to re-submit for review unless I know your thoughts on this and can respond to any concerns (the references are an easy fix if I can figure out the guidelines). What do you mean by "no evidence of paid editing"? Do you mean that as a re-statement of WP:NPOV? Do you have any thoughts about the neutrality of the text at this point? As discussed with DGG, the text is drawn from the third party sources. If you mean that to pass your test, none of the text was entered by a paid editor, then I think you are saying the WP:COI is a complete bar on paid editing. Is there a way to submit the text of an article to another reviewer who doesn't know the editor has declared a COI to determine whether a reviewer not knowing of the COI would conclude it's neutral?
Once you post your response, I will post this colloquy on the talk page of the draft for further reviewers. Thank you for your time.220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Except for things like copyvio, the basic reason for rejecting a AfC is that it is not likely to pass WP:AFD. It is not correct to decline due to reference format, or any other error that is fixable in mainspace. For such problems, there are 2 ways to proceed: fix it yourself, before or just after accepting, or tag it and advise the editor what to do about it. (Most reviewers do also decline if the basic article formatting is really awful, on the basis that it is more likely to pass AfD if it looks like a Wikipedia article.)
- Judging whether it will pass AfD is often tricky. AfD is not all that consistent, and for anything that is at all borderline, there's really no way of telling. Most reviewers don't want to have a record of having AfCs they accept subsequently rejected at AfD, and are therefore quite conservative. Myself, I want at least a 2/3 probability, and that seems to be the usual level -- tho it has to be taken as a loose way of thinking about it, because giving a definite number is a little absurd for something that variable.
- Nowadays, promotional articles with borderline notability are often , but not always, rejected, and this aspect must be taken into account also. Certainly articles with a suspicion of undeclared paid editing are very often rejected, and I for one would be very willing to use that as a sole reason at AfD. Of course, declared editing like here is another matter. It's not a factor for rejection, but rather a reason for increasing the degree of skepticism about promotionalism and notability. But it doesn't really cause that much increased scrutiny any more, because we have by now learned that every draft or new article about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing. The basic reason for WP:COI is valid in even with declared COI: that people cannot objectively write about themselves, their companies, etc., or in the case of paid editing, have every incentive to make an article whether or not there are actually sound references. The real advantage of declaring is that you're safe against a block for violating the TOU, & you won't set off a sock puppet investigation.
- In this case, many of the references are not sound. Of the ones in the paragraph I mentioned:
- 5. is a WSJ blog, not WSJ. the article reads like a combined advertorial for the company using the product and the company making it, but it is the only potentially usable reference of the group.
- 6. is a similar advertorial for NBTY , but it merely mentions Appian in part of one sentence,-- 99% of the article is about other commercial and custom software it uses.
- 7. was written by the VP of government sales for Appian, and is therefore worthless to show notability. But it's a rather subtle advertisement: it praises a system presumably making use of Appian cloud software without ever mentioning the company's name or any of its products. What it explicitly praises is using the cloud, which is the aspect where his company's software is relevant.
- 8. is an article on another company written by that company's own CIO. It mentions Appian in one parenthetical clause
- I want to ask 18.104.22.168 -- did you know that ref 7 came from the company itself until I just pointed it out?
- I am not going to review this article again. Of course, any other reviewer can (though not Tseung Kwan O --after complaints from multiple experienced people here, he's agreed to stop AfC and NPP, because of ill-informed reckless reviewing) . If the article is accepted and holds up under the inevitable AfD , I'd be surprised , but such things do happen. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I grabbed a username to respond from a different IP, but I am the same editor from 22.214.171.124. I have not created a username before because my use of Wikipedia to this point has been reading articles over lunch and correcting typos and out of fear that it would become an addiction. I want to thank you again for your time as volunteer and wanted to respond to your question and comments. I am cognizant of WP:PAYTALK and don't want to take up too much of your time (I have a job, which is not editing Wikipedia, this is a side project and I am definitively not paid by the page or word); we may quickly be entering the realm of theory rather than specific comments on the draft.
First, those references you cite (6,7,8) were removed from the draft altogether per your comment on your talk page that references to usage by customers seemed like an advertisement to you. Bradv reviewed it without those links. I only referenced them here with respect to Bradv's rejection because he raised notability concerns and I wanted to show him that there were additional third party sources supporting notability outside the draft.
Second, I disagree with your position on the WSJ blog. Blogs published by news outlets specifically meet the guidelines. Blogs like DealBook at the NYTimes, etc. often break news themselves.
Third, on #6, I think the upshot of the article in CIO is the value of BPM technology and that Appian was the BPM technology selected by NBTY. Again, it was part of a prior draft that was specifically removed pursuant to your comment on advertising.
Fourth, in response to your question on 7, I didn't know it was written by that person before you pointed it out because, like an idiot, I linked to the wrong FedScoop link out of the list of links I had. This article is the link that should have been included. Obviously, that was a much better article in the first place, more recent, and by an independent author discussing the USAF's adoption of the same software used by DISA. It was the link I wanted included but I didn't re-check it after I linked it. In other words, "Ignorance, Sir. Ignorance!"
Fifth, on #8 yes, it's a story about Crawford's use of BPM software. The citation supports the text that Crawford uses Appian for crowdsourced insurance adjusting as an example of how customers use Appian's BPM software. In fact, the article is discussing Crawford's use of BPM software, which is Appian. If it said Appian every place it said BPM, wouldn't that itself look more like advertising?
Sixth, the heart of your comment is this, which gets us into theoretical territory and risks hijacking Bradv's talk page (I will copy all this to the draft's talk page), but I wanted to keep the discussion in-line, as you did:
It's not a factor for rejection, but rather a reason for increasing the degree of skepticism about promotionalism and notability. But it doesn't really cause that much increased scrutiny any more, because we have by now learned that every draft or new article about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing. The basic reason for WP:COI is valid in even with declared COI: that people cannot objectively write about themselves, their companies, etc., or in the case of paid editing, have every incentive to make an article whether or not there are actually sound references.
I wholeheartedly agree that WP:COI means that reviewers should have skepticism about what a declared paid editor writes, and I agree with it as a principle. But WP:COI by its terms is not a bar on editing. It is recommended that an editor with a COI suggest any edits on a talk page and allow others to make them. For a new draft article that is submitted for review, is that not a reasonable equivalent? The draft is not published here until a neutral reviewer agrees to its publication. Here, through multiple rejections, we've had 3 substantive reviews and I've tried to make good faith edits for neutrality. If I fail, I intend to try again until there is no doubt about neutrality.
I disagree that someone can never objectively write about themselves. It's not difficult to recite simple encyclopedic facts about yourself, your family, or your company on a neutral basis (I was born XX/XX/XXXX, parents were X and Y, went to this school, that school, had this job, that job). Those facts about myself are neutral and encyclopedic, raising the question of notability. It appears that there is a tension for a declared COI editor between writing something to show its notability based on third party sources vs. what could be considered advertising. For example, is it advertising to cite a third party article noting that DISA uses Appian for writing procurement contracts and that the USAF has adopted it as well, or is it a demonstration of notability? My intent was to show the latter and to exemplify how BPM software like Appian's is used (I don't think that the concept of BPM software or application platform as a service is self-explanatory to a reader, even leaning on the Business Process Management page).
Given your argument ("we have now learned that every draft....about a company or organization can be reasonably assumed to have a good chance of being COI editing"), isn't what I'm doing here - declaring my COI and trying write to neutrality while also showing notability - exactly the right prescription for that ailment, assuming the goal is that Wikipedia should have a page for every notable company? I could go on here and would be willing to get into a theoretical discussion but I am cognizant of your time. Thanks for contribution here and at wikipedia generally.WSCW (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bradv. Hope this message finds you well. You recently declined request to post article about Draft:Viddyad. The reason is it was too promotional. My purpose wasn't to write a promotional article and i tried to do my best to meet all Wikipedia requirements. Can you help me and tell what i did wrong and how can i improve it? Also there is a mentioning about Viddyad company in Silicon Docks article and I could link Viddyad article with Silicon Docks article. Thanks a lot. Tatiana.frantsuzenko (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Tatiana.frantsuzenko: I believe that there is enough information in reliable sources to write an article about Viddyad, but at this point the article in question reads like an ad. Try relying more heavily on independent sources such as newspapers or magazines to write an objective article. When you are happy with it, submit it for review and another editor will take a look. Thanks. Bradv 15:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Request on 14:50:35, 28 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaitlynnemoody
Would this be approved if I take out the reference of rewardstyle.com? This is my first Wiipedia page submission and after reading all of your links I am having a hard time understanding why it isn't approved.
Thank you. Kaitlynnemoody (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Kaitlynnemoody: I don't think removing one link is going to change the feel of the article, but it would definitely help. Right now the article reads like an ad rather than an encyclopedia article. We need more articles about this person from newspapers, magazines and books. If we cannot find those sources, then perhaps there isn't enough information available to write an article at this time. Please read the guidelines on biographies of living persons. Bradv 15:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
12:08:44, 29 July 2016 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:51D1:7600:A9BD:939F:50A0:A7BE
Dear reviewer, I would like to request a re-review for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TravelStaytion as the content was carefully created in order to not to contain any advertising or marketing words or hidden meaning. However it was still declined for this reason. Please advise at least on which parts exactly seem to be an advertisement? as I do not understand, and think that the page should be re-reviewed, may be changed where necessary. because I want it eventually to be published ideally. Thank you for your attention!
- It really looks like the article is being written in order to promote the company. You should know that using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is against policy. Bradv 13:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I am just wondering why the page for David Schipper I have submitted has been rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned on Draft:David Schipper, it fails the notability standards for soccer players. It does not appear that this is a suitable subject for Wikipedia at this time. Bradv 21:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, is there something controversial that you think is in need of a link to support? I had a look there is nothing controversial or wrong either, what benefit is the template? TA Govindaharihari (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- As a biography of a living person, every statement and statistic needs to have a proper source. When I checked it earlier today, there wasn't a single reference. I see now that you've added some, which is great, but we need a lot more before the article is up to snuff. I'll work on it as well when I get a chance. Bradv 03:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Close to everything is cited, most of the uncited is ib the Rugby link as well, there is nothing worthy of a fat template now imho. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did some work and removed the template, have a look back and feel free to replace it you still feel it is required and please let me know and I will try to address your feedback, ta Govindaharihari (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is considerably improved. Thanks for doing that. When I was looking at it earlier I found a bunch of sources which I listed on the talk page, some of which discussed his suspension and subsequent retirement. We should probably add some of that information to the article as well. Nevertheless, the article is many times better than it was a few hours ago. Thank you. Bradv 05:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cool. I agree a mention of his suspensions is required also - I am off to bed, next edit I will add detail about the suspensions - best wishes Govindaharihari (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
03:27:51, 30 July 2016 review of submission by Spinetingler
Hello. Can you offer any tips on sources? I cited FCC documents - are those not acceptable? Thanks. Spinetingler (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Those are fine sources I think, but they only support one sentence of the article. Where's the source for all the information in the first paragraph? Where's the source for the name of the current station manager? Are there other articles or books published somewhere about this station? Bradv 03:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I though that there was a problem with those sources. I had blanked on there being some newspaper articles, but I've added them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinetingler (talk • contribs) 04:18, July 30, 2016
Hi Bradv. I hope you are doing well. You recently declined a request to post an article about Draft:Bryan Reuss. The reason was it did not have enough sources. I had previously sourced all his publications and many of his research projects but a person named user:LaMona removed all these sources on July 14th. Would it be possible to restore it to what I previously had and see if the numerous sources would allow you to approve it? I had previously reviewed other orthopedic surgeons and this is how they did it, so I was confused when LaMona removed all of the sources. If you have any other advice, I would love to hear how I can improve this article. Thanks. Medexp99 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Medexp99: Why are you so interested in having an encyclopedia article about this person, and where are you getting your information? Bradv 13:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)