User talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2022/November

Richard T. King

You rejected my article on Richard T. King for the following reasons: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I object to your rejection. Richard T. King was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the rank of brigadier general in the U.S. Air Force. He was a graduate of both a four-year state military college and the United States Military Academy, served in the U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II, and as chief of the Air Force Section of Joint Brazil-U.S. Military Commission and chief of the Air Force Section of the Military Assistance Advisory Group. The sources for the article are both his U.S. Air Force official biography and his obituary, which ran in the South Carolina daily newspaper, The State. Contrary to your denial, both of those documents are entirely about him, not "passing mentions."

Your decision to reject my article appears to be arbitrary and reeks of anti-military and anti-veteran animus. Your comments regarding the references are not accurate. Rpalme01 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rpalme01, first, sorry for the late reply, I haven't been very active lately.

Our guidelines for articles on people require multiple *independent* published sources. Official biographies by their employers usually do not count; and I do not see an obituary in The State listed among the sources. It is sourced to findagrave, which is generally considered unreliable. I suggest changing that citation and finding ideally several more good sources (for something like this I would suggest trying to find more newspaper articles), and then resubmitting the article. If you are concerned about bias, my usual policy is to avoid reviewing something twice, so you will get a different reviewer. However, I expect that if you resubmit without significant improvements to the sources, it will be rejected again. Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

An Air Force official biography is not an "employer biography" but an actual official government document governed by Air Force Handbook 33-337. It is comparable to the biographical directory of the U.S. Congress. Rpalme01 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Poodle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Poodle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Scottnema lindsayae

On 13 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scottnema lindsayae, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the southernmost worm species, Scottnema lindsayae, reproduces best at temperatures below 10 °C (50 °F)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scottnema lindsayae. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Scottnema lindsayae), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Lemmy article

Just did a little rewriting of the Lemmy social media article and added some additional references. Please let me know what you think; if you think it needs more sources I will be happy to keep looking for them. Krimp Varkey (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Integrated Weed Management

Thanks Rusalkii for your suggestion to add this draft as a section of Integrated pest management. I believe Integrated Weed Management needs to have a page on its own as it belongs to a different discipline within the plant pest management. Weed management has independent departments in many universities and many books are published totally on this subject. Both Integrated Pest Management and Integrated Weed Management are substantial articles and readers or editors from different backgrounds will be interested in them. Editors who may want to make changes to these pages have totally separate research/interest backgrounds. For these reasons, I believe there is a good case for a separate page on Integrated Weed Management. Thanks Freshclover (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)