Jump to content

User talk:CFA/Archives/2024/May

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


Draft:Situation Group

Hi @Clearfrienda, it is very unclear how you came to the conclusion that this article does not meet the publishing standards for Wikipedia, due to the number of credible sources provided, including The New York Times, New York Daily News, and the Associated Press articles. Smaller, but significant, publications also include the Tucson Citizen and the The Oklahoman. There are also multiple in-depth industry focused publications, such as BroadwayWorld and Broadway News that report news on the company regularly. It does not appear that all of the research and credible sources have been taken into account. This article only has sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent. If you do not agree, please identify the specifics. Thank you, CityLimitsJunction (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@CityLimitsJunction: Hi. I declined your draft because the sources you provided don't appear to meet the notability guidelines for companies. It states:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Your article, in my opinion, doesn't meet that criteria. "Significant" is generally defined as 3 (see WP:THREE). The majority of your reliable sources, like Variety and the NYT only offer passing mentions of the company ― and are generally talking more about the founder/president than the company itself. This is not in-depth coverage at all. The sources with actual in-depth coverage (i.e. BroadwayWorld) are generally not considered reliable on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BroadwayWorld).
My suggestions are either to:
  • Find more reliable, independent sources and add them to the article, then resubmit
  • Create an article on the founder instead, as they seem to have more coverage than the company
From what I can see, you should easily be able to improve the draft enough for it to be accepted.
If you have any more questions, let me know. Happy editing!
Clearfrienda 💬 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:God Committees

Hi there, I left a message on my talk page with more information, but I disagree with your assessment of the Draft:God Committees page.

You note that "this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources", however we do have multiple independent sources, including John Hopkins University, the Baylor College of Medicine, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics (they use the term God Panel, but refer to the same thing), and others.

Furthermore, the article is on the requested articles list: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine#Associations.

Let me know if you have any more information on why this was denied or how I could make it better follow the notability guidelines. Thanks! Edcous (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Edcous: Hi. I was very on-the-fence about your article. I noticed the term was used in many reliable sources, but the reason I declined it was because of a lack of in-depth references which are usually a criteria to prove notability (especially in the case of "terms" like your article). I think the subject is definitely notable, considering the wide usage of the term and sources like the AMA Journal of Ethics covering it. I think it could use some more in-depth references, both to prove notability and to ensure all the content can be accurately verified, before it is accepted and moved to mainspace. I recommend adding a few more in-depth references if possible (to prove notability) and resubmitting. I won't personally re-review it to let another reviewer voice their opinion. You could also ask at the AfC help desk to get another reviewer's assesment sooner.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Clearfrienda 💬 00:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Neptuno Films

Hello, i provided reliable sources in article. The website I provided in reference are in Spanish language because the animation studio is Spanish

The article about the animation studio is available in Spanish wikipedia Akhinesh212 (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Akhinesh212: I declined Draft:Neptuno Films because it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for companies at the moment. Those guidelines state:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Significant, per WP:THREE is usually defined as in-depth coverage in at least 3 reliable, independent sources. Your article has 4 references at the moment:
  • RTVE.es does not mention the company at all.
  • laxarxa.cat offers limited coverage on the company itself
  • catalanfilms.cat offers pretty good in-depth coverage (your best source)
  • www.boe.es is not a source that helps to prove notability
This is not enough coverage in references to prove notability per WP:NCORP. I suggest finding some sources that offer more in-depth coverage on the company and resubmitting.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Clearfrienda 💬 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Request on 09:25:22, 6 May 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by AmitGuha

Hello:

I'm reaching out to understand what changes I need to make before I resubmit the two draft biography pages that I recently created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tarapada_Santra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Amiyakumar_Bandyopadhyay

Thanks for your review comments, I understand that the key reason for not qualifying is the lack of reliable, secondary references. I do have references to these individuals in (Bengali) books and in some websites and have read the guidance on how to mention them but just wanted to make sure I get it right.

For instance the website daricha.org has a biography on Tarapada Santra here - https://www.daricha.org/folklorists.aspx - would this qualify as a reliable, secondary source?

A bit of context: Both these individuals made major contributions to the study of local history (social, architectural, and folk) of southern Bengal. They worked between 1960 and 1990 surveying villages and monuments, and documenting them through field notes and books and articles (mostly in Bengali). They are widely considered pioneers in the field along with David McCutchion (who does have his own Wikipedia page) and Hitesranjan Sanyal and George Michell . Modern scholars of Bengali folk history and architecture rely heavily on the work done by this group.

I'm an independent researcher in Bengali Architecture and History who has used the work of these individuals extensively, so I've always wanted to pay back by creating their biographies on Wikipedia.

We are also working on a Wikimedia project to digitise and make publicly available about 600 photographs of these monuments taken in the 1980s by one of these researchers: George Michell.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Rapid_Fund/Digitisation_of_early_photographs_of_the_terracotta_temples_of_Bengal_(ID:_22001418)

I appreciate your help with this.

Amit Guha (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@AmitGuha: I declined your article based on two reasons: Notability and references. To meet the notability guidelines for scholars, the article has to meet any of the following (as supported by reliable sources):
  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
  6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
Tarapada Santra is probably notable based on what you've stated in the article. There just isn't enough coverage to back this up. I couldn't find Kaushiki: Year 3, Edition 9 anywhere online. I found Kaushiki: David McCutchion Edition and it offered quite a bit of information, but was only cited once in the article on relatively unimportant information. I'd recommend:
  • Making sure your references can, if possible, be easily accessed online or identified (e.g. through ISBNs or ISSNs) so information can be backed up. This isn't technically necessary but it makes it easier for future reviewers.
  • Making sure all information in the article is properly cited and can be traced back to a reliable source (no original research). Currently, large sections of your article haven't been cited at all so the information can't be verified.
  • Trying to find more references to help back up your information
Amiyakumar Bandyopadhyay has more coverage but a lot of information still isn't cited properly. Make sure all information can be backed up by reliable, secondary sources.
Since your subjects are both scholars, you only have to meet one of the above criteria and not necessarily the general guidelines for people. So as long as you can, for example, back up that they've had significant impacts in their field with reliable, secondary sources, you should be good for notability. www.daricha.org is certainly an independent source that you could use — I can't find much about it online so I can't say anything about reliability. I'd assume it's pretty accurate for local information.
If you have any other questions, let me know.
Good luck on your project and happy editing! Clearfrienda 💬 02:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Clearfrienda. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

PropertyShark

Hi @Clearfrienda,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article on PropertyShark. I'm reaching out to gain further insight into your decision to mark the article for notability issues. I've noticed that while some of the articles I've cited only mention PropertyShark briefly, there are actually more than three sources that delve deeply into the topic, including The New York Times, The Real Deal, Money Inc., and Forbes. Additionally, I have found sources that provide in-depth coverage of the topic in Romanian, which I believe could further solidify its notability. I just want to ensure that referencing articles in a foreign language for an English-language article won't pose any issues. Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. EvelynJo (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@EvelynJo: I think your article is probably notable (hence why I marked it with a notice instead of draftifying or nominating for deletion) but I've noticed it is slightly lacking in in-depth coverage. This NYT article offers a good amount of coverage. The other NYT articles offer some coverage but are overall quite limited. In-depth coverage is often considered to be an article entirely or mostly about the subject. The Real Deal articles are a good example of in-depth coverage. The Time article definitely helps. The Money Inc. and Forbes.com sources usually aren't considered reliable on Wikipedia (see WP:FORBESCON). One or two more reliable, in-depth sources will certify notability. Yes, citing articles in a foreign language is completely fine (just make sure they're formatted correctly).
Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Happy editing,
Clearfrienda 💬 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clearfrienda: Thanks so much for your quick reply. I have cited a couple additional articles from Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. Hopefully, these will suffice and the notability tag can be removed. Please feel free to share any further feedback or suggestions for improvement.
Best,
@EvelynJo EvelynJo (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Did you know on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Notability"

You deleted an entire page that had been up for months because you stated that it "needed more sources to establish notability". There are 9 sources, all either major publications discussing the subject or well-known nonprofits and large government organizations.

Please state exactly why you believe that an article that has well exceeded the notability measure of other recently-created articles does not establish 'notability'. DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, this is my fault. Imran Ahmed (strategist) is notable. I meant to draftify a page on another tab. I've moved it back and marked it as reviewed.
Sorry for the trouble,
Clearfrienda 💬 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
All good, appreciate it. There will always be false negatives if we're doing our job. DenverCoder19 (talk) DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Clearfrienda, can you please state which sources make this article notable? I couldn't find any (see the discussion on talk) the sources are not independent or significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Buidhe: There's probably enough significant coverage online to meet WP:GNG. Notably, there's this Financial Times article and this CNBC article which are about him and for the most part independent. There are also quite a few WP:INTERVIEWS with him that offer enough coverage outside of the transcript, like this Independent article and this CBC article . This article is mainly about him. There is this post on the Canadian Women's Foundation. There's also a lot of less-significant coverage in articles like this one. There are more trivial mentions in lots of articles like this one and this one. There are some non-independent references listed, like the article he wrote for The Guardian and some of his interviews, but I don't really see how his notability is contested. That being said, I've marked it as unreviewed until this is resolved. Clearfrienda 💬 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary

Regarding this edit, I just want to check that you're aware that plot summary doesn't ordinarily require citations per the MOS:PLOTSOURCE guideline. If it isn't copyvio and it isn't incorrect, I would suggest restoring it. SilverLocust 💬 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust: I'm aware of the inline citation requirements for plot summaries but I'm not really sure what to do here. Some sentences closely match online plot summaries which leads me to believe it was a close-paraphrased version of an online summary. With no inline citations it's hard to prove the information isn't wrong and I also can't find any evidence of plagiarism.. The editor who added this summary has a history of copyvios and adding unreferenced information to articles. I've restored it for now per your recommendation but I'd advise keeping an eye on their future edits because they seem to ignore warnings. Clearfrienda 💬 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Several bugs related to the latest updates to the UploadWizard on Wikimedia Commons have been fixed. For more information, see T365107 and T365119.
  • In March 2024 a new addPortlet API was added to allow gadgets to create new portlets (menus) in the skin. In certain skins this can be used to create dropdowns. Gadget developers are invited to try it and give feedback.
  • Some CSS in the Minerva skin has been removed to enable easier community configuration. Interface editors should check the rendering on mobile devices for aspects related to the classes: .collapsible, .multicol, .reflist, .coordinates, .topicon. Further details are available on replacement CSS if it is needed.

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 May. It will be on all wikis from 30 May (calendar). [1][2]
  • When you visit a wiki where you don't yet have a local account, local rules such as edit filters can sometimes prevent your account from being created. Starting this week, MediaWiki takes your global rights into account when evaluating whether you can override such local rules. [3]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Greetings @Clearfrienda, I hope you are doing well. Why did you move Muhammadou M. O. Kah page into draft space (Not ready for mainspace)? I think the topic is notable, are the used sources not satisfying? I would like to be advised and do better. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@12eeWikiUser: I draftified Muhammadou M. O. Kah because I didn't think he met WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC (little in-depth coverage). Per WP:DIPLOMAT (an essay) simply being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, and it should fall back to WP:BASIC. However, upon closer inspection, since he's the permanent representative of the Gambia to the United Nations Organisations at Geneva (UNOG) he may actually meet WP:NPOL under the criteria "politicians and judges who have held international [..] office." He may also meet WP:NACADEMIC for being a dean/vice-president of a university. I admittely don't have much experience with notability concerning international representatives but I've done a deeper dive and he probably does meet at least one subject-specific notability guideline. Please let me know what you think. C F A 💬 20:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Clearfrienda, I think the same that’s why I arrived at your talk page to learn the reason for moving subject to draftspace. If you don’t have any other questions we can move it back into article space. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I've moved it back to mainspace but left it as unreviewed so another reviewer can check it over. I'm still not 100% sure about notability. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing! C F A 💬 01:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CFA/Archives/2024/May&oldid=1231405006"