Jump to content

User talk:Cabrils/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Draft:Kenneth_Bimoeller

Hi Cabrils! I've been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kenneth_Binmoeller recently and think it's fairly close now. Another wiki editor, Gusfriend, left this message regarding meeting the requirement for WP:PROF "WP:PROF via Fellowship of 3 professional societies. Also publishing a book that has been reviewed in scholarly publications"

I've also tried to improve the neutrality of the article, increased the number of notable secondary sources, as well as employing the formal tone. Any help reviewing would be greatly appreciated :) DevaneyJohn (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Huge improvements since my July review-- well done! Approved. Cabrils (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wilmot Robertson

Hi Cabrils. Could you provide more feedback on your AfC decline for Draft:Wilmot Robertson? You say: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." Is this a verifiability, RS, or notability issue? As I see it, these are high-quality citations.Freelance-frank (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Freelance-frank, thanks for your note. That comment is automatically generate and didn't include the detail I was hoping it would, so my apologies for that. My issue is the formatting of the 10 references: please see referencing for beginners so that standard Wikipedia formatting is used-- it allows readers to more quickly see and appreciate the sources. Ping me once that's done and I'd be happy to have a look. I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere! Cabrils (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
My comment on the draft page under the pink box is pretty self- explanatory: "Before this draft can even be considered for review, it needs to be properly sourced in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Please see referencing for beginners and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help." Cabrils (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Matthias Faes

Reposted here

Hi Cabrils, many thanks for your help on my draft, I highly appreciate your effort in helping me making it better! I tried as much as possible to take your comments into account. Please let me know if there's more that I can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.r0gu3 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Cabrils (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dr.r0gu3, as I commented, I think the draft has potential but I do think some independent, reliable sources need to be added. The sources you added are not considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. You will have seen JBW also feels this is necessary. Please let me know if you have any other questions! Cabrils (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Javier_G._Fernandez

Dear Cabrils. First of all, thanks a lot for reviewing my draft! This is my second article on relevant academics in the field of bioinspired and sustainable materials. I received your note that the article has been declined because it wasn't supported by enough secondary references, and I was wondering if you could help me improve it with some specific insights. I'm new to this, so before preparing the article I went through Wikipedia's definition of reliable secondary sources and excluded those which didn't fit. I ended up adding 53 references, which I thought was quite good, from CNN, New_scientist, The_New_York_Times, Wired_(magazine)... spamming from 2012 to this year. I read that a good way to know if a secondary source is legit is checking if it had a Wikipedia article, which I did. I added some primary references (i.e., scientific articles by prof. Fernandez), six in total, in those points I thought they were important but only when they were also supported by secondary ones. I had the impression I did a good job, so I must confess I got the decline with sadness. Since I have put quite a lot of time into preparing this article, I was hoping I could get more detailed information on what I did wrong and how I could improve it. As a side note, to prepare this article, I read several articles about other scientists close to Prof. Fernandez. Specifically, I used as a base what I learned writing Peter_Fratzl, the article on Donald_E._Ingber, and the article on Samira_Musah, who is listed as a notable student of the latter (Same for Draft:Javier G. Fernandez). Thank you again for your time and help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioMatMan (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi BioMatMan, thanks for your note, and your efforts to create so good drafts! My comment on the page basically covers everything. THe main issue for me was that many of the sources don't appear to be reliable sources for the purpose of evidencing notability for Fernandez. Checking to see if a source has a wiki page as an indication it is reliable is very misleading--CNN, New_scientist, The_New_York_Times, Wired_(magazine) etc are notable publications, that is why they have an entry. They are not necessarily "reliable" for a certain subject unless they publish a specific article that is substantially about the subject and intellectually independent of them: as I wrote in my comment, "Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The first 6 sources of the draft do not seem to me to be reliable: Wikipedia should not be used as a source; the article from Matter is co-authored by the subject; LAUNCH is a blog; the MIT Review is not substantial and is about Shrilk (not Fernandez); 3DPrint is a blog etc. The New Scientist article may be appropriate but I'll need to access it via a database (I'm not presently logged it). As I said, the draft has real potential. My advice is to trim the chaff and retain those sources that are clearly "reliable" and then we can see what the draft looks like-- it might be fine. The content of the page feels generally good, but at present it feels to me like there's too many "promotional" references. Trust this helps! Cabrils (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I understand your point. I will do a deep cleaning of the references and try to reduce them to the most significative. The MIT Technology Review and LAUNCH, they are related to the awards so I believe I should keep it, but I will restrict their use to the award section instead of using them also in the introduction/main. Once I'm ready, I should resubmit or let you know here? BioMatMan (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear @Cabrils, I'm halfway with the correction and got some doubts. I was hoping you could advise me.
The 3D Printing.com entry is a pseudo-interview with Prof. Fernandez where the writer both analyze the company and interview Fernandez. In the text, it is used to support the sentence "Fernandez is the scientific funder of Chitonous Pte. Ltd.". I understand it would need to be more reliable to support the notability of Fernandez, but that is not the intention of that reference. The intention is to be informative and link the reader to useful and more in-depth information related to the statement. I checked the source and it looks pretty independent. It doesn't have its own Wikipedia page, but it is used in several other articles on Wikipedia, particularly for 3D printing such as: 3D printing, 3DBenchy, Formlabs, MatterHackers, Ultimaker, Cura (software)... I’m aware that an interview is not a secondary source because it is a direct transcription of the interviewee’s ideas, but the reference is not used to support the claims made by Fernandez during the interview. To me, it seems correct to have it as it is now, but I would like to know your opinion.
The second question is about the original research articles. I originally mentioned six peer-reviewed scientific articles, now five, authored by Fernandez. They are used in those areas when a technology developed by Fernandez is mentioned. They don't support notability, which is supported by secondary sources. I believe they are useful because they are the primary source of the technology mentioned. For example, in Jennifer Doudna it is stated, "Doudna and her colleagues made a new discovery that reduces the time and work needed to edit genomic DNA." The first reference [33] is a secondary source and the second reference [34] is the scientific article. I like that balance, and that is what I tried to do, but I see how in Samira Musah there is a section at the end titled "Published works" where some of her articles have been listed (although it seems a pretty arbitrary selection), maybe to avoid the use of primary sources in the text.
Could I have your opinion on those two questions and the current state of the article? I'm almost done with the revision of references, as soon as I have your approval I will resubmit (please let me know if that is the standard procedure).
TL:DR In general, my struggle is that I understand during an article creation is essential to assess notability, however, I don't want to make the article just a "case for notability" but to make an informative encyclopedic article. BioMatMan (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Done with the edits and reviewing references. Please, let me know your opinion when you have some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioMatMan (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Synthesis of the changes I made:
I did some tuning of grammar and flow but mainly focused on the references. Removed many references that were overlapping. Since the reliability of the sources was already filtered, I primarily focused my selection on the content and, only when the content was at the same level, on the source. I ended up removing one out of four references from the original draft, including references from sources such as Scientific American and Popular Science... I tried to balance the informative and notability aspects of the article in the references.
The last ten references add little information. They are there because it came to my attention that while the article about Donald E. Ingber has almost 70 references, many of his awards and achievements have been labeled as "citation needed.”
The initial six scientific articles have been reduced to four. All of them have been added together with at least two secondary sources. One reason to keep them is that it came to my attention that Fernandez's scientific articles have been cited several times in Wikipedia. In particular, the articles about Chitin and Chitosan cite the scientific papers [9] [13] ([51 and 56 on Chitosan) and [31] ([33] on Chitin). If the community considers them relevant when describing the advances in the uses of such molecules, it seems correct to include them when discussing the contributions of Fernandez to the field. BioMatMan (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Well done on the great cleanup and tightening of the draft, that's a great improvement. To me it still has a slightly promotional flavour to it, but I've tightened it a fraction, correctly placed the citations (always after any punctuation), and notably you'll see I think there are 2 statements in the second paragraph that require citations. If they can be added I would be content to accept it. Cabrils (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear @Cabrils, thank you again for your help with this article. I agree with the promotional flavor. I will try to repair it in the future, but I have already started working on another piece, so I'd like to wrap this one up and forget it for some time. The reason for the CV perspective is that I used Donald E. Ingber as a model, which has that same perspective. The sentences "Fernandez is a founder of the emerging fields of biologically inspired engineering and its application to sustainable manufacturing. In addition, he has made contributions to numerous other disciplines, including..." are borrowed word by word (except the specializations) from Donald E. Ingber. Because they published together their first article on bioinspired engineering, it seemed correct when I wrote it. For the last week, I have been scoping Wikipedia articles on scientists, and I found similar statements in several. However, I couldn't find any providing citations, so I still am clueless. The best reference I could imagine is Fernandez's description in the awards, but they don't seem a good secondary sources.
I have written the second part (about the topics Fernandez has contributed) based on his publications. I could provide one or several publications for each field, but it would fill the article with secondary sources, worsening it and undoing some of my efforts to clean it up.
In conclusion, while I believe the two sentences are accurate, I can't find good secondary references for them. So the options are to leave the two sentences as they are (with the citation need label) or remove them altogether. Both options seem correct to me, but since the whole point of submitting to AfC was to get a second opinion on the article, I would appreciate it if you decide. BioMatMan (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi BioMatMan. It can be misleading referring to other articles too closely because they may well be flawed, but I appreciate the need to seek guidance from somewhere. My advice would be to remove those two sentences for now and add them when reliable sources can be found, because they both contain claims of substance that in my view require verifiability. If you are content to do that, then resubmit the draft and I will be happy to accept it. Again, well done! Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Dear @Cabrils, I have removed the sentences and resubmitted the article. Thanks a lot for the help and guidance in producing it. It took way longer than I expected, but it has been quite a learning experience. BioMatMan (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Well done! Draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Debendra Das Sharma

Hi Cabrils - thanks for your input on the draft Draft:Debendra Das Sharma. I've removed the patents list, and added a bunch of references, and removed items that I couldn't find references for. Let me know if the personal / career sections need to be slimmed down; I've gotten these directly from Debendra, so not sure how to authenticate them. Rahlvers (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rahlvers, great work, that's a huge improvement. The issue now is reliable sources. On my reading, the page does not have a single reliable source. Please bare in mind that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or a place to host a CV, and while the facts stated in the page may be true, they require verification from an independent reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia (please see the links I included in my comment on the draft). Let me know if you have any further questions and best of luck with it! Cabrils (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

coalition for the conservation of the maltese honey bee

could you please reassess the draft? thx NahlaMaltija (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi NahlaMaltija, thanks for the ping. Good work on further developing the draft. As I wrote in my comment on the draft: "Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Because the Coalition for the Conservation of the Maltese Honey Bee is an organisation, it needs to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP to be accepted. On that page, the Primary Criteria is defined as:
"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.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." (see WP:ORGCRIT)
On my readying, the draft does not have sufficient evidence of notability. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the references contain "significant coverage" the Coalition-- yes, the Coalition is named and mentioned very briefly, but that is not sufficient to establish notability. Further, on my reading, none of the sources are especially credible and they fall short of the "generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability".
Please persevere though as hopefully there may be some other references.
[I will post this reply as a Comment on the draft because you do not have a Talk Page so I am not confident you will have been alerted to my reply here] Cabrils (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Your reviewed draft Shirish Hiremath is amended

Thank you for encouraging and motivating writers like me to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. I have resubmitted my draft Shirish Hiremath trying to accomodate yoir suggestions and comments. I will be grateful to you if you can reassess it further. Thank you once again. Truewiki1 (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well done, great improvement on the draft! I've done some minor clean up and now accepted the article. I would encourage you to continue to develop and expand the article. Do be aware that one or two good sources is usually sufficient to support a statement, as too many sources can bloat an article (please see WP:CITEKILL). Again, well done! Cabrils (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your guidance
Thank you Cabrils for your review, guidance and motivation to persevere to contribute meaningfully to wikipedia. Truewiki1 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

James W. Simpson Second Draft

Hello, I just resubmitted my article Draft:James W. Simpson for review, and I hope it has improved enough for reconsideration. I also want to thank you for your encouragement and guidance Jsummers9024 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see another reviewer has already declined the revised draft. I would encourage you to follow up on their advice and hopefully you can find some good reliable sources. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on the draft

Hi Cabrils, many thanks for your help on my draft, I highly appreciate your effort in helping me making it better! I tried as much as possible to take your comments into account. Please let me know if there's more that I can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.r0gu3 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi , please see my post at the bottom of the page Cabrils (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft_talk:Johnny_Wonder

Hello Cabrils, I appreciate your time and attention to the draft page I submitted. I have added some additional citations to address the notes you shared. Please let me know if you can share any additional suggestions to get the draft where it needs to be. Much respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceBanner60 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I'll continue this discussion on the talk page where it's more relevant for everyone: Draft_talk:Johnny_Wonder (and always best to let an editor know what draft page you are referring to!). Cabrils (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Haidar Miles

Hi Cabrils, please i need your help to review this wikipedia article for Haidar Miles. please find the link here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Haidar_Miles Kanawaedits (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kanawaedits, thanks for the ping. I've had a look at the draft and my advice would be to absorb the comments that the reviewers have made there. I'm sorry to disappoint you but it seems to me that Miles is not sufficiently notable to justify appearing on Wikipedia-- or at least that the current references are not sufficient to meet the guidelines. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


Second draft of Genevieve Guenther article ready for review

Hi Cabrils. Thank you so much for your thorough and useful review of my Genevieve Guenther draft. I really appreciate it. I have re-worked the draft to incorporate your feedback. In particular, I have added references to discussions of her work in two books by two prominent authors (both of whom already have wikipedia pages), including one by a prominent climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, as well as two New York Times pieces, two Guardian pieces, and a National Geographic piece. In combination with the existing references, including a lengthy New Yorker profile on Dr Guenther, perhaps this is sufficient reference material? I have also shortened the list of essays to five examples, as you have suggested. Ready for another look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustACitizenJournalist (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I see the draft has now been accepted--well done! Cabrils (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Quim Garrigolas

https Hi! I have resubmitted this draft applying the suggestions you made 2 months ago. I don't know why another user rejected the article without adding any comments. I have changed a small mistake I thought I made, adding other information, and resubmitted it. Thank you for helping me improve my writing Wikipedia skills.

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year in advance! Ytuniverse (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied on your Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI, Draft:Vivian Greene-Gantzberg

Hi Cabrils, I was looking at Draft:Vivian Greene-Gantzberg and saw that you reviewed it back in November – this is just a FYI that it has been resubmitted, because you asked to be pinged. I did not review it because it would have to be declined again and I do think she is notable, but I wrote a pretty lengthy comment so I hope it can be improved. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and the extraordinarily helpful comment on the draft, which I hope the submitter appreciates! Cabrils (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ed Fram Second Draft

Hi Cabrils, I just wanted to say a huge thank you for looking over the first draft and for your kind encouragement and advice, which I have tried to follow second time round. Your guidance is very much appreciated. Very best wishes :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfram (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. Good work progressing the draft, although there are still a few issues. Firstly please note that Wikipedia frowns upon subjects creating their own page, and certainly if a page is created by the subject, the conflict of interest should be declared (see WP:COI). Secondly, as I wrote in my comment on the draft, the page needs to meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Again, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. More specifically, because Fram is described as a "songwriter, politician and teacher", the draft needs to meet WP:SINGER or WP:NPOL or WP:PROF. Statements in the draft then need to be supported by reliable sources. On my reading, none of the sources in the current draft are reliable -- private companies, blogs, Spotify etc are not considered reliable. At this stage, my view would be that at best a page on Fram is WP:TOOSOON -- the current draft simply does not establish his notability, and if he was notable, it would be evident at this point. But perhaps my reading is wrong and there are reliable sources out there, so I do encourage you to keep looking. I realise this may be disappointing but I do hope it is constructive. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the advice and constructive feedback. Some of the sources are major newspapers (NY Times, FT) and the music has received press coverage/broadcast on BBC and a major internet radio station. As a politician, Fram has been noted on Wikipedia already and on the Kingston U.K. government website. However, if these are not sufficiently reliable I will endeavour to improve the article further. Thank you once again for your time - I do appreciate the opportunity to have my drafts looked at by you. All the best for 2023! Edfram (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, please re-read my comments, including the links included therein. You still have not made a declaration about your conflict of interest. Your history on Wikipedia is revealing and indicates you may not be sincere in your attempts to create pages here, which concerns me. The draft still contains almost entirely non-reliable sources, and your description "Some of the sources are major newspapers (NY Times, FT)" is misleading-- the single NYT article (a death notice) is not reliable and does not go towards establishing notability. Similarly, the FT article does not establish notability. Again, please re-read my comments, including the links. The draft needs to meet WP:SINGER or WP:NPOL or WP:PROF, which it presently does not. Cabrils (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I have made a declaration. It’s the first thing I did. Apologies if I have not done this correctly. Edfram (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, I see your COI declaration on your User page, made in December 2015 -- done correctly. Cabrils (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
No problem. Great - thank you. Edfram (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I’ve made further improvements to the draft particularly focusing on citations as you have suggested. I will continue to work on the page while I await a second review. Thanks for your input. Much appreciated! Edfram (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I applaud your persistence. I did suggest you improve the citations, but more relevantly I wrote “The draft needs to meet WP:SINGER or WP:NPOL or WP:PROF”. You need to evidence, with specificity, which subsections of any of those 3 guidelines you believe the draft meets. And then you need to support the claims by reliable sources. I have to be honest with you: the draft does not meet, and would seem incapable of meeting, any subsection of WP:SINGER or WP:NPOL or WP:PROF. There is nothing in the Music section of the draft that meets any criteria in WP:SINGER. There is nothing in the Politics section of the draft that meets any criteria in WP:NPOL. There is nothing in the Business and academic section of the draft that meets any criteria in WP:PROF. And that is before we turn to the requirement of claims being supported by reliable sources. You simply are not notable (as defined). If you go on to have a record certified gold; or become elected for Westminster; or start a Fortune 500 company, then you stand a chance of meeting a criteria. At that point we hope that it gets reported and you receive some “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. Again, you don’t need to convince me, you need to meet any of those criteria; and then have the reliable sources evidencing it. In my view, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Meanwhile, all the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you once again. I do understand the point you are making but I think there could be enough in the article for general notability. I’m known for my lyric writing mainly, which has a different criteria to WP:SINGER. My citations show that my music has gained media coverage and not just that it simply exists. I have removed “teacher” from my draft as I agree I don’t meet WP:PROF currently. I’ll keep editing to bring the article in line with expectations. Hopefully it can be approved before going Gold/Platinum, becoming an MP etc as many musicians/politicians on Wikipedia have not achieved that yet either. Thank you again for helping me to improve the work :) all the very best for 2023! Edfram (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
No worries. See what you can do to meet WP:COMPOSER then, hopefully it's more fruitful. Keep me posted and I'm happy to help if you have any more questions. Cabrils (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much - I appreciate the continued help. I think the article may now meet WP:MN number 11 (Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.) as many of Ed Fram’s songs have been placed on rotation and/or playlisted by Amazing Radio, which has a global audience of 6 million listeners. I’ll continue to improve the work along these lines as you have suggested. Thanks again! Edfram (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:MN number 11 redirects to WP:SINGER and I would advise you to be mindful of the introductory statement that covers that section, which states (emphasis added):
"Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criterion number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources."
This is especially relevant to you as the author of your own draft page.
I would also kindly remind you that you still have not removed the numerous non-reliable references in the draft (including social media sites like Twitter), blogs, goodreads etc--this needs to be done! Cabrils (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Yes, I’m definitely mindful of the point you have made particularly as the author of my own page. I’ve removed the types of citations you have mentioned now. I hope that helps a little. Thank you once again for the guidance and for helping to improve the draft considerably. Edfram (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ed- That's good progress but the page is still replete with bloated, irrelevant and unreliable references. This is caused by irrelevant pith in the draft. If you are claiming notability on the basis of WP:SINGER#11 (songs played on rotation) then that should be the focus of the draft. Photographs of you receiving a scholarship, your sister's academic publications, your personal motivations etc, all of which cannot be reliably sourced, is irrelevant to the page. The draft tends to read too much like a CV, which Wikipedia is not-- this is not LinkedIn. I feel I have been pretty generous in trying to help you but you persistently decline to amend the draft accordingly, so at this point I wish you all the best and you leave me no choice but to decline your current submission. Please do NOT resubmit until the draft has been properly amended.
(NOTE: If you ever have the need to reply to posts on Talk pages--but no reply here is necessary-- please use the 'reply' button because it automatically indents your reply-- it is tedious and time wasting having to manually reformat your responses every time to indent them, which formatting helps keep the thread accessible.) Cabrils (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The reply button doesn’t work for some reason (perhaps only works on desktop version?).
Respectfully, the photograph of me in 2001 is there as part of my biography (which is normal in a Wikipedia article) - I’ve chosen it precisely because it is from a well-known source. UPPA who took the picture are thought to be the oldest independent picture businesses in the U.K. and have photographed many notables.
The reference to my sister is from the British Library. Again, I’d argue that’s a pretty reliable source. It is once again relevant biographical information - the sort of which regularly features in Wikipedia articles.
I will remove the personal motivation sentence, however. As that has no independent source.
I will focus on the songs played on rotation WP:SINGER #11 as you say before resubmitting, and try to bolster that part of the article and reduce/remove other aspects of less importance.
Thanks again! Edfram (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The mere fact that a publication/source is considered generally reliable per se does not necessarily make it relevant to a particular statement or page.
The draft still fails to meet any notability criteria, especially the claim that your music has been played on rotation. As I wrote above:
[[WP:MN] number 11 redirects to WP:SINGER and I would advise you to be mindful of the introductory statement that covers that section, which states (emphasis added):
"Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criterion number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources."
This is especially relevant to you as the author of your own draft page.
I would also kindly remind you that you still have not removed the numerous non-reliable references in the draft (including social media sites like Twitter), blogs, goodreads etc--this needs to be done!
This is my final advice to you. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again! I’ll only resubmit once I’ve done my very best to address the points you’ve raised since the start of this thread. Cheers, Ed. Edfram (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Edward Hayter page

Hi, I have made the changes of the page as I found it in November and I'd love to see what you think about it. I added many content and links as proof and removed the content that had no sources Veganpurplefox (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, well done on the improvements, I've replied on Draft:Edward_Hayter. Cabrils (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain me in details what does these means? does not meet the relevant criteria in WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:ACTOR. AS I previously wrote, it feels WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, the references are not formatted correctly; and still include many that are not considered reliable, including blogs, private company websites and social media, which all should be removed. Cabrils (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I want to removed what doesn't fit but can you help me please cause it doesn't explain what isn't well done. Which references links are the bad ones? What does not reliable means? Explain me all this in real details. I am autistic and I don't understand when it isn't said in literal. I don't understand subtle words Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Or could it be you that removes the non reliable information so it gets approved? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, like almost all editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and my time is very limited so I have to prioritise my endeavours here. A great place to ask for more help is the WP:Teahouse. In my comment on the draft, I included several links and I encourage you to click on each one and read and absorb the information in each, because you need to be aware of that information in order to perform acceptable edits and contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. My comment and advice is very direct, concise and clear. In order for you to improve the draft you need to improve your understanding of the relevant guidelines, which I direct you to in my comment. I directed you to what a "reliable" source is in my comment: please see WP:RS. I really do encourage you to spend some time to understand the guidelines because then you can produce content that should be acceptable, which is a very rewarding experience. I wish you all the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have found how to check those out as I didn't know how to see when people updated drafts. I have made some changes of the reliable sources and taken away the imbd and Instagram links and if I understand well the secondary sources are us to make the point of view as then made the changes too. I will then check out the rest of it and then ask you what you think back then Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I also added the awards as I believed from what I read it needs to be added too for the draft. But still don't understand what "references are not formatted correctly" Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made significant changes, but was wondering in which of the sources I added are considered as private company websites? They do not appear in the list of reliable sources that show the green and red weither it's fine or not to use these sources Veganpurplefox (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well done, more good progress. I see you have created thread in the Teahouse so I have replied there. Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw the reply, thank you for your comment! I have also removed the source such as model 1 as you said. I have read about the blogs but doesn't say if the ocmoviereviews, readysteadycut and filmfreeway are reliable sources. Also I am guessing podcasts on Spotify aren't reliable either? Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have also added Rotten Tomatoes sources as I saw its reliable Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed all non reliable sources and content, I'd like what you think on it. Is British old Vic a private company? It's the only source I kept that may not be reliable ,I'll remove it if you confirm its not and keep it if its reliable Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

So I have removed everything that didn't came from reliable source and in my opinion I would think I could resubmit it and be approved. I'd love to know if I need other improvements before I resubmit Veganpurplefox (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, you've made great improvements to the draft. Regarding reliable sources: while a publicationsource may be considered generally reliable, that does not necessarily mean a specific source is reliable for the purpose of verifying a particular statement on a page. So the sources have been cleaned up a lot, however the draft still does not evidence how Hayter is notable. You need to show, with specificity, how Hayter meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ACTOR etc? Cabrils (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I am making his public image and how people perceive his career , hope this will help make him meets these criterias Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That reason does not meet any relevant criteria. You must meet the criteria in either WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACTOR. Cabrils (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is enough content that are in video interviews could it be met these criterias? Or it won't as there isn't enough articles talking about him? Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And for the ANYBIO the reason he doesn't not meet that one is it because the awards he has won and nominated is less recognised? Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The video interviews are not considered appropriate support to evidence notability, because they are not truly independent of the subject. The awards are not "well-known and significant".
Also, I strongly suspect you are being paid to produce this draft, in which case you need to declare your conflict of interest please. Cabrils (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually I am autistic and I am just a fan, I'm on disability and have no job in anything. I found the draft when I was researching him when I discovered him for one of his work and I decided to try since as being autistic when I have an interest on someone I am very looking up and have an huperfocus on them and I don't give up on my interest Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I can spend all day and night just watching or reading and looking up about my favs to the point I neglect myself because I hyperfocus on them and they are a big interest for me and this brings me happiness. So no I am not being paid for it, it is a passion Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If it can help I made a twitter post so the fans knows the draft exist so this could help for the draft Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Founding the draft and editing it makes me really happy and I may be unable to work because people consider me as too emotional and lack of autonomy but when I comes to my interests it's the only thing that can truly makes me happy. Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You've done well improving your knowledge of reliable sourcing and developing a draft. However, honestly, this draft has little success of being approved because no matter how much you want to publish the page, Hayter does not (at this time) appear to meet any of the relevant criteria. Making a Twitter post "so the fans knows the draft exist so this could help for the draft" will have no effect and is no help in evidencing how the page meets the criteria. I would encourage you to draft pages for people who are notable. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's just a matter of time before he gets more recognised, once he gets into more interviews, premiere movies, and especially since we are trying to get a season 2 for will series it will bring more attention to the series and if we can get the season 2 it could be possible he will become notable. I'll try to find the interviewers and get in touch with them if they could put their interviews from non reliable sources into reliable ones. Idk if I'll be able but I'll try! I have made a draft for Victoria Emslie which I think she could meet the criteras, and also I gotta find the sources and separates the informations before I create one for Chloé hayden as she has very lot of articles of reliable sources which I believe she could meet the criterias. But I won't give up on Ed! I'll try get in touch with few people to get him having a bio in rotten tomatoes and interviews into BBC article! Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Good for you. You're certainly a lot more experienced and informed now, which will significantly improve the chances of your drafts meeting the relevant criteria and thus being accepted. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know more mistakes to avoid and reliable sources! Starting with editing Ed's draft really helped me than if I just started from nothing! Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

But will try to make Ed a bit more famous so I could have more content to add and try to get in touch with few people to get him more recognised to be able to update more Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia perspective, "making him famous" is not something you can do, unfortunately. And "famous" is different to "notable"! But again, I applaud your enthusiasm. Cabrils (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you think of the Draft: Victoria Emslie i created, there are other people editing it as I shared it but some sources doesn't seems reliable but I do think it could be approved Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's best etiquette if you could please supply a link to the page :) Cabrils (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Victoria_Emslie Veganpurplefox (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If there was a few other articles from BBC but they got removed and have no access for them, is there a way to be able to access them back? Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to add ,I added the issuu links because it's where we can read the magazine freely Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Veganpurplefox, if you know the URL of a useful web page that once existed but no longer exists, you can look for the web page at web.archive.org (the "Wayback Machine") by telling it the URL. You won't necessarily find the web page there, but it's likely that you will find it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

About this :From a Wikipedia perspective, "making him famous" is not something you can do, unfortunately. And "famous" is different to "notable"! But again, I applaud your enthusiasm. Cabrils (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant to let people know his work and talk about him so he can get into more into reliable sources and more sources that talks about him so he can become notable one day! Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
For referencing the Rein Slagmolen article. Thank you for being an awesome Wikipedian!!! gidonb (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much gidonb! Cabrils (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Second draft of Janneke Parrish article ready for review

Hey there! Thank you so much for reviewing the first draft of my Janneke Parrish draft. The feedback was really helpful, and I really appreciated it. I've reworked the page to add more sources, remove what I think read like a CV (though please correct me if I misunderstood), and added more of the news coverage about her. Please let me know if this is enough, and thank you again for your time! --Quaoarian (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, great work, well done. Unfortunately I still see the subject as only being "notable" for one event (being fired from Apple), and so falls foul of WP:BLP1E: People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. Cabrils (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not sure I agree? Going through the sources, it looks like she's also notable for her city council run, abortion activism, and continued labour activism. She is also one of the founders of AppleTogether/AppleToo and is listed on the List of Whistleblowers page, the Apple worker organizations page, and as a notable alumni on the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics page. Her work is much more significant than just the one event.
Pages also exist for both other notable figures within AppleToo/AppleTogether, Cher Scarlett and Ashley Gjøvik - Parrish is the only one missing. There are also pages for similar organisers, like Jaz Brisack and Jennifer Bates, where their primary work is with one organisation. I think that's fairly analogous to Parrish's work, albeit with the caveat that Parrish has been involved in activism and activities outside AppleToo/AppleTogether.
I think the subject is worthy of an article, and that there isn't one while there is one for the other two organisers makes it seem like information is missing. Is there a way to write the article that makes her contributions clearer, and highlight the comparison to the similar articles I linked? Quaoarian (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Katami, thanks for your further thoughts. Please see my responses below:
1. "it looks like she's also notable for her city council run, abortion activism, and continued labour activism": As you may know, notability is a defined term on Wikipedia and is a requirement that must be met for all pages. "...her city council run" does not meet WP:NPOL (unelected; unreliable sources); "abortion activism" does not meet WP:GNG (a single article); "continued labour activism" still relates to the single event of her being fired from Apple.
2. "She is also one of the founders of AppleTogether/AppleToo and is listed on the List of Whistleblowers page, the Apple worker organizations page, and as a notable alumni on the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics page. Her work is much more significant than just the one event.": Respectfully, I disagree. None of these are notable and have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
3. "Pages also exist for both other notable figures" etc : Comparing other pages can be a misleading exercise because those pages may not necessarily meet the requirements, so in my experience it is always best to assess a page on its own merits.
4. In summary: the draft needs to establish notability based on (1) significant coverage in (2) multiple published secondary sources that are (3) reliable, (4) intellectually independent of each other, and (5) independent of the subject. Sources authored by Parish, blogs, passing mentions etc are not considered reliable sources and should be removed. In my assessment, as I previously said, Parish is only notable for 1 event. As frustrating as that may be for you, this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON.
For completeness, I should note that I am getting a sense that you may have a conflict of interest in creating this page and any COI should be declared, including if you are, or know, the subject; or are being paid to create the page?
I hope this has been helpful and wish you the best in improving the draft! Cabrils (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Robert L. McGinnis

Hello, Cabrils. Thanks a lot for your detailed review of the Draft:Robert L. McGinnis. Per your request, I worked on the text and followed your recommendations. In particular, I toned down the promotional parts of the text and removed ineligible sources. Some parts of the less irrelevant information have been removed or reworded. Now, I resubmitted the draft. Please, take a look once you have time and let me know what you think. Bultatar (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well done on the clean up. Article accepted. Cabrils (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Second draft of Draft:Clara Higuera Cabañes ready for review

Hi there! I really appreciate the feedback from your reviewing the first draft of Draft:Clara_Higuera_Cabañes I've done my best to make the article more succinct, less like a Resume, removed unnecessary or weak citations, and attempted to make the introduction more notable. I confess I'm not certain that it's there yet, but if you were please able to give further feedback I can always hone in on it further. :-) Thanks again! --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Miles, well done on your edits and it's heading in the right direction, but in my view still has a way to go. Please see MOS:BIO for guidance in general, and especially on the Lead Section, which is far too wordy; and does not establish her notability. Further, the draft generally still does not make clear what is notable about her: How does she meet the notability requirements of WP:PROF specifically? On my reading of the draft, she is WP:TOOSOON. Also, pejorative phrases such as "What is most striking..." should be removed as they are not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. To me the draft still reads like a CV found on LinkedIn, which Wikipedia is not. But I would encourage you to continue refining the draft--it has potential! Cabrils (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Austin Eddy

Hi, I have edited and added more references and updated citations for Draft:Austin Eddy Please review and offer further suggestions. Elizabeth - Modillion Modillion (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Well done. I've cleaned up some issues with the references and removed the inline external links, in accord with WP:MOS, and with that done I think the article looks sufficient to publish so I've now accepted it.
Incidentally I am a little concerned about the copyright status of the photo of Eddy, which he apparently uploaded but the caption text int eh info box currently says "Photo in Artist Studio by Sam Scheming"-- to remove any doubt it would be good to clarify that the copyright in the image is owned by Eddy and not Scheming. Cabrils (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: Draft: Fabiola Kim

Hello, Thank you for your constructive comments on the Draft: Fabiola Kim. Heeding your advise, I have updated nearly all of the references to reflect sources with no bias or personal connection to the subject. I have used information from NPR; Klassik Radio, a German music magazine; and the Queen Elisabeth Competition to support my content and I (hopefully) cited them all correctly. I have also included a review from The Strad magazine to further add more detail and support the "notability" of the subject. Please feel free to review the updates at your leisure and respond should you find any other issues. Best. Cec2i2l0i9a8 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks and well done progressing the draft. Kim is clearly a very talented musician. I think it's all going in the right direction, but I don't see the draft yet meeting WP:GNG and more specifically WP:MUSICBIO. I might be mistaken so it would be a big help if you could briefly explain which category/categories of WP:MUSICBIO you feel she meets? A concern for me is the sources are not really reliable. Podcasts are not considered reliable at all; nor are passing mentions or '"profile pages" on private websites. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. See what you can find! Cabrils (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
Thanks for the feedback! After closely reviewing the WP:MUSICBIO criteria I understand how there are still issues. I was having trouble finding more info in English and decided to search the subject's name in her native Korean. That seemed to do the trick. Plenty of sources in Korea. I will continuously update it. If it is not too much trouble, perhaps you could review it again now and see if these updates are heading in the right direction. Cec2i2l0i9a8 (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking back upon the criteria under WP:MUSICBIO, I'm hoping that this article will now meet those guidelines. Criteria #1, multiple published works; #4, international tour (though I can understand that is somewhat vague); #6, worked with major ensembles on multiple occasions; and #9 won a major competition (in the classical music world both the Aspen and Juilliard competitions would be considered major). Hopefully that makes things more clear! Cec2i2l0i9a8 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
More good progress! Thank you for clarifying the categories, that's very helpful. I'm still seeing some issues with the sources: the following sources should be removed (for the reasons explained previously): Listen Notes (podcast); Queen Elizabeth Competition (this doesn't provide verifiable evidence of anything-- it's just a profile page); klassik-begeistert (a blog). Unfortunately I cannot assess the Korean material because I don't speak Korean, I'm sorry. These sources are OK/good: thestrad.com; smtd.umich.edu; Klassic Radio. The Midland Daily News is questionable but I suppose evidences she performed at a festival.
So with that in mind, we turn to WP:MUSICBIO. I think this is a helpful extract from there: "notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources." Also, the draft is acceptable just by establishing one of these criteria (we don't need to meet more that one, although more helps!):
  • Criteria #1, multiple published works: I don't really see how the sources evidence this, but I might be missing something? thestrad.com article is a review of one album but I'm not seeing the multiple...
  • Criteria #4, international tour: sorry, I'm not seeing this?
  • Criteria #6, is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles: please clarify the sources for this?
  • Criteria #9, Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition: please clarify the sources for this?
The Korean sources might help here, but I cannot assess them really as I don't speak Korean...but I am hopeful you can convince me otherwise! As I've said, clearly Kim is a very talented violinist, but I suppose my overall feeling is it could be WP:TOOSOON. I look forward to your thoughts. Cabrils (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alexandre Lazarow

Hi Cabrils, Thank you for your comments on the draft page. I have updated the references. I would like you to review the draft to see how it is now. Thank you ! 118.41.204.48 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Good work, that's heading in the right direction. Unfortunately I'm still not seeing how it satisfies the notability requirements? It would help if you could please identify, with specificity, which criteria of WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO you feel the draft meets, and the evidence for that? It well might and I'm just not seeing it. Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Peter F. Barth

Hi Cabrils,

Thank you very much for your quick and very helpful input. I will need a few days to address it but all the comments make prefect sense.

In fact, just moments before the draft was declined, I had entirely removed the third section (called “Contributions to Engineering and Education”) (the draft was saved at time “21:34, 21 March” and the declination is time stamped “21:36”) so this last major change wasn’t made apparent to you in time I imagine. I indeed concluded that section clearly does not add value to Wikipedia and lacked notability…

Also, indeed I need to include a COI declaration (I will figure that out soon I hope!), as you so very kindly noted.

On notability for the other sections, the “neurophysics” material had all the peer reviews at its time at the University of Vermont plus the paper with Krizan and Glasser (not a small fish) published in the journal Physica are certainly secondary sources of verification and notability. It is a contribution that really should not get lost and has received no criticism since being shared with a larger audience on Wikipedia ( 50,000 views on the Ising model page, since submitted only a few months ago), so it seems the notability of that item has been amply confirmed. I will still look at the papers that refers that but they will be hard to get ahold for me.

The books and work on Tibetan “mind teachings” have a much smaller audience, but also are notable in that they have been confirmed by the highest authorities within Tibetan Buddhism, and among those who are part of its vanishing culture. Not sure I can do more that this. (Unfortunately - or fortunately! - some of these lamas wrote their statements, with their signatures, in my books, but there is no payment associated with this.) Furthermore, the completely independent translation and publication of one the book by Italy’s largest publisher of spiritual books in Rome is an excellent “tertiary source”, as well, is it not?

I had thought I just had firmed those two sections up, but still will revisit things, and heartily welcome your very important advice.

Again thanks!! I look forward to pinging you when I think I am ready for the next review. Best, Thapkhay Thapkhay (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Thapkhay/Peter, thank you for your constructive and prompt reply also. I have a few thoughts:
1. I would suggest you create a Userpage because it will allow notifications to be posted there, including your declaration of conflict of interest (creating a user page is relatively quick to do and doesn't need to be complicated: see here for instructions).
2. Please ensure you understand Wikipedia's definition and use of "notability", which is a defined concept (as I set out in my comment on the draft page). For example, comments by lamas who wrote their statements in your books are not considered "reliable sources" and do not contribute towards evidencing notability.
3. Similarly, please ensure you understand Wikipedia's definition and use of reliable sources, which is a defined concept (as I set out in my comment on the draft page).
4. Further, please ensure you understand Wikipedia's definition and use of verifiabilty, which is a defined concept (as I set out in my comment on the draft page). Note that sources need not be online but need to be able to be independently verified by other editors.
5. “Neurophysics” material: peer reviewed articles not authored or co-authored by you, that include substantive discussions of your work, are good reliable sources so please use them.
6. "Books and work on Tibetan mind teachings”: these books may be listed in a section like "Selected bibliography" but if you want to include commentary about them, it requires "reliable sources" as defined. Translations similarly may be included where there are reliable sources (eg an Italian book review from an Italian newspaper or journal etc).
6. Given the state of the draft, I would suggest you withdraw it from the Submission queue until these issues have been addressed. I am happy to help you with it but let's get it out of the queue for the time being.
In summary, we need the draft to meet the criteria set out in either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; and because you are the subject of the page, there is a higher bar set to mitigate the inherent problems of conflict of interest.
I trust this all makes sense. Let me know how you go and don't hesitate to ask any questions. Cabrils (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again. Much helpful information and I will need a little time to complete your sound advice. I know there is discussion on interpretation on some of these definitions, but appreciate your work in bringing me up to speed. Best, Peter
Thapkhay (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks Peter. Of course, take your time. As I said, I'm happy to help and I'm optimistic we can get something in shape that will work. Speak soon. Cabrils (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cabrils/Archive_2&oldid=1231395615"