Jump to content

User talk:DrStrauss/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

13:38:08, 3 July 2017 review of submission by Greatbritishstyle


Hi DrStrauss, thank you for reviewing the BVG submission, and for your comment. As you pointed out, the addition of stub tags to the article was the only change made.

I felt the article would benefit from some help from the wikipedia community, as well as additional input from myself. The article's initial reviewer TheSandDoctor agreed a stub would be an appropriate way to do this, so he added a stub tag to it and I resubmitted as a stub.

If I’ve followed an incorrect process or if you believe the article is not acceptable as a stub, please advise so I can amend. Greatbritishstyle (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(They are referring to this discussion on my talk page --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC))
Hi Greatbritishstyle, I agree with TheSandDoctor (thanks for the link) in that a stub tag would help expansion because people roaming the stub categories will expand it. However, there's a certain level which must be met before a draft can go from a draft to an work-in-progress article. The idea of the draftspace is to help sort out the issues before they get into the mainspace. DrStrauss talk 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I somehow linked the wrong discussion on my talk page, anyhow, the WikiLink is now correct. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DrStrauss, thanks for getting back to me on this (and thanks TheSandDoctor for your continued help). Current feedback is that it needs some expansion, which it's agreed adding a stub template will help with. Please can you advise on what other issues need addressing so the article can move from the draft space into the stub categories for help with expansion? Thanks again, I appreciate your help with this. Greatbritishstyle (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Greatbritishstyle: both TheSandDoctor and I have advised that more independent, reliable sources would be good for establishing notability and sources in general for verifiability. DrStrauss talk 17:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

16:28:01, 3 July 2017 review of submission by ComPol


Hi Dr. Strauss, I hope you are doing well. I just came across this page and found it very interesting, so I wanted to implement some of the recommendations you have made for it to get improved. I hope you like these few changes and will approve it or give some insights on how better improve it. Thank you very much for your time. ComPol (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi ComPol, I'm glad you found my advice useful. I see you have submitted it so either myself or another reviewer will come and have a look in due course. DrStrauss talk 18:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your willingness to help me out on getting this article published correctly and more importantly, on improving its content so that it can be useful for others. I appreciate any assistance or guidance on getting this job done just like you have been doing so far. Again, thanks for your support Dr. Strauss and the quick reply.ComPol (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@ComPol: that's fine, I might give it a copyedit myself in the morning. DrStrauss talk 20:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That's absolutely awesome Dr. Strauss and very kind of you! I wish there were some mechanism for us to give a nice review/rating to people who are really committed to contribute and make a lasting impact on the improvement of this Wikipedia community, people like you Dr. Strauss. Again, greatly appreciate it.ComPol (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

looking in, Dr. S.'s original decline was correct--I declined it again, because the notability is so borderline ("Intirim director') and the accomplishments listed so trivial (He met some notable people) that the article would be quickly deleted in main space. I can't advise working on it further until he publishes somethig really important. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, DrStrauss and ComPol, and DGG. I was just about to sit down and weed out the promotional looking content from the page, but it looks like ComPol was faster. I was watching this conversation, and I'm glad you started a process in discussing this draft, although it has been cut short by DGG. Do you, or DGG have any suggestions? I see that the section about the Odebrecht case has been deleted, and I think that was a large-enough case, and as I learned, Manuel Jimenez's complaint file was partially based on Vicente Romero's publicly available analysis... maybe that could help, for it's a bit more than just "meeting with some notable people"? FZsolt (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DGG, thanks for the attention you've given this. I'll nevertheless give it a copyedit just so we've only got one issue. DrStrauss talk 08:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: DGG, might you cast your eye over my copyedit and see what you think? Obviously, it still doesn't fix the source issues you flagged up. diff DrStrauss talk 09:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to everybody for all your advice and support, especially to Dr. Strauss for being such a professional editor by showing respect when mentioning the parts that needs improvements. Dr. Strauss we really appreciate your willingness to help on making these changes from minute one. Thanks!ComPol (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Strauss would you kindly take a look (copyedit) at the article before I submit it one more time? If yes, I will be greatly thankful. Thanks for all your support to improve this wonderful Wikipedia community.ComPol (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yoshiro Taniguchi

Note for record: question pertains to earlier discussion here which was incorrectly archived. DrStrauss talk 08:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello - I'm not certain whether you saw my reply. I have made the corrections to this article and would ask for your reconsideration. Thank you. ChristopherC. Gelber (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking in, C. Gelber, it seems very likely to me that this is copied from some other publication--the style is considerably more formal and literary than would be appropriate here. For example "This time, well-trained and full of new ideas, Taniguchi could lead the efforts to start again, not only to help build a new city but also to find a bridge to the obliterated culture of his country’s past, its history, its architectural traditions, it’s unique character." or "By the time he entered Tokyo University in 1925, he had already undergone the first cycle of this path, watching the old architectural world of Tokyo which had filled his childhood sketch book give way to the new revivalist style ..." It makes the sort of explicit judgements of the work which is normal in printed work where the author is assumed to be an authority, but which we call Original Research and consider unacceptable. If it has been copied or even paraphrased, it must be rewritten from scratch. In any case it needs to be rewritten.
But it does show notability, and I do not see why that should have been given as a reason for rejection. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DGG, yep, it appears that way now but before the weasel words were removed, for me, it was difficult to establish notability but that's probably just the way my brain works! Often, bio and npov rejections go hand-in-hand anyway but thanks for the note. DrStrauss talk 08:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

06:30:56, 4 July 2017 review of submission by Wes Sherman


Hi I am trying to get this page out on wiki but I am having a hard time with submitting enough references. What type of references is wiki looking for? Do I need to link a source for everything posted? Not everything posted is able to be found online as it is too old to verify online.

I just need some help into the right direction so I can fix this.

(talk page stalker) @Wes Sherman: Hello! I would recommend for you to read WP:ARTIST which outlines the requirements for a creative professional to be on Wikipedia. These requirements then must be backed up using reliable sources, mainly from national news organisations. Take a look at these three links, they will help you identify if there is sufficient sourcing present. I will say, that if the subject of the article has not had a significant amount of coverage from national news organisations (not student papers or local/industry newspapers) it is unlikely they will pass the General Notability Guidelines. Hope this helps. Nicnotesay hello!contribs 08:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Wes Sherman, I don't think that's the key problem. The key problem is that the artist has not yet met the key requirements of WP:CREATIVE that there be works in the permanent collection of a major museum, or substantial critical discussion. or does it seem to meet the GNG.--but I don't see why newspaper sources are zany more important than the any other possible sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding declined movement of the draft page of Vivek Shanbhag

Dear DrStrauss,

Please let me know what I can do to make my entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vivek_Shanbhag read neutral. Though I have provided most of the internet links available on the topic in the reference section, will adding a few more citations help? Or are there any specific statements that need to be removed?

sanaha (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sanaha.jar: Hello, Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone might be useful to you. It is not about adding more citations, but rather the style of writing. Take a look at other wikipedia articles and you will see that they are brief and direct. The section The journal served as a platform that encouraged intra-cultural dialogue and served as a launchpad to many new writers and translators adding to the diversity in writing, thus, nurturing new talent is unreferenced and clearly not encyclopedic - it serves only to promote the subject of the article. Give the link a read and let me know if you are still uncertain about the style and tone required. Best, Nicnotesay hello!contribs 14:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Sanaha/jar, there's an additional problem. This is a Biography of a liviing person, and the references must be added to the text at the appropriate places to support the essential facts, not just listed at the bottom. . (there's no problem of establishing notability, because of the NYT review, but the references need to show it properly). For help with referencing , see WP:REFBEGIN DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Chemicalize

Hi DrStrauss. You declined Draft:Chemicalize as an AfC submission the other day, but the same content appears to have been copied-and-pasted into the mainspace as part of a page move changing Chemicalize.org to Chemicalize. I understand that AfC is not mandatory, but I'm not sure if this normally how things are done for declined submissions such as this. Would you mind taking a look at the article and reviewing it to see if it's worth trying to clean up or if it needs to be moved back to the draft namespace? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I have PRODed this. As you know yourself this article is pretty messy with the page move, so a CSD may be declined. You are welcome to support the PROD by writing underneath the PROD {prod2} using two curly braces on each side. Nicnotesay hello!contribs 14:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about declined page 2

Hi,

I'm seeking better understand and address the reason the following page was declined as an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Van_Bemmelen

It seems to me that quite a few independent references are used. Should they all move to footnotes?

Furthermore, a few Dutch families have a similar WIKI-page, like the Boissevain family, Van Eeghen (family), Kolff, Tetrode (family), or Fentener van Vlissingen. It seems logical that my page could be added to this list.

Could you assist me in imporving the page so it is useful for the Wiki-readers?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.199.142 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@84.82.199.142: It may be a very good idea to move all the references to the footer by using in-text citations (WP:CITE will give you a good idea on how to do this most effectively). Subsequently the article may need to be re-written as the headings are not appropriate for the style of Wikipedia. Let me know on my talkpage when you have moved all the citations to the bottom and I can help you with your article then. Nicnotesay hello!contribs 14:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
84.82.199.142 (and Nicnote, though these changes would indeed make a better article, I do not see how they would help with the fundamental problem, of it not being clear how the family as such is notable, as distinct from the individual members listed there. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about declined page

Hi

Thank you for reviewing our Researchfish page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Researchfish). I'm a little confused as to what else I can do regarding references - I added the external validated references since the previous review:

Medical Research Council: About Researchfish https://www.mrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-mrc-award-holders/researchfish/about-researchfish/ Jump up ^ Research Councils UK: About Researchfish http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/researchoutcomes/researchfish/ Jump up ^ Researchfish: A forward look. Challenges and opportunities for using Researchfish to support research assessment https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/publications/Researchfish%20A%20forward%20look.pdf Jump up ^ ORCID Member List https://orcid.org/members/001G000001nDwx4IAC-researchfish

Can you please advise?

Thanks for your help.

81.159.79.108 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Michael Francis 04/07/2017

@81.159.79.108: Hello, hope you are well. Taking a look at this draft it seems that it is still somewhat promotional, but nethertheless, fundamentally it does not pass the General Notability Guidelines. WP:NWEB outlines the requirements on Wikipedia for web content. There is a lack of independent sources from widely acclaimed international news organisations or journals. A source from an organisation funding the project is not independent. The sources you have provided only demonstrate a narrow notability of the web content, which means that it would not be able to pass WP:GNG, and thus did not pass the Articles for Creation process. Similarly, companies that are published in trade journals do not demonstrate wider-scale notability. Hope this helps. Nicnotesay hello!contribs 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I think there has been a misunderstanding here regarding the sources - they do not fund Researchfish - they are our customers who use our online platform to track the outcomes of their own funded projects - please can our submission be re-reviewed in light of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.151.234 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@86.142.151.234: if you submit your draft, I or another reviewer will look at it. DrStrauss talk 17:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - I've re-submitted86.154.64.159 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)§

Muslim Women's National Network Australia

I do not understand in what way this draft was as you state not "written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" and not "written from a neutral point of view". Please take more care when reviewing articles by new editors. This article has now been moved to article space (not by me), and I do not see why you rejected it. Please explain your thinking. PamD 20:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi PamD, thank you for your message. I generally find drafts about organisations which state their mission goals in numbered points to come across as promotional but I can see why some may think that this doesn't violate WP:NPOV in itself. I'll take as much care as I believe is required when reviewing drafts and I intend no disrespect by the following comment but you're not an AFC participant and while WP:NPOV is a general policy, its application to the draft space often involves marginal decisions. I'd also like to put on record my disagreement with the edit summary used by the mover. We have a backlog to eliminate and because I have been reviewing drafts in such high numbers it follows that there will be more complaints. My talk page is usually a complaints desk so please don't look at it and think it reflects my overall editing standards. DrStrauss talk 20:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that quoting an organisation's stated aims, and attributing them clearly to the organisation, is not at all promotional but is giving a very clear description of the organisation. I do not see anything "not written in the formal tone...". Correct, I am not an AfC participant, but I see many many new articles each week while stub-sorting and I aim to help and encourage good faith new editors rather than mystifying and upsetting them. The AfC proccess has discouraged a conscientious good faith editor from trying to create any more new articles: not the intended outcome. PamD 21:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi PamD, if a new user can be driven away by legitimate, well-worded criticism of their actions whilst criticising the way Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion by dubbing their contributions victim to systemic bias then we can't do anything about that. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if an editor is convinced to leave by such a minor setback one must question how convicted they are to the spirit of the project in the first place. DrStrauss talk 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
PamD, quoting the goals concisely is not promotional, but the overall content of the article strikes me as advocacy. I doubt I would have accepted it in its present form. I'm looking to see if some cuts or rewriting will help. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

22:44:13, 4 July 2017 review of submission by Ghostorchid


Hi DrStrauss. Thanks for taking the time to review my article on James Heneage. I've added some more references from mainstream UK Papers including the Times and The Mail. There are other articles with the subject as the main lead, such as article in the Guardian that uses him in the headline and the lead of the article, but it felt convoluted to add them and I'm wary of adding too many citations as per the guidelines. I've also added his Random House Group Award for Outstanding Contribution to Bookselling, and included a quote from the judges about "His achievement will leave an ideological and emotional imprint on this industry,". I would also draw attention to the article from the broadsheet The Telegraph (the final citation) which is specifically about him 'Odd man out in a cut-throat world' which I used to glean the biographic details. I feel that this fulfils the requirement for significant coverage, along with the demonstration of his chairing and judging high profile book awards, so I am submitting for re-review. I'm very grateful for your help and guidance.

Ghostorchid (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ghostorchid, I'll take a look at it now. DrStrauss talk 14:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: another reviewer has declined the article since you left this message, you might want to ask them as they are the most recent handler. DrStrauss talk 14:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DrStrauss Thanks, I've done that now. Still new to this, and finding my feet, so I appreciate your help. Ghostorchid (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Chostorchid: no problem, come back if you have anything else you want to ask! DrStrauss talk 19:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Francis Bellamy

I declined the speedy deletion of Francis Bellamy because http://sullivan-county.com/id3/bellamy.htm was apparently copied from Wikipedia. Note the "Ref. Wiki" at the end of the article there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

trout Self-trout. DrStrauss talk 06:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Submission of Draft:René_B._Azurin

Hi DrStrauss,

Thank you for reviewing the article Draft:René_B._Azurin. User DGG has removed the quotes from the submission and I've resubmitted it for review. Kindly review, if you have the time.

Again, thank you. Peppa.santos (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peppa.santos, I see that TheSandDoctor has recently declined it, I'm pinging them in so they can add additional comments if needed. DrStrauss talk 14:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Peppa.santos (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

02:14:28, 5 July 2017 review of submission by Cadotc


I feel like this article has many sources, so I guess I want a clarification of the reasoning of "not having adequate sources". Does this mean that are not enough sources quantitatively because if this is the case I feel like all the facts presented are backed by a source, and that the sources used are varied. If by inadequate sources you mean that the sources themselves do not seem reliable, these sources all come from credible places like universities and established organizations and peer reviewed scientific articles. Please point to any specific places in the article that you think need a source backing or any specific sources that you think are not sufficient.

Ok, so I see that sources must be independent so I guess I couldn't use infomation from the SOCCOM website? Cadotc (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cadotc: affiliated sources are fine: lots of articles have them, but they cannot be used to establish notability in the place of independent sources. DrStrauss talk 17:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

10:24:09, 5 July 2017 review of submission by Bodank1994


hello DrStrauss, kindly aid me in the refrencing style using the footnotes you recommended

hello Dr Strauss, i have tried as much as possible to get this article Draft:Francis Addai-nimoh which was rejected by you on July 3 of this month citing the fact that i should used footnotes..i want you to kindly aid me to help get this article through it has been a month already. please aid me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodank1994 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Bodank1994, thank you for your message. On Wikipedia, especially in biographies of living persons, we require claims made about things to be sourced. This means that you need to find an independent, reliable reference and cite it using our formatting standards. We require citations to be placed inline next to the claim they are verifying. WP:REFB, WP:ILC and WP:BLP explain these concepts in more detail. Your draft currently lacks inline references which is why it was declined. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 14:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

14:41:59, 5 July 2017 review of submission by Devopam


hello @DrStrauss:, could you please elaborate on the reliable sources aspect here when you get time. It will help to understand the issue and subsequent correction where needed. Devopam (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Devopam, we need independent media sources that give significant coverage to Bhowmick to establish notability. DrStrauss talk 14:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

15:09:53, 5 July 2017 review of submission by NataliaWozniak


Hello DrStrauss, thank you for taking your time and reviewing the article about tenor saxophone player Jimmy Roberts. I would like to ask for your help and get some information about the neccessary changes that need to be made to improve the article. This is the first Wikipedia article I'm creating and I've been looking at the articles of other instrumental musicians to make sure my references are good enough and since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Clemons is an instrumental musician as well I looked at the references from this page and thought that the sources I found will be good enough. I found additional information about the artist at http://www.allmusic.com/artist/jimmy-roberts-mn0000088777/credits. Could you let me know if this source is reliable enough and would be a good reference source? NataliaWozniak (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)NataliaWozniak

Hi NataliaWozniak, half of the references are to affiliated sources. One link in an "external links" section to an official website is fine, but using them as inline references is useless for establishing notability. DrStrauss talk 14:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

File mover granted

Hello DrStrauss. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In reference to:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraeya Srinivasan

Hi, Shreaya is an upcoming national level athlete and just finished her high school. That's why you see lots of articles, references from the local newspaper and her school. She's just starting to get regional and national attention as a champion and there are now new references from the reputed Boston Globe, Boston Herald.

Also since most of the articles are from single local source, its easier to verify as well. Let me know if you want the journalist contact and i can have it arranged for verification. Srinisankar (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Srinisankar, can you cite the journalist's work using our inline system? A walkthrough can be found here. DrStrauss talk 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
(@DrStrauss:) Ah yes i've used Cite to refer to all the sources and the journalists. You can see that section under References there. Pls let me know if you need any additional information. Srinisankar (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)srinisankar
@Srinisankar: well, you need to put absolutely everything about Srinivasan in the article to show her notability. Everything. If there's more, then there may be a chance of preventing it from being deleted, in its current state, it's not got much of a chance. DrStrauss talk 19:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks a lot for all your support! ComPol (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@ComPol: wow, thank you! And anytime! DrStrauss talk 09:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't mention it! Quite well deserved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComPol (talk • contribs)

Draft

Hi, Can you please take another look at my articles. I need to publish it quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrelias (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, what's your draft called? DrStrauss talk 09:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pierrelias: are you referring to Draft:Dominique Lemay? DrStrauss talk 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DrStrauss, I have updated the tone of my article, Draft: Dominique Lemay. Can you please take a look. I need to get it done quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrelias (talk • contribs)
@Pierrelias: your draft is in the queue and myself or another reviewer will look at it as soon as we can. May I ask why you're so keen to get it published so quickly? DrStrauss talk 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Because i have been working on it for over a month now :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrelias (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pierrelias: that's a shame, but it's better to have a good article which takes longer to make than a rushed inferior one. DrStrauss talk 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Re submission of Emtec Draft

Hello DrStrauss, I have been working on the Emtec draft for Wikipedia. We have edited the draft numerous times based on feedback and removed press release links since they were cited as not reliable. Can you tell me how many "reliable sources" are needed to validate the existence of the organization? We have provided numerous links to partner pages where we are listed. We are not a large IT services organization like an Accenture who gets articles written about them... so need some help if you can to understand what we need to get it approved. We have modeled our page after other competitors that are currently live and listed. We have seen other orgs with minimal info that are approved. Any help would be appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emtec

My ID is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Devers9

Devers9 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Devers9,
Throughout your message you often refer to yourself in the plural and imply that you are employed by Emtec e.g. we are not a large... organization. I therefore must ask you to read our terms of use in relation to conflicts of interest which can be found here. I would strongly advise you to place {{UserboxCOI|1=Draft=Emtec}} in your userpage to declare said COI.
The reliable, independent sources that I was referring to are not needed to verify the existence of Emtec but to establish its notability. Most companies are not notable enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria for corporate inclusion so you need to show that Emtec has received significant coverage from multiple major independent, reliable media sources.
You may find the following links helpful: WP:COI, WP:NCORP, WP:42 and WP:DISCLOSE.
DrStrauss talk 15:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:U&I (NGO)

I had posted an article on Draft:U&I (NGO). It was declined on the context that it doesn't have references. I have added references at the end of the page, as bibliography. Could you please tell me ways to improve my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandakumarSG (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi NandakumarSG, we strongly recommend using inline citations, not just links at the end. Please see WP:REFB and WP:CITE to learn how you can make inline citations. DrStrauss talk 15:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandakumarSG (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

14:01:11, 6 July 2017 review of submission by 213.8.204.22


Dear Dr. Strauss: I have improved the submission for Yitzchak Mayer by adding citation references. All of the information in the Early Life section (not just the first line) comes from the Jerusalem Post article I have referenced. I didn't think it appropriate to cite the same source multiple times. There are many other sources for this information, but they are articles in Hebrew, French and German. Should I cite these foreign language articles as well? Ambassador Mayer is a prominent Israeli public figure whose work is now available in English for the first time. As a result, I believe it appropriate that he have an English Wiki page. 213.8.204.22 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @213.8.204.22:, we generally require extensive inline citations in biographies of living people next to all claims made. Don't worry if you cite the same source multiple times, but having other sources to corroborate another is always appreciated. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 15:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

16:17:54, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Holdhard


I am not sure what is meant by not able to substantiate the references, I have personally checked those that were possible and indicated where the reference could be found on the internet. As this is my first article I am struggling to make sense of all the requirements so some help would be much appreciated. Short rejections are sometimes not useful to beginners. Many thanks for your help

Hi Holdhard, thank you for your message. The issue with your draft is that it has no references. The headings you have used do reference books but not in the style we usually require. We prefer inline citations next to claims as opposed to the article being structured around the references. The "In Conclusion" section may want cutting out because it is very essay-like. Links that may help are WP:REFB, WP:HOWTOCITE and WP:ESSAY. Thank you. DrStrauss talk 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Please advise on proceeding after rejection. Variety.com has 17 million unique monthly visitors (Source: Google Analytics, 2015), IMDB, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Return_to_Timbuktu 103.255.238.168 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 103.255.238.168, notability isn't inherited. Just because Variety has talked about Return to Timbuktu doesn't make it notable. While Variety is probably the best source you've got there, you need more like it to show that RtT passes our notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 18:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft review decline clarification

Hi there!

I'm writing to clarify your recent review of this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luminar My second version of it (the one you reviewed) was prepared according to the first reviewer, who asked to use a neutral tone and remove the promotional statements. That's why I replaced all information that could be taken as promotional and left only most informative and basic information, which could be confirmed by the references I was able to find. I didn't add a detailed explanation of all its features, workspaces, details of software etc. in order to avoid the "promotion", which was the main issue in the first version. As I understood your suggestion, the article isn't informative. But I'm afraid that I might cross the line of "promotion" if I add more information about the product. I'll be glad to edit the article once more, but I wanted to ask you how should I do that, to meet your "informativeness" criteria and avoid "promotion".

Please advice. Thank you! (Jenyajc (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC))

Hi Jenyajc, the issue with the draft is that it's more like a Bloomberg entry as in it doesn't give much substantial information as prose about the company. Please try to use references to flesh the content out a bit. Thank you, DrStrauss talk 20:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello DrStrauss, thank you for the clarification, I'm already working on expanding the program description as you suggested. Just one quick question - you said that the article lacks information about "the company". Do you think that the article needs information about the developer company behind the software? Because it's not the only product of this developer. I'm not sure whether we need to tell about the company in the article dedicated to the software. Thanks!  Jenyajc (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jenyajc, mea culpa, I meant to say the product! Yes, I declined it because more information is needed. If talking about the company can be sourced then by all means add it. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

12:52:23, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Abenci


Hi DrStrauss,

Please help me to understand what's wrong with my article and if there is any chance to be able to publish it. Should I remove some references or there are some other conceptual wrong matters?

I used these pages as reference and they look to me even worst:

Thanks,

Alberto

Hi Abenci, I understand the issue you're having. Wikipedia needs information to be both neutral and extensive. If you can't write enough without it becoming an advert then the business might not be notable enough for Wikipedia. We don't reference Wikipedia itself, please see WP:42 for further information. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks DrStrauss, can you please explain me why the pages I liked above meet WP:42 requirements instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenci (talk • contribs)
Hi Abenci, just because something else exists that fails our standards doesn't justify the creation of your article. If you think that those articles don't meet our criteria for inclusion, please nominate them for deletion. DrStrauss talk 16:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:30:06, 7 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ubaid1salfi


Hello DrStrauss, Thanks for your review. I have given enough relevant citation for above subjects notability. A person saving people during riots and building a blood bank to serve the humanity is notable in my view. I found some news paper cutouts at https://tajallieshahabblog.wordpress.com/in-news/ which are in regional language but those are not available as archive copy on respective newspaper websites, so kindly suggest me the way to include those as citation. your help is much appreciated. Thanks

Ubaid1salfi (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ubaid1salfi: please mention more about his role in the riots. You've dedicated only one sentence to it - a reader may want to know more. Please see WP:HOWTOCITE for instructions on citing paper sources. DrStrauss talk 19:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added more info. about his role in riots and added the citation although those are not available online as archive copy but available as cutout on above said URL. Kindly let me know if some more modifications are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubaid1salfi (talk • contribs)
@Ubaid1salfi: you might want to resubmit it and get advice from another reviewer because I am not proficient in the language which some of the new sources are written. It may still be declined, but if you submit it a reviewer who is more familiar with the language in question may pick it up. DrStrauss talk 13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

21:25:34, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Chubbles


Hi, I just took a look at the draft for John Coates Jr., which I didn't write. Coates definitely deserves an article (the Spanish and German wikis already have one on this American musician), and the draft as it was submitted was a little rough around the edges, but I did some copyediting and added two new sources, one quite substantial. You've requested that the Allmusic links be removed, but Allmusic is a good third-party source for music which I use frequently; Scott Yanow, who wrote Coates's article, is one of their best writers. I think this article is ready to move to mainspace; do you have any objection to my doing this? Chubbles (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chubbles, little improvement on the version that I declined has been made so far. The Spanish and German Wikipedias have different criteria for inclusion from the English Wikipedia. I don't doubt that Coates is notable enough for an article but the sources simply don't show it. Once the submitter, or another user, has improved it, they can submit it for re-review. DrStrauss talk 16:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
But an American musician with articles in other languages is usually (though, I grant, not exclusively) a good indicator of general notability - if you have international prominence, you likely meet WP:MUSIC. With the AMG, Morning Call, and Washington Post references, the article is likely to survive a notability challenge at AfD; that's a fair bit of substantial sourcing right there. I did all of the improving of the article since you declined it; I doubt the OP will return to work on it. So the question is, what more needs to be done for it to be minimally acceptable as a mainspace article (I would argue it already meets that threshold), and is there anything preventing me from just moving the draft to mainspace on my own? (I don't want to step on your toes, but I also don't want to see a serviceable draft about a notable topic wither on the vine.) Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Chubbles: you're probably right, it would survive an AfD. Reviewers often decline AfCs that will survive AfDs for that reason: an AfC article will be better because of peer review. I don't mind either way, feel free to move if you think it's okay. DrStrauss talk 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, just cleaned it up some more (including the addition of one more major third-party source) and transferred to mainspace. Thanks Chubbles (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

help

You made constructive remarks about the entry I submitted for review. However, I've never created a wikipedia entry before and wanted to know specifically what in the entry is causing the rejection? I sincerely want to understand what is needed. Any guidance would be appreciated. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Updater500 (talk • contribs)

Hi Updater500, I assume you're referring to Draft:John Allen Hendricks which you submitted three times yesterday. The issue was that it didn't have independent, reliable sources which gave Hendricks significant coverage. Pinging Joe Roe as he declined it a few hours before I did. DrStrauss talk 16:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Updater500 and thanks for the ping DrStrauss. As I said I personally would not advise resubmitting this draft as I think the subject is simply not suitable for inclusion and it will continue to be rejected. However if you want to anyway (and feel free to), the simple tip I give to newbies writing their first article is: read other Wikipedia articles. In this case, look at other biographies of academics (we have thousands. Look at what they include: a chronological list of their education and the faculty positions they have held, their major areas of research, assessments of their contribution to scholarship by independent sources. And just as importantly what they don't include: lists of everything they've ever published, details of routine academic duties like sitting on review boards, superlative descriptions of their influence (e.g. "leading scholar") that are not grounded in sources. Also try to match the formatting used by other articles (e.g. sections, lists), because while this isn't strictly necessary for a draft to be accepted, it does make it a hell of a lot easier for a reviewer to read. – Joe (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

regarding an Submission declined

Hey my Submission on Mohena Kumari Singh has been decline as it says submission is lake of reliable sources. i just have edit it and resend it. i just want to know by 'reliable sources' did you mean that referrals ? i am confuse on it can you clear it?? it's my first page so i am bit confused. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakzazak (talk • contribs)

@Zakzazak: reliable sources are references to respected sources, for example, your draft references Wordpress which isn't one of these. I would advise withdrawing the submission until it has been further improved because in its current form it will almost certainly be declined. DrStrauss talk 16:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

21:01:28, 8 July 2017 review of submission by RKJonze


Article has been edited to remove "Peacock" terms. The language flagged in the first sentence is a paraphrased version of the article cited in the first two footnotes. This article was written by a museum curator of a major institution who I believe is an expert in this field and is independent of the subject of the article.

Hi RKJonze, three things: firstly, be careful when paraphrasing sources as it can cause copyright issues, secondly, the author of the article is irrelevant, a neutral article written by a teenager is better than a non-neutral article written by an expert and finally, the inline external links need removing. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

22:20:59, 8 July 2017 review of submission by Brandonjakcruz


hello, i am making a page for a band out of mainly content form an existing page. the band KNOW is a new band that sprung from the band Dr. Know. please let me know what you want or need to make this page get published. i am the singer of the band. thank you, brandon jak cruz

Hi Brandonjakcruz, have you considered making KNOW a subsection of Dr. Know? Furthermore, it's strongly advised against for people to write autobiographies (or articles about something they're personally involved in). You might want to consider waiting for somebody unaffiliated to write it. DrStrauss talk 10:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lashon Hakodesh

Hello. I'm confused by your close of the requested move at Talk:Leshon Hakodesh#Requested move 1 July 2017. Although consensus seems to support the move and you moved the page as requested, you wrote "Not done" and your edit summary says "not done; consensus is against". Did you press the wrong button or type the wrong text? Is there some other explanation for the disconnect between what you did and what you wrote? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi MShabazz, I've now corrected the template. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. DrStrauss talk 07:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Japan Pharmaceutical Association

Hi, I wonder if you have had a chance to consider the comments left for you at the above mentioned draft page? Thanks Dr.khatmando (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dr.khatmando, I think Legacypac is best suited to dealing with your draft considering his recent comment on it. DrStrauss talk 09:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
User:DrStrauss thanks for the ping. I'm temporarally unable to move pages to mainspace. I can request you (or anyone) to move it or the creator can do the move, but it's a lot cleaner if someone AfC approved running the AFCH script does the move. Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Branko Petranović

I'm not the author of this draft but I took freedom to ask you why you did refuse the article submission? You wrote

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Why do you think that the sources are inadequate, not reliable? Why the sources are not sufficient? Which source is not secondary or does not provide significant coverage? Please, go to the draft talk page and be more specific i.e. be sure that you have access to the given secondary sources and your reading comprehension of the sources written in Serbian is adequate in order to address claimed notability issues.

Thank you.--178.222.129.66 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 178.222.129.66, thank you for your message. Admittedly, my command of Serbian isn't exactly excellent but of the six sources you have cited at least one is affiliated. Normally, that's okay in all fairness and I'll see if I can find a reviewer who speaks Serbian. DrStrauss talk 21:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Empty Grave

Hi,

You declined my draft article because of the Tumblr reference. However, I have seen other articles use Tumblr as a reference. Plum3600 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There are 5 million plus pages on English Wikipedia. Every one of them has some problems. The existence of a problem on page X does not justify creating the same problem on page Y. Tumblr is not a WP:RS because it is user generated with no editorial oversight. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

Hi. All the discussion is basically over and done with - thank goodness. The next stage is pure technical development which will require graphic, language, and programming skills from both the WMF and the community teams. Your input would be welcome, but you'll find answers to all your questions if you take a moment to read (in their entirety) the pages at WT:NPPAFC, Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_7. If after that you still have any questions, which is unlikely, you are welcome to ask me or TonyBallioni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I'll give those a thorough read. I'm not familiar with the MediaWiki blacklist so if that is the method that is chosen I won't be able to help but I am familiar with template syntax and would like to think I'm proficient at making good designs so if I'm needed, please ping me! It's great to see that this is finally materialising, I'm impatient after six months so I cannot imagine six years. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 13:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

11:54:28, 10 July 2017 review of submission by 128.220.159.13

Thanks DrStrauss for taking the time to review the Draft.

I could use help on figuring out what additional references could strengthen the draft. I have tried to incorporate as many references as I could find. Thanks

Hi 128.220.159.13, I'm not saying that Retakh as a person is not notable but the draft doesn't convey said potential notability. But I've done a quick search for sources and I can't find any more. You may have access to non-internet sources that I don't, have you tried looking for some of those? Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Furian Deletion Contest

Hi

I saw that you have contested our post for "Furian" in UK bands. I understand that you have your reasons but I have a more personal plea with this one I suppose. You are correct in saying that we have never charted but we have featured on Kerrang radio (which I can provide proof for) and have been established as both a registered business and a band and are registered with PRS as an artist (the global royalties agency). By that merit we are surely a band that could be entered.

I completely understand that you are playing by the rules and don't wish to approach from any other angle than, we could really use the traffic that this wiki entry can provide (due to our relation to the chronicles of riddick searches). Being a band is a very tough game to play and we need every little bit of help that we can get in directing people to our page. I ask kindly that we work to fix this instead of denying it. Would love to hear your feedback, ears are completely open. I am new to wikipedia and I'm positive that you've identified that straight away. But I would rather be helped than denied.

Kind regards,

Dan Martin-Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyarRecords (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi PyarRecords, I understand the predicament you're in but Wikipedia isn't for personal gain. However, there is a possibility that your band is notable but the article doesn't convey it. It's likely to get deleted but I would suggest creating a draft by following the instructions here which means that you can work on it with the help of experienced editors before it is approved. You may also have to change your username or start a new account because your current name may violate the username policy. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 13:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time DrStrauss. I really appreciate the help and guidance and understand completely. I wasn't suggesting it as a promotional method, merely a happy side effect but regardless of that I absolutely understand and also appreciate your understanding in replying. Keep up the good work! PyarRecords (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Open access

Thanks. I had come across the Canadian one because it was badly categorized in the Category:Canada tree, but hadn't investigated the Category:Open access by country tree to see how good or bad the rest of its siblings were — but if they're all as bad as the Canada one was, then yeah, batching them together was definitely the way to go instead of 80 standalone AFDs. I've already added a comment to the new discussion accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: thanks for bringing that category to my attention. Only 80 out of the 128 pages that wanted nominating were in the new page feed so I've added the rest with AutoWikiBrowser. I presume you're content with your !vote standing with the amended selection? DrStrauss talk 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

15:07:06, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Averyfriedman11

Hello, I am inquiring about the decline of the page I created for the Center for Communication. I would appreciate any recommendations you have regarding how to make this entry suitable for Wikipedia. Please let me know, and thank you. Avery Friedman.

Hi Averyfriedman11, the draft contains a lot of weasel words, peacock terms and unsourced statements. Have a look at WP:NPOV, particularly the weasel and peacock sections, and see if you can identify some of them. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I have looked into weasel and peacock terms and then looked over my entry and erased words like "notable" and "experienced," could you point me to some more exisiting problematic areas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyfriedman11 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Averyfriedman11, more independent, reliable sources which show the notability of the Centre would be appreciated. See WP:42 and WP:SIGCOV. DrStrauss talk 12:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There have been some articles recently posted about the Center's annual luncheon from the New York Post and Broadcasting Cable. (http://nypost.com/2017/07/02/cesar-conde-leading-center-for-communications-roast/, http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/fates-and-fortunes/cesar-conde-get-frank-stanton-award-center-communication/166811) If I incorporated these (plus the other articles I linked from Harvard's Neiman Lab and the Hollywood Reporter) is that not sufficient notability for a nonprofit organization? Additionally, the New York Mayor's Office of Media and Entertainment covers the Center's events (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/mome/news/030216-cencom-announcement.page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyfriedman11 (talk • contribs)
@Averyfriedman11: add them to the draft then! Find as much as you can and cite it :) Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

17:43:59, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Nour-hm: More unaffiliated sources are needed

Hi DrStraud, thank you for taking your time to review the article about eXo Platform (software page). I would like to ask for your help and get some information about the necessary changes that need to be made to improve the article. The content of this draft used to be in the eXo Platform company page, the current references were added in the company page following your request to add reliable sources to the content which was approved with these same references. Since the content of the page is software oriented more than company oriented, we decided to move it from the company page and to create a new one, software oriented where this content could explain more our software, we also kept the same references by adding them to the new page (the current draft), the most of the references are taken from unaffiliated sources such as cmswire, theServerSide and InforQ. Could you please specify the sections that need reliable sources, and I will do the necessary. Thanks again for your help. Nour-hm (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nour-hm, it's not so much sections lacking verifiability due to the sources, the issue is that when one looks at the draft as a whole, the numerous affiliated references fail to convey notability of the topic which is achieved through major media coverage. DrStrauss talk 12:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DrStrauss, I removed all affiliated sources and replaced them with media coverage, except this http://translate.exoplatform.org/ I kept it as a proof that the software is available in these languages and their status of availability. Please tell me if it's OK like this or should I also remove it. Thank you so much. Nour-hm talk

17:52:56, 10 July 2017 review of submission by CreateWikipg


Hello: You stated that the content can not be verified? It can be, and there is no mention of what specifically cannot be verified? Leaving me in a guessing game trying to figure out what I don't know. Everything written here is 100% true and I can provide you with documentation to prove it. I thought I had. The last time this content was denied the editor stated that they wanted me to show a section comparing CHAP to the other scientific methods used by the our US government. I did that, and now it's something entirely different. I am sure you can understand my frustration with this process being every time I submit it.. it comes back with a "different reason" why it has not been accepted. Please provide me with WHAT content specifically does not follow with your wiki protocols? So, I may correct or delete it. Much is appreciated.

Hi CreateWikipg, well, sections 1 and 3 of your draft are completely unsourced so some citations there would be helpful. DrStrauss talk 12:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Polarization_Constants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Polarization_Constants

Hello,

I provided some additional details why this article is of a significant interest. In particular, I tried to explain what are the mathematical and practical applications of the described problem. I also added levels to make it easier to read. Can this article be published now?

Thanks!

Rezniko2 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rezniko2, thank you for the amendments, it's probably best to wait for another reviewer who has a greater command of advanced mathematics to review it than me because I would not be able to fully comprehend and corroborate the information in the draft. You can re-submit it by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. DrStrauss talk 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LP_Raju

Hi, My submission is declined, "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."

what is reliable sources? what is that you are looking at? please let me know if there is anything that needs to be submitted or have to be changed. I am not sure if there is anything incorrect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravichanndraa (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ravichanndraa, sources 1 and 2 are from IMDb which isn't considered reliable due to its lack of editorial oversight. Sources 3 and 4 look a bit crufty and don't help in establishing notability, and source 5 doesn't mention Raju at all! DrStrauss talk 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Chicago Toy & Game Group

Hello, I work for the ChiTAG group and my boss wanted to know why these sources are considered unreliable. We added reliable local news sources and added articles that discussed us. Please help us resolve it, ChiTAG Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberks (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dberks, first and foremost I must ask you if you are being paid to make this article? Secondly, sources 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. DrStrauss talk 20:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
No I am not being paid to write the article, secondly remove the sources from our own website and we should be good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberks (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dberks: as you're working for the company in question you need to disclose your conflict of interest regardless of payment. Please see WP:DISCLOSE. If you want me to do it for you, please indicate so in your reply. The sources do need removing and replacing with independent ones. DrStrauss talk 21:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I am an unpaid volunteer, but if you need to disclose a conflict of interest, then I give you permission to do so. (That is me saying I'd appreciate it if you did it for me).

Additionally, I was wondering if we could change the name to Chicago Toy & Game Week, rather than Group, that would be much appreciated.

I am resubmitting it with new THIRD PARTY ARTICLES that REPLACED the old ones. I hope this is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberks (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dberks: I've disclosed your COI on your userpage as requested and a reviewer will have a look at your article in due course. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 12:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

20:27:43, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Avantgaertner


hi, what information specifically needs to be verfied? it's very hard to confirm one's attendance at a university. I can link to this: http://culture.pl/en/artist/agnieszka-kurant etc. She's certainly an artist of note and i am not sure how to stop this from getting rejected over and over.

@Avantgaertner: In a biography of a living person, everything. Every single fact. If you can't source it, then remove it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Safe-space

Hi. A belated WELCOME to Wikipedia, Doc! Thanks for adding the cite-supported portion of the this paragraph to the safe-space article. However, the final sentence does not have a citation for it, and was removed. As you may have learned by now, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation. If you ever have any other questions about editing, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, thank you for the reminder and yep, I've picked that up by now :) Best, DrStrauss talk 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Vivek_Shanbhag

Dear DrStrauss,

I made sure to kill all the peacocks and weasels in the page. I hope the page looks alright now. If not, please point to me the exactly points of concern. Fingers crossed!

sanaha (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sanaha.jar, if you think it's ready for another review, please re-submit it. I think a couple of terms could do with more citations e.g. "well received across the world" is a bit promotional, it does have one citation but for such a sentence to stand it would require several citations. You might also want to incorporate the external links into the inline citations you already have. Instructions for the latter can be found here. DrStrauss talk 12:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

11:50:33, 11 July 2017 review of submission by FutureFF


Dear DrStrauss. As I understand the reason for the declining is that there's not enough references. How many references have to be in order to look notable?

Hi FutureFF, I have no doubt that an event put on by the BFI is notable but the sources just don't show it. It's not a case of how many sources you need but their quality. Has the event had any coverage from BBC, Telegraph etc? If so, please put it in! The lead might want re-writing to remove a couple of weasel words. DrStrauss talk 12:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear DrStrauss,
I've made changes to the article. Added some information, found a BBC article about the festival and deleted weasel words. Hope, it's fine now!
Thank you, FFFuture
Hi FutureFF, feel free to submit the draft for a re-review and I or another reviewer will assess it. DrStrauss talk 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on rejection

Thank you DrStrauss for your review and feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tony_DiBenedetto, it is greatly appreciated. I will rework the article to follow a more formal tone as requested and be careful to avoid "peacock" terms. My question is on your comment on a range of independent, reliable published sources... currently there are references from many independent sources like entreprenuer.com, inc.com, bizjournals.com and usnews.com in regards to Tony DiBenedetto, are those not enough? Thank you again for your time, I understand there are many pages that are submit daily. Greenough Ben (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greennough Ben, the "reliable sources" comment is part of a pre-prepared message and isn't as applicable to your draft as it is in most NPOV cases. Feel free to resubmit and I or another reviewer will have a look at it. DrStrauss talk 21:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:54:56, 11 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Elise Johnson


Hi there,

I hope you are well,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I was wondering if you are able to let me know what sources in particular you felt weren't verified enough so I can focus on finding more reliable ones.

Thank you in advance for your help,


Elise Johnson (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

15:43:12, 11 July 2017 review of submission by Greatbritishstyle

Hi DrStrauss, thank you for your message. I fully appreciate the advice yourself and TheSandDoctor have given me to make my draft good enough for a full mainspace article - add more independent, reliable sources to establish better notability. But please could you give me more detail on the level/number of sources needed for my article to be moved into the stub categories? I've looked at current stub pages in the business-stub/company-stub categories and many have only 2-3 sources. Again, thank you for taking the time to help me with this. Greatbritishstyle (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greatbritishstyle, thanks for linking the previous discussion, I'm still trying to formulate a method of archiving which keeps strings in date-created order but doesn't archive them prematurely! I'll have another look at your draft nowwithin the next couple of hours. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 16:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Greatbritishstyle: I've had another look now. The first thing I would say is that more meaningful sections need to be made. Have a look at WP:SECTIONS and get back to me. DrStrauss talk 20:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DrStrauss, thanks for taking another look and for linking more information on sections. I've added more sections to my article based on that help page and the Manual of Style help pages. Please can you take a look and let me know if this is looking better? Thanks, Greatbritishstyle (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

16:02:00, 11 July 2017 review of submission by Mukhambekova

@DrStrauss: Hello, Thank you for the comments that you provided regarding the draft page that I have created Draft:Rating-Agentur_Expert_RA_GmbH However the reasons of rejection are not clear. The coverage about the subject in reliable sources is relatively significant. The sources used are independent of the subject. I have also compared with the pages of companies from the same industry: ARC_Ratings Dagong_Global_Credit_Rating ACRA_(rating_agency) The number of references are comparable or even smaller. Could you please provide details of what could exactly be changed on the submitted page?

Thank you! --Mukhambekova (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mukhambekova, firstly, the existence of Wikipedia articles about companies similar to your own is not a valid rationale for the creation of one on yours. Secondly, are you in any way connected with the company in question? If so, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. Your use of the word our suggests that your account is being used by more than one person, if this is the case, please cease such practices as they violate our policy on account use. The issue of sources can be discussed when you have, if necessary, disclosed your COI. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrStrauss/Archive_4&oldid=1049526378"