User talk:InterstellarGamer12321/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Redirects listed at RfD

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WX Piscis Austrini and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7 § WX Piscis Austrini until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. PopePompus (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 84 Ursae Majoris and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7 § 84 Ursae Majoris until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. PopePompus (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Eta Librae has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23 § Eta Librae until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Iota Hydri has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 6 § Iota Hydri until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect 11 Piscis Austrini has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 30 § 11 Piscis Austrini until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A Redirect Barnstar for you!

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! You've done a great job in adding 1,700+ (mostly star based) redirects. Thank you for your hard work! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bismuth

Bismuth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ¹⁴¹Pr 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, InterstellarGamer12321,

I see you are participating in a lot of AFD discussions these days. I'd like you to focus more on quality than quantity. Comments like "per nom" or "sources seem reliable enough" or "not notable" don't really contribute anything to a deletion discussion because it's not apparent that you have read the article and analyzed the sourcing that is available, much less done a search for additional sources that could be used. I get that it can be very time-consuming to do this work for each deletion discussion but it is much better to have a few participants who have looked closely at an article and considered Wikipedia policies than adding vague comments that don't move a discussion forward. To tell you the truth, comments like that are mostly ignored by a discussion closer and I'm sure you want your opinions to be taken seriously. This isn't meant to discourage you from commenting in AFDs, on the contrary, I want you to continue but to treat the discussions seriously and truly do an investigation into each article, just don't read other editors' discussion comments and agree or disagree with them. Remember, in-depth participation on a few AFDs is worth so much more than so-so comments on a lot of AFDs.

I look forward to seeing your comments in future deletion discussions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I will make sure to focus on the quality of my comments and I will focus more on finding and evaluating sources rather than commenting on a lot of AfDs. Thanks for the help and advice! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Question on Atlas of Venus

About: Draft:Atlas of the Surface of Venus Hello InterstellarGamer12321. I am not sure how to ask you a question, I hope this is OK., You wrote two things: you cannot understand the context and no good references. For the first, let me point to the 1st sentence: "The Atlas of the Surface of Venus (In Russian: Atlas Poverhnosti Venery, Атлас поверхности Венеры) is the first book-format cartographic atlas that fully shows the surface characteristics of the planet Venus." I am really not sure how to word things more straightforward. Could you tell me which part is that is not understandable, what you want to add as context? It is an atlas of venus -- For me it establishes context. For you it's not so please tell me what is not clear. The other is that I listed several independent citations. Why is it not sufficient? Papers and books written by others, about this atlas - what else do you need? Please clarify your needs because I am clueless at this point. Thank you : --Asztalossy (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Asztalossy: thank you for writing to me about the draft. I have moved to this discussion to the bottom of the page as that is where new discussions are supposed to go. I said it had insufficient context because the first sentence is the main sentence which gives context, and it does not give enough information for someone with absolutely no knowledge of astronomy/mapping to understand. I agree that only minor tweaks are needed to the introduction. As for the body of the article, some sentences were unreferenced and some of the sources were primary. The secondary sources were borderline in terms of establishing notability. In my opinion the draft will be safe to resubmit once the introductory statements are improved and more references are added to back up the unsourced information. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Need suggestions for Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich

@InterstellarGamer12321: Could you provide some concrete suggestions to make this article read like an "encyclopedia article" in an encyclopedic manner rather than an essay? In particular, could you give an example on how you would change the titles? Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Egm4313.s12: Examples of section titles are 'Vietnam - An Independent Viewpoint' and 'Summary of Main Points'. Both of these are subtitles for an essay and not an encyclopaedic article. Additionally, section titles are usually only 1-2 words, not several as in the draft. As for the prose, you can read WP:ESSAY, Wikipedia:Writing better articles, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS for now to write more encyclopaedic articles rather than essays. It is also fine to remove information if you cannot change a section title or improve the prose. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@InterstellarGamer12321: Thank you for your suggestions. I will work on the article, and will check with you from time to time to make sure that my article is an encyclopaedic one. Hope you don't mind to give your feedback on my changes. Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Galimzhan Yesenov

@InterstellarGamer12321: hello! I have finalized this article, provided links to confirm data from reliable independent sources. Thank you in advance!Agneta 92 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Agneta 92: thank you for telling me that you have fixed the issues with the article. I have accepted it and it is now in mainspace. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@InterstellarGamer12321: Thank you for your help! Agneta 92 (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Institute for Excellence in Writing

@InterstellarGamer12321 Thanks for taking the time to review the Draft:Institute for Excellence in Writing page and for providing feedback! After reviewing your feedback, I've updated the draft to remove all primary sources and the page now solely uses secondary sources. Some copyedits were made to ensure it remains neutral, but any edits from you are welcome to ensure neutrality. The Product section is now referenced as well. I also added one additional notable source in the History section. Please let me know if any further edits are needed. Again, appreciate you taking the time to review this submission! Nickb1234 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nickb1234: thank you for letting me know that you have improved the draft based on the suggestions from my AfC comment. Another editor has declined the draft and given a comment. Once you have improved the draft based in their suggestions I will be willing to accept it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Their comments are based on the quality of references not being good enough to establish notability. Therefore it would be good to add more reliable, independent references with WP:SIGCOV of the subject so that notability is more firmly established per WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on adding a few more notable sources over the next few months and I'll be in touch. May drop some questions here if I run into any hurdles. Nickb1234 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ferdinand Jan Ormeling Sr.

Dear InterstellarGamer12321,

In the article there are 5 pdf's in notes and sources from international bodies like UN and ICA that testify to the contents of the article. I cannot imagine more reliable sources than those mentioned!

Smi953 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Smi953: Thank you for writing to me about my review of your draft. I was not focusing on the existing references but the large amounts of unsourced information in the article. You could probably use the reliable references already in the draft on some of the unreferenced sentence. If you are unable to verify something with a reliable source, then it is best to remove it from the draft. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not decline the draft but only gave an AfC comment to give you a chance to improve it before someone reviews it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sara Gurpal

Can you please check and review Draft:Sara Gurpal. She passes WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. Distrocaste (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Distrocaste: I have had a look at the draft and I agree that she passes the notability guidelines you have mentioned. My only concern is that the Filmography section is completely unreferenced and as this is a WP:BLP article, everything should be backed up by reliable sources. Also, can I ask about why you asked me to review the draft when I have nothing to do with it? I checked your contributions and saw you asked a few other random AfC reviewers to review it as well. Contrary to what you might think, asking random reviewers to see your draft will not help your draft be reviewed quicker as most people will ignore your request as it is not relevant to them. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello i have added sources to filmography section and everything is now backed up with reliable sources. I asked some reviewers to review this because i want to know if there is any shortage left to publish this so reviewer will suggest so i can improve it as you suggested me to improve filmography section and i improved. Now please check if you have any suggestions please tell me i will improve. Distrocaste (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Distrocaste: I have accepted the draft and it is now in mainspace. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will seeking help and suggestions from you in my upcoming contributions. Distrocaste (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)