User talk:Kmo26

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephanie Newbold (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines for academics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephanie Newbold and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Castelan's Peer Review

Which article are you reviewing? Stephanie Newbold

Does the lead section summarize the article’s key points? What are the key points of the article as you understand them? Yes. The main points are a clear summarization of Stephanie Newbold, her education, practitioner experience, areas of specialization, academic positions, and her publications.

Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? The article's outline is clear and it appears that the group used the appropriate formatting.

How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? The content is strong and clear.

Is the language appropriate? Do the authors use generalized language such as “some,” or “many”? Could these references be replaced with fact? The language is formal and has a professional tone to it.

Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements? No, the article is well sourced and cited.

How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why? The article contains many references of Ms. Newbold's past education and work experience.

How would you rate the progress made so far? 5

What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? The layout of the article is clear and precise.

What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group’s presentation? I would combine Early Education and Education.

How would such improvements contribute to the article’s quality? By combining Early Education and Education would remove any confusing of the difference of the two.

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the authors? Good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lescast (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stephanie Newbold concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Stephanie Newbold, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stephanie Newbold

Hello, Kmo26. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Stephanie Newbold".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Thomaides

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Thomaides, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Thomaides for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Thomaides is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomaides until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]