User talk:Nesospiza

Welcome!

Hello, Nesospiza, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ornis Svecica (July 13)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see our inclusion criteria at WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. For tips on how to write/expand an article about a scientific journal, see our journal writing guide.

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:Ornis Svecica and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ornis Svecica, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Randykitty (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nesospiza! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Randykitty (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Randykitty,

I read on your talk page that you prefer that discussions started at other users' talk pages continue there, so here goes. Also, my apologies for (most likely) also doing a bunch a newbie mistakes even in the talking...

Thank you for your feedback in declining the "Ornis Svecica" article draft for publication, pointing out insufficient demonstration of notability and significant coverage. I have now edited and expanded the draft, and hence submit it for reconsideration. As far as I can see, Ornis Svecica certainly should meet the criteria for notability. I do understand the feedback about insufficient external references supporting this (although already the first draft had comparable or higher standards than for example Journal of Oregon Ornithology, Australian Field Ornithology).

I have now:

* Expanded the historical development of the journal’s scope, as described by two external sources (J Field Ornithol & IUCN)

* Mentioned and linked a publication of high impact, and referred to Google Scholar’s listing of the >200 citations. (However, I am unsure of whether it would be more suitable not to mention the number of citations, and remove that part and just group the Google Scholar reference with the article reference.)

* Added a further external source of credibility in the form of SCImago’s journal information about Ornis Svecica.

It is my sincere hope that these revisions will satisfy the criteria for notability and credibility, as I would argue that Ornis Svecica definitely deserves a Wikipedia article.

I look forward to your continued feedback. Thanks for your hard work! /Martin — Nesospiza (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting back about this. Let me start about those two other journals, which seem not better (or even weaker) than the draft that I rejected. We call such an argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, a bit cruder, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The thing is, WP has almost 6 million articles but a limited number of editors. It is unavoidable that we'll have a certain proportion of articles that are below par. I checked the two articles that you mentioned. The Oregonian one does not appear to meet our criteria, so I have proposed it for deletion. The Australian one is notable, because it is included in Scopus (perhaps more, but once I saw Scopus I stopped looking as that is enough), even though that fact is not mentioned in the article. Clearly, that one needs work, but I have no time for that right now. I've put it on my watchlist, so at some point I expect that I'll get around to cleaning it up. Another thing is that you mention that the journal "deserves a Wikipedia article". I agree. Unfortunately, "deserving" is not a criterion here. What counts is "notability" in the sense that something has been noted in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'll have a look at your draft later today. I think I'll be able to accept it, given the SCImago info: they get their data from Scopus and we accept indexing in Scopus as indication that a journal is notable. Thanks for your patience! --Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ornis Svecica has been accepted

Ornis Svecica, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Milne (disambiguation)

Hi Nesospiza. Please note that disambiguation pages like John Milne (disambiguation) are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory
Do not add articles to acronym or initials disambiguation pages unless the person or entity is widely known by that name (in which case it should be stated in the linked article).

Having an article or at least a mention in an article should always come before listing on a disambiguation page. Leschnei (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leschnei, thanks for correcting this mistake of mine and bringing those guidelines to my attention! Nesospiza (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Leschnei (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]