User talk:Quibu

This is Quibu's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quint Buchholz (January 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 SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

As a painter, he would need museum collections and art reviews; as an author, he would also need major reviews. Add here all additional major news sources and I'll examine again.

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:Quint Buchholz 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quint Buchholz (March 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 DrStrauss was:

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please remove inline external links and add footnotes.

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:Quint Buchholz 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 09:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Quibu, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! DrStrauss talk 09:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quint Buchholz (April 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eddie891 was:

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Soo close! Just add citations for painting tenques, exhibitions, awards and publications

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:Quint Buchholz 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eddie891 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quint Buchholz (May 29)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There are a lot of sources here however they are not sufficient in terms of verifiability. Many of the sources are passing mentions as well, so I'd like to see more significant independent coverage.

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:Quint Buchholz 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quint Buchholz (August 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 Jmcgnh was:

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The notabilty criteria that apply here are found at WP:ARTIST.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

This would need to be demonstrated by at least two citations that go into substantial depth about Buchholz's stature in the art world.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

I didn't see this in the submission

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

It's possible this criteria is met, but you would need to point out the citations that establish it.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

It's possible this criteria is met, but I don't think the Rothweiler Galerie quite qualifies.

I acknowledge that there are many awards listed, but that's not one of the criteria that has to be met. I'm sure the awards add weight to the notability question, but as a reviewer, I need to see a really big award. The Batchelder Award may be sufficiently notable.

-----

The sourcing and verifiability of statements in the submission look fairly good, but there are some gaps. Please fill them in as best you can, especially where an important point of biographical information is stated. Remember that punctuation goes before <ref> tags - I corrected a number of these in my copy-edit pass, but I won't swear that I caught them all.

As for tone, I read this as still coming off a bit promotional, perhaps just because it is a big long list of accomplishments with no criticism. I shortened some of the prose in places where it seemed too wordy, but editors are allowed some leeway in how they express the facts in their own words.

-----

Before you submit this again, I strongly suggest that you review the above criteria for notability and gather something like three references that you think hit the sweet spot on criterion number 1. Ask for an appraisal of just those refs (not the whole submission) at the AfC Help Desk. If you can get the reviewers there to agree that you've passed the notability hurdle, add a pointer to the discussion as a comment at the top of the draft and then resubmit. I believe that should result in an accepted article.

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:Quint Buchholz 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request on IRC#wikipedia-en-help for someone to "randomly" review your submission, which you felt had been languishing in the queue for too long. I agree it's too long, you've been working on this for something more than 6 months, it looks like! Anyway, I've tried to give you as explicit instructions on what needs to be done to your submission for it to meet notability standards.

You may prefer to read the comments as they appear in the draft rather than the rough-draft version that was posted here. The comment mechanism in the reviewing tool does not offer preview capabilities, so I had to do some fixups after I submitted the review. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]