User talk:Supermann/Archives/2021/July

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Hogan (July 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was: 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:Stephen Hogan 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:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Hogan (July 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by A.A Prinon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Stephen Hogan 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:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

— A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Hogan (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bonadea was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Stephen Hogan 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:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

bonadea contributions talk 23:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what sources are particularly too troubling to you? Are you saying you just want to see a good article where he could be interviewed about his life journey so far so that you could learn about him more? He has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, and most importantly stage performances that are destined not to be covered that much. I wouldn't have been able to make the trips to see those stage performances. Film and TV are the only two ways I got to know of him. But that doesn't mean he hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to fields of entertainment with his involvement in best-selling audiobooks and video game voice casting. Not even Game of Thrones actor Ian McElhinney's page have that many sources listed like his here. Enough is enough. It may seem he doesn't play leading roles on screen that often, but he is a good supporting one whenever needed. He played opposite Ian on Kat & Alfie: Redwater. We can continue to polish the article as we go along. But this denial really seems cruel at this point. Where is the person who first reviewed this article at its infancy? At a minimum, can we publish this page first and add a fair use profile picture and then put it back to draft again to make it more live? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Hogan (July 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Stephen Hogan 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:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

bonadea contributions talk 12:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but you are confusing "with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia" per WP:REFSPAM. I tried to verify most of the IMDB's and his so-called agent's claim of his stage performances. I don't see how tcm.com and Audible being "blatantly inappropriate", none of which is listed on Wikipedia:spam blacklist or Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. I don't think they are user-generated. While I spotted the so-called deprecated status of Mail on Sunday and few others, I don't see how they would hurt this article here regarding stage performances. They are not trying to introduce conspiracy theories or controversial topics. The sources that are not linked online are all traced thru Factiva, LexisNexis and even academic databases that are only open to current university students, not alumni. Ultimately, they could all come from the source of ProQuest? I am not paid, so I have no money to go around all the paywalls. But these accesses are granted to me thru friends. If they don't list page numbers, I have no way to list them. I did add the page numbers to the reviews on A Doll's House. It's page 15 and 13 respectively. Please let me know if you still can't see it. Are you saying you have the actual newspaper in your hands? To the extent you could tag them as deprecated instead of deleting them outright, I would appreciate it. They at a minimum serve as a check to his agent's claim. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd advise reading WP:RS and WP:RS/P. WP:RS details what is considered good sourcing (reliable, significant coverage, independent) while WP:RS/P lists sources which have had their reliability debated and determined. Sources #10 and #11, for example (Times and Irish Post pieces about the art theft) are more about the art theft of Hogan's uncle rather than Hogan or his film. Source #12 is depreciated (The Sun). Source #14 has even less information than source #11. As for source #13, it's a radio programme which seems to be unavailable and the link provided literally just namedrops. That's 5 sources that fail reliability and significance tests, all to support the same fact, which is refspamming. It should probably be cut down to a single reference and moved from the lede.

The problem with having all these sources is it makes it time consuming and hard for reviewers to evaluate how useful the sources are and whether they contribute to Hogan's notability. Notability is determined by having significant, reliable coverage that is independent of the subject. Interviews, cast listings, name drops and inappropriate sources are useless in establishing notability. While Hogan has played notable characters, the question is whether the productions themselves are notable, which would warrant expanding in the body of the article itself rather than just listing in a table. It's the quality of the sources, not the quantity, that determine notability. To take yer question about Ian McElhinney above, with a bit of Googling I found three pieces that go into a fair bit of depth about McElhinney's life and several others that refer to him as the actor from Game of Thrones or Derry Girls. From what I can see, the only sources that name Stephen Hogan as the actor from Starship Troopers is when the piece itself is about Starship Troopers, and ye've massively overestimated the "cult" status of the character. Maybe when The Bigger Picture comes out there'll be some interest in him.

Also, I've had to remove some of the text of the draft for being far too close to biographical text found elsewhere on the internet, including specific phrasing being identical, which I suspect was possibly a copypaste from the tcm source (unable to access though so unable to confirm). This is considered to be a copyright violation CiphriusKane (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I disagree Sources #10 and #11 are more about the theft instead of the film. They provide important background to the film. I am not asking to create a stand-alone page for the film (yet) because I don't have money for IMDBPro to keep track of the latest development. Though The Sun is largely deprecated, #12 is not that controversial since it's not about things like the Jan 6 storming of the US capital or if the US presidential election was stolen. It seems to offer some details that #10/11 didn't cover. But if you want to remove it, I don't mind. It should be removed in one fell swoop. #14 offers some additional background including the death of one of the two students? In any case, I disagree with your overall conclusion, but have no issue of you removing any of them. I have read what I have read.

To the extent we could expand in the body of the article instead of just doing it via table, I would like that. But it is what it is and we need to be fair if you look at other Irish actors' page. I saw what you did to Ian McElhinney, but again the point is it got published first without your additions. It's just a bit unfair to deny Stephen at this point. For his sky marshal role, film critic Joe Leydon wrote back in 2008, "Omar Anoke (Stephen Hogan), the heroic sky marshal in charge of battling the big bugs, is a charismatic celebrity and chart-topping singer whose onstage movements and militaristic song list suggest Adolf Hitler as an "American Idol" contestant."

I don't know whether TCM copied Rotten Tomatoes or vice versa, but I have no trouble accessing https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/341354%7C0/Stephen-Hogan#biography. It's still unclear to me how TCM is not a reliable source. I am surprised to find him listed on List_of_Take_the_High_Road_characters#1992. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Those sources would be better used on Summer's Day (and probably should be added), as the focus of the article is Paul Hogan and the theft of the painting. The draft of the article's about Stephen Hogan, not his film (which lacks a page), his uncle or the theft. As for the Sun being depreciated, this means it should be avoided as a source unless if it's a subject talking about themselves. A source gets depreciated when it's repeatedly shown to publish false information, which calls into doubt everything that source has published. As for tcm, if it's like what Rotten Tomatoes had then it means it's a self-written biography with probably no factual checks, which means it's biased, dependent on the subject and non-significant.

I'd advise reading something like David Tennant to see how to format the article. Straight off, it mentions his most important roles and supports their notability in their own section later down the page. The three major issues from what I can see are the lede is overstuffed (resolved by moving things to the main body of the article), too much fluff (such as all the details about the theme song), and poor choice of sourcing. I believe Logan may be notable based on major roles across multiple performances, including playing Robespierre in Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution, Sir Henry Norris in The Tudors, and Padraig Kelly in Redwater (take that with a pinch of salt though, as I've not actually seen any of those films/shows). The Variety review of Starship Troopers 3 and Times review of A Doll's House (which I believe is in the Scottish edition of The Times, hence the difficulty in finding it) look good from what I can see, as they discuss Hogan's performances. This is just my opinion though.

Also, I'd advise reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ian McElhinney's article has zero bearing on Stephen Logan's article, and it doesn't change that McElhinney has at least 3 third party articles discussing him and his role on Game of Thrones as the primary topic. If anything, yer argument just favours that McElhinney's article should be improved CiphriusKane (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith has been accepted

Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AntanO 02:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for the new article. It is not easy to create a new article that meets the standards of the project. Keep up the good work. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I saw "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television". Shouldn't it fall into "WikiProject Film" instead? Thanks!!!! Supermann (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Hogan (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were: 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:Stephen Hogan 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:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)