User talk:Asilvering/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Leonard Arthur Bethell

Thanks for your review. One problem I'm struggling with is that he is really known as an author rather than a military man - so should I follow a literary or military format. ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Charles.bowyer Writing an article focusing on the author angle is fine too! In that case, have a look at an author article like James Joyce. Ok yeah, your guy isn't as famous as Joyce, but I hope the general layout is useful to you. Also, as an author, there are some more specific notability guidelines you can look at as well: WP:NAUTHOR. Basically, if you can show that either the author or some of his works are notable, he will qualify for an article. -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and suggestions. I have re-worked it, and resubmitted. Hopefully you will find it an improvement. Charles.bowyer (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 19:17:50, 2 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by E879352


Hi there, What would be considered coverage of work - would this be articles/interviews? And how would this feature in the different sections of a wiki page? Many thanks!

E879352 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@E879352 Interviews don't typically count for establishing notability, because they are seen as a "primary" source, and the basic concept we're trying to get at is "have independent people independently noticed this artist's work?" A feature article that includes quotes from an interview the journalist did is usually fine. Simply an interview transcript usually isn't. An article that talks about the writing that she did, specifically, would work. Academic analysis of the same would also work. The trouble with TV writing in this context is that it's usually not sole-author, so we can't just assume that writing about the show is writing about Ajay's work on the show. Does that make sense? There's got to be something around her Emmy nomination, and since it looks to me like she was the main person behind Riches, that might be another spot to look.
Alternatively, you need the normal standard: significant, independent, biographical coverage of Ajayi. This is probably good [1] (I don't have a Times subscription), but if it is, you still need to find more. This [2] doesn't help - it's just a routine announcement of an upcoming series. This [3] isn't significant or independent. I hope that gives you an idea. -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Asilvering, thank you very much for your detailed feedback! I will revisit the sources and research more detailed ones. E879352 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wihtburh

Hi there, any news of the GA review for this article? Amitchell125 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about this, some personal stuff took a turn for the dramatic while I was midway through source-checking. I can't get back on it right this second but should have this by the end of the week. If I can't, I will hand it off, accept trouts, etc etc. But I do think I will get to it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Question from Danish pandit (20:48, 9 March 2023)

I want to create a profile of my own --Danish pandit (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean a Wikipedia article about yourself, or a user page? Before you try to write an article about yourself, you should have a look at WP:COI. You'll also need to make sure that you meet the criteria that are explained at WP:BIO. I really don't recommend trying to do this! If you mean a user page, it looks like you've already figured that one out, but that your user page was deleted. The messages on your Talk page explain why. -- asilvering (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Question from Cameliaconsult (15:00, 20 March 2023)

I want to add entry --Cameliaconsult (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Question from ReallHistory (12:51, 23 March 2023)

How to paste sources ?? One a word?? --ReallHistory (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Does WP:REFB help? -- asilvering (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
While we do not always agree, I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. Thanks for all your efforts on the project.Onel5969 TT me 21:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, and same to you! -- asilvering (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Halcyon767 (01:23, 31 March 2023)

Hello! Has my article been submitted? It is not clear to me if it is a draft or otherwise. Thanks! --Halcyon767 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, at least if you mean what you've written here: [4]. If you mean something else, it hasn't saved at all, and you need to hit "publish" to save it. Have you had a look at WP:FIRST, which explains how to create your first article? I would also suggest having a look at WP:REFB. Make sure your footnotes are placed at the end of the sentence they support, rather than putting them all at the bottom. This makes it easier for readers and reviewers to understand where the information in the article comes from. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mohanachandorkar (08:49, 3 April 2023)

Hi ! I am here to create my company's page. Can you help ? --Mohanachandorkar (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't advise that you make an article for your own company. If you do, you will need to be mindful of the guidelines at WP:COI. I recommend you read WP:FIRST before starting your first article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Linda Ravin Lodding

First of all, thank you for your quick response to my drafts. As you probably understand, this is my first attempt to create an article.

If you have any more suggestion on what i need to add, it would really be appreciated! StureGT (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The easiest way to get an article about an author through AfC is to show that they have written multiple books that could themselves be notable. What this means in practice is that you should find if the author's books have been reviewed by Kirkus and/or Publishers Weekly, and stick those links as footnotes somewhere in the article (right after the book title in the list of works will do). I recommend Kirkus and PW because they're easy to find and very recognizeable to reviewers as "reliable". To scrape by with the bare minimum for acceptance, you need two reviews on two books, and K+PW twice will do. But this really is the bare minimum, so look for something longer if you can. Coverage of any sort in an academic journal is great. A lengthy review in the New York Times or a prominent literary magazine is also great. A lengthy review in a less well-known or local paper is still helpful. I would advise avoiding any personal blogs or independent online review outlets (this might make a reviewer think that this is the best coverage that exists and you've had to scrape the bottom of the barrel).
I notice now looking at the article again that you already have four Kirkus reviews, but you've hidden them a bit in "External links" with the title "Kirkus reviews" - if you're being declined for notability reasons, don't do this! Help the reviewers (and future readers, if the article is accepted) by describing the link more clearly, adding it as a citation in a sentence (eg, "Her books have been favourably reviewed by Kirkus,(footnote) so-and-so, and..."), or individually footnoting each review after the book title in the list. I would also recommend, for the same reason, that you use Template:Cite book for the list instead of simply writing the titles; then you can remove the footnotes to the individual books. Likewise, cut the PW announcements of sales unless you specifically need to footnote them to support a fact you're mentioning in the article. This makes the references easier to read and makes your reviewers less likely to conclude that you're trying to do a WP:REFBOMB.
All of that said, you're writing on a children's author, which is tough. The "two books with two reviews" bare minimum might not cut it. It will really help to find some biographical coverage of her as well. I see she's moved to Sweden - if you don't find anything in the American press, perhaps there's something in Swedish? Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much User:Asilvering! I really appreciate your extensive help and excellent critic on the article. Since this is my first article, this is the kind of guidance that I need! I will now rewrite the article based on your input and hopefully take it another step to being approved. Once again, thank you so much for the time and effort you put into this! StureGT (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I have now updated the draft based on your excellent input. StureGT (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Great! I've done a few minor formatting edits on it for you, and changed one of the book titles to a full citation. If you like how that works, you can use that example to change the others. If you hate it, you can revert the edit (it's not a mandatory change, and I certainly won't mind). One problem with the article at present is that it has no citations at all for the biography section. Nothing there is particularly contentious or likely to offend anyone, but it's likely that a reviewer will decline the article if you don't have footnotes there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I can not tell you how grateful I am of all of your help and support! I now have included your last feedback into the draft. Thank you so much User:Asilvering!! StureGT (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I saw that you approved the article! I can’t tell you how much I appreciate all the effort and work you have put into helping me. I’m so grateful to you for being so supportive and helping me with such a positive attitude. I don’t know if there is a rating system here, but I would give you more than the highest score! StureGT (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Mr Mee

Thanks - I fixed the reference links and removed a passage that lacked a good enough source. Do I need to do anything else? RameausNiece (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@RameausNiece Great, I've accepted it! -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Jeremy Atherton Lin

Hello, thank you for your speedy review. I have resubmitted with further references to wider press coverage of this writer. Just to note that as it stands this author is the only winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award for Memoir and Autobiography since 1983 (consolidated in 2005) to not have a Wikipedia article. Smallsafari (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Smallsafari Thanks for pointing that out! Good enough for me - I've approved it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Smallsafari (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
By the way, his wikidata item (Jeremy Atherton Lin (Q117788621)) is very bare at the moment. If you're interested in the metadata side of things, you could fill out the wikidata item, which will populate the Authority control template at the bottom of the wikipedia article. (You can't see it at all now, because it has no useful data.) It's pretty easy to do - just look at another author's wikidata item to see what kinds of data you can add. Triple-check for errors, though, because a lot of other websites pull from wikidata, so mistakes can travel very quickly. -- asilvering (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please avoid microaggression

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_de_Molina&diff=1151576533&oldid=1151549796 , you wrote: 

concern = no references; es-wiki page this was "translated" from also has no WP:RS

Looks like you either (1) don't understand what double-quotes do in written form of the EN language, or pretend to do so, or (2) are trying to put down others' contributions by double-quoting their actions.

If you have any problems with my translation, please do offer productive feedback. Otherwise, you writing that comment without a double-quote would mean the same "logical" feedback, less the put-down/microaggression/misplaced-judgement.

Here's a starting point, if you're interested more in this topic: https://collegeeducated.com/resources/avoiding-microaggressions-in-classrooms-and-online/ Behnam (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, please remember to assume both competence and good faith. I used the word "translation" in quotes because, while it was done with the standard WP:CXT edit summary (so it is, technically, a "translated page"), I did not wish to imply to anyone reviewing the PROD that the en-wiki stub is in fact a translation of the es-wiki article as most people would understand that to mean. The es-wiki article is several paragraphs long, while the English version is a three-sentence stub. I believe the PROD is justified, or I wouldn't have put it there, but I wouldn't want a reviewing admin to be led to believe that they were looking at a direct translation of something that was also a three-sentence stub on es-wiki. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023

Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Use the Google translate app and camera on your phone to translate text from an article or book

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Request on 09:00:24, 8 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Shashamao


There is an official entry at German Wiki for the same journal, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounts_of_Materials_Research. Please guide on how it could be an official entry while mine cannot pass...

Shashamao (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shashamao German-language wikipedia has a different set of inclusion criteria than English-language wikipedia does. Have a look at WP:NJOURNAL for en-wiki's notability guidelines on journals. -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I've added its SJR score with reference to SJR website to showcase its impact. Please help to review, thanks! Shashamao (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@Shashamao, you have to resubmit the draft to AfC before anyone can review it again. -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Not enough anarchist for you?

i should start by saying this question is asked by me of you in a comical from. I dont care tremendously about being delisted - but i do find it curious and funny and offer my below comment in the comic sense seeming (to me) to be appropriate for this small topic. i appreciate all the work you do to make wikipedia better and understand it is a largely thankless job.

Hello - i was curious why you removed me from American Anarchists?

i hope it is because i have spent too much time out of the country or am insufficiently patriotic to be called "American" i certainly identify as an anarchist - see for example this essay called "Why i am an anarchist" https://paxus.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/why-i-am-an-anarchist/

or perhaps there is an official anarchist approval organization run by top anarchists in the movement or ??

(talk) Paxus Calta (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Paxuscalta, I removed your article from the category because of the guidelines at WP:CATDEF, which says that articles should be categorized by defining characteristics, where a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to. That's "reliable sources" as in WP:RS, which honestly gets pretty annoying for contemporary people, since press tends to just call everyone an "activist". So yes, "not [verifiably] enough anarchist for me, [given the sources in the article]". Personally, I'm happy to add it back in with this blog link as a source - thanks for sharing it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green June 2023 Good Article Editathon notification

Hello Asilvering:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – another Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from 73 German Gal (13:50, 1 June 2023)

The disease, Granuloma Annulare appears to have many possible contributing or common connections. I wanted to add that the Hashimoto connective tissue disorder has been listed as well. --73 German Gal (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @73 German Gal, do you have a scientific paper that supports this? -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georgina McCready has been accepted

Georgina McCready, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Hans W. Paerl

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hans W. Paerl, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Međimurska trikotaža Čakovec

Hello Asilvering,

Thank you very much for the information and congratulations. I always try to do my best to make quality contributions. However, sometimes I fail to do so. I would like to take this opportunity to ask you about the tag you put: could you specify how footnotes should be reformatted (please, send me an example). For instance, is it good enough to put such reference: {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) ? I'm looking forward to your answer. Best regards, --Silverije 15:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Silverije Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your "good enough" question. The cite web template you used there is a good one to use if you're citing a website. There are others for citing journals, newspapers, etc. I'll try to fix one of the ones in the article, and hopefully that helps explain better. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I just did two of them for you. You don't need to copy what I did exactly, and you could probably improve on the footnotes I made. But you see how they use a citation template and individual metadata fields like "last", "first", "title", etc? That's what I mean. For the second one I did, I preserved the original Croatian title of the article, but also used your translation in "trans-title". Your translated titles were very helpful, so it would be great if you were able to use both the Croatian title and an English translation. -- asilvering (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I think you've understood the "good enough" question perfectly. That's exactly what I meant. I asked this question because there are several possibilities for references at [5]. I'll do it as you said in the next couple of days. Best regards, --Silverije 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Who United the Western Front During World War I

Please provide me with the sentences or phrases that you disagree with. Lord Milner (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the entire thing. What you've made is, well... an article in a history magazine, or perhaps even a normal print encyclopedia, where entries are written by individual historians and don't take as many pains to remove all hint of authorial voice and original research. If there's a WWI history wiki somewhere, you might move it there? I don't know if any of those exist. Maybe not, since 1914-1918 Online is so good. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The Play of Everyman

Thank you for your suggestion of adding URLs to references to speed approval of Draft: The Play of Everyman. I will add URLs when I can find them. Cheers! Vince Emery (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Request on 14:17:49, 25 June 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Boatswi


Hi, hope this is good to go now, I inserted citations as requested. Thanks!

Boatswi (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks! If you can find additional coverage of her or her work that is independent, that would be good to add to this article. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jason1961 (01:12, 27 June 2023)

Hi, Thank you! ... I might get you to check a page for me before I publish it if that's okay? Cheers, Jason --Jason1961 (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure! If you're planning to start a new article, have a look at WP:FIRST. There are some suggestions and explanations there that will (or should) make the process less daunting. If you use the Article Wizard, your article will be created as a draft, so you can edit it without worrying about something unfinished being available to the entire internet. When you want me to have a look, just ask. Before you start, I'd also suggest reading WP:BACKWARD, which is a brief explanation of a very common first mistake. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Scottish Castles Restoration Projects

Dear Asilvering


First of all, thank you very much for taking such a thorough look at my Draft article – much appreciated, although I’m not sure I entirely agree with you on various points, see below!


Frankly, I’ve had so much trouble with this draft that I’m seriously thinking of abandoning Wikipedia for good. I seriously wonder if reviewers actually want anything added to Wikipedia these days? My particular ire is directed at Theroadislong. First of all, he basically approved the article draft, saying,

“With sufficient sources I see no reason why Wikipedia couldn't have such an article.”


What does that mean if it doesn't mean the draft is OK?


I’d asked him to have a first look at the draft before I went any further and that’s what he came back with. I then added the “sufficient sources” - a number of sound references which I had already researched, then he backtracked with this “feels like an essay” stuff. But what I thought was particularly bad form was to post his second comment, saying that he declined to review the draft but he thought that it still read like an essay!


Talk about telling the jury to disregard the last remark! How could anybody such as yourself coming to the draft not be negatively influenced by that? Please don't tell me that you or anyone else wouldn't be influenced by such a remark – otherwise you might have read it and thought, ‘OK, it’s a bit narrative in style, but perhaps that suits the subject.’ Going back to Theroadislong, we all know that he is a long-standing highly respected reviewer, numbering 200 or thereabouts on the pantheon of Wikipedia reviewers, but . . .


But turning to the text, in the light of your comments I have made extensive alterations to make it I believe as neutral as possible. In fact, I might mention that at first I deliberately wrote it in a more informal manner. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia, but it seemed to me that this was a subject that readers might not know much about and I wanted to encourage them to read it! If articles are as dry as dust, who is going to read them anyway?


By the way, somebody suggested alternative titles, but I very deliberately worded the title as found, as since you note, there is a main article on ‘Scottish Castles’, so people searching for that would I hope then find the ‘Restorations’ article.


If I can comment on your suggestions:


1. ‘Reduce the amount of "talking to the reader".’

On your suggestion, I really think that's what I’ve now done, making it as straightforwardly factual as possible. The only element of that that I think might be left is using Fawside Castle as an exemplar of how these restorations are carried out – but I would justify that as making the subject much more real and I hope you will agree.


2. ‘Write about individual castle restorations, on their own articles.’

Sorry, I couldn't do that for more than one or two ‘restorations’, but with the article in place, I would hope locally knowledgeable people might well add to the many individual articles? The whole point of the article is to have a focus on the restoration phenomenon.


3. ‘Convert this article to "List of restored castles in Scotland".’

Actually, that’s all in Inglis, available online! Funnily enough, when I first started this draft, I did start creating my own list from various sources, then I found Inglis and thought what is the point in filling up pages with just a list of names when it’s available elsewhere?


4. ‘Write an article on the debate, possibly. (I'm not sure the sources exist for this.)’

I think you’ve answered the question. Such an article would in any case I think be far too contentious and take us away from the main point of the article which is to describe the restorations that have been carried out.


5. ‘Consider adding a brief section on restorations to ‘Scottish Castles’, if it looks like that would benefit the article.’

It was my full intention to do that with a Link to the article AFTER it was accepted! Also to put links into individual castle descriptions back to the ‘Restoration’ article to provide context.


Anyway, apologies if I sound a little tetchy, but if you have the time I would very much appreciate it if you could have another read through and please advise if you still feel something is lacking? Many thanks


Best wishes ArchaicW (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@ArchaicW, I'm sorry writing this article has been so frustrating for you. It's with that in mind that I gave you those suggestions, because in my view the article looked like a long shot, so I was looking for ideas you could use to preserve as much of your work as possible, with as little additional frustration as possible. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you want me to do. I hope I didn't imply that the article is lacking. None of my ideas were meant to suggest "resubmit this article", and none of them were "if you do this, it will be fine, so ping me and I'll accept it". I think if you resubmit it to AfC, it will be another long wait, and may well end in another decline. You can move it to mainspace yourself, which runs the risk of NPP sending it right back to AfC, but if you're really determined you can just move it back to mainspace a second time (see WP:DRAFTOBJECT). Maybe it will be sent to AfD, maybe it will be covered in maintenance tags, maybe Theroadislong and I are wrong, and nothing at all will happen. Nothing about your draft suggests incompetence or bad faith to me, so I don't think you're going to run the risk of being blocked for doing any of those things. You could try asking at the AfC helpdesk, which should at least get some extra eyes on the draft. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, yes, actually, Asilvering! That’s exactly what I was hoping you would do – you would re-read the draft, go through your points and think, that’s a great improvement, I’m prepared to pass it now. ArchaicW has followed my suggestions, or he’s argued cogently on why they would not be necessary/suitable/appropriate in this case. He may not have written the greatest ever article on Wikipedia, but it tells the story.
However, what I would also like you to do is read an article by a Mary Miers, published in the magazine, ‘Scottish Field’ in March this year titled ‘Faultless Towers’ on the restoration of Scottish tower houses (which I just added to the refs.) The article is more erudite and longer than my draft, but it encapsulates exactly the points made in the draft, describing the phenomenon of restoration of tower houses in Scotland, giving examples, explaining why she thinks it’s a good thing (which I was careful not to do), but also recognising the ‘conservation argument’.
Miers is one the foremost architectural historians in Scotland, she founded the Scottish ‘Buildings at Risk’ register, she is the Fine Arts and Books Editor of Country Life, she’s published extensively, http://marymiers.com/
I’ve never met her, I don't know her, but I wrote this draft saying just what she’s saying a year ago, long before her article. If a leading Scottish architectural historian is saying the same thing as me, what’s the problem? Indeed, I think I'll write to her and seek her opinions and support.
Problem is getting a copy to you. You can buy it online, but I would be happy to send a PDF to you but I can’t see how to do that on Wikipedia?
Thank you ArchaicW (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ArchaicW, I wrote this draft saying just what she’s saying a year ago, long before her article is precisely the issue Theroadislong and I identified. That's exactly what "essay-like" means. You have the options I outlined above in my previous comment. Additionally, if you want it to be reviewed, you will need to submit it for review; it currently is not in the queue, and no one will be accepting or declining it.
I'm not sure what you think will come out of contacting a historian who is not an AfC reviewer - that certainly won't do anything to help with the review of your draft. Again, if you want more eyes on it, the AfC helpdesk is probably the best place. There is nothing stopping you from moving the draft to mainspace yourself, if that is where you think it should go. Normally I would advise people not to do that, since it tends to make reviewers cranky and/or set off red flags, but this isn't the usual thing, of someone desperate to publish some kind of promotional biography or whatever. I am honestly not sure why you want an AfC acceptance on this article; AfC acceptances aren't proof against deletion, maintenance tagging, stubbing, or anything else that might happen to an article in mainspace. You've had two declines because two separate reviewers believe your draft is at risk of all of that. We might be wrong, and you're welcome to find out.
As for sending pdfs, if an editor has an email associated with their wikipedia account (as I do), you can use the email function. For me this is under a drop-down in the top right labelled "user", but I'm not sure if that's some convenience script I installed ages ago. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but the draft article is totally changed since my first draft of a year ago!
In response to Theroadislong’s comments, I substantially edited it twice, then in response to your comments I’ve done much more! Also, Lotje added a tabulation of restorations and illustrations which I thought were a good improvement, taking it even further away from the earliest draft.
But the a draft is still cursed with this ‘essay’ tag!
‘An essay is, generally, a piece of writing that gives the author's own argument . .’ Wikipedia definition
If you can show me now one place in the whole draft that reads like ‘my own argument’ I’ll happily change it! It’s ridiculous – it does not now read anything like an ‘essay’! I just can’t understand why you think it does.
You acknowledge that it’s an article worth having on Wikipedia (as did Theroadislong), you acknowledge that it’s not a ‘promotional’ stunt like much of what people try to get on Wikipedia these days, so why can’t you approve it? I've actually done what you suggested and when I have not done that I've argued very clearly why it was not appropriate to the subject.
I’m well aware that in theory anything can be deleted at any time on Wikipedia, therefore the safest route is to have an article reviewed. If you will remove the gratuitous, unfair and prejudicial ‘Comments’ about essays made by Theroadislong I’ll resubmit it.
My point about referring to the Mary Miers article was nothing to do with the style of her article versus mine – it was to make the point that I’m not making this stuff up, an eminent architectural historian is saying just what I was saying. I would like to send you the article, but I’m not finding this user button you refer to? ArchaicW (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I will absolutely not remove comments left by previous reviewers, and I strongly caution you against doing that yourself. I will also not re-review your article. As a matter of personal policy I do not review drafts where I was the most recent decline, unless I requested a specific, simple change, and the change was made (not the case here) or I realize I declined a draft in error (also not the case here). There are several reasons for this, one of which is well illustrated by this conversation. -- asilvering (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your hard work in AfC over the last few weeks, usually a thankless task...! Your work is not going unnoticed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mattdaviesfsic Aww, thanks! It's often an insomnia activity, so "tireless" is perhaps more correct than you were anticipating... -- asilvering (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your comment on Wendy Videlock draft

Hi Asilvering,

Thanks for the comment you left on the draft for Wendy Videlock. As you asked, I added more reviews for some of her other publications. Her most recent publications from last year don't seem to have reviews I can find, but the others had plenty. Let me know if you have any other comments or edits. Shivpp (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Shivpp what you've added aren't reviews, but blurbs. They need to be independent reviews. Like in the NYT, LARB, Kirkus, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Asilvering Thank you for the clarification! It totally makes sense, and I've fixed the page per your comment. In terms of my changes: (1) the review I had under the Dark Gnu is an independent site; (2) I deleted the blurbs from the Slingshot section and added in a review from an independent site; (2) I actually found a review I missed during my first look for Wise to the West, so I added a section for that!
Let me know if you have any other feedback. Thanks! Shivpp (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Masha Karp

You made remarks on my page here, I added reference to cover missing point and also a review for the discussed book. Is it better now? What to add? Thanks a lot, lkitross (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you can find any secondary sources on her or her books, that would help. I think her notability is still not obvious. I currently have an injury that makes editing wikipedia very difficult so I advise asking for any further help at WP:Teahouse. Sorry! -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Cape Laundry (19:38, 4 July 2023)

Hi

How do I write an article? --Cape Laundry (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cape Laundry, there is some advice at WP:FIRST. It's less daunting if you work on editing articles that already exist for a bit first. What do you want to write about? -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tim Skorenko

Thank you very much for the advice on how to improve the article about the writer Tim Skorenko. I tried to do as you suggested: I added a section called "Critical Reviews" where I included a series of critical reviews of his works by well-known critics in reputable online and print publications. I also included various links to other critical materials, book rankings, and so on.

Could you please take a look and let me know if this is enough or if I should include more links to reviews? Unfortunately, all the criticism is in Russian since his books have not been translated into English (only Ukrainian, Chinese, and Estonian). Алексей Веллог (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Алексей Веллог The bare minimum standard is usually given as two books with two reviews each. I don't see that right now but I do think there is enough here for AfC acceptance, so I think you should resubmit. Watch out with user-generated content though (see WP:USERG). -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

elisabeth niggemeyer

good morning asilvering, thank you for your help on the article about elisabeth niggemyer. You have removed a list of her books and have asked me whether or not I have read all of them ... please , dear asilvering, help me to understand how to include a list of books published by elisabeth niggemeyer.... thank you very much... benjamin983 Benjamin983 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Benjamin983, specifically what I wanted to know was "did you use any of them as sources for the information in the article". I assume only the most ardent of her fans would have read all of that! When you use the word "Bibliography" on English Wikipedia, the expectation is that the books in that list were used to write the article - so they should be things that you read! If you want to make a list of the things that were written by an article's subject, you can use the word "Works" for this section instead. Better yet, use "Selected works", and pick out only the most important. "Important" can mean whatever you like - most famous, most representative, most highly cited, etc. German Wikipedia articles tend to list everything, but on en-wiki shorter lists are preferred. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Asilvering! I am helping @Benjamin983 to fix this article. I just did some more copy edit and added "Selected works" as you suggested and picked out the most highly cited works plus some representative ones. Is there anything else that needs fixing? Hope the article can be published now. Alandeus (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, now that it's clear that those sources weren't used to write the article, the question arises: what sources were used to write the article? There is a lot of information in the article that doesn't have any apparent source. Where did that come from? It should have footnotes that indicate the origin of the information. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Actual references used for sources for this article could be found for instance in those two books about Niggemeyer's work, e.g. references no. 4 and 6. Otherwise, the text is written by a German author familiar with Niggemeyer and her family, according to @Benjamin983. I think that is often the case for articles about living persons written by others familiar with them with sources just too vague to pinpoint. I mean, how else would you get information for example about their early life, parents, etc.? Alandeus (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
In that case, that information would fail WP:V, so we can't use it on wikipedia. This is especially true in the case of a WP:BLP, where the rules are much stricter because of the much higher potential for harm (and lawsuits). In particular, we definitely need a clear, public source for the birthdate. Can you find citations for the biographical details in those books? The "methods and description" section too, since it has some evaluative-type comments that should be attributed to a specific critic/book. -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Sehr geehrter Asilvring, Sie sprechen Deutsch ? ich meine es gelesen zu haben. Wir versuchen die Arbeit einer bahnbrechenden Pädagogin die mit Elisabeth Niggemeyer zusammen gearbeitet und publiziert hat, zu einem Wikipedia Eintrag zu verhelfen. Es handelt sich um Nancy Hoenisch. Auf dem Weg dorthin, haben wir versucht den existierenden Wikipedia Eintrag auf Wikipedia.de über Elisabeth Niggemeyer nach wikipedia.org zu portieren. Hier sind Sie ins Spiel gekommen. Ich schätze Ihre akribische Haltung sehr. Ich wünsche mir derzeit ein wenig mehr Unterstützung. Ich bin berufstätig und schaffe es nicht mich in die teilweise sehr komplexen verfahren auf wikipedia einzuarbeiten. Könnten Sie uns / mich nicht ein wenig unterstüzen ? bitte. Ich glaube die informationen, die wir anzubieten haben sind spannend und lesenswert. Ich hätte ein paar fragen zum zitieren von Quellen bei Photos z.B., oder Buchtitelbider, die ich Ihnen gerne stellen wollen würde. Ist hier der richtig Ort dafür, oder kann ich mit Ihnen über email kommunizieren ? und, natürlich: Deutsch ist ok ? besten Gruß, benjamin983 7.6.2023 Benjamin983 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Deutsch ist ok für mich - but it is easier for other editors to get involved if everything is in English, and on-wiki rather than by email. I am about to mention your draft to the editors at WP:WIRED, because there may be someone there who is interested and has time to help. (I am unfortunately pretty busy right now.) I have just done a little bit of research on Die gemordete Stadt and I am confident that Niggemeyer meets English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so it is very possible to turn this draft into a published article. The key thing we need to do is find the published, secondary sources to prove this. Let me explain a bit, and hopefully this answers your questions:
  1. First, thank you for writing this article for German Wikipedia! I agree that this is an interesting biography and I'm glad you have done the additional work of translating the article you wrote into English.
  2. I can help explain English Wikipedia's notability guideline (it's at WP:N if you want to read it yourself), but because I am fairly confident that she is notable, we can ignore this for now. I think this problem will be solved, which means the draft will be able to be accepted, if you can fix the next one:
  3. The information in the article needs to be verifiable (WP:V) - that is, somewhere there needs to be a published, secondary source that contains that information. In other words, some other person with access to a reasonably good library needs to be able to check that everything in the article is true. It should not contain your own personal opinion or feelings as an editor, and it cannot be based on sources like personal communication, unpublished manuscripts, usw. So, for statements like As she showed little interest in the technical aspects of photography her graduation seemed in peril until she discovered her interest for photo reportage and was repeatedly awarded for outstanding achievements in this subject. for example, we are looking for some published source, like a newspaper article, that says this, and a footnote to that article.
  4. There are some statements in the article like Received with numerous favorable reviews (e.g. by Friedrich Luft). If you can provide URLs for these reviews, that will be very helpful. If they have not been digitized, can you at least provide the citation information like newspaper, date, and section/page?
  5. For questions about the sources of photos and so on, sorry, I am not sure I will know the answers. You can ask at WP:TEA if it's specific to English Wikipedia. If it is about Wikipedia Commons try here (English) or here (Deutsch).
asilvering (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Good evening Asilvering, Thank you for your extensive help in understanding wikipedia. I have tried to add as many sources as possible to the aticle. Friedrich Luft's article has been added. Maybe you can give it another try. I, rejoicefully, pressed the resubmit button. let me know. thank you very much. Benjamin983 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Seth Kaufman page submissin

Hi asilvering.

Thanks for your comments on the Seth Kaufman page. I updated it. I found other references from other papers -- the Wall St. Journal (behind a firewall) and NY Daily News (about The King of Pain and Jersey Shore), but that didn't seem that relevant. So I added another NY Times article and a big academic article that one of his books inspired.

Hope that qualifies the entry.

Best,

Seth ClydeIsKool (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@ClydeIsKool You don't need to pull a quote from them or anything if you don't want to. Just a "was reviewed by [magazine]" with a footnote is fine. The idea is to show that Kaufman qualifies as a subject for a Wikipedia article because he has written multiple notable books - that is, books that have had a significant amount written about them by multiple independent sources (so promo blurbs are no good). Before you resubmit the draft, you might want to cut down on some of the "praise" vocabulary, because that runs the risk of making the draft look like it's a promotional effort on behalf of Kaufman. For notability/inclusion purposes, we don't actually care if writers are well-regarded or even if they're any good. We just want to be able to show that mainstream publications and/or academics have taken notice of his books in some way. -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Got it. ClydeIsKool (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi asilvering,
I have over-hauled the page after looking at some other writer bios and heeding your suggestions. I showcased both the links from other articles and Kaufman's own work. Hope you can take another look.
Thanks for your help. ClydeIsKool (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@ClydeIsKool You removed the AfC templates, so no one could review it! I've added the templates back, so it's in the queue now. (I'll leave it for another reviewer.) One thing you might want to do, to cut down on the number of footnotes that are effectively just publication info for his work, is to convert them to full inline citations. imo, this looks tidier and makes it easier for reviewers to see the footnotes that actually matter for notability. I've done one as an example. Feel free to revert it if you hate it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Sharpshootersstudios (00:31, 20 July 2023)

Hi, Please what types of information can I publish on Wikipedia? --Sharpshootersstudios (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Sharpshootersstudios (00:32, 20 July 2023)

Can I publish short biographies on wikipedia? --Sharpshootersstudios (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sharpshootersstudios Yes, of course! But first you need to make sure that the subject is notable, ie, that there is significant coverage about them in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Have a look at WP:FIRST before you get started. I would suggest doing some other smaller tasks first, to get the hang of wiki editing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Vofa on User:Vofa/sandbox (22:24, 20 July 2023)

Hello how do I add a photo I will upload now in wiki commons to a stub I’m making? --Vofa (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vofa There's an upload wizard: [6]. When you're done, it will give you the wikicode to use in a wikipedia article. If you've already uploaded it, what you're looking for is the "use this file" link with the wikipedia icon next to it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Waiting-for-Papa Stories

Honestly, my attempt at an article on the second installment in Bethany Roberts' Waiting-for Series was pretty much as far as the topic could go with every source at my disposal. At least what I collected for the Reception section still passed the threshold of WP:NBOOK § 1 (bolded emphasis mine):

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Reviewing the WP:SIGCOV definition, you may or may not have made the right call. (Could BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) shed some light here as well?) In light of your decline reason (which I'll take to heart), I'll move on to rewriting the page under a new name soon:

Draft:Waiting-for-Papa Stories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Draft:Waiting-for Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Meanwhile, the page on its author--Draft:Bethany Roberts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)--has remained up for grabs by the AFC team since July 6. Its absence upstream has been rendering Gramps and the Fire Dragon and Follow Me! as unintentional orphans. Any more concerns, and I'll ping back. Thanks for the pointers! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slgrandson Yeah, it's the "non-trivial" bit that I don't think these reviews meet. If that's as far as the topic can go, I think you're better off bringing them together into one article. That will probably be easier for readers, too. I'll go accept the author article right now. -- asilvering (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mohamed Hassanaly

Thank you for reviewing the draft Draft:Mohamed Hassanaly. You didn’t approve it because you want to see more wp:RS sources. I don’t fully understand it, because the draft includes 3 reliable sources. How many are needed? I added one more with a lot of background, in my opinion that would be sufficient. I re-submitted the draft. 109.37.140.72 (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no precise number, but if there are only a few sources, it's best if those are really significant and reliable. Can you find any academic writing on him, since he's a historical figure? That will help. -- asilvering (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ruben_van_Schalm

Dear asilvering,

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback and reviewing the draft and for highlighting Wikipedia's notability guidelines in detail. It's clear that your primary concern is ensuring that the content meets the platform's stringent standards for inclusion, a goal I share entirely.

Concerning the artist being in the early stages of their career, it's crucial to remember that according to Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not ephemeral. The artist's first significant work was released three years ago, yet the impact and recognition it has achieved since then are noteworthy. The book's inclusion in the country's deposit library indicates significant cultural relevance, demonstrating that the work has garnered sustained and notable attention.

On the matter of the artist's work being housed in a library instead of a gallery, I believe this represents a broader and more inclusive understanding of what art can be and where it can be appreciated. The artist’s work, by virtue of being selected for the country's deposit library, carries a form of notability that aligns with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, given the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

As for the WP:NARTIST criteria, while the artist's work might not be featured in prominent galleries, it is important to note that the guidelines do not necessitate this. Instead, they suggest that an artist's work may be the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," which indeed is the case with our artist. Furthermore, the artist's work could potentially satisfy the fourth criterion, as it represents a "well-known work or a collection of such works that has been the subject of well-received critical reviews."

I hope this clarifies the artist's alignment with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Given the above points, the article as it stands now provides a comprehensive understanding of the artist's achievements and their significance within the cultural landscape. I kindly request you to reconsider the article for approval, as I believe it adheres to Wikipedia's high standards.

I made some changes, looking forward to your feedback

Best regards, Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense, and you knew it was nonsense when you wrote it. I am happy to help anyone acting in good faith, but this represents a broader and more inclusive understanding of what art can be and where it can be appreciated? Please. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I am happy you acting in good faith, so am I, I would love your guidance on how to improve the page. Rockywriter88 (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilvering/Archive_3&oldid=1172539303"