User talk:KrisJohanssen

Welcome![edit]

Hi KrisJohanssen! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Fahads1982 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear Fahads1982 (talk)

If you have some feedback about my first ever draft article I would be extra thankful for your kind guidance.

KrisJohanssen (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bhargav Sri Prakash (November 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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:

Close but not quite enough independent significant 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bhargav Sri Prakash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9 Thank you for reviewing my submission and for your feedback. I will try to search for other sources of independent significant coverage. If you have any examples of the types of coverage that qualifies please share it. I will try to research online and in the library if there is any such material about the subject. Thank you KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KrisJohanssen! Having an article draft 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! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft[edit]

I did some editing to align the draft with standard formatting of biographies. No comments on the strength of references. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft suggestions[edit]

Firstly the lead section is too long. Lead must be short and concise. See MOS:OPEN
There are too many references. Many new editors think that putting as many references to an article makes the subject more notable. But it is the opposite. Putting too many refs can make a reviewers work hard. Consider putting less and precise refs that support the info.See WP:OVERKILL
Don't subdivide the Career section too much . Remove the Subdivisions and put the information according to a yearly sequence. Also merge the next two sections with the career section.
You can also separate the info of different works (like research etc.) from the Career section in a new section with the heading like "Major works" or someting more favourable.

I personally think that BLP Afc submissions are generally looked with suspicion for being promotional. So you may need to refine the draft to match with the guidlines to a much higher extent. See WP:BLP Leoneix _(talk) 17:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also reach out to us if you need any help. Enjoy editing! Leoneix _(talk) 17:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that medical or scientific papers by themselves are not considered as reliable sources if there is no secondary coverage to it. See WP:MEDRS. Leoneix _(talk) 17:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, dear @Leoneix for your kind response and patience with detailed suggestions! I will try my best to edit according to it and seek your guidance. KrisJohanssen (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Leoneix, I am returning to this draft after a long hiatus thanks to school commitments. I have tried to incorporate your feedback. Would you please let me know if I am progressing in the right direction and any other suggestions for improving the draft? Grateful for your help. Thanks, KrisJohanssen (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inquiry! While I'm currently unable to commit time to Wikipedia due to prior commitments, I appreciate your understanding. I'll do my best to take a look within the next 10-12 hours. In the meantime, you may find assistance from the editors at the Teahouse, who are always happy to help. Leoneix _(talk) 18:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Leoneix! KrisJohanssen (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bhargav Sri Prakash (April 2)[edit]

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is ridiculous. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bhargav Sri Prakash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]