User talk:AntientNestor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Draft:British Empire flag

Hello, thank you for reviewing the Draft:British Empire flag page. I have followed your suggestion to alter the lead section to be more closely related to the contents of the article. Would it be possible to review the changes made? UAmtoj (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, today.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. B-Class!--AntientNestor (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Murder of Chris Grinwis

Hello, you reviewed the draft Draft:Murder of Chris Grinwis and I had some questions for my understanding. The murder case is one of the few high-profile criminal cases once every year that is in the mainstream Dutch news and in all talkshows etc. I started reading about wp:EVENTCRITERIA and more specifically Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles. I have the feeling that the murder case meets the notability guidelines. The article is short, a stub, so that might make it difficult to judge. And I think the murder case meets the notability guidelines while you stated it doesn’t. However I might be wrong. Can you please help me to understand when an article is accepted. If I see the criteria Factors that are relevant to the notability of a murder include there being a large volume of news coverage beyond the local area of its occurrence (Y) and the continuation of media attention for a lengthy period of time thereafter (Y), a highly publicized investigation (Y) or trial, articles or other media coverage about the case long after the case has been closed (not yet possible), coverage on a TV series, a movie or documentary being made about the case (Y, not a television series but for instance an 8-story podcast series (and counting) by the biggest national news source NOS and Algemeen Dagblad here), a law being passed as a result of the crime, or other lasting effects. 109.37.145.81 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have taken another look, with particular regard to the necessary criteria specified in WP:EVENTCRIT, but I still don't think that the case of Chris Grinwis meets the standard. There is no "widespread (national or international) impact" or "enduring historical significance.". Also: "Most crimes[…]are usually not notable.". Sorry.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:1925 KLM Fokker F.III Forêt de Mormal crash

Hello, you didn’t approve the Draft:1925 KLM Fokker F.III Forêt de Mormal crash. Your only comment is to see WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I did, but I still don’t understand what is wrong with the article. Can you please tell me why it’s not meeting the criteria for an event? 109.37.132.144 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I left a further comment on the IP contributor's talk page, which of course you may well have not seen. It explained that that the loss of H-NABS, which I accepted, had the consequence of a requirement for radio sets; there was no such result in the crash of H-NABM. Consequence is listed as one of the points that makes an event noteworthy. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expand on this.--AntientNestor (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Indeed I didn’t see that. I will take a close look at the article and reply there if I have comments. 109.37.132.144 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is all over the place now—user's talk pages aren't permanent if the user isn't logged in as an editor. My reply is here.--AntientNestor (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Isbell's zigzag theorem

Thank you for your comments on the draft. I add an explanation of who proved the theorem and a wiki-link about Example of non-surjective epimorphism in the category of rings to lead sentence. Also, I had User:Jengod correct (rewrite) the draft. (Thank you !) Would you check the Draft:Isbell's zigzag theorem ? SilverMatsu (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silvermatsu: AfC reviewers are only required to confirm that a draft article complies with basic guidelines regarding sources, notability, absence of original research, no copyrighted material and so on; no deep understanding of the topic is called for. On that basis I will be glad to look at Draft:Isbell's zigzag theorem again during the course of today. However, as a "general reader", the piece may still be so far beyond my comprehension that I will leave it to another reviewer specializing in STEM topics to take on the job.--AntientNestor (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines are met. It's not quite blind faith on my part as there many similar topics already accepted.--AntientNestor (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much ! --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello AntientNestor:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Hanscotte centre-rail system

On 5 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hanscotte centre-rail system, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that railroad engineer Jules Hanscotte developed a system for the safe braking of heavy trains on steep gradients, but its only significant use was on tourist tramways? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanscotte centre-rail system. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hanscotte centre-rail system), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Richard Vernon Pugh (Royal Navy officer)

Hi AntientNestor, I have added as much information as I have been able to find about Pugh's association with the Royal Air Force. He seems to have been assigned to it for quite a few years, no doubt as a pilot, and the award of a Norwegian medal suggests he was involved with that campaign early in WWII, possibly while still a pilot. I have also added many other references as a result of what I believe is a pretty thorough search. May I please invite your consideration of this page's resubmission? Thank you. Scribes52 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Cross post—already commented on user's talk page.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@AntientNestor Hi, I've just received your latest rejection and I think this is now at the point where further effort is probably pointless. Here's what I said earlier today to the author of the previous rejection, in case you haven't come across it:

"I decided to create a page for Captain Pugh after discovering that he did not appear among those in Category:Royal Navy officers of World War II yet seemed as remarkable as many already there and more-so than some. I believe that still to be true, but understand such a view may not be held by Wikipedia as sufficient justification for a new page, and consequently I am discouraged from ever attempting to remedy such perceived omissions in future. Lesson learnt. With Pugh though, I have ascertained why he held ranks concurrently in both the RAF and Royal Navy and provided links to the pages where that can be substantiated, and generally tidied the page, so will make a further attempt to have the draft accepted. Thank you." Scribes52 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation about the relationship between the nascent RAF and the FAA was interesting and new to me, but it doesn't have any bearing on Pugh's notability. There were no new references, but there was a new assumption, i.e.: "which accounts for". Assumptions aren't allowed. Sorry.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

What would you suggest for Draft:List of nuclear coercion attempts?

Should it go back to being a list like before? Or do see a potential for (some or all of) it be merged into any relevant pages, like Nuclear blackmail? I know there is something similar on the Daniel Ellsberg page (I was looking at after watching "The Post" recently), so maybe something along those lines? Historyday01 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I did see that the piece had been changed from a WP:LIST to a prose passage. This turned it into an WP:ESSAY, rather than an article structured as specified in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. The bigger problem seems to be that the incidents you list tend to support the premise that there are "many attempts by countries to engage in coercive diplomacy", but a source specifically stating this needs to be quoted. See WP:RSOPINION for more. AntientNestor (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. I didn't write the article though, but I'd be willing to improve it so it is better, and isn't an essay. Historyday01 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That had confused me; I didn't noticed straightaway that you weren't Flurrious. I'm watching the page and I'll certainly look at it again when you're done, but it may better if another reviewer has a go wth a second opinion—the backlog of unreviewed articles is very low at the moment so there wouldn't be another long wait.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)