Clearfrienda
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #24 |
 | Clearfrienda is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to be civil.
|
The Signpost: 25 April 2024 edit
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Hi @Clearfrienda, it is very unclear how you came to the conclusion that this article does not meet the publishing standards for Wikipedia, due to the number of credible sources provided, including The New York Times, New York Daily News, and the Associated Press articles. Smaller, but significant, publications also include the Tucson Citizen and the The Oklahoman. There are also multiple in-depth industry focused publications, such as BroadwayWorld and Broadway News that report news on the company regularly. It does not appear that all of the research and credible sources have been taken into account. This article only has sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent. If you do not agree, please identify the specifics. Thank you, CityLimitsJunction (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @CityLimitsJunction: Hi. I declined your draft because the sources you provided don't appear to meet the notability guidelines for companies. It states:
- A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
- Your article, in my opinion, doesn't meet that criteria. "Significant" is generally defined as 3 (see WP:THREE). The majority of your reliable sources, like Variety and the NYT only offer passing mentions of the company ― and are generally talking more about the founder/president than the company itself. This is not in-depth coverage at all. The sources with actual in-depth coverage (i.e. BroadwayWorld) are generally not considered reliable on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BroadwayWorld).
- My suggestions are either to:
- Find more reliable, independent sources and add them to the article, then resubmit
- Create an article on the founder instead, as they seem to have more coverage than the company
- From what I can see, you should easily be able to improve the draft enough for it to be accepted.
Hi there, I left a message on my talk page with more information, but I disagree with your assessment of the Draft:God Committees page.
You note that "this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources", however we do have multiple independent sources, including John Hopkins University, the Baylor College of Medicine, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics (they use the term God Panel, but refer to the same thing), and others.
Furthermore, the article is on the requested articles list: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine#Associations.
Let me know if you have any more information on why this was denied or how I could make it better follow the notability guidelines. Thanks! Edcous (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Edcous: Hi. I was very on-the-fence about your article. I noticed the term was used in many reliable sources, but the reason I declined it was because of a lack of in-depth references which are usually a criteria to prove notability (especially in the case of "terms" like your article). I think the subject is definitely notable, considering the wide usage of the term and sources like the AMA Journal of Ethics covering it. I think it could use some more in-depth references, both to prove notability and to ensure all the content can be accurately verified, before it is accepted and moved to mainspace. I recommend adding a few more in-depth references if possible (to prove notability) and resubmitting. I won't personally re-review it to let another reviewer voice their opinion. You could also ask at the AfC help desk to get another reviewer's assesment sooner.
- Let me know if you have any more questions.
Hello, i provided reliable sources in article. The website I provided in reference are in Spanish language because the animation studio is Spanish
The article about the animation studio is available in Spanish wikipedia Akhinesh212 (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Akhinesh212: I declined Draft:Neptuno Films because it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for companies at the moment. Those guidelines state:
- A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
- Significant, per WP:THREE is usually defined as in-depth coverage in at least 3 reliable, independent sources. Your article has 4 references at the moment:
- RTVE.es does not mention the company at all.
- laxarxa.cat offers limited coverage on the company itself
- catalanfilms.cat offers pretty good in-depth coverage (your best source)
- www.boe.es is not a source that helps to prove notability
- This is not enough coverage in references to prove notability per WP:NCORP. I suggest finding some sources that offer more in-depth coverage on the company and resubmitting.
- Let me know if you have any more questions.
- Clearfrienda 💬 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello:
I'm reaching out to understand what changes I need to make before I resubmit the two draft biography pages that I recently created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tarapada_Santra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Amiyakumar_Bandyopadhyay
Thanks for your review comments, I understand that the key reason for not qualifying is the lack of reliable, secondary references. I do have references to these individuals in (Bengali) books and in some websites and have read the guidance on how to mention them but just wanted to make sure I get it right.
For instance the website daricha.org has a biography on Tarapada Santra here - https://www.daricha.org/folklorists.aspx - would this qualify as a reliable, secondary source?
A bit of context: Both these individuals made major contributions to the study of local history (social, architectural, and folk) of southern Bengal. They worked between 1960 and 1990 surveying villages and monuments, and documenting them through field notes and books and articles (mostly in Bengali). They are widely considered pioneers in the field along with David McCutchion (who does have his own Wikipedia page) and Hitesranjan Sanyal and George Michell . Modern scholars of Bengali folk history and architecture rely heavily on the work done by this group.
I'm an independent researcher in Bengali Architecture and History who has used the work of these individuals extensively, so I've always wanted to pay back by creating their biographies on Wikipedia.
We are also working on a Wikimedia project to digitise and make publicly available about 600 photographs of these monuments taken in the 1980s by one of these researchers: George Michell.
I appreciate your help with this.
Amit Guha (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AmitGuha: I declined your article based on two reasons: Notability and references. To meet the notability guidelines for scholars, the article has to meet any of the following (as supported by reliable sources):
- The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
- The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
- The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
- The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
- The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
- The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
- Tarapada Santra is probably notable based on what you've stated in the article. There just isn't enough coverage to back this up. I couldn't find Kaushiki: Year 3, Edition 9 anywhere online. I found Kaushiki: David McCutchion Edition and it offered quite a bit of information, but was only cited once in the article on relatively unimportant information. I'd recommend:
- Making sure your references can, if possible, be easily accessed online or identified (e.g. through ISBNs or ISSNs) so information can be backed up. This isn't technically necessary but it makes it easier for future reviewers.
- Making sure all information in the article is properly cited and can be traced back to a reliable source (no original research). Currently, large sections of your article haven't been cited at all so the information can't be verified.
- Trying to find more references to help back up your information
- Amiyakumar Bandyopadhyay has more coverage but a lot of information still isn't cited properly. Make sure all information can be backed up by reliable, secondary sources.
- Since your subjects are both scholars, you only have to meet one of the above criteria and not necessarily the general guidelines for people. So as long as you can, for example, back up that they've had significant impacts in their field with reliable, secondary sources, you should be good for notability. www.daricha.org is certainly an independent source that you could use — I can't find much about it online so I can't say anything about reliability. I'd assume it's pretty accurate for local information.
- If you have any other questions, let me know.
Hi @Clearfrienda,
Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article on PropertyShark. I'm reaching out to gain further insight into your decision to mark the article for notability issues. I've noticed that while some of the articles I've cited only mention PropertyShark briefly, there are actually more than three sources that delve deeply into the topic, including The New York Times, The Real Deal, Money Inc., and Forbes. Additionally, I have found sources that provide in-depth coverage of the topic in Romanian, which I believe could further solidify its notability. I just want to ensure that referencing articles in a foreign language for an English-language article won't pose any issues. Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. EvelynJo (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @EvelynJo: I think your article is probably notable (hence why I marked it with a notice instead of draftifying or nominating for deletion) but I've noticed it is slightly lacking in in-depth coverage. This NYT article offers a good amount of coverage. The other NYT articles offer some coverage but are overall quite limited. In-depth coverage is often considered to be an article entirely or mostly about the subject. The Real Deal articles are a good example of in-depth coverage. The Time article definitely helps. The Money Inc. and Forbes.com sources usually aren't considered reliable on Wikipedia (see WP:FORBESCON). One or two more reliable, in-depth sources will certify notability. Yes, citing articles in a foreign language is completely fine (just make sure they're formatted correctly).
- Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
- Happy editing,
- Clearfrienda 💬 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda: Thanks so much for your quick reply. I have cited a couple additional articles from Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. Hopefully, these will suffice and the notability tag can be removed. Please feel free to share any further feedback or suggestions for improvement.
- Best,
- @EvelynJo EvelynJo (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Page mover granted edit
Hello, Clearfrienda. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
- Wikipedia:Requested moves
- Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)