User talk:Devonian Wombat/Archive 4

Antarctica featured article review

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari

Hello, Devonian Wombat,

If you want to do a move/delete request, the most typical form for this request to be made is using Twinkle. Select CSD from the drop down Twinkle menu, CSD>General Criteria>G6 Move and then a field opens up for you to add a link to the page you want moved and the admin can delete and move the page in one click. In general, admins don't like to delete pages in advance of a possible page move. If no one acts on this for a while, I'll change the tag myself but these less typical requests can sit for a while. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Liz, I'll make sure to install Twinkle and do that in the future. I am a little concerned though, since I'm tagging in order to complete the Articles for Creation process the moved articles might end up with a bunch of leftover AFC formatting in them that will have to be removed manually. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 16:56:51, 13 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mresmiwiki

• Mresmiwiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ulvi Mansurov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could you please clarify how specifically should I revise the text to get it approved? While writing the text I was doing my best to state the facts without qualitative assessment of them. After the first decline, I adjusted the text and removed a few phrases that could be considered as qualitative and focused only on the facts. References have been added for every paragraph.

I would appreciate if you can indicate the areas that are not acceptable. Thanks!

Mresmiwiki (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mresmiwiki: the main problem with the article is that many positive things are said about numerous companies Mansurov worked at, but the articles cited to support this information do not mention Mansurov, making their attribution to him an unnaceptable synthesis. I would recommend removing any source that does not mention Mansurov directly, and removing the information those references support, as that would make the article more likely to be accepted. I would also recommend swapping around the "title" and "work" parameters in your references, currently those are displaying the opposite information to what they should be. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing and approval

Thanks so much for editing and approving the Ian Seabrook article. He's an interesting cinematographer, worthy of note!: Bethbcpr (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

Pictures from Afghanistan

Hi, I've tried to address the issues of tone that you flagged this article for. Do you find the changes satisfactory enough to remove the tag, or if not, could you point to any issues that need further work? With thanks, CT55555 (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Enzo Enzo

Review it. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:MyQ Solution

Hello Devonian Wombat,

I would just like to ask what exactly is the notobility issue in this draft article. Would I need more sources? If so, how many?

Thanks for your kind help and cheers, Rami9610 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rami9610: the draft doesn't need "more sources", it needs better sources. In order for a source to contribute to notability it must provide significant coverage of the subject (at least a couple of paragraphs), and it also must be independent of the subject, so no interviews, directory listings or company-affiliated websites. When it comes to corporations, an article must also pass WP:CORPDEPTH, which means articles about fundraising announcements or acquisitions do not contribute to notability. Hope this helped. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Peanut App

Hello you recently declined the submission for the Peanut App. I don’t know if you saw but there are plenty of citations created by trustworthy websites and the way the page was created was not advertising at all. Can you please be more specific on the citations or the advertisement that you mentioned on the decline? Thank you in advance 2A02:587:3D17:E983:4507:E022:FD3F:314D (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

2A02:587:3D17:E983:4507:E022:FD3F:314D, the main problem is that the article largely reads as a collection of press releases, rather than an encyclopedia article, though the good news is the references are already sufficient for notability, so once these issues are fixed it would easily be accepted to mainspace. For specific items, I would recommend removing the "history" section entirely, as it's about Michelle Kennedy rather than the company, as well as removing certain examples of promotional language in the "operation" section, specifically "One problem users frequently run into on other platforms are privacy concerns. With women seeking support about sensitive and intimate issues, Peanut aims to provide a safe space for them to connect and share experiences", "the launch of Peanut's TTC community provides access to a dedicated network of women, where members can candidly discuss the topics relating to loss and fertility issues" and " In particular, StartHER aims to tackle the difficulties specific groups have in raising their first capital — typically referred to as the friends and family round".

There are other, more minor issues, but that should be all that's needed for the article to be accepted. Once you're done, you can drop another message on my talk page and I'll review the article again. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat Hello. I have made the adjustments you proposed and also the modification a person from the Kiwi IRC proposed. I merged the history with the operation, to be in chronological order, removed the phrases you suggested and also created an operation section focused more directly on how the app works right now, rather than describing it as it evolved. Let me know if there is anything else I should correct. Thank you so much in advance.

@Emiltak: the article looks alright, though there are definitely still problems, specifically with some irrelevant info in history and you overdetail in the operation section, but I’d say it’s ready for mainspace. Unfortunately, due to a tech issue I won’t be able to accept it, so you’ll have to wait for another reviewer. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Thank you so much for taking the time to review it. I made some more corrections as you can see in the edit history and removed a lot of things, plus added some different citations as well, coming from advisory from another admin on the live chat support IRC page. They helped me a lot with this one. It is not a problem to wait, and even better if you manage to solve the technical issues please keep an eye on it if it hasn't been reviewed until you can review it yourself. Thank you again and have a wonderful day.

Thank you for accepting the submission. You were very helpful. I would like to ask two things if this is possible. 1) How will I be able to insert an image where the information are 2) since someone tagged it as a pr release is there a way to correct that and remove that tag? Emiltak (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 14:06:40, 3 February 2022 for assistance on AfC

Steven Salowsky Salutations Devonian Wombat! I am new here and a fellow stranger that was a wikipedian assisted on very amateur attempt I made at my first article. I don't even know if I am posting this in the correct space lol. I see that the draft states the Comment: The sources are mostly about Rich Benoit, not Salowsky. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC) And noticed the sources do include more about Benoit being he has a louder presence on the YouTube channel, but each article mentioned Salowsky as he is half the operation, being the sole designer and also a builder of the vehicles which deserves its own merit and credit. It is rather odd that they focus on one person more than the other, how would you suggest improving this?

@Thecarguru2: the thing that you can do to try and prove notability is to find sources which talk about Salowsky at length. Generally, the criteria for enough coverage sits at about two paragraphs, so I would recommend looking for sources with that level of coverage of Salowsky specifically. If none of those sources exist, I would say you should instead try to expand the Rich Benoit page if you're interested in that, expanding an existing page is quite a bit easier than creating one from scratch. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me here. I suppose whats confusing there is all these credible sources *are* about them both in numerous paragraphs. Notability is evident in the videos and pictures of him directly used for the articles? This particular article from a smaller media company illustrates his design elements more, ( https://electrek.co/2020/08/24/tesla-cyberquad-diy-electric-atv-100-mph/ ) and this article is at length on both of them ( https://www.hotcars.com/exclusive-rich-rebuilds-never-wanted-to-be-rich-rebuilds-only-teslas/ ) does that suffice? It's a shame to not see them both receive equal parts respect on wikipedia. Thanks again for all your time here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecarguru2 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thecarguru2: I'm afraid there are a couple of more unique problems with those sources. Specifically with the HotCars source, it's actually an interview. This is a problem when it comes to proving notability, because interviews are considered to be primary sources, not secondary sources, and on Wikipedia secondary sources are needed to showcase notability. As for the Electrek source, the problem is mainly that it doesn't really provide information on Salowsky at all, it just mentions his name a couple of times when discussing a video on the Rich Rebuilds channel. All you would really be able to source from that would be a couple of disjointed snippets about that one video, not any real information about Salowsky as a person independent of the Rich Rebuilds channel. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Devonian Wombat!

Your insights have been more than helpful. Ironically, I just got my latest Popular Mechanics catalog and Rich and Steven's car is on the front. Pop Mech does a segment where they have someone whom was a part of the project write the article. Steven Salowsky wrote it, which, is considered a primary source. Though, to be published in a major magazine all statements and words must be verified and fact-checked. I think this should give him some notability, being he deserves just as much recognition as his counterpart? see here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaSqAF3pEmF/?hl=en or a better article than hot cars: https://wonderfulengineering.com/this-diy-electric-atv-mimicking-a-tesla-cyberquad-clocks-at-100-mph/ What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecarguru2 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Mussab Tariq

Hello Sir,

Hope you're doing well. You've rejected my proposed article by saying that *Articles that Tariq has written himself are primary sources, and therefore cannot contribute to notability.* With respect I would like to say that a Columnist is a person who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions those Columns appear in different newspapers, magazines. Being a columnist is, the articles were Published by Leading Verified Newspaper and Magazines as mentioned in the references how it would not contribute to the Notability of Tariq when his credibility and notability are already verified by those agencies. As you said Earlier, Article written by tariq its self are primary source. Its very obvious whenever you work published by agencies they give you credit and sometime make you author profile on their website. In short i would like to say that kindly consider the credibility of those sources where the Articles are published.

Regards. 72.255.42.92 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Mussab Tariq

Hello Sir,

Hope you're doing well. You've rejected my proposed article by saying that *Articles that Tariq has written himself are primary sources, and therefore cannot contribute to notability.* With respect I would like to say that a Columnist is a person who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions those Columns appear in different newspapers, magazines. Being a columnist is, the articles were Published by Leading Verified Newspaper and Magazines as mentioned in the references how it would not contribute to the Notability of Tariq when his credibility and notability are already verified by those agencies. As you said Earlier, Article written by tariq its self are primary source. Its very obvious whenever you work published by agencies they give you credit and sometime make you author profile on their website. In short i would like to say that kindly consider the credibility of those sources where the Articles are published. Asim77 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Kindly reply. Asim77 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asim77: apologies for the late reply, you seem to note have realised that the problem with your sources isn't that they're not notable publications, it's that primary sources do not contribute to notability in Wikipedia terms. You need to find articles about Tariq, not written by him. Tariq could have written extensively for The New York Times, and it would not matter if there had not been other articles written about him from secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. But that is a very strange rule in Wikipedia terms. If a person doesn't have any association with Agencies eg. newspapers. It seems obvious that someone has to show the articles on behalf of this person to show credibility but a person who is already associated needs any other sources for the notability. Asim77 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

John Ennis Artist Writer Decline

Are you on drugs? Advertisement? Refs from Washington Post, Multiple Der Spiegel and many IMDB mentions is not advertisement. He's notable and should be included due to others with similar name in same fields, only he's more accomplished.

Undo your bs, it's not advertisement and my original article was less referenced, so these revisions should be fine, they are major media WP and DS. Way bigger media than the references other John Ennis' have.

He is more notable.

Museumcuratormma (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Museumcuratormma: the reason I declined your draft was because as of right now it reads like a resume, not a Wikipedia article. Right now, all it is a list of things Ennis has supposedly accomplished presented in a totally unnaceptable format for a Wikipedia article, with no actual coverage or demonstration of notability used to write a proper biography. Also, many of the references, including IMDb, are not reliable sources, either because they are user-generated or because they clearly do not have proper editorial oversight, such as the cited 9/11 truther website, for example. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Face it, you're biased, he has major media mentions Washington Post and Der Spiegel and others, he's the lead artist on lots of NFT projects, so the #1 Market is a reliable source, he's got exhibits on Museum Sites. There's other people with his name, so there is confusion as to if they are him. WP and DS are more than the other people have with his name. Undo your decline stop being biased. Museumcuratormma (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

World Historical & Cultural Cities Expo, Zynthian, Chris Dorosz, Muhammad Azizul Islam

The following drafts need review because the draft(s) were submitted a long time ago and could be deleted if not reviewed:
World Historical & Cultural Cities Expo, Zynthian, Chris Dorosz, Muhammad Azizul Islam

Faster than Thunder (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Denise Park

Hello, Devonian Wombat,

I have been trying for a while to get a draft published for Denise C. Park, a researcher at the University of Texas at Dallas. I was wondering what exactly I need to do in order to get that done. All of my submissions have been shot down due to sourcing issues, so this last submission I ensured that I had secondary, independent sources for everything.

I also added a stub template for her draft, since I only have a sentence or so for her draft. Will this increase the chances of getting my draft published? Also, what would you recommend if further action needs to be taken?

Best, Jonknox12 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

F. Don Miller

Hello. Thought I should let you know that an AFC submission you accepted, F. Don Miller, has copyvio in it. So far, I've removed copying from 3 sources and I'm working on fully clearing out the copyvio. While I am not an AFC reviewer, I noticed the copyvio when I discovered that another user beat me to writing this article. I hope that you catch future copyvios before they are accidentally accepted at AFC. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: damn, I really should have caught that when reviewing the article, that's a Trout for me. Once you've cleared out the copyvios just remember to place a revision deletion request to expunge them from the page history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Clete Willems

Hello. I edited and added citations to the draft Clete Willems article using reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The 12 new citations added to the previous draft provide information on his position as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economics and his role in U.S. China trade negotiations. In your comment on February 21, you said the only coverage on him is announcements of his departure. As examples of new citations that were added to the previous draft, see and . Is it preferable to remove the duplicate citations about his departure from the White House and what else would you advise for improving the draft so it can be published? Thank you for your assistance.

References

Lance Hayes Page

Hi Devonian Wombat, I previously had an article of Lance Hayes in an article space, though it was removed. In order for me to improve my draft, is it possible for you to recover the source from my published article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Lance_Hayes. Thanks, Dark. DarkKnight9337 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@DarkKnight9337:, I'm afraid not, only an administrator can view deleted pages. I'd recommend asking the administrator who deleted the page to provide the sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I will do so, thanks for the reply. DarkKnight9337 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Scott M. Gibson (Notability Question)

I have a question about notability, since you said that the subject of my article did not satisfy the notability criterion. On the wiki page detailing the notability criteria for academics, the first criterion states that "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

Subsection "c" notes that this first criterion may be met through the a publication of a festschrift in honor of the subject of the article: "(c) The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses." Since the subject of my article did have a festschrift published in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock), it seems like he does meet the notability criteria for academics. Indeed, the wiki page on notability states that "Academics meeting anyone of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Since I have demonstrated that he had a festschrift published in his honor (please see the body of the article along with the references) by a reputable publishing company, I do not understand why the article was rejected. Is there something else I need to demonstrate or prove?

I appreciate any help you can provide in this matter.

Sincerely, Dgregory4 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Dgregory4

@Dgregory4: I was given pause by the fact that the Festschrift is not properly cited using inline citations when it is mentioned in-text, instead using an improper external link. As said Festschrift is what the notability of the article is based on, I felt it needed to be cited properly using ref tags. Do that, and the article should meet the NPROF criterion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision of Edits made on Wikipedia Page "2022 House Elections in New York"

Hello Devonian Wombat, I hope this message finds you well. I am Gaius Publius Scipio, and I had recently discovered that you had removed the majority of endorsements I had edited for a candidate in the Wikipedia page "2022 House of Representatives Elections in New York". I appreciate the tremendous amount of work you have done in improving Wikipedia, but I am very frustrated that you had removed most of the endorsements I had edited. I had spent several hours finding these endorsements, the best sources for them, and writing them into the page. You stated that the majority of endorsements were removed for their non-notability. I disagree. "Notability" is highly subjective. Regarding the organizations removed: The number of followers these organizations have on social media tops off at over 105,000: hardly not notable. But an organization's notability is not only measured by the amount of followers they have on social media, but also by their impacts. These organizations recruit and organize 1000s and even 10s of 1000s of volunteers; they were responsible for flipping the State Senate of New York Democratic in 2018; they have raised $150,000 for the candidates that they believe in; they rally, organize, petition, canvass, and so forth; the organizations listed for this candidate were featured in Action Network, a major political action network; and so on. Those are very notable achievements. Furthermore, we have to contextualize these organizations. Many of them are based in New York, and as a result find their influence there. On the same Wikipedia page in question, there is a candidate that was endorsed by a local chapter of a party (not the party itself) that isn't found anywhere else other than in New York. That local chapter's social media presence is much smaller than the organizations I had listed, but does that mean that we should delete that endorsement? Of course not. For the people of that area, knowing about the endorsement of a small local chapter of a minor party is important in providing public information, something that Wikipedia is all about. Finally, it's not fair that the endorsements I had edited were removed when I counted at least three endorsements on the page that could be argued as "non-notable" that were not removed. Those endorsements should stay, as should the endorsements I edited. On the "Notable Individuals" removed: it is very hard to argue that Amee Vanderpool, a political journalist who has appeared in the likes of BBC, with over 350,000 followers on Twitter and a newsletter with over 10,000 subscribers, or the President of one of, if not the biggest, chapters of a National Political Organization (Sonia Ossorio) can be considered "not notable". I included these endorsements in good faith. I edited them into the page so as to provide more information that may be important to New Yorkers in the area. Every effort was taken to provide neutrality and find the best sources possible. During my research, I discovered numerous individuals that could have been construed as "endorsing" said candidate, but chose not to include them because of lack of notability. I even omitted "notable" individuals who I felt there was not enough evidence to justify pasting on the page. As previously stated, I want the endorsements removed to be reverted for information's sake; but in lieu of starting an edit war, I wanted to reach out to you and see if we can reach consensus. Let me hear what you have to say.

Sincerely, Gaius Publius Scipio Gaius Publius Scipio (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gaius Publius Scipio: "non-notable" when referring to Wikipedia articles mean that a subject does not meet WP:GNG, for our purposes that means that they do not have a Wikipedia page. According to the criteria for political endorsements outlined in WP:ENDORSE, only individuals and organizations with Wikipedia pages are allowed to be included in endorsement lists. This policy is admittedly poorly enforced, but we should do our best to maintain it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find any mention that endorsements explicitly require a Wikipedia page to be notable. In fact, it says the opposite in WP:ENDORSE:

"Endorsements by individuals...

"Whether or not it is necessary for the person to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level...

Endorsements by organizations

Whether or not it is necessary for the organization to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level." Gaius Publius Scipio (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gaius Publius Scipio: the wording there is designed to be inclusive of WP:SNG's, such as WP:NPOL, for example. See 2010 Texas gubernatorial election for example, where state legislators who pass NPOL are included despite having no Wikipedia page, because they pass an SNG. Note that WP:ENDORSE states that Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Rejection of article and resubmission

Hi, Previously you have rejected my article on Akshita Mudgal. That was my first submission and I was not sure on all the changes I could make. I added some citations and references and resubmitted it. I am not sure if I resubmit an article it will go back to your bucket. Please review my article and help me if any improvements are needed in it WikiEditor0809 (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Request on 07:21:07, 17 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 109.66.166.201

• 109.66.166.201 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:More Alive Than Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, so about Draft:More Alive Than Dead, I made corrections, and I really don't understand why you think that the article is not written in an objective and neutral tone. Maybe if you can provide some constructive notes. Do you the article meets the importance criteria? cuz if so, I just want to get it done and publish it.

109.66.166.201 (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

109.66.166.201, the article is clearly written in far too promotional a tone. The entirety of the "Background And Storyline" section is unnaceptable in its current form, the both paragraphs need to be reworded, and the first one needs to have superflous information about PsychoMigrations cut down considerably. The introductory sentence, and the article as a whole, also needs to be far less grandiose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Erasmo Gómez

Thankyou for nominating the article on Erasmo Gómez for deletion. Wikipedia is drowning in articles lacking any significant sources. It is nice to see people starting efforts to change this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting help in converting claimed to be essay to non essay

Greetings,

I know there are other forums for for making copy edit requests but one of the draft Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala rewritten by me with proper sourcing has been marked like an essay though I have not added any personal thoughts or original research. May be I am missing in my language skills may be some one knows and helps out in converting claimed to be essay to non essay, hence requesting here.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku:, the reason why your draft was declined as an essay was because the draft reads like a news article, there's a lot of individual examples and incidents talked about at length when the article should be focused around providing an overview of the topic, rather than going into such detail. There's also quite a few examples of very dramatic wording that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, "this debate served as the gateway to apostasy for many practicing Islamists" for example. I also feel as though that given this is a subtopic of Ex-Muslims in Kerala, which doesn't have an article, maybe focusing on the community at large would be better. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Btw original draft was not mine I just helped it to my capacity and I will prefer some one else takes over the process of further improvement ahead, if you yourself can take it over also will do. Otherwise if possible, can you suggest me copy editors who can help me out through this further process.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku:, the best place to ask for help with copyediting would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that project does not take Drafts in copy edit requests but I shall try requesting at their talk page. Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Burlington edits

I would like to thank you for your edits to the Burlington mayoral election pages especially for the additional images you have added. Jon698 (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Devonian Wombat,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 814 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kyōshin Meichi-ryū

A tag has been placed on Kyōshin Meichi-ryū requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I wasn't intending to criticise you for your bold edits nor telling you how to suck eggs, just suggesting a forum to discuss the changes you think are appropriate. Cheers --Find bruce (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Find bruce: no worries mate, I was a little crabby myself, happens to all of us :) Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Tone

Hello admin,

You recently denied a Draft I submitted through AFC. Can you please tell me how I can make it neutral? I have read a lot of guidelines, but I am unable to figure it out. All of the content is based on the history. Please let me know what I can do for you to accept it. Thank you Consinger (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Consinger:, the advertisement section of the decline was largely due to the fact that at the moment the draft largely consists of listing off the individuals involved with the company. The notability section of the decline, which is the more important part, was that at the moment the article's sourcing consists entirely of staffing announcements and fundraising announcements, which do not contribute to notability under the guidelines set out in WP:CORPDEPTH. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Insight on declined draft

Hello, would you be able to provide more insight on the decline of draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spenser_Olson — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWilson021 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@JWilson021: As I said in the decline, most of the articles references are primary sources, which do not contribute to notability. Of the three secondary sources cited, GospelHydration, TechBullion and Newstrail, all are unreliable. The wording of these articles is extremely promotional, and none of the websites have editorial teams from what I could tell, meaning they are likely unreliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Devonian! JWilson021 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Devonian Wombat,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 10039 articles, as of 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft acceptance of Interference freedom

Please be a little more careful with checking for copyright before accepting drafts; this had copying from [1], and while it's unfortunately paywalled, of what I could read did show up with Earwig and on CopyPatrol. This was trickier than normal to detect, but just a caution for the future. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sennecaster:, cheers for picking up the Copyvio, but I have to object to your comment on my Copyvio checking, as the offending material was added with this edit, after I had acccepted the article. Thanks for the CopyPatrol tool though, I wasn't aware of the existence of that one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to bring it up since I did notice some super suspect material in the first edit to the page. Gave me a headache trying to read through all of the text through a scanned PDF where the person angled it a different way each page >.< Sennecaster (Chat) 23:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

My sympathies lol, that sounds like a pain. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Devonian Wombat! Your work on Antarctica has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Antarctica (estimated annual readership: 1,800,367) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP drive award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given to Devonian Wombat for 43 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Request on 13:11:53, 3 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Anonymousyousername

• Anonymousyousername (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jonathan Nunn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your recent rejection of my submission of Jonathan Nunn is, I believe, unjustified. The subject is clearly notable, being as he has been the subject (not author) of features in the New Statesman, MEL Magazine and gal-dem, all of which are cited. The quotes from these articles may seem aggrandising, but I included them as justifications for his significance. I concede that perhaps the list of fellow contributors to the British Library's food season is somewhat irrelevant, but then why not simply delete that section?

I think it is thoroughly odd for you to claim that someone with a sizeable amount third-party coverage from independent sources reputable enough to have their own wikipedia entries is not notable enough for their own wikipedia.

Anonymousyousername (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Anonymousyousername:, my concern with the draft wasn't notability, though the sourcing given focuses far more on Vittles itself rather than on Nunn, the problem I had was with the tone of the article, which I considered to be promotional. The fact is that the draft is not focused on providing an encyclopedic overview of Nunn, rather it is focused on merely mentioning the times individuals or organisations have praised him with no context. This includes the Mel magazine sentence, which just quotes the website calling Nunn famous without any context, which is promotional. The same goes for the New Statesman article. In short, the draft does not describe Nunn's work or what he's done, it just consists of quotes from people saying nice things about him. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Devonian Wombat,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello, can you please review Draft:Sruthy Sithara? -Imperfect Boy (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal (Loktantrik)

Hello, Devonian Wombat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal (Loktantrik), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hodlnaut

Hello, please consider re-evaluating the article that you have viewed earlier in light of recent events that raise the importance of having this article available. --Treehorn 1991 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Devonian Wombat,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

H-index in humanities

One of the rejection notes on a submission I made indicated one reason was the H-index of the subject. I want to mention that H-indexes for scholars in the humanities tend to be low -- the metric was designed for STEM fields, and so doesn't necessarily capture the way work is generated and cited in humanities (in particular a lot of citations in books tend not to get counted, but a lot of humanities primarily publishes books). This journal article summarizes some of the issues and argues for a different approach that is more field specific: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-022-00327-0

Kishonna Gray (who has a Wikipedia entry) has a similar H-index to deWinter (17) and Mar Hicks who also has an entry has an H-index of only 9. TL Taylor, who is one of the most well established game scholars in the world, has an h-index of only 20 despite being a full professor at MIT.

I'm working on adding more external citations to the article as suggested! I'm not mentioning the H-index issue to argue, but only to share knowledge. Relying on H-index to assess non-science fields can result in undervaluing the work of major players. Inthearchive (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inthearchive:, no worries, arguing is what talk pages are for after all! You're quite right on the h-index matter, our own notability guidelines on academics specifically say that h-index's should not be the end-all for notability, I myself was only using it as a shortcut to make sure she didn't have a very large number of citations, which would indicate that deWinter would be notable even without secondary sources in the draft. Finding secondary sources would definitely be good, since as far as I'm aware deWinter doesn't meet any of the other academic notability criteria, while Mar Hicks does for example. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 01:24:58, 5 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Antijayy

• Antijayy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kankan (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey Devonian,

Thank you for your feedback.

I just have a question regarding your statement "Our Generation Music does not look like a reliable source".

Our Generation Music (OGM) has been citied in other Wiki biographies as one of the sources I chose was from another Wikipedia article about the artist Yeat.

By reliable source, if you meant if it isn't accurate information, the Our Generation Music references came from interviews of the artist.

Any clarity would help.

Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge as I understand that sources need to be accurate/reliable.

Kind regards,

Antijayy (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Antijayy (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Antijayy:, while OGM has been cited in other articles, that doesn't make it a reliable source, though it does mean it can reasonably be used to support information in combination with other sources. In the case of the "Yeat" article, for example, the article's notability is based off reliable, established sources such as Pitchfork, IGN and Polygon. If you are looking for sources, you can find a list of sources to related to music at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (Yes it's the Albums wikiproject, but the reliability of the sources is consistent for all articles related to music), and a more general list at WP:RSP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gru (Despicable Me), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal (Loktantrik)

Hello, Devonian Wombat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Devonian Wombat,

This notice might be a bit confusing. It looks like you created this page, as a redirect, when you moved an article from Draft space to main space. And there it sat until another editor, now blocked, decided to remove the redirect and start an article on it. So, when it went stale, Twinkle saw you as the page creator. The limitations of the tools we use! I'll leave the notice but I just thought I'd provide an explanation in case you thought, "I didn't write a draft with this title!". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol, what a strange thing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry about what I said to you at User talk:Lugnuts. I thought that AfD notices to a blocked user were antagonizing. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Magnatyrannus:, no worries, you are correct that if I had manually been sending AfD notifications to Lugnuts that would have been very mean of me, but the reason I left a talk page notification was because I was using Twinkle to nominate the article, which automatically sends out notifications to the creator of the page you're nominating for deletion. If I had checked the article history and seen that the creator was Lugnuts, I would've checked the box that disabled sending the notification. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Discord invite

Hey there. Congrats on being on the backlog drive leaderboard already. Off to a great start! If you want to hang out with other NPPs, consider joining us on the NPP Discord. Discord is live chat software that can be really fun. If not no worries. Thanks and see you around :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Devonian Wombat,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.