FreeMarsThen

AfC notification: Draft:Usman Haque has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Usman Haque. Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I've made some changes as you requested, please let me know if what I've added has improved it, and I've also added some stubs identifiers to make clear that it still needs expanding if that helps. Appreciate your feedback. FreeMarsThen (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there're other things that immediately jump out. I think he is probably notable for WP, but the draft article needs clean up. Here are some suggestions for improvements:

It reads rather promotionally. WP is not a place to promote people's career that is what Linked In or other social media platforms are for. For more information see: WP:SOAPBOX, and also WP:NOTADVERT. It seems excessive to frame his work around all of these hats: architect, artist, designer of interactive installations, digital artist, participatory designer, urbanist, environmental psychologist, entrepreneur. And the sentence about "one of the most influential figures" sounds like puffery or peacocky see: WP:PUFFERY and WPNPOV. If you were to chose the most important two, what would they be?

Several of the sources are low quality and should be removed or replaced with better citations, as they do not contribute to his notability. For example:

The Forbes contributor piece by Hester Lacey, Forbes is ok, but "Forbes.com contributors" has been deprecated as "Generally unreliable" per WP:FORBESCON. It should be removed.

The two TechCrunch citations are also low-quality per WP:TECHCRUNCH, and are often conflict of interest pieces. I suggest removal.

The Unpacked interview is flagged as unreliable because it's a Wordpress blog, and it's also an interview which is a primary source - anyone can say anything they want about themselves, what is needed are what others say about him who are completely independent of the person. It should be removed.

The reference to Christiane Paul's book is not a citation at all, it point to book sales site. This is promotional and also unverifiable. WP:PROMO and WP:V. Link instead to what Paul wrote about him in the book. Links to sales sites should be removed.

The UgoTrade citation is also low-quality as it is a blog by one person, not vetted by an editorial staff. It's also an interview, a primary source.

Sorry this is so long! Hope that the feedback is helpful. Netherzone (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Netherzone, that was really helpful. I've implemented most of your suggestions (except: I moved the Forbes link to further reading because it is a good text for connecting all the dots; also kept one interview reference but only cited the text that was by the author, i.e. not part of the interview) and added one other interview link purely for biographical career info (again not in the interview text). I also added multiple references for some things where the notability citation didn't give the fullest explanation, or where other citations had more information and images. If you are able to have another look and give me feedback I would really appreciate it.

One other question https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Usman-Haque/3058021 has a lot of information on his own writing but I couldn't figure out if it would be considered a reliable reference. FreeMarsThen (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello FMThen, I'm so pleased that you found these suggestions helpful; good call on moving the Forbes con link to further reading. The primary sources are fine for establishing certain things, but they don't contribute to notability, which is why I suggested focusing on the secondary sources to make sure an article doesn't get deleted for lack of notability. I'll have a look at the article, I'm traveling at the moment, so don't have my usual WP focus. Re: Semantic Scholar, it's a type of search engine for academic papers, similar to Google Scholar, so it is often useful for certain kinds of sourcing - you'd source the publications themself, rather than Semantic Scholar, but you probably know that. ;-) Personally I find Haque's interest in Gordon Pask fascinating and important research work as Pask was an important artist-engineer-cyberneticist type who sort of slipped thru the cracks of history. Netherzone (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've made some further small edits to tone down any remaining WP:PUFFERY I hope, but I still wonder if the article has too many references (noticed that is frowned upon) would be great to get your suggestion about this. I also realized I had all the punctuation on the wrong side of the references so that should be fixed now. Have ditched using Semantic Scholar, I did find one of his own articles Distinguishing Lexicons on his website, but also replicated on another website (the link I used) but it looks like it may just have been copied from his website, so would it better to just use his original? Or better just to drop it altogether? Thanks again, really appreciate you taking the time especially given your travel. FreeMarsThen (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it in the next few days. In the meantime, happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Netherzone I saw from your talk page how busy you are !!! I'm only replying to keep track of what I've done, please feel no pressure from me to look at this until you have the space. I've learned a few things about tone and content from having another article accepted, and editing a couple of established articles so I did another pass on this one to smooth out the tone and try to rationalize the references a bit. I still think there may be too many but I've left them in since they will be easier to delete later than hunt for again if needed. Appreciate any feedback you can give (again, only when you have time!) FreeMarsThen (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; it's getting closer! I did a little clean up and started sections. It still reads as a bit of a CV/resume-like list of accomplishments rather than as and encyclopedia biographic article. Can you find more info on his life itself (not just his work)? That could be added to the section that is now called "Education", it's common to have a section called "Early life and education", so you could also change that heading if you add the bio material.

It does seem over-sourced which is not a good look. Focus on the most important and reliable sources. Things like Vice and other pop-culture sources don't have as much credibility as newspapers, magazines and books. Database-like sources like Zipia, and calendar listings based on press releases is like "Barbican Weekend" seem like filler. Sources that don't mention him, or just mention him in passing aren't so valuable.

In general, Wikipedia should be sourced to "in-depth coverage", more info here as to what that means: WP:SIGCOV, WP:N, WP:CREATIVE.

His own writing can be put into a separate section that could either be called "Further reading" or "Publications". I can't do it today or tomorrow, but please ping me again after that and I'll have another look. In the meantime, another reviewer may approve the draft. The word-press blog of Todd Carruthers should be removed (it's getting flagged as a word-press blog).

Hope that helps! Ping me again later in the week, and I'll be able to devote more time. Happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

NZ, Thank you so much once again for all your help with this. I've not been able to find any useful biographical info about his early life, except in interviews and on blogs so I have not included yet and will keep looking. I've swapped some of the sources as you suggested for more reliable sources. I still need to do another pass to trim down the references which will take some time to sort through properly but for the moment I've added To-Do on the article talk page for both bio details and trimming references to keep track over there, I hope that makes sense. Thanks! FreeMarsThen (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Inter-Action Centre has been accepted

Inter-Action Centre, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Above is machine-made; this is a human speaking. Well done with the article. The building "[made] concrete the ideas of flexible architecture and impermanence", and "could be reconfigured over time as its occupants' requirements evolved". I suspect that this could (and should) put it in one or more additional categories. Not being an architecture specialist, I can't guess what they are. What you could do is look at articles on buildings that are similar, and see how these are categorized. (I thought of Centre Pompidou, but this only has "Category:High-tech architecture", whatever the hell this might mean -- wild guess: "Buildings that, when very new, had their viewers utter 'Wow, cool!', or its place/period-appropriate equivalent".) -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I discover that there's actually a style named High-tech architecture. Well well. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Hoary, really appreciate your nudge to improve the article, also your comments and suggestions, and for the effort you spent on the final cleanup to get it in publishable shape. I think I've learned a lot from it and hope to put this to good use on my future contributions. I will explore further classification. FreeMarsThen (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Usman Haque has been accepted

Usman Haque, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Botis Seva

Hello, FreeMarsThen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Botis Seva, 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) 20:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)