Uglykidboe

May 2024

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Vladimir Grachev, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Llblgen Pro (June 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Johannes Maximilian were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Llblgen Pro and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Uglykidboe! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Software notability and secondary sources

I saw that you asked about secondary references on IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help. In looking at your edits, it seems that substituting cites to the software's own website with links to the developer's equivalent information on NuGen was an attempt at providing a secondary source. But that still looks like a primary source. The elements of software notability are quite hard to meet these days. You are expected to find entirely independent, in-depth coverage of the software and write based on that. Finding that sort of coverage can be difficult. I know there are software articles already on Wikipedia that probably fall short of these current standards, but a new draft must meet those, not simply be as good as the existing articles. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. NuGet is a 3rd party platform , but assuming the listed info comes from the Llblgen Developer (and presumably validated by Nuget), is it still a primary source?

And what about the other references I added?

Microsoft featuring it in Visual Studio Magazine, an online community event, and a VP's blog strongly suggests notability, what do you think?

In terms of in-depth coverage, how much in-depth coverage is required?

Thank you

@Jmcgnh @Johannes Maximilian Uglykidboe (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

NuGet is indeed a different website, but the information there all comes from the contributors. It is not an independent reporter, so is a primary source rather than a secondary source.

Microsoft promotes itself and its partners in its magazine, so it's not considered an independent reporter for these purposes, either.

Most blogs are not considered reliable sources. Yes, Scott Hanselman declares that he's writing independently. It's close, but still not the sort of coverage needed for notability.

YouTube videos generally make very poor sources, but the Microsoft connection makes me expect that, once again, it's not really independent reporting.

Now, you can sometimes use non-independent sources to fill in some details in an article but now, while you are at the draft stage, it's best to eschew citing anything that does not provide strong evidence of notability by virtue of being independent and in-depth. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Your draft has several (minor) problems in addition to the poor referencing. For example, footnote 1 refers to NuGet, which is not a source in the sense of a published work or secondary source on Wikipedia. The second footnote refers to a blog – also not a published work. Note that Bouma's name is misspelt. Footnote 3 refers to Scott Hanselman's blog. He could potentially be deemed a source, however, a blog is not a published work, i.e., it is not citable. I have no idea what source footnote 4 refers to. It has some characteristics of a published work, but I reckon it cannot be considered one. It has no authors' information, it is hosted on github – which is very weird – and a source assessment is not possible, which renders that source not citable. Footnote 5 has poor formatting, but it is the first footnote in your draft that refers to a published work. This is citable, however, I would not deem it WP:SIRS compliant (it's SRS, which is close) because Microsoft has an incentive to promote certain products. So yes, a citable source, but not a source that establishes notability. Footnote 6 refers to a YouTube video, which is also not a published work, i.e., it is not citable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)