User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2018/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger discussion for Joe Reilly

An article that you have been involved in editing—Joe Reilly—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft decline

Just so you know, this is not a valid decline reason. If you are declining a draft for something that you could fix in less than two minutes, you should fix it and find a new reason to decline. Of course, if you don't have the inclination to fix it (which is okay) you should still find a new reason to decline. MOS and other "formatting" issues often trip up new users and thus we should do our best to help them. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

07:01:05, 12 January 2018 review of submission by Kimoscholar


I have a clarification for the reasons it was declined in hopes of improving it, if possible. I read the link about the academics and understand that. I think there are two main reasons why Erika Camacho satisfies the criteria. First, she is the only former student of the renowned Jaime Escalante that has earned her Ph.D.. Second, the three awards listed are major national awards. There are numerous other smaller and local but they are not worthy of mention. I would think those two items would be enough based on the links I read. Kimoscholar (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

National Coastal Zone Management Program

Hey, did you not realize the National Coastal Zone Management Program article was full of external links when you passed it? WP:EL are not allowed. Even if that was cleaned up, this article is also written like an essay and is written by a likely COI editor - "Why Coastal Management Is Needed" - would you be willing to move this article back to draftspace? The other option is to WP:STUBIFY the current article. SeraphWiki (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

16:49:20, 15 January 2018 review of submission by Mjwellington


Maybe I didn't note the changes to the article as clearly as I could, but it seems being long-listed -one of ten books- for novel of the year in two consecutive years, even in a small country like New Zealand, would justify worthiness. In addition, I also added the quotes from one of the country's leading literary authorities that this was far and away the best novel of the year. Mjwellington (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WLIP logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WLIP logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

11:59:59, 16 January 2018 review of submission by Danielvandermaas


Danielvandermaas (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

15:27:35, 19 January 2018 review of submission by Hutchingsmusic


Hi, I've revised the article to remove the non-objective quote and tried to make all the language as neutral as possible; also stated that the KTN receives over £10m of government funding, which is why it should have a Wikipedia entry for public interest purposes. Hope this is helpful. Please let us know any specific issues that caused the rejection. Hutchingsmusic (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect capitals

Why did you move "Draft:Topological Geometry" to Topological Geometry rather than to Topological geometry? The capitalization of the initial "g" was clearly incorrect under WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Native Authority

Thank you for reviewing this article. I've noted your comments on article creation and will apply them in future

Regards Sscoulsdon (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

External links

You passed an article Charles Bosseron Chambers with external links in the article text. This is the second time in the last few thats that I am asking you to please be more in careful. You did not respond last time. Please make sure there are no external links in the article text before you move the articles to mainspace. Thank you.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

13:13:18, 20 January 2018 review of submission by Pnevyk


Hello,

thank you for reviewing my article. You said that the subject already exists on Wikipedia. However it is just a redirection to article about noocracy. It was mentioned also on my draft's talk page. I am not specialist in this area, but although these terms describe a similar idea (therefore I mentioned noocracy in my article), there are some differences. From what I quickly found about noocracy on Google Scholar, it is "the political system with institutionalised science-based social experimentation" (1) or "a system of the world government based on the integrated mind of civilization and its transpersonal decisions" (2). On the other side, in epistocracy, political power is distributed on the basis of expertise and knowledge (which is not inherently science-based, and there is no such a concept as social experimentation or integrated mind of civilization).

But still, these terms might be similar enough to have only one Wikipedia article about them. In that case, I would argue that Epistocracy should be the main article and Noocracy term being redirected to it, because Google Scholar search for epistocracy gives about 7x more results than for noocracy, the difference is even bigger for example on ResearchGate (epistocracy, noocracy).

Can you please tell me what to do next if any of this information changed your resolution? Thanks!

Pnevyk (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest editing that existing article adding this as a new section.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I apologize, I don't want to look as a person who is not able to accept a rejection. But I don't know how to add my quite long article as a section into the article of Noocracy which is rather short. Sure, I can improve Noocracy article, but considering the number of available sources, it will not exceed the amount of information I compiled about epistocracy. Furthermore, corresponding to my search-results argument, having epistocracy section inside Noocracy article is, in my opinion, similar to have six-player volleyball section inside Beach volleyball article (Google results of volleyball and beach volleyball). I can instead include section about noocracy inside my article and making term noocracy redirecting into it, what do you think? Is there an obstacle to do so? -- Pnevyk (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

13:13:05, 21 January 2018 review of submission by 2003:E4:C3D8:80B5:6C1F:32ED:6235:47B3


Dear MadeYourReadThis, I am not yet requesting a re-review only asking some questions which might help me improve my submission. For instance, if you consider certain sources to be unreliable is it possible to let me know what these are so that I can remove them from the article? Can you also give me some indication as to what evidence you need as to make someone 'Notable' in your eyes, and in what areas the article is deficient in this respect? 2003:E4:C3D8:80B5:6C1F:32ED:6235:47B3 (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability in my eyes doesn't matter here. It's got to meet Wikipedia standards on biographies of living people. Even then, someone else needs to edit this article. Editing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged and really should be limited to innocuous things like fixing spelling or removing defamatory material. Certainly not creating an article about yourself. --MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-drafted

Just so you know, I kicked Draft:Adam Riches (illustrator) back to the draft space. It is sourced almost entirely by primary sources, with the only independent stuff being about the "most villains" cover art. Please keep in mind what type of sources are used when you're reviewing pages - just having a bunch isn't suitable. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I realized that after accepting the article, but sadly there isn't an "undo" available to reviewers. Thanks for catching that.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

17:32:09, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Eliswinterabend


I made every single change that "the reviewer," namely Mortee (talk), requested. I even got rid of the image. So, can you tell me what other changes are required? Also, you refer to "reviewers" plural, bit I only received comments from one reviewer, Mortee. Thanks. Eliswinterabend (talk) EW 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi MadeYourReadThis. When you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at Draft:Ruin (punk band) again? I've since made some changes to it, after discussion with Eliswinterabend, and as I've now been involved in writing it I'd prefer it to be published by someone else. Thanks! Mortee (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi MadeYourReadThis. Do you have an update on the Draft:Ruin (punk band) issue? Thanks.

Eliswinterabend (talk)

10:17:38, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Fenderstratuk1


Hi -and many thanks for your helpful review. I've added some copy to make it clear that Brierley's work has had external reviews - they're in the refs and I've quoted some of the bits from the "Dusted" reviews in particular. I've not been quite sure how to approach this and I think I may have been a bit too bland in the original draft to present the fact that Brierley was actually very well-known, had lots of great musos playing on his albums and so on. The reviews I cite mention Dudley Moore and other great musicians and also arrangements by LLoyd Webber.

Hope this takes it forward a bit! And very many thanks.


Fenderstratuk1 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:52:49, 25 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaimaximilian


Hi, please tell me how a diamond and platinum records producer does not meet the requirements for WP:NMUSIC ? The number of producers who have achieved such diamond certifications is only a handful. So he is very notable not to mention the other platinum and gold certifications he's achieved so far. Thank you

Kaimaximilian (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

01:43:51, 28 January 2018 review of submission by CElliott11


Unsure why this article was declined for publication. Kennedy was a winner of the Piolet d'Or - the most prestigious award in global mountaineering - and is widely regarded as one of the most talented American climbers of his generation. The article is well-sourced including with links from the world's literary climbing magazine of note Alpinist. Was this rejection a decision based on the quantity of sources or the quality? Because there is no issue with the quality. CElliott11 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


Dear madeyoureadthis, I added a few aditional sources to the Kalindi khal article to be. There are many webpages mentioning it, but I only picked out those with no direct or indirect commercial interest and which were not a travel blog. --Danielvandermaas (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Ruin (punk band)

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and so may be missing something here. But I don't understand why you rejected my Draft: Ruin (punk band) page. On that page, you give as the reason, "Concerns of the reviewers have not been sufficiently addressed." The reviewer, Mortee (talk), however, made the final, necessary changes himself. So, his concerns must have been "sufficiently addressed." I'm not sure if there are other reviewers, as your word choice indicates. If there are, I have not heard from them, and so don't know what their objections to approving the article might be. Can you please tell me what I have to do to get the article approved? Thank you. Eliswinterabend (talk

DRAFT: Communication Research Reports

Thanks so much for checking on our submission. As you noted, it's tough to get sources to verify the notability of another primary source (CRR is an academic journal, currently in its 35th year of publication). However, I did find two additional sources speaking to the journal's impact on communication studies. I should also note that some of the self-references (to the journal itself) are included to give readers examples of CRR's work rather than note CRR's prestige.

It might not be relevant, but many other journal Wikipedia entries are very thin -- including nothing more than the journal's institutional affiliation (which we do as well) and their ISBN (which we can of course add). We are hoping that once we are accepted to invite past editors to continue "fleshing out" the CRR Wikipedia page with their verifiable institutional knowledge, but we have a "chicken and egg" scenario here: they're not interested in investing in the project until we can first get the entry approved for publication.

I appreciate you taking a second look at the article, now that we have added those additional citations.

Bowmanspartan (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft about Dezsö Magyar

Hi, he is the subject of a long-form article that was written in Hungarian. I have referenced it in the body of the Draft that I created. Thanks!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2018/January&oldid=823277240"