User talk:Anthosalba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AfC notification: Draft:Sofia Pro has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sofia Pro. Thanks! microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Marcus,
Many thanks for your comment. I had intended to develop the section on Mélenchon and his poster campaign using the Sofia Pro font. But I think it's a good idea to insert it in the previous paragraph with the other enumerations. I'll see if I can find something for the [need quotation to verify] if not, I'll remove or modify the beginning of this paragraph. Anthosalba (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MicrobiologyMarcus was:
This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Sofia Pro, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.
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.
microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Anthosalba! 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! microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sofia Pro (April 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The only in-depth coverage appears to be the Papier Direkt article.
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.
asilvering (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Sofia Pro, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.
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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MicrobiologyMarcus was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
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.
microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Sofia Pro

Hi Anthosalba, I've seen your sandbox and the draft you've created (Sofia Pro, which is now in the draftspace) and I was wondering if you needed some assistance or had any quesitons about the submission process. Feel free to reply to me here using {{ping|MicrobiologyMarcus}} and make sure you sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sofia Pro (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CFA was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Medium, random blogs, Twitter, and YouTube are not reliable sources. Multiple paragraphs in the article are completely unsourced.
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.
C F A 💬 04:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sofia Pro (June 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Grossly underreferenced.

And where it is referenced, it's often referenced inappropriately. Consider this example: Its success is largely due to its adoption by many designers worldwide, as well as its use by several international companies in their communications. In 2024, Sofia Pro is used by more than 14 million daily users and appears on 70 billion web pages. Its Regular styles appear on over 7 billion web. The reference for this? I quote: Gourvat, Olivier (10 February 2025). "Reflexions about the new version of Sofia Pro". Olivier Gourvat Website. Retrieved 10 February 2025. So the reader is expected to believe that this "typeface" or "typeface family" (the lead can't decide) is on "70 billion web pages" because its creator says so.

But it gets worse. Gourvat doesn't write this. Instead, he writes: in 2024 alone, more than 14 million daily users and over 70 billion web page* views relied on Sofia Pro. Sofia Pro Regular styles content on more than 7 billion web pages every day (* source : Adobe Fonts). So not web pages but web page views, over the space of a year, and (he says) according to "Adobe Fonts". --
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.
Hoary (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello Hoary,
Thank you very much for your detailed feedback. You're right — I hadn’t noticed the distinction between page views and unique pages. Your comments are very relevant, and I will take them into account to revise the article. I will rework the relevant sections using reliable and independent secondary sources, especially regarding the usage data mentioned. Please don’t hesitate to point out any other areas that could be improved. I truly welcome your suggestions.
Cheers Anthosalba (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I have made several revisions based on your feedback. Specifically, I clarified the text regarding page views and unique views related to the use of Sofia Pro, attributing these statements explicitly to the type designer. I also added references for certain usages, drawing on Fonts in Use, which is a recognized authority for documenting typeface usage in context. Additionally, I removed several passages that lacked reliable sources. If you have the time, could you please review these changes? Anthosalba (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sofia Pro (July 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by GoldRomean were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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.
GoldRomean (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sofia Pro

Information icon Hello, Anthosalba. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sofia Pro, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 21:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI