User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 10

Hi Double Grazing

Thank you for checking my article on Maureen Brathwaite, it is appreciated. May I clarify the removal of all external links. For example:

Maureen performed at Glyndbourne Festival Opera from 1985-1992 and studied with Johanna Peters from 1985-1987.[3]

This includes an external link to the primary source of this statement. How do I cite this without the link?

Please consider in your response that I am dyslexic and so visual examples and video examples are an efficient means of communicating your point for my particular brain wiring.

Many thanks Motterswell (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)M

Hi @Motterswell, thanks for your message. I meant inline external links, which are not allowed. Whereas inline citations of external sources (especially but not only online content) are very much encouraged! I will try to illustrate:

LINK (not allowed):

• This is an inline [http://www.example.com external link]. => produces: This is an inline external link.

CITATION (allowed):

• This is an inline citation of an external source.<ref>{{cite web |title=Home page |url=http://www.example.com |website=Example.com |access-date=12 April 2022}}</ref> => produces: This is an inline citation of an external source.^[1]

References

Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

I have made quite a few revisions to my draft of the Film In This Short Life since it was decline a few weeks back. I've added more independent third party sources, rewritten a few of the categories and tried to make it more up to the standards of the first page I had published. Would you mind taking a look at the page and letting me know what you think? Also, if there is any specific changes that would improve the quality of the page? Look forward to hearing back from you!

Thanks!

EthanWinters1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanWinters1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@EthanWinters1 yes, that Variety article seems a good source; with it, this could be accepted now IMO. Feel free to submit it for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'll resubmit it now. Thanks for your help. EthanWinters1 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, @DoubleGrazing could you possibly take a look at the resubmission for the In This Short Life film page when you get a chance? I'd really appreciate it. It'd would great to get it accepted soon (when you have a chance of course!)

Thanks! EthanWinters1 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User:DoubleGrazing - [says] I do not see anything inherently notable about [Smith]

I'd refer to these main claims at notability -

1. She is the first director of arts.ca.gov, which has been a branch of CA State gov since 1976 (talked about prominently in "History" tab of that website).
2. She founded California's first prison arts project, which is a branch of arts.ca.gov since 1977. (google search: california prison arts, or correction arts, or whatever related search terms are fair to check this is an accurate claim)
3. She started the first art gallery on University of California, Santa Cruz's campus, now named after her (Eloise Pickard Smith Gallery, at Cowell College.
4. Santa Cruz County parks scparks.com has an award named after her (Eloise Pickard Smith Award).

As it seems best practice: leaving up your notability tag so others can discuss, consider. If any of these claims seem to go against clause that Eloise Pickard Smith is a person of note, happy to have a discussion about them. Garrett.stephens (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Garrett.stephens Please review the issue of WP:N notability, and in particular the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Notability has nothing to do with being 'important' or 'famous' or 'the first to have done X', etc. It is about whether the subject has had significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. When I placed the notability tag, the article cited three sources: the Arts Council, Arts in Corrections, and the UCSC newsletter; none of which meets the required standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

In review, I maintain my disagreement on what you are saying about these sources not being secondary -

GNG -

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
  • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
• "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
  • For significant coverage, it is not a stretch for me to suggest a government branch arts.ca.gov that has existed for 50 years, in one of the first tabs accessible from its main site talks about its history. This is secondary. This is not an opinion news article. This is a published legislative source of information, where it has a section to talk about the history of the branch. And it specifically mentions Eloise as the first director, and then if you also notice, it doesn't mention every single director since then. Arts in Corrections as well is from a .gov source. Which warrants our paying some heed to its editorial rigor; those websites are not blogs, by any means. Again, separate branch of government, specifically within the historical framework presented mentioning Eloise Pickard Smith by name.
  • Reliable... I really think it is clear that there are at least 4-5 sources that are just apparently reliable. NPR's "This American Life" is a professional nationally renowned show and they did a whole segment on Page and Eloise. Arts.ca.gov is reliable (again, it would be absurd to compare this to a blog or some lesser kind of information soure) and same with the Arts in Corrections Website. You say that a University Newsletter is not reliable, but I would also disagree on that, because it is a publication with editors who are writing about the history of the gallery on the Campus that there editorial project is a part of. They host space on a subdomain of UCSC.edu, and that is again enough proof that it isn't by any means an independent blog. And all of this stands in favor of these being secondary, as clearly we are not dealing with "primary" sources, which would mean biographical/hearsay/personal accounts of past events. These are each independent publications with varying degrees of editorial rigor as a part of their existence as publication fronts.
  • In your initital critique of "most citations being primary" the main thing that stands out in GNG is the "independence of the subject" aspect of the GNG. Because even if you were editing based on good faith and thought the sources were not from peer-reviewed sources, or something, there is just a straight apparent thing we must agree on: there is a nearly outright total lack of primary sources on this page, and has been since I drafted it. Again, I guess we could talk about secondary sources, but it would be an odd set of steps it would take to establish how Eloise (a deceased artist and social activist) would have somehow flooded ca.gov and ucsc.edu domains with primary source personal story misinformation. I'm not sure how to state this other than, if there's only arts.ca.gov and Arts in Corrections and a newsletter from ucsc.edu and a county parks award named after Smith and an Art Gallery on UCSC's campus named after her.... it's not all that great of a stretch to pursue the clause - there exist enough independent sources referring to things that Eloise Pickard Smith has done throughout the last 50 years to warrant an article with citations pointing to these things .... (all of the items are easily google-able too, which helps if others want to verify) Garrett.stephens (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Garrett.stephens (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:DoubleGrazing [says] all sources are primary rather than secondary

I am not seeing this.

1. a Timeline of arts.ca.gov, California Arts Council timeline that name-drops Smith in its inception. That is a secondary biographical source in my understanding, unless it is 'primary' in that its arts.ca.gov talking about its own history?
2. CA Governor Jerry Brown interviewed by UCLA faculty, talking about how he appointed Smith. This is a notable politician referencing Eloise's appointment as first director, so is corroboration of a historical occurrence, is this one of the ones that is "primary"?
3. a Timeline of arts.ca.gov > arts in corrections tab > artsincorrections.org ... again, branch of arts.ca.gov referring to Eloise as its founder, so not Primary unless that government branch referring to a figure as its founder is Primary?
4. University of California, Santa Cruz public release about an exhibit to honor the life and work of the first founder of a gallery on a campus. Secondary as a legitimate public institution talking about a figure who was instrumental in its history, no? Unless the publication is primary because the writer is publishing on UCSC website talking about Smith and the history of the institution so that is somehow primary?
5. NPR This American Life episode on Eloise and Page... seems legit, no? That's a pretty well reputed news source by most accounts
6. Santa Cruz County, CA, Parks Department names an award of excellence after her... that's not primary
7. A few (4) historical news paper articles about Eloise in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Wiki generally considers newspapers to be secondary, unless one would argue Sentinel is a tabloid, but it has been around a long time, is archived at the Santa Cruz Public Library website, etc.
8. Los Angeles Daily News guest commentary referring to Eloise's influence; this is a personal commentary, but is transparent as a guest commentary for a newspaper, and is an "external reference", is not cited as a source for any of the biographical content on the page

This is what you said - "only primary sources are cited, and I don't see anything that would make this inherently notable + much of the content is unreferenced" ... I would object to this. I don't see any primary sources, so I'm not sure where that claim finds grounding. Much of content unreferenced... Any look at the page will see a reference after each clause, so I also don't know what this is referring to, unless there is a clear contest about one of the above sources lacking credibility... Would appreciate any clarification on this matter

Garrett.stephens (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing! I added some references in the Draft:Portugal Space that you saw back in February (I wasn't the original editor, but wanted to help). What do you think? I'm not sure about the last paragraph since I couldn't find much to fully support it. It may be a stub that can be expanded depending how it ends. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Erick Soares3 — looks good to me now, so I've accepted it. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Many thanks for reviewing my submission (Draft:Rebecca_Frecknall) last week. I'm grateful for your time. I've added significant secondary sources to demonstrate her notability. Would you mind looking over it again, please?

Mdbigg (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this draft. There were objections about the sources. As a result, dubious sources were removed as well as some fragments of the text. Thanks. Валерий Пасько (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC).

Hyvää DG! Thanks for reviewing my article submission (Tony King (muscician)). I agree with your comments, thanks for taking the time to make them. I'll re-write the article and resubmit. Subsequently to your review ... I've read your Wiki page, taking note of your interests and efforts here for Wikipedia .. wow! It seems I've ticked off all your 'pissed' boxes in one go! So I apologise for my newness, lack of experience in submitting articles, poor referencing, submitting a typical 'English-wikiverse article that seems to be created from a new account with minor edits to promote a muscician/artist', and for any perceived conflict-of-interest you feel I have with the page subject. I'm definitely not employed by the subject to write the article. Otherwise I would have declared it as per Wiki rules. I just feel the musician is someone that needs recognition, after following his career for many years. The article reflects Australian history. It needs to be documented. I'll improve my writing so it seems less opinion, and more fact. Kiitos.Lingonpojken (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As you have said in various AFDs, bypassing AFC can lead to AFD and cause more work for the volunteers and doesn't do the paid editors or POV pushers any good. I won't tell them that if they don't want to accept the results of AFC, they shouldn't use it at the beginning. If they get a decline on AFC and are not satisfied, they do one of two things, neither of which is useful. Either they move the draft into article space, or they copy the draft into article space. Maybe they don't realize that both of those are very obvious to the reviewers. If they just create an article, it sometimes takes a little longer to notice, and to take the article to AFD. I won't tell them. If they want to bypass AFC, they shouldn't try using it at all, but I won't tell them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, can you review my created page? i added independen sources, please check it once again, may i do it it right very carefully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gus1182 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gus1182:

Firstly, please provide a link to the article you're talking about. (Okay, on this occasion I know what you mean, but still.)

Secondly, please sign your messages on all talk pages, so others know it's you. Type four tildes (~), or just click on the 'signature and time stamp' button above the edit window.

Thirdly and in answer to your request, I've already said on the draft page that I will not be reviewing this, so will leave it for others to do it instead. (Which probably works in your favour, because on a quick glance I don't think I would be accepting this now, either.)

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gus1182 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC) how long it must take?

@Gus1182 it's impossible to say, pending drafts are not reviewed in any particular order; could be that someone reviews it tomorrow, could be several months from now, or anything in between. And of course, reviewing doesn't necessarily mean approving, so depending on how many reviews it goes through, multiply the time times that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gus1182 (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC) I've been doing this first article for the second month, finally after weeks found all the sources that acceptable for wiki an did it carefully, hope they approve this article, thanks

Gus1182 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Hello DoubleGrazing, can you advise what to fix or add to the article to get approved?

It's a artist by the name of YOUNG S.H.O he has a google page already u wanna add stuff about him so he can have a Wikipedia he has a lot of famous family members Antonio Hamilton they grew up in the same house he is a NFL athlete and Jakar Hamilton these guys are cousins aka brothers of Shannon Collins aka YOUNG S.H.O whom is signed to Empire distribution under Ghazi Shami how can I get him a Wikipedia page --Scollins8877 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Scollins8877: no thanks, I'll pass; to be honest, I don't even know what you're talking about. I would encourage you to have a go, though. However, seeing as you've tried and it was speedily deleted, you would have to do it differently. If you haven't yet looked at Help:Your first article, there's some good advice there to get you started. Happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, You have made a comment on Draft:Jahangirnagar University Science Club and told to mention three strongest sources. Although most of the sources added in the article are from top level national print and online news media of Bangladesh, I am mentioning three here. 1. The Daily Jugantar-: বিজ্ঞানমনস্কতাই যে ক্লাবটির আরাধ্য 2. The Daily Sun-: Glorious 15 years of JU Science Club 3. The Bangladesher Khabor (ePaper): বিজ্ঞানপ্রেমীদের ক্লাব জেইউএসসি

This club is contributing to STEM fields of Bangladesh. Most of the national print and electronic media covers its news in every event it has organized before. Tv channels also covered its news before. This indicates the notability of the organization/club. The link of different notable Bangladeshi Newspaper has already been added to the article. Let me know if I can help you with other information. Thank You.

Tareq1619 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Tareq1619

Hi @Tareq1619: thanks, but the first link you have provided doesn't seem to work; the second is a JU publication and therefore not independent; and the third may or may not be good, but isn't alone enough. What else do you have? Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear @DoubleGrazing: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am providing some other articles; I think they will meet the independent article criteria. 1.Ekushey TV: জাবি সায়েন্স ক্লাবের সভাপতি শরিফ সম্পাদক রাব্বানী (This news is about new committee of 2019), 2. The Daily Observer: JU Science Club gets new executive body (This news is about the formation of new committee of 2018). 3. The Daily Inqilab: জাবি সায়েন্স ক্লাবের সভাপতি শ্রাবণ, সম্পাদক সনেট (This news is about formation of new committee in 2020). 4. Bangladesh Pratidin: https://www.bd-pratidin.com/campus-online/2020/01/04/489231 (This news is about the winter cloth distribution of this club). 5. The Daily Samakal: জাবিতে ৭ম জাতীয় গণিত অলিম্পিয়াড শুরু ২৩ এপ্রিল (This news is about organizing math olympiad. This club organizes math olympiad every year and gets a significant number of coverages. I have added the latest one.) 6. The Daily Samakal: জাবিতে বিজ্ঞান মেলা শুরু 7. The Daily Star: Nat’l science fest begins at JU

As almost all the articles are in Bangla Newspaper, the link size is big. Sorry about that. But I have found that this club gets coverage from top-level print and electronic media when it organizes any event. It indicates the notability of the organization. However, I have seen an article about Dhaka University Debating Society in Wikipedia, which is organization/club. If as like this club yIf that article meets the notability, I think this article also fulfills the notability criteria. ou have any suggestions for me, please let me know.

-- Tareq1619 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi again!

Would you mind looking over In This Short Life's page again? About a week ago you stated that the new sources made it much stronger and it would be acceptable now. Is there anything else I should do to make it publishable? Thanks again for all your help!

EthanWinters1 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@EthanWinters1 — I think I'll let someone else have a go at reviewing it. All I said was that it could be accepted, not that it necessarily would be, let alone that I would accept it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I appreciate the help. In the meantime, is there anything else I should focus on to make it more publishable? -- EthanWinters1 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@EthanWinters1: I guess you could take a look (if you haven't already) at WP:WikiProject Film/Assessment which tells you what that project looks for when assessing articles. This won't affect its chances at AfC, but may help to improve its rating once published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#dispute_with_User:Praxidicae_who_repeatedly_moves_article_LH_Research_back_into_draftspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoman3 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Geoman3: thanks for letting me know, although I don't quite see what it has to do with me. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"Regarding sources, the article cites 9, plus some "Further reading". Of the 9 cited sources, the ones that strike me as applicable towards notability" said User:ONUnicorn, and see statement of User:FeydHuxtable below Geoman3 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

see also the statement of FeydHuxtable curprev 17:08, 25 April 2022‎ FeydHuxtable talk contribs‎ 7,312 bytes −112‎ decline speedy - LH Research was a big deal back in the 80s. It had over two thousand staff mostly in CA, with ppps in LatAm & Europe. It married the old school hacker -hippie ethos that gave us GNU & open source with the commitment to quality one used to find with the best of US capitalism, and had worldwide positive impact. undothank https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:LH_Research&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoman3 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Geoman3 — again, not sure why you're telling me all this? I declined the draft not because the company wasn't important or 'big deal' etc., but because the sources cited do not demonstrate notability in the way that is required per WP:GNG.

BTW, please remember to sign your comments on all talk pages. Type four tildes (~) or click on the 'signature and time stamp' button above the edit window. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Gus1182 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Hello DoubleGrazing, can you advise what to fix to get approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giga_Agladze

@Gus1182: you have to demonstrate NOTABILITY, which is the reason why this draft has been declined previously. Please read and understand WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. That coverage has to be of the article subject directly, not of some indirectly related matters such as famous people they associate with or films they've made, etc. I can see that you have added a few new sources to the draft, but one of them is an interview, which is not considered independent and reliable, and the others provide coverage of the film he has made, and therefore do not contribute to his notability. As it stands, I would be declining this draft again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Gus1182 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Ok, thank you for the answer, I also made movie article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Other_Me_(2022_film)

Gus1182 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Hello DoubleGrazing, I found info about person on national fimography website and national parlamentary library website, added 2 links in external links, can you check?