User talk:GVogeler

Thanks for your contributions to Pheroza J. Godrej. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Charlie (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dcotos was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Pheroza J. Godrej 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.

Dcotos (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dcotos I would appreciate more precise guidance on how the cited sources fail at the individual requirements of notability. GVogeler (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@GVogeler The majority of sources you cited are primary sources, so it is important to add reliable secondary sources to establish notability of the subject, and this essay may help you to understand the difference between both also this list of sources has been repeatedly discussed and found to be suitable. Happy editing! Dcotos (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As I historian, I have to admit that the simple categorization of "primary" and "secondary" sources to declare notability is not really convincing to me, but I added further reference to reports on her work in newspapers listed as reliable source in the wiki page you referenced. Reading scholarly reviews of her publications^[1][2][3] (and in more general audience publication ^[4][5]) I hope her notability can be assumed as assessed? GVogeler (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@GVogeler Thank you for adding more references. Now you may submit it again for review. Cheers! Dcotos (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GVogeler! 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! Dcotos (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Trex32 was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The subject is notable but the body needs to be rewritten in a the formal encyclopedic tone. Please consider a resubmission.

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:Pheroza J. Godrej 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.

Trex32 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Trex32 Thanks for the review. As not being an English native speaker, I would need more detailed guidance in terms of style. Currently, the text contains, to my stylistic skills, only sentences stating factual information with references.

In terms of reliable source, it would help to point to the problematic individual cases as the text is not very long and already richer in references than many other Wikipedia articles.

I have to state that I have no personal interests in the person nor the topic apart from promoting a better visibility of female cultural activities in Wikipedia and will continue this elsewhere if the current article is considered an edge case in quality. GVogeler (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks let me help you re-write with a few suggested edits. No problem. Thanks for your commitment to improve the article @GVogeler. Trex32 (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pheroza J. Godrej. Thanks! Spinster300 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Spinster300 many thanks for looking at the article. As my knowledge on Wikipedia styling is based on the early days 20 ago and the MOS are now a very lengthy document, I feel unfortunately at a loss with this generic comment. Can you point me maybe to the concrete style problems you consider important to change? GVogeler (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear GVogeler, of course! I completely understand that it is quite overwhelming to navigate. A good place to start would be taking a look at WP:BLP – it is a fairly easy read. I am also quite happy to reformat the article for you, if you like. I will simply do so in my free time over the next few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC).

@Spinster300 that would be really great if you could give me hand and invest your expertise in reformatting! Thanks a lot! GVogeler (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)