User talk:Lignicolous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Lignicolous! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you have questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! JSFarman (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Gann Limit (December 3)
- in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
- reliable
- secondary
- independent of the subject
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gann Limit 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.
 |
Hello, Lignicolous!
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! --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 01:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Gann Limit (December 4)
Sourcing needs some review. Source 1, the bare URL to a PDF, should be removed because the California League of Cities is not considered a reliable source. The Rose Institute document appears to be a student paper and not a peer-reviewed article. It should be removed. The Vox Yglesias piece doesn't mention the Gann limit at all. It should be removed. MSN source is not well formatted.
Statements like "The State of California loses $1.60 for every..." should be attributed to the Legislative Analyst's Office as the AP news article repeats what it said.
Finally, concerning Legislative Analyst Office reports. I think they are fair game for basic facts. For analysis, other sources should highlight it first. For example: AP covering and quoting the LAO report in 2022 makes the LAO report noteworthy. The December 1979 LAO analysis by itself may not be worth quoting or using as article content, unless it was referenced by other reliable sources. The Senate analysis does not seem appropriate to quote, either.
This topic is interesting to me. Some more clean-up and applications of the Manual of Style are warranted, but that can be fixed later.- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gann Limit 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.