User talk:Noahfgodard/Archive 1

Hello, Noahfgodard

Thank you for creating Gabriella Smith.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi there. Have you got a conflict of interest with the subject? If not there is no reason to go through the draft process and the article can just be created in mainspace as you have done.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Oh, I didn't know that; thank you! I don't have a conflict of interest, so I'll go ahead and put the article back in mainspace. Noahfgodard (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Noahfgodard, Yeah... Honestly I'm not a huge fan of AfC (I have done a fair amount of review work over there in the past). Tends to get good-faith editors mired in too much bureaucracy. Glad I could help. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Noahfgodard! Thank you for your copyediting work! I just wanted to mention that we should use logical quotations in all articles on the English Wikipedia. This means that punctuation gets put inside quotation marks only if that's how they appear in the quoted text. You can read more about that guideline (plus some examples) at MOS:LQ. Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there - you moved Andrew Norman (snooker) to Andrew Norman as a primary topic in favour of Andrew Norman (snooker) but you haven't fixed the 150+ incoming links for the snooker player. Please can you fix these? Otherwise, I will revert the move as the bad links are to a greater detriment to readers than having the composer article without a disambiguation handle. Thanks SFB 16:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. I'm in a meeting at the moment, but I'll fix these as soon as I get the chance. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You are plainly a kinder person than I am, and I thought your edit summary chez Debussy an impeccable example of how to deal with a well-meaning innocent. I shall try to copy your example. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Haha thank you, that's very kind of you. While we're here, I ought to say that I greatly admire your work; thanks for all you do! Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I say! Good to find one's efforts getting the thumbs-up. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 17:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

SATB is linked to by almost 1000 articles. Do you want to leave them with red links? It's an abbreviation that can't be explained in half a sentence. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No, you're right; thank you for pointing that out. I've removed the deletion proposal. That being said, the article as it stands definitely needs improvement (particularly references). Seeing as much of the article is already about voice part initialisms in general, I think the article should be merged with SSAA choir (which also cites no sources at the moment) into an article titled "Voice part initialisms" or something along those lines. That way, SATB and SSAA choir (maybe in addition to TTB choir, TTBB choir, SA choir, et cetera) could simply be redirects to one page, which could explain the topic of voice part initialisms much more clearly, simply, and efficiently. Alternately, SSAA choir could simply be redirected to SATB and we can accept that the article simply explains voice parts in general, but I think that in any case these topics probably ought to be consolidated into one page. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts, if you have any. Thanks again, Noahfgodard (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. I suggest you propose at project Classical music (link on my user page). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Sounds good, thanks. The discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Voice type initialisms?. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maelinhon (talk · contribs)
  • Vetusta Morla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Vetusta Morla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Im sorry, but I really dont understand what is the problem with "Vetusta Morla" draft. Ive added all the links from original spanish Wiki, which was written by the band themselves. I mean, I just translated the article from verified spanish Wiki article, but you're writing, that its not suitable. How could it be suitable for spanish, but but not good for english, being on the same site?... Im very disappointed about this situation, really, cause I adore of this band and want to help them by this article. Ive already added it to russian and ukrainian Wiki and I have no idea, what could I do about english version to make you post it.

Sincerely yours, Maelinhon Maelinhon (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maelinhon: Hello! Thanks so much for your translation work; it's much appreciated. Unfortunately, there are two main issues here. The primary thing to remember is that, although Wikipedia is one website and one project, each language Wikipedia project functions somewhat independently, and each has its own guidelines (including notability/verifiability guidelines). Because of this, just because an article exists on the Spanish Wikipedia (or Russian, Ukrainian, etc.) does not necessarily mean it will be in accordance with the English Wikipedia's guidelines in its current form. The reason I declined this article in particular is that it does not demonstrate notability. To do so, multiple reliable sources must be provided. To be considered a reliable source, a source must be independent of the topic, but many of the article's provided sources are not. Hopefully this helps clear some things up. Happy editing, Noahfgodard (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear sir, Thank you very much for reviewing the article 'Dolphin Nature Conservation Society' and creating it. I am extremely happy because this is my 3rd contribution sir. Thank you once again with regards Dr.M. Rama Murty --Bmantha (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC) (Bmantha)

@Bmantha: You're very welcome, Dr. Murthy! Thank you for continuing to write articles. Happy editing, Noahfgodard (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for reviewing Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto. I was just wondering if you could give more explanation/guidance on the problem that you saw with reliability in the sources?

I'm fine if I have to cut out some of the information and resubmit, but I'm not sure which sources you saw that were unreliable, so I'm not sure what should be cut. (I'm also not sure if you saw my AfC comment at the top of the article explaining the interviews and self-sourced info/refs). Thanks in advance for your help :) Best, - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: Hello! Thanks for continuing to edit and write articles. In hindsight, I used the wrong tag in my declination. The main issues I saw with the article is that its sources didn't seem to adequately demonstrate notability. While WP:SELFSOURCE applies to verifiability, it does not apply to notability, and in most of the independent sources used in the article, Kawamoto is mentioned/discussed, but is not a primary focus. To be fair, some of the references used (e.g. 4gamer.net) are of questionable reliability, but the news articles and interviews are moving in the right direction. If you find additional sources and feel that the article meets WP:COMPOSER, feel free to message me here and I'd be glad to take a look and hopefully approve the draft. Thanks again for the great work! Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I agree that some of the sources seem borderline - It was definitely a hard article to create because of the subject (Japenese, pre-internet composer), so I'm not sure if I'd be able to find more sources online (there are other sources out there that state the same info in the article, but they don't seem reliable, unfortunately).

Now that I'm looking at WP:COMPOSER again, though, I think it's possible she meets #3 for WP:COMPOSER, according to this source (which I Google translated) that says Yoko Shimomura created a musical arrangement of Kawamoto's Buster Bros. composition. Thoughts? - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: I can only imagine how hard the research has been, and I give you a lot of credit. As for the meeting of #3 at WP:COMPOSER, that's a really interesting find and seems convincing to me. I'm not an expert on notability, though, so I asked for opinions over at the Articles for Creation WikiProject. I'll let you know as soon as I hear back. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: Okay great, someone there agreed with me so I'll go ahead and move it to the mainspace. Thanks again for your work; the article looks great. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for following up! I really really appreciate it. I'm not super familiar with the music notability standards on Wikipedia, so I'm glad I got a two-for-one on second opinions :) Also, I just wanted to say - I enjoy how you approach answering AfC questions. I hope I can be that kind and helpful if I ever do AfC reviews. Keep on doing what you do, and thanks again! - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: You're very welcome! And thank you so much, that means a lot. I'm glad to help, and I definitely encourage you to apply for AfC reviewer someday too, when you feel ready. Happy editing, Noahfgodard (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Noahfgodard: I wonder if you could take another look at the Draft:Stefan Dübel. I have extensively updated the article this morning and added a bunch of BLP refs. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Wow, it looks a lot better - thanks so much for your work. That being said, I'm still hesitant given that there are only 5 sources, none of which are entirely independent, and that there are still wholly unsourced paragraphs. Noahfgodard (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Noahfgodard:. He is a major dude. He has an h-index of 60, more than 10 papers of more than 200 citations each which alone make him eminently notable per WP:NPROF. All the references are university pages, which means they are valid and independent. CV's on academic sites are of the highest quality of reliable sources, similar to The Guardian in quality. The policy pen WP:AFC, does the article have a better than 50% chance of not being deleted, which it does. So if there is a section that is not sourced, the fact that is it not going be deleted, means it is OK. Sources do exist per WP:NEXIST, so somebody will add them at somepoint. So please, post it to mainspace. He is eminently notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I don't doubt his notability (although to be fair, h-index is advised against as a metric for WP:NPROF), I was merely concerned about verifiability, it being a BLP. But you're right, seeing as the article itself is unlikely to be deleted, I'll approve it now. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!! I use h-index as a kind of rough metric all the time. I never knew the advice was, not to use it. I will need to re-read that guidance. I've not looked at it for donkeys, to be honest. I guess at some point it has been updated in the last few years. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: You're welcome! And yes, I think it works well/is accepted as a rough guide, but one of the WP:PROF#Citation metrics advises approaching it (and similar metrics) with caution with regard to evaluating Criterion 1. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Its great for stem and hard science people with measurable skills but seriously breaks down for historians, mathematicians, ethnographers, psychologists, psychiatrists, economists and so on. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Noahfgodard, My page on Jackie Jocko was recently approved for publication, but it has the notation "article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies." I think this designation is inappropriate, as there are several independent newspapers cited to support the information and directly speak to Jackie's notoriety. Can you comment on this? I could use your advice on how to move forward. I'm an archivist for the Jackie Jocko Collection at SUNY Buffalo State College and am happy to spend time editing as necessary to make it appropriate. (Hmdunbar (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC))

Hi @Hmdunbar:, and thanks for your work. This tag indicates that an editor feels that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and as such, might not ought to exist in the mainspace. Take a look at WP:NMG and WP:GNG for the applicable guidelines. My best guess is that the perceived issue is that all of the references are to sources local to Buffalo, which is a valid concern. If any sources from elsewhere (books, newspapers, reliable websites, etc.) are available, those would help the article's case for notability. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how useful this is but I looked around and saw that a userbox like Template:User Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms adds members to the appropriate category. If you want, you could configure our new userbox with Category:WikiProject Composers participants as well... Aza24 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Good find/idea! Try this, and let me know if it works. Noahfgodard (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! Aza24 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Rogalski1 (talk · contribs)
  • Theodor Rogalski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Theodor Rogalski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thanks for reviewing my article, I am sorry but I referenced books in it, there are not so many in English. The page is about a known Romanian personality, look at the page in Romanian, how can you say it doens't merit a page in English? Page is here - https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Rogalski Maybe you can reconsider. Rogalski1 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Saw this and thought I'd chime in... Rogalski1, this is a tricky one, but at the moment there isn't enough sources that aren't just passing mentions. His main notability seems to be from being the first director of the National Radio Orchestra of Romania, but this orchestra it self doesn't seems to be that big in stature, especially in compared to an Romanian orchestra like the Bucharest Symphony Orchestra. His grove article is equally hard to convince his notability. I'd say the only way he would warrant inclusion is if you can find better sources and better establish him as an important Romanian cultural figure. There are quite a few MOS issues as well. Maybe Noah will think differently... Aza24 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: No, I definitely agree about notability. The MOS issues are also a concern, but could be fixed fairly easily. Thank you for chiming in!

@Rogalski1: One important thing to remember is that although Wikipedia is and one project, each language Wikipedia project functions somewhat independently, and each has its own set of guidelines (including notability/verifiability guidelines). Because of this, just because an article exists on the Romanian Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it will be in accordance with the English Wikipedia's guidelines in its current form. References on the English Wikipedia do not have to be in English (so referencing books in Romanian, for example, is perfectly fine), but I agree with Aza24 that the current references are probably not enough to confirm notability. The book by Laura Manolache is a great start, but multiple sources are generally expected. If you can find other reliable sources on Rogalski establishing his notability and resubmit the draft for review, feel free to message me here, and I'd be glad to take a look. Thanks for your work, and happy editing. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As per your comment, I found that a few online newspaper sources are either in image format or require subscription to view the mentioned reference(s). Therefore, those links are not easily verifiable. Please make your suggestion on what can be done in such case? Draft:Ashwin Alok. Thanks! Ashwinalok (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2020 (IST)

@Ashwinalok: Unfortunately, I'm not sure I have any particular suggestions about that. Hopefully the sources will be able to establish notability regardless. However, at the moment I would say there aren't enough inline citations, especially considering this is a BLP. Statements, particularly anything contentious or unclear (for example, won awards in the film festivals), definitely need inline references to reliable sources. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Noahfgodard: Thank you so much for specifying the issue. Ashwinalok (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2020 (IST)

@Ashwinalok: You're very welcome. Let me know if you have any further questions. Noahfgodard (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping out with reviews at DYK. FYI, a "hook" is just that—a way to "reel in" readers to click on the article. If a hook explains everything about the subject, it doesn't give the reader a reason to click on it. ALT0 is a great hook, so that's what I promoted. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Ah, I see. thanks for the explanation! Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you declined Draft:Salin Supaya? you commented " 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", are you stupid ? She was a highest-level "Tabindaing" princess of the Konbaung dynasty. She was a historic figure and set-chief queen of the next king, born in 1847. There were no cameras or media at that time, How can we get information on media report? Do note, chief queen is the highest consort of the King, not a wife of a dog!!! Chief queen consort is very powerful in country. This subject is beyond the WP:NPOL. The History of Burmese royal family can only be found in books not media articles!!!! According to Wikipedia source guideline, Wikipedia allows to use the books as references. This is an old history, and it can only be found in history books. Many of the historic articles on the wiki using books as references not news coverage. Well, what would you say to these articles, Meiktila Princess, Taingda Princess ? Some historic articles do not even fill refrences!!! Why so serious? Tell us honestly, do you hate Burma because of the Rohingya genocide?. 117.18.229.211 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There are many her information on the history Book via Google books see. 117.18.229.211 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I had nothing about Burma in mind, but I'd rather not deal with obnoxious comments on my talk page. You're right that Taingda Princess doesn't have references, but it was not created through Afc, and Draft:Salin Supaya was. The use of books as sources is perfectly acceptable (ideal, even), but the books you reference only mention Salin Supaya in passing. You seem not to understand WP:TPG, so I'd suggest you head to the Teahouse if you have further questions. If you believe I made a mistake, resumbit the article to Afc. Good day to you. Noahfgodard (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Tom Creen (talk · contribs)
  • Eric R. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Eric R. Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks again Noahfgodard! I really appreciate your time helping me. Now I see what you mean about sources, reliability and non-Williams sources. That all makes sense. I have not only made those corrections and found additional (non-Williams) sources -- but I also found out that this guy does work in virtual reality too. I thought he only did screenwriting and documentary! This was really cool to learn. Would you have time to look it over one more time (and hopefully approved it if I did it correctly??) I know you're probably super-busy, so no worries if you cant. Thanks again! Tom Creen (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tom Creen: Thanks again for your work! Unfortunately, I think the article still has issues. Most of the sources are still either unreliable (many are blogs, for example) or written by Williams himself. Of those that remain, some are connected to Williams (for example, a student newspaper at the university where Williams is employed), and others only reference Williams briefly or employ quotes from him to talk about other things. I'm not sure there is enough significant coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Noahfgodard (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tom Creen: I should also point out that the article misrepresents a very important point. Williams did not receive an "Emmy Award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences"; he received a Midwestern Regional Emmy Award from the Academy's Ohio Valley Chapter. This is an important distinction that should be made in the article. Noahfgodard (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Noahfgodard One again, this is really helpful. Thanks again for your time. I am still trying to understand what is and what is not "permitted". It seems like I should really slim down the article. The books themselves are reliable and establish notability, correct? That's the reason why I wanted to create this page in the first place: he has professional publications in my field (screenwriting) that contain unique (and I think important) material. Maybe the rest is not notable? I was trying to fill out the article with details about his life, but maybe that's not necessary. If you have the time, could you give it one more read? I'd really appreciate it. If not, I completely understand -- I can see that you are super busy. Thanks for being so helpful to all these different people. You have a lot of patience.

--Tom Creen (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Noahfgodard, thanks for reviewing Draft:R9 TV! I have made the updates you had asked for. Could you please see if this is enough to be moved to the article space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsichauhan829 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Harsichauhan829: Thank you! These help a lot (although one of them is still a dead link), I think they bring the article up to par for verifiability. That being said, I'm not sure whether the article's topic meets notability guidelines; I think there's a good chance it might, so I definitely won't decline the request, but I'm not entirely certain. If you'd like, I can ask for opinions at WikiProject Articles for creation, or we can wait for another reviewer to take a look at it. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Noahfgodard: I am very thankful for you to look into the updates I made. I have also updated the dead link as there was an unwanted comma in the URL. Talking about the point of Notability of the topic, could you please share reason that it does not look like a Notable article to you? Because I wrote about a Hindi News Channel that I watch on TV. I see there are other news channels on wiki so I thought it should also be a part of it. Its already very tough to find topics that I know about and are not mentioned on Wiki. Hence it makes a very good chance for me to contribute on Wiki :-) . I would be happy and thankful if you can ask for opinions from other reviewers at WikiProject Articles for creation

@Noahfgodard: A gentle reminder on this. I am excited to launch my first article :-). Thank you!

@Harsichauhan829: Sorry for the delay! It's been quite a busy week. Thanks for fixing that link. You make good points, and you're right that it's often hard to find subjects for new articles, so I give you a lot of credit for writing the draft. In order to be considered notable, regardless of what they are, topics of wikipedia articles have to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Some of the references used in the article are of questionable reliability, but some do seem reliable. That being said, this is definitely a tough case for notability. A lot of the sources talk about R9 TV in relation to other channels that host it, meaning it may not meet WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the others talk specifically about Rising New India, not the channel on the whole, meaning it may not meet WP:SUSTAINED. It's hard to say. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Harsichauhan829: Upon another look and some further consideration, I'm going to move the article to mainspace. It's not perfect, but I think it deserves to be approved. Thanks again for writing it. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Not Our First Goat Rodeo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Noahfgodard, thanks for reviewing the "Eric R. Williams page". Could you please clarify your comment so that I can correct this issue? You wrote: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

My question is: Were the sources incorrect/poor, or was I using footnotes incorrectly? I've read the instructions on footnotes, and I thought I was doing it correctly. If you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. Thanks!

Tom Creen (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Tom Creen:, and thanks for your editing work. The reason I used that tag is that there were still some unreferenced statements that needed footnotes. This is particularly important because the article is a biography of a living person. Beyond that though, most of the sources are either not independent, or seem to be of questionable reliability, so I'd recommend looking for more consistent sources if possible. For example, the fact that Williams has won an Emmy Award (which I can't seem to verify in any source not written by Williams himself) is supported by a book written by Williams. Per the wikipedia guidelines on BLPs, this statement requires a more reliable/independent source. Hopefully this clears some things up, but feel free to message me here if you have any further questions. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom Creen (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Noahfgodard! I really appreciate your time helping me. Now I see what you mean about sources, reliability and non-Williams sources. That all makes sense. I have not only made those corrections and found additional (non-Williams) sources -- but I also found out that this guy does work in virtual reality too. I thought he only did screenwriting and documentary! This was really cool to learn. Would you have time to look it over one more time (and hopefully approved it if I did it correctly??) I know you're probably super-busy, so no worries if you cant. Thanks again!

@Noahfgodard This is really helpful. Thanks again for your time. I am still trying to understand what is and what is not "permitted". It seems like I should really slim down the article. The books themselves are reliable and establish notability, correct? That's the reason why I wanted to create this page in the first place: he has professional publications in my field (screenwriting) that contain unique (and I think important) material. Maybe the rest is not notable? I was trying to fill out the article with details about his life, but maybe that's not necessary. If you have the time, could you give it one more read? I'd really appreciate it. Tom Creen (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tom Creen: You're very welcome! Thanks again for your editing work. It seems you misunderstand notability slightly (no worries, it's quite confusing sometimes), so I'll do my best to clarify. There's no need to slim down the article per se, so long as the facts in it are sourced. Facts in an article can be supported by non-independent sources, with some limitations (see WP:ABOUTSELF). Moreover, notability does not apply to individual facts; these do not have to meet the notability guidelines in order to be included in an article, so your adding details about his life was definitely the right idea. However, the topics of articles must meet the notability guidelines, and notability cannot be established by self-published sources. Thus, books written by Williams, though they could be used as sources, do not establish notability. You have referenced two books not written by Williams, but one of these seems only to mention Wuilliams in the context of a quote on the back cover (certainly not significant coverage). As for the other, there's no way for me to look in the book and see whether it includes significant coverage of Williams, but it also wouldn't meet WP:Multiple sources by itself. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

One last THANK YOU, Noahfgodard! I think (hope) that I cleared up all of the issues. I've put it back in the queue for review, so I'll wait and see. It's funny - I found out about this guy because of screenwriting, but he seems to be more "noteworthy" as a virtual reality inventor (or scholar?). Anyway, I never would have known about that if it weren't for our conversation and your guidance. Thanks for that! You may turn me into a wikipedia researcher yet! I appreciate your time. This is a lot of work. On to other things!

Tom Creen (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tom Creen: Once again, you're very welcome! Thanks so much for your hard work; sorry it took so long, but the article looks great now. I'll accept it now. Happy editing! Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear sir, Whenever time permits, please assist in editing the above article since you are the proven experienced editor multidimensionally in varied subjects. Thank you sir, with regards Dr. M. Rama Murty --Bmantha (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

On 22 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Not Our First Goat Rodeo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the album title Not Our First Goat Rodeo, the term goat rodeo refers to a chaotic event in which many things must go right for the situation to work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Not Our First Goat Rodeo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Not Our First Goat Rodeo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Paul Sorensen (landscape gardener) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been 10 days since the reviewer pinged you. Are you planning to return to your nomination, or should it be closed as unsuccessful? Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Sorry for the delay; I've been increasingly busy outside of Wikipedia. I think the nomination ought to be closed as unsuccessful at this point. Thank you! Noahfgodard (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

On 18 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article From Space I Saw Earth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that From Space I Saw Earth by Daníel Bjarnason was commissioned by the Los Angeles Philharmonic to be performed with three conductors simultaneously? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/From Space I Saw Earth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, From Space I Saw Earth), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 14:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious

orchestral music

Thank you for quality articles about music such as From Space I Saw Earth, Sustain (composition), From me flows what you call Time and List of compositions by Kaija Saariaho, - for "translated page" tags and other talk maintenance, for reviewing new articles, - composer, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2445 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow, thank you so much! It's an honor to have been recognized. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Noahfgodard: - Many thanks for taking the time to review Draft:The Planning Exchange. I have removed much of material for which I can find no citations. For much of its early history (1972-1990) there simply are no authorities to cite! I hope this much reduced draft is now suitable for publication but I'll be happy o make further edits if necessary.

Iandubya (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Noahfgodard: Thank you for reviewing Draft: Oga Micky, I have provided and added the working links/references to the article, all are correct now Thanks. Samnaija (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samnaija: Thanks for doing this! Unfortunately it seems you also removed some references in the process, meaning that there are now several uncited claims that should be backed up by reliable sources. Could you try to find sources for these? Noahfgodard (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/college-rocks-new-wave-190953/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6305:8800:4886:3020:5426:7807 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This looks good to me, and could be useful in helping to establish notability. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The AFC script failed to remove the AFC artefacts. Often I delete these. Sometimes I return the article to draft space. I felt it missed out on notability and was unlikey to survive a deletion process. I see now that you accepted it. Please don't be offended that I draftified it. I shall stand aside if you re-accept it. Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

My submission here was recently declined by you. Can you help me get this submission accepted? What can I do to make this article better?

Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igor_Grigorievich_Chervanev ---- Submission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2802 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wiki2802: Hello, and thanks for editing wikipedia. I noticed that many claims in this draft, including several about awards, were not supported by reliable sources. In a biography of a living person, this is especially important. Adding inline citations to support these claims would greatly help the draft. I didn't look much at the notability of the subject, so I can't say whether I feel the draft establishes notability in its current form, but that could be another issue. If you haven't already, I'd recommend looking at the notability guidelines, to make sure you're on the right path in that regard. Thanks again, and happy editing. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Noahfgodard: I will be glad if u check on Draft: Oga Micky, I have edited the uncited claim section --Samnaija (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear sir, Please help me in solving this problem as I am new and in the learning process of Wiki editing articles. Cite error: The named reference auto2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). thanking you sir, with regards Dr. Rama Murty--Bmantha (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Dear sir, It seems the problem is solved by reviewer AnomieBOT. I know that your time is very precious, but still I request you if at all time permits please go through this article once more , edit it to make it more beautiful. thanking you sir, regards Dr. Rama Murty,--Bmantha (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Translated article from Russian Wikipedia - Draft:Dmitry Borisovich Volkov. Look please. Thanks. 2A00:1FA1:19A:140:F03B:A8C6:FDE0:753D (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)