User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213 Online events: New: Film + Stage | Endocrine health Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Bonjour

Hi DoubleGrazing, you may want to re-reject (or un-reject) Draft:Manfred 'Little' Konzett, which has been resubmitted against your rejection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I'm writing to you only because you were the first person to give me feedback on an article I tried writing when I first started editing on Wikipedia. The first article that I then edited was for a school close to where I live - [Deutsche Internationale Schule Pretoria.] The only connection I have with the school is that a girl I liked 30-odd years ago went there. However, with it being my first edit, I suppose I took ownership of it in a sense.

There is a section called "Racism and controversies" which had been added by a user by the name of "Firebobby". Having looked at the citations that Firebobby included, I rewrote that section to have less hearsay and to be as neutral as possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deutsche_Internationale_Schule_Pretoria&oldid=1036947049). Soon thereafter, Firebobby changed it back, added more controversies and subsequently a different user "Emerson Crose" added more into the same "Racism and controversies" section.

I see both users have only ever edited that Deutsche Schule page. It seems as if they have something against the school, and are using Wikipedia to air their grievances, as most of the allegations in the section are not cited. What does one do in this case? I definitely don't want to get into a mud-slinging match with them, whoever they are, but don't think their edits are in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Subsequently, a different editor removed some of the "Controversies" but left in information that had nothing to do with the original cited sources.

Any advice would be appreciated. Hassanbeem (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Hassanbeem: IMO 'vandalism' is quite a strong word; I'd say it looks more like POV editing (still bad, but not quite as bad). In any case, the content you refer to seems to have been removed now. If it reappears with solid refs, I would suggest trying to discuss it on the article talk page and/or the editors' talk pages to reach some consensus. Whereas if the refs are weak or non-existent, it can always be challenged on that basis. Just don't get into edit warring, it does no one any good. If you feel there's something unsavoury happening or the conflict escalates, you can always flag it up at eg. ANI. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - I will keep an eye on the page and see where it goes. Hassanbeem (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219 Online events: New: Climate (year-long initiative) | Women in business | US territories Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2021 Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month. Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for reviewing my article. A second draft has been sent months ago with changes in the references as you asked. However, It would be very helpful if you could tell me which parts specifically of this draft are not properly referenced. This way I can focus to find the right missing references for those parts. I would appreciate your help. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormforcewiki (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222 Online events: New: Black women | Hong Kong and Macau | Women in sport Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page . Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at

) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your thorough review. I learned a lot about Wikipedia from it. Doezdemir (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your feedback on the Brother Michael Moylan submission - I won't pretend to understand it. Could you tell me in layman's terms if I am wasting my time trying to get a Wiki page for him? I have submitted sources from a history journal and newspapers and I've run out of ideas on that front. Brother Michael was the head of the Christian Brothers worldwide - Blessed Edmund Rice being the first. Surely that must be a notable achievement. BuffyO'B (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BuffyO'B: thanks for dropping by; I'll try to explain where I was coming from.

However notable the Congregation of Christian Brothers may be, notability isn't inherited, and one cannot become notable purely by association with that organisation. AFAIK, there is also no specific notability criteria for religious figures (there is an essay on notability within the Catholic church, but I can't see it applying here, although feel free to have a look yourself:

WP:NCATHOLIC

).

Notability must therefore be established via the general notability guidelines (

WP:GNG

), which require significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. And while you have listed a number of sources that, judging by the titles and headings, appear to be suitable, I cannot verify any of them apart from the Irish Times one; the others end up in this root URL: https://www.irishnewsarchive.com#

I also note that most of the sources you cite are obits, and at least some of those from local/regional papers; these are a bit borderline in what comes to establishing notability, as eg. this discussion shows.

Finally just to clarify, I haven't rejected the draft, I have only declined it on this occasion. If you can improve the referencing, you're welcome to resubmit. (And if you do, I would suggest that you also rewrite the lead paragraph in a way that makes it immediately obvious to the reviewer and any reader why this person is noteworthy enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia; you may find this

MOS:LEAD

useful in doing so.)

HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the layman's terms. I could certainly have a look at the first paragraph but the only access to the newspaper articles is through the Irishnewsarchive site. I cannot improve on that. My first source - The Journal of the Old Tuam Society - featured Brother Moylan in their 2021 edition but it is only available in hardcopy - you either buy a copy or access it through University libraries in Ireland and the UK (including the libraries at Oxford and Cambridge). Funnily, this is the second time that regional newspapers have been discounted. I have also been attempting to correct the Wiki record on Myles Moylan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Moylan) who was born in Tuam, Co.Galway rather than in Amesbury, MA. A report that was written in the Tuam Herald in 1876, three weeks after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, celebrates Myles's survival and connects him to his brother and nephews who were still living in Tuam. I made it available to view through Myles's Findagrave site but it was discounted because it was a regional newspaper.

Thanks again for taking the time to review this. BuffyO'B (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BuffyO'B: a couple of things:

As explained in

WP:OFFLINE

, sources aren't required to be online; offline ones are perfectly acceptable. (I personally don't like them, because they make it very difficult for others to verify the content, but I don't make the rules!) If you are citing offline sources, it's probably better to cite the actual publication using the book or journal citing templates, though, rather than pointing to an online archive which isn't then available, as the latter can be confusing.

Regional papers aren't disregarded per se; the problem is that they have a lower publication threshold and may also have lower standards of fact and source checking. In the case of obits, they may even publish ones contributed by non-staff writers, including friends or relatives of the deceased, which obviously means that obit is not only primary but likely to have a POV. Therefore (as I understand it, at least) when it comes to establishing notability, obits published in local or regional papers only may not be sufficient.

Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and feedback. I understand what you are saying. How do I delete the draft? BuffyO'B (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@BuffyO'B: I'm not saying you need to, or should, try to delete the draft; it may still turn into something. If you do want to try, I don't know if you'll succeed, as you've not been the only editor working on it. If you want to give it a try, you can place the {{Db-author}} tag on it, which requests an administrator to come and speedily delete it. (If they don't think it should be deleted, then they'll just deny the request.) Alternatively you can just leave it to wither on the vine, so to speak, and one day months from now it will get deleted as an unsuccessful draft. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't realise that there was a second editor working on it - it might be just someone from the Tearoom giving me a dig out, I struggle with the tech stuff. I appreciate your time and advice.BuffyO'B (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, My draft was rejected for the second time (first time around by another user, and this time by you) and I guess I don't really understand why. Link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:KovaaK%27s I'm not sure what more sources I could give of it being a relevant game to have its own Wikipedia page. Comparing with these page for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabotical or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expression_Amrilato I don't see why those get a page, but KovaaK's is being rejected. Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvercns (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I only now read your comment which wasn't being shown to me before! I will try to work on it with basis on this comment, and remove the irrelevant cites, thank you. However, it still feels like the bar is being held higher than other things that are effectively on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvercns (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Silvercns: thanks for your messages.

Okay, I will wait for you to improve the referencing.

As for your point about the 'high bar', there isn't much to be gained from comparing this draft against other articles that exist. There will always be articles that have weaker referencing than yours, and if we took those as the yardstick, then we would inevitably end up with every article badly referenced, whereas the aim is to improve referencing and follow the best practice guidelines where possible.

Any further comments or questions, shoot back. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: Please remember to sign your comments on all talk pages. You can either type four tildes (~), or click the 'signature and timestamp' button above the edit window. Thanks! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you please clarify EXAMPLES of the kind of sites I should use? The other user who declined my submission didn't bother to give me this sort of info so can you please help me? This show is not really on the high talks so credible sources are very bare. Besides the official page on the channel site that airs the show, finding other sources was not really easy. There's more on the parent show than this one because the parent show is more popular and long running (and also given more episodes per year). This is getting ridiculous. I'll scramble around for some more sources, but I need help. ALSO, tell me how many I need and HOW I should use them. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 22 February 2022, at 04:38.

So far, I came across these sources mentioning the show: https://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-newsroom/evil-lives-here-returns-for-another-chilling-season-featuring-the-iconic-series-100th-episode/, which is mainly about the parent show with the spinoff briefly mentioned at the end under the "About Red Marble Media" section: "In EVIL LIVES HERE, we broke the whodunit rules to create a series with a unique, intense POV. We followed that series with more true crime hits like SHATTERED and EVIL LIVES HERE: SHADOWS OF DEATH.". A source like this one of a few provided on the parent show's page so I can't imagine the spinoff needed many to prove its case. I can't find one by this source on the spinoff so we're out of luck there. Then there's this audition for Season 2 episode 3 of Shadows of Death: https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/now-casting-a-new-hbo-pilot-needs-talent-74362/. Can't see how THAT isn't credible. There's this: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2021/03/19/discoveryplus-true-crime-highlights-weeks-of-march-29-and-april-5-881413/20210319id01/. Futon is a great web source for episodes I see. I don't see how THIS: https://www.investigationdiscovery.com/show/evil-lives-here-shadows-of-death-investigation-discovery can't be simply used since it's from the airing channel's site and has all the info needed to warrant a page here: episodes, plot info, show description, airdates, like come on now. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 22 February 2022, at 04:53. — Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Found two more sources. Then there's this mentioning the Season 2 premiere on June 16th, 2021: https://www.daily-journal.com/life/entertainment/penguin-town-a-species-last-resort/article_479c1ade-cd0e-11eb-bbad-5f4aa1a9a667.html. Then there's this article on a cop who was killed whose case is featured on the show: https://patch.com/california/manhattanbeach/manhattan-beach-remembers-police-officer-martin-ganz-12-27. I'll add this to the article for sure since it looks credible. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 22 February 2022, at 05:28.

Then there's some conflicting info here regarding Season 2 episode 3: "I Forgive you". According to this: https://www.channelguidemag.com/tv-news/2021/04/10/saturday-april-10-carey-mulligan-kid-cudi-snl/, it was suppose to air on April 11th, 2021 as the season premiere. The channel website has it airing on April 25th, but it's the third episode in the season. Futon: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/evil-lives-here-shadows-of-death/listings/ has it airing on June 30th, which makes the most sense given its place in the episode list and when the first two episodes aired in June. Perhaps I can add something to the article about Episode 3 originally being the season premiere but was shelved and aired third in the season? Still looking for sources, but I'm telling you, info on this show from CREDIBLE high top sites is practically non-existent. I'm surprised to have found what I did so far that should be tolerable. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 22 February 2022, at 05:40. — Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Another source from Futon with this statement about the show before listing two episodes airing at the time this page was made: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2021/04/16/discoveryplus-true-crime-highlights-weeks-of-april-26-and-may-3-391115/20210416id01/. I decided to pull a Law & Order where each page has the opening narration, I wanted to do something like that for the Evil Lives Here shows since the original and spinoff have an opening text that varies due to the formats, so I set up a box with the opening text in them. Futon here lists the one for Shadows of Death, so I'm linking that as a source for people to find it. Will do the same for the parent show too. At this point, I think I found enough sources I could this past hour. Whatever else I find onward, I won't bother posting since this section is already long enough but you get the point of my investigation of this.. Go through the article again and tell me what you think of it this time and if it holds enough for re-submission. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 22 February 2022, at 05:56. — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

WP:GNG, which explain in detail what sort of sources you need in order to establish the notability of the subject and have this article published on Wikipedia — this is probably the most fundamental hurdle you need to get over (well, that, and not violating anyone's copyright). If, despite your best efforts, you cannot find sources of sufficient quality and quantity, then that may in itself tell you that the subject is actually not notable, and shouldn't therefore have an article. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk

) 10:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you even look at any of the sources I provided? There's like a dozen of them here and you don't even tell me what works and what doesn't work. "Repeating yourself" is not helping when I can seek out articles I think is fine and then get the same response and then I'm back to square one. Point is, there are some valid articles here, most notably the channel's official site on the show with the episodes and airdates and whatnot so I don't see what else I can offer at this point. Again, the original show doesn't even have that much substantial articles itself to warrant its own existence at this rate if going by your view of what the standard is here and yet that page can exist fine as could be. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 22 February 2022, at 17:55.

@NosferatuTheVampyre: with respect, while I'm happy to review your article draft, and provide a reasonable level of further guidance, it's not my job to teach you how to write articles, when there is plenty of documentation available that you could refer to — especially when you start to get argumentative about it.

But let me try once more: it does not matter in the slightest how many sources there are (and BTW, there aren't "like a dozen", there are five); what matters is the quality of those sources. If you look at the guidance (eg.

WP:GNG

), you may also conclude that arguably none of the sources cited meet the required standard, let alone all of them.

If you're in any way unhappy with "my view of what the standard is here", feel free to take your case elsewhere, because I reckon I'm done here.

Thanks & bye, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I provided NINE sources here, so pretty much close to a dozen. I don't see where you got five from. Anyway, I re-edited some of the episode summaries that are apparently too similar or copies to the site you traced them too given the summaries so I put them in my own words. No issues there now. No, don't be done. Please go over the page again and give me your input on what I need to improve and what sites work and doesn't. I don't need you to tell me how to write an article. I can do that, it's the sourcing and the KIND that is confusing because Wikipedia can be very picky when it comes to this and it's hard to pin-point exactly what is credible and what isn't. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 22 February 2022, at 19:03. — Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I was given a solution by the first user who declined the page admission. I simply merged the Shadows of Death info with the original's shows page similar to Josie and the Pussycats where the Outerspace spinoff is added to the bottom of the page in its own SECTION as opposed to its own page. I can frankly deal with this and its a good solution for now since the spinoff isn't big enough of a show to apparently be given its own. - NosferatuTheVampyre (talk) - 23 February 2022, at 08:10. — Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your feedback. I'm new really to all of this (relatively) and want to add women who have contributed to the field of poetry and writing, concentrating on the South East of England. I'm not a poet or a writer but I do go to many readings and met (very briefly) these poets who I then wanted to highlight in Wikipedia. Photographs used - I'll delete the photos used and I will obtain copyright for other photos taken at events, by professional photgraphers. References - I was under the impression that external references to institutions etc are desirable - but now I understand, I'll remove them. Thanks again. LOCALISERS (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @LOCALISERS: thank you for responding. Regarding the conflict of interest issue I raised, you may wish to also respond to the COI query I placed on your own user talk page, so that it's visible for anyone else who may wish to question this. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the good guidance, DoubleGrazing, especially about making the article more encyclopedic. It was my fledgling effort for the Women Do News project, so I appreciate your review and will work on your suggested changes. Annesun22 (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Annesun22 — you're welcome, and if I can help at all, don't hesitate to ping me. Perhaps you could also respond to the COI query I placed on your talk page, even if it is to say that you have no conflict? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing,

Thanks for your message and for willing to accept my submission. I have rewritten the

Hi @Saraino: thanks for your response. Of the three sources you mention, I'm happy to accept that the first one (Italia Che Cambia) is both secondary and provides good coverage of the subject. The second (Il Piccolo) is clearly also secondary, but only mentions the subject a couple of times in passing, so that one is a bit borderline. The third seems to just a site listing on the regional gov't website, so arguably that does not contribute towards notability at all, although it could possibly be used to verify some technical facts etc. Do you have anything else I should look at? Just to clarify, I'm particularly after newspapers, magazines, books, and other fully secondary, and independent, sources which discuss the subject itself in sufficient extent. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing: thanks for clarifying what kind of sources are more adequate for the draft. I am glad you accept this one. I have also found some more secondary, and independent, sources which mainly focus on the subject itself such as this from L'Idea, this from the Italian newspaper Il Gazzettino and this interview to its founder which I believe discuss the subject itself in sufficient extent. In addition I have found also this one which discuss the subject in depth. Thank you,--Saraino (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Saraino — those look pretty good to me. If you can use them to support the article contents so that they become incorporated as references (as opposed to merely listing them as external links etc., which wouldn't be appropriate), please do so, and let me know when done; on this basis I think I'm happy now to approve this draft. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing: I have incorporated the sources, becoming incorporated as references, mainly in the lead paragraph of the article. Looking forward to your approval and many thanks for your help. Best regards,--Saraino (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225 Online events: New: Women's History Month Art+Activism | Feminism and Folklore | Dutch Caribbean Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | Women in sport (Feb/Mar) Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page . Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

@DoubleGrazing thanks for taking a look at the Draft:Carolyn_Quadrio article. I was waiting for some follow up material much sooner and agree that more verification was needed. I have removed unverified content, shortened the lead, amended the section titles (embarrassing). I'm struggling to state notability because it seems obvious to me, I think I have improved this but will continue to work on this aspect. All fair comments, cheers --Bcritical (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bcritical: thanks for your message. I don't know how familiar you are with the concept of notability as it applies on Wikipedia — apologies if I come across patronising! — but there are basically two ways to establish that:

1. Academic notability arises when any one (or ideally more, but one should be enough) of the eight criteria listed in
   WP:NACADEMIC
   is satisfied, as long as this can be supported by verifiable, reliable evidence, of course. This is pretty close to the concepts of 'importance' or even 'fame', IMO.
2. General notability relies on what other people have said about the subject; nothing to do with 'importance' etc. Per
   WP:GNG
   , this requires significant coverage (of the subject directly) in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. There is no clear definition AFAIK of what 'multiple' means, but my view is that two may be enough, if the case is otherwise strong, but 3+ is better.

If you can demonstrate any of these, then all you need to do is to provide the evidence through referencing. But the flipside is also true: if you cannot find evidence to satisfy any criterion, then that probably tells us that the subject isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Not patronising, I like to hear the perspectives, thank you. I think your original point was that I was not clear on notability, fair comment. By obvious I mean I have let the facts speak for themselves rather than state the facts. Its a humanities upbringing :) Quadrio meets the notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO. As an academic, her expert witness in the Royal commission was a first. The awards from the professional body speak to this criteria as well. But I think I need to verify the elected positions in peak bodies to secure notability.--Bcritical (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hell I'm N1TH Music the person who created brichermillen which is now in the draft space. I don't really understand why it's been place in the draft space as the article already exists in a very similar form on the Luxembourgish Wikipedia, hence I translated it, added a bit and removed a bit and then published it, but I also added more sources. I've had a few articles moved to Draft Space and I'm still confused on how it works. Who reviews it when I submit it. N1TH Music (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @N1TH Music,

Your draft has now been accepted by another reviewer, so I presume the problem is therefore resolved?

All the same, just to explain — simply because an article exists in another language wiki, doesn't mean it will be accepted here. Every Wikipedia version has their own rules of notability etc., and I believe I'm right in saying that the English-language one has the most onerous requirements.

Don't think of draftifying (moving into the draft space) as a negative thing. The alternative would be deleting the article, so in that sense draftifying is a good thing; it means you can continue working on the article.

As for the review process, on the English-language wiki there are a number of users with the right to review pending drafts ('AfC'), myself included, and we try to work our way through the backlog (currently at c. 3,000 pending drafts).

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your feedback about this draft article. Let me first address the notability aspect of the subject person. I have provided reference #6 as a secondary source. This book is available on Google Books and I have a copy of it. There are other books on Google books about the subject also which qualify as secondary sources also link.

I'm also attaching 2 Wikipedia articles/pages in Arabic listing the subject as a Member of Chamber of Deputies of Iraq in 2 elections, the 8th and the 11th link & link

If you are not able to verify all these sources because of the language, maybe you can get the help of of other Wikipedia reviewers that can read and understand Arabic so they can verify this person is indeed a member of Chamber of Deputies of Iraq in 2 elections in Iraq. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by SULNOUR (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, @SULNOUR.

Firstly, let me repeat: I declined the draft because of lacking citations, as most of the contents are unsupported. I did not decline it based on notability, or even question that — in fact, quite the opposite: I said that if the membership of parliament claim can be verified (and I'm not suggesting it cannot), then that alone would make this person inherently notable.

Secondly, it isn't my job to recruit other reviewers who can access these sources and read Arabic; I suggest you do that yourself. My job here was to review the draft and assess whether it was suitable for publication. On this occasion it wasn't.

Finally, please sign your messages on any talk page. It would also be helpful if you could provide a link to the article/draft you refer to.

Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	For adding categories to Saraya al-Khorasani‎. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

LOL, thanks @I dream of horses ... I think — or was this awarded sarcastically? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Not awarded sarcastically. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 08:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: well, then, thank you all the more! Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing, thank you very much for your valuable comments! I have prepared a new version of this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ran_Lahav following upon your suggestions. I would be very grateful if you could check it again and give me suggestions. Kind regards.

Hello, there is 35 articles, need more? (there is IMDB, linkdin, what else can be more? tell me which part of the text need to be improved with articles? help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giga_Agladze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gus1182 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Replying on your own talk page, where you've also posted this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)