User talk:Podcast Lover

Thanks for your contributions to

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. BoraVoro (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BoraVoro, thank you for reviewing the article. I put a lot of time into it, and will really appreciate your help on how to go forward.

The reason you don’t see me making deletions in draft form is because I wrote the article offline. I now see now how it’s important for other editors to see my work in draft form (it’s like a way to verify, right?) I’ll do that from now on.

I don’t have a conflict of interest. Let me explain my motivations: I am passionate about podcasting, and I’ve noticed that Wikipedia is really out of date. So I’m in the middle of a series of edits to bring Wikipedia up to date on the industry.  My focus has been on award-winning podcasts, and I’ve been moving through, updating the pages big award winners, one by one, and looking for missing podcasts, people or companies as I go. I added the page for the podcast Wiser Than Me a few weeks ago, because it was named Apple’s Podcast of the Year, which is the biggest award in podcasting.

This led me to Jessica Cordova Kramer, because her company Lemonada creates Wiser Than Me. Lemonada is one of maybe 7 or 8 independent podcast companies making hit shows. I studied the notability guidelines for creative professionals and she met them a few times over. So I read or listened to every interview of her, and built the page (offline, unfortunately :-( .... and did my best to use the neutral point of view.

Can you tell me anything more about where you think I went wrong? What sounded promotional to you? Did I include too many quotes? I’ll work on those points in “draft” form, as you said. Podcast Lover (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with BoraVoro, and I was looking at Draft:Deron Triff--full of namedropping, promotional content not properly covered by the sources, and in general BLP fluff. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmies, I welcome your help to get these drafts right! In working on Josh Clark's draft (which I have paused), I was advised to always reference (and fully credit) other wikipedia articles when pulling in details. So I built this draft by pulling in details form other wikipedia articles. Maybe I pulled in too much detail?

For name-dropping, is your instinct not to name people who appeared on the podcast or at the events? that's an easy fix and I can see your point.

For promotional content, you might be reacting to my including awards for the different shows. (I've been adding these details across all major podcast pages, as they a reliable indication of importance. I noticed that earlier pages for Deron Triff and Josh Clark had been rejected for lack of notability. So I'm including details that support notability -- awards received, press coverage etc. I'm trying to get the right balance to demonstrate notability. But if its sounding promotional, I'll look for ways to pull back Podcast Lover (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing namedropping is not my instinct--it's part of trying to keep Wikipedia neutral and objective. The problem is the writing, and what the sources support. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, @Drmies. I really appreciate your work here. I went through and reviewed all your changes and did another pass to further reinforce objectivity. for example, I had previously listed out and linked to all the publications that positively reviewed Meditative Story; I left the references but removed the names/links. I'll go back into Jessica Cordova Kramer's draft as well.... Podcast Lover (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I've taken another pass at the page for Jessica Cordova Kramer, and did my best to remove anything else that sounded promotional or was not sufficiently covered by the sources (for example, removing the reference to her earlier jobs - which are referenced in news articles, but not really discussed). I did leave the reference to key awards, because their winning of the Apple Best Podcast Award is a big deal, and a big factor in her notability. Would you be willing to take another look? Again, I so appreciate the feedback and help getting these articles ready. Podcast Lover (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's a huge deal, and I'd never take that out, but you do need to replace IMDB with an actual reliable source. IMDB is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again @Drmies. I'm really finding your input useful and constructive to get these pages right. The reason I had relied on IMDB is because they have a new feature where they pull in the data on all the major awards. it's the only source I found that pulls that information across different podcasts and different awards (It has helped me to see which shows stand out). But I removed the IMDB citation and replaced it with 4 citations that link directly to award pages, representing around 7 or 8 awards (In total, they probably have 40 or 50 across all their shows). I'd be grateful if you would take another look at the page and let me know if there's anything else that needs work. I'm very appreciative for the guidance! Thank you again! Podcast Lover (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Thank you again for your advice on the Jessica Cordova Kramer article and my other drafts. I've followed your suggestions closely. Can I ask your advice: What is the correct next step I should take? Should I move it back to draftspace and then submit it for review?

Thank you in advance. I really appreciate the guidance. Podcast Lover (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Triff draft, which looks much better. A few things, if you don't mind. You don't need a half dozen things to say "received positive reviews"--it's better to pick a few and help them to source actual content. For instance, this can help describe how the episodes are organized, and you can do that without namedropping like "according to Mashable blah blah blah", if you leave out the praise and just go for the factual desription. This--well, it's so incredibly promotional (surely you see that) and as it turns out it's by a Forbes "contributor"--who write pieces "with minimal editorial oversight [that are] generally unreliable": see

WP:FORBESCON. I think you should go through all those "reviews" claims and apply a. a critical eye for tone and b. use them to verify content, not just to support "oh critics liked it", because that's how we write praise and resumes, not encyclopedic articles. If you do that, then that draft might stand a good chance. Oh, please move his education up and do the biography chronologically--that's how we do it here, chronologically rather than as a "functional resume", as we call it in business writing. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Drmies Thank you again for all the advice and guidance. I went through the article and removed all the times I wrote "It received positive reviews in the press", replacing them them with factual details from the articles. Of course you were right. It is so much stronger. Would you be willing to take another look and tell me where else it might need improvement before I submit for review? Podcast Lover (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Lover, I can't do that right now, but I appreciate the kind words. If I know anything about writing for Wikipedia it's because I learned it from others. I can ping a few editors who review drafts that I know, people I have faith in, and maybe they can have a look--by now it's a good idea to get another set of eyes anyway: User:Theroadislong, User:Primefac, User:PARAKANYAA. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Drmies. I really appreciate all your help. I'll reach out to users you ping above, and will be grateful for their fresh eyes.... Podcast Lover (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will shortly be leaving a comment on the draft; if you have any questions about it feel free to ask here. Primefac (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Primefac. First, thank you so much for looking at my draft, after @Drmies pinged you. (This was 2 weeks ago. I've been delayed by work/life) I can't tell you how much I appreciate the help. You made an important point that I just hadn't realized before -- that I was mixing my references to the person (Jessica Cordova Kramer) and the company (Lemonada Media). I took that advice and used it on all 3 drafts I'm working on. All of them are for podcast creators who are very important in the industry. For different reasons, all 3 articles have been rejected before (not all of these were my drafts. some came way before my work). I'm wondering if you'd be willing to look at the two that I think are close to being ready and give me your feedback? @Drmies was so kind to give me a few rounds of feedback, and I'm grateful for you help too. The draft you saw is Jessica Cordova Kramer, the other is for producer Deron Triff. (my third one, for Joshua Clark, is not ready). I would so appreciate any thoughts you have. Podcast Lover (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Drmies, You gave me a lot of help a few weeks back. I'm pinging you again to thank you and let you know I've submitted through the articles for creation process.Would you have time to take another look? (Draft:Deron Triff) I've done so much work on the article since you first helped me. If you have time to even give me some quick feedback, I’d appreciate that. This is my first biography article and I'm trying to get it right. Podcast Lover (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Draft:Josh Clark (Host) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69. Thank you for flagging this for me. Being meticulous about attribution is very important to me. I have a question on this and I'd be grateful if you could answer .... the question is this: Can I use the same phrasing as exists on a different wikipedia page? What I added to the Josh Clark draft page was several paragraphs that appear on the SYSK wikipedia page, which I intended to edit and attribute in my next few sessions. It always takes me many editing sessions before I would "publish" a page, and by then I would have attributed etc. But if I left a sentence or two from the original Wikipedia entry, written in the same way -- is that considered plagiarism? Podcast Lover (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Podcast Lover, you are mostly free to copy text from Wikipedia articles verbatim provided you give attribution to the original article's editors. On Wikipedia, this would mean leaving a link to the article in your edit summary and saying something like "see its revision history for attribution". You can see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Let me know if you have any other questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @TechnoSquirrel69 ! Really appreciate you! You didn't have to take the time to offer that guidance, but I'll tell you - it helps me a ton. Going back into my other draft articles now to improve my attribution :-) Podcast Lover (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:Jessica Cordova Kramer. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you so much for taking a look @Theroadislong. I've been grateful for the help @Drmies has offered on this article and another draft I have underway, and I'm grateful to be pointed to you. I'll reply here to your comment on the Jessica Cordova Kramer article (let me know if you prefer to have the conversation differently!) Kramer has won a number of podcast industry awards and nominations. The most important was the "Podcast of the Year" from Apple for "Wiser than Me," which she executive produces. (It's awarded to only one show /year and Apple is the most important platform, so it's very prestigious). But she has also won awards for many other shows she executive produces. There's a whole body of work. I'll begin adding those more clearly. Podcast Lover (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again @Theroadislong! Your suggestion about including Kramer's awards made a ton of sense to me. I've made those changes. Would you mind taking another look at and letting me know if you think the draft is ready for submission? I'm going to also bring your suggestion over to the other drafts I'm working on. Thank you so much. The guidance is so helpful. Podcast Lover (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by

reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability

of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Deron Triff 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.

GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" for more information.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has been

WP:COI

please disclose that on the talk page.

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:Deron Triff 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.

TipsyElephant (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Podcast Lover! 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! TipsyElephant (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]