User talk:Tseung Kwan O/Archive 3

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.

Dear Tseung Kwan, I have seen you have rejected the draft I proposed for the new "Trace field" page. I realise that the draft was probably not on a topic suitable for general reviewing and I should just have gone ahead and put it in place of the

The content that I have posted, a biography for Brian Rolapp, is being investigated for copyright. The page gives credit the National Football League for giving the biography on the website. Can you help me in solving this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.141.128.141 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm confused by your having declined this article on the grounds that notability isn't established. I provided relatively major sources (National Review, CNSNews, Avpixlat) reporting on him as examples of notability, as well as an article about an award. I'm not sure as to what else would back up the claim that he is known for his commentary on immigration and the far right than showing major media discussing it and it receiving an award from an elite U.S. university... Can you be more specific? Also, his works weren't there to prove notability, just examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelRR (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

hello; the subject is well researched and was quite poplar in Maharashtra state of india. There are many citations in this article that are independent sources and several from scholarly resources as well. The major source is a article published in loksatta magazine in Marathi language. There are other sources as well like a book titled "tigers of balochistan" and the british census of balochistan of 1911.can you please let me know why it was rejected. Anandsh16 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the re-review of this article. I've included the WP:LEDE section as you requested and would like to re-submit for review. There are many citations in this article that are independent sources and several from scholarly resources as well. Please advise on how to make additional edits in order to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataCurator (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• 2601:204:CA02:6170:D97B:E95C:CACA:7541 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Proof of Binomial Theorem Utilizing Taylor's Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no where to found in Wikipedia the Taylor's series expansion of a binomial of the form (a + b)^n. One of the reviewers of this article stated it was "an over kill to prove the binomial theorem utilizing Taylor's series" whereas in fact they are the same thing. In the article in the Wikipedia referencing binomials where several proofs are provided, the Taylor expansion of a binomial is not mentioned. In a typical text book proof, the author writes down a binomial, and by employing mathematical induction and reference to Pascal' s triangle "proves" the binomial is true with an index one greater than the one he started with. He could have simply performed the Taylor expansion on the binomial with the greater expansion.

Thank you for your question. It indeed is overkill to prove the binomial theorem with calculus. You could do it with simple algebra (through M.I.), so a proof that uses Taylor series is probably unsuitable for Wikipedia. You might consider putting it in Wikiversity, where I think it would be a more valuable resource. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 23:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• 50.206.41.90 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tallyfy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All the sources on this page are from major publications - and a large array of citations exist. Why has this been declined?

The problem with the article is that it reads like an advertisement, not the amount of references it has. The article is pretty much made exclusively to say how good Tallyfy is, with nothing substantial about the company included in the draft. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 01:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan O, Thanks for reviewing my revision of the Michael Stever draft so quickly. I very much appreciate that. I'm disappointed that the article didn't meet with notability requirements, of course, but I do have a question. I was looking at this approved and published page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Weinstein and it seems as if Weinstein's credits and references are not that strong. How is it that one is published and not the other? Thanks again, --Wordmasternewyork (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. First of all, your references need cleanup. Use <ref> and </ref> tags to show what you want to reference and use {{reflist}} to make the list of references at the bottom of the page. Read

how to reference

for more info on that. Your article is also needs more references, as it's quite long and 10 refs cannot possibly provide verification for all the information contained in the article.

As for why some poorly written articles are in Wikipedia, editors have been actively removing and PRODing these articles, so they won't be here for much longer. The reason why AfC was established was to filter good and bad articles, not to create even more bad articles. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 03:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not think you yet have enough experience for reviewing AfCs, as you are making too many errors. I think they are due to ca a combination of inadequate knowledge of the details of our standards, and working too fast.

1. All major generals aren ormally considered notable
2. A career like that of Selina Sharma ids almost certainly going to be kept at afd, tho it needs to be clarified which of the sources are rather entries in her bibliography.
3. the best course for Draft:School of Applied Sciences, University of South Wales is to redirect to the university, adding a section if necessary
4. The relevant standard for Nauman Chaudhry is not the GNG, but WP:PROF
5. The NYTimes reviews is a sufficient source for the notability of Jude Cook.
6. Draft:Horten H.I might be notable--we tend to be vey accepting of articles on early aircraft. This deserves to have a chance in mainspace #The reason given for your decline of NBA fines is the same as the previous reviewer, but he was wrong also.Check the NBA Commissioner article: you will see it does not cover most of this material
7. S4 League is indeed unacceptable, but when this many revisions have been made without improvement, something needs to be said to the editor. AFC reviewing is not a mechanical process.
8. The problem with "We Love Reading" is the extensive promotional material not the notability. The proper advice needsto be given
9. Kumud Chandra Hazarika might be notable. I can't judge sources in his language, but what is there indicates a shortened article might be appropriate
10. Tho the article needs revision, Langdon Morris apparently meets the criteria for NAUTHOR
11. Cashless society is a very notable concept. It's probably covered in several WP articles, however.
12. All towns are notable , as long as they can be shown to exist. Even Karoondi
13. Martin Roemers is clearly notable . The article can be fixed in mainspace. Many artist articles start off like this .The standard for acceptance at afc tis that it is likely to pass afd. This one will.
14. Draft:Silas the Babylonian is notable , as are all biblical figures where they are more than a name on a list.
15. Arnold Mathematical Journal, there's a special guideline for journals which it might or might not meet, but which has to be said to the author. And it needs to be checked for copyvio
16. Draft:Value-Based Insurance Design ‎ this article has some problems, and needs check for copypaste, but it is not correct to decline an article because it " needs a lede section.:. That can be dealt with later in mainspace. We do not decline articles for matters of style
17. The relevant criterion not met in :John DenBoer is WP:PROF, which is more likely to be applicable than the GNG>
18. Park City Mining District probably needs a merge with Park City, but if the geographic scope is more extensive it might well make a separate article
19. If George.com is a £1.7 billion business, it's probably notable. ‚
20. Draft:Figure découpée l'Oiseau is notable, as are all major works by famous artists of the stature of Picasso.
21. Quite possibly the magazine Grihalakshmi also.
22. John DenBoer is in the deWP. As their standards are geneally higher than ours, this needs a more careful check to see if the references meet notability .

In the other direction

1. Family Promise is an advertisement. It shouldnever have been accepted, andI'm considering G11.

These are just from the last two days, and they represent about 1/3 of the reviews. It will take me or another experienced reviewer like Kudpung several days to fix all these errors, deal with the articles properly and apologize to the users. The best way to acquire the necessary knowledge of the standards are to watch and participate in discussions at AfD; the best way to get general experience is to write or improve articles; the best way to avoid going too rapidly is not to do more than 5 or so at a time. I find after many years experience here that trying to go faster means making errors, due to the influence of the great number of really inadequate drafts. No matter how many yhere are to review, we must not discourage the good faith new editors. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this note DGG. I've been meaning to say something myself but haven't had the time to go through all of their reviews to find specific issues to mention. Tseung Kwan O, I agree with everything DGG is saying - you're reviewing an awful lot of drafts, and some of them have been rather questionable declines/acceptances. It's not about speed, it's about getting the right result - back when AFC was backlogged with over 3000 entries we still made sure to take our time and give each page a proper review. If you want to get real-time assistance/advice/etc about reviewing, you are always welcome to join us on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect; there are a fair number of AFC reviewers that are also IRC helpers and we can chat about good reviewing practices/policies. Primefac (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've previously raised that point here, and I've returned again because Draft:Ansal API was another obvious copyright violation and blatant spam, but only the referencing was questioned when the article should have been tagged for speedy deletion. Not picking up such clear problems shows a lack of experience, despite good intentions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made some remarks at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:165th Air Support Operations Squadron which people may or may not agree with. Thincat (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• I completely agree with everything DGG said as well. I have personally approved the Selina Sharma draft (and had problems with at least one of your earlier declines).

Tseung, please do not review any AFCs until you have a considerable further experience. I strongly recommend undergoing an

Adoption

under someone who regularly reviews AFCs to learn the ropes and not make major blunders.

Soni (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In case you did not receive the ping, I have shifted this overall discussion to The AFC Wikiproject. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello there. I tried to write the submission on Jude Cook, but have been very confused by it being rejected & by very conflicting reasons given. I notice that DGG raised the point that the New York Times review makes it notable. I wonder if you could possibly review the draft for me please? Also, apologies: I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, & didn't know where to put this message, & have tried the draft page as well as the Teahouse. I hope this is the right place & the right way to do it. I hope to contribute more to Wikipedia but have found it a bit confusing & forbidding, so I was very grateful to come across this post & your note about not discouraging new editors. Thank you. Celeryqueen (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Celeryqueen: Let me help answer this--you need to do two things, one is to add a quote from the NYT review, as LaMona indicated; the other is to remove the externallinksto the social media sites except the person's own website. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG thank you so much for this, but I'm afraid I'm still confused. La Mona asked me to remove the quote from the NYT review as there was a suggestion that I'd cherrypicked a good quote. I can put one back in but I am wary of being told again that I'm cherrypicking. On the second point, there are no social media sites in the external links as far as I can see; do you mean the Goodreads page & the band website? If so, I can remove them, of course. Thank you again for your help. 16:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Rgnod (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Freddy Narvaez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - thank you for the quick review. I think I understand the comment about "YouTube" - some of those might be more appropriate as simple links, but not as "references". I am not sure what "Affiliated Sources" means - can you clarify? Thanks. Rgnod (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker

)

Would you like me to re-cite the same reference for every single portion of a topic instead of placing it at the end of the paragraph of content referenced from the content? I'm not sure how that would be helpful, and I don't see it on other similar pages, but I can, I just think it will be quite redundant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandycross (talk • contribs) 11:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Brandycross, while the page could use a few more references, what is currently there is good coverage. I've accepted the draft. It's definitely not done, but it's still a good job! Primefac (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi and thanks for taking the time to review our draft. Sadly, we feel that a response 'articles this length need more references' and 'read Referencing for Beginners' (which, by the way, we have done. Studied, in fact) is a somewhat condescending and inadequate response to an article that has had this much time, attention, research and care invested in it. Both of the editors are very disappointed in the response, not because we necessarily expected the draft to be accepted on first review but because we had expected a more helpful response to the work we have done.

If you have read the article and have seen a claim that is inadequately referenced then it would be helpful to direct our attention to it so that we may remedy it; our understanding is that reviewers are expected to be helpful rather than dismissive.

Given that the calendar is already in use by a number of communities I doubt that its notability can be questioned, or perhaps you are of the view that AFCs should be rejected unless the subject has already been covered in another encyclopedia. If we can improve the article and have it accepted then all well and good but if it is likely to be rejected as non-notable then there is no point in spending more time developing it for Wikipedia, which has pages for such as

Perhaps you should bear in mind that as important as maintaining standards on Wikipedia, the encouragement of those who volunteer to research, write and edit content is paramount; otherwise you will achieve a resource of impeccable quality and zero content.

Prajna.pranab (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan O,

Thank you very much for your time yesterday, in replying to my letter of 13 July. In accordance with your advice and instructions, I have tied up the draft Walter Noetico, removing the references where it was up to 6 together, placing them in alternative places. Also I have complied the paragraphs below, as you advised, keeping up the impartial, independent tone. You mentioned yesterday night, that you would take a look at these changes and additions, so that the draft can be accepted. I thank you once again for all your help and time, Tseung Kwan O. Please kindly find attached below, the added paragraphs as discussed, for your revisionand ease of reference. With best regards, Jeremy Alterman--Jermy Alterman (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"In 2005, the International Exhibition of the Greatest Contemporary Artists was organized by Bruno Chersicla, entitled: "The Collector" at the Galliata Art Gallery, Alassio in Italy, with participation of Noetico alongside with other major personages of culture, such as Dario Fo (Noble Prize in Literature, 1994, who is also a painter), Gillo Dorfles (International Art Critic and painter) and others.^[1]

Throughout his artistic activity of the years of 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Noetico had received the support of major International Art Critics, such as: Gillo Dorfles, Raffaele De Grada (who for a number of years had been the curator of the Venice Biennale, the biggest art event of the world), Silvio Ceccato (who is also a philosopher), and Alexandre Cirici i Pellicer, (President of the AICA, (UNESCO) International Art Critics Association in Paris, 1978-1981) who has contributed to the greatness of Pablo Picasso and Joan Miró.

Noetico being quite a singular Artist, philosopher and intellectualist, thinks that the Art is a cultural value which belongs to all human-beings, and not just to a few privilleged ones, who tend to commercialise art. Believing that the true, real Art belongs only to the spiritual sphere, instead of selling his work to major Art Museums worldwide, Noetico has expressed his wish to donate all of his works to the American Nation, which represents the entire Human Race, in order to honor the diffusion of Art and Culture in the world." Many thanks. Jeremy Alterman --Jermy Alterman (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I've resubmitted the draft for review.

Huckley Buck is mentioned (as Hucklebuck) in The International Playing Card Society's journal "The Playing Card" in Volume 33, Issue 4, in the article "Playing the Game: Schnellen, Hucklebuck & Donut". 

I've added the reference to the references section.

The article is not available online but I have obtained a PDF copy of the article if anyone wants to see it.

Thanks, Brad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blwhite (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• SmartCatHD (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Linda O'Bryon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your comments on the Linda O'Bryon article: Wikipedia guidelines note:

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times."

She has won a Lifetime Emmy Award for her achievement. How is this not notable?

SmartCatHD (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my draft for Gatja Helgart Rothe. You say in your comments that, "More references are need to establish notability of the subject involved and verify the claims made in the article." I understand your concern, but here are a couple of comments that I would like a little bit more clarification from you. The only published work about GH Rothe's life is very short bullet-point biographies on different websites (which I quote), and a Catalogue Raissoné that is only in print, not online. However, most of the content for my article comes from primary sources, especially several interviews with Peter Rothe, her son. I'm wondering how can I quote these. She is clearly a notable figure, due to her evident commercial success evidenced in the numerous galleries that represent her, her commercial success, and an article that already exists on Wikipedia in German about her (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatja_Helgart_Rothe). please let me know exactly what you suggest in order to make my article publishable. Thanks!

(PD: I just saw that you had replied to my previous comment, and you said you were willing to approve it. Could you please let me know if you could go ahead and approve it anytime soon? I want to know if I should go in and make some changes or not, but I agree with your response that the references I have seem to be enough. --Juan Pablo Pacheco 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

--Juan Pablo Pacheco 16:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

• Kakemono1966 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:PACKiT Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I need help to make my article ok for wiki.

Many people ask me about the PACKiT model in the field of asset management. Model that I have created and that is universally accessible to anyone who wants to improve their asset management. In the references I have put the 2 conferences proceedings and a book I wrote on the subject and having been through peers review (book available free online: France, CNRS open research data base HAL).

What more can I do to let my students and various professional asset managers access to knowledge on the PACKiT model which is not a commercial trade mark but only, again, a universal process to improve asset management.

Thank You Foucault

Kakemono1966 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker

)

Aoa, Sir you declined my article on references issues, but i have also give us health news refrence in that article how can i improve more ? User:Bilal Araeen —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Afeltner0016 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David M. McLean (Musician/Instructor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

THank you for your feedback. I read the page that you suggested and i just wanted to see what i need to do to get the page published. I know that his musician has been recording for over 20 years and his music is on reverbnation, soundcloud (which  I forgot to ad, but will) and is on cd notes of many produced albums. How do I add these to the page without making it look gaudy?

• Austinstig (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Thanks! Austinstig (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan, Since a recent resubmission, it appears the draft remains declined. How can we help further the encyclopedic style in our article so that it fits better into the Wikipedia criteria for submissions?

Best wishes, Bliebe (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• MC08122210 (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Forevermark

Hi! I took a look at

I went ahead and added the two book sources. If possible I'd like to move it to the mainspace. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Milosudas (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Organizacija amputiraca ”UDAS” Republike Srpske (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Milosudas, I have looked through your references, and I think that you have provided a lot of decent references verifying that UDAS does good work, but there is nothing specifically about UDAS. Almost all of the references say "in conjunction with UDAS" or "sponsored by UDAS" without ever going into detail. Non-English references are perfectly acceptable, as you are correct that English-language coverage of a foreign subject is often minimal.

Notability is not about what people have done, but what has been reported on. I know this is a bit odd, and some people take exception, but

help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker

)

Thanks for reviewing my draft. I would just like to ask about the standard of notability required by Wikipedia. The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Silent_Majority_(Filipino_political_group) referenced the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Manila Bulletin, and the Philippine Star - the top three biggest national newspapers in the Philippines in terms of circulation. In addition, Sun Star is the biggest regional newspaper, and Rappler is the biggest online new source in the country. I would assume that all these news outlets writing about a political group from different angles would be enough to establish its notability. If this is not the case, can you please explain further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskabobbins (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you ok with the main source I use, Dr. Aton's The Art and Life of Jimmie Jones? It has been published by the top Intermountain West art book publisher, Gibbs Smith Books. The book has already won two major awards in the region. Dr. Aton is the only scholar who has yet done much work on Jones. If one compares my sources with, say, the wikipedia entry for Maynard Dixon, a painter to whom Jones has been compared, my sources are so much better. And yet there is a wikipedia entry for Dixon which really only cites Kevin Starr's short article and two affiliated websites, the two Dixon museums. Lucyndalin (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Lucyndalin

• Dmulan123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Suiteness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I have added more in-depth details about the company and its business including revenue model and operations, along with citations from recent third party sources. Could you take a look and let me know if it can be approved? If not, what else can I do to make this better? Appreciate all your help!

03:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Dmulan123 (talk)Dmulan123

Hello and Thanks for reviewing my article. I really appreciate your help to improve my article. I have added more references and want to re-submission my article.but before doing that I wanted to ask for your help to improve my chances for approval, please if it is possible recheck my article and see if the issues are corrected and references are valid. also wanted to mention that I have a article for Iran Computer and Video game Foundation in Wikipedia Farsi here's the link: Fa:Iran Computer and Video Game Foundation thanks in advance.Ur-ehsan (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-ehsan (talk • contribs) 07:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• 69.162.16.16 (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

There seems to be no logic whatsoever governing which writers are on Wikipedia and which are not. Cooke is the editor of NRO; the previous two editors have Wikipedia pages, while he does not. He is much more talked about in a wide variety neutral sources than, say, Jim Geraghty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Geraghty); but Geraghty has a page and Cooke does not. Why? As far as I can see, National Review Online's section is full of people with personal pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review#National_Review_Online) who are less notable than Cooke. Finally, the Washington Editor of NRO, Eliana Johnson, has her own page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliana_Johnson), but Cooke, the editor of the whole site, doesn't. That doesn't make any sense, especially given that Johnson's page is more thinly sourced than Cooke's. From a neutral perspective, this looks politically motivated. Could you explain in more detail why this page was rejected?

@69.162.16.16: I haven't looked in detail at the submission's sourcing... but in the meantime do you know how many of the secondary sources (newspapers, articles) talk about Cooke in detail? If there are more than two it should be eligible for an article WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan,

thank you very much for the reviewing our article about the journal. Please, could you specify possible changes in order to increase notability points for the article?

With kind regards, Oleg KarpenkovOleg Karpenkov (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oleg Karpenkov, as an experienced editor in this area,I advise you that scientific journals are not usually consdered notable until they have been indexes in selective indexing sources, especiallyS cience Citation Index. This is probably too soon for an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)