User talk:Pichemist/Archive 21

This 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Ephemeral

Dear @Pichemist,

Thanks for reviewing my article for Ephemeral. You say the article lacks a NPOV and needs better sources. Respectfully, this analysis seems to be inaccurate.

I'm scratching my head to identify what's wrong with the tone. The first sentence is formal, clear, and representative of the text as a whole: "Ephemeral is a tattoo company whose tattoos fade in 9 to 15 months." Indeed, this sentence has 2 footnotes — to Bloomberg and Fast Company — which fully and precisely substantiate the given claim. What's more, there doesn't seem to be anything sales-y or jargon-y throughout the article, and there's only one link to Ephemeral's website (in the infobox, which is standard).

Similarly, the article has 27 footnotes to independent, reliable, published sources. These include profiles of the company in media such as The New York Times, Bloomberg, and Agence France-Presse — all of which Wikipedia considers to be reliable.

If you're willing to identify specifics, I'd like to try to address them — not to argue, but to ameliorate.

Alternatively, in light of a recent comment on your Talk page, wherein you acknowledge your "lack of foresight and lack of prior experience reviewing draft articles," would you be willing to reopen this draft for other editors to consider?

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@BlueRoses13 Alternatively, in light of a recent comment on your Talk page, wherein you acknowledge your "lack of foresight and lack of prior experience reviewing draft articles," would you be willing to reopen this draft for other editors to consider? is a reasonable request veiled in snark. Please do not do this. Everyone has to learn their trade.

Yes, they might have provided a fuller review. Yes, it is disappointing to have your work pushed back to you. I've added to their review in a comment on your draft. You see, you are learning, too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)