Talk:Aemilianus van Heel

Discussion during review at Articles for Creation
As you can see, I've made some substantive changes to your submission. They were motivated by my concerns about the sourcing being used in the draft. For one thing, I was surprised at how much of the material was being sourced to photographs residing on the personal page of a physics professor at the Lorentz Institute. This is problematic, because Wikipedia articles need to be sourced to published material that can be obtained by the general public. Personal photographs do not meet this criterion and, in any event, often require personal knowledge of the photograph's context in order to derive any meaning from them. And this, in turn, raises the issue of whether the material is based on WP:Original research. I've moved the photographs to the External Links section, but have not used them as sources. One of your sources was a blog, which identified itself as being written by a "history buff". This does not rise to the level of reliability that Wikipedia articles require. I've removed that source entirely. Unfortunately, this leaves some of the material unsourced. I've indicated those unsourced statements with "citation needed" tags. I assume that some of them can be sourced from the references that still remain -- if so, feel free to add the appropriate reference in place of the citation-needed tag. If not, then the statement will need to be removed (along with the citation-needed tag). I made some changes to achieve consistent conformance with our Manual of Style. For one thing, you were using a variety of date formats -- I've changed them all to DAY-MONTH-YEAR. If you prefer a different format, feel free to change them. I also applied the rules of MOS:SURNAME to use "van Heel" when speaking of the subject. This is the name used in the Dutch-language sources. Finally, I removed the sentence that said that van Heel was "revered as a martyr". You didn't source it and it sounded like vague puffery. It also seems to be contradicted by the sources. One of them (the PDF file) says that van Heel has been forgotten in his homeland and another (the CCD) says that his grave has fallen into disrepair. Perhaps van Heel is finally getting the recognition he deserves, but the sources are clear that he has not been "revered" in the many years since his death. I think we are very close to getting this published. I'll keep the "In Review" box in place, but feel free to address the citation-needed tags that I've placed. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I also removed the section headers. This draft is too short to require separate sections. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, I've published your draft with a few additional copy edits. You new source needs a page number (and I've added a page-needed tag to the text). I've also set up the "page =" parameter in the citation template. So, just fill in the page number and remove the tag when you get a chance. I enjoyed working with you. I hope you'll stick around and work on some more articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)