Talk:Michael Mignano

Conflict of interest
Hello, thank you for making the improvements that you did. I just wanted to ask whether you are in any way connected to Michael Mignano. If not, great. If so, you should definitely declare the WP:COI. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! No, I'm not. Cowfish1 (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi - I see that the latest revision was rejected for a lack of citations. I had more citations in the previous iteration, but removed some due to prior feedback that there were too many in that version. Is there a recommended amount of citations for this post? I'm submitted a new draft now with a few additional citations. Thank you. Cowfish1 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry for the confusion. Basically, my advice is to avoid citing anymore than two or three sources for any given sentence because unless the sentence contains controversial information a single source should be plenty to verify the information. I also recommended reducing the number of sources because there were quite a few unreliable sources and because it's significantly easier for reviewers to determine whether the subject is notable if they don't have to comb through dozens of low quality sources in pursuit of two or three good ones. We really only need WP:THREESOURCES to clearly dwmonstrate that a subject passes WP:N or in this case WP:BIO. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

AfC source analysis
I don't think the sources are quite enough right now so I've laid out my reasoning below. I would recommend merging content into Anchor (app) instead because most of these sources focus on the application rather than the person.

TipsyElephant (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for listing this. I'll add a few more. Cowfish1 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks! I just added a few more reliable, and non-trivial mentions. Cowfish1 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * you're welcome. Right now the biggest issue is that many of your sources only contain a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Mignano. The reliability of your sources have improved significantly since you started the draft. If you want a quick and easy overview of expectations of sources you might want to read WP:GOLDENRULE. TipsyElephant (talk)


 * I've accepted the draft based of the sources you've added, however, I would still consider most of the coverage relatively routine or insignificant. If someone else decides that they don't believe Michael Mignano passes WP:BIO they will open an WP:AFD and the Wikipedia community will come to a WP:CONSENSUS as to what should be done with the article (i.e. merging the content to Anchor (app), deletion, or keep and improve the article). I'm accepting the draft because I think it has a decent shot in an AfD discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work.

North8000 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)