User talk:BuySomeApples/2023/July

Reliable Sources etc.
Hi @BuySomeApples, noticed you declined my article for unreliable sources which has happened to me with every new article I try to add, so I have clearly been doing things wrong. Every time, though, I try to improve the quality of my sources and each time it fails. I was wondering if you could provide some specifics as to how I could improve the sources (i.e. which sources in my draft are no good and what kind of sources are good for such articles) on Draft:Paul_Rivett. Thanks so much Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi some sources (like Twitter) are unreliable. Others might be reliable but don't demonstrate that Paul Rivett is notable which is the main issue. Once you do some tweaking on the article, feel free to resubmit for a second review! BuySomeApples (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, thanks @BuySomeApples. Most of the sources were articles that had a few paragraphs each on Rivett, are those no good? Also, in terms of his philanthropy, the only source I could find to back up the money he raised for Covenant House was a tweet from Covenant House about it - obviously a Twitter source isn't a good source but I figured it would be worth adding to back up the fact that he raised the money. Should I just remove that then?
 * Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi You can remove that and should also read Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines for more information about what makes a subject notable. Once you're ready, you can resubmit the draft. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @BuySomeApples: I've read the notability guidelines and think that he meets the criteria, so I will resubmit with some tweaks. In terms of removing the Twitter source: should I just remove the source, or the entire philanthropy section?
 * Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and remove anything that is unsourced or only reference unreliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @BuySomeApples: Thanks for your feedback; I have resubmitted with an additional reliable source, removed the unreliable source and related text, and have tweaked some phrasing to ensure neutrality throughout the article. Please let me know if there are any other changes to make.
 * Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Best Served Cold
Excuse me, but thanks for the comment you gave me on the draft i'm fixing up. It was originally a film article before there's two articles that have the same thing. So I had to change the original as a novel article than a film article. This Draft is the novel article while this Draft is the film one. I've done a lot of progress on the novel one and I won't do the film one til new sources pop up about the cast and it's filming progress. You sure you wanna help clean-up the article to make more like you said in your comment or no? 64.56.17.172 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that! That makes sense to split it, and I think you are right that it might be a little too soon for the film. Mainly you just need to rewrite the draft(s) a bit to be more encyclopedic and use more secondary sources like reviews if they're out there. Also, I noticed you copied content from Fandom.com without attributing it. I added attribution (WP:FANDOM) to the bottom of the page but if you copied material from anywhere else you need to check that it's in the creative commons and then attribute it. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try next time. But thanks. 64.56.17.172 (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be discouraged! You're doing a good job it just needs a little more work. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft on author Allan Chase
Thank you for having a look at my draft article on Allan Chase. I'm happy to make updates as per your feedback. Most of the references to Allan Chase are simply identifying books that he wrote, so I can easily remove those although the page won't make much sense if I don't at least list the names of the books, so I will leave the names of the books. Other references are where Chase describes his own books. I guess I can just omit that description. Regardless your continued guidance would be appreciated.

Regarding the hatnote, I looked around once, but couldn't figure out how to add one, and couldn't figure out whether I should add it before or after this article is approved. I will have another look. Further guidance is welcome of course. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! Don't worry about the hatnote, that's for the reviewer to handle when the page gets approved. It's OK to cite his books to build out the bibliography it's just that the majority of refs should be secondary sources. Some of the refs don't mention Chase which is OK, but you'll need to find more sources that discuss him/his work before the draft will be ready. It can be hard shifting to Wikipedia from academic writing because you can't really say anything in your own words or synthesize primary sources, but you're doing a really good job. The only other problem I would point out is that WP:IMDB is not a reliable source. Let me know if you have any more questions or need help with anything. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added citations to Chase only to factually acknowledge books written by Allan Chase, not as a source for commentary or other content. I have also added an additional source for his filmography, but it is not obvious to me it is more reputable that iMDB, or that a more reputable source exists. What should I do if there is not a better source than iMDB, and no counterfactual? I have assumed that the article is better including such history than omitting it. I don't see the basis for questioning the motives of iMDB editors in this particular case. I don't see how any individual would gain by creating fraudulent history for Chase, and the history is consistent with his overall history. JBradleyChen (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally, if the only available source is user generated content and more reputable sources can't be found then it should be left out. BuySomeApples (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Request on 01:53:41, 13 July 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by HelenEdits
Hello BuySomeApples! Thanks for reviewing my submission on True. I'm writing to see if I could get some clarification about the sources used in my article:

- The rejection notice states that the sources included were not in-depth, reliable, secondary or strictly independent of the subject. After further review, I can see how, out of context, the BetaNews, Mobile Marketing Magazine and Inc. articles may not meet the criteria. However, the Business Insider, GeekWire, KTLA and BuiltinSF articles all do seem to meet all four of the qualifications you mentioned—they're in-depth with regards to the subject they're used as a reference for, they're independent of the source, they're secondary and they're from reliable, reputed news organizations. Could you give me more info on why these don't qualify?

- It occurs to me that perhaps the Beta News article isn't a good source for stating that True is built on "privacy by design" and "value sensitive design" principles, as this wasn't explicitly stated by an independent source and was rather implied in the Q&A, in which the company of course directly participated in. In this case, am I correct in saying that you would need an expert to state this in an analysis as opposed to the company implying that its product embodies these principles? Hope that makes sense!

I can already see the source of some of the other issues with the article, so I'll go in and fix those, but would love to get your thoughts on the above. Thank you!!

HelenEdits (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi no problem! The Business Insider source is good but imo the other sources aren't enough to meet WP:NCORP, especially Built In SF and the KTLA article. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you!
 * One more question: The GeekWire article is about Paul Maritz' decision to invest in True. If I'm understanding correctly, this source should be used only to support information about Paul Martiz's investment, and not about True in general even if details about the company are included in the article, because the primary analysis is about Maritz? Thanks! HelenEdits (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically you can use it to verify information but it won't really count towards notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 100 Fathoms Below
RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Long plot
You tagged a film franchise article God's Not Dead (film series) with the "long plot" template a while back. Another editor removed that tag not understanding why it was there.

I restored the tag on the basis that the plot summaries in a franchise article are long and redundant, in particular the plot summary for GND2 is particularly long. I hope you will go back and make it clearer to that other editor, maybe use section specific tags if possible? -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! I will put section specific tags in to make it easier. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ice King
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ice King you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Little Darlings (Golding novel)
Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

POWER Engineers
Hello BuySomeApples!

You recently rejected my Draft:POWER Engineers.

It seems to me that these particular sources meet the criteria of "in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent":, , , ,

I noticed I got the page number wrong in the last one, and have now corrected it. It's E3 page there, not E4.

And I added new sources, too: (pages 92-95) and

I would be very grateful if you could look at the draft again. Pestalozzi90 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for doing that! I'm not certain that this meets notability guidelines but I'll let a new review check it out so you can have a second opinion. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Carlo Messina
Hi, thank you very much for your feedback on the draft dedicated to Carlo Messina.

I am working to try to resolve the critical issues you raised about sources and find references in line with what you pointed out. As you can see from my profile, I am aware of the Wikipedia rules that apply to me. I will be back soon with the results of my research. Thank you once again --Fabrizio.Paschina (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for working on that. Once you've improved the draft you can resubmit it for review. Good job! BuySomeApples (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Gestalt Philosophy
Hi @BuySomeApples, thank you for checking on my draft of Gestalt Philosophy. Your comment on the draft was: "Most of the sources seem to be about Gestalt psychology, are there more references that focus on gestalt philosophy as a distinct field?"

My basis for creating a page dedicated to gestalt theory as philosophy is that the field of psychology at the time of gestalt theory was not in fact distinct from philosophy. The two fields had not been separated yet as they are now, psychology was considered part of the field of philosophy. I think gestalt theory's role in the history of philosophy should be explored in its own right on wikipedia, as it is in close dialogue with non-gestalt-psychology philosophers including Aristotle, Spinoza, J.C. Smuts, and Merleau-Ponty all of whom are in the reference section. I think the most important reference on my draft/page I would point out is reference #3, the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Merleau-Ponty, a well known philosopher who relied on the concept of a gestalt in his work in the field of philosophy; "Gestalt" is mentioned 19 times on his entry in that encyclopedia.

The search term "gestalt philosophy" is not found in very many references out there, I acknowledge this, and I'd welcome any feedback you might have in how to proceed, whether it be a change to the wording of the title-- "gestalt ( in philosophy)" or otherwise. Ss2809 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, I understand where you're coming from but I think the problems with the sources might be hard to overcome because of it. I recommend that you read WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis because you're doing the kind of good writing that doesn't necessarily make a good Wikipedia page. A Wikipedia page typically summarizes existing sources on a specific topic, it doesn't really recontextualize them or explore them in new ways. Do you think adding a truncated section on this background to the Gestalt psychology page might work. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm fine with doing that instead. Many thanks for your consideration. Ss2809 (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! And you don't have to abandon the draft yet, you can keep working on it after you've expanded the other page. I'm not an expert in psychology and there might be sources out there that would help. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Thanks for letting me know! Ss2809 (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)