User talk:CFA/Archives/2021/December

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

draft:Faramarz Sedighi
Hello Clearfrienda, a lot of sources have been added to the draft:Faramarz Sedighi as you wanted. So please if possible reviewed this draft once again. Faramarz Sedighi is an old and very famous actor in Iran. Thank youحمیدنوذری (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I see that you've added more inline citations and a few more references, but most sources seem to be published by movie actor list sites and other movie-related sites, like IMDb, which generally aren't considered reliable. To prove notability, you'll need multiple reliable, independent sources (e.g., news articles, reviews, etc.). Remember that this article is also a biography of a living person, so you'll need to be extra certain to cite information added properly.


 * I'm happy to have a look at it again, but since no one else has reviewed it, you should get another reviewer to make the decision.


 * Happy to help, Clear  friend  a  💬  12:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Qlone
Hello! Kindly take another look at Draft:Qlone. It is a properly written contribution about a first of its kind photogrammetry app. I did quite a lot of cleanup following editors comments, but I don't see how coverage at sources such as USA Today, BBC, TechCrunch, Gizmodo and a significant feature by Apple in its WWDC alongside Unity and Cinema4D can be treated as non notable. Since you are a respected Wikipedia editor, I kindly ask you to check this article for acceptance and if you still feel its not ready, kindly provide your expert advice on how to improve it. Thank you so much! JohnMcClaneSr (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Draft:Qlone has been rejected, not declined. This means that you can no longer resubmit it. I rejected it because, after many submissions, the article kept on getting declined; articles are often rejected after many failed attempts to approve them. TechCrunch is not always considered very reliable, and everything else, except USA Today and BBC (whose source was only on a YouTube video, which are generally not reliable), either wasn't reliable or didn't provide enough coverage to make the subject notable. You are free to wait and create a new article on the subject, or ask for my advice if you want to create one on another topic. Clear  friend  a  💬  21:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, let's kindly debate in good faith. The fact that the article was declined several times shouldn't be used simply as prejudice since it was improved with every decline in accordance with the comments by the editors so its actually a good set of refinement cycles that made it better. You agree that both USA Today and the BBC are considered good reliable sources so in accordance with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, "There is no fixed number of sources required" and the reason that the BBC source is a YouTube video is due to the fact that they dont keep accesible links to their complete content and their YouTube channel serves as their accessible archive and that's why I chose it so everyone can see the full content on the subject matter. Most importantly, the presentation of Qlone by Apple, the largest information technology company by revenue and, since January 2021, the world's most valuable company is a clear indication for notability and gravitas, its not a passing mention but rather significant coverage in two major presentations it made to a worldwide audience of tens of millions. And next to only two other highly notable players as mentioned (Unity and Cinema4D). Please help me understand - If this doesnt guarantee notability, what does? there are many other apps with much less recognition on Wikipedia so I am honestly buffled. Next, Gizmodo who is part of the sources is also considered concensually reliable by Wikipedia and TechCrunch when written by staff and not in a blog which is the case here. Lastly, I also found now an AP - Associated Press source which is also considered reliable by Wikipedia so once you agree to revert your rejection, I'll add it as well. To summarize, please understand in good faith that the subject matter is considered notable for the reasons mentioned and kindly reconsider accepting it. Thank you so much and as a new editor I will highly respect your kind and prompt response.
 * JohnMcClaneSr (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You are right -- articles shouldn't be declined just because there was a certain amount of declines, but, when reviewers see that the article has been declined many times for notability, it's usually a factor in our decision to decline or reject. While, yes, there isn't actually a fixed number of sources required, WP:THREE is often the guideline that the community generally follows. Yes, YouTube videos are considered reliable sources when used for your reason; I was just mentioning the fact that YouTube videos are of lesser reliability in general. I still wouldn't say that Apple's article is a reliable source, it's not used much, and so there isn't actually anything to say it is reliable. It's the same with Unity and Cinema4D. TechCrunch is still debatable, as explained in WP:RS/P, as most of the time, its staff have a CoI on the subject, which is consequently why it's not necessarily good for helping build notability. Gizmodo is my fault: I had never heard of it, and my "add-on" which marks the notability of sources from WP:RS/P didn't rate it as anything; I agree, it does contribute to notability. An AP source would be good, however, I can only find an AP Archive source which shows some footage, no actual coverage on the topic. If you have an actual article from them, it would be great, but otherwise, the AP Archive wouldn't really help with anything.


 * You make a good point -- I'll revert my rejection and submit it, but it'll be up to another editor to accept it. Again, apologies for not seeing the Gizmodo source's reliability, and I must say: You know Wikipedia pretty well for a newcomer! Happy editing - Clear  friend  a  💬  11:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Last time we communicated you made a very positive impression of being an honest editor as you kindly apologized and acknowledged I improved enough to show notability. However, instead of accepting it you decided in good faith to resubmit it and it waited three months until I received another feedback from another editor who seems not to be as appreciative to newcomers as you. I again learned and fixed the draft which I now believe is in an excellent shape, both from high value sources and a very neutral point of view. When I reached out in good faith to the other editor he also decided to resubmit for another reviewer to take a look. When I politely asked why not accepting it he replied in a way that implied he thinks that since its a paid editing article, it would be fine to just drag it. So now its again in a state where it might sit for many months and that's why I kindly approach you in good faith. You are the only editor that made me feel there's a human being behind the process and I humbly ask you to consider accepting it and moving it into the article space. Thank you so much for your kind understanding and for making it more humane. JohnMcClaneSr (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Paxful
Hi Clearfrienda,

Thank you for your comment regarding the draft I wrote. I removed sources with incidental coverage as suggested and retained only ones that talk directly about the subject. The draft was rejected but if possible, can you have another look at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepwashere (talk • contribs) 08:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! If an article is rejected, it's rejected -- that's it. Even if I could still review it, I wouldn't accept it, because, as far as I can tell, not much has improved, and it still doesn't seem to pass WP:NCORP. I'm happy to help with any other issues or requests that you have, just let me know here. Happy editing, Clear  friend  a  💬  22:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your expert advice
Hi. Please take a look at Draft:Bridgit (company). It is a proprely stated WP:COI contribution about a Canadian software company. The article was declined at the AfC as promotional. The reviewer also highlighted that some sources can be hidden advertising. I did some cleanup following these comments, but I don't see how the coverage at such sources as The Globe and Mail or CBC News by staff writers can be treated as advertorials. Since you are a Canadian Wikipedia editor, I kindly ask you to check this article and provide your expert advice on how to improve the it. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm not necessarily an "expert" on the subject, but I'm happy to help with anything, especially when it's AfC-related. You're talking about the references you used, The Globe and Mail and CBC; as far as I can tell, your article is at least somewhat well-referenced, and it seems notable, and the reviewer who first reviewed the article seemed to think so as well as they didn't mention anything about the sourcing. It's not the sources that determine the neutrality of the contributors' writing. When an article is declined for looking like an ad or not being in a neutral point of view, it frequently means that the language and wording that you used is not fit for an encyclopedic article — this is sometimes called puffery on Wikipedia, which means that the writing style in the article is "praising" talking about the subject without a neutral point of view.


 * For example, in your article, using phrases such as "it is one of the fastest-growing start-up companies in Canada" make the article look like an ad for the company, as it's, in a way, promoting it. Other words like "solution," and how you wrote the "Project" section, make it look like you're trying to promote the subject.


 * Again, try to rewrite the article with a neutral point of view, there are many WP help pages that can help you with choosing the right words, try to make sure that everything is sourced well, and make sure that you're following all the reviewers' comments. I'm happy to review the article again if you think it's ready.


 * Happy to help, Clear  friend  a  💬  01:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this feedback if very helpful. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Lynne Black
Please let me know if the submission I posted is now okay. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepiorosario (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Someone else has already declined it, either way, though, it isn't any better. You need some more reliable, independent references to prove notability, and you'll need the same references to cite information added; right now, most of the information in the article is unsourced. You'll need to pay even more attention to proper sourcing as it is a biography of a living person. Happy to help, Clear  friend  a  💬  16:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:57:39, 11 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashna321
Hi Clearfrienda, I have made some edits. Please let me know what you think.

Ashna321 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks good; I've accepted and moved the article. While the language is cleaned up, the article still needs some copyediting, so I've tagged it for now. I'll come back and edit it if I have time later, otherwise, another editor will get around to it eventually. Happy editing, Clear  friend  a  💬  19:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on 10:32:50, 19 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Genken21
Genken21 (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello and sorry for the late response; I've been quite busy lately. Could you please specify what exactly you would like help for? I declined it for not having a neutral point of view and reading like an advertisement — that just involves you rewording the article to be in a neutral point of view. Happy editing, Clear  friend  a  💬  00:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)