User talk:Cabrils/Archive 5

Draft:Stephen Douglas Gore
Hi. I started a discussion about an article that you moved to mainspace. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. Cabrils (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Maxwell Melvins
Hello, Thank you for reviewing the first submission. I have just done a reediting. Please review when you have time. I did not click the "resubmit" button. If I have to do that in order for you to review it again please let me know. The last section might be interpretable as a CV but my intention is just that it serve as a summary or recent activities. Also, I have added a lot more references.

"KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Good progress, well done. You don't need to hit the Submit button --in fact it's better if you don't while we progress the draft together.
 * That's a lot of new sources, good work. Please ensure each source meets the criteria of reliable sources.
 * It would help by identifying, on the draft's Talk Page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
 * I note your declaration of a conflict of interest on your User Page, thanks for doing that. The template hasn't formatted correctly though, so please re-read the instructions on how to add that and re-do it.
 * Ping me here when you're done and I'll have a good look. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've done some more editing and I did the COI information in the Talk portion of the draft article. The citations are all respected newspapers, government or respected cultural institutions, and book publishers. In all cases the citations are included not for the purpose of opinion, but only to provide further facts.
 * In the instructions for citations I saw mention that three citations was all that was desired. That's surprising. Many of the wikipedia pages I've seen over the years have more than that.
 * Please let me know how the page looks now. Thank you. KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm wanting to help but it's clear that you have not read my comments carefully--please re-read all my comments carefully.
 * My comments do not "mention that three citations was all that was desired". The purpose of WP:THREE is to allow reviewers of draft pages to efficiently assess the notability of a subject, which in most cases can be done by assessing the best / strongest 3 sources. This is now the third time I am requesting you to please identify, on the draft's Talk Page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
 * Further, and again as I have already requested, please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").
 * Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, If my previous response felt rude I offer my apologies. That was not my intention. This is my first time working on a wikipedia page so I am at times unfamiliar with which actions on the Talk page require coded input and which is just writing sentences. I think the example sentence at the end of your most recent comment helped me better understand. On the Talk page for the draft I have added two topics: WP:THREE Notable Sources and WP:MUSICBIO Criteria. I hope these have been entered in the proper way. I think the conflict of interest portion was correctly entered a few days ago, because on the Talk page there is a portion that says I have made the declaration.
 * Thank you for time and effort. KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @KwabenaSlaughter. No worries, your response wasn't rude, and I'm not offended, all good.
 * I did include that example sentence in my comment at the top of the draft page.
 * Thanks for providing that info on the Talk Page, I have looked through the revised draft and made some comments on the Talk page.
 * Happy to help. Cabrils (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Here's a question about an alternate direction to go with this project. On this subject of Maxwell Melvins there are three linguistic things that are woven tightly together, which make it hard to discuss them individually. 1) The Lifers Group was an organization created in the 1970s by incarcerated people to help those with long sentences. 2) Maxwell Melvins joined the Lifers Group in the 1980s and introduced his idea to make music to help them spread their message. They chose to name the music project the same as their social group: Lifers Group. This sameness has created a certain amount of historical blur between the group and the music project. 3) There is already a wikipedia page about the music project of the Lifers Group. Maxwell's name is mentioned five times on that page in a way that makes it clear that he was influential to its creation. The first sentence on that page begins with "Lifers Group was a hip hop group formed by Maxwell Melvins...". The dilemma here is that the Lifers Group was not just a hip hop group. They started as a social project, then added a music project, and Maxwell Melvins was a member of the social group and the creator of the music project.
 * My question is, do you think it would be wisest if, rather than making a separate page for Maxwell, I tried to edit the currently existing Lifers Group page and more thoroughly clarified the multiple aspects of what the Lifers Group was? KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @KwabenaSlaughter,
 * I think that's an excellent suggestion. I should emphasise that I think a page for Maxwell is possible, but there are a few hurdles to overcome, as our journey here has shown.
 * I think it would be a very helpful and valuable experience for you to elaborate the material about Maxwell on the already existing Lifers Group page, being mindful of the relevant policies and guidelines. I expect it may become self-evident then whether there's sufficient notability for Maxwell to warrant his own page.
 * As a new editor, with no (or little) experience, jumping in and creating a new page from scratch can be daunting and disheartening-- I know from personal experience!
 * Feel free to ping me if you ever have any questions. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jane Stuart-Smith
I didn't create Draft:Jane Stuart-Smith but I came across it and had something to add. Don't the fellowships satisfy WP:PROF, at least now? I think there's more one could add, but I haven't done a deep dive. -- //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Replayful: Yes! As I said in my comment on the draft, "The draft likely passes WP:PROF, however prior to accepting the page, it would help to add some reliable sources that discuss Stuart-Smith's contribution in some detail.I would be happy for you to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere."
 * Your additions look great, and I've added a reference to a Guardian article, which all just help to add some meat on the bone. If you wanted to submit the draft I'd be happy to accept it, please just ping me here so I know. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cabrils I have submitted it now. //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 12:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yay! //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 22:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Yael Hochberg
Hi, thank you for reviewing my first submission a few months ago! I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments. I've just resubmitted my article in the hopes that it adequately addresses your comments.

On the article's talk page, I list my WP:THREE sources and explicitly note that I have no conflict of interest regarding the article's subject. For the article itself, I added a couple more sources (which also fed into my WP:THREE list) and deleted one that no longer properly loaded. I also looked to rewrite certain sections and add additional sentences in the hopes that it no longer reads like a CV, as you previously mentioned. Hopefully I addressed your original concerns, but please let me know if it is not up to Wikipedia's standards, and I can do my best to make additional improvements. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review! Brick1329 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Those amendments are all heading in the right direction, good work.
 * However, the sources you included for WP:THREE are far from impressive, and none are from mainstream media. While Hochberg holds a a named chair appointment as a professor at Rice University (probably considered a major institution of higher education and research), and as such her notability may be assumed as long as it can be "substantiated through reliable sources": WP:NPROF. I would encourage you to look further for at least 2 such articles from mainstream media sources like larger newspapers (eg The Houston Chronicle). If she is truly notable theses shouldn't be difficult to find.
 * Also, I feel the Selected Publications list is too extensive for the page (Wikipedia is not LinkedIn) and would encourage you to limit it to the most representative or most notable 4-6 articles. Cabrils (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Meldrop (band)
Hello, and thank you for reviewing my submission last month. I have resubmitted the article and improved sources and less bias commentary about the band. I have also included my COI in the talk page, as well as the WP:THREE for the articles. I have also linked the criterion from the necessary sections to provide quick reference for yourself. Please let us know if this articles are satisfactory or we require more direct content written the band. Aidangoodman (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Aidan, thanks for the ping.
 * Good work with those amendments and thank you for your COI declaration.
 * Unfortunately, it appears you are not quite understanding the criteria that qualify a draft page to be accepted on Wikipedia, so I would encourage you to read thoroughly all the links I included in my comment on the draft, especially  ‘Your First Article’,  ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and  ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. For example, in your COI declaration (which, incidentally, should be on your User Page, rather than the Draft Talk page), you say you are "ATTEMPTING TO BE AS UNBIAS AS POSSIBLE. I HOPE TO PRESENT AND ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL REPRESENTATION OF OUR BAND AND ITS STORY", however lack of bias and accuracy and truthfulness are not the core criteria for a page, rather it is notability. And the sources you include are not sufficiently reliable to meet any of the standards identified in WP:GNG and WP:NBAND, which are the most relevant criteria.
 * Further, because you have a conflict of interest, the page is required to meet even higher standards.
 * In my view, a page for your band is WP:TOOSOON. I would encourage you to save the draft somewhere safe on your personal computer (because inactive draft pages expire after 3 months), and in time, as your band hopefully garners notability, add reliable sources that evidence that as they appear, at which point the draft may be worth re-submitting.
 * For clarity with other reviewers, I am posting this comment on the Talk page.
 * I wish you and the band success. Cabrils (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Alex Ely
Hi @CabrilsCabrils, you kindly reviewed and edited my article on Peter Barber Architect, which has been published. I’ve written a new one on Alex Ely Architect, would you be able to review this? I’m not making much progress as a writer on Wikipedia as I’m struggling with the coding! Thanks “21012024” @Architect encyclopedia Architect encyclopedia (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for the kind words and ping. I've posted a comment on the draft page which I hope you find helpful. Please do persevere, the page has good potential. Cabrils (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @CabrilsThanks for your feedback on my article. I've taken on board your comments and the piece has had input from other contributors so I believe it now addresses all feedback. Can you advise what happens next and how it gets considered for publication? Thanks Architect encyclopedia (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again. That's good progress.
 * At this point, to move forward, as I suggested in my comment on the draft:
 * 1. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
 * 2. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ARCHITECT criteria #3, because XXXXX").
 * 3. If you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
 * Let me know if you have any more questions. Cabrils (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rao family


A tag has been placed on Rao family requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Alalch E. 21:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:A Woman Who Climbs Trees
I obviously have no connection with this topic. There is a page for Puja Kolluru, who only directed one feature film Martin Luther King (film). I was not sure if she is notable (only directed one film). Maybe she is? But I saw that she directed a documentary and tried to create a draft to see if there are enough sources (which there aren't). We can safely redirect the draft to the director's article or delete the draft.

Main thing I wanted to say is that while creating the draft I thought that Tree Foundation was a recognized website but later realized it is only specific to Margaret D. Lowman. DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping.
 * That you had no connection with the film was not "obvious" to me, so thank you for clarifying.
 * Perhaps its worth adding the gist of the draft to Kolluru's page, after which it may become apparent if the doco is worthy of it's own page? In any event, I stand by my review and don't see the draft currently meeting WP:NFILM. Cabrils (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)