User talk:Chenzw/Archives/Nov 2016

21:55:07, 7 November 2016 review of submission by Artichokeflowers22
Hello! I have added additional references to independent sources (newspaper reviews) to build the case for notability. Similar Mac Apps to Acorn Image Editor include Pixelmator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelmator) and Affinity Photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_Photo) and I have tried to use their pages to guide my first attempt at a wikipedia article. I welcome additional feedback and suggestions.

Artichokeflowers22 (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 11:07:07, 8 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Saran Phonpermpoontawee
I am first creator of The Ko Thap artical. I dont know how to submit my draft then i created new page outside this sandbox. What should i do because Ko Thap its's my artical. You can check it in Ko Thap history.

Saran Phonpermpoontawee (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you have already created your article at Ko Thap, you don't need to do anything. Chenzw    Talk   12:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

your review of Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense
Hi Chenzw, thanks for your review of my first attempt at submitting a new article. Diannaa also commented a couple of weeks ago about copyright issues. Though I have long experience with editing existing articles, clearly I need to pay attention to criteria such as notability and copyright when creating new articles. Live and learn! Thanks too for the tip about the Teahouse; I do in fact have an editing question that I will be taking there. Piperh (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the hints
Hi Chenzw, thank you for the examination of the article submission ("Draft: Harald Specht") A helper and I have edited the draft and we have added new Refs and sources, which can be checked quickly about Internet-Links. One of the sources is the German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Specht), another is German Wikibooks (https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Religionskritik:_jesus .... It is allowed? The refs No. 16 and 17 show Harald Specht as film-maker and film-author (Refs No. 18, 19 and 20 are e.g. Reports in newspaper) and the Refs No. 21 - 23 are book publishing sides to Spechts books. Because I am "wikipedia-novice" I hope to have done it right. (And excuse my very limited English, please.) Thanks again and friendly greetings. Mr.NewjersMr.Newjers (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have gone to take a quick look at the new edits. Firstly, other wikis are not considered reliable sources, so you will have to look for other sources instead of the German Wikipedia/Wikibooks. Refs 21 to 23 provide trivial mention of the author only. We need to see significant coverage (not just a mention) of the person in other sources, in order to establish notability.
 * Please see WP:GNG for more information, and feel free to ask more questions at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Chenzw    Talk   12:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Chezw, Thanks for the help again. I have followed your instructions: I deleted the two Wiki-Links and the 3 bad Refs 21-23 and beyond I have also inserted a detailed study to Spechts "Jesus/Heidentum"-Work with detailed discussion (Spechts work is mentioned ten times in this important text about historical Jesus). To film-maker and film-outhor, I found 3 articles in a large supraregional daily newspaper and an important link to the BOSCH-foundation. Furthermore, there are several links (see reviews and reception)to books by other authors, which are discuss and worth the work by Specht on more than fifty pages (so in: R. Weber: “Denken statt glauben – Wie das Christentum wirklich entstanden ist”, Norderstedt 2015, p 212 ff.). I hope, now you can transfer the article submission? Or? Greetings, NewjersMr.Newjers (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:56:33, 8 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by JenniferBuckleyIA
I am writing in regard to the entry I submitted for Felicia Rice. I have studied my entry and find that: 2. there are 14 independent sources, many published by news organizations, cited. 3. the tone is in line with other Wiki entries.

Please clarify for me exactly why this entry was not accepted.

JenniferBuckleyIA (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Walli draft-page
Hi Chenzw! Ref: Draft:Petri Ilari Walli. There's not much more information about the subject other than the book written by a person who interviewed a lot of people to find out what happened. Petri Walli left no suicide note. I did not use any inline refs for the page numbers. That's a vast task, I'm not sure how to do it, and if the article is not concidered good enough, it doesn't pay. Of course I could shorten the article a lot, but if the whole subject is not significant enough--then I suggest the existing article of Petri Walli should be removed entirely: There's no references at all. And I think an article should not say "There have been numerous rumours and speculation about the reasons of his suicide." Puustinen does not say what the reason/reasons was/were, he just points out what was going on in young man's life before he took his own life. If Petri Walli page gets deleted, then the draft page should go to the same trash pile. El Rayno (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

19:48:30, 9 November 2016 review of submission by Consuelamckenzie
Hi I have submitted the article about recording artist Chezere.

Can you please give me other tips to get it submitted and be specific.

Best, Consuela
 * Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Here are some problematic sentences in your draft; I suggest that you rewrite them so that they sound more balanced:
 * "and just when you think you’ve got her figured out she hits you..."
 * "whilst also being in the good company of a roster of talented..."
 * "Not only did it contain every ounce of her funk, soul and rock, ..."
 * "Lenny Kravitz himself demanded to meet Chezere to let her know that he did not like her music, he loved her music!"
 * "so it came as no surprise when Roy Davis Jr. remixed her single..."
 * Statements should be factual in nature. If opinions or analysis are presented, they should be supported by reliable sources. -- Chenzw   Talk   05:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Joelle Khoury
Thank you Chenzw for your answer.

It's about the article on Joelle Khoury. I just deleted some parts that does not support the notability issue. Otherwise, I think the sources used are completely independent, with notes and links showing very clearly some achievements and events. Including the notability of books and album labels and notable string and philharmonic orchestras who commissioned and performed music from the composer. So thank for telling how to proceed otherwise or what parts to delete for publishing the article.

thank you very much.

Lebmusic (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the hints
Hi Chenzw: To Draft: "Harald Specht". Thanks for the help again. I have followed your instructions (see above): I deleted the two Wiki-Links and the 3 bad Refs (old Refs 21-23) and beyond I have also inserted a detailed study to Spechts works "Jesus..." and "Heidentum..." with detailed discussion (Spechts work is mentioned ten times in this important text about historical Jesus). To film-maker and film-outhor, I found 3 articles in a large supraregional daily newspaper and a link to the BOSCH-foundation. Furthermore, there are several links (see reviews and reception)to books by other authors, which are discuss and worth the work by Specht on more than fifty pages (so in: R. Weber: “Denken statt glauben – Wie das Christentum wirklich entstanden ist”, Norderstedt 2015, p 212 ff.). I hope, now you can transfer the article submission? Or? (By the way: The Wikipedia-Chat or Tea-Room etc. are unfortunately no help for me,... I hardly understand English...) Greetings, NewjersMr.Newjers (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't understand the language of the sources, so I can't really comment on them. If you think that the draft is ready, please feel free to resubmit (the blue button at the top) it, and another reviewer will take a look at it. Chenzw    Talk   13:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you, I will do so.Mr.Newjers (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

01:13:39, 11 November 2016 review of submission by FToast
Why was this article declined? It does have "independent, reliable, published sources" that are required, including CNN, Boston.com and several other news outlets. Thank you for your re-consideration

Notability of Thomas Hanna
My article about [Draft:Thomas_Hanna|Thomas Hanna] lists that an obituary on him was published in a peer reviewed journal. I also cite the "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Body/Mind Disciplines" for information about him. Doesn't the fact that someone is important enough to have an obituary in a peer reviewed journal and an entry in an Encyclopedia suggest that he's notable? ChristianKl (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would suggest that you look at the sourcing of the article again. Were most sources actually talking about SMA and somatics, instead of Thomas Hanna himself (see the concerns brought up by the previous reviewer)? Please also note that the current use of primary sources (especially in the biography section) do not contribute toward proving notability. Chenzw    Talk   02:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The peer reviewed journal article of his obituary (Mower, M., 1990. In Memory of Thomas Hanna. Massage, Nov/Dec 1990, p. 73) is about Thomas Hanna and provides a lot of biographic data. The "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Body/Mind Disciplines" does talk about Thomas Hanna and provides biographical information about him.
 * The fact that I add additional detail like his exact date of death and place by quoting the death certificate might not contribute to proving notability and increase the existence of primary sources but it doesn't change the fact that especially the journal article of his obituary and the entry in the "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Body/Mind Disciplines" show notability.
 * The article is better sourced then it was when the previous reviewer reviewed it. ChristianKl (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

17:49:14, 15 November 2016 review of submission by 50.252.6.193
We would like to know what/how the tone of the article should be changed. To our understanding, all the frills have been taken out and we have left the barebone facts on the page. Any suggestions you can offer on what needs to be changed would be helpful.

22 November 2016 review of submission by MayKacharava
Hi Chenzw,

Thank you for you time. I am new here and to my disappointment my article was declined. Although I tried to write it according to Wikipedia rules. Articles is written from a neutral point of view. The sources used are completely independent. You suggested to add more reliable sources. I did it after reading Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. But I am afraid that I still don't understand why my sources are not reliable. Could you, please, clarify for me what's wrong with them. And perhaps now when I have added one it would be enough.

Please, help!

Best, May

11:47:33, 21 November 2016 review of submission by PriyankaD
Hi Chenzw,

Acording to your suggestions, we have added reliable references in the Rohan Lifescapes draft.

07:18:29, 23 November 2016 review of submission by Jaybee2205
I've made the article more neutral and removed sections where I only had the organization's own website as a source. I still kept the website as a source, but only for facts that I could also verify from an independent source - sometimes there was a few more details on the Vientiane Rescue page, however, so I thought it would also be useful to refer to that. Please let me know what you think.

12:07:50, 25 November 2016 review of submission by PriyankaD
Hi Chenzw,

As per your suggestions, we have added some more reliable references that suits the wikipedia's criteria in the Rohan Lifescapes draft. Request you to please check and provide your feedback on the same.

Hope to hear soon from you on this.

Request on 12:14:35, 30 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 212.140.80.66
Hi, thank you for your review, please can you help me understand what I can do to make my submission acceptable to be approved?

thanks!

Amy 212.140.80.66 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)