User talk:Goldsztajn/Archives/2021/August

Your work on the Peter Jagers draft
I think your work on the Peter Jagers draft deserves more than a click on the "thanks" button. I saw the thread on WT:WPAFC including it in a list of questionable draftifications which then led on to its previous AFC acceptance by to be denounced as It's shocking that such a draft would be accepted and moved into mainspace. I looked at the draft at that time and the acceptance looked OK to me but I'm utterly hamstrung because I have never worked in academia and can't take an informed opinion based on WP:NACADEMIC. It would be tempting to send the article now to AfD to see it being (snow?) accepted but, no, that would be pointy and it would be argued that without the improvements it would have been deleted. I see you are a participant at AFC. Thank you for that. I expect AFC does useful work but whenever I come across it it seems to be doing damage. Many thanks indeed for your work. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for taking the time to leave a generous note. It was a strange statement and I completely agree the original acceptance was perfectly reasonable. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey Thincat, just so happy to receive this! Thank you so much for taking time to write this note. When I saw that comment (coming from much senior editors), I felt bad. But WP:Academic is a difficult criteria and I have even seen sysops nominating academics for AFD and then pages getting kept. I have a consistent track record at AFC and I am very careful what to accept. I just hope everyone learnt something new about WP:Academic and in future we all will have better perspective. Thank you again. See you around. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure where to reply! I thought your AFC accept was absolutely correct, given that you tagged it suitably as well. In general AFC should not be declining drafts when in doubt. If any AFC reviewer disagrees with the academic notability consensus guidelines (or doesn't understand them) they should simply move on and not criticise people doing their best. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - just to echo, I think your acceptance was perfectly correct, there's no doubt Jagers is notable.  It's unfortunate how some chose to express their disagreement with your approval. Try to ignore it and keep doing your work, regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you both of you! This is very encouraging. Big shout out to Goldsztajn taking a stand at the discussion page! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bharan has been accepted
 Bharan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Bharan help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Zoozaz1 talk 17:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Women in Green Editathon
Hello Goldsztajn -- With the goal of helping to progress the WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) women’s rights-themed GA nomination goal for 2021, I’m proposing that WiG hold a special editathon event in the fall (maybe October/November?). I can assist with logistics, but I need to know how much interest/support there might be from WiG participants first. Please let me know what you think in the talk page conversation! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You made some great suggestions on the WiG talk page, and I know you've got more than a decade of Wikipedia experience. Would you be interested/willing to be a co-coordinator of this editathon with me? I've got ideas, and I've got time to put into this, but this event would be a first for me (and for Women in Green). I would really appreciate having another experienced editor to work with (the level of involvement would be totally up to you). Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the invitation! Yes, I would be interested and happy to help as I can. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.  Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yay! I'm very glad to have you on board. :-) I've started drafting an editathon page in my sandbox -- could you take a look and let me know what you think so far? If you have comments/suggestions/corrections (which I hope you will), let's chat on the sandbox's Talk Page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Queen of Rhodesia GA
I've responded to your comments on the Queen of Rhodesia GA, could we proceed with this please?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'll have some time this weekend, hope to have responses to you shortly, regards Goldsztajn (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

West African hunter-gatherers
Thanks for reviewing Draft:West African hunter-gatherers, Goldsztajn. The draft was rejected, based on the following reasoning: "Submission appears to be original research; extensive use of materials from sites which allow self-publishing." The draft is attributable. Much of the draft draws from sources, such as Routledge, Nature, and African Archaeological Review, which apparently are reliable sources. Would you please reconsider your initial reasoning/conclusion about the draft or please further clarify your initial reasoning for rejecting the draft, perhaps, with specific examples? Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, my concerns were two-fold and relate specifically to the Wikipedia guidelines on original research and reliable sourcing (self-published). Some examples of these and other problems:
 * Kevin MacDonald's "Korounkorokalé revisited" is referenced 25 times in the article - that's extensive reliance on the article, but it is sourced to academia.edu which allows self-publications and thus is unreliable. The article may well have been published in a reliable source, but the reliable source must be cited. The same is true of ResearchGate. All self-published materials need to be removed or cited to reliable locations (eg a journal website itself, not a website where a person can upload a work claimed to be a publication).
 * The sourcing in the article is such that is hard to verify statements made. For example, this sentence "The oral history among numerous modern West Africans is that their ancestors were West African Pygmies" is sourced to a 519 page document by FPM van der Kraaij.  That source is used three other times in the text, but there is no way to ascertain the veracity of the claim without extensive work. FWIW a claim like this I would expect to be attributed to a relatively contemporary text, by experienced specialist of anthropology, history or linguistics ... but as a statement from a 40 year old text from a political economist specialising in contemporary West Africa, the credibility is reduced.
 * In the lead there is multiple sourcing but a very preliminary check immediately shows up circumstances where the citation does not match information presented. For example: the statement "Despite their significance in the prehistory of West Africa, the populating of Western Africa by West African hunter-gatherers often goes overlooked.}} is sourced to page 44 of McDonald - but I cannot find on p.44 of McDonald anything that matches the statement in the article. What's somewhat surprising is that on p.44 there is this: "the oral traditions of modern West African agricultural societies often cite their group's replacement of indigenous hunting peoples upon entering their lands." which somewhat contradicts the claim attributed to van der Kraaij, but highlights a larger problem that statements about hunter-gatherers are being used synonymously with Pygmies, whereas there are clearly hunter-gatherers who were not Pygmies.
 * The best way to address the sourcing problems in a work such as this would be to use a short footnote system (ie ) ; this way every claim can be given a specific page reference.
 * I would also note the article is in need of significant copy-editing. For example, this sentence in the lead: "Iwo Eleru fossils of the late Middle Stone Age), who dwelled in Central Africa, to western Central Africa, to West Africa, were displaced by microlith-using Late Stone Age Africans (e.g., non-archaic human admixed Late Stone Age Shum Laka fossils dated between 7000 BP and 3000 BP) as they migrated from Central Africa, to western Central Africa, into West Africa" is typical of much of the text: full of too many different concepts and details that create a very convoluted style.
 * It's important to emphasise that in stating that I consider this to be original research I am not implying that I consider this to lack sourcing or be invented ... the problems are two fold, sourcing does not match claims, and sources are combined to make claims that are not supported. I can perhaps put it this way with a cooking analogy: if eggs, milk and butter make scrambled eggs and yeast, hops and water make beer - both of which are recognised foods - claiming beer and scrambled eggs makes "scrambled beer eggs" would in one sense be true, but it is not a recognised food.
 * Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Goldsztajn, what do you think of the sourcing changes made in the draft? Daniel Power of God (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , apologies, I missed your message, I will look at the draft again, please give me a couple of days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

WiG editathon draft page
Hi -- can you take a look at this WiG editathon page draft this week and let me know what you think? We can discuss on the sandbox's talk page. I'm especially hoping for feedback on rules and instructions. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll be able to have a look before Friday. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Political party GAN
Hi, in case you have pings off but do watch your talk page, I've been trying to get your attention at Talk:Political party/GA1. Thanks! - Astrophobe  (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, acknowledged! Will reply in detail, there. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! And sorry for the burst of notifications -- it just occurred to me after I wrote the other messages that pings might not actually even get through to you! - Astrophobe  (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Merging Trade Union Template Categories?
While looking at Category:Trade union templates I realized it overlaps (or is a subset of) Category:Template-Class organized labour articles with the exception that the latter depends on a talk page existing that transcludes WikiProject Organized Labour, which is reasonable enough though. The one thing I don't love is that the latter category name is long and links to talk pages not the template name. Thoughts? Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the latter category I created in 2020 when I expanded the parameters for the bot that fills the table for the assessments and this was the title necessary for the bot (which is the form for everything eg A-class organized labour articles, B-class etc). The former category I created in 2019 when I realised there was no category for trade union templates. My (mistaken?) thinking was one is for the purposes of navigation from article space, while one is for the purposes of categorisation.  However, I'm not wedded to any particular category name, my only concern would be that the assessment bot continues to work. Happy for advice if there are better ways to do this.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)