User talk:Johannes Maximilian/Archives 2023/November

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Johannes Maximilian:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Bobby Floyd (Jazz Musician)
See Bobby Floyd. Sorry I didn't redirect it. Mach61 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Curses! (TV series)
Johanne i added some new reliable sources that you may see the proof that all the sources are there so Curses! Can be seen by anyone who wants to know what date the show started and who are the characters and cast. 72.69.238.8 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay I Approved this page Ppaul2405 (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft: 1 March Memorandum
Hi;

You have said that the draft is very poor in terms of tone and style. I'd like to ask the question "What makes it very poor and what is expected to make it richer?"

The subject is not a very long and detailed one. If I had written more and more details about the outcomes and the war, it would have been an article about the Iraq War, not about the 1 March Memorandum itself. Instead, I tried to focus on the why the memorandum was held and what were the main arguments. I gave both sides' point of views and gave the exact references. Yet, if there are sguggestions to make the subject richer and the tone more convenient, I'd be loving to apply them.

Secondly, you have said that some parts are literal machine translations. Except the part where 92nd article of Turkish Constitution is translated, which is regarding the subject, there is no machine translations. Even in direct quotations, I have made the translations to give the exact meaning like in the pat of speech from Önder Sav. But again, if there are suggestions, I will of course apply them and revise the draft accordingly.

I hope you give a more clear feedback this time. As it is mentioned above, the subject is a particular voting in Turkish Council, so it is not a very broad one. I wanted to focus on the subject mostly. I will revise not only the draft but also my writing style in the light of your contributions. Thanks for your helps.

-B B0RI$00 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:HeartMath Institute
Thanks for the review. As I previously mentioned in the article talk page, these references to predatory journals are intentional since HeartMath's fringe parapsychology and energy medicine research is mostly published in predatory open access journals and non-peer review journals, and it makes sense to cite them specifically when talking about their contents. I never cite such a source when making a statement of fact, only when talking about the source itself or the fringe claim made in the source. As mentioned in WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, these sources can be used when talking about themselves as long as they are appropriately contextualized with reliable sources, which I have attempted to do.

Writing an article about pseudoscience can be difficult. I would appreciate it if you would re-evaluate this submission unless you've noticed a citation that deviates from what I described above, which I believe is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Chase Kanipe (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Brander Group
Hi Johannes,

On this one: Draft:Brander Group, want to clarify on this note:

"This draft cites interviews, company profiles and award pages which aren't deemed proper sources on Wikipedia."

There are a couple on there that are company pages, that I will remove.

On interviews, this page : Interviews it seems to day that they can be used for biographical info:

"It is okay to use interviews to source some facts. Interviews may sometimes be the best or clearest sources, especially for biographical or personal information.  You will often need to treat them as primary sources"

On the awards one, many of these awards are given by well-known, reputable publications, such as Financial Times, Fortune (magazine), Inc. (magazine), and the awards or mentions are part of their editorial. Are these ones also an issue?

Samnyasa (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Citation in other languages
Hi, I noticed your comment on Draft:Artmajeur about the referencing. You've got good instincts but this is a direct translation of the fr-wiki article and was properly attributed in the initial edit summary. References really do look like that on fr-wiki! -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I think that the draft had too many referencing errors to be accepted into the mainspace, and that the citations weren't good enough. A first look at this on the phone without an option to deep-check the references still suggests to me that this hasn't been fixed. Please do me a favour and ignore what's present on other wikis – you never know the background and it's always good to have a look at the rereferences yourself. There is a good chance that some Wiki allows a certain source that's not allowed or that doesn't count towards notability here on enwp. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do ignore it, inasmuch as I don't take it on faith. What I'm trying to explain here is that your comment, The citations are not indicative of a proper citation style required on Wikipedia, is not correct. -- asilvering (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello asilvering, thank you for your explanation! Wikipedia's referencing content guideline states that "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space". Now, I interpret this as proper citations are required to meet the requirements of WP:V, i.e., unless an article has good inline citations, WP:V is not met. Thus, a proper citation style is required on Wikipedia. And hey, I'd say that Artmajeur is a good example of why this makes sense: If correct author information would have been present in the first place, it would have been immediately obvious that the draft heavily relied on self-referencing. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's definitely not the case! Even Good Articles don't require full metadata. Bare URLs alone still fulfil WP:V in principle, though there are lots of good reasons to at least run refill or some other bot to expand those that aren't just WP:V issues. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Diversity charter
Johannes Maximilian thank you for reviewing my submission Draft:Diversity charter! I appreciate your feedback regarding the need for multiple published sources. After re-evaluating the article, I understand your perspective. I have added more citations and references to enhance the credibility and reliability of the content.

I hope the revisions address your concerns, and I kindly request you to review the article once more. It's a pitty that this article is absent from Wikipedia, especially considering its popularity to employees day by day. I look forward to resubmitting it if it meets the required standards. Thank you for your time and guidance! Anna S. SaundersAnna (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)