User talk:Johannes Maximilian/Archives 2024/February

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Craske
Dear Johannes - I have resubmitted my page about John Craske today. I hope you will have time to consider the page I have now created, following your advice. I have found sources for just about everything and the whole page is now very factual. A lot of material is held in the Britten-Pears archive. I hope that you can approve the rewritten page. Thank you CarolynCo (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahmad b
Dear Johannes, I have read and addressed all previous comments here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmad_Bazzi. Please check as your feedback is highly appreciated Randomreader162 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Toyota C transmission
We need your help, this article is the only reference on the internet left. There are no references, as there are no longer sources for this information. The forums are all gone relating to this. Toyota has removed all refences from their websites. There are no primary sources left. This article is the only reference and can only be contributed to if it is a live page. So I request that this is allowed to be re-instated while two of us scrape together the only information we have left. We desperately want to keep the right to repair alive for this transmission. Please help us. Scumspeedy (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Toyota_C_transmission&fbclid=IwAR1Ek31L5vqaAklbqZ-xVJNX8HK0-VDzfA1fXiMx_d-e5MGPP3X1zKrSRMw Scumspeedy (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e., it describes what reliable sources consider noteworthy and what thus qualifies as established knowledge. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote the right of repair. See, the more gearbox options you add, the better the sources need to be, i.e., you need even more comprehensive sources. If you want to describe a right-to-repair issue with this gearbox, you need a source that criticises a right-to-repair problem, and so on, and so forth. I am no divination expert, but I reckon that, being a technical automotive device, a gearbox is discussed in scientific literature or papers, those that focus on technical aspects (e.g. number of gears, number of shafts, gear spacing, gear ratio, gearbox mass, input/output torque, etc.). Being a Japanese car gearbox, I suspect something in the realm of 20 or 30 kpm. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Review article on Michael Beil
Hi Johannes,

I read that you reviewed and rejected my article on Michael Beil. I don't understand what is the problem exactly, could you please give me examples of parts of the article that are not properly referenced or supported? (For now, I just added my more "general" sources to all the main titles instead of just having them in the references list) Thank you. RDiependaele (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Johannes,
 * Thank you for the feedback. I'm afraid I don't totally agree with your objections. I'll try to go into your main remarks:
 * Footnote 1 refers to one of the major international musicological encyclopediae, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. This is quite clear, I think. When referring to encyclopedia entries, there's no specific author to mention, nor is there a specific publication date since it has been a continuously updated online encyclopedia since almost 10 years. In addition: the fact itself that Michael Beil is included in this dictionary is proof of his notability. (Alongside, of course, the fact that he is a composition professor at a major Hochschule and that he has won the Deutscher Musikautor*innen-Preis from GEMA.)
 * Footnote 2: I've made this one more specific to MB's biography + added footnote 5 to refer to the overview of all his compositions. (I can't help it that this is on the actual homepage)
 * I could try to find a better place to include the footnotes, but I thought it best to indicate that the entire section leans primarily on the combination of those two sources by linking them to the section title. What alternative would you suggest?
 * Footnote 6 (was 5): This is indeed an interview and it is a source since I'm quoting from it ;) It is indeed a primary source, but it is used to support/illustrate the secondary sources I used.
 * Footnote 8 (was 7): I tried to fix this.
 * Footnotes 9-11 + 13: these are indeed program notes. They are written by musicologists and, in general, in musicology, program notes are often an important source, so I don't see why they couldn't be in this context.
 * Footnote 12 does not contain pages because I'm relying on the book as a whole (it's not a very long one).
 * I hope these clarifications take away your main concerns regarding publication. RDiependaele (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I still don't see any improvement in the draft… --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, have you really read my clarifications and questions? I'd be happy to talk to someone else, if you don't have the time to react. Maybe someone who's more into the subject? I don't think we really understand one another here. RDiependaele (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear:
 * You must improve your citations. E.g., 2. ^ "Michael Beil" is not a proper citation. See WP:CITEHOW for help.
 * After you have fixed your citations you will figure that, in the draft's current version, ≥6/13 footnotes refer to sources that were either composed/authored by the subject, or the draft's submitter (i.e., you). This is neither independent, nor reliable sourcing, and thus needs fixing. If we were talking a single source, I wouldn't complain. However, even if we turn a blind eye to the overall citation quality, we are still far away from what would be allowed per WP:SPS.
 * I know what the sources you are trying to cite say, what they mean, and what they are. You wrote "When referring to encyclopedia entries, there's no specific author to mention, nor is there a specific publication date since it has been a continuously updated online encyclopedia since almost 10 years" – well, this becomes painful to read when the encyclopaedia entry has an author, and a publication date, and when it could be – and I reckon it certainly is – indicative of the subject's notability. Consider that most AfC reviewers aren't German speakers whom you should not expetect to immediately comprehend the source; just because I do it doesn't mean that everyone else does. The poor citation style does not help this.
 * Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Johannes,
 * Thank you for the clarifications, they were quite helpful. As a first-time author of a new article it's not easy to find all the relevant information about e.g. the citation requirements.
 * - I have worked on the footnotes following your recommendations. I hope the referencing is better now.
 * - I've moved the footnotes from the section headers to the text. Except for the list of works, were I don't see another solution. I did notice, however, that lists of works aren't always referenced on other pages, so maybe that's not a problem? What would you suggest?
 * - Do we need further support of Michael Beils notability? I've looked up some articles on composers that have a similar profile for comparison, but I didn't see any more proof of notability than e.g. the MGG article (rather on the contrary, actually).
 * - About the program notes: you seem to suggest that they are self-published sources and therefore unfit for this article. I want to stress that those text are not self-published, in the sense that, although I did write some of them (not all - one is by someone else), I did NOT publish them. Those are program notes that were requested by concert venues and that I wrote in my capacity of an expert in the field of contemporary music. I do so on a more or less regular basis - you know who I am, you can google me if you want to :) I do realize that such sources shouldn't be used as the sole backbone of an article or article section, so I used them to elaborate a bit on certain aspects of the composer's work that are described only in a very condensed way in e.g. the MGG article. I hope the way I integrated the footnotes in the text make that clear. My main concern here is making the article more understandable, concrete and useful. Does that work for you?
 * Thanks for letting me know where we stand now. RDiependaele (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Nickelodeon and LGBT representation
After I saw that you declined my draft submission, I decided to create a source assessment table for it and go over all the 75+ sources myself so as to hopefully make things much less burdensome. If that is something I should've done beforehand, then I apologize for not having done so. You are correct in that a lot of the sources cited may or would be inadequate as they are either primary or self-published, including social media posts. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about verifying a hard-copy article
Hi Johannes,

You recently declined this page:

Draft:Operation Re-Information

Some of the content in this article comes from easily verifiable online articles like Wired Magazine and Conde Nast. But it's also true that a lot of details come from a hard-copy feature article in from a weekly city newspaper article that is a few decades old. This article does not exist online. Is it possible to scan and upload this article somewhere so the content can be verified?

Also, does it help that Operation Re-Information is already mentioned in another Wikipedia article?

Product for Mass Consumption

Thank you for any information you may give. Stardust-nugget (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, the problem is the frequent use of discogs as a source. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johannes. So, would removing Discog references be helpful? Also, if I resubmit will it be you looking at it again or could it be any Wikipedia editor that makes the next editorial decision? I'm afraid to resubmit and have the article deleted because I didn't make the right reference changes. Thanks again. Stardust-nugget (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Kristof Santy
Hi Johannes, You declined the article with the remarks: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." I made a complete rewriting. Is it acceptable this way ? Please take note I am native dutch speaking. Perhaps the article should be adapted in native english.Lacuna Leemte (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Johannes, I followed your latest recommendations. If you think the "quotes" of Bella Bonner-Evans and/or Bogojev have to be deleted, no problem, although they give a perfect summary for the artist's sudden fame.12:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)~ Lacuna Leemte (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)