User talk:Lateantiquelover01

Your submission at Articles for creation: Justa and Grata, daughters of Valentinian I (January 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Blaze Wolf were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Justa and Grata, daughters of Valentinian I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Justa_and_Grata,_daughters_of_Valentinian_I Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaze_Wolf&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Justa_and_Grata,_daughters_of_Valentinian_I reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Blaze Wolf thanks for looking over the article and offering feedback. I was hoping to talk about some of the feedback and see exactly where I've gone wring because I'm not entirely sure. I hope this doesn't come off as rude as I'm just trying to understand your feedback and I defer to your experience in writing articles for wikipedia. At the end of the day this article isn't the most important thing in the world so if you think it isn't worth posting I'm fine with that.
 * This is my first time writing/editing a wikipedia page. I am actually a (unpublished) researcher in the field of late antiquity at the moment and I wrote this piece because I noticed these two figures didn't previously have a wikipedia page, even though we do have a tiny bit of information about them. Writing this article was mostly an quick experimental excercise for me to do during my free time as I waited for feedback on something else I had written, and so I fully understand that I may not be following the rules correctly.
 * I tried to stick to the facts alone and not mention any pet theories I may have, though in retrospect I can see the discussion on Justa and Grata's date of birth could be seen as my own original material, as it was just something I noticed from reading the sources and isn't cited in a secondary source. I have not cited any of my own work, none of which has been published anyway. I'm not looking for credit or anything with this article, I just thought it was an interesting rabbit-hole during my own research that doesn't have it's own article.
 * I also tried to keep the style similar to the articles for the rest of the Valentinian dynasty (primarily with reference to the Valentinian I, Justina , Galla and Valentinian II articles), but I can see that I have done something wrong. However I'm not entirely sure what can specifically be done to improve the article, which it obviously does need.
 * I have two main questions:
 * 1. You mention a different definition of primary sources for wikipedia, but this doesn't seem to line up with the other articles for the dynasty I linked to above, which also cite primary sources in the historical sense. Would all the sources I use count as secondary sources in this case, and since we are talking about ancient figures what does constitute a primary source in wikipedia terms?
 * 2. In the case of Justa and Grata there is next to no information on them other than what I outlined. As it stands I referenced nearly every reputable academic or ancient source I know of. I can think of one or two more articles/mentions in larger books but that is about it. Does this mean the topic is unsuitable for wikipedia, and should wait for something more concrete to be published or have I just gone about referencing incorrectly?
 * At the end of the day if this article isn't suitable for wikipedia I may try and write something more official to see if I can get it published (just because I think it's an interesting topic), but I defer to your judgement about it's suitability on wikipedia.
 * Thanks again for your time. Lateantiquelover01 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello anitquelover! Thanks for your comment (and also breaking it up into multiple paragraphs which makes it easier for me to read). The answer to your first question is that yes they would all count as secondary sources. I"m not sure if there would be any sources that would count as primary sources in this case. The answer to your second question is that you are most likely correct in that the subject may be unsuitable for Wikipedia, though I'm not well experienced in this subject area so I could be wrong. Thanks for not trying to insist that your subject is definitely notable enough for an article and understanding that it might not be. I'm glad you think it's an interesting topic. You might be able to find other articles that would be interesting to you by going down various rabbit holes on Wikipedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading the definition of primary sources, it appears I was incorrect and mixed up primary sources with self-published sources which are similar but not the same. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for getting back to me Blaze Wolf.
 * I think for the time being I will remove this draft (sometime in the next 24 hours) and try my luck in writing something more detailed elsewhere, where I can also put in my little pet-theories. And don't worry, if I do end up getting something published I won't break wikipedia rules and start self-citing for this.
 * Thanks for talking this over with me. If I decide to edit/write on wikipedia again I'll definitely take on board some of your advice.
 * Good luck with all your endeavours! Lateantiquelover01 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! Glad I could help you! I can request your draft be speedy deleted if that's what you want. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've already gone ahead and submitted for speedy deletion on my end but if it's done wrong feel free to correct it!
 * Thanks again! Lateantiquelover01 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)