User talk:MsGuineapig

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ian Hoskins (May 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Marshelec was:

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:Ian Hoskins 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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Ian_Hoskins Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marshelec&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ian_Hoskins reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Marshelec (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Ian Hoskins draft
I saw you asking on IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help and took a look at your draft. While I think you did remove some promotional language in response to that first review, there are things like "award-winning" remaining.

One big problem, as I see it, is overciting. Usually one footnote is sufficient, sometimes two are needed. But any time you have 3 or more, it likely indicates a problem. Adding extra cites simply increases the burden on reviewers.

You uploaded the photo as your "own work", which is plausible if you had met Hoskins and took a photo - but it raises the question of whether you have a connection with him that could represent a conflict of interest that should be disclosed. It's also possible you obtained the photo from somewhere else and mistakenly claimed it as "own work" to get past the intake filters.

When I follow the links to Jodi Frawley's article and thesis, I don't see anything that says "In 1996 Hoskins was awarded his PHD" - In her thesis I can see where she cites Hoskins' thesis and I have to assume she also cites it in the Environment and History article. These might be considered indirect evidence of him being awarded a PhD, but that starts to be synthesis rather than a proper Wikipedia citation. If all you wanted to do was point to a reference to the thesis - which does not appear to be available as an online document, you could go to the uni's website and pick up a bibliographical URL

[BTW: the URL for Frawley's thesis misspells the title; you could have corrected it and filled in the rest of the rest of the bibliographical information for the citation.]

Whether you are trying for normal (GNG) notability or academic (NACADEMICS) notability, referring to the author's works themselves or interviews does not help for notability. Leave such citations for later, perhaps, after you have an accepted article. By reducing the burden on reviewers, these (provisional) omissions could speed up the review process.

I realize that you're probably growing impatient with the unconscionably long review process, but perhaps these comments will give you a handle on some things to work on while waiting for that review.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out. As you can probably tell I'm new to this and didn't realise quite how finicky it was, I didn't know award-winning would be seen as a promotional descriptor. I agree I should clean up some of the citations, I guess less is more?
 * When you say it's not helping to refer to the author's works, does that mean you think I shouldn't name his books at all or just remove any further info about them (eg. their awards, subject matter etc) MsGuineapig (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant that the works themselves cannot help establish notability. Reviews of the works will mostly tend to help notability for the works, but unless the reviews contain biographical information about Hoskins, they do not help establish notability for him.
 * Academic notability is a more difficult topic for me, since I find myself routinely overruled when I try to make judgments based on my reading of those criteria. For instance, having a scholarly work present in a number of libraries (as evidenced by, say, Worldcat), is apparently one way to show the author's academic notability. So you could try to pursue that path, but my advice on that front can't be worth much.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 13:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Congrats, it looks like what you did was sufficient to get accepted. More work to do, though. What was the explanation for the photo?  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ian Hoskins has been accepted
 Ian Hoskins, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Ian_Hoskins 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! Marshelec (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have accepted this article, and hope that you will be able to do some further work on it. I have added a couple of "citation needed" templates for facts that should be supported by a citation. Also, the article would still benefit from citations of a source that tells the reader a bit more about Ian Hoskins, other than about his published works. The cited sources provide some coverage of him as a person, but it is marginal in terms of expectations for bio articles. Please do what you can to find and cite some additional sources that provide some significant coverage about him, more than the mention of his name. I also added an external link to the video interview about his book about Rivers.

On another point, if you have a connection with Ian Hoskins, please acknowledge this to provide transparency. The right way to do this is to add a message to the talk page. The easiest is probably for you to reply to this message, and then I can add the template. Here is an example of where I have acknowledged a connection using that template, in a draft bio article that I am preparing. See: Draft_talk:Simon_Keller. If you have any queries, don't hesitate to get back to me.

Marshelec (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)