User talk:MurielMary/2019 Archive

ITN recognition for Yvette Williams
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials to Amelia Earhart has been nominated for discussion
Category:Monuments and memorials to Amelia Earhart, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Mick Micheyl
Stephen 00:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Relatives in infoboxes
Hi from Sydney, OZ! It seems that relatives are not allowed in the Template:Infobox scientist. Obviously they are allowed in the generic Template:Infobox person, but some of the items specific to Template:Infobox scientist don't work on it. So I'm afraid I can't help except to suggest you ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Someone there may be able to help. Oronsay (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Oronsay, yes that's probably the reason it's not working. Thanks and have a lovely day. MurielMary (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Invite
Please feel free to come to a Wikipedia meeting in Christchurch on Wednesday, 29 May 2019.  Schwede 66  22:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gladys Goodall


A tag has been placed on Gladys Goodall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shringhringshring (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I really apologize foe this, asap i saw that its under Construction i immediately undid the CSD tag Shringhringshring (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Well, thank you very much! I was a bit gutted I couldn't make it in person but still, could get a bit of connection from editing from home. Glad it went well! MurielMary (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK
I nominated an article that you started for DYK here - Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Robinson Foster. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Marisa Merz
Stephen 05:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ruth Gotlieb
 Spencer T• C 21:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Something I Want to Tell You
Hello MurielMary. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Something I Want to Tell You, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: charting in Billboard is a sufficient claim of significance. Thank you. So Why  13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Johnny & the Expressions
Hello MurielMary. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Johnny & the Expressions, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: charting in Billboard is a sufficient claim of significance. Thank you. So Why  13:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving an article from draftspace
Hi, just saw that you have reviewed an article I've made yesterday (Margaux Le Mouël. Thanks for that!

There is an article Draft:Anissa Lahmari I've made more than 3 months ago which got moved to draft space citing lack of sources. However I've added enough sources to it since then.

Is it possible for you to review it and move it from draftspace? Thanks in advance! :) Kokoeist (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Dave Kloc
Hi there! I found numerous new sources on the guy. It would be great if you could check out my five cents here. I really think we should keep him. Just give me the opportunity to edit the article. Cheers, Andek (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
I noticed that you tagged Daan Stern with prod blp for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Questions
If you have a minute could I ask a few questions. I got started years ago working on Wikipedia, but my skills have gotten rusty. I got inspired by a New York Times article about Jessica Wade drafting 700 articles about women scientists. However, I run up against some of the Wiki rules and culture that I am unfamiliar with in the process.

1. For articles on Karen Jackman Ashton and Sahar Qumsiyeh I got Deletion notices requiring more references. I have 5-7 which I thought would be enough to get an article started. Thoughts?

2. It says you reviewed the article Jenny Reeder. How does that process work? What should I be doing so my new articles are more easily accepted? Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullrabb (talk • contribs)


 * Talk page stalker here. The number of sources is irrelevant. You want to have some sources that are reliable and deal with the subject in depth. And don't forget to sign your talk page contributions.  Schwede 66  04:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Fullrabb, sorry for the delayed response. Regarding your question about reviewing articles, when an editor is new and creates a new article it gets tagged for a more experienced editor to review - to have a look and check whether it has enough sources, whether it's written in an encyclopedic style, whether the subject is unique/not repeated in another article, whether it is notable etc etc. If you get a notification that a page you created has been reviewed, then that means another editor has checked it over and thinks it looks ok. If the other editor thinks there are problems with it then you'll get a notification with suggestions to improve the article. Regarding your question about the other two articles, I agree with Schwede's comment - try looking for articles from reliable sources and which describe the subject in detail. You can read more about reliable sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Also make sure the article describes the person's achievements. The article about Ashton for example has a paragraph about a festival, but it doesn't explain how Ashton is connected to that festival or what she did to develop it or work on it etc. All the best with your editing! MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Frustrated Wiki user here. I have seen both articles Karen Jackman Ashton and Sahar Qumsiyeh deleted today after only a couple days or review. What is interesting to me is that only a handful of people weighed in and all were men. If I'm working to make Wikipedia more inclusive of women, why do men get to be the gatekeepers. And their arguments were ridiculous. 'She was only on the board of a community college not a real university'. 'Her storytelling festival isn't a bid deal'. And many of my references for both articles were not related to the LDS Church as they both claimed. Please help me understand. And how might I challenge their decision? Fullrabb (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb


 * You need to stick to the truth. "after only a couple days or review" is simply incorrect as the deletion process runs for seven days, and that was the case here, too. See the links to the deletion discussions: Ashton and Qumsiyeh. As I said above, what matters is that there are reliable sources that deal with subjects in depth. That simply wasn't the case for the people you wrote about. As frustrating as it may be, there's nothing you can do when you pick people who don't meet the notability thresholds. Have a read of Notability (people).  Schwede 66  19:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a wee push
It's time to WP:ARCHIVE; takes too long to scroll even to the bottom of the TOC! :)  Schwede 66  04:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the link and the push, I feel I have springcleaned even though it's a cold wintry night!! MurielMary (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Robinson Foster
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Edith Klemperer
Thank you so much for your help!

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michelle Hannah (September 26)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG 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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michelle Hannah and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Michelle Hannah, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, 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:Michelle_Hannah Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Michelle_Hannah reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!
kia ora MurielMary!

Thanks for approving the Sofia Gurevitsh entry so quickly.

Very interesting discussion here on your User Talk page, especially about deletion of entries.

cheers from Wellington

Tarkiwi25 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kia ora Tarkiwi, I didn't realise that the Gurevitsh article was written by a fellow Kiwi! Nice job! MurielMary (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Anjana Reddy
Dear Madam, Can you please re-check the draft on Anjana Reddy? She is a notable businesswomen in India. Please, have a look at the Google India results. Requesting you to check the draft again please. --Maromanur (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Belle Delphine
I wasn't the one who submitted the draft for another review but I have made a few contributions to the draft. I really don't see how the subject has only had "passing mentions". The references used in the draft clearly show significant coverage from multiple respected sources. Is there a way that we can get some other people to weigh in here, similar to this discussion? Aitch &#38; Aitch Aitch (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, If you'd like another reviewer to look at the article, you can resubmit it and it will appear in the list of newly created articles for reviewers' attention. The discussion you've linked to is a deletion discussion that took place after an article on Delphine was published; currently, the article is an unpublished draft so it's at a different stage - it's still being determined whether the article is ready/suitable for publishing. MurielMary (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you very much, that's very nice to receive! That's great that you are teaching uni students to work with Wikipedia - their writing will certainly reach a wide audience! If you are particularly focused on creating articles on women artists, you might be interested in reading the Women in Red WikiProject pages. This is a group of editors who work to create new articles about notable women. You can find them by searaching "WP:Women in Red" in the Wikipedia search bar. Happy editing! MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Deb_Never
In regard to the article on musical artist Deb Never, I would argue that according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles no. 1 and no. 10, the artist does meet the notability requirements, as she has performed on a notable television show (Jimmy Kimmel Live!), and has been covered in a non-trivial manner (i.e., no advertising, technical details such as contact information or performance dates, or articles in a school or university newspaper) by multiple well-known sources (such as Billboard, Consequence of Sound, and Rolling Stone) that are independent of the artist.

I appreciate your feedback. --HumHumHummus (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 14:17:54, 19 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Liquid Crack
Dear editor, thank you for your feedback. The subject in question is a notable nutritionist in India. She's been a leading nutritionists since 1997 and has decent popularity in India and she's also been pivotal in nutritional guidance to few of the Miss Worlds. May you please help me in what all changes / additions can be done so that this considered for inclusion. Appreciate your guidance, Thank you. Liquid Crack (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi please read the notability criteria at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and then add details to the article that show how she meets these criteria. MurielMary (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Joan Barr
Hi MurielMary! Thanks for reviewing my article about Joan Barr. Yay! I'm so excited that the article got created and now, that other people can collaborate on it to make it stronger. One question; it looks like it has a section at the bottom that says "draft article submitted for review", can that heading or section be removed now that the article is created? I'm not sure how it got there and I don't want to disrupt by removing it if it should be left alone. It just looks a bit goofy :) . Thanks so much for your help! Curdigirl (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, looks like someone else has removed that line as it's not there now. Happy editing! MurielMary (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Theatre of Black Women has been accepted
 Theatre of Black Women, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MurielMary (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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=Theatre_of_Black_Women help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Request for Approval
I need some guidance for my AfC Submission for Draft:Debbie Brooks. You commented on the submission that Debbie Brooks does not appear to meet the threshold for notability of a musician and requested that more information be added.

I believe Debbie Brooks does meet the criteria, specifically two criteria as listed under the Notability (music) criteria for musicians and ensembles. They are criteria #6 and #11, specifically.

Criterion #6
"'Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were 'notable' only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were 'notable' only because those musicians had been in them.)'"

I believe this criterion deserves to be interpreted for the musical genre; specifically that of the Symphony Orchestra.

I propose this criterion can be interpreted for the Symphony Orchestra in two reasonable ways:

====Proposal #1: a true analysis of the independently notable musicians within the ensemble (i.e. the subject is a member of a symphony orchestra which itself contains 2 or more independently notable musicians within it).====

Under Proposal #1, Brooks passes as notable. Brooks performed in the Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra when a least two independently notable musicians were members of the ensemble. Two ready examples are conductors Miguel Harth-Bedoya and John Giordano (conductor). Each of these musicians were notable in their own right independently of the Fort Worthy Symphony while Brooks was a member. Therefore, Brooks meets the notability requirement under this proposal.

Furthermore, it bears arguing that all independently notable musicians who perform as guests with a major symphony should count towards a participating full-time orchestra member's requirement for notability. For example, full-time orchestra members who regularly perform on stage with notable touring musicians like Yo-Yo Ma or Hillary Han could be considered notable under this genre-specific proposal.

If the above is true, one might argue that under this proposal, every full-time musician in a major symphony orchestra meets the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia page by virtue of being a member. To this, I agree. Winning a full time position in a major symphony orchestra is an achievement akin to a Football player winning a starting role for an NFL Football Team.

If one disagrees with this conception, they must be prepared to argue that a musician who plays full-time in a notable symphony orchestra, an ensemble which itself contains independently notable musicians, and which regularly attracts the guest performances of notable musicians, is somehow not notable themselves. Such an argument would seem to me to go directly against Criterion #6 literally and in the spirit of the Criterion.

Proposal #2: Defining subject participation in multiple notable ensembles (like notable orchestras) as satisfying Criterion #6
For example, the notability guidelines give sufficient notability to an opera singer who has performed two or more major roles. For a symphony musician, a similar analogue would be having earned two full-time positions for two major symphony orchestras or similar-level performance ensembles. Additionally, one could define full-time participation in multiple, notable symphonic ensembles as facially satisfying Criterion #6.

Under Proposal #2, Brooks passes as notable. In addition to performing full time with the Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra, Brooks also performed full-time for Casa Mañana, a venue which is notable and attracts national-level theater productions. This is not considering Brooks regular appearances as a substitute for the Dallas Symphony Orchestra.

Under both proposals, it should therefore follow that Brooks is a notable musician, as Brooks satisfies the criteria of performing in an ensemble with two or more independently notable musicians AND as performing for 2 or more independently notable ensembles.

Criterion #11
"'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).'"

In addition to being a performer, Brooks also hires orchestras for the national tours of major artists, which is appropriately cited on Brooks' page.

Having hired several such orchestras for "notable media" such as the national tours of notable artists, this fact should therefore confer notability under Criterion #11.

Conclusion
For the above reasons, I respectfully request that Debbie Brooks article be approved since Brooks meets the notability requirements for a musician under Criteria #6 and #11

Ars Combinatoria (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like a second opinion on this draft, you can re-submit and another editor will review it. MurielMary (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR APPROVING THE ARTICLE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN SCIENCE
Sati010 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - thanks for creating it! MurielMary (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Patricia Villalobos Echeverría
Thanks for reviewing my submission on Patricia Villalobos Echeverría, and for your feedback. I just finished adding the sources you requested to the Recognition section, which I admit I had forgotten to add. I resubmitted the article for review. Would you mind reviewing it again? Thank you! --FoundRock (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--FoundRock (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Request on 15:18:56, 4 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jan de Smet 82
Hi, Could you be so kind to inform me wich part of the article you mean with: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."?

It is the first time I try to create a wikipedia page.

There is not yet a lot of information to be found about the Person i talk about.

How can I improve this article?

thnx!

Jan de Smet 82 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Jan de Smet 82 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Hi there. In the article, every statement must have an in-line citation to the source that the statement came from. So, you need to add citations to all the statements. Hope this helps. MurielMary (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:59:02, 4 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dronningmaudland
Good feedback and thanks to MurielMary for the time and effort taken to review the article. I think there are some details that I might delete as suggested but I am not sure if I should reduce the list of works by Aubrey Hammond to a selection of representative examples. Hammond very quickly vanished from the landscape of theatre history, perhaps due to the fact that he died early during WW2, ans so their is not a lot of published info about him, his biography or his work. I was hoping that extensive information might allow other contributors with multiple start points for further contributions on the subject. I am eager to make the article as good as possibe and so will await any other help you might give before I begin editing it for resubmission. Thanks

caoimhin de bhailis (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there . Well, if you really want to keep the list of works that Hammond contributed to I suggest you create a new page for them, similar to this one: List of plays by Dorothy L. Sayers. It's too much to include them all in the biographical article. You could move that whole list to the talk page of the draft for now, and if you then also remove some of the minor details of the biography and organise it more clearly then it will probably be ready to be published. Then you (or I) can start the "List of ..." page and you can work on that. MurielMary (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MurielMary, I'll do this over the coming weekend. In the mean time I have made this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dronningmaudland#List_of_Works_Wholly_by%2For_Contributed_to_by_Aubrey_Hammond. I'll contact again once I have made resubmission. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dronningmaudland (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Et al. (Q59296680)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Et al. (Q59296680). Since you had some involvement with the Et al. (Q59296680) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:26:12, 6 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Barbabeau
Trying to get this article "Tara Holloway" submitted. I've added a dozen references and made the language factual. I'm not sure how much more I can do, especially when I see other pages with far less credentials that are published already. Very confusing. Any advise would be great, thanks!

Barbabeau (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I see that the draft has been declined. Suggest you ask at the Tea House for advice on editing it, as there are many editors there who are experienced in this type of advice. All the best! MurielMary (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Alona Rodeh -- draft
Dear MurielMary,

I agree with your comments regarding the article about Alona Rodeh. Luckily User:B.Kislev made some important changes and I did some more. This is actually a total revision. I hope that it meets Wikipedia stringent requirements much better now. Looking forward to hearing from you,

Micky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micky.rodeh (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I have commented on the draft again. If you would like another opinion, you can resubmit it for another editor to review. MurielMary (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear MurielMary,

Following your insightful comments, I read again the Wikipedia guidelines re Notability focusing on Creative Professionals. I then did a considerable amount of rework: To add some color to all this, take a look at reference #16 ("The Farewell Kiss of Fire From Water (2016)"). The Tel Aviv municipality was about to knock down an iconic sculpture by Yaacov Agam (actually, a fountain) and the entire square where it is located in order to improve the flow of traffic through a congested junction. Rodeh was commissioned to design and implement a Fairwell artwork to the old square (quite an unusual concept). That's what she did. You see it in the picture. She used road painting materials and techniques to create impressive large scale artwork. Such a project was never done before. It was interesting to see kids walking in the square, following the lines that Rodeh painted and enjoying themselves. They will for sure remember the old square much better than they would otherwise.
 * Regarding Rodeh's body of work the article now references (a) 11 Solo exhibitions in 4 different counties (Austria, Canada, Germany, and Israel), (b) 16 Group exhibitions in four countries (Germany, Israel, Poland, and Slovakia) (c) Awards, including the Israel Young Artist Award by the Israeli Ministry of Culture and Sports. Almost all of these results were achieved in highly competitive situations, thereby winning the respect of her peers.
 * When it comes to originating new concepts, Rodeh's Safe and Sound project exposes the proliferation of Safety Systems materials and techniques (e.g., usage of phosphorous materials for road safety) to culture, fashion, and music. This is an innovative insight that Rodeh developed over the years and is one of the reasons she is invited to present in so many different locations and events (most recently in two different exhibitions in Germany).
 * When it comes to working with others -- this is the way she typically operates: with other visual artists, with musicians, and with theater directors. She balances working alone with group work.

Thank you for helping me improve the article. I hope that I have addressed your concerns. Sorry for being so incomplete in the earlier versions of the article. Please accept my apology.

Thank you, Micky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micky.rodeh (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Mary Crooks Article
Hi there - thank you for accepting my Mary Crooks article! The reason I put a disambiguation in was that another editor had deleted a previous Mary Crooks page referring to a different person, and they had written about themselves. When I asked the editor what I should do they said to include a disambiguation so that the history wouldn't get mixed up. Happy to take your advice, and thank you again! Very neant (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, thank you for creating it! The other article has been deleted now so there's no other Mary Crooks article in Wikipedia and therefore no disambiguation needed. MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

DRAFT Rika Ishige
Hi,

Thank you for taking the time to look over my Rika Ishige Draft.

I don't know if I understand your comment. I did not list Rika as a mixed martial artist. I said she is a Thai martial artist. So what does that have to do with mixed martial arts requirements?

Do I have to removed the heading that lists her mixed martial arts record and just put "martial arts" record?

What do I have to do to fix this?

Best,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWolcott (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi John - the second line of the draft calls Ishige a mixed martial artist, so that is why I referred to the notability criteria for a mixed martial artist in my comment. Is she a mixed martial artist? How does the media or other organisations describe her? MurielMary (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DRAFT Rika Ishige
Hi,

Thank you for your reply. I wrote that as "considered Thailand first female mixed martial artist" because that's what the article I cited said.

But I can remove that to stay within the guidelines. I understand.

I will remove and resubmit.

Thanks,

John

JohnWolcott (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Lucy Guo
Hey, MurielMary. Thank you for your prompt review of the article I wrote. I am curious as to why you feel the news coverage is insubstantial. There are eight articles in which she is featured and nine additional articles that talk about work that she has produced. Please let me know what you are seeking.

--Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Maanvi Gagroo
Hi MurielMary, thanks for reviewing my Article. I feel that you were a bit harsh on me ! I have updated the article. Please consider reviewing it once again. Also, I would like to state that I have provided 20 references in the article and you find that the person is not worthy to have a Wikipedia page. But Naveen Kasthuria does not have a single reference, and yet it does have a Wiki page ! Thanks, Anandtr2006 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability
I'm curious why you approved Greta Morkytė and Viktoria Vasilieva. According to Wiki's criteria for figure skating at WP:NSKATE, neither skater is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Morkyte's only accomplishment is winning the Lithuanian national title but Lithuania has never qualified for the Olympics in ladies' singles so a Lithuanian ladies' national title does not meet criteria #3. Vasilieva is a junior-level skater. Juniors are only notable if they have competed in the final segment at the World Junior Championships but Russia has never selected her for that event. Hergilei (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bhavesh Kumar
Sir, i'll add the notable work on Bollywood actor Bhavesh Kumar, Please and review and help to move in main article. Thank you Listvl255 19:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir! :)  Schwede 66  05:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What Happen Sir, Thanks for your Smile Schwede  Listvl255 15:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are trying to communicate with a madam, hence my amusement.  Schwede 66  18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hiltrud Werner
Hi MurielMary, Thanks so much for your initial review and feedback on my draft for Hiltrud Werner. After a bit of feedback from a couple of editors from WikiProject Women in Red, I've updated the draft (and another editor also made some changes to the article's lead), and I wondered if you might take another look? If not, I can try resubmitting, but wanted to check back with you since you'd taken the time to provide some helpful feedback. I know you get a lot of notes here asking for you to go back and look at declined drafts again, so I understand if you're not able to! (Noting for disclosure: I have submitted this draft on behalf of VW via Finsbury as part of my work with Beutler Ink.) Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 11:34:29, 7 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dronningmaudland
I submitted an articel for consideration on the illustrator Aubrey Hammond. It was not accepted and correctly so. I re-wrote the article and re-submitted. It was deemed to long by another reviewer so I edited it down and submitted again. Since then I have had no contact from anybody. I think it is ready to go, it comprehensive, well referenced and leaves room for additional contributions. What happens now.

caoimhin de bhailis (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Request on 22:30:11, 22 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mcshicks
Clarification on feedback from reviewed article

Thank you for reviewing my article. While I appreciate the feedback, its seem rather generic and boilerplate to me. Can you point out anything specifically about the sources and references I used and why don't meet the requirements for notability? I have no intention of resubmitting at this point, but I just wanted to let you know, if you read my article, I can't actually tell that you did.

Thank you for the additional feedback. Regarding notability, in the world of Zen the notability is in the fact she was a dharma successor of a very important teacher. That's why it's called out in all of those references that I supplied. However if you don't agree with this assessment it is subjective, and as I mentioned before I have no intention of resubmitting. Mcshicks (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Mcshicks (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article. I'm still getting used to the talk responses so I hope I do this ok. Your feedback was very helpful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jo_Cameron_Brown

Thanks pcmcreative (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

My draft
Hello! Thank you for reviewing my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lina_Khoury I have edited it and deleted the about plays section. I have summarized them and added a small paragraph in (career section). Should it be accepted now? And after it is accepted should I publish it online or it will be published automatically? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manar Wehbe (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Lillian Shalom
You declined it as not satisfying notability and as an autobiography. Another account has submitted the identical draft. As you presumably know, this sort of sockpuppetry is annoyingly common at Articles for Creation, but usually easy to spot. Thank you for working on AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Female darts players
Hello, you seem to fail to comprehend that female darts players are distinguished as such because they compete in FEMALE darts competitions. You are detroying the wikipedia entries of many of our most respected female darts players and we do not wish to lose the historical significance of female dart players because the language does not appease your own political agenda, you have nothing to do with womens darts so please butt out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C14:8800:488D:6BE8:9028:9C04 (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

New NZ Editor
Kia ora MurielMary, Thanks for looking at my articles. And yes I have been enjoying editing on Wikipedia. Pakoire (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ludwika Ogorzelec
Uncited lists in this draft is not a good reason to decline here. If you think the biography meets inclusion standards, you can boldly remove this material yourself or accept the draft unchanged and trust that other editors will make these improvements. Accepted articles don't need to be perfect. ~Kvng (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to User:Kvng: I didn't decline the draft, I left a comment and invited the creator to discuss/consider it. I think it's important to take opportunities, where possible, to encourage new editors to think about their draft and what they want to have in it, and let them have a voice in deciding what the published article will include, rather than always having the reviewer change things around and publish it on their behalf. MurielMary (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tanks for the clarification. Maybe consider making it more clear that these are helpful improvement suggestions but aren't required for the draft to be accepted. ~Kvng (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Suzanne_DeCuir
Thank you for your comments on the Suzanne DeCuir entry. Can you please give some direction on submission guidelines? As I read them, it appears that work held in a notable collection is needed if third-party sources are lacking. In this case there are a number of third-party sources listed. I did add information about Suzanne DeCuir's current gallery.

Thank you,

Patrick Moody2762 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Patrick Moody
 * Hi Patrick, the criteria that apply here are listed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals I don't think DeCuir meets these criteria. If you'd like another editor's opinion then you can resubmit the draft and someone else will look at it. MurielMary (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your review of Mai Chisamba's article, happy holidays and wish you a great new year.CheersGeorgiamarlins (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 02:29:35, 30 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Deebers K
Hi there, I am a personal friend of the Norwegian television personality Linda Eide. She gave me the personal information to write regarding her education. There are no external references I can use. How do I reference her as the source? She likes all I have written much more than the Norwegian Wikipedia article which she had no input with. Deebers K (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your efforts in moving and enhancing the Agnes Forbes Blackadder draft article. I have been waiting for this moment, and it's the perfect gift for the new year :)  Hello MurielMary, Abd Alsattar Ardati has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Abd Alsattar Ardati (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft of article on Ludwika Ogorzelec
Hi, I appreciate your critical feedback on my article about the sculptor Ludwika Ogorzelec. I followed your recommendation and removed the Major Works and Major Exhibition sections. These sections can be added back in later on with proper sourcing. I hope that with this change the article can now be published. Thanks for your prompt decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarin54 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Fanny Bias - Thanks
Thank you for your help in editing this article, which I created as a draft yesterday. I merely translated the French, as it was red at the disambiguation page Bias (disambiguation), so did not want to spend too much time on it but rather have a stub that could be grown later. I could perhaps have done more research to assert if she was exclusively a ballet dancer (I've just categorized her a a general dancer at the moment and not put her as, e.g., Category:French ballerinas), but I think that kind of detail is more easily discussed once an article is in main namespace and thus visible to other editors.

Thanks once again. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 08:32:09, 31 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by D at Trendera
Hi MurielMary. You recently declined this article submission due to lack of notability based on lack of significant coverage. I would like you to reconsider this, since Lilia Buckingham passes WP:NACTOR#1, having "had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows," namely, Chicken Girls, Total Eclipse (web series), Zoe Valentine and Crown Lake. Thank you! D at Trendera (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

D at Trendera (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Need some help
Hello mr.muriel I recently published an article that you had reviewed it. Well I wrote another article and I need your help so I'm asking you if you have some time to check my new article please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldi_Brothers Thank you. Hidar.ayube (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I missed up with adding references
Hello Mr.Muriel recently I wrote an article but I am confused about whether or not the article is acceptable so I wrote it in my Draft and I submitted it for review and it is still under review, but while I am editing the sources I missed up a little so I need your help if you have some time to check please. Another thing I am also confused about the article category although the article is notable and have a good sources. Thank you for your time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hakaniyat Hidar.ayube (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)