User talk:Pichemist/Archive 20

Review of Draft:Yolonda L. Colson
Hi Pichemist,

You declined this page for lack of inline citatations. It appears that nearly every sentence or entry in a list has at least one, and sometimes more than one footnote-ref. Could you clarify what more is needed here? DMacks (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it entirely as inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted your  decline at Draft:John Coate for the same reason. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, in my opinion all the reversions were borderline. I must admit that I'm far from perfect and I make mistakes. I'm sure to learn from these reversions so I appreciate your help. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pichemist, I genuinely am concerned you don't understand. In the two pages in question, nearly every sentence had an inline citaiton. The question that DMacks and I are asking is, why did you decline with that reason? Primefac (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because, as you just said, nearly every sentence had an inline citation. Am I wrong in assuming that all non-trivial claims require citations? Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 11:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may add my five pennyworth, we go, broadly, by this approach:
 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * We may also choose to look at specific "line of work" notability such as WP:ACADEMIC.
 * Now, when you ask I am confused, principally because I see a wealth of citations in the article. There are sufficient to allow it to proceed. To put it another way, the small areas of lack are mainspace correctable, as are the other issues.
 * The other issues include WP:CITEKILL and WP:External Links.
 * I am considering the version of the draft you declined.
 * Please can we take a pace back. You are showing a willingness to learn, which is a great personal attribute. How may we help you with your learning? I have some ideas, so, if you take the next step and ask me I am very happy to help you. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the willingness to help me learn and I'd like to make use of it as possible. In hindsight I do agree that the article should have been approved. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 12:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I came across as overly combative; I was simply trying to get my point across and I might have laid it on a little heavy. Your concern was reasonable, if a little overzealous on the "every statement" part ;-) Primefac (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In all honesty the only reason apart from me still learning for me to be so skeptical when it comes to accepting drafts would be because seeing the leaderboard for the current AfC backlog drive made me think that I was being too trigger happy since I believe I was the person with the highest accept to decline ratio out of all the other participants. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 09:50, 5 Janute:Afc talk-->