User talk:Pichemist/Archive 32

Draft:M'lumbo
I'll be resubmitting this with changes that I hope address your objections -- 3 'citation needed', one of them originally mine.

The 2nd and 3rd are frustrating: these are actual quotes from Baltimore City Paper and The Village Voice! (lol), and at one time I actually saw and held the original publications. Alas, physical traces have flown the coop, and online archives of those pubs are nonexistent and incomplete respectively. I had hoped to scare up citations for each, but haven't succeeded, so I will just remove those two quotes.

The first 'citation needed' [4th paragraph, "As a band and individually"] is a challenge for analogous reasons. Members of M'lumbo have indeed worked for the artists and organizations named. However, in many cases it has been work for hire, some of those cases resulting in compensation but not credits, thus leaving little or no trace in public view.

I replied to your rejection in early January, but I don't see any sign of it so I'll conclude that somehow I flubbed posting it. Here I've been since, awaiting a reply from you. Luckily it's still < 60 day since your review. Twangist (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I accepted it, good work. :) Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Sustainable Healthcare.
Hello - I have submitted a new draft of my page 'sustainable healthcare' and I have tried to address the feedback given by yourself and another editor (as well as being a lot shorter I have changed some bits about). I would appreciate your review again when you have time. Thank you Glasgow87 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice work, looking foward to see more work from you Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 13:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Assessments
Hi there, Pichemist, and thanks for all the interest you take in creating and assessing articles related to Malta. I was surprised to see that when you promoted Nadia Mifsud to article space, you gave it a C rating, despite the fact that there were only 20 words of running text in the body of the article. I realize our multi¨purpose assessment tools often suggest ratings far higher than articles actually deserve, frequently as a result of the lists and references they contain. In this case, taking these into account, the article actually runs to 2574 B. I've now rerated it Stub which should provide an incentive for further expansion. As I take a special interest in the biographies of women, please let me know if ever you think I can be of assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I did indeed use a rater tool to generate a rater and didn't take too much notice in the content of the article. This was a genuine mistake on my part and I'll be on the lookout so it doesn't happen again. Thanks for the heads up. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs &#124; Talk ) 18:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)