User talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2022/February

Anshuman Tiwari
Dear Sir,

Anshuman Tiwari is a Journalist. Their second page is being made because the journalist is not written behind their names. If you write a journalist behind their name, then there will be no need to make their second page.

Example: Anshuman Tiwari (journalist)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anshuman_Tiwari_(journalist) फ़िज़ा3 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't usually write the profession behind their name unless we need to distinguish between them and another person with the same name who isn't a journalist. See WP:QUALIFIER. If you want to be able to link to Anshuman Tiwari via Anshuman Tiwari (journalist), you can make a WP:REDIRECT. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:The Noname
The Noname page :  Discogs is a user-generated source and almost never considered reliable. If it cites its sources, consider using those instead. Rusalkii (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rusalkii i'm changed all discogs links, and add some links more. improve it some words. please help me cheak it all. thanks lot!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kids2004 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * IMDb and Douban aren't great sources either, they have the same problem. Rusalkii  (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rusalkii just update all links, please he;p cheak it. thanks！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kids2004 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That looks better on the sourcing front, thank you! I'll leave the review for notability to another reviewer. Rusalkii  (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

REQUEST: Follow Up
Rusalkii! Thank you for reviewing my submission at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anthony_R._Hale

I made the changes that you recommended (which were great) and wanted to gauge your thoughts. I added multiple sources and hope it can meet your threshold for acceptance.

Much appreciated -- all the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkrjaj2021 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to do a full careful review right now, but just eyeballing it that looks borderline at best, though significantly better than it was. Those look like a couple local newspaper articles reporting on one event (his appointment), which is better than nothing but not great for demonstrating significant coverage which we look for by the notability guideline. Are there articles about other events in his life or less local newspapers? If not, you can submit as is and wait for a full review, but I would give it a pretty low chance of being accepted. Rusalkii  (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Double standards?
I seem to be finding double standards as my HR4000 article seems to have more information about it than some of the existing articles for other rolling stock models. Subscribe to me (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The current version of the article is much better than the one I declined. I think it stands a pretty good chance of being accepted, though I don't know a lot about the standards for train cars and will leave it to a reviewer more experienced in that area.
 * Incidentally, you signature is quite confusing; generally it should be something that resembles your username so that people can recognize you and also ping you more easily (see the custom signature policies). Rusalkii  (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Follow up: IPVM AfC Submission
Rusalkii, thank you for reviewing my submission for IPVM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IPVM). I appreciate your comment on the citations and fixed them to make sure that no statement has more than three citations. I hope the AfC submission now meets the requirements for being accepted. Thank you again!
 * that is far more readable! I've accepted it, thank you for a well-researched and thorough article on an important subject. I'd encourage you to nominate it for a WP:Did You Know.


 * Incidentally, you may wish to remove the 13-year-old (!) warnings for vandalism and similar from your talk page, I skimmed it just now and thought they were much more recent than they actually were until I thought to look more carefully at the timestamps. Rusalkii  (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft declined
May you tell me why my draft is declined? I just want to know a reason for its declining. I want to improve it for further submission.

Draft link:

Thank you TriMain182681 (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As it says in the decline message up top, you don't have enough independent sources with significant coverage. Linkedin, Pinterest, etc are social media and do not count, and neither do routine listings of the channel. If there are newspaper articles that are primarily about the channel, not just briefly mention it, those would be good sources to add. Rusalkii  (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yahoot77
dear Rusalkii I do not know if i do not know i made a edit in the hundred years war kind regards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yahoot77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahoot77 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. If you're asking about the message I left on your talk page, then I undid your edit here which replaced the correct "disputed claims" with the grammatically incorrect "disagraed claims". 21:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Donald X. Clavin
Hello. I was just curious why my page for Donald X. Clavin was declined. He is a real, local politician. He is my Town Supervisor. One of my links literally showed that he won. It's confusing why a politician's page was declined, because other local politicians, like Thomas Gulotta (former Town Supervisor and County Executive), as well as Bruce Blakeman and Laura Curran (Both County Executives) were then approved. Clavin was elected Receiver of Taxes in 2001 and won the Super's race in 2019.

Thanks for your help, Balsanator1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balsanator1 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * per the notability guidelines for politicians, local politicians are not automatically notable by Wikipedia's standards, and so need to show that they meet the general notability guidelines or guidelines for people. In short, this means that they need to have a number of reliable (i.e. not just blogs or social media), independent (not associated with them, so not their Youtube channel) sources that talk about them more than in passing. For local politicians, we usually don't count local newspaper articles just announcing their candidacy or victory.  Rusalkii  (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * then what constitutes "local politicians"? Because Bruce Blakeman is a local politician yet has a wikipedia page. So does Thomas Gulotta and Laura Curran.


 * Yes, there's no rule against having a page for local politicians, they just aren't automatically notable, so asserting that "I have source that he is real and won a local election" doesn't show that he should necessarily have a page. Thomas Gulotta's and Laura Curran's articles have several citations to articles in prominent newspapers about them, while Bruce Blakeman's needs more sources, and if no significant ones can be found should probably be nominated for deletion. In general, there are some existing articles that are not up to the standards of Wikipedia's current inclusion policy, but that doesn't mean that we should add more. If you can find good sources for this one, it will be accepted. Rusalkii  (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My wiki submission : Ariel Lowe Varges
A friendly reminder: as requested, I have changed the references in the lemma on Ariel Varges to primary film history literature and deleted source references to the weblog. As with the article on Durborough, sources are scarce because most of what we have found on these World War I photographers comes out of our own research and publications. I hope these changes meet the Wikipedia standards for publication.
 * Done, thank you for the reminder and the article. Rusalkii  (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I like your kindness to others so i give you a kitty (not a real one)but from wikilove!

Yahoot77 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 

Request for source advice
Hi,Rusalkii, thanks for taking time to review my article on ZK Teco, do I just need to improve the reliability of my linked artices/sources of information to then hopefully get approved? Kindest Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadAppleDesign (talk • contribs) 23:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * right now, most of your sources look like press releases, which aren't independent. To show notability for a company, we want at least three sources which talk about the company in depth and aren't associated with the company itself in any way. The Biometric Update article look pretty good for that, can you find a couple more like that? Rusalkii  (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,Rusalkii, Thanks so much for the pointers, I have added/amended the articles/mentions etc, hopefully this will help, if not I will hunt for some more independent articles. Once again Many Thanks BadAppleDesign (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Article declined due to copyright violation: Wilfrid Oswald Jose
Hello, my draft for the article titled Wilfrid Oswald Jose (link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wilfrid_Oswald_Jose, was declined. I received a notification which stated that it contained copyrighted content. However, I created the original article: https://www.stpeters.sa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-Premiers-Anzac-School-Prize-Essay-Shreyas-Khanna.pdf Hence, how can I fix this? Is it possible to publish the Wikipedia article I created and remove the copyright claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShreyK123 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * For legal reasons, the text must be formally released under a compatible license to Wikipedia's (you can read about that process here.) If it was submitted to some kind of contest, it's possible they imposed some restrictions on what can be done with it, so you'd have to check that too. Honestly, as I understand it the process is a massive pain, though I don't mean to discourage you if you actually want to do it. Rusalkii  (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt advice. I do really want to publish this article, and I am happy to undertake the process required to remove copyright infringement. In that case, I wanted to ask, are there any other issues with my article that could prevent approval? If so, it would be great to know so I can make the relevant adjustments as soon as possible. Thank you again for your support, I hope I can now succeed in creating my article on Lt Wilfrid Oswald Jose.


 * If it wasn't for the copyright issue I would approve it. There's some concern about notability, and another reviewer might object on those grounds - it looks like your article was very well researched, but there aren't that many sources that we would call "significant coverage" of Jose in particular. I may be missing something, I haven't done a very thorough review of your sources. You can take a look at WP:GNG for the relevant standards. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dolly Ave declined review
Dolly Ave's mention in the New York Times, while brief is significant and the link to her music being played in a Top 3 market is validating. Other links to Twitter are a record of her other accomplishments. For example, while an official archive doesn't exist of her being played on SiriusXM, a recording documenting mainstream radio play on her Twitter account is as valid as any other media. The link to Honk Magazine is an article secured by a professional publicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyfresh (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mightyfresh, "significant" here means more than a brief mention in a list, regardless of how important the list is. Wikipedia's WP:GNG for which subject should have an article ask for significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources, which is generally interpreted as at the absolute minimum a couple sentences in several published sources completely unrelated to her. An article by a professional publicist would fail on independence, twitter is user-generated and likewise would not count towards this even if it was an okay source to document a specific fact. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

ACC PA Draft Rejection
Hello Rusalkii, I hope you are doing well. Recently, you declined a draft I submitted, titled "Pennsylvania Chapter of A Continuous Charity." I was wondering specifically why the draft was declined, and also, what you think would have to be done in order for the draft to be approved. Thank you for all of the help.

Thank You, Pacc2019 (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Pacc2019, as I said in my comment on the draft, it doesn't look like there's any coverage in independent sources of the Pennsylvania chapter in particular, as opposed to the entire organization. You can read WP:GNG for more information, keeping in mind that notability is WP:NOT INHERITED from the parent organization. Rusalkii  (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

DRAFT:Justin Corsbie
Thanks for your note on the Justin Corsbie article I started. I inadvertently submitted before my citations were finished. I've updated those, and I'm hoping they meet the needed citation. Please let me know if you see anything else that I'd need to add to get the article published. I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allison R Smith (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Allison R Smith, it looks like you've already gotten some feedback on the draft, I don't have much to say beyond what Wombat and AssumeGoodWraith have. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Request a review
Hello Rusalkii,

I added more references and more papers on Richard Baillie's page. Please review and let me know if there is anything I need to revise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quo13 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I've accepted the draft. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Abraham K. Goldhagen
Hi and thanks for your review. I updated the reference links to go to newspapers.com and referencing the relevant articles. Also, this is my first draft submission, and I would like to confirm this is still in the queue for further/other reviews for potential to move to an published article status - i.e. I haven't gotten this draft off track or something. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsTimeForChange (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It might take a while to review, but it's still in the queue! Rusalkii (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christian_Piper
Dear Rusalkii, thank you very much for your comments on my Article Draft: Christian Piper. I've applied the changes you suggested. With best wishes. Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Tina Sabel-Grau (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dr. Tina Sabel-Grau, if "Correspondence between Picture Newspaper co-founder Miguel Sanchez (as Michael G. Rey) and Nadine Pieper, wife of Christian Piper, in 2021." is the source for the quote in that section, Wikipedia can't accept it. We need all content to be verifiable, which means that sources should be publicly available. I have accepted the draft with that section removed. Rusalkii  (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

About the Satyr edit I made on the page
Previously you messaged me about my edit to the page and it went as followed:

''Hello, I'm Rusalkii. I noticed that you recently removed content from Satyr without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.''

I don't agree with that being a proper connection or rather fact between Saturn and Satyr considering there are better ones and also, considering it's a connection being made by someone else, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It's just in-theory.

"Poet Macrobius connects both the word satyr and the name Saturn to the Greek word for "penis".

Saturn + Penis = Satyr? A better connection would've been the fact that you could spell the word Satyr in the word Saturn or how Saturn's Grandson was Faunus, who was a Roman Satyr as Satyr's are of Greek myth and Romanized as Fauns. The follow up sentence went on to say "it describes a Satyr's sexual lewdness". That's not exactly the kind of word to be used to describe something like that. It sounds rather unprofessional.

For this reason I wanted it removed. Or at the very least, just that one sentence about that connection between Saturn and Satyr. It's very unnecessary. This place is supposed to give the facts, not theories or speculation and there's better references on the page there anyways that aren't like that.
 * it looks like the regular editors of the article disagree with you - if you still want to pursue making that change, I suggest making your case on the talk page so that everyone interested in that article can weight in. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll hold off of it for now. I was told to do that by one of the editors if I still insisted on diagreeing about the reversion. But for now, i'm just neutral. It's after all, just a claim made by Marcobius, but that doesn't mean it's true for the race itself. People with no forms of patience or reading comprehension will really come to understand that. Not implying that the editors are like this as I understand that was "apart of history", but it isn't something that is really providing anything in terms of useful information to the race of Satyr. It's just useful, though minor, information when it comes to Marcobius himself with his speculation. (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

my uncle Michael Shelton
Hello i am Tamzin Marie Shelton, great niece to Michael and i was providing factual information to his page as he has recently passed away as we were told two days after he had passed by his brother, my grandfather and grandmother that he was no longer here. i would also like it before removing my information to actually ask the family if on here if the information is true nor false.

Thankyou, kind regards

Miss Shelton TamzinMarie (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @TamzinMarie, I'm so sorry for your loss, I hope you and your family are doing as well as can be expected.
 * Even if you're related to Michael, any information you add needs to be verifiable. I and any other editors have no way of knowing that you're actually his great niece. There have been cases where people add fake information to articles and cause serious harm to the people they were about, so we're very strict about the standards for verifying information in biographies of living or recently deceased people. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Princess of Xiaohe
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Rollback of the Wheatley controversy??
Hi Rusalkii, a very significant video and audio emerged of the Abu Dhabi scandal, in which Wheatley was one of the primary actors. Many hours have been spent researching, finding sources and explaining to F1 + Wikipedia community what exactly happened. Why have you deleted the controversy segment? Surely the informed reader has a right to know what he did (without you simply dismissing it as "unconstructive). Appreciate your feedback. Cheers and kind regards, Professor Guru.
 * I have no idea what page you're talking about, can you please provide a link? Rusalkii  (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

see below. curprev 15:02, 9 February 2022‎ Rusalkii talk contribs‎ m 13,344 bytes −100‎  RCP reverted edits by 2A01:4C8:8AB:EB58:7995:C940:3F2F:7519 (Talk); changed back to last revision by 90.200.249.41: Unconstructive edit undothank Tag: Rollback
 * I still don't know what page that is. I need the name, not a copy of the history. Rusalkii  (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

see below

curprev 15:02, 9 February 2022‎ Rusalkii talk contribs‎ m 13,344 bytes −100‎  RCP reverted edits by 2A01:4C8:8AB:EB58:7995:C940:3F2F:7519 (Talk); changed back to last revision by 90.200.249.41: Unconstructive edit undothank Tag: Rollback

Adapted Physical Activity
Hi there, we have responded to your question about why the page is different from Parasports. would you happen to know how to progress this forwards now for review? Another person also commented on it (not author) to agree with us that it is different from Parasports.

As such, could you provide some reasoning for your question? Regards Kwok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwokng (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kwokng, my question shouldn't be blocking anything for you, I don't know enough about the subject to decide one way or the other if it should have a stand-alone article.
 * The most recent decline by Clearfrienda is about notability, which means they didn't see that subject had significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You should ask them which specific issues they saw with the sources. Rusalkii  (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
Hi there. Rusalkii. I don't think we've been in touch with each other before. As you ask for feedback on your user page, I though I should let you know that I was surprised to see you had recently rated Jóhannes Jóhannesson Start class. Although there is quite a bit of leeway on assessments, many articles of less than 250 words of running texts are still listed as stubs, unless there is good reason to believe a shorter article has been fully developed (e.g. for biographies of people of historical notability). In this case, we are indeed dealing with a person who is no longer living but the article has only 73 words of running text. I have classed the other banners as stub but have left yours as start. Thanks, by the way, for your recent interesting article on Princess of Xiaohe. I look forward to more along the same lines.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ipigott you're right, stub-class is probably better for that one, I've switched the AfC banner too. Thanks for pointing it out, I think I've gotten rather lazy in rating articles I accept.
 * I had a really good time writing it! There are a couple more mummies from the same complex I'm considering writing next, though I've gotten rather distracted by real life. Rusalkii  (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Those mummies have been hanging around for years. I'm sure they can wait until your "real life" calms down a bit. Don't forget to ping me when you write the next one.--Ipigott (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DietPi
Hey Rusalkii, many thanks for your comment on the draft for the article about DietPi. However, what you state is wrong, since the FriendlyARM WiKi is exclusively edited by FriendlyARM moderators. Users cannot create or edit entries and FriendlyARM does not create accounts on request. We can make them aware when e.g. a link needs to be updated, but it's done by them, in case. In case it becomes relevant for a reviewer, it would be great if you could add this info to your comment. Many thanks and best regards. MichaIng1 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @MichaIng1 you can say so yourself, just reply inline to my comment on the page. Rusalkii  (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah that is good. However, since there is no [reply] button like here at your talk page, how do I do that? Just copy and paste the AFC comment code and add another comment above that way? I felt it is meant to be done by reviewer or trusted community members only, while I am pretty new and related to the article, so don't want to make something wrong :). MichaIng1 (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @MichaIng1, you can reply below the reviewer's comment within the template, just make sure you sign your comment so that it's clear that it's you and not a reviewer. Rusalkii  (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I did that. MichaIng1 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft
Hey, could you please check the first edition of 2021 BNP Paribas Open – Men's singles and compare it with my draft? --Gravure9 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2021 BNP Paribas Open – Men's singles
 * Draft:2022 BNP Paribas Open – Men's singles


 * I would have declined that one as well, I think there's no point in putting up skeleton articles like that. If someone looking for information on the match finds it, they'll just be scrolling through a bunch of empty brackets with no content. Rusalkii  (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Waterbuses in Novosibirsk
Hello! Could you take another look at Draft:Waterbuses in Novosibirsk? I've added some newspaper's articles as additional sources. K8M8S8 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Accepted, thank you for the article @K8M8S8! Rusalkii  (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Great uncle Michael shelton
That’s why I have a problem with Wikipedia and you editors as you don’t know the extent to someone’s family tree, I may not know a whole deal about my great uncle but I know that he is my relative and has sadly passed away so I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t remove factual information off of my family’s page as it’s true and the people who look up to him to know that he’s sadly gone. I know where he grew up where he worked how he was I fired where he’s lived up until January his brother is my grandfather. TamzinMarie (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dharma (album) by Sebastián Yatra
You cited two reasons for declining the above-captions submission:


 * This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.


 * This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I used and followed the format of another artist album page to be sure to include the appropriate information. Please clarify what "reliable sources" can be referenced. The artist has a Wikipedia page. The artist has prior albums released in the U.S. The artist has a single off the current album that is charting in the U.S. and the artist is known by other performances (e.g., a single from the Encanto soundtrack). None of those are references that should be placed on the album page, however.

Furthermore, because this album is new, there is not yet data that can be filled in some sections, such as chart appearances and peaks, RIAA certifications, etc.

Please elaborate on what additional information is expected from a new album released by an artist in the U.S. that is receiving significant airplay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhood (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * All of the information in an article needs to be supported by indications of where the source of the information is. You article doesn't have any sources - so I don't know where to check the contents. A "reliable source" might be a newspaper article about the album, review of a song on it, link to the chart, etc.
 * As for the second point, if the artist has sources showing their notability but the album doesn't, then the album shouldn't have its own page, and should be covered as a subsection of the artist's page. Rusalkii  (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

"Filippo Frontera" draft revised
Hi,

Thanks for your suggestions on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Filippo_Frontera. I have edited it as requested.

Could you now accept it? Thanks.
 * Done. Thank you for the article! Rusalkii  (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Peter Vinvent Pry
There's not a whole lot about Dr. Peter Vincent Pry but I do have gotten my hands on these external sources, let me know if they're good enough so I can edit the article and resubmit.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-we-should-listen-dr-peter-vincent-pry-michael-mabee/ https://www.wheelers.co.nz/browse/author/5548030-dr-peter-vincent-pry/ https://wabcradio.com/episode/dr-peter-vincent-pry-interview/ https://theblackskyevent.com/2020/08/19/interview-spotlight-dr-peter-pry/ https://www.financialsense.com/contributors/peter-pry https://www.thecipherbrief.com/experts/peter-pry — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinMcCarthy001 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @AustinMcCarthy001, some of those are okay sources for content, but mostly wouldn't count towards notability. Linkedin is usually user-generated and promotional, and the rest are either interviews, books about him, or routine bios of the type usually created by the subject themselves, none of which are independent. I'd start by looking for reviews of his books by prominent critics, since it seems like he wrote a couple. Rusalkii  (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

1979 in Spanish Television
Hi Rusalkii. I've done as you suggested in the draft Draft:1979_in_Spanish_television, so please could you review and if it is the case, accept it? On the other hand I do not know the reason for not acepting Draft:1970 in Spanish television Best regards. --Cvbr (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cvbr I just accepted the 1979 draft, thank you for translating. I didn't accept the 1970 one because it has just one source. I don't think that's grounds for declining necessarily, but I've gotten some complaints that I'm sometimes too lenient on drafts so I figured I'd leave it for another reviewer. Rusalkii  (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

references updated
Hello

I have updated the references.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gajarhalwa (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gajarhalwa you've found a couple good sources for Draft:Bahujan economists, but generally it's not a good idea to add more sources to an article just for the sake of adding sources, rather than adding the content that's in them and citing that (see WP:REFB). Also, those seem to mostly be either by members of the organization or brief mentions. This is technically not by them, but it has a high enough density of quotes that I'm somewhat reluctant to accept it as independent. You can resubmit and see what another reviewer thinks, but I don't feel like I can accept it as is. Rusalkii  (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Added More Notable Sources
For Draft:Bionicle (film series), I have added references from Comic Book Resources, Animation World Network, Variety and even the Annie Awards for the Accolades section. If there’s more work to be done just let me know, thanks for reading this. SlySabre (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @SlySabre I usually don't re-review something I've declined unless I leave a note asking them to make a specific change and then ping me back, but this was such a stark improvement I've accepted it. Thank you for the article! Rusalkii  (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I really appreciate it! SlySabre (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)