User talk:Sulfurboy/Archive 9

Request on 15:35:23, 4 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Hwilson51
Thank you for your feedback. I am going to take another look at my sources and add more that prove Dr. Goussault's notability. Do you have any insight about how to cite a press release? I know a press release is a non-independent source, but according to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources) they can be acceptable if referenced correctly.

Hwilson51 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

COPYVIOs on sandbox drafts
Thanks for the work you've put in, performing triage on drafts for AfC. I've noticed twice today (User:Marie Palillo/sandbox and User:Wikiappu13/sandbox) that you had declined drafts without addressing the considerable COPYVIOs each had and I've since fixed. I use User:Technical 13/Scripts/CVD to spot COPYVIOs; it creates a button on your left-side "tools" list so you can spot this stuff. You might find it useful while you're going through drafts. New users invariably don't understand copyright and catching that stuff early on helps prevent WP:CCI issues down the track. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 07:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

10:43:00, 23 November 2015 review of submission by 213.180.187.57
Hi there, I'm not sure why our submission is being rejected. There are plenty of external sources stating the notability of this congress. Where have we gone wrong? I based our submission on the following World Congress of Cardiology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Congress_of_Cardiology), and as you see, we have many more references and a lot more information about the subject, only making it a richer and more informative entry. Can you give me guidelines as to how to make it better? Thanks

10:43:59, 23 November 2015 review of submission by 213.180.187.57
Hi there, I'm not sure why our submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Congress_on_Osteoporosis#List_of_Congresses) is being rejected. There are plenty of external sources stating the notability of this congress. Where have we gone wrong? I based our submission on the following World Congress of Cardiology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Congress_of_Cardiology), and as you see, we have many more references and a lot more information about the subject, only making it a richer and more informative entry. Can you give me guidelines as to how to make it better? Thanks

23:30:25, 29 January 2016 review of submission by DeanHamer
You rejected the original article because you thought the synopsis we submitted was "lifted" from an article in the Erie gay news. Actually, the Erie Gay News lifted exactly the description that was on the PBS website, which we wrote with PBS.

The film was produced in association with and broadcast by PBS. Therefore its appropriate to use their description.

Erie Gay News is a little gay new sheet in a small city in Pennsylvania. Not sure why you would think we lifted something from them?

06:06:00, 31 January 2016 review of submission by Humanist88
Hallo, I recently checked, that the website is not online. What can be done to be accepted?

Thanks for your advice,

Humanist88

17:51:54, 1 May 2016 review of submission by Cameltown
I am requesting a re-review of this draft submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eufenio_Keletaona) because I do not understand how the draft submission uses peacock terms and does not have a formal tone for which it was rejected. I summarized information from 3 newspaper articles from Wallis and Futuna Premiere, an independent news source.

In reviewing my submission following its rejection, I understand that it has four potential weaknesses. First, I can see that the details about the attendance of police provided by the Prefect and Eufenio Takala completing the ceremony by sitting on the mat may be superfluous. Describing the type of mat admittedly has little to do with understanding the significance of the enthronement. However, I intended to provide as vivid a description as possible because I assume that Wikipedia's general readership, especially its English-reading audience that would additionally be challenged in reading newspaper articles written in French, would like to comprehend the environment as much as possible. Including the presence of the police at the enthronement may also be irrelevant, but I could explain the significance in a re-write.

Secondly, I admit that formatting the references and citations was challenging and I was not satisfied that the 3 articles were mentioned twice. I would of course rewrite these citations for the article. It would be convenient if I could simply write footnotes as 1, 2, and 3 and use Chicago Style bibliographic information. Writing Wikipedia articles is new to me, this draft submission being my second Wikipedia submission.

Third, I recognize that some of the chronology, especially in the "Opposition To Enthronement" section, may appear muddled. It may appear this way because some information relating to Eufenio Takala's birth and ancestry is relevant to the controversy surrounding his enthronement. In a re-write, I may actually list Eufenio's personal information first, in which I would state his age, eligibility to the kingship, and relationship (as a cousin) to Eneliko.

Notwithstanding these weaknesses, which I could correct, I believe that this draft submission accurately describes the political situation surrounding what was a controversial enthronement and provides as much biography as possible on Eufenio Talaka. What I don't understand is the concern that I used peacock terms. The newspaper articles I used are from an independent source unbiased toward any parties in the controversy.

Please let me know how I can improve my draft submission.

14:09:25, 2 May 2016 review of submission by Bonniebrunk
Hello, the submission 'Hillerbrand+Magsamen' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hillerbrand%2BMagsamen was declined because "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission which is also waiting to be reviewed." I don't see this as a duplicate. I can't find any other submission for the creation a of a Wikipedia entry for this artist team Hillerbrand+Magsamen? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I did not send the article again for the moment....
Hello Sulfurboy, I have seen your message that my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough is still not good enough. Of course it is not, because it is not finished - and for that reason I have not sent it again to be accepted. I was not able to work on the article in the last few days and thought it is okay to leave the page as it is for the moment. I do hope I do not have a time limit? I will as soon as possible add all the details and references I have. I will gladly come for help when I am stuck. Thanks for your message and have a nice evening. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk)

12:14:59, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Coverdale1234
Please can you clarify why you declined this submission? Thanks

13:45:30, 12 September 2017 review of submission by Raymartinez77
I am confused...their is nothing in this draft that is copied from someone else? The bio info is from my personal webpage at www.raymartinez.com, I am the creator of my webpage. Please help me understand. the story of my life is from my book that I wrote, called Baby Boy-R. I am at a loss?

01:33:06, 14 September 2017 review of submission by Nicks3123
Hello, the article was declined based on it "not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines" and I was wondering if you could clarify, as I based the article on many other similar projects that have accepted pages:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TwistPHP
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRADO_(framework)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nette_Framework

just to name a few. They all pretty much follow the same format where they just provide history, basic information and features about the projects, with no further information on their "notability" and no links outside of their own online network (project website, GitHub, etc.) This is essentially the format I followed as well. Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thank you.

Moonstone Arts Center Sandbox Page
Hello, you marked my submission ([]) as containing copyrighted material, but, the information that I have taken from the website - [] - are shared under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License and GNU Free Documentation License. Is there something that I have done wrong? Thanks.

20:50:47, 21 September 2017 review of submission by MischaBartonfan1
Hi! I would like to please ask for some help with the article I submitted that was just declined? I believe it stated the reason for rejection was insufficient cites? Did I cite the quoted articles in the wrong format? If you could please explain what the problem was and how I might rectify it, that would be extremely appreciated. Thank you so much!

22:11:48, 22 September 2017 review of submission by OneMind604
Greetings, thank you for the quick review. I am unable to fix the the submission due to the extremely vague suggestions given without any detail. All sources are 3rd party sources and the individual is definitely of notability. There are various mentions and interviews on well known websites, etc. I am asking for a more detailed account for the rejection in order to fix the submission and move forward. Thank you again.

Regards

01:21:29, 26 September 2017 review of submission by Lynnkluong
I removed the other sections that did not have links. Thanks!

19:44:04, 1 October 2017 review of submission by Sorrasizog
Why is declined, which references or sources are not reliable, which part of the text you think should be removed?

12:20:53, 5 October 2017 review of submission by Louie Krest
Hello,

thank you for your review of my page on Gregory Dowling (writer). I have added a couple of citations, but since this is my first Wikipedia page, could you give me some pointers on where I need to insert the necessary citations for the page to be published?

Thank you very much, Louie

11:04:45, 6 October 2017 review of submission by Maciej Koczur
Hi, could you please give me a specific feedback on my entry? This is my very first WP article and I don't understand the reasons for the decline of the draft of my article.

thank you

06:40:12, 8 October 2017 review of submission by I2403978
Hello, I was unsure why this page was rejected, as I was told there were no references, however, a reference to a journal article in Physics Today (the long standing magazine of the American Physical Society) was provided, but not acknowledged in any way by the reviewer. After rejection, I then added the citation so that it appeared inside the text of the article, rather than in a list following the article, hoping it would be noticed. This was over a month ago, but I did not receive a followup response. I am long time wikipedia reader, sometime (anonymous) editor in the science pages, and don't see any reason this article should be declined.

22:19:35, 8 October 2017 review of submission by Giants4635
I have updated a few things on my recently declined article and would like to find out more about how I can get my article accepted. I have added some articles that I believe fit the "reliable" criteria. I have looked at some other musical acts that have very similar references to ours that have been accepted to wikipedia. Would this updated draft be acceptable or do I need something more? Thank you for your time.

Jon Griffin and The LightFighters are an American blues rock, soul, and rock and roll band from Monterey, CA. Griffin formed the group in late 2010 and since then, the band have toured with and supported a variety of other bands, most notably Robbie Krieger of The Doors, Blue Oyster Cult, Chris Isaak, Leon Russell, John Mayall, Charlie Musselwhite, Greg Kihn, The Guess Who, RATT, and The Pointer Sisters.

Shortly after their first song release, entertainment industry publishers like Top40-Charts ran articles on the band, calling them "a testament to the legendary Muscle Shoals and Stax recordings" and Griffin's voice "emotionally intense and unrestrained... an ode to quintessential soul."

Featuring strong southern style harmonies, heavy electric guitar riffs, slide guitar, and B3 hammond organ, they have been touted by AXS as "70's southern rock meeting  The Detroit Cobras ". The band performed at the acclaimed 2015 Bayfront Blues Festival in Duluth, MN  and were a part of the "Minnesota Blues Society Discoveries of 2015." Their song "Railway Station" was featured in the Rockband video game network.

The group has music featured on IHeartRadio, Lastfm, Spotify, and Allmusic.

Request on 17:30:11, 9 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kshalv
Hi Sulfurboy, I created a page called Draft:Shared Mobility (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Shared_Mobility&action=edit&redlink=1) about a month ago that got deleted due to copyright issues.

I would like to edit it and resubmit the draft but I'm realizing the formatted version of the draft was deleted. Since there is a lot of formatting that I would rather not have to repeat when editing the draft, I was wondering if there is a way for you to send the draft back to me so I can directly edit the formatted version.

Let me know if this is possible, and thanks for your assistance!

Kshalv (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

23:54:40, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Bond111
Independent secondary sources have been cited as per the suggestion of the reviewer.

Page on Wael Barsoum
I have edited the page on Draft:Wael_K._Barsoum to include two major profiles of Dr. Barsoum, as you suggested. I have also explained why he is important in the field of orthopedic surgery and warrants a page. Would you please take a look? Thank you. Hilda in South Florida (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearing of talk page
I took a few days off and my talk page was overwhelmed. I have moved all comments to archives. If you were sending me a message to re-review a submission, please note the backlog is over 2000 now and someone will get to it when they get a chance. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ursus Bus
Hello, Please check my article about Ursus Bus, Thanks Areapole (talk)
 * I need a proper link and why it is you want me to review it. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI
FYI I moved China Hongqiao Group back to mainspace since it had been deleted via PROD before and the user moved it back to mainspace on their own, so it wouldn't be a non-controversial draftification. I checked my logs, and that is associated with a paid sockfarm, however, so I will be launching an SPI. It also could possibly be an AfD or G5 article. Hope all is well :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Looks like you're much more on with what is going on with that page than I am, so I'll leave it to your discretion. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:2DABS
Please read WP:2DABS, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term." and don't invent your own rules. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about since you haven't linked to any article. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

20:40:27, 16 October 2017 review of submission by Davegoods
Good evening. This is my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia page and I wondered if you could give me a little more advice/information about what specific parts of this article need a footnote. I have done some footnotes, but I am assuming more are needed? Any help you can give me would be much appreciated. Kind regards - Dave
 * Any claims about a person need to have sources. We have very strict citation guidelines about living persons. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

20:54:42, 16 October 2017 review of submission by Destinylyd2011
Hello, Im trying to update the page to adhere to the "inline citation" guidlines. I updated a lot of the sources with more reputable sites like merriam webster and official websites for people specifically mentioned. Are there any other specific links I need to improve before re submitting for review?

Destinylyd2011 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Destiny
 * We need to see sources that cover the subject directly, britanica and dictionary sources do not count to establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 08:38:11, 17 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Macgyvor
Hi Sulferboy. You reviewed my draft entry for Draft:In The Saddle. Please look at it again. You thought that In The Saddle was not mentioned in the Elle article, but it is. It is in a box right in the centre of page 2, where the author talks about who organised her holiday. It often appears like this, because the articles are about holidays organised by this company, and that is the custom with travel pieces. Macgyvor (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Macgyvor (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did miss that, but this still goes to prove my point, we need to see substantial coverage of the subject, not just mentions in passing such as the case with this article. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

15:04:43, 17 October 2017 review of submission by Pjowen57
Hi, I have made some changes, taking out some of the non referenced text and adding additional references from books and the National Archives. I'd really appreciate some further guidance on what to remove / add. Thanks in anticipation.
 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. I'd recommend visiting WP:REFB Sulfurboy (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft Page Private Advisor Group
Hi Sulfurboy,

I have made some changes to my page [|Private Advisor Group] based upon the review and information you sent me. I would like to ask your opinion on the information I have added before I re-submit for review.

HadsinTexas (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC) HadsinTX
 * Please correct your link. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC Submission: The redirect page has been removed
Hello Sulfurboy,

You have recently accepted my draft submission for the AfC. But as there was an existing redirect page, you had to put the draft under review upon waiting for the redirect to be removed, before you move it into the article mainspace. The redirect page has now been deleted by an administrator.

Is it okay if you could now move it to mainspace? Thanks.

Cosecant57 (talk) 09:54, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

06:04:26, 19 October 2017 review of submission by Inupinu
I have edited the draft as per your recommendations and resubmitted. Can you please find some time to review it again. Thanks
 * Looks great, approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

VBI Vaccines Inc.
Hi there, and welcome back to AfC! So, I saw the recent submission of VBI Vaccines Inc. approved, I felt it woefully feel short of meeting WP:CORP, so I placed it back in Draft space for now. It's back in it's old home until the bun is done cookin'. Oh and hi! Since I haven't had a chance to intro myself to ya yet, but been seein' ya around doin' good stuff. Anywho, let me know if ya got any questions. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  21:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you consult with me first in the future before moving a page I approved back to draft, and the same with doing so in any situation with any editor that's approved an article, that's just common courtesy and prevents issues of disagreement. As to this page, I feel notability was established enough to pass notability standards for a stub article. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Accidental revert
Hello,

Please disregard my revert. It was an accident. My humble apologies. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 11:49:24, 26 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Greatbritishstyle
Hi Sulferboy,

Please could you take a look at my request for assistance message that has been archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sulfurboy/Archive_8#Request_on_11:49:24.2C_26_September_2017_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Greatbritishstyle. As i've mentioned in the message, I don't quite understand your reason for declining this stub entry. Please can you provide some additional feedback on my message so I can make any necessary changes for improvement? Thank you for your time, I appreciate how busy you are. Greatbritishstyle (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What specifically do you not understand? I would recommend reading the requirements as linked for establishing notability. Routine coverage and press releases does not denote notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I do appreciate your point about WP:ROUTINE coverage for some of the sources, but including such coverage is not disqualification for notability. And at this point i'm only submitting as a stub. I understand that further notable coverage is needed for a mainspace article, but please can you advise why it isn't suitable as a stub for expansion from myself and the wider wiki community? Thanks again, I appreciate the guidance Greatbritishstyle (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability has to be established for any article, including a stub.

I understand one bad article doesn't permit the creation of others, but a good 80% of stubs I've looked at have 3-5 references - some solely routine. Please can you advise how these have established notability? Thank you Greatbritishstyle (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

advice
I've reviewed your recent AfCs, and I agree with your judgment in general; I have however re-reviewed a few, & nominated one for deletion. Let me suggest that you are doing too many of them at a time; In order to give each one full consideration, I find myself that I cannot do more than 3 or 4 at a batch, and then go on to something else.Some people manage a greater intensity of work at this, but they usually concentrate in a particular field or type of article. It is necessary to be especially cautious when working outside one's usual area of interest. It's not any special fault of yours: people often tend to look at the number of unreviewed drafts, and think they must deal with as many as possible, but it works better to go carefully and to give enough explanation at the beginning in the additional comments to make further questions unnecessary.

One of the dangers of doing this work is the tendency to become too positive and self-rpotective about one's judgments. It is necessary to be very gentle with all good faith editors, and even polite to the ones who are clearly promotional--the necessary attitude at least to start out with is that they would do differently if they understood WP better. In this respect, you might consider removing some of the emphasis for the FAQ you give at the top of your talk page. I recognize that some very well established editors do something similar; I think it equally wrong with them. Look at it from the point of view of a newcomer-if, after my article had been rejected I were to encounter this additional boilerplate, I would probably be so angry that I would never return.

If Icna help you with anything specific, I will.  DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG, thank you so much for the advice. I'm still working on finding a happy median. When I first started doing this a year or so back, I was accused of being too exclusionary. Which article in particular did you nominate for deletion? It's helpful to see where I may have made a mistake or at least state my case. I understand the concept of don't bite the newcomers, but it's hard not to in cases of clear company or paid promotion, but I'll try to dial it back a bit. I've been meaning to consolidate the boilerplate I have at the top of my page and your comment is probably going to be the motivation I need. I very much appreciate your advice and honest criticism, always feel free to call me out. And I am also thankful for your offer of help if needed. I'll probably take you up on that. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

13:49:56, 20 October 2017 review of submission by Birds in the Boneyard
You declined my page because " This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published" Would you be able to explain personally what information or significant coverage i would need? Are you talking about a magazine? Newpaper? television? Thank you! Birds in the Boneyard (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you declined my page because it did not adequately show notoriety, but only from secondary sources as you've mentioned. I've taken a look at all of your links to look at, but it is still unclear to me what other information is required for it to be adequate. Would you be able to provide an example or explain what other information i would need to include? You can find the page at Kindest Regards, Birds in the Boneyard (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to see more coverage like the Times ledger article. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

AfC note
Hey Sulfurboy. Just a quick note that when you accept an AfC draft, it's usually good to do a quick check to make sure there aren't any obvious errors that need fixed once it's published. For example, Buddy Marucci had duplicate default sorts and duplicate WikiProjects. Sometimes these things happen because of the way the software publishes the draft, but they usually only take a few clicks to fix. G M G talk   12:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

17:17:03, 23 October 2017 review of submission by Beckycornfield
Dear Sulfurboy! Thank you for the fast reviewing my draft. I'm very new on the wikipedia, and i read a lot the policies, the citation policies too, but i dont know exactly what is the problem with my draft, wich more citations are needed? Thanks for helping me! Beckycornfield (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to Draft:Ferenc Moldoványi, you have copied in a bunch of promotional dreck about the subject. Most of the article are nice-sounding quotes from other people. At the bottom you pasted in the URLs for your PR effort. What Wikipedia needs is for you to write in your own words in an encyclopedic manner, which is why I've asked for your draft to be deleted as a copyright violation. What Sulfurboy asked for is that you use in-line citations, which you haven't done for the most part. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Gavin Hardkiss submission
Thanks for pointing out the Gavin Hardkiss bio had been posted elsewhere. I wrote this bio and submitted it to Wiki several years ago (i think 2014) and when it was not approved, I added it to the artist blog.

Today, I revisited the Wikipedia submission and added links and citations and resubmitted it. After receiving your message that the Wikipedia post violated copyright, I removed the Bio from the artist website (http://www.gavinhardkiss.com/bio)

At this point in time, the revised submission of the Wiki is the only version on the web.

I trust that this is satisfactory.

If not, please advise what other actions I can take to proceed with getting this Wiki entry approved.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavareli (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

09:34:14, 24 October 2017 review of submission by Eccom H.L
Dear Sulfurboy,

I noticed that the subject "Jerry Z. Xie" I submitted was declined and the reason is "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes."

Could you please give an example of which parts or sentences need citations so I can fix the problem with a more precise direction?

Thank you very much,

Eccom H.L (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Any substantial claim needs an inline citation. There is large chunks of this text that has no inline citation. Please note for biographies of living people we are very strict about having inline citations. Thanks.Sulfurboy (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

13:55:11, 24 October 2017 review of submission by Daisy Dave
Hello,

I have added additional citations from the state of Minnesota and local news media, and link to the actual election. More citations shall follow in the days ahead. I am asking that this stub submission be reconsidered and considered in the context of time sensitivity.

Thank you
 * It's nowhere near meeting notability guidelines, all the sources are either primary or routine database coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The rejection of my article
I do not understand why my article for 'Episode-Choose your Story and Emerald(a story within Episode) 'was declined for 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) 'and 'Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable' when I had stated in my article that Episode had 'an whopping 4 billion episodes viewed, with 8.3 million registered ‘authors’ and 73,000 stories. They also have 5 million active users on a weekly basis. ' which means it's not just a mere mention but highly influential in the gaming market(which I had also stated). The second part of my article, which was on 'Emerald', is an influential 'story' on episode as it had received 1 million 'reads' a while ago.

Another problem stated was the fact I had a lack of references and sources. I had tried to get as many reliable sources as I could for the first part (Episode) but the Help page on Wikipedia suggested that reliable sources include newspapers and books. Episode is a game, so it'll be highly unlikely that it would appear in newspapers or in books. I also had only 5 sources, which you may deemed insufficient, however, that's the best I could do as the 4 websites has all the infomration for Episode. The second part of my article was 'Emerald'. I did not have any sources for that, as none are really needed. I had stated the overview myself after reading the story. I had also summed up the plot myself. The only thing which may have a source is the'blurb', however, that would only be sourced back to Episode, which is what I'd had already got.

I will be very grateful if you could reply to me as soon as possible as this is another contribution to the Wikipedia community. Thanks a lot.
 * Sorry but it fails notability guidelines at this time. I'd recommend reviewing WP:NVGSulfurboy (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect deleted
Pokémon Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon is clear. -- ferret (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

17:57:32, 25 October 2017 review of submission by Slovo69
There is one online Reference 15, would this suffice this suffice? slovo69Slovo69 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC
Your reviewing as usual is generally correct. However, in the very large number you try to do in one day it's inevitable that some will be wrong. or at least sub-optimal. I doubt if I could do better if I tried so many at that speed. I looked at a few I thought might be handled differently and: 1/ Errors in reference formatting are not a reason to decline an AfC. This can be corrected after the article is accepted. I've accepted Draft:Felipe Correa as is. 2/The problem with Draft: Ethics assessment of research and innovation is not notability. The problem is that it's an essay that duplicates in part other articles. 3/ Draft:The Private Life of Helen of Troy (book) is unquestionably notable, because it was made into a major film. See NBOOK. The article did need improvements,, and I made some and indicated others to the contributor 4/ The standard for Draft:Emmanuel Hugot is not GNG but WP:PROF. It should not therefore have been declined as needing secondary sources. There are secondary sources for the bio, and that's all that is really needed. (for that matter, the source for the awards is a good enough source even for GNG). I accepted it as is. (and then I did a few minor fixes). Even if you do not completely agree with the  WP:PROF standard, you still have to follow the accepted guideline or leavethe article for someone else to review. 5/ I consider the sources for Draft:The Wetlands Initiative sufficient for notability as WP uses the term. I accepted it. I'm personally not that happy with articles like this, but I think it will hold in AfD. 6/ I accepted Edward H. Armstrong. I do not think the somewhat unprofessional tone is a critical problem for an article on a historic figure. I think it will hold at AfD unless my check for copyvio missed something.  DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

23:25:56, 25 October 2017 review of submission by Robert twain
Hello! Thank you for reviewing my draft for "Nevercrew" Draft:NEVERCREW. I just followed your instructions and wrote with my own words what before was written in the long quotes I used. To avoid repetition I deleted the quotes and kept only the citation to the sources. I also updated the list in the page and added a book I just found in which the artists are described again. Hopefully this time it will work. Thank you again, Robert twain (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you again for working on my draft Draft:NEVERCREW. I understood and appreciated the changes you did! Robert twain (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

17:54:14, 30 October 2017 review of submission by Aegir.heyerdhal
Hello Sulfurboy! Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aegir.heyerdhal/sandbox)

We are currently unsure which exact part(s) or sentences of the article violates wikipedia guidelines and best practices, and would welcome more guidance if possible. The article was written as a group effort of people who are excited practitioners of seatrekking. We read through and attempted to follow all the wikipedia guidelines as best as we could, explaining why it warrants an entry in wikipedia, providing notable and independent sources (national geographic, national newspapers articles etc.) and trying to keep the article as factual and neutral and informational as possible, benchmarking other wikipedia article of similar sports/activities. We will gladly remove anything that prevents the article from clearly being only informative.

In the updated draft we have removed the sentence "Seatrekking creates new ways of discovering coastal areas both on land and in the water, and invites a freedom of movement conducive to discovering new sensations and exploring the sub-aquatic world in all three dimensions" - which was probably not be factual enough indeed (!)

We are also thinking that one of your area of concern might be the section where we distinguish Seatrekking for other related activities? This was written to help reader distinguish seatrekking from other related activities/sports but if it is not appropriate to do this (or not this way), we will of course remove this section.

Aside from these 2 points, we are currently not sure which other parts you might be referring to as representing a problem, and therefore would be very grateful for a clarification how to make the article as best as possible! Thanks a lot for your help!

Aegir.heyerdhal (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Aegir

Request on 00:28:10, 31 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by MelodyAnn
MelodyAnn (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC) To be totally clear, the article was rejected because the references and cites are not significant enough or notable enough in their own right, correct? It has nothing to do with wording or the way I cited them, correct? So, I need to find more reputable media discussing the topic and backing up what I described? MelodyAnn (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Black queen cell virus
Article published. Good work. fish &amp;karate 11:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

06:56:12, 8 November 2017 review of submission by 59.95.73.211
I try to create a page for the movie 'Ee.Ma.Yau'. But it declined twice. How to solve the issues and can publish the page?
 * The reasons for it being decline are listed in the redbox at the top of the page along with links and explanations on how to fix it. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

00:37:05, 9 November 2017 review of submission by Musostuff
I am unsure what has failed to pass the review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musostuff (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , the long and short of it is that you haven't demonstrate notability per The Golden Rule. The two references you have given do not even mention Ketley, let alone discuss him in any great detail. This is our primary metric for notability. The other reason for needing references is to meet the BLP guidelines - if it cannot be sourced, it should not be on a page. In order to get the draft acceptable, please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail.. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on
Hi. Just wanted to say "Thank you" for you comment in support of Joe Ikhinmwin article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And another thank for approving the article. Kudos. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for being straight forward about it be a paid to write article. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline
You have declined my submission twice. I dont know what you are looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James"Trakz"Wade Jr. (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Page is User:James"Trakz"Wade Jr./sandbox. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Primefac. James Wade, I would recommend reading the links that were posted in the decline. Particularly we need to see significant third party coverage of the subject to establish notability. I would review WP:MUSICBIO for notability guidelines. Also, the article needs to be written in a much more formal, neutral tone and needs inline citations as well. I would review all of the policies found at WP:BLP. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Review of my submission of Republic.co
First of all, thank you so much for such quick review of my submission for the Republic article.

Since your review, I've reviewed other similar pages, including: and made edits, with new secondary sources and no more primary or dependent sources (at least I hope so :nervous:)
 * SeedInvest
 * StartEngine
 * MicroVentures

I'm not sure if my draft right now is comparable to other articles on Wikipedia, but I think it's comparable to the similar pages listed above.

Also, I'd like to disclose that I'm working for Republic - I added the disclosure tag in the draft page as well.

Thank you again for your time and your contribution to the Wikipedia community.

Vinhloc30796 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Other pages in the mainspace have no bearing on whether or not your page should be included or not. Specific pages don't lend precedent to the creation or notability of other pages. I'll have to review the sources again, but it's super murky as many of the articles seem to be shrouded paid for articles that are SEO driven, so it's hard to establish independent notability. I'll get around to it, or otherwise another editor might look at it. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thobergh/sandbox/Thomas_Berghuis Corrected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thobergh/sandbox/Thomas_Berghuis Thank you Sulfurboy for the suggestions and comments. Made the changes and hoping to get the entry posted. If you can please help me review and I much appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thobergh (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to resubmit it from the menu on the page and someone will review it in time. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Daisygrinders draft
G'day Sulphurboy. You reviewed my article on the Daisygrinders found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Daisygrinders. You have rejected the article due to notoriety. The band appeared on the front page of The Drum Media magazine with a full article about the band on page 12. This magazine had a distributorship of 120,000 issues. I can provide evidence but cannot find a way to do this through the wikipedia website. There is reference to the DM article here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155788055109328&set=pcb.10155788065804328&type=3&theater The band was published by Universal Music, has currently available published works and is available on Spotify. They were signed to a subsidiary of Regular records and Mercury Records - Major Labels. Their back catalogue can still be purchased through Half A Cow music. During the 1990s the band was at the forefront of the Australian Music Scene, playing across the country, supporting Major artists and playing a major festival. They have been cited in the Who's Who of Australian Rock. Is this not sufficient to prove notoriety? Any assistance you can provide to help have this band listed on Wikipedia would be greatly appreciated.Drewzab (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding sources is always helpful, I see you have resubmitted it, so it will be reviewed in time. I would recommend a bit of housekeeping on the references, in that you need to combine it to one list. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Maged Gamani's page rejection
Hi Sulfurboy, is it possible for you to give a reason on why the submission was rejected for Maged Gamani? Your answer would help a lot in moving forward with the improvement. Regards JodayG
 * The reason for the rejection is written in the red box at the top of the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Avingtrans
I am giving up on Draft:Avingtrans. Would you like me to delete it or leave it for other editors to work on? Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't rely on another editor to come around and fix it, as it needs a lot of work if not a complete re-write. If you would like it deleted just let me know and I can request it.
 * Yes, please delete. Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

James D Zirin
You rejected my article on the following basis:"Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

When I quoted a short sentence from a review of my book Supremely Partisan in the London Spectator, you rejected the article because I was in breach of the Spectator's copyright. The is obviously fair use and fits your criteria.

I don't get it. I have published three books, have a nationally syndicated talk show and am a prominent lawyer.

Please enlighten me. Jim Zirin (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Checking sources
The sources added here do not actually support the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)