User talk:Waggie/Archives/2020/November

How to fix article on Katrine Philp
Hello Waggie, Thank you for reviewing my article on Katrine Philp. I would like to improve the article has it has been mentionned the sourcing were not enough but I'm having issue understanding why the different references are not good enough, knowing they are been wroten by third party and independent journalist. Thank's for your time, Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocojackie (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would suggest you also speak with , as they moved it to draftspace. However, regarding the sources, many sources are 1) not about her, 2) are interviews, 3) are primary sources (such as the IDFA site, which is selling tickets to watch and promoting the films), etc.. I would also inquire as to whether you are affiliated with Philp in any way, the Wikimedia Terms of Use require that you disclose any affiliation. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes, ie: ~ . Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Waggie, Thank you for your answer. I'm going to rewrite the article with even new references, even if to be honnest, it seems I already have so many. She won the main prize at SXSW this year, which is one of the major film festival on earth, so I did found many interviews connected to this award, but how cannot this be accepted as a indpedendent references? The differents journalists who wrote the articles and interviews were not promoting the film itself, but the awards, and this is the kind of articles we can find about filmmakers online. That's why I'm sorry but this really confuse me. Regarding any filiation with Philp, I don't have any, I only like her work and discovered her films with the one she won this year. Best regards ~

RE: clarification on Envato page rejection
Hi Waggie, thanks for reviewing my first Wiki page. Can I clarify: how do you define advertorials and press releases? Because the vast majority of links I attempted to use to support page are from mainstream media outlets with journalists and editors in charge of reviewing copy for newsworthiness et al. As I flagged with previous reviewers, this seemed to be inline with other pages from companies in the same industry/sector i.e Canva, Creative Market, Shutterstock. I saw that the previously deleted page had cited far too many articles on pages linked to Envato.com which is why I emphasised these pieces.
 * Hi, thanks for asking. Firstly, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (ie: ~ ).
 * Regarding your draft. The Next Web article looks reliable enough, for the most part - there's been some debate on the topic but I won't argue the point. The issues comes with sources like the Android Police article, which screams advertorial (as is the Creative Bloq article also cited there). You added sourcing for Ta'eed stepping down and being replaced, but the first source (SMH) is an interview (primary sources don't count towards notability), and the second (AFR) is routine coverage of business activities which also doesn't count towards notability. The SmartCompany source is a passing mention of Envato (#14, with no significant amount of commentary about them), so not useful for establishing notability. The Financial Review articles look like rehashed press releases at a glance, but they may not be, though it's hard to tell behind a paywall - as I mention above, though, the first is simple routine business coverage, which doesn't really assist with notability (see WP:ROUTINE).
 * Regarding other articles, there's a lot of trash articles on Wikipedia, unfortunately and it's best to not try and justify the inclusion of one based on another. I'm sorry this isn't what you want to hear. It may be that Envato is notable and that I'm just not seeing it right now. It might help you to remove all the content based on the lesser quality sources and focus only on the best sources you can find. That will make it easier for a reviewer like myself to see it, if it's there.
 * Also, just so you understand the terminology, I didn't "reject" your draft. Reviewers at AfC are presented with the option to "Accept" "Decline" or "Reject" a draft. "Reject" means that you won't be presented with the opportunity to improve and re-submit. I only "declined" your draft, so you can re-submit, hopefully successfully.
 * I hope my feedback helps you, please let me know if you have any more questions. Wishing you the best! Waggie (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Waggie, appreciate this more detailed run down, I'm learning a lot! I have to say I'm confused and perplexed why I shouldn't be using equivalent company/brand pages as a comparison for building a draft page, especially when most of them seem to have the equivalent issues you highlight with advertorial or primary-source interview references - should I be flagging those pages for review? Can I ask, with regard to the thing about press AFR articles reading like 'press releases', is it generally accepted that when I create a page I should be checking whether the company has in fact done a press release on that story? I had inferred that because it was an article in a major national newspaper with editors, journalists and the like that if they decided to write a story on it, they would so on their own grounds regardless of how they were alerted to it? And are paywalled sources discouraged? RE the issue of the SMH story and the CEO standing down, if there are no articles about it that DONT include his own quotes/interview, should I be omitting that piece of information from the page altogether? Just trying to wrap my head around the logic of it. I take your point on Android Police, I added that in after the last round as I thought more references were better than not. Thanks again for your time.Daveoftheinternet (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)