User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive (Misc.)

Hi - regarding my article on Prof Dr Suresh David
Hi, Thanks for reviewing the article. I understand biographies of living ppl is difficult. I have tried keeping to the norms with the help of people whom i know and some really helpful ones on Wikipedia. Could you please give some suggestions when you find some time.? Thank you Naepin (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Will be replying soon. Winged Blades Godric 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Naepin (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, waiting for your reply

Indian articles in translation
Hi Winged Blades, and thanks for your offer to help out with some translated articles. What we're looking for mostly, is your opinion on the quality of these translations, meaning: do they faithfully render the Hindi/Bengali into English? We're not so concerned on the quality of the English, the notability, sourcing the truth of the claims made or anything else, just whether the translations are accurate. (You could answer, yes/no, or Green/yellow/red, or 1-100% or however you want. Also, don't feel you have to update any of the articles unless you wish to; the main need here is for an assessment of translation accuracy as it stands now.  Here's the list (Bengali, unless noted):
 * 1) INS_Vajrakosh (hindi)--✅--All good! Winged Blades Godric  17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Titram  (hindi)--✅--Ok! Winged Blades Godric  17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Sardar_Panchhi (punjabi)---❌---Don't know Punjabi! Winged Blades Godric  17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Harunur_Rashed--✅---Fails WP:GNG.Prodded. Winged Blades Godric  17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Dhaka_University_Debating_Society
 * 6) Maharani_Hemanta_Kumari_Debi--✅---Fails WP:GNG.AFD-ed. Winged Blades Godric  17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Agrabad  (just the one section)


 * 

1. (cxt 1456) Gyansagar (Chani)--✅---Fails WP:GNG.AFD-ed. Winged Blades Godric 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

2. (cxt 1605) Athri-✅ Winged Blades Godric 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Thanks! You can either leave comments here about them, or if you wish to add comments directly to the big list, you can go to WP:CXT/PTR to see the kinds of comments translator/editors are making on these items, and add your comments there, if you prefer. Also, what is INS? Is it, Indian Naval-something? The 'S' ought to have been a "B" for "Base", I would have thought. Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * INS means --.Anyway,plan to review the lot by today. Winged Blades Godric 05:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I thought it might mean, only Ship doesn't make any sense in this context; why would they call a naval base an INS? INS Vajrakosh isn't a ship, it's a naval base, right? Seems like it ought to be INB, so I still don't get it;  I can read Devanagari, so I know what a hindi 'sa' (स) looks like, but that doesn't help. Mathglot (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry--I went for the more prevalent full form!Actually ,in this context it means Indian naval station. Winged Blades Godric 05:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ahh, thank you. Curiosity satisfied; I'll sleep better tonight!  ;-)  Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts on reviewing any of the list of articles above?  There's no obligation, of course, but there is a ticking clock on this project, so if you do wish to help out, we have less than three weeks to do so.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --That's the progress so far! Winged Blades Godric 03:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that helps, and keep 'em coming! Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I send you a few more? Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Surely!Why not?! Winged Blades Godric 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Here they are: (you can ignore the numbering; that's our reference; all Bengali unless specified.)
 * 450. Gunabati_Union
 * 472. Gunabati_College
 * 481. Dariapur_Union
 * 1742. Dhaka_University_Debating_Society
 * 2892: Dildar_(actor)
 * 2896: 48 kos parikrama of Kurukshetra (hindi)

and thanks again! Can you please use pass and fail instead of done? Also, adding comments as you did before, is helpful. Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Any further interest in these? Don't have to, of course, but if you want to, we can still use your evaluations.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mackenzie Calhoun
Hi there, thanks for your work on AFDs.

I wanted to feed back to you on your relist of the above AFD. Per WP:RELIST, "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice." The above AFD has had substantial comment — relisting isn't used for breaking a tie, and this should be a no-consensus closure. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Oops! That was a mistake.Your advice is earnestly appreciated.Go raibh maith agat! Winged Blades Godric 02:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

14:25:19, 26 May 2017 review of submission by Michael Dobson
Dear Winged Blades of Godric,

I'm not so much requesting a re-review of my submission, but rather to ask for your help and advice to correct its deficiencies. In declining the submission, you wrote, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability...[p]lease improve the submission's referencing." As you suggested, I have located additional references for the submission, but before rewriting I thought I'd inquire what level of information I would need to supply to achieve the notability requirement.

At the present time, the major references are: two Washington Post front page articles at the time of the shooting, two major follow-up pieces in the Post about the 40th anniversary of the shootings, and an interview in the New York Times. There is also a book on the subject (which I wrote/edited — I did not use the book in any citations both to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest as well as to avoid falling afoul of the "no original research" rule) and a movie in production. (The film is being produced by best-selling author George Pelecanos, who also produced the TV series The Wire. I have no connection to the film other than having met the writer/director Joe Hall because of our mutual connection to the event.)

I did not cite the website Websleuths.com, which has an extensive piece on Michael Pearch, the shooter. There are several additional sources I did not list because the information in them was duplicative of what I'd already cited. In particular, Major General Clifford Stanley, later Undersecretary of Defense, husband of one of the victims, Rosalyn Stanley, has been the subject of various newspaper articles during his career, during which he almost always referenced the shooting of his wife. I cited an Associated Press wire story that was published in newspapers nationwide at the time of the original shooting, but only cited one of the papers in which the (identical) article appeared, and chose that because it was available through the Google News Archive. Would citing multiple appearances of the same information be relevant to the claim of notability, or would it simply be redundant?

Your note also says that I must provide "clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia," which I assume is a criterion separate from the various media mentions of the event and its aftermath. On review of my own submission, I see that I didn't give any particular reason for notability in the opening paragraph. Would that be a meaningful addition?

As far as other material that might establish notability, in addition to the 40th anniversary Post articles, the book, and the film, I could add that criminologist Grant Duwe, author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History, commented on the case because of the coincidence that one of the victims in Wheaton had a best friend who was one of the victims of the Charleston Church Shootings (for which a Wikipedia page exists). As the US government only began tracking shootings such as this in 1976 (the shootings took place in 1975), Duwe identified it as an element necessary for researchers trying to piece together the US's mass shootings timeline. (Duwe is cited in the Post retrospective, but not mentioned in my article draft.)

Am I on the right track here, or is there something I'm missing? Any advice you can give me would be much appreciated.

By the way, I notice you live near Kolkata. One of the other books I publish under my Timespinner Press imprint is From Plassey to Pakistan by Humayun Mirza, chronicling the Mughal rulers of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa from the days of Aliverdi Khan through the last Nawab Nazim, Mansur Ali Khan, whose grandson Iskander Mirza became the first president of Pakistan following Partition.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you about how I can improve this piece to make it suitable for Wikipedia. You can reach me through the talk page, or email me directly at either michael@dobsonbooks.com, or professionally at editor@timespinnerpress.com.

Regards,

Michael Dobson