User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Archive 4

Samuel Fraunces
We have tried and tried to remove original work by boring History Guy and bad citations. He just continues to put them up. I was asked to write the entire article over in the sand box and did. Are you now saying I should just continue to make the changes to the current page as they are pointed out? That is fine. I appreciate any help on this. THANK YOU!!GramereC 21:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)
 * Oh no! Of course you could continue to write a separate article in the sandbox and merge those changes to the main article later. You had submitted the article for review at face which is only for new articles. As the article already existed, I'd to decline it. If you were asked to make changes in your sandbox and then merge them to the article, that's fine! Or you could just edit the article directly (but that way, your edits will be live instantly so if you are doing major changes, It's not recommended.). Do you want me to move it back to your sandbox because the draft space is usually best for new articles? Yashovardhan (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've requested the draft be moved back to your sandbox. The draft namespace isn't meant for that purpose. Please do not resubmit it at afc. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank YOU!!!GramereC 11:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

10:25:04, 10 April 2017 review of submission by Mgaedtke
Thank you for the review. I'm not sure, why the references "seem" to be primary. They are manly about using OpenLB for scientific research. Thereby, I guess they are secondary sources. In contrast to OpenLB's project homepage, documentation or release notes, which I would consider primary sources.

Additionally, what about the references about the software prices? Aren't those secondary, at least?
 * ya, those are obviously secondary. Since you're autoconfirmed, you can move it yourself to the article space. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Declined
You declined the Draft:Darrell C. Scott article but didn't give a reason why. Did you review the talk page? Other editors have stated it passes muster. What's the deal?Cllgbksr (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * oops! Forgot to check that talk page. By the way, since you are already extended confirmed, you can move it yourself to the main article space, why backlog afc? Yashovardhan (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I could have moved it myself but wanted another editor to sign off on it.  If you will do that I'd appreciate it.  All the best.  Cllgbksr (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. By the way, i had to remove a couple of messages you had left in the draft itself rather than the comments. Also, since the afc is generally only meant for new users without the autoconfirmed status and It's highly backlogged as well so you'll waste a lot of time. It's better to ask at editor assistance for feedback! Yashovardhan (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yashovardhan, the draft space is not just for new users. Everyone is allowed to use it. And in fact, I encourage users to use it, especially if they're unsure if their topic is notable. We have no major backlog, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the Draft space. To repeat: it's not highly backlogged, and even if it were, who cares? It's a better way to screen new pages. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Yashovardhan! Cllgbksr (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I positively did not imply that the draft space isn't for all users. I'm sorry if I sounded like that. I only wanted to say that there is no need to submit a draft for review at the afc. He could just move it to the mainspace himself or ask for peer review or editor assistance which are specifically meant for this type of help (if he's stuck or just wants comments that is). Also, you removed a csd template I placed at a user sandbox. If you scroll above, the user himself wanted to do so. He didn't intend/never wanted to submit his article for face, he was working on an article already in the mainspace and trying to rewrite it in a neutral way to remove pov and or. I guess he submitted it by mistake and it was moved to the draft space. I thought the user would be comfortable in his sandbox ans he agrees. So I requested a move of that draft (before moving, you need to delete a redirect). I'm sorry if I sounded wrong above. Thanks once again, you're really a great help! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

GUYANA's MISS_WORLD
I dont understand what I am doing wrong. I am not different than all the other independently Miss World country franchises. would love some guidance, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majesty gy (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC) sorry for the delayed response. Have a look at the comments left by the other reviewer in the latest review. It sums it up perfectly! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft: John Milfull
Hi Yashovardhan, Thank you for the comment that you placed on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Milfull as follows: "I was going to accept this article but didn't. You see BLP isn't only applicable to living people but also applies to recently deceased. I'm not sure whether 2016 is recent or not. This brings us in a grey area where I suggest you should follow the blp policy. Add inline to all claims which can possible be challenged and you're good to go."

Following your advice, I am now following Wikipedia's BLP recommendations, including by adding further claims of notability along with inline supporting citations. For example, Prof. Emeritus Philip Thomson (of Monash University)'s published comment: "of the eleven departments of German that then existed in Australian universities, only New South Wales, where John Milfull headed an energetic group, was engaged in the sort of German studies that Monash was committed to, broad-ranging, interdisciplinary and contemporary." Best wishes from Perseus25 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your note! And sorry for the delay in my reply. I almost forgot about this. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

20:12:30, 10 April 2017 review of submission by Parplaywright
Unfortunately the reviewers are not adequate professionals in the performing arts and therefore are rejecting the submission under uneducated pretenses. Reliable sources for professional performers included: Playbill, BroadwayWorld, The New York Times, Variety, IMDB, IBDB and many others. These and other sources are all used to prove the legitimacy of this submission. Please allow someone with professional theatre credentials to review this submission. As a theatre professional myself I urge you to take the time to understand that if your area of expertise is NOT the theatre then you should not be reviewing or rejecting professional performers who are indeed notable and noteworthy as Michele Ragusa is.
 * , one should not have to be a professional XYZ to review an article about XYZ. We have rules and guidelines that give guidance towards whether a page should be included. I'm tempted to automatically decline your resubmission simply because you have made no changes, but in an act of good faith I'll let it be for now. However, you are almost guaranteed to not have a "professional performers" reviewing your draft. Reviewers review based on the available information, and need little if any "background knowledge" in the subject to carry out a proper review (there are edge cases, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parplaywright (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, as a note, IMDB and IBDB are not reliable sources, nor do they confer notability on a subject. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Someone else responded and said that I shouldn't expect a professional performer to review tbe submission. Of course not! I wouldn't expect a "performer" to review a performer submission. However a theatre professional or scholar would seek appropriating. For example, a scientist would have a very different frame of references to prove notability. Scientific journals, published research, etc. A Broadway performer would not have those types of references. By your own standards in rejecting Ms Ragusa you would reject Gavin Creel, Elaine Stritch and Will Chase as their references are all IMDB, IBDB, Playbill, Broadwayworld, and The New York Times. Indeed Ms Ragusa actually has more independent resources than the above referenced entries. I appreciate your fairness in this matter and urge you to take a close look at what has been sited here. The idea that "policies have changed" is not good ethics. By that standard then al the aforementioned entries should be deemed unnoteworthy and removed form Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parplaywright (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I didn't ever say "policies have changed". IMDb has never been a reliable source, and if it's being used in an article it should be removed! Also, please see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because one good (or bad) article exists on Wikipedia, doesn't mean another good (or bad) article should exist. Every article is taken on its own merits. Maybe those other pages deserve to be deleted? Primefac (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Draft:Thomas David
I saw that you were the last one to review Draft:Thomas David and I was wondering what your thoughts are on it in its current state? It has not changed since you declined it (it was just resubmitted under an hour later). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Links are all dead, and almost no information on the page. Immediate resubmission with no fixes results in an immediate decline. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

19:30:57, 11 April 2017 review of submission by Jasmin1202
I was declined for this reason below:

Find sources: "Jeffery Williams" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference.

The references I used were legit and linked to newspapers and tv videos. What should I do? I've created more reference and I am scared to resubmit in case you decline it again. If I update my submission with the below reference will it be good enough to be accepted?

Resources: Juno Awards http://junoawards.ca/nomination/2016-reggae-recording-of-the-year-kafinal/ Artnalism: http://artnalism.com/kafinal-interview-reggae-artist-kafinal/

Jamaica Observer: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/entertainment/Kafinal-takes-Juno-Award_56616 http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/entertainment/Kafinal-gets-Peabo-Awards_19241801

The Jamaican Star: http://jamaica-star.com/article/commentary/20160413/kafinal-humble-jcan-artiste

Kafinal images: https://www.google.ca/search?q=kafinal&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO16b0j53TAhWMx4MKHdYRBggQ_AUIBygC&biw=1466&bih=796 you've not added the references as references but as external links. Check the guide Help:Referencing for beginners to get started! Yashovardhan (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that
Hi, I've done as you asked in your comment on the Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection article draft, both on its talk page and on the author's. As it happens, she is new to Wikipedia, and while I'm pretty much used to the ropes, I don't normally go anywhere near Drafts – a whole other world, and had seen that comments (surprisingly) were on the draft itself, so supposed they removed themselves on acceptance. I hope everything is in order now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * no issues. I'll give it another review in sometime. We actually use an automated tool which removes all comments and tags while moving it to the article space. Your comments wouldn't have been removed by the tool and the accepting reviewer would have had to remove it manually. In any case, since you were going to edit the article so it wouldn't had been a great task for you. In fact, if you've more than 500 main space edits and have an account older than 30 days, even you can join in on reviewing drafts! Yashovardhan (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I wouldn't want to tread on you guys' toes, and I've now edited the article too. Chiswick Chap (talk)

Regarding my draft Draft: The Tech Portal
Hi Yashovardhan,

Thanks for taking out time to review my draft of technology news website, Draft: The Tech Portal. I have added a few new external references. Also, just wanted to clarify that the article already has external references to notable sites like Venture Beat, Deal Street Asia, Times Of India, Economic Times and VCCircle.

Please review the draft once again and approve the same if possible.

Looking forward to your insights, Cheers!Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep2701 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note! I'll take a look at the draft when free! Yashovardhan (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 14:44:28, 12 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jasmin1202
jasmine mitchell (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Okay, I will review the section on references and try it out. Thank you!

East Hope Group page
Hi Yashovardhan Dhanania, Thank you for recently accepting my article on China's East Hope Group! However, in the meantime, the article has been nominated for deletion by JJMC89, and I’m having a hard time following the reasoning for this. The argument goes that my article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, because the sources I have used supposedly are only passing mentions or routine press coverage.

With that I fervently disagree. I have already expressed this sentiment with suitable counter-arguments on the relevant talk pages, including the article’s talk[|talk page], minutely explaining the relevance and significance of each source cited.

I made abundantly clear that all the information cited in the article is from reputable sources. I have relied on established publications observing and analyzing the aluminium industry, widely circulated English news outlets, major Asian English-language dailies, Chinese news articles, as well as official government publications in Chinese.

I’m using multiple independent sources. The articles used are not merely trivial coverage, since they do not simply report meetings, phone numbers, routine notices, etc., as specified as unacceptable by Wikipedia.

I would be most grateful for you help, stating your reasons for why you approved my article.

Thank you very much for your help. Chinabusiness (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * that was fast! Nobody will really read the talk page. You need to go to bArticles for deletion/East Hope Group where the discussion is taking place and state your points. Reply with a bold keep and then state your rationale clearly explaining the sources. I'll try and look around if I've the time. The discussion will run a week before being closed. You've to go to the afd and discuss there! Also try to improve the article in the meanwhile to counter the started points. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your help! Chinabusiness (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, would it be possible for you to leave a comment on the AfD page of my article as to why you approved it? It would be much appreciated. Thanks for your help! Chinabusiness (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Have a great day! Chinabusiness (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)