User talk:Spinster300

I don't know how to tag you but you can restore your version back to how it was. Also thank you for making it more understanding on why you did the changes. Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you kindly. The draft has been restored, the improvements made and it has been resubmitted for review. Please be patient. I am sure that as the subject's career grows, so will their article. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Once the article is approved and is on Wikipedia, ill be able to add the career back and public image of the reliable sources? Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the Will (TV series) his name in Reccuring cast is always removed. It aays its promotions but thats only his name so i dont understand why. Would it be possible for you to put it back? Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, please be patient. All the clean up and inter-wikilinking is advisably handled only after the article is accepted, if and when it is. Please also note that repeated poor quality edits can get you banned or blocked from editing.

While Wikipedia welcomes new editors, it is important for them to thoroughly understand the rules that govern the encyclopaedia; please refer to the various help pages that several other editors and I have previously linked you to. In the meantime, I advise against drastically changing the shape and form the article is in right now even after it is accepted (if it is), until and unless you can reliably source all your claims and the subject receives WP:SIGCOV for the portion of their career or biography you wish to cover, and your claims are written in the correct WP:Tone and are WP:Neutral in language. I also encourage you to ask for help in editing your other drafts from more experienced editors on the articles' talk pages or at the Tea House.

You may, if you like, upload copyright free images of the subject and add it to the draft. The rules for which images can be uploaded can be found in a step-by-step guide at the Wikimedia Commons upload wizard. If you need help on how and what to upload, please ask your queries at the Commons help desk. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Drmies and Cabrils, I am leaving this notification to you so that you are looped in on my discussions and edit decisions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I was told that Draft:Burning Men is a good draft and that i should submitted it, which i did and it is currently on review. I also look up reliable sources to edit on Wikipedia and use tea house everytime i have a question. I also know how to upload images but i dont know who are the photographers so they cant be added and it is very complicated to add the images. There is also multiple actors who doesnt have a Wikipedia pages that are named into Wikipedia articles so i dont understand why it takes him to be approved to be added on the series wiki page. I edit only if i have the right sources, including existing ones Veganpurplefox (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you for your undertaking! It is highly appreciated and beneficial to the encyclopaedia that new editors are interested in the subjects they intend to edit, as you are! Thank you very much!

Might I also suggest adding all the missing topics you wish to have included in Wikipedia on Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested Articles? Especially Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession for any actors you feel have not yet been covered on here.

Experienced editors can then look into the topics you request on this WikiProject. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Im not sure what im supposed to do? I add the tag into the draft article ? Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, kindly add the names of the actors within the [[]], followed by a brief description of why they are notable and links to your sources proving their notability at the relevant sections of either of the two pages mentioned above, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

since you used promonews, can this music video be added too? https://www.promonews.tv/videos/2012/05/23/jagga-love-song-nicole-albarelli-ben-cook/13222 Veganpurplefox (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you for the link. I will check it later today. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks and your welcome! I don't live in the uk so i have no access to any magazines he appeared in but do you know if theres a way to access physical magazines that havent been out online to read? Cause he appeared in a lot of them Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spinster300. Thank you for your offer to help research and develop draft pages that have been submitted for review. On my Talk Page you suggested you would do this by going through the drafts mentioned there, however I think it would be more productive for you to go directly to the list of new draft pages submitted for review. Several of the draft pages mentioned on my Talk Page are fundamentally flawed for acceptance onto Wikipedia, and I would be concerned that you could be wasting your time trying to improve pages that simply will not be able to meet the relevant criteria, and attempting to do so could generate undesirable activity from authors who appear to be paid for creating pages and are not genuine editors. For this reason I am posting this here on your Talk Page rather than on mine. I trust you understand my reasoning. Cabrils (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils, I completely agree with you. I have already checked the Wikipedia:AfC sorting page, and I am quite glad that there are subsections in particular for Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography and especially Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women. I might consider applying for reviewer right soon, but I am aware that experience at AfD is required, and generally I have stayed away from that vital WikiProject because the discussions can get pretty heated, and that is not my cup of tea.

In case you would be interested in taking a look, I have come across Draft:S.L. Shneiderman and Draft:Oladélé Ajiboyé Bamgboyé which have impressed my already; they require some major formatting and copyediting to get them up to our standards, but for articles establishing the notability of the subject using good sources, they qualify well. Even a simple WP:Before check and validating their works or works about them, not just in Google Books/Scholar but in WorldCat and in VIAF has come up well. Please let me know if you get the chance to review them anytime soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Great, that's a sensible approach I think. If I have time I will try to look at those drafts. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils, thank you for the encouragement! I have applied for the AfC reviewer rights in the meantime. May I reach out if and when I have queries or need assistance?

Pinging Drmies, so that they too are aware of how I intend to participate going forward. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Permission granted. Drmies (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, oh my, thank you very much! Quite an honour I was not expecting to be a New Page Patroller; I merely wished to help out more at AfC! I hope to use my new found rights with utmost responsibility. Thank you and kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ha, hold on: I assigned you "new page reviewer", which is what I thought you were talking about, and that's Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, a useful tool; I see now that you were talking about a script, that I can't help you with. I'm sure Primefac will let you know soon. Anyway, you may find it helpful regardless. Thanks again for helping out with that article. Drmies (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, sorry about the confusion about the permission granted, that of New Page Reviewer. I can see that I can now review drafts as well, if I have the AfC Helper script activated in my settings; however please kindly revoke whichever rights you think I am not yet suitable for if granted by accident. Thank you very much, regardless. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, can i also have your help in my other draft Draft:To Dream it was declined but maybe it exists reliable articles that i havent cited that i though they were not reliable. Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, I will take a look at it when I get time in the coming few days. Please be patient, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Okay thank you, and thank you for your help in getting Ed Hayter an article, im sorry that not seeing sources from the perinital reliable source it wouldnt be approved and i was scared that being submitted again could be declined again like it was. Is it okay if i add his instagram in the external links now? Many other actors have it Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, generally social media is not advisable to add in external links, as per the WP:MOS. Many other actors may have it, but even those can eventually be removed. An external link to IMDb is sufficient for the moment. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ah ok i see Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, for your future reference, please carefully read through the following pages, as these are the topics you seem to be interested in: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks you i will do that. I can fox references and will try to improve other draft that way as well making the infobox as its something i know to do the right way. Ill read that before i make any other changes in articles as i noticed it is more complicated than i expected to be Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fix reference * Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About his name would it be best to change it to Ed as everyone calls him that name? Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, in my research on the subject, I have come across both Ed and Edward being used interchangeably and almost the same number of times as each other. It would be wise to wait until there is an abundance of reliable sources giving preference to one form of his name for us to decide what the article title should be as per WP:COMMONNAME. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ok i see, ill wait and try to reach out again to medias for them to write significant coverage of him. Which i have never got any answers yet. Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, I would like to mention this now that you have brought it up – it is very IMPORTANT that you declare your WP:COI with this particular subject and any others you have submitted drafts for or plan to start drafts on, as it appears that you have one. You can leave a note on your User page or Talk page, and that should be sufficient. Please also kindly declare if you are being WP:Paid to edit. Not declaring either/or, will likely get you banned from editing and have any articles/drafts you submit speedily deleted. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I already did it when it first was mentioned its on my talk page Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More like user page, where i listed things about me, babel box, my interests. Its on the section of why i edit Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, that is sufficient for now. Thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for understanding Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But again im just a fan of these actors and being autistic makes me hyperfocus on them and do everything involving them, i also own a fan account of him. But as i live in canada and him in london i am not a friend of him and neither paid for it Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am many interests and once I hyperfocus on a person or anything else, it's them and only them until its replaced with someone/something else and then go back to previous hyperfixations, but my interests stays the same and I still love other things such as parrots even if I'm not hyperfocus on them anymore Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, thank you for the clarification. Wikipedia:Writing better articles might also be a useful read for you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Youre welcome and will read it , i also added a bunch of userbox in my user page that may help other reviewers Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hayter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tagishsimon, thank you very much! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, i believe he is notable and i looked him up in this website: https://www.bfi.org.uk/preview/page/cfa4a40b-c655-4699-9fcc-b0e97551371b/working-copy/1684234680/6_p2ELUsFyId3V-mwEy3ObfGotrJtoAqvgVjVUYKZZs , that im making a draft for Draft:Mattias Inwood ,the same website you used for Edward Hayter. But when I opened up it doesn't work, and same with Ed ,nothing can be seen. Do I add it or do I not add it for the draft? Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, I will take a look at the draft and the subject in the coming few days. Thank you for reaching out. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for approving it! That was really fast! Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, I had some time just now and so I took a look. I am surprised we did not already have an article on the subject. Kindly read through WP:Puffery once again, as that was mostly what I needed to clean up. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I see, i will read that again. Maybe no one was interested in him enough to create an article? Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was about the public image, in tea house i was told to add content of which other people have talked about him. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, sections such as "Public image" need WP:SIGCOV which the subject clearly lacks for the time being. Their role, and the impact of that role on the overall culture or the industry needs to be significant, and reliable sources need to cover how significant it is. One or two news or press articles talking about how good/bad an actor was in this role or that role is not enough. Most articles will commonly introduce or mention something positive or negative about the subject they are talking about to provide some context for their readers. Our job is to cut through all of that and get to the point from an encyclopaedic perspective. I hope this makes it clear on how you should phrase your drafts going forward. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ah i understand, thank you for the clarification! Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will now focus on reading much of the links you have provided to me and try to improve how i write the articles. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing the section of Production and maybe Reception needs to have content removed,maybe there is puffery stuff in Draft:Burning Men that i submissed Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His name was again deleted from the user mrOllie in the Will (TV series) .how can we get him in the cast? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user is beggining a deletation article about him now Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Veganpurplefox, if another user is questioning the AfC approval, it is their right to do so. If the article survives a WP:Proposed deletion or at the WP:Articles for Deletion processes on its own merit, the name and role credit along with the citation I added will be included to the page of the TV show eventually. Inherently, no article is immune from being deleted; that is what makes Wikipedia so great and reliable in its standards. Yes, I have edited the article in the style and format consistent with our encyclopaedia and that is what had it approved as per WP:ANYBIO at AfC, but sadly no amount of editing can WP:MASK lack of notability and this subject is still very early in his career. The notability and the reliability of the sources cited needs to be agreed upon by consensus of other Wikipedians at all times, and not just at the time of deletion. So, please be patient in this regard and let the due process be completed. If MrOllie wishes to propose deletion, it is their right to do so. If the article survives, it survives – if it does not, it does not. In the meantime, kindly refrain from making any panicked edits or spamming users' talk pages. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Women in STEM | Geofocus: Sub-Saharan Africa Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" Good Article editathon Tip of the month: When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello. Minor problem over at Clare Kenny: there are over a dozen inbound links from all the bands the AFD'd musician was in, and none for the artist. Also, the dab page currently only has one entry. Shall I unlink all the music articles? Are you planning to add another entry to the dab? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikishovel, my apologies for overlooking that detail; I was following the instructions as they were left in a comment on the draft before I accepted it. I did not realise that the musician's page had been deleted. Please kindly unlink those music articles, and we can probably move the Clare Kenny article back to the regular name form and introduce some links to the artist so that the article is no longer an orphan. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No problem at all, and easily fixed. All the music articles are unlinked now, and your suggestion of moving the artist article over the dab makes sense, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikishovel, thank you for your kind undertaking! Please let me know if there is any other cleanup required. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This article has 16 legitimate sources, which exceeds most Wikipedia pages and matches Shelley Herman husband's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Carver.

There is nothing "highly promotional" about the tone. It simply states the facts, which have been backed up by the 16 legitimate news links. No product or service is being sold or promoted. Please site the specific promotional tone you claim. exists.

The claim that Shelley Herman's published book is only "celebrity anecdotes" is reductive and incorrect. The book is far more than that, but I would be flagged for a "highly promotional" tone for going into anymore detail.

Interestingly, another writer who wrote about his experience as an NBC page has not had his page flagged, in fact, he has fewer references than Shelley Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie_J_Pilato LosAngelesWriter (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LosAngelesWriter, thank you for reaching out to me. Please understand that on Wikipedia, the prose has to be in a very certain format and tone. Yes, there are no products or services being sold, but the particular words being used to phrase a sentence can still indicate a promotional marketing speak or be written in a non-neutral tone that can be considered WP:Puffery. That is the main reason for the rejection of the article as it currently stands; the subject does seem to be notable and the sources seem to be quality sources.

Regarding her husband's article and the article on the other NBC page, please study the phrases used in those articles and you will see why yours cannot be accepted into the main space as it stands. And please refrain from citing other articles on Wikipedia for confirming what should or should not be in any other article – we have a whole policy about it; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

I have some time today and so I will improve this article in whatever capacity I can. Please have a look then, before resubmitting it. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your response. Please cite any of these "particular words being used to phrase a sentence can still indicate a promotional marketing speak or be written in a non-neutral tone" in the Shelley Herman Wikipedia page.

I look forward to your response.

I took your advice and looked at the Wikipedia article about the other NBC page, Herbie J Pilato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie_J_Pilato, which includes several promotional phrases about Pilato's books such as: "everything and anything one could possibly want to know – and not want to know" and "Pilato's subject expertise" and "earns its definitive title hands down; even for those with only a casual interest, it proves more diverting than one might expect." LosAngelesWriter (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LosAngelesWriter, I have made edits to the draft, and it now complies with our policies in its present form. Other, more experienced editors will eventually come along and expand it as new sources are published about the subject as her career progresses. Please feel free to resubmit that draft and I will accept it.

Regarding the other NBC page – the statements you are citing are direct quotes from reviewers of his work in reliable sources, and that is fine as per WP:QUOTE, as long as it is put into context and is not giving any undue weight (see WP:WEIGHT). The key difference here is formatting of the sentence – for example, the article's prose should NOT read something like: his book was considered "amazing and thrilling". This statement is non-neutral because it reads like an opinion, which is unacceptable. Instead, a neutral statement for that same quote would read like: [name of journalist] writing for [journal/newspaper/magazine] acclaimed the book as "amazing and thrilling". As an encyclopaedia, we are aiming to state the facts as they are and not derive any conclusions on our own. If the journalist and the source are notable with their own articles which can be wikilinked to, that will add even more credibility. I hope this example clears any queries you might have had.

About the statement of him being hired for his expertise for a movie, it weakly passes as a summary under our policy on close paraphrasing, but of course it can be improved – which I went ahead and did. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300.

You declined the draft Monica Gagliano yesterday due to lack of sources and because it was written like an essay.

I just wanted to point out that under WP:NACADEMIC she met the criteria, being a former Fellow of the Australian Research Council so technically didn't need lots of secondary sources. WP:NACADEMIC often trips me up on that aspect, I always forget its different to the normal people criteria. Just something to watch out for!

The editor asked for some help on the Teahouse and they did add a few more secondary sources, and I accepted the draft. Qcne (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Qcne, thank you kindly for letting me know about this. While WP:NACADEMIC is quite the task to navigate, I had found the several citations of the subject's own work and the narrative style prose to be the main cause for concern.

However, I was confident the subject was notable and the draft would be improved and accepted eventually – and so, I am quite happy that the editor reached out on Teahouse and was able to get the help they needed. This process, after all, is the ultimate goal of our exercise here on Wikipedia.

Once again, thank you for letting me know, and please do not hesitate to reach out if a similar scenario occurs in the future; I would be most grateful for your help and insight. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300,

Curious what you think about this one? I've cleaned up based on the previous reviewer's comments. They have a lot of coverage, particularly for one film. I couldn't find any bio material about them except here, which looks to be not secondary or independent. Filmforme (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, thank you for writing in. From a quick WP:Before, the subject seems to be notable enough for a possible weak WP:ANYBIO and could manage to pass on a weak WP:Three, but I think the draft has a better chance if it is made into stub as there does not seem to be extensive coverage to justify the article's length at present. I will need to take a better look at the draft in detail tomorrow. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Filmforme, since you enjoy creating articles on people in the film industry, could you take a look at developing Draft:Adjani Salmon for me? I feel that that subject has a lot of promise. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Re:Draft:Russell Geoffrey Banks Thanks, whatever you think. I'm a bit surprised they don't have more for the work they have done so far.

Re:Draft:Adjani Salmon I've made a note of this and will take a look. – Filmforme (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent edting and acceptance of the article. BFP1 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Better than my editing of this message![reply]

Dear BFP1, thank you for your kind words. Please let me know if you have any such articles or drafts I may be able to assist with. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289 Online events: New: Alphabet run I & J | Geofocus: Indian subcontinent | Women in Politics Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Tip of the month: When translating articles from another language Wikipedia, don't forget to include attribution in your first edit summary. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Spinster300 –

You recently declined my submission due to not having enough sources for Carlton Heard. I have supplemented the material with additional sources to strengthen the discussion on the subject. Should you have any recommendations for improvement, I would greatly appreciate your insights. Thanks!

-Blackspace7 BlackSpace7 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BlackSpace7, thank you for reaching out! The draft needs some work before it can be accepted into main space. The references also need to show that the subject satisfies all our notability guidelines. I shall take a look at improving it in some days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Please update or let me know what updates should be made.

-Blackspace7 BlackSpace7 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BlackSpace7, I have been away for the past few days. I will take a look at the draft soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Spinster300:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Spinster300,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission. I wanted to let you know that I've made some adjustments to my submission based on your feedback regarding its tone, which didn't meet the encyclopaedic standards. I've also removed any unnecessary sources and made the information more succinct. If you have any further suggestions for improvement, I would welcome your insights. Kind regards, Plushwiki21 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Plushwiki21, my apologies for replying back so late, I was away for a few days. I see that the article has been accepted already – Congratulations! The article reads clearer and more concise now. It will be expanded in due course as more sources on the subject come to light. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there! Thanks so much for your speedy review of my draft entry. I'm just a little confused at your comment "We need more reliable sources about the subject, not just reviews of the subject's work" as none of the sources are reviews of the author's work? I was hoping you could give me a steer on this - maybe I'm completely misinterpreting what the comment means! - as I'd really like to revise and resubmit this entry. Many thanks! Mareotis (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mareotis, I have been away for the past few days. I shall take a look at the draft soon. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks so much! I think I've worked out where I went wrong though - apologies! I'll edit and resubmit. Mareotis (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spinster300, I believe this draft passes WP:NACTOR but would like to know what you think. Thanks — Filmforme (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Filmforme, hope you are well! Thank you for letting me know about your draft. I will hopefully find some time this weekend to take a look at it. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. –Filmforme (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, my apologies for not having gotten back to you about your draft, I have been travelling over the past few weeks. I just went through the changes you have made since you pinged me. The article seems okay now, and I see that you have moved it to main space. Please let me know if you wish for me to take a look at any other articles you are working on. I will try my best to respond in time. I return back to my routine in a few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I understand, no problem. I had dug around and found more on them. What do you think about Draft:Shaw Jones? Filmforme (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, from an initial look – the draft needs better sources. It is very well written, but more reliable sources are needed. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Women who died in 2023 | Honoured Women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Avoid copyright problems by rewriting in your own words. You can check any article or draft with Earwig's copyvio detector. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spinster 300,

The Nadja Tesich draft that I submitted for review is only my second Wikipedia entry. Can you tell me where I went wrong, as far as citations? 24.105.145.198 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article is quite well written, but there are several statements that lack a reference. Please reference those statements. You can reuse references as well. Please see: Referencing for beginners. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spinster300. Thank you for your work on Dipesh Raj. DreamRimmer, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have marked Dipesh Raj and Rajesh Pullarwar as unreviewed. How did they pass WP:GNG? I don't see any significant coverage. The sources used are mostly databases, interviews, and self-published selling profiles.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DreamRimmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

– DreamRimmer (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DreamRimmer, thank you for your message and kind review. I think I made these two stubs when I was on my travels and came across the subjects' exhibitions while in India over the summer. Given that they were a part of a significant exhibition or a part of the permanent collection at these notable galleries that I visited, I considered them to pass point 4 of WP:ARTIST and decided to start stubs on them based on the information I found on them at the expositions themselves, apart from whatever scarce materials I could find online.

Please feel free to draftify them in case you feel they are a case of WP:TOOSOON, however I am not sure if I will be able to improve them any time soon as I will be travelling again right after the holidays. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you! Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Spinster300. Thank you for your work on Rajesh Pullarwar. DreamRimmer, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have marked Dipesh Raj and Rajesh Pullarwar as unreviewed. How did they pass WP:GNG? I don't see any significant coverage. The sources used are mostly databases, interviews, and self-published selling profiles.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DreamRimmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

– DreamRimmer (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 49 reviews, for a total of 68 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296 Online events: New: Education (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Temperance women Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2023 Announcement In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part of the #1day1woman initiative! Tip of the month: Check out the new navigation on our Women in Red Project home page. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The article Jean-Marie Rausch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very short page with only one paragraph. Also has some unreliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean-Marie Rausch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Marie Rausch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BlakeIsHereStudios, thank you for this notice. I created this stub a while ago, and I am glad it has caught your attention for possible expansion or deletion. I will leave its fate to the ongoing AfD discussion. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300! Thanks for reviewing the draft Draft:Józefa Bramowska submitted. However, I am surprised as to the reasons given for its rejection. The subject is notable and backed by reliable references. The "clean up" you mentioned, I believe, is a task you ought to have taken as part of your review process. It could have been more worthy not to attempt than the reasons given for its rejections. As a collaborative effort, others would have noticed areas for improvement and worked on the article. Regards. Atibrarian (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atibrarian, duly noted. Thank you for your improvements on the article. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Please do not decline articles for NPOV in cases where there is no neutrality issues, such as you did at Draft:Józefa Bramowska. An article simply being poorly written is not non-neutrality, and is generally not a valid reason for declining unless it is so bad it is detrimental to the readability of the article. The draft establishes notability (WP:NPOL), is sufficiently cited (the ILC decline only applies to WP:BLPs), is neutral, and is readable, thus should be accepted. For comparison, Draft:Angelo C. Scott is a case where a quality decline (essay-like) is likely fine. Curbon7 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Curbon7, thank you for your comment. I often struggle with choosing through the limited options of reasons for dealing with any draft. I will try my best to use the custom reason option to provide better context going forward. Interestingly, I had the Józefa Bramowska draft in my bookmarks as I wanted to work on improving it myself in the coming few days before accepting it into the mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

If you had the article in your "bookmark" with the intent of "improving it" as claimed, then why the haste to decline? I will suggest you familiarize yourself with the AfC review process more for better understanding. Atibrarian (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atibrarian, my sincerest apologies if my actions offended any of the other editors of the draft or other reviewers. It seemed sensible to me to vacate the draft from the AfC pending reviews log while its translation was improved and it was eventually brought over to the mainspace. And I see that you have cleaned up the draft already, thank you for that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Curbon7! Thanks for your honest assessment and submission. Atibrarian (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spinster300, thank you for leaving me a message about my draft submission (I created a new page about "Sandra Kobanovitch", french film director). I just tried to make it more "neutral" and less "peacock terms" and resubmited it now. Can you please tell me if that looks good for you? If there is still problems can you point them out? Thank you for your help. (By the way, I just translated the french version of the Wikipedia article, which seems already neutral to me but I made it ever more neutral now, I hope it's good). Calembourgs (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calembourgs, thank you for writing in. I am happy to take a look! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Calembourgs, after looking over your draft and seeing the article on the French Wikipedia (which has its own issues), I feel that some more work is needed – try and write the article from scratch instead of translating sentence by sentence from the French Wikipedia (which could lead to copyright issues); try finding very good sources as well (are there any articles in the news about her or her work?). Make it easily apparent as to why the subject is notable and deserves to have an article; see: WP:PYRAMID. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear @Spinster300, thanks for your valuable advice, I'll try to write the article again. On the other hand, all the passages are sourced from French press articles (Le Parisien, France 3, France Bleu, which are national media recognized in France), is this enough for the English version of Wikipedia? Everything mentioned in the article is supported by secondary sources (awards won, films made, etc.). Thank you again for your precious time. Calembourgs (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calembourgs, these sources are perfectly fine – what is not apparent is why the subject and their career is notable. Merely having articles in these French papers (even if they are highly reputed) is not enough, since paid public relations and press exists. What is necessary (at least, in this case) to determine notability for the context of Wikipedia is the content of those press articles. Has the subject been associated with important productions, notable in and of themselves? Has the subject won any significant awards, which are again, notable in and of themselves?

In this subject's case, the articles are used to reference their childhood, which as saddening it is to read, does not make them notable. The three short films mentioned use references to talk about the films themselves – the first film premiering at Cannes has no relevance to her own notability, but would rightly fit in an article about the short film itself. Same goes for the second film, unless it the subject who won the award as its cinematographer. The subject's photography is likely what you could focus on, given that it won an award. Has the subject's photography been part of any major exhibitions in notable museums, biennales, galleries, etc., or been published via several journals or publications? Answering these questions will help us better determine this subject's notability for Wikipedia.

I hope this clears things up. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, this clears things up ! Thank you so much for taking the time to detail your answer and the elements necessary for the notability of the subject. To answer you factually on what can make this subject interesting and "notable" for the encyclopedia (in my opinion):

• Young filmmaker who presented her first short film at the Cannes Film Festival in 2015 (the media that talk about it portray the filmmaker and her unique career path, more than the film itself, for example here: https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/normandie/2015/05/01/evreux-sandra-jessica-koban-presente-son-court-metrage-cannes-716217.html or here: https://www.leparisien.fr/hauts-de-seine-92/sandra-22-ans-ira-presenter-son-premier-court-metrage-au-festival-de-cannes-23-04-2015-4716459.php (she appeared under a pseudonym at the time).

• She then went on to make a film with actor Samy Naceri (who's pretty well known, beyond France, he has a Wikipedia page in over 30 languages I think - I didn't even know there were that many languages!). The film she directed won an award at a festival in Canada for its image quality, but it was the cinematographer who got the prize, not her, but it shows the quality of her film and her work as a director (she directs the cinematographer and dictates the artistic choices).

• She has won an award as a photographer in Tokyo, the TIFA (Tokyo International Foto Awards) https://www.tokyofotoawards.jp/winners/social/2023/23-44894-23/, and her work will be exhibited in March 2024 at the Metropolitan Theater in Tokyo (I have secondary sources, French media, that mention this victory and upcoming exhibition). The French news agency AFP reports on this festival, which is notable : https://www.afp.com/fr/lagence/prix-et-recompenses/david-gray-et-steven-saphore-recompenses-aux-tokyo-international-foto-awards-tifa-2021 , it also listed here on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photography_awards

As you mentioned, it's the last point that's surely the most noteworthy.

I can find many photographers on Wikipedia who mention this award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vijayan , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Jarque , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Saltzman and others...

I don't know if all this is enough for your criteria here, if it isn't I understand and ask your forgiveness for taking up your precious time. Thank you again for your kind replies. Calembourgs (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering if you might be able to direct me to which bits of prose read more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry on the Charles Knight artist page that was recently rejected again. I’ve added more citations but am slightly at a loss in terms of tone as I thought I had kept it objective. Any specifics or direction would be so helpful, thank you! Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom, I am very happy to help! Let me go through your draft once again and make improvements on it directly. After that, we can review and discuss before you consider resubmission of the draft. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much! Much appreciated Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom, I have improved the draft by making it a lot more concise and rewritten several paragraphs and sections that were too closely paraphrased from the sources which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please add the citations needed and please add links to the newspaper obituaries if possible (print-only sources are fine, but more details, the better!). Feel free to resubmit the draft for review, and I shall accept it into mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This has just popped up on to my watchlist from a link added to John Leopold Denman. I have a reliable (paper) source which devotes several hundred words to Knight. I will edit the draft tomorrow accordingly. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hassocks5489, thank you so much for that! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks so much for your help with editing the article! You have done a brilliant job and I really appreciate your time helping to get it right. Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom, you are very welcome! Please feel free to write back at any time you need help on articles or drafts going forward. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello,

I would like to ask why you have shortened the text of the Wikipedia entry "Carl Rechlin" so much. This article is based on the German Wikipedia entry https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rechlin, the content of which has been checked in every detail.

Best regards User Rechlins Rechlins (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rechlins, the English Wikipedia requires inline citations for all statements made within an article's body (this rule is stricter for biographies). These inline citations are missing for the article on the German Wikipedia. Please expand the English article if you are confidently able to verify all statements with inline citations. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. I have seen that the article I created and you revised is now extremely short and, to me, quite uninteresting. I wanted to complete it, but now I dont know what I should do, especially as I don't quite agree with the little that's left of what I originally wrote. Can you please me advise me as to what I should now do ? Thanks. Rouncival (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rouncival, the draft needed to be made more concise to pass the article review process, as the previous iterations of the draft were adding unnecessary sections and dividing up information that could be easily summarised in a single paragraph.

Please feel free to expand the current article into a full-fledged biographical article. Please remember to keep the text neutral, summarise from citations in your own words, and cite everything to verifiable and reliable sources. Several citations are already present on the stub for you to begin your work with – feel free to add material (suitable for an encyclopaedia) that can be sourced from those existing citations.

Please let me know if you need any help. Happy editing! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply, I'll start today and let you know when I'm finished - it may take a few days. Kind regards. 2A01:E0A:AAA:29B0:58EF:8295:84E3:AB5A (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is no rush! Please take your time. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I'd like to get your input on this draft. I had trouble finding better sourcing for their accolades and theater history, but I think they may meet WP:NACTOR or WP:PRODUCER without it. Filmforme (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, I will take a look in the coming few days, if that is fine. May I also ask after your other couple of drafts that I had to unfortunately decline? Were their issues fixed? Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yes that'll work, and I'm not sure if I've asked you about Draft:Suzana Norberg?

RE: Draft:Shaw Jones; I had included some more refs before submitting, but since the decline, I've only found a blog review for a new play they are in, and an interview that I don't think is significant or independent enough.

RE: Draft:Raye Richards; they recently won an icon award for the city they are from but I don't think it is a notable award, and I've yet to find a good source for that. I thought they would pass WP:NACTOR for "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" but I am not sure that significant roles matter if they don't also meet WP:GNG. I've read some say they only need to meet one, but I've been hesitant about it. Filmforme (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinster300 I also saw you declined Draft:Shannon Taylor (actress). I've had some other feedback on this one, but I'm still not sure I fully understand. Some of the citations are the same writer or publication, but it still looks to me like it meets WP:ANYBIO, though I've heard that regional emmys are not notable to count for "a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Filmforme (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, I will take a look at these drafts and any others you are working on. Perhaps once we have gone over them, you might consider submitting them then? Drafts submitted without thorough work backlog the Articles for Creation project and reviewers have to spend a lot of time sorting and declining drafts that don't make the cut. I hope this is agreeable to you.

Please list out all the drafts you are working on in your next reply and we shall take a look at them step by step. If any of them are already submitted for review, not to worry – we shall clear them first. Thank you once again for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially the coverage of female actors.

May I suggest you look at another WikiProject called Women in Red? They have a redlist index specifically for actresses – this one. Our goal at that WikiProject is to better the coverage of women on Wikipedia. Several persons on the redlist merely need a translation from other languages to the English Wikipedia, for they almost all pass WP:GNG. That way, you will be able to contribute articles on actresses from all over the world and not just focus on North America, as that is another one of English Wikipedia's biases, geographically speaking.

Please let me know what you think, in the meantime please list your current drafts and we shall get to work. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Spinster300 Thanks, I agree. I have several drafts I don't feel confident in resubmitting until I can address some issues brought up from the feedback I've received. But here's others I've submitted already:

• Draft:Chris Soriano
• Draft:The Last Butterflies
• Draft:The Master Chief: Part One
• Draft:Michael Lewis Foster

RE: Women in Red, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Should I translate and publish or submit those as drafts too? Filmforme (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filmforme, the Michael Lewis Foster draft was good to go. I will see how the others can be improved later today.

Regarding Women in Red, it would be wiser to create drafts initially. I am happy to review them for you and guide you with making them. Please note that the subjects, while notable according to the standards of other language Wikipedias, may not be notable according to the English Wikipedia. A good gauge that I use is to see if the subject's various credits or accolades have articles in the English Wikipedia. It is also worthwhile to do a simple search and check if the subject's name is redlinked or unlinked across several existing articles on the English Wikipedia as well.

I would also like you to note that the German, French, Italian, and Spanish Wikipedias in my experience have generally maintained a high quality of articles and sources that are easier to bring on to the English version.

It is also a good idea, when checking the WiR redlist indices, to see if the subject's Wikidata item has several library database entries from VIAF – what this indicates is that the subject's work has been either published widely in several countries (hence mandating a legal deposit) or considered important enough to be acquired by the music/film/television series departments or archives of various countries' national libraries/archives/museums – thus, putting up a very good case for notability. These database entries render on Wikipedia at the bottom of the article under the template "Authority control databases" and you will find them to be quite populated on most established actors', directors', screenwriters', and producers' biographies.

I shall be in touch later today for the other drafts. Happy editing! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Filmforme, I had some time today, and went over some of the drafts you have listed above. I am sorry to say that Draft:Suzana Norberg and Draft:Raye Richards are a case of WP:TOOSOON. The movie draft, I would leave to the judgement of editors from those WikiProjects. Thank you for your valuable contributions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Spinster300 Thank you for your continued help on these. I'll keep my eyes out for more on the others. –Filmforme (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcement Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event. Tip of the month: AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on these banners. Just a note that there is generally no purpose in adding |year=2024 and 293 because 293 is a 2024 event so it will automatically be categorised as such under that year. The |year= parameter is for cases where the exact meetup is not known. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin, thank you for letting me know that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Just guessing here, but maybe you were trying to get the year (2024) to appear in the nested display on the banner. If that is the case, we can do that by changing the template's code and I have made a suggestion at Template talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Adding year on collapsed display — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin, my idea was to keep both: the drive and year. I plan to go back and tag all previous WiR articles of mine with their respective years of creation. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

No please don't! We can do this automatically using the template, if you wouldn't mind commenting at that link I gave above... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin, alright, I shall! Thank you for letting me know. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for creating Manara Valgimigli! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IgnatiusofLondon, how very sweet of you, thank you! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello @Spinster300, I have added and edited references on the draft article on artist Natalie Beridze that you have revised and declined for publishing. Please note that the page already exists in German language and the draft is addition in English. I have updated/edited references, and i believe the references ara comprehensively covering all points mentioned in the article, some other improvements were also made. I would be grateful you could revise the article once again. 31.146.234.210 (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note that the article still does not pass English Wikipedia's standard for a WP:BLP. Please also see WP:SUMMARY and WP:PYRAMID for a guide to writing style, and please keep the text WP:Neutral and avoid WP:Puffery. The article in German may pass the German Wikipedia's standards for quality of WP:Reliable Sources and satisfaction of inline citations, but it does not yet pass that of the English one. We need at least three very good quality reliable sources as per WP:THREE, or you may please demonstrate how the subject has received WP:SIGCOV. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear @Spinster300, I have been fixing the draft article on Felipe Castanhari that you revised and declined for publishing. Is there anything else I need to do before it gets approved? ElegantEgotist (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, thank you for your note. I will take a look at the draft tomorrow and let you know my suggestions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, there are still some issues with the draft. The biography and controversies section still need to rewritten in a more encyclopaedic tone. I am happy to make those changes for you, if you like. Please let me know. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I would be very thankful if you did so, because English is not my first language, so I translated it almost verbatim from the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, where rules are much looser. Thanks a million for your input and feedback! ElegantEgotist (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, you are very welcome! I will make the necessary changes to the draft in the coming few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, thanks a million! ElegantEgotist (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, I was researching the subject of your draft today when I just now noticed that you moved the draft to main space. While I encourage being WP:BOLD, I would strongly recommend sticking to the AfC process while you are a new editor. This article still needs a lot more work to pass the regular Articles for Creation process, and in the main space incomplete or poor articles are often the first ones nominated for deletion. I shall proceed to make my improvements on the article as it stands at present. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

It wasn't me! ElegantEgotist (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, my sincerest apologies. I read the notification while on the fly. I see that your article was accepted by a fellow reviewer. My sincerest apologies, once again. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Nevertheless, thanks for making the article way more presentable! ElegantEgotist (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gillian Hart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Absolute mess, unsourced, and includes text that seems to be written by a person close to article subject. If someone has a reason to save this, please do so by fixing the amount of issues present.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have just realized the article has been vandalized but nobody noticed it. However, I still have major concerns about the article, so I'm keeping this here. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AlphaBetaGammsh, thank you for this notification. I have restored the article to its last accurate version. I further do not wish to contest the deletion nomination, I am happy to let the community come to a conclusion on the topic. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300,

I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to review the draft article I have been writing Draft:Max Mezo.

I have taken your notes and have tried to improve the article to the best of my ability. Although, I am very open and hoping that you could take another look at it and possibly make any adjustments you think are necessary to have it ready to be published. This is my first article and I've been working on it for quite awhile now. It has been fun learning more about the process and how wiki pages come to fruition.

Thanks so much! Limekiwi29 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Limekiwi29, thank you for writing in. The draft still needs a lot more work. I am happy to make edits to it over the coming few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300, that would be amazing. Thanks so much. Limekiwi29 (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Limekiwi29, I just saw that the draft was declined acceptance once again. The notes left by the reviewer are quite useful. Please go through them as and when you can. In the meantime, could you possibly reply with at least three very reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject? Once you send me those here, I can see how they can be worked in to the article. As it stands, submitting it again with no significant change to the draft will result in another decline. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Limekiwi29, I have made several improvements to the draft. It needed to be condensed to just the basic facts. The sources are not the best and need to be improved. Some previously made statements need citations; see WP:BLP. If you can help with that, please do so. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300, Thank you for making the adjustments. I have gone in and added citations and rewrote some things according to your indications. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the draft. Cheers. Limekiwi29 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Limekiwi29, thank you for your edits. Please note that, because of the lack of in-depth coverage of the subject, the draft will be treated as a WP:STUB, and thus it is recommended that the article be written in a WP:PYRAMID style of prose in its present state. The statement you have replaced about the subject's alma mater, would belong in a more in-depth summary style article, if we had the sources to cover it.

The community news citation could perhaps cite the suburb where the subject grew up, but I found no evidence that the streets the subject is a resident of as mentioned in the news article correspond with those of the suburb the subject grew up in from the suburb's own article. Is there any way you can clarify this?

The Facebook citation for the subject's birthdate is generally not recommended, unless it is common knowledge via a verifiable source or a post on a verified account (see WP:DOB). If the source cannot be verified, it is a safer bet to omit that information, as per WP:BLP guidelines.

Also, may I please confirm that you are not yourself the subject, or are in any way related to the subject of the article? In case you are, it is strongly recommended that you disclose this information. Please see WP:COI.

Please let me know if there is any other way you may have to improve this draft. At present, it is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON with only borderline notability. Please note that, you are welcome to provide offline sources, as long as they are verifiable by other editors who may have access to those offline, real world resources. Thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear @Spinster300, thank you for all the information, like I said I'm relatively new to article creation so I appreciate all the needed context.

For the community news article, I googled the intersection in Toronto to confirm it was in the beaches area.

The facebook I was unsure about, i saw other influencers and smaller pages did not have a cite for their birthday, for example Khaby Lame, Chiara Ferragni & Dixie D'Amelio. I couldn't find any other news sources where they say his exact birthday except for his facebook.

I am not Max or connected to him in any way, I'm a fan of his and have been a follower for many years.

Can you share examples of pages/sources that have been written for other up and coming influencers that would be considered notable for a wikipedia reference.

I saw you created the article Edward Hayter and I felt that Max's sources were far more notable then Edwards, so curious how Edward's page is more suitable for wikipedia than Max's. Thank You, @Limekiwi29 Limekiwi29 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Limekiwi29, thank you for the clarification that you are not connected to the subject. That being said, please take a look at WP:NPOV, since being a passionate fan or enthusiast about a subject (which is very welcome) can lead to some form of bias in the prose and article text which can be cumbersome to edit out. Thank you also for confirming that the intersection belongs to the suburb as mentioned in the news article. We can leave that bit in the article.

Regarding the birthdate citations for Lame, Ferragni, and D'Amelio – please notice that each of their biographies carries an "Authority control databases" template at the bottom of their respective articles.

Information in this template is populated by certain bibliographic data maintained by libraries, museums, universities, and other such highly reliable and resourceful institutions across the world. These institutions employ qualified librarians and cataloguers who will generally create a well researched and authoritative profile on various topics based on information they have collected from books, journals, movies, music, series, and several other media formats they are mandated to collect.

This authoritative data can possibly be considered "common knowledge" about certain aspects of a person's life; like their birthdate, birthplace, educational qualifications, former names, married names, pseudonyms or pen-names, and thus mentioned in the article without an explicit citation (although, one is encouraged whenever possible). It is easier to rely on and trust that these highly respected institutions will have done their due diligence to verify the facts before creating said authoritative profile. Of the names you listed, I give you the example of Lame, where his birthdate is mentioned in a reliable authoritative record as published and maintained by the National Library of France.

Alternatively, if the subject does not have any authoritative profiles with such institutions, like a many growing number of internet celebrities do, it is possible to cite their birthdate from the date harvested by most search engines like Google, from various fan sites (such as Famous Birthdays) who have probably taken the birthdate from a birthday post the celebrity made on their birthday on a verified and public social media account. In such an event, such harvested data on a search engine from such primary sources (the social media post) or other sources (Famous Birthdays) can be considered "common knowledge". However, it is important to note that fan sites such as Famous Birthdays are considered unreliable on Wikipedia if added directly, and the social media post is considered a primary source if added directly, and must be used with a fair amount of caution. Given the nature of Mezo's article being that of borderline notability of a living individual, it is best to omit the birthdate until it becomes common knowledge or can be reliably cited.

Regarding the Edward Hayter article, notability can be demonstrated in several ways, and Wikipedia usually has criteria and guidelines per topic. The most ideal way notability can be established for an actor is to demonstrate that they have played significant roles or have won significant awards. On Wikipedia, significance is often self-fulfilling. If the movie or show or award is significant enough, it will have an article of its own as it will have qualified notability criteria for each of those topics. In Hayter's case, he has portrayed a significant individual on a significant show, and another significant individual in a significant play at a significant theatre, and won a best actor award at a significant film festival, among other relevant things that add to his notability, albeit at the level of a stub article, which is likely to organically grow as his career progresses.

Reliable sources are generally needed to prove that these claims to notability are rooted in fact, and are not just a hoax or fiction. The reliability and verifiability of a source, and its nature (primary, secondary, etc.) are required when discussing the source itself. Take for example, the article on J. R. R. Tolkien. Large portions of his article are supported by his own letters, or biographies written by his children, all of which would be considered primary sources. But his article exists primarily because of his prominence and significance as an author of significant works. It is just that the most reliable manner in which several aspects of his life can be supported on a platform like Wikipedia is through those primary sources.

This in not to say that the fact or statement of notability that the source is meant to support does not matter, but it is within a specific context. Take for example, an individual being described as very generous and charitable by a very reliable, secondary source. This claim bears no significance in and of itself because of lack of detail, except to maybe summarise that said person "was remembered as a charitable person" in a long article; in a short article, this statement would not be immediately relevant to a reader and other editors may consider it an unencyclopaedic fact not worthy of mentioning as it bears no significance. If however, there is a primary source, say from a prominent charity, which has self published their annual report where this individual has been named as the primary patron or donor of a large sum, it can be used to demonstrate that this person was a significant philanthropist, adding to notability. If a large number of such sources and claims exist, a "philanthropy" or "charitable activities" section will even be added to the article of this person.

I apologise if this explanation is tediously long to read, but I hope this clarifies as to why Mezo's draft is still in its naissant stage, and his notability in and of itself needs to improve, regardless of the quality of sources added. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301 Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Art+Feminism | Find Her Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements Celebrate Women – All content gender gap events, in every language Wikipedia, in March 2024 Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024 Feminism and Folklore 2024 Writing Contest Tip of the month: When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Good morning, @Spinster300! I'm very sorry if I'm abusing your patience, but I'd like to ask your help in yet another issue. Earlier I was working on another draft, Draft:Wendel Bezerra, but it got denied as well because, once again, Portuguese-language Wikipedia (from where I translated it) doesn't give us much to work with. As soon as you're unoccupied, would you try to work your magic on it as well, or is it unsalvageable as it is??

Best regards and thanks for your work on Felipe Castanhari! ElegantEgotist (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElegantEgotist, this particular draft will take some work; I am not quite sure about the notability of voice actors. I will see what I can do. The Portuguese version also has a notice to it, so it is not the most ideally helpful translation. I will try and see if reliable sources can be found. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I think you accidentally hit the wrong review button, marking him with "not neutral" when there is nothing (for an academic) that is not neutral in that. I therefore have accepted it, but also tagged it with a need for more secondary sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ldm1954, thank you for letting me know! I marked the draft as decline because of the prose being a little too promotional in tone for me – I have come across several well-written academic articles that have stated facts similar to this article with a lot more neutrality. Please address the issue of the article being an orphan, and I can see that there are some copyright violations in the page's content as well. Please address that too if you can, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I strongly disagree with you about the copyright. Most of what is being marked is his books/references and that should not be. Dumb codes which classifying titles such as "Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity" as violations must be ignored as inappropriate.

For an academic this page is very quiet. Loud (and bad) is Draft:Prof. Kieran Murphy. More typical are Benjamin Schafer, David Steurer or Dan Romik all of which I consider comparable. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ldm1954, my apologies. I meant the summary style of the prose of the stated facts about Vallacher's career. Of course, the titles of the works cannot be changed. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Spinster300,

Thanks for your feedback that the article needed to be written more neutrally before it was ready for mainspace. I've done a bit of a rewrite to make it look like less of a resume. Can you advise me if what I've done is adequate and whether I should resubmit it to AfC or in your opinion does it need more work? TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TarnishedPath, thank you for the changes you have made. The article reads a lot better and more neutral now. There are some reference formatting and prose issues that need to be fixed, and I shall do those later today. After that, we can accept the draft into mainspace. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Spinster300, Thank you for your advice to rewrite the article more neutrally. Apparently, you have considered the mention that "the Index for Jewish Art is the biggest digital repository of Jewish art and material culture in the world" to be a judgmental statement. It is, however, an objective truth: there is no such another project, which collected so many documentation materials. Despite that, I have deleted this part not to provoke anyone. I think now the article contains no judgmental statements at all and is completely encyclopedic. I hope now it can be accepted for publication. CatherineOlesh (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CatherineOlesh, thank you for writing in. The objective fact is not an issue, it is the manner in which it is written. We strive for WP:NPOV here on Wikipedia. I am happy to go through the draft and edit it further, if you are fine with that. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear @Spinster300, that would be great! Thank you! Maybe there's something, which reads not neutral, but I am already so used to this text that I don't see it. I would really appreciate your help. CatherineOlesh (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spinster 300,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and taking the time to read this draft. As I am new to creating Wikipedia articles, I need all the constructive criticism I can gather. FYI, I'm going to carefully read WP:Writing Better Articles; WP:BECONCISE; your link to "not a publisher of personal essays;" and WP Avoiding Common Mistakes. I really do want to learn as much as I can about this style of writing, as I'm planning on writing more articles in the near and distant future. Additionally, I did see the Manual of Style (MoS), and I may selectively read parts of that one.

Thanks to your discussion regarding Ed Hayter, I now know that there's a list of requested articles out there.

I do have a question for you, however: after I make the corrections to this draft, will you be informed that it's ready to be re-reviewed when I re-submit it? That would be helpful on my part - to work with the same editor, rather than another random one. Is it possible to request the same reviewer for a draft?

Thanks again - Karl8704 Karl8704 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Karl8704, thank you for writing in. I am glad to know that you will be improving the draft and working on contributing more articles to Wikipedia. I would also request you to take a look at WP:WPWIR for interesting projects on the coverage of women in various fields on Wikipedia.

I am glad to know that my discussions with other draft writers has been helpful to you. You may also want to take a look at my detailed response to the creator of another draft here, about how no amount of editing can justify or fix inherent notability issues.

Unfortunately, I will not be directly informed of your resubmission unless the draft or article is directly on my Watchlist. Please feel free to ping me here once you have finished improving the draft. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi again Spinster300 - It's been over two months since I've worked on this draft, but "life" gets in the way occasionally, sometimes in back-to-back-to-back episodes... But now I'm back to working on this first draft. I've spent quite a bit of time reading many articles - "Inverted Pyramid" by Amy Schade, "How to create and manage a good lead section," "Notability," and perhaps another dozen articles. I've also read and mulled over other recently accepted articles, paying close attention to structure and style.

So I've taken up your offer and 'pinged' you to take a peek at this latest version. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think.

Thanks so much - karl8704 Karl8704 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spinster, I do not quite understand what you mean by: Several sections of the article need to be rephrased or rewritten for the article to pass. I am author of multiple full length articles on Czech Art (Mikuláš Medek, Adolf Hoffmeister, Theodor Pištěk, Zbyněk Sekal, Vladimír Janoušek, etc.) which were reviewed without any objections. Can you specify what should be "rephrased or rewritten"? Thanks. NoJin (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NoJin, thank you for writing in. There are several statements within this draft that would be considered WP:Puffery; the subject is notable, and the draft will be accepted, but please take a look at making the language more dry and neutral, if possible. I am not sure about the writing style on any of your other biographies that you have contributed. In case there is puffery, it will be edited out eventually, if it has not already. Thank you for contributing important Czech artist biographies to the English Wikipedia! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Spinster300, I try to be as objective and neutral as possible, but the articles are about art. I don't do any "own research", but I draw on texts by art historians and curators, whose writing style is specific and quite different from descriptive texts on other topics. By the way - I don't understand why a text about Jan Mikulka, who is really important painter, award winning repeatedly in UK, arouses emotions, while the English Wikipedia tolerates a stub about the unknown regional Czech footballer Jan Mikula.--NoJin (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NoJin, please note that on Wikipedia, we do not compare notability. We have a standard notability criteria, but that does not mean we compare one subject to another in the various aspects of their notability. Article length does not matter, either. What matters is whether the article content presented is encyclopaedic in nature or not.

Take the example of the footballer you have pointed out – the article is factual and to the point. There are no subjective descriptions anywhere. As compared to the Draft:Jan Mikulka, which has statements such as "which is the most prestigious competitive showcase of contemporary portraiture", "Since the artist works mostly on commission, we do not see his works very often on the open art market", "Mikulka can express the psychology of man, he can capture man in his complexity, as a human being charged with feelings and spiritual vibration", and many other statements which need to be removed entirely, or attributed as quotes from that specific author writing for that specific source about the subject or his work.

I am happy to clean up the draft for you if you like, but it needs to be made much more concise (see: WP:BECONCISE) and the prose needs to be written objectively, dryly, and as plainly as possible (see: WP:NPOV). Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Spinster300 I understand the point of your remarks. Writtig article on Jan Mikulka was hampered by the lack of sources and I had used phrases from the English article by Mark Gisbourne perhaps excessively. I shall clean up the text and submit it for review. Thanks for your suggestions.--NoJin (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NoJin, you are very welcome. Feel free to let me know once the changes are made and I will be happy to review the article. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing Mimaki-hime! I'm actually over the moon💛 Camillz (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Camillz, you are very welcome! Please continue to improve it wherever and whenever you can. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

On 15 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Knight (artist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Knight's wartime painting activities led to him being mistaken for a German spy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Knight (artist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Knight (artist)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spinster300. Thank you for your review of my article on Matthew Jordan Smith (Photographer). Draft:Matthew Jordan Smith (Photographer) I see it was declined. In this submission of it, I added a lot more citations than the first submission (went from 3 to 16 sources). If possible, I would love to know which specific areas you feel need more citation or if there are sections you think I should just delete from the article so that it can be approved. Thank you so much for your time. Jennifer Bak (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jennifer Bak, thank you for writing in. I am happy to help you improve your draft. Please give a read to WP:Writing better articles, if you can. Within your draft, no statement made or claim stated can be left unreferenced, as per the policy on biographies (see: WP:BLP). It is generally not acceptable to leave ends of sentences in paragraphs unreferenced, even if sentences within the paragraph have inline citations (see: WP:INLINE).

Several statements are also externally linked, which is not allowed. Please convert them to plain text or to wikilcnks to other articles or article sections within Wikipedia. If the source is reliable, you may use the current external link to cite the claim being made by the statement (see: WP:EL and WP:Link). Several statements in the draft as it stands at present can also be condensed and summarised more efficiently (see: WP:BECONCISE).

Please let me know if you face any issues while making these corrections and improvements, and I will be happy to chip in. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Spinster300, please tell me what is not reliable and what you consider to be reliable in the draft at Draft:James Fox (filmmaker). Just declining it as unreliable sources without providing what works/what doesn't is not helpful. Thank you. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please have a look at WP:RS to determine whether a source you are using is reliable or not. On your draft, there are too many Rotten Tomato references, which in this type of article, is not accepted as a reliable source. Neither are podcasts, interviews, nor is Spotify. The subject is notable, but the references used to demonstrate said notability need to be better. The sources that do pass are The Debrief and The Washington Examiner. Please add another source that is of this calibre, so as to meet WP:THREE. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the references to CoastToCoast, Rotten Tomatoes, and TVGuide. For his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, I added the links to James's two appearances directly from the JRE site. I left in the newspaper sources and added one or two more. Please let me know if there are other changes that need to be made and I will work on those. Thanks. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article can also be summarised and made more concise if possible (see: WP:CONCISE). I am happy to make those edits, if that is fine with you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Spinster, I am fine with you making those edits and doing a review. Thank you. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will make the changes soon, in the coming day or so. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]