User talk:Apriltools/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Apriltools. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Monica Behan has been accepted

Monica Behan, 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!

Bkissin (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robby Robinson (musician) has been accepted

Robby Robinson (musician), 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.

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!

NagalimNE (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robby Robinson (musician) (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This article still uses a bunch of two-letter state abbreviations and name drops per WP:IBA. Please identify WP:THREE of your best sources that focus on Robinson's career. Do not cite Patch or PressReader unless you can find a newspaper article from there.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robby Robinson (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Robby Robinson (musician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Apriltools! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robby Robinson (musician) (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Modussiccandi was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Further to the discussion of the three best sources on the talk page, I should add this regarding WP:ENT: that criterion applies to actors, comedians etc. and the 'stage performances' refers to theatre plays, operas, etc. Robinson is a musician and is not judged according to WP:ENT.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robby Robinson (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Robby Robinson (musician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Modussiccandi (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Modussiccandi I don't see why you are referencing WP:ENT. In addition to being a musician, Robinson is also a producer, conductor, arranger, music director, and composer. IMHO this also qualifies him as a "Creative professional" WP:ARTIST 1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors;". While he is not the main subject of the articles, Frankie Valli and others single out his importance as shown in the citations. These are more than trivial mentions as Robinson is mentioned in detail in about a half dozen citations.WP:TRIVIALMENTION

As a conductor (London Symphony Orchestra and others) and the band's music director, I believe Robinson also establishes notability under WP:NCONCERT. (Raising a quarter-million dollars for a charity, as the headliner, is also NCONCERT and not trivial imho.)

As for the talk section, Robinson is a person, in WP:NBASIC, I find the quote, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" So because Robinson is a musician, does this disqualify him from being a person?

I've added a chart section to the article and resubmitted, an album that made the Billboard 200, Robinson was the keyboardist and associate producer. WP:GOODCHARTS I will add more as I find them.

Thanks for your review, regards Apriltools (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all, every draft is measured against WP:GNG, which is our main measuring stick. In a nutshell, that guideline calls for significant coverage of the subject in two or more reliable, independent sources. As a previous reviewer pointed out on the talk page, this is not the case for this subject. Regarding WP:CREATIVE, I concur with the previous reviewer in that more substantial coverage is needed to prove this. The reason I bring up WP:ENT is because you cited this guideline on the draft talk page and seemed to insinuate that it was relevant. Of course, there is a chance that the next reviewer will evaluate the situation differently. Good luck with the draft, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robby Robinson (musician) has been accepted

Robby Robinson (musician), 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.

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!

Missvain (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Missvain, Thank You! Apriltools (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Twentytwenty (Sara Niemietz album) has been accepted

Twentytwenty (Sara Niemietz album), 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!

Storchy (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonewoodamp (October 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AlphaBetaGamma was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Declined due to the focus of the article going on the positive reviews, instead of the product itself, which is only mentioned in the lead for some reason.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tonewoodamp and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonewoodamp (October 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sir MemeGod was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Reviews are not something that is usually within a Wikipedia article, especially since a large chunk of the article is just the "reviews" section.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tonewoodamp and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sir MemeGod  13:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonewoodamp (December 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Significa liberdade was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tonewoodamp and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Apriltools! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Significa liberdade: and thank you for the welcome. If you would be so kind, could you markup the passages you see as promotional with the inline Template:POV_statement on draft:Tonewoodamp? The draft is well sourced, non-independent and PR releases were specifically avoided, so the problem must be my writing. Examples like below, using the POV_statement template, would be much more helpful than generic article rejection tags.

Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view,^{[neutrality is disputed]} and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.

Alternately, "...The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias..." WP:POVDELETION

Thank you Apriltools (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Apriltools! Looking at the article, I have two primary concerns. First is the use of promotional language (see WP:BUZZWORD), such as the use of "novel" in the lead sentence. As a reader, I'm not sure what this means exactly. For example, is it new or original? Either way, this phrasing is unencyclopedic. The second issue is with the general focus of the article, which serves to promote the product. There is a heavy focus on reviews, as well as other promotional material, such as the company's success beyond this one product. Overall, when writing an article about a product, you want to focus on the objective facts: what is the product, and what does it do? Consider this: if someone who hated the product read the article, would they think it's well written? That is, does it clearly and objective describe the product, and is the writing balanced?

I hope this helps. I've added a few in-line tags, but the larger issue is the general focus. Let me know if you have follow-up questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: Thank you for your help with that, I reworded and removed some of the prose. The only thing I see that remotely feels promotional is "The Tonewoodamp is described as innovative and affordable,[5][6]", but these are the exact words from those references (number six says "revolutionary" -- which I know would not fly in AfC.) Anyway, "innovative and affordable" terms are prevalent throughout the citations.

In the reviews, I've singled out the detrimental comments about the product, being careful not to provide any praise other than "innovative and affordable". I believe that if somebody hated this product, they would thank me for highlighting the product's weaknesses.

BTW. though removed, the word "novel" (to mean new and unknown before), was an attempt to paraphrase the prevailing sentiment in the references. As for reviews, all secondary sources are reviews of something, these just happen to be about a product rather than an event or personality.

Thanks for looking at the draft, should I submit it again? Apriltools (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work! I know creating articles is difficult, and we've often inundated with non-neutral language (positive and negative), so it can be hard to tell when something reads as promotional. I would recommend submitting for review again. I'll allow another reviewer to look it over to provide another perspective. Thank you again for your effort! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)