User talk:Cabrils

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Working on the Main Page - I

Being the gateway to the encyclopedia - the Main Page is Wikipedia's most frequently visited page. The main page is always protected and can only be edited by admins. But, most of the content on the main page is piped in each day from various departments, via templates. The volunteers in these departments work year round to prepare the content on the Main Page to be viewed by the World each day.

The departments that prep content for the Main Page are:

Anybody can help prep the pages that feed into the main page's templates (up until the day they are displayed on the Main Page), by proofreading and correcting them, and we encourage you to do so. (continued tomorrow)

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}


Thank you for your fair and objective comments. As you can tell, I am new at this. I was about to give up on this subject and go in an entirely new direction for my first article, but your comments gave me the encouragement to proceed. I have reviewed the sources and references that you recommended, and believe that the submission is now more appropriate. Your continued feedback/assessment would be most appreciated! Salish Amerind (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Your revisions are significant and progressive. However, the draft still contains many references that are not considered to be reliable (including blogs (like the first reference) and private company websites-- please remove them from the draft. Once completed please post here and I'd be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Changes made as per your suggestion. This has been an educational process! Salish Amerind (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, another reviewer didn't see that it was a draft space edit (thought I was removing edits from a main space page) and deleted. After they realized that it was a draft space edit, they have restored the edit. Salish Amerind (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabrils, happy New Year! With the changes made, what is my next step? (I'm sorry, but I really am new at this!). Thank you again, SA. Salish Amerind (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Salish Amerind.
Firstly I would encourage you to create a User Page because it will make communicating much easier (for example you will receive alerts when someone pings you).
I've re-read the draft and it's progressing, so well done for that, however on my reading I still see some issues:
1. The draft still contains subjective, qualitative assertions (eg "He is a leader in osteopathic medicine...") that must be supported by at least one reliable source. It would seem you have not read the material to which I referred you in my comment on the draft, including the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. They help explain why articles should be as neutral or objective as possible.
2. Please identify, with specificity, exactly what criteria you believe the draft meets to establish notability? Since Feuer is a physician and attorney, the page needs to meet the relevant criteria found in WP:ANYBIO; and/or WP:NPROF. So please provide a response like, "I believe the draft meets WP:NPROF criteria #3 because...". It may help for you to read this essay which discusses how people who are "run of mill" do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.
3. As I requested in my comment, it would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the 3 best sources that establish notability of the subject.
4. Again, as I requested in my comment, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
Please take your time reading through these suggestions, and all the links, before responding. I know it can seem a bit overwhelming at first, but you'll get the hang of it pretty quickly I think. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed reply. I have been using other Wikipedia articles somewhat as "templates" for tone and content. That may not have been the best course. I will read the references your provided again, and reconsider. Again, I truly appreciate your review and guidance (and patience). Salish Amerind (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils. How was A. Kimberley McAllister article accepted? Almost 60% of the content is unsourced. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiJeraxmoira, apologies for such a belated reply. I accepted the draft because:
  • WP:NACADEMIC#5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."
  • Previously Cullen328 explained that "Drafts that have a likelihood of surviving Articles for Deletion should be accepted".
I see you've done a significant amount of work cleaning it up-- thank you, much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cabrils. I just wanted to let you know that even if the article passed WP:NACADEMIC#5, it failed WP:V, which I believe is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. You cannot accept articles with unsourced content into the mainspace, especially for BLPs. You should have asked the author of that draft to remove all unsourced content or removed it yourself before accepting it into the mainspace. I hope this doesn't come across as negative or impolite. Have a great weekend. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jeraxmoira for the feedback, much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CabrilsCabrils, you kindly reviewed and edited my article on Peter Barber Architect, which has been published. I’ve written a new one on Alex Ely Architect, would you be able to review this? I’m not making much progress as a writer on Wikipedia as I’m struggling with the coding! Thanks “21012024” @Architect encyclopedia Architect encyclopedia (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the kind words and ping. I've posted a comment on the draft page which I hope you find helpful. Please do persevere, the page has good potential. Cabrils (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils Cabril, I've included extra references on the page. Please submit it again. Hammer-Sabrine (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hammer-Sabrine, thanks for the ping. Please address the issues I raised in my comment on the draft. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils thanks for your review and feedback on the draft, much appreciated. I do have several questions, starting with a clarification on the points you listed in context to the draft's references. When developing the draft, I browsed wiki for articles of similar theme or topic, and one of them is this (MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition). If you don't mind, could you have a look at the references listed for the MIT article and let me know how the ones added for the LKYGBPC competition compares. Thank you! <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> Junieparker (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Junieparker. It's often problematic to use other articles are a template for new articles, particularly in this case where the page has already been tagged for having multiple issues. The key issue the draft page needs to overcome is establishing notability. I would encourage you to peruse, not just scan, the links I included in my comment. Also, as I suggested in my comment, it would be helpful if you could please identify, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cabrils for your detailed explanation of your rejection of the artist bio page I drafted about classical guitarist Gohar Vardanian. My understanding is that the rejection boils down to notability: and I can understand that a classical guitarist that does not have a major-label recording contract and has not yet appeared as a soloist with a major orchestra may be deemed unremarkable. However, I do think that Vardanyan IS notable, particularly for the excellent pedagogical works that she has recorded and posted up to YouTube (a major performance medium these days) as well as the four books that she has written and published with Mel Bay Publications. (She is sponsored by Strings By Mail in this capacity, but I did not mention that in the draft as it would look like advertising, plus we don't know their criteria for sponsorship.)

I realize that I have to accept your decision on this, and I will continue editing the draft as Vardanyan accumulates more citable "assets" as her career progresses, with the hope that the page will someday exceed the bar of acceptance into Wikipedia main.

I will mention that I find it frustrating that a high-level classical guitarist, certainly within the top 100 currently active in the world, is not "notable" enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, while a backup American football player who only played in one NFL game does warrant a Wikipedia page. There are 1,696 active NFL players on any given Sunday, and they all have Wikipedia pages, not to mention the many thousands that remain on Wikipedia that no longer play. But I understand that criteria vary for different Wikipedia categories, and clearly classical guitarist "notability" carries a high bar, whereas simply making a team in American football is considered sufficiently notable.

But enough of that. Again, I thank you for your prompt and professional review! I do appreciate it! Sammyjava (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sammyjava, you're welcome.
You are correct, notability is the key here, and since Vardanyan is a musician, the draft needs to specifically meet the criteria set out in WP:NMUSICIAN.
Wikipedia does not consider YouTube a reliable source because anyone, without any credibility, can post content there (amongst other reasons).
Being an author can potentially help establish notability if other reliable sources discuss the books, however the mere fact she has written books is not evidence in itself of notability: see the requirements to meet WP:AUTHOR.
Every page on Wikipedia is required to meet the relevant notability criteria, whether the subject is a sportsperson, insect, historical event etc.
I reiterate my comment requesting you to declare if you have a conflict of interest, which seems almost certain given the nature of the draft, including that the 2 images used on it were supplied directly by the subject. A conflict of interest does not prevent you from submitting a draft page, but it is required to be declared.
Finally, I would encourage you to peruse, not just scan, my comment on the draft page, and the links I included, as they provide very helpful guidance about what is required to create a successful draft.
As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere. Cabrils (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do! I think a misunderstanding was created by my requesting permission from Vardanyan to post as yet non-CC images taken from two websites to Wikimedia Commons, and then trying to say that they were CC-released by her in a clumsy way (using the word "provided".) They're not my images, so someone had to CC license them, and that person is she. In my mind, she provided the open licensing.
I don't think the simple fact that I enjoy her work requires a conflict of interest disclosure. I have no conflicting interests. But that's not the main issue, of course. I will continue to improve the draft as time goes on. I am in no hurry. Thanks again! Sammyjava (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the relevant discussion on the COI Noticeboard. You are of course correct-- enjoying someone's work does not require a COI disclosure, but being paid, or being related to the subject, would. I note your declaration of having no conflicting interests, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of the page. I'll work on revising this. One comment you left didn't have a link: re: reporting any conflict of interest. Would you please add that? Hockmana (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good one Adam. The link is there on conflict of interest.
FYI I've read your User Page and see your interests, which all look bona fide.
WP:THREE would be interesting/helpful too, both for reviewers and as an exercise for you to focus specifically on her notability.
This draft has potential so please persevere. Cabrils (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for that. This is my second Wiki page, so definitely in learning mode. Your resources were very helpful. A few follow up questions.
  1. I believe Bridget meets this criterion #3 on Notability: Bridget is a Fellow of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, the highest ranking organization in behavior analysis.
  2. For references, I added secondary sources for her studies on observational learning and social skills. Do you suggest other ways to improve that?
Hockmana (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great.
1. I think this at least comes close (to assumed notability), but I'm not seeing where ABAI is universally recognised as "the highest ranking organization in behavior analysis"?
In any event, it would be helpful to add at least a couple of other reliable sources. The lead section should make clear her notability, so I would suggest this be reviewed, because her being "mentioned" in a book may not necessarily even meet the notability criteria for reliable sources (more than a "mention" is required, so consider the wording here).
2. The draft has not been editing since my review, so I can't see where you "added secondary sources for her studies on observational learning and social skills"?
Again, WP:THREE would be helpful for everyone. Cabrils (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha.
  1. Okay, I'll definitely add to that.
  2. In this line about her research [while also conducting applied research on observational learning, social skills, and other areas.], I included secondary sources, #3 and #4. Does that work?
Hockmana (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the draft to better accommodate your additions. You'll see I've removed "publishing those findings in top ABA journals (i.e., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis)" because it is pejorative ("top journals"). I've tagged that sentence, and elsewhere, with "citation needed" so you can see where I think it would be good to add reliable sources.
In that specific case, please add her best, relevant published journal article, and the best journal article published by someone OTHER THAN HER, that cites her original work, to establish and evidence the claim that "is recognized for her research on children with autism in an applied practice setting.".
Ping me whenever you've done that and I would be pleased to have a look. Making good progress. Cabrils (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Thanks for your edits. I've revised it based on your "citation needed" section. Here's a summary of the changes:
1) Collapsed sentence 1 and 2 since the second reference applied to both sentences;
2) Add a citation to the end of the first paragraph of Bridget's career section;
3) deleted the board member position for the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior—unfortunately, they do not have a web presence with board members listed.
Open to other feedback. Thanks so much! Hockmana (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, more good progress, well done.
OK, so the draft has cleaned up a lot, and I now am left wanting to see how it establishes Taylor's notability (as defined). Could you please provide WP:THREE; and identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:PROF criteria #3, because XXXXX").
I'm not seeing the draft meeting any criteria...For example, I'm not seeing how Taylor "...significantly influenced the autism and applied behavior analysis (ABA) movement". Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and attention to this article.
  1. Note about “significantly influenced the autism and applied behavior analysis movement”: In this statement, I am referring to Maurice’s book—and the story of Taylor work with Maurice’s daughter—influenced the movement (citation: Walsh, 2011).
  2. Source 1. Let Me Hear Your Voice was a significant book in the history of autism services. Bridget’s prominence in Maurice’s story (one of the early examples of applying ABA to children with autism) is what mobilized communities to advocate for services. Daou (2014) is the source that highlights the importance of Let Me Hear Your Voice; the book, itself, highlights Taylor’s work.
    1. Here, I believe this meets “Notability (academics)” criteria number 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  3. Source 2. Rodriguez, Tarbox, and Tarbox (2023) cites Taylor 15 times in their article; noting that it is the foundation of compassionate care-based practice applied behavior analysis. Taylor, LeBlanc, and Nosik (2019) and LeBlanc, Taylor, & Marchese (2019) are the two foundational publications that Rodriguez et al. is referencing.
    1. Here, I believe this meets “Notability (academics)” criteria number 1 (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.)
  4. Source 3. Taylor is a Fellow of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, the international association that promotes the profession of behavior analysis. It is the publisher of four of the major peer-reviewed publications in behavior analysis. “ABAI's Fellows are outstanding contributors to behavior analysis in the areas of research and scholarship, professional practice, or teaching/administration/service” (https://www.abainternational.org/constituents/fellows.aspx)
    1. Here, I believe this meets “Notability (academics)” criteria number 3 (…a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
Thoughts? Hockmana (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for this detailed reply, it's very helpful.
1. (and Source 1): Yes I understand that. I appreciate what you are conveying here, however I don't see a causal link between the two: Assuming the book is "significant", the mention of Taylor's work in it does not necessarily make Taylor's work significant. To establish that would require other reliable sources that effectively state something like "Taylor's work, as reported in 'Let Me Hear Your Voice', is significant". However, I don't think much rests on this because, as I explain below, I'm persuaded by points 2 & 3.
2. Source 2: I'm persuaded by this. Additionally, other searches in WikiLibrary return numerous results where Taylor's work is cited approvingly as an authority (eg Scholtens MC. Using Music to Encourage Joint Attention for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Attention as a Reciprocal Relationship. Music Educators Journal. 2019;105(4):45-51. doi:10.1177/0027432119846954). Further, Taylor is the Action Editor for numerous articles (eg Conine DE, Vollmer TR, Barlow MA, Grauerholz-Fisher E, Dela Rosa CM, Petronelli AK. Assessment and treatment of response to name for children with autism spectrum disorder: Toward an efficient intervention model. Journal of applied behavior analysis. 2020;53(4):2024-2052. doi:10.1002/jaba.737).
3. Source 3: I think this carries weight, particularly in combination with the other material.
In light of this, I would feel comfortable approving the draft page, so feel free to submit it, then please ping me and I would be happy to approve it.
Thanks again for your help and patience. Hopefully you've found some of this exercise constructive, particularly for the drafting of future pages. Should you draft more, which would seem likely given what you've written on your User Page, please feel free to ping me if you have any questions or would like a second opinion, and including if you have submitted a draft and would like me to review it. I find these collaborative processes very productive. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. And I'd love your help on other articles. I think I'm most stumped by when to provide a secondary source + primary; or what I need to communicate in the sentence. Hockmana (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just resubmitted the page. Thanks. Hockmana (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article accepted, good work! Cabrils (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Cabrils (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thanks so much for your help. Hockmana (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are wanting to draft pages for living people (therapists), I'm sure you would also find WP:BLP helpful. Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for reviewing the first submission. I have just done a reediting. Please review when you have time. I did not click the "resubmit" button. If I have to do that in order for you to review it again please let me know. The last section might be interpretable as a CV but my intention is just that it serve as a summary or recent activities. Also, I have added a lot more references.

"KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress, well done. You don't need to hit the Submit button --in fact it's better if you don't while we progress the draft together.
That's a lot of new sources, good work. Please ensure each source meets the criteria of reliable sources.
It would help by identifying, on the draft's Talk Page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
I note your declaration of a conflict of interest on your User Page, thanks for doing that. The template hasn't formatted correctly though, so please re-read the instructions on how to add that and re-do it.
Ping me here when you're done and I'll have a good look. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've done some more editing and I did the COI information in the Talk portion of the draft article. The citations are all respected newspapers, government or respected cultural institutions, and book publishers. In all cases the citations are included not for the purpose of opinion, but only to provide further facts.
In the instructions for citations I saw mention that three citations was all that was desired. That's surprising. Many of the wikipedia pages I've seen over the years have more than that.
Please let me know how the page looks now. Thank you. KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wanting to help but it's clear that you have not read my comments carefully--please re-read all my comments carefully.
My comments do not "mention that three citations was all that was desired". The purpose of WP:THREE is to allow reviewers of draft pages to efficiently assess the notability of a subject, which in most cases can be done by assessing the best / strongest 3 sources. This is now the third time I am requesting you to please identify, on the draft's Talk Page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
Further, and again as I have already requested, please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").
Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, If my previous response felt rude I offer my apologies. That was not my intention. This is my first time working on a wikipedia page so I am at times unfamiliar with which actions on the Talk page require coded input and which is just writing sentences. I think the example sentence at the end of your most recent comment helped me better understand. On the Talk page for the draft I have added two topics: WP:THREE Notable Sources and WP:MUSICBIO Criteria. I hope these have been entered in the proper way. I think the conflict of interest portion was correctly entered a few days ago, because on the Talk page there is a portion that says I have made the declaration.
Thank you for time and effort. KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KwabenaSlaughter. No worries, your response wasn't rude, and I'm not offended, all good.
I did include that example sentence in my comment at the top of the draft page.
Thanks for providing that info on the Talk Page, I have looked through the revised draft and made some comments on the Talk page.
Happy to help. Cabrils (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Here's a question about an alternate direction to go with this project. On this subject of Maxwell Melvins there are three linguistic things that are woven tightly together, which make it hard to discuss them individually. 1) The Lifers Group was an organization created in the 1970s by incarcerated people to help those with long sentences. 2) Maxwell Melvins joined the Lifers Group in the 1980s and introduced his idea to make music to help them spread their message. They chose to name the music project the same as their social group: Lifers Group. This sameness has created a certain amount of historical blur between the group and the music project. 3) There is already a wikipedia page about the music project of the Lifers Group. Maxwell's name is mentioned five times on that page in a way that makes it clear that he was influential to its creation. The first sentence on that page begins with "Lifers Group was a hip hop group formed by Maxwell Melvins...". The dilemma here is that the Lifers Group was not just a hip hop group. They started as a social project, then added a music project, and Maxwell Melvins was a member of the social group and the creator of the music project.
My question is, do you think it would be wisest if, rather than making a separate page for Maxwell, I tried to edit the currently existing Lifers Group page and more thoroughly clarified the multiple aspects of what the Lifers Group was? KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KwabenaSlaughter,
I think that's an excellent suggestion. I should emphasise that I think a page for Maxwell is possible, but there are a few hurdles to overcome, as our journey here has shown.
I think it would be a very helpful and valuable experience for you to elaborate the material about Maxwell on the already existing Lifers Group page, being mindful of the relevant policies and guidelines. I expect it may become self-evident then whether there's sufficient notability for Maxwell to warrant his own page.
As a new editor, with no (or little) experience, jumping in and creating a new page from scratch can be daunting and disheartening-- I know from personal experience!
Feel free to ping me if you ever have any questions. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stephen Douglas Gore[edit]

Hi. I started a discussion about an article that you moved to mainspace. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Cabrils (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jane Stuart-Smith[edit]

I didn't create Draft:Jane Stuart-Smith but I came across it and had something to add. Don't the fellowships satisfy WP:PROF, at least now? I think there's more one could add, but I haven't done a deep dive. -- //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Replayful: Yes! As I said in my comment on the draft, "The draft likely passes WP:PROF, however prior to accepting the page, it would help to add some reliable sources that discuss Stuart-Smith's contribution in some detail.I would be happy for you to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere."
Your additions look great, and I've added a reference to a Guardian article, which all just help to add some meat on the bone. If you wanted to submit the draft I'd be happy to accept it, please just ping me here so I know. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabrils I have submitted it now. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 12:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 22:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for reviewing my first submission a few months ago! I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments. I've just resubmitted my article in the hopes that it adequately addresses your comments.

On the article's talk page, I list my WP:THREE sources and explicitly note that I have no conflict of interest regarding the article's subject. For the article itself, I added a couple more sources (which also fed into my WP:THREE list) and deleted one that no longer properly loaded. I also looked to rewrite certain sections and add additional sentences in the hopes that it no longer reads like a CV, as you previously mentioned. Hopefully I addressed your original concerns, but please let me know if it is not up to Wikipedia's standards, and I can do my best to make additional improvements. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review! Brick1329 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those amendments are all heading in the right direction, good work.
However, the sources you included for WP:THREE are far from impressive, and none are from mainstream media. While Hochberg holds a a named chair appointment as a professor at Rice University (probably considered a major institution of higher education and research), and as such her notability may be assumed as long as it can be "substantiated through reliable sources": WP:NPROF. I would encourage you to look further for at least 2 such articles from mainstream media sources like larger newspapers (eg The Houston Chronicle). If she is truly notable theses shouldn't be difficult to find.
Also, I feel the Selected Publications list is too extensive for the page (Wikipedia is not LinkedIn) and would encourage you to limit it to the most representative or most notable 4-6 articles. Cabrils (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for reviewing my submission last month. I have resubmitted the article and improved sources and less bias commentary about the band. I have also included my COI in the talk page, as well as the WP:THREE for the articles. I have also linked the criterion from the necessary sections to provide quick reference for yourself. Please let us know if this articles are satisfactory or we require more direct content written the band. Aidangoodman (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aidan, thanks for the ping.
Good work with those amendments and thank you for your COI declaration.
Unfortunately, it appears you are not quite understanding the criteria that qualify a draft page to be accepted on Wikipedia, so I would encourage you to read thoroughly all the links I included in my comment on the draft, especially ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. For example, in your COI declaration (which, incidentally, should be on your User Page, rather than the Draft Talk page), you say you are "ATTEMPTING TO BE AS UNBIAS AS POSSIBLE. I HOPE TO PRESENT AND ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL REPRESENTATION OF OUR BAND AND ITS STORY", however lack of bias and accuracy and truthfulness are not the core criteria for a page, rather it is notability. And the sources you include are not sufficiently reliable to meet any of the standards identified in WP:GNG and WP:NBAND, which are the most relevant criteria.
Further, because you have a conflict of interest, the page is required to meet even higher standards.
In my view, a page for your band is WP:TOOSOON. I would encourage you to save the draft somewhere safe on your personal computer (because inactive draft pages expire after 3 months), and in time, as your band hopefully garners notability, add reliable sources that evidence that as they appear, at which point the draft may be worth re-submitting.
For clarity with other reviewers, I am posting this comment on the Talk page.
I wish you and the band success. Cabrils (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Rao family requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Alalch E. 21:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously have no connection with this topic. There is a page for Puja Kolluru, who only directed one feature film Martin Luther King (film). I was not sure if she is notable (only directed one film). Maybe she is? But I saw that she directed a documentary and tried to create a draft to see if there are enough sources (which there aren't). We can safely redirect the draft to the director's article or delete the draft.

Main thing I wanted to say is that while creating the draft I thought that Tree Foundation was a recognized website but later realized it is only specific to Margaret D. Lowman. DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping.
That you had no connection with the film was not "obvious" to me, so thank you for clarifying.
Perhaps its worth adding the gist of the draft to Kolluru's page, after which it may become apparent if the doco is worthy of it's own page? In any event, I stand by my review and don't see the draft currently meeting WP:NFILM. Cabrils (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]