User talk:Clearfrienda/Archives/2021/August

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

John Davies poet 1944

Hi, Thanks for reviewing this. Could you possibly give me some examples of what you see are references that are not independent and/or reliable. Thanks, againMoonbread (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@MoonBread: Hello! For your draft, John Davies (poet, born 1944), I declined for one major reason: Information in the article is not supported by reliable sources. The article probably meets the notability guidelines for poets, but it doesn't matter unless all information can be accurately verified by reliable sources. You cannot use original research on Wikipedia. Since this is also a biography of a living person, you need to be even more careful, as non-verified information can be potentially libellous. The article has large sections, which is good, but the information is cited to non-reliable, or nonindependent sources.

If you are looking for examples of reliable sources, consider looking at a list of some sources decided to be reliable or not by the Wikipedia community, here. Reliable sources would be notable ,reliable news organizations (local news works just as well, as long as they're reliable), reviews of their works by reliable sources, etc. I can't really give specific examples because I'm not very familiar with news organizations in the UK, especially Wales.

If you can't find any reliable sources to verify the information, then the information does not belong on Wikipedia, and must be removed before the article can be accepted. Feel free to leave a message on this thread if you've made some improvements, and would like me to re-review it.

I hope this helps! - Clear friend a ^💬 16:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gregory G. Dell'Omo

Hello! I edited this page per your recommendations. You asked that I leave a comment here when I'm ready for you to review it again. Would you mind taking a look at it again? I removed everything that was more opinion based. Thank you for your help! 1A8J6R5 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello! It appears to be much better now, with most opinionated parts removed. I will be accepting the article now. Congratulations! Hopefully you decide to stay and keep contributing ─ maybe even in a non-paid manner, as a volunteer? (: Clear friend a ^💬 10:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Stove Company

Hello! Thank you so much for your help so far on my article. I added the requested contributor info to the article. Please let me know if I need to make any changes to it. Also, you said some of my sources are paywalled. I believe you were referring to the Chattanooga Times Free Press sources. I have seen approved Wikipedia articles use this source before. If it would help, I can send screenshots of the articles. I will not re-submit until I hear back from you. Trying to avoid a deletion nomination! Thank you again for your help! ChattWiki423 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChattWiki423: Hello! Your article does not seem to pass the notability guidelines for companies, the criteria being "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". There appears to be no coverage in reliable sources here. Reliable sources include: notable, published, verifiable news articles, or if it applies; scholarly articles. Clear friend a ^💬 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Request on 15:51:57, 30 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by BaileighD

BaileighD (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ofra Cosmetics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Ofra Cosmetics

Hi, I am requesting assistance on Draft:Ofra Cosmetics. Since you last reviewed I have added sources that are 3rd party and reliable, especially in the controversy section. All 3 of those articles are completely independent of Ofra and speak about the company in a very negative way. I also have 2 scholarly articles. One was published in Taiwan and analyzed Ofra's brand strategy. The other was published by the Chair of a Business College of a University in Florida, which analyzed Ofra's rebrand and their decision to move into brick and mortar stores. I believe that according to Wikipedia guidelines and citations parameters, these sources combined with the article in Women's Wear Daily, the article in Sun-Sentinel, the article in Fashion Network, and the article in Cruelty Free International show that Ofra is a notable company and should be added to Wikipedia.

BaileighD (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@BaileighD: Hello! Sorry for my later-than-usual response, I was quite busy in real life. One important thing before I give my suggestions: Sources do not need to speak positively or negatively about the subject. As long as the reliable sources provide significant coverage of the subject, it doesn't usually matter if they're opinionated or not (see the essay on this subject).

Your draft, Ofra Cosmetics was originally being declined for having both a non-neutral point of view, and for not being cited with reliable, independent sources to show notability, and so that the information can be verified. As I said in my comment, the issue with the article now is the lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. The notability guidelines for companies or organizations states that a company is notable if there is "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". As of now, your draft does not meet those guidelines. It is cited with most likely unreliable magazines, or nonindependent sources, showing no evidence of notability. A reliable source for this would be a news article about them by a reliable new organization, or a review of their products by a reliable news organization. Right now, I cannot accept it. Consider finding some more reliable sources in order for the information to be properly verifiable, and to prove the notability of the company. If you've made some improvements, then feel free to leave a message on this thread if you would like me to re-review or give you suggestions. Happy editing! - Clear friend a ^💬 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda: Hi! I looked at the list of reliable news sources here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and have added two sources from the ones that have been deemed liable. They are the Huffington Post and Vogue. Additionally, I have added citations from notable news sources like Yahoo!News and The Jerusalem Post. I have also included an article from the highly notable fashion-industry trade journal, Women's Wear Daily, that is often referred to as the "Bible of Fashion." In addition to these sources, I have also included notable fashion news sources such as Revelist, Bustle, and Fashion Network. I believe that these additions combined with the scholarly articles and case studies should be sufficient.

BaileighD (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda:

Someone just "cleaned up" my article but got rid of over half of the information, including things reviews SPECIFICALLY told me include, which I don't completely understand. Please advise. BaileighD (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@BaileighD: Hello! I just noticed you left an earlier message, but for some reason, I never got the ping or message notification. Sorry about that! For the "cleanup", I'm guessing you mean this edit and this edit by Calliopejen1, but I'm not sure. If these weren't the right ones, then please give a Special:Diff/ link.

From my point of view, it looked like they were removing unreliable references, removing content sourced with those references (which certain parts possibly violated the biography of a living person policy), and, in general removing unnecessary content. I don't see an issue with the edits, and if the article is to stay in the mainspace, you should probably keep them. I won't advise what to do directly, as they have much more experience than me, and they are an admin who probably knows what they're doing. Consider asking them on their talk page for help. Clear friend a ^💬 22:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Draft:Clickup

I am surprised that you didn't see that I already disclosed that I am a paid editor. It is disclosed in my userpage. The terms state to disclose in your userpage or the talk page of draft, so I have complied. As far as Peacock terms and exaggeration, I have reread it and I can't see any of that. Could you specify which exact sentences are the issues and I will revise them? Please respond on the Draft page. Alice Jason (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alice Jason: Never mind, this draft already existed and was rejected, and it is against AfC policy for you to resubmit it. You only changed the uppercase "U" into a lowercase "u", and simply copy-and-pasted the whole thing. This is unambiguous advertising or promotion, as the article has in total been created 4 times, twice in draftspace and twice in mainspace. If the article has been rejected, you cannot resubmit it, no matter if you create a new article or not. It was rejected for a reason, and in this case, it was determined to be not notable. You also violated a legal policy, as you copied content from one article without adding attribution. Also, you are required to disclose on the talk page of the article as well, so normal readers and editors can clearly see what's going on. I will most likely be nominating your draft for deletion. Clear friend a ^💬 11:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I explained that i didn't know of the prior decline page under different case. I started the page from AFC creation and typed "Clickup." The client had told me about prior decline, but I could not find it when I searched under deleted pages. The client provided me the draft in Word doc. I feel like you are giving me a hard time because I am a paid editor. Please recheck the references. They have significant news coverage. Please explain how these sources are not in-depth and significant: San Diego Union Tribune, TechCrunch, Fast Company, business.com and in addition I just added a new citation from a book.

Regarding the copyright violation, I have added attribution to the TALK page to the original writer. When someone created a page on Wiki, they already released their copyright to the public domain and Wiki, so I am allowed to reuse it with attribution. Alice Jason (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Paid disclosure it was done per policy in my user page. Check WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. It states "You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries." The word "or" means you can post it in either of these, and you are not required to post it in ALL. In addition, if you follow the AFC page creation steps, in the second screen it states to add disclosure to your userpage and there is not a mention to add to the TALK page. I may not be as experienced as you, but this is what the policy says, so you are wrong in your assumption that I must also disclose in the TALK page. Alice Jason (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

New Comment: I have now completely rewritten article to avoid similarities to prior article.Alice Jason (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you must disclose on the talk page as well. I will no longer be replying to you as the article has already been rejected, by me, and previously, another reviewer. Rejecting means what it sounds like: it will not be accepted, or even reviewed again. No, I am not giving you a hard time because you are a paid editor, but you are trying to give me a hard time by constantly replying even though: a) The article is not notable, and the reviewer at the AfC help desk confirmed that. b) The article uses peacock terms and is not suitable for mainspace. c) The article was already declined under the slightly different title, and therefore, this article cannot be accepted. If an article was rejected, then it will not be reviewed again. I suggest you return your payments to whomever paid you, and please, remember that I will always say the same thing if you continue to reply.

P.S. ─ I'm not an administrator! Clear friend a ^💬 22:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Rock Camp: The Movie

Hi! I made changes to the Rock Camp: The Movie draft to make it fit the Wikipedia tone more closely. I also rewrote everything in the synopsis to avoid any similarities to anything out there. Hoping you can review it again and I'm hopeful it will be approved this time. Thanks!

@MilesRRFC: Hello! Very sorry for my late response, I was getting my computer repaired, so I couldn't see any messages left. Your article seems to be notable, and can eventually be accepted, but it still sort of reads like an advertisement, using words or phrases that may promote the subject. For example, "conquer fears and goals" seems to be puffery, and the article over all seems to be generally only showing the positive sides to the movie, and is promoting in that way. Clear friend a ^💬 21:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)