This 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. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 42 |
Hello. I wanted to talk not only about the draft, but also about other things. First, I am talking the part of the drafts. Remember the draft you denied due to many of its sections unreferenced, being very focused on the short instead of the character and the mention of a non-notable but existent fanwork? I have improved it by removing the mention of the animated series and I put 2 more sources, as well as I had to re-use some references to render the "Description" section less unreferenced. I have doubts about improving the draft: Do I have to add more references in the subsection where the Pixar character appeared for the first time? Do I have to move the part of the "Concept and creation" section (specifically where it focuses how the short film evolved) to the The Adventures of André & Wally B. article?
I also want to comment something on talk pages. Every now and then, I find sections which violates the talk page guidelines in a talk page about articles and then I remove them. So I recently found the talk page of Wolfwalkers (an animated film from "Irish Folklore Trilogy" I am not interested) and I considered it as the "worst" talk page I have ever seen, that is to say, all of its sections treat the talk page as a forum, even one of them (the "Wolfwalkers: Christmas Holiday Special" section) resembles mostly a fanfiction by its nature. That is why I came up with the idea of removing all sections of this talk page for violating the guidelines.
And regarding the edits which can be considered unconstructive, I can tell you one thing: I sincerely think that the list of Pixar shorts needs semi-protection because lately there are IPs that are putting false information, such as claiming that The Adventures of André & Wally B. was released theatrically with Luca, being the latter one my least favourite Pixar film.
In brief words, do you think I should keep improving more on the draft? Do you agree to delete all sections which violate the guidelines from the mentioned talk page? Do you think the list I mentioned deserves semi-protection?-- André the Android( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Pixar was founded on February 3, 1979 under a Lucasfilm division called The Graphics Group. At that time, six of the Computer Graphics Lab employees, including Edwin Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith, were hired by George Lucas.
Development of the short film began on July 31, 1983, when it was tentatively titled Android's Awake and its original plot was about an android gazing at the forest happily after waking up, as well as John Lasseter left Walt Disney Productions and he was hired to work for The Graphics Group.
Hello!
I was the original creator of the Sleetbow page that you had moved and deleted. I had originally started that page when I witnessed the rare weather phenomena of a sleetbow - which is an offshoot of a rainbow, that is caused by falling frozen precipitation (ice) instead of the traditional liquid water. It has been documented on few different occasions across the United States, which I would like to also reference. At the time I had not been able to finish my work on the topic. I would like to have this page restored so I can continue to work covering this rare weather phenomena, including adding a background on how and why it occurs, when it was first spotted and documented, and when and where it has been documented since. There are further subcategories for sleetbows, including the possibility to see monochrome ones. I am in fact a degreed meteorologist as well, and would like to continue to document this weather phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeathermanWill ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
I wrote a response to your post /info/en/?search=User_talk:Alohaaimee#Welcome%21 and could really use some guidance in navigating this. I want this article to be as neutral as possible. I'm going to create a Userspace draft, and if you are still willing to proofread to make sure it's sufficient, I'd really appreciate it.
I'm also not sure if I'm doing this talk page thing right, so please advise if needed! Thanks so much.
Alohaaimee ( talk) 16:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for digging out so many great sources. I did look WP:BEFORE and did not have near the success you did. I appreciate your hard work! BOVINEBOY 2008 12:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you for your kind help and edits on the page I created! Maganolla ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
Unrelated, but as I am about to DYK Now: Zero I am still surprised no RS describes it as an example of breaking the fourth wall. Because it is, isn't it? Unless I misunderstood the concept... PS. Oh yeah, if you need a QPQ, Template:Did you know nominations/Now: Zero is open :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
... for what you said to Flyer22 -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A poster was released yesterday and, later today, a trailer is expected. Would that satisfy nff for the removal of the redirect? Starzoner ( talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Response to feedback on declined article submission
I was aware that listing the news articles was insufficient for a Wikipedia article. I have some pretty big conflicts of interest with this topic as I stated on my user page but I feel it is important that this article be written. I'm not sure if I should even attempt to write the article because of this but I wonder if a non-biased person would read the links I posted and write it themselves if I post about it on the topic talk pages. Do you think I should just try writing some paragraphs summarizing the news articles despite my conflicts of interest?
Thanks.
Jmkrangers ( talk) 04:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Jmkrangers 11:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Nicely done again. Maybe I should send you short story articles for review before I add them :) Anyway, I think this is now eligible for a WP:DYK. Would you like to submit it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On 10 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Time's Arrow (short story), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Arthur C. Clarke's short story " Time's Arrow" from 1950 predicted that paleontologists may learn about dinosaurs by analyzing their footprints before the method was implemented in real science? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Time's Arrow (short story). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Time's Arrow (short story)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Freaked Out. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Freaked out until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to comment on many things, as this section is a follow-up to "Drafts, talk pages and others" section, which was archived.
First, I wanted to inform you that a possible suspected sockpuppet of the Wolfwalkers fan who violates the talk page guidelines has created a section called "‘Wolfwalkers’ Back To Theaters On Friday, March 19", which contains nothing but the IP's signature. It is obviously that it was evading the block and the mentioned section, like any sections which contains nothing but a signature and a date of when it was created, should be removed.
Also, I wanted to comment something about files, specifically pictures. Today I found in the File:Rayman.jpg a photoshopped selfie of an teen made in WhatsApp, which has no relation to Rayman. I honestly say that it is quite misleading so it should be speedy deleted. The file used to be a picture that served to illustrate how the namesake character was depicted in Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc since May 23, 2009 until September 15, 2009.
Besides, I had told you anything about my Pixar-themed draft. A month ago, I read a guideline about name conventions on film-themed articles and I think my draft should be renamed to either "Draft:André (The Adventures of André & Wally B.)" or "Draft:André (Pixar)".
In brief words, can we confirm that this IP address is a suspect sockpuppet? According to the actual file's deceptive nature, does this file deserve speedy deleted? Do you think my draft deserves to be renamed?-- André the Android( talk) 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America 1000 11:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi ReaderofthePack. Do you happen to know whether the Nautilus Book Awards are legitimate? I've noticed that they charge money to enter and give honours in many different categories. Cheers, gnu 57 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If you wish, please help the German version of the article "Hadith of the Pen and Paper". Thanks.
Hi ReaderofthePack,
back in November you reviewed the draft for an article about the "Imagined Life" podcast. Back then you said that with just 1-2 more sources the article would be fine for release. I have now added two new sources and resubmitted the article for review. May I ask you to take a look at it? Thanks a lot in advance.
Not sci-fi, but, well, a book is a book :) Anything you see to improve this? It was AfD on pl Wikipedia, I started to look for sources to save this, but I am not seeing much to even warrant keeping it here, although it's possible there are some reviews in the newspapers c. 1984-1986? One is cited, but not sure if it is in-depth... PS. Each time I think I found something it is not about this book but about his Goodbye California which mentions San Andreas in its plot... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This 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. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 42 |
Hello. I wanted to talk not only about the draft, but also about other things. First, I am talking the part of the drafts. Remember the draft you denied due to many of its sections unreferenced, being very focused on the short instead of the character and the mention of a non-notable but existent fanwork? I have improved it by removing the mention of the animated series and I put 2 more sources, as well as I had to re-use some references to render the "Description" section less unreferenced. I have doubts about improving the draft: Do I have to add more references in the subsection where the Pixar character appeared for the first time? Do I have to move the part of the "Concept and creation" section (specifically where it focuses how the short film evolved) to the The Adventures of André & Wally B. article?
I also want to comment something on talk pages. Every now and then, I find sections which violates the talk page guidelines in a talk page about articles and then I remove them. So I recently found the talk page of Wolfwalkers (an animated film from "Irish Folklore Trilogy" I am not interested) and I considered it as the "worst" talk page I have ever seen, that is to say, all of its sections treat the talk page as a forum, even one of them (the "Wolfwalkers: Christmas Holiday Special" section) resembles mostly a fanfiction by its nature. That is why I came up with the idea of removing all sections of this talk page for violating the guidelines.
And regarding the edits which can be considered unconstructive, I can tell you one thing: I sincerely think that the list of Pixar shorts needs semi-protection because lately there are IPs that are putting false information, such as claiming that The Adventures of André & Wally B. was released theatrically with Luca, being the latter one my least favourite Pixar film.
In brief words, do you think I should keep improving more on the draft? Do you agree to delete all sections which violate the guidelines from the mentioned talk page? Do you think the list I mentioned deserves semi-protection?-- André the Android( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Pixar was founded on February 3, 1979 under a Lucasfilm division called The Graphics Group. At that time, six of the Computer Graphics Lab employees, including Edwin Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith, were hired by George Lucas.
Development of the short film began on July 31, 1983, when it was tentatively titled Android's Awake and its original plot was about an android gazing at the forest happily after waking up, as well as John Lasseter left Walt Disney Productions and he was hired to work for The Graphics Group.
Hello!
I was the original creator of the Sleetbow page that you had moved and deleted. I had originally started that page when I witnessed the rare weather phenomena of a sleetbow - which is an offshoot of a rainbow, that is caused by falling frozen precipitation (ice) instead of the traditional liquid water. It has been documented on few different occasions across the United States, which I would like to also reference. At the time I had not been able to finish my work on the topic. I would like to have this page restored so I can continue to work covering this rare weather phenomena, including adding a background on how and why it occurs, when it was first spotted and documented, and when and where it has been documented since. There are further subcategories for sleetbows, including the possibility to see monochrome ones. I am in fact a degreed meteorologist as well, and would like to continue to document this weather phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeathermanWill ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
I wrote a response to your post /info/en/?search=User_talk:Alohaaimee#Welcome%21 and could really use some guidance in navigating this. I want this article to be as neutral as possible. I'm going to create a Userspace draft, and if you are still willing to proofread to make sure it's sufficient, I'd really appreciate it.
I'm also not sure if I'm doing this talk page thing right, so please advise if needed! Thanks so much.
Alohaaimee ( talk) 16:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for digging out so many great sources. I did look WP:BEFORE and did not have near the success you did. I appreciate your hard work! BOVINEBOY 2008 12:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you for your kind help and edits on the page I created! Maganolla ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
Unrelated, but as I am about to DYK Now: Zero I am still surprised no RS describes it as an example of breaking the fourth wall. Because it is, isn't it? Unless I misunderstood the concept... PS. Oh yeah, if you need a QPQ, Template:Did you know nominations/Now: Zero is open :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
... for what you said to Flyer22 -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A poster was released yesterday and, later today, a trailer is expected. Would that satisfy nff for the removal of the redirect? Starzoner ( talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Response to feedback on declined article submission
I was aware that listing the news articles was insufficient for a Wikipedia article. I have some pretty big conflicts of interest with this topic as I stated on my user page but I feel it is important that this article be written. I'm not sure if I should even attempt to write the article because of this but I wonder if a non-biased person would read the links I posted and write it themselves if I post about it on the topic talk pages. Do you think I should just try writing some paragraphs summarizing the news articles despite my conflicts of interest?
Thanks.
Jmkrangers ( talk) 04:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Jmkrangers 11:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Nicely done again. Maybe I should send you short story articles for review before I add them :) Anyway, I think this is now eligible for a WP:DYK. Would you like to submit it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On 10 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Time's Arrow (short story), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Arthur C. Clarke's short story " Time's Arrow" from 1950 predicted that paleontologists may learn about dinosaurs by analyzing their footprints before the method was implemented in real science? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Time's Arrow (short story). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Time's Arrow (short story)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Freaked Out. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Freaked out until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to comment on many things, as this section is a follow-up to "Drafts, talk pages and others" section, which was archived.
First, I wanted to inform you that a possible suspected sockpuppet of the Wolfwalkers fan who violates the talk page guidelines has created a section called "‘Wolfwalkers’ Back To Theaters On Friday, March 19", which contains nothing but the IP's signature. It is obviously that it was evading the block and the mentioned section, like any sections which contains nothing but a signature and a date of when it was created, should be removed.
Also, I wanted to comment something about files, specifically pictures. Today I found in the File:Rayman.jpg a photoshopped selfie of an teen made in WhatsApp, which has no relation to Rayman. I honestly say that it is quite misleading so it should be speedy deleted. The file used to be a picture that served to illustrate how the namesake character was depicted in Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc since May 23, 2009 until September 15, 2009.
Besides, I had told you anything about my Pixar-themed draft. A month ago, I read a guideline about name conventions on film-themed articles and I think my draft should be renamed to either "Draft:André (The Adventures of André & Wally B.)" or "Draft:André (Pixar)".
In brief words, can we confirm that this IP address is a suspect sockpuppet? According to the actual file's deceptive nature, does this file deserve speedy deleted? Do you think my draft deserves to be renamed?-- André the Android( talk) 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America 1000 11:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi ReaderofthePack. Do you happen to know whether the Nautilus Book Awards are legitimate? I've noticed that they charge money to enter and give honours in many different categories. Cheers, gnu 57 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If you wish, please help the German version of the article "Hadith of the Pen and Paper". Thanks.
Hi ReaderofthePack,
back in November you reviewed the draft for an article about the "Imagined Life" podcast. Back then you said that with just 1-2 more sources the article would be fine for release. I have now added two new sources and resubmitted the article for review. May I ask you to take a look at it? Thanks a lot in advance.
Not sci-fi, but, well, a book is a book :) Anything you see to improve this? It was AfD on pl Wikipedia, I started to look for sources to save this, but I am not seeing much to even warrant keeping it here, although it's possible there are some reviews in the newspapers c. 1984-1986? One is cited, but not sure if it is in-depth... PS. Each time I think I found something it is not about this book but about his Goodbye California which mentions San Andreas in its plot... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging