![]() | 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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
For those unaware the reason FloridaArmy spams AfC is due to this ANI issue — offloading the strain on AfD and other areas onto AfC. However their ongoing behaviour does not seem fair to the other submitters or on the reviewers. According to Template:AFC statistics/pending they currently have 68 open submissions (4.6% of all submission), also they just resubmit with little or no changes causing much more load. I just noticed they recently submitted multiple articles with only 1 source such as Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush which they clearly know is not good enough. Yesterday I rejected Draft:Koninklijke Militaire School with no independent sources, just the single schools own link. In the past they have added non references such just a film name as a ref for the same film and other such things that they clearly know are not valid. They clearly do understand how things work and the guidelines, but persist of submitting the junk with the good and have a more combative than collaborative attitude to editing. They appear to be getting worse (from what I've seen), maybe due to virus lockdown.... is it not time to take some action? They continue to expect others to do work for them, never submitting properly (just with {{submit}} so AFCH does not work until fixed up), rarely formatting references, first submits that have no chance of acceptance without others improving first etc. Their behaviour was not considered good enough for AfD, why should it be OK to continue in AfC? Should this go back to ANI? Should they be restricted to the number of current open submissions, and not allowed to just resubmit? I'm sure if they focused on fewer articles at once, and worked more collaboratively they would be an big positive to the project, but they way they choose to work is not fair on others (submitters and/or reviewers). Thoughts? KylieTastic ( talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"Whatever Wikipedia as a community is doing, it is more of a vehicle for contributors' self-indulgence than it is a concerted endeavour to bring free knowledge to the world."FloridaArmy is just being self-indulgent, like most editors are. Don't be surprised when the cohort at ANI defends one of their own. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel that I should mention under this header that, in my opinion, FloridaArmy has done some good work in getting drafts on state supreme court justices (of which there are well over a thousand) in shape to be moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
There is some 'stuff' going on here. Please see my comment and follow the link to the discussion and my and others' comments there. Look at the article history, where it shows a sudden appearance in Draft: space from main namespace. I have no idea what is going on. I half think we're looking at tit for tat move and counter move, but I can't be sure. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Rather than accept or decline this draft, I have left a comment on it with some concerns, since it contains a great deal of controversy about a living person. I'm setting aside any technical issues that can be cleaned up, I'd like extra eyes on the bigger picture, please.
My instinct is that it quacks, but I have been mistaken before about things Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, (born December 28, 1945, Kathmandu, Nepal—died June 1, 2001, Kathmandu), king of Nepal from 1972 to 2001, 10th in the line of monarchs in the Shah Dev family.
Son of the crown prince (later, from 1955, king) Mahendra, Birendra was educated at St. Joseph’s College (Darjeeling, India), Eton College (England), Tokyo University (1967), and Harvard University (1967–68) and traveled extensively before acceding to the throne on his father’s death on January 31, 1972. (He was crowned on February 24, 1975.) Birendra continued the autocratic tradition of his father, who had dissolved the elected parliament in 1960 and banned political parties in the constitution of 1962; indeed, for a time, Birendra was one of the world’s few remaining absolute monarchs. He managed to maintain Nepal’s independence despite encroaching influences by India, China, and the Soviet Union. During his reign Nepal was opened up to extensive tourism.
Beginning early in 1990, a popular prodemocracy movement led to demonstrations that erupted into bloody clashes between the soldiers and police and the demonstrators. Submitting to pressure, Birendra lifted the ban on political activity and on November 9, 1990, approved a new constitution that preserved his status as chief of state but confirmed multiparty democracy, a separation of powers, and the protection of human rights.
On June 1, 2001, Birendra was fatally shot by his son Crown Prince Dipendra during a dinner party. Also killed were Queen Aiswarya, Prince Nirajan, Princess Shruti, and five other members of the royal family. After the attack, Dipendra turned the gun on himself and died three days later. It was believed that he acted under the influence of drugs and alcohol and was despondent because his parents disapproved of his choice of a bride. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jay theeng tamang (
talk •
contribs)
11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance but I try to keep very well clear of AFC.
{1) Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force was created on 22 January 2020, declined on 26 February and rejected on 30 May saying " Please use the proper process for attempting to restore a deleted article." but without saying what the proper process might be. On 3 July the submitter sought review at the AfC Help Desk [1] and received an encouraging reply but which said that because of an AfD on 23-31 March, WP:Articles for deletion/Rhino Force, the matter should be referred to DRV. The submitter also approached the reviewer who had placed the rejection and was given the same advice. [2] The page deleted seems to be of the same topic and was created by the AFC submitter but the draft had been considerably changed since the AFD. Now, DRV is highly likely to bat this away somewhere because the draft has not been deleted. See WP:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 7#Draft:Hemmersbach_Rhino_Force. Assuming the AFD deletion was correct, what are the proper instructions for reviewing articles previously deleted at AFD and for resubmitting such articles after improvement?
(2) 1292simon was the reviewer who rejected the draft but I do not see the name appearing in the AFC participants list [3]. Am I looking in the right place? Recently Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2020 1#Reviewing submission without the helper script seems to show them being "recommended" to apply to be a reviewer. Is this matter being handled suitably? Also, are people giving advice at the AFC Help Desk required or expected to be AFC reviewers and is there any check on the advice being given? Thincat ( talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Having seen an unsigned comment by an IP editor on a draft I applied these templates, usingthe first incorrectly, then the second. When asking the script to 'clean up submission' the signature wandered off to thre head of the draft, making me think it was unsigned again.
Since reviewing or leaving a comment also cleans the submission this happens each time. Affected draft is Draft:Luke H. Walker which I bumped into trying to help another reviewer out. Fiddle Faddle 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
----
should be AFC-related templates.
Primefac (
talk)
22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)It is a given that paid editors exist. It is also given that part of AFC is to help them create neutral articles about notable topics. Sometimes the status of the editor is hard to determine. Another times they are up front and open. I have no problem with up front and open paid editors.
Have we discussed any form of separation of paid vs unpaid drafts by a category scheme? I ask because tend to wish to apply more care with some less experienced paid editors.
It is not hard to asses a decent editor's work, paid or unpaid, nor is it hard to assess a poor editor's work, paid or unpaid. What is useful is to check that being paid is also recorded by use of {{ connected contributor (paid)}} on the draft talk page. Even that may not be mandatory.
I suspect this is a topic we ought to look at from time to time with a view to improving assessment of drafts, helping new reviewers find their feet fast, and shortening the backlog, whether long or short already, and I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd review it properly, but sport and cricket escape my attention span. There has been a mini-brouhaha of sock puppetry over it. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imrutu. I mention it here so that anyone reviewing it can come aware before acceptance or declining. If further work is started by a suspicious editor please report further suspected soccery.
Various spellings, capitalisations and abbreviations of the article name have been attempted Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Following this discussion on my talk page, I'd like other opinions on this draft. I'm not overly sure either the person or the feat is notable, but there are enough dissenting opinions on my talk page that I figured I'd look for 2Os from this group. Primefac ( talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I have had this complaint many times. On receiving a draft that is not in English, if I know what language it is, and specify, it doesn't copy it.
See Draft:EVP GmbH. I tried to say that the draft is in German. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, could another reviewer take a look at Draft:Luke H. Walker? I've reviewed all the sources and declined it because I was only seeing passing mentions in relation to an event that the subject organized. There are also a couple of reviews of his play, one or two of which are reliable, and then some routine coverage of its production. Anyway, the editor who created the article now has indicated on my talk page that they "suspect bias" and resubmitted without making any changes.
Thanks in advance for your input! - MapleSoy ( talk) 18:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wikicommunity, I was asked to cite the article about Kai Imhof in a correct way, which I did 40 days ago. Maybe there is someone who’s can check the reworked article? Would be amazing to see the article online soon.:) And of course if you have any tips on how to improve the article, I would be happy about your feedback. Thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.240.237 ( talk) 07:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Whoever ends up reviewing this, it was a COI Draft that I cleaned up and worked out. I am not attached to it, and ran out of any resources to improve it. Unless new coverage happens, or someone finds a book on it in a library somewhere this is the article we're stuck with. If you decide it's not good enough for mainspace the only other option is to delete it, and there's no reason to let it linger for six months before doing so. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I have tried both mobile and desktop version to make the script work but it is not working. It does not show the options to decline or accept the draft. I am trying to decline this one: /info/en/?search=Draft:Sellbeta.com
Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 05:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Per the conversation at Draft talk:Michael Genesereth, I don't think the subject is notable and I've declined it but Denny thinks the subject is notable. As Denny is not an AfC reviewer, does someone else want to weigh in? I see no harm in him moving the draft into the main namespace but I'm unsure of the protocol here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I wonder if anybody fancies taking a look at it. There is a COI story behind it re:noticeboard, from the originating editor, but it is now referenced sufficiently for a small stub article. The subject was in the American National Academy of Sciences, so is notable and it is now a wee seed article. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This is another idol submission, that is, a draft for an individual article for a member of a K-pop-style idol group. Individual drafts for members of idol groups are common, and are considered based on whether the singer satisfies any of the musical notability criteria or entertainment notability criteria separate from the group. In this case, the submitter says that a single by Mark Tuan has charted in China, and the reliable source is in Chinese. I was willing to assume good faith that the source in Chinese does verify that the record charted. However, it turns out that the redirect is permanently move-protected and edit-protected, because Mark Tuan has been three times created in mainspace and three times redirected to Got7 after AFD. If the redirect were only move-protected, I would tag it for Redirects for Discussion. But I can't tag a permanently protected page. So I have made an Edit Request to tag the redirect for RFD. The instructions say to contact the protecting administrator, but User:Jenks24 is a retired or inactive administrator. Another of the closing administrators, User:FreeRangeFrog, is also a retired or inactive administrator. So I have made a Request for Unprotection for the purpose of making a Redirect for Discussion.
Does anyone else have any other ideas on how I could have handled this? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
You can change
Chikukiri ( talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Would another editor please take a quick look at Draft:Lynching of Wilbur Little? Wilbur Little has the same name as a musician. (The musician appears to be notable but does not have any references, and I have tagged the musician as not having any references. That is not the subject.) So disambiguation is needed. The current draft appears to be BDP1E, a biography of a dead person noted for one event. I have renamed the draft to Draft:Lynching of Wilbur Little. I would like to know if anyone has any comments on whether this was the right way to handle the disambiguation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Will other editors please take a quick look? The season has not yet begun to air, so that it does not satisfy television notability as usually applied. However, the articles on the previous 31 seasons are frames for the articles about the episodes, and the season 32 frame will presumably have a link to one episode added at a time as the episodes are broadcast. Accepting the draft in its present form will merely accept information about the production of the season, which is notable, and appears to be consistent with the way that Wikipedia has documented the episodes until now.
My thinking is to accept it, but I would appreciate comments first. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The draft is, in my opinion, well ready to take its place as an article and to face the wisdom of the community. I've been advising the editor, so would prefer other eyes on it in order to consider the acceptance. Obviously pushing back is an option, too. It kind of needs to be an admin because there is a redirect in the way. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
My Rejection of Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy has caused unintended confusion because I had to choose either Not Notable or Contrary to Wikipedia as the reason for rejection. In this case, neither was really right, and I used Not Notable, although I said in my long rejection discussion that an article was in order, and this caused confusion. I would sometimes like to be able to Reject a draft for some other reason, either with free text (like 'custom' decline) or with conflict of interest as the reason, or for some other reason. The next time that I would like another Rejection reason, I will mention it, but I think that, while the two reasons we have are good, some require another reason. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Little Puppets: I addresses every single feedback- I basically TNT’d it myself! I even went through the highly tedious task of adding page numbers to books references. I altered subject headings and rearranged the topics (based on tea house advice). I translated every technical word (which may be a reason why it seems promotional whereas before it seemed like it was technical. Carrieruggieri ( talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, comments such as “being taken over by “promoters” in response to a suggestion that I could benefit from editing other articles, your confidence in your assessment of me as here to “promote” is really unfair and unkind. Maybe people don’t come back again to create other articles because it’s quite rough in here. Carrieruggieri ( talk) 00:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, You write as if “she owns the mode of therapy?” Really you should probably have recused yourself from reviewing the submission because you seem to have developed an unpleasant feeling toward me and that makes it hard to not be influenced by personal impressions. Carrieruggieri ( talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
First, I have already recused myself from further reviews. I have told Carrieruggieri that I am able to advise on Wikipedia technicalities. So I make this simple point as an reviewer who was about to accept the draft, and found a redirect in the way. Had I been an admin it would have been accepted and we might be having a different discussion. I also declare that I am not in any way associated with the topic, nor with the editor.
We are discussing rejection a lot here. But I believe firmly that rejection is not what we are about. I'm not a militant inclusionist, nor a deletionist. I think, hope, I'm a pretty ordinary bloke with a reasonable judgement, and as unbiased as I can be when editing Wikipedia. And no, I am not accusing anyone of any form of bias. I am speaking only of myself.
When I started to review drafts way back when AFC was new, as many here did, I over-reviewed. I was keen as mustard to get it right. That was good in a way, yet not quite right. Then I discovered that "right" within our brief was that a draft should have a better than 50% chance at surviving an immediate deletion process.
Once I found that out and worked it out in my head I stopped reviewing for perfection and started to aim for better than 50%. I aim for a 60% plus chance of surving a deletion process. Sometimes I make an error of judgement, mostly not.
Most drafts are not difficut to review, and are a simple pass/fail. This one is hard to review. The topic is notable (0.9 probability, perhaps better). The references are complex, and one can criticise the writing. What it has, in my judgement, is a better that 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion, based on its merits, here, now, today, and ignoring all history.
Once launched into main user space we have the creating editor with a declared professional interest in it (please put it on your user page clearly, not just your talk page) rendered unable to edit it further according to our rules. We have a community of fine editors who will choose whether to edit it, to strip it bare, to enhance it, to offer it for deletion, to do unto it what we all do to and with and for articles.
So to my simple point. We cannot, ourselves, review to perfection. "Why not let it, with imperfections perceived and real, take its chance as an article?"
As Forrest Gump might say about it, "And that's all I have to say about that." Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not totally surprised thsia was not considered by the script authors.
Please see Draft:Pleasant DeSpain whcih I show here not to ask you to comment in the draft, but to ask you to look at review comments. I used a set of reference analysis templates for the first tme when commentong iin this draft {{ source assess table}} and {{ source assess}}. And they went well into the comment I added. They illustrate the referencing very well. THis diff shows the addition.
Later I added a comment to the draft, and the analysis table was removed. This diff shows the removal, by script.
I think it woudl be useful if that removal did not happen, though I accept that these templates are not (yet?) in common use by reviewers.
I have not attempted to SUBST the templates, and I don't think it ought to be necessary. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's OR because of the references, but it might be WP:SYNTH. I've left a comment for the creating editor, but am not capable of reviewing this Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Reviewing paid editing is a very challenging task for the reviewer. I've accepted some paid drafts and declined many. I think we all have. Sometimes it can sink its teeth into us and bite us badly as reviewers. A case in point is Ahrefs which was accepted as a draft and is now going through a very solid AfD. It will be deleted. It's close to a Snow verdict.
Behind this is something where I will not get into the rights and wrongs. A case has built up that needs to be answered that involves the reviewer accepting the draft. I think this will go to Arbcom, and will be difficult in all possble directions.
What this says to me is that I, personally, am put off accepting paid contributions unless and until I see them as squeaky clean. Now I knew that. I also know that I have to be able to justify acceptance as well as decline or rejection.
It's a grade of review above "Will have a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process" and I knew that, too.
The only thing we can do to protect both ourselves and AFC is to be scrupulous about our suspicions, to flag them up where appropriate, to template suspected paid editors, and to deploy ourselves {{ Connected contributor (paid)}} on draft talk pages. We also need to look out for sock farms.
Old hands do that. Our newer recruits may be more circumspect about reporting suspicions, raising sockpuppetry cases.
And that is why I'm posting this item here, for our newer and less experienced reviewers. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
There are far less qualified with a wiki. He is a well established host of 2 national shows on Sirius XM & ESPN on television. Carl Carlington ( talk) 00:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Added more references (maybe I did it wrong?). His national radio audience was making fake edits which led to the removal. As a fan for 16 years I’m trying to take initiative to reinstate it. Ty Carl Carlington ( talk) 02:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
People magazine, espn, IMDB, all access, daily mail, your own wiki page of Covino & Rich highlighting the longest running show on a platform of 35 million people isn’t suffice? Doesn’t make sense as again less qualified have pages as did Steve for over 10 years Carl Carlington ( talk) 20:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
New York Post isn’t a good reference? Carl Carlington ( talk) 20:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been working with some folk and Draft:Rishi Kumar (most complete article, preferred submission) (subtle, huh?) is the one with the most chance of acceptance. The editor has some work to do. I've withdrawn my most recent decline and offered commentary on it. Give them a few hours because right now it's an instant decline Fiddle Faddle 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, AFC Team. I'm a new reviewer, and as I've further explored the project pages, I noticed the red Backlog Drives tab. When I applied to review, I noticed that there were a lot of applicants citing a desire to help with the backlog. A recent discussion on "acceptable" backlog levels seemed to indicate that backlog levels can drop significantly. Is it worth setting up a new, upcoming Backlog Drive? It looks like there hasn't been one in six years (which is probably a good thing overall--the project has kept up for the most part). Is there a lot of overhead in organizing/managing the drive, or is it fairly self-sufficient? I.e. is it something volunteers can assist with, or does it need heavy admin support? - 2pou ( talk) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
What if the "drive" became more of an ongoing contest somehow, similar to the Montly Dab Challenge? Instead of a one- or two-month surge where quality concerns may arise, it becomes a marathon of maintaining a decent review rate. Making it long-term might make it harder to try and change the normal review patterns near term. Granted, the incentives and implementation would have to change somehow, but we'd have to get there later; this was just an idea for now. - 2pou ( talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61 and report any further suspicions. The report archive is enormous. It is likely a source of COI at best. Drafts are... poor and promotional Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The submitter seems to be trying to confuse the reviewers by submitting two drafts with different spellings. I don't know whether the subject is individually notable. It is the responsibility of the submitter to demonstrate individual notability, which is why I declined the first draft with a request to state the reason for individual notability. The submitter then removed the record of that submission, and submitted with a different spelling. Since the singer might be notable, I did not Reject the draft or submit it to MFD. The problem is one of submitter conduct, and I have reported it to WP:ANI instead. I don't like to have to report conduct at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it's WikiMacaroons. I'm interested in becoming a AFC reviewer and have read the guidelines, but I figure I lack experience. I am currently in the CVUA. What next steps can I take to build my experience? Thanks, Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this is best place to post this, but I have found what looks to be a bug on AFCH script. I reviewed and declined Draft:Campbell Pithie, and the decline message was sent to incorrect user. It wasn't sent to the article creator, but was sent to the user that moved it from article space into draftspace. Surely the person we should be sending the decline to is the article creator? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an interesting history which worked out all right, but what happened is that Draft:Elisabet Engdahl was apparently declined in February 2020 as not satisfying notability, but there has already been an article since 2012. It is true, by the way, in my opinion, that she doesn't satisfy general notability, but that doesn't matter, because academic notability is orthogonal to general notability. She is the sort of scholar who illustrates why academic notability should be separate from general notability. I haven't looked in detail at whether the draft that was declined had enough information about the honors that she has received so that it should have been accepted (except that it couldn't have been accepted, because she already had an article). She should have had an article as a distinguished scholar, and a member of certain academies in which membership is a recognition of great academic distinction, and she had an article since 2012. It is interesting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
My great grandfather, Ismael Lares was notable, having a page on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I’m unsure if Great grandfather is close enough connection to be a COI.
I don’t normally submit through AFC, as I usually take the role of reviewer. Eternal Shadow Talk
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
8232. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#8232 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Eumat114 (
Message)
10:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The text of the "blp" decline reason makes it sound like you're supposed to blank the submission when you use it, but when you choose that reason with AFCH, it uses it without doing so, or even offering a checkbox to do so. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 05:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Template:Afc b has been nominated for deletion and relisted a few times. If you're the type of person that cares about such things, please give your opinions at the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Need a second opinion on this draft. On the one hand, there is no significant coverage presented. On the other hand, this is a black man living and acting in the first quarter of the 20th century, and there are a half-dozen references to verify the facts in the draft. I don't think there will really be significant coverage from that time period. Primefac ( talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not that the draft is hard to review, it's that it is a troublesome draft whose creating editor is having difficulty understanding that it is not yet ready to be an article and that the references chosen are all PR pieces or performance videos. I've done all that is sensible there as have several others. I was tempted to send it to AfD this norning when I saw it in main space by the creating editor's hand, but chose not to. Another editor was kind to it and moved it back to draft space.
It feels as if there is some release deadline that is being worked to, with an article 'required' for some potential PR reason. If the gentleman is notable this is not the article that reports and verifies it. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I've chosen to review by comment, not to accept nor decline. I'd like other reviewers to take a look and see if I'm being overly pedantic, please. I'm sure
JakePeraltaB99 woudl appreciate other eyes, on it, too.
Fiddle
Faddle
17:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Will another reviewer please take a look at Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay? I declined this draft twice. The firs time, I declined it basically because the draft is almost incomprehensible. It appears to be written to amaze or confuse the reader, but it also makes claims having to do with the artificial brain that, if confirmed, I would have expected to read an abstract of in Scientific American. The second time, I read it more carefully, and came to essentially the same conclusion, but also to the conclusion that the subject probably is notable either as a scientist, or, more likely, as a pseudo-scientist. I checked some of the references that mentioned Roger Penrose, a great mathematician with some eccentric philosophical views. The subject did present papers at conferences that Penrose also presented papers at. However, I did not research whether the papers were peer-reviewed prior to presentation, or whether the conference was for brain-storming, and might have welcomed unproven work. I would appreciate the opinion of another reviewer. Maybe the opinions of two other reviewers, one with a scientific background and one with a humanities background, would be ideal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I moved it from his user page since he is insisitent it be considered a draft. Google suggests that he probably misses our criteria. Since I'm in danger of delivering a trout, perhaps someone else would review this submission 🌷🌷🤪 Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The creating editor has now self declared paid status. For those new to reviewing, the crypto area is one where there is a huge onslaught of badly sources spam articles. Extreme care in reference checkkng pays dividends here. At present the sources on thsi one are all execrable (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this is a stupid question, or maybe it is a question about stupid behavior. This draft was twice moved from draft space into article space by the author, and was then moved back into draft space by the author. I understand when a draft is moved into article space by the author and then pushed back into draft space by a reviewer. But what is the author trying to do by moving the page into article space and immediately moving it back into draft space? Is there some promotional reason? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I have created Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace to capture content fitting that description. If, in your travels, you happen to come across drafts which should be in this category, please add them. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Please have a look at this history which came to my notice because it is on my watchlist though I have never seen it before. It is not unique.
Is this a problem in terms of attrbution and licencing? Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks. I noticed we have this draft Draft:André Prunet-Foch and André Prunet-Foch. The draft has been rejected. Can somebody please take a look at it. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 07:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Every day I spend some time in the oldest submissions category. I have managed sometimes to get through to the middle of the second column, acceptimg, declining, or passing on where I feel incompetent to review a particular draft. I can usually review 10 or more of these in a day, plus any other reviews and 'stuff' that I do on WP.
Every day that category is swelling. Apart from the fact that I feel unable to offer reviews on some I am perplexed that the great majority I have seen have arrived there before even their first review. We cannot all of us be unable to offer revews on them, because we have good breadth and depth of reviewer, and we have new reviewers arriving all the time.
For a new reviewer the older catageories can feel scary. How did they get to be that old, they must be hard to do! But they aren't. Obvious acceotances and declines are easy, and we ask our new reviewers to get their eye in on obvious ones.
How do we handle the increasing age of the pool if drafts to be reviewed? Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I first posted this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, where I was recommended to come here with it.
Often I see an editor write at the Teahouse about how they've been told their draft needs more references. They've learned this, reasonably enough, from a template that declines the draft for lack of notability, with the words "Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these [notability] criteria should be added." But the template isn't asking for more references, it's asking (as we here all know) for better references.
Inexperienced editors waste a lot of time through this misunderstanding. We might argue that we don't care if they waste their time, all we care about is improving Wikipedia. But it's cruel to misinform people like that. I would like to see the template rewritten. At the very least, the word "additional" should be removed. Maproom ( talk) 08:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have made sandbox edits to achieve the above goals at Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox and Template:AFC submission/declined/sandbox. Please look these over to see if they look like improvements. I have changed only display wording (and added links to WP:SIGCOV in the comments) I have not changed the template logic at all. Can these sandbox changes be accepted and moved to the working templates? DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
bot-like UPE creations. There are some of them, and some not-so-botlike but probably paid creations. But there are also many who are fans of a performer, organization, or topic and want to put an article up. Many of these drafts are more or less promotional. Many are about non-notable topics. But I think a significant number are about notable topics, and can be converted into valid articles. I have worked on a few. I fear that the templates are needed to handle the number of submissions, although I would strongly encourage reviewers to supplement them with more individual comments. In any case the templates are now used by almost all AfC reviewers. I can't see that improving them makes the situation any worse. It may make it somewhat better. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
At the same time, please can we look at what happens when the reviewer adds a multi-para comment? The first para is correctly indented, and the remainder outdent. I tend to go back in and tidy, but I wish I didn't feel that I have to. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for getting as far as you have. I think things start in simpler times and we always push the limits Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Definitely do not.The correct thing to do is to use {{ pb}} to make a new line.attempt to use a colon to match the indentation level, since (as mentioned above) it produces three separate lists
<br />
will also work, but it has different semantic meaning. --
AntiCompositeNumber (
talk)
19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
{{pb}}
. The output is visually the same, but should be better for a screen reader. Any objections to this version?
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC) @
Timtrent,
AntiCompositeNumber, and
LittlePuppers:
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs
19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Timtrent, It's set to only create a paragraph break from two newlines, not one. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with single and double newlines at the same time - I'll think about it. LittlePuppers ( talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
plain=false
to
Module:String, which it can't. Do you know of any way to do that short of invoking the module directly?
LittlePuppers (
talk)
02:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Nirmal Munda led an uprising against colonial exploitation. The British government retaliated with a massacre which is now known as the Amco-Simco massacre. The massacre is clearly notable, but what about the leader of the revolt, Nirmal Munda? My understanding is that WP:1E applies, and about half of the draft is about the massacre anyway; but I'm not very sure since I've been wrong about application of 1E previously. So, should I accept the draft in this state or after converting it into an article about the massacre? Any advice? Thanks in advance. Regards, TryKid dubious – discuss 22:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I find I can't review this on the basis that I think the man is right about the current president there, so it's hard to be objectve. I think it's a puff piece intended to raise the profile of the getntleman, at least based on the references present. I know it's a declared paid piece, but that isn't biasing me against it. I know it deserves a review by a reviewer who wil take a disapasionate look at it. If declined I think that is for sourcing more than anything else. I do not see rejection, certainly at this stage Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Was previously declined, but I see potential notability in it. Unforunately there were concerns about the tone in the past, which I don't have full confidence in being resolved yet. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In the past, I have removed users from the AFCH list when it was brought to my attention that they were not performing the sorts of reviews that we would expect of them. After a series of contentious removals and discussions about removals, we to a "probationary member" system; much like the WP:PERM system, it seemed like a good way to gauge the abilities of users who met the technical requirements of AFCH access but might not have the desired "demonstration of notability criteria", and those that performed poorly could be removed without the huge, contentious discussions that have plagued us in the past.
Now, the point of this post is because it seems like every time I post a "check their reviews" thread, there are few ( if any) replies. I feel like we can't have it both ways - I get criticized for bringing up removal of reviewers when concerns have been brought to me, but yet when I ask for feedback on newer users (bad or good) I get stony silence. Should we just not care about the quality of reviewer and go back to the system we had pre-2017, where any ECP editor could add their name to the list and start reviewing? Am I just concerned about nothing? Is anybody there? Primefac ( talk) 21:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"screw over"my fellow game players out of points; rather, I recognize that manner in which we handle the new editors submitting drafts serves as the basis of whether or not those new editors stick around. Bad reviewing either adds junk to our encyclopedia that has to get cleaned up later or unnecessarily bites the newcomers who are experiencing peak sensitivity while their very first draft is on the bubble. Let the reviewer falling by the wayside seek their self-improvement. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, here is my thought for any users put "under probation" due to any concerns about their meeting of the subjective criteria (i.e. knowledge of GNG, deletion, etc). Those that are put on probation (standard time 2 months) will, upon reaching the end of that period, fill out a form similar to that used at WP:PERM/TPE, indicating:
They would then post their request for indefinite participation here. Barring any major concerns, they can be re-added to the list.
I figure this will give us ("the regulars") enough to go by as far as experience and demonstration that they actually understand the policies. That being said, if all everyone wants is just a generic "I've been on probation and I'd like to keep working" post that's fine too, I just figured having some "hard data" would make it a little easier for a quick review (as multiple people above said they had no interest in doing the digging themselves). Feel free to make tweaks/suggestions for changes. Primefac ( talk) 12:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The fact that there are hundreds of old submissions unreviewed, some of which were submitted in June is insane. We’re backlogged beyond any fix, and our most active reviewers are away. As Timtrent mentioned several days ago, it’s strongly disheartening, especially from the POV of a newer reviewer. What we need to do is to stabilize the backlog - I.e. by winning the war on all fronts, while maintaining our integrity as competent reviewers.
I don’t want to bore the rest of the reviewers with statistics, but at the rate we are going, within a couple of months we could be at a backlog of 4,000 pending submissions and 3-4 month waits for those whom are unlucky enough. My point is, there is something we all can do to prevent these things from happening, by stepping up. If we could have a pledge to make a certain number of reviews a day, we could halt the backlog, even lower it.
This is why I make this proposal: A pledge, promising to make at least x number of reviews a day at AfC. (I will let the rest of you decide the exact number of reviews pledged.)
I don’t know for sure, it’s just a proposal for now. I just thought this could help all of our reviewers here at AfC, and a lot of reviewers seem somewhat demotivated sometimes. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate seeing this idea here. — Sm8900 ( talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
We’re backlogged beyond any fixis false - we were at sub-2-months about two months ago (max age was 7-week); it might be nitpicky but the "fix" is just having folks do more reviews, which seems to be the plan listed above. I'm mostly commenting because the doom and gloom is a little hyperbolic and rather unnecessary. Yes, there's a backlog. Yes, we should all do our part to help get it down. No, we're not completely borked. Primefac ( talk) 23:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I have more than once recently observed an issue, and I don't know whether it is due to sloppiness or to meatpuppetry. First a draft is created in draft space, sometimes for a minor actor or other minor person in the entertainment sector. It may be declined once and resubmitted. Then the draft is copied into article space by a different editor. An example is Draft:Elijah Canlas and Elijah Canlas. The result is that we have an article in article space that has not been reviewed, and is not really the work of the person who is listed as the author. The loss of attribution by the original author calls for a history merge. However, a history merge, when done in the usual fashion, causes the article to be marked as reviewed. At the worst, this may be a way of deliberately sneaking the article into article space and bypassing normal review. At the best, this may be a vehicle that accidentally sneaks the article into article space and bypasses normal review.
The usual way to deal with an article that is not ready for article space is to draftify it. The article cannot be draftified because the draft is already in draft space. I see that in the case of Elijah Canlas it is waiting for review.
If the subject of the article is completely non-notable, the article can be tagged for A7, but I would prefer not to use A7 in doubtful cases. I would suggest that PROD may be the best way to deal with these copy-pastes. Of course, a PROD can be removed, and taken to AFD. Any other suggestions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
tagged the draft with {{subst:AFC draft| username}}. I just meant that submitting the draft for review on behalf of the copy/paster was a kind thing to do that I personally wouldn't feel the need to do (partly because they can do that on their own, partly because other editors working on the draft may not share the feeling that it was ready)—unless of course, it was clearly something I would accept, and there's no reason to keep it out of main space. Basically, I'll review something officially submitted, but if I catch you bypassing the process, I'm not going to follow the process for you, I'm just going to revert to what was status quo. - 2pou ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I am going to propose a new speedy deletion criteria for these cases. BD2412 T 02:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I rejected this (the second rejection) and the creator is claiming that it was unfair. Need another reviewer to take a look and see if somehow notability is demonstrated (doubtful but who am I to judge).
Are there any guidelines people use for flagging copyright violations? I think it's easy to tell when whole sections are lifted from somewhere else, but this is the first time I'm having trouble interpreting the Copyvios report here. This is for Draft:The Unanswered Ives, which was previously declined for a violation. It's one of the older film pages in the queue created by AAlertBot (Side question: is the queue age based on original creation date, or by AFC submission date?) Onel5969 removed at least part of the violation here, but the report still has a lot of red (and it's gone through a lot of edits since). Does anyone have any tips on how they typically interpret these reports? Thanks, 2pou ( talk) 17:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone monitors Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback and does anything with the comments? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Timtrent#Draft:Anushka Sen suggests my recent review to have been unfair. I'm very happy for others to comment on my recent review in which I declined it and criticised its sourcing. I have upset an editor who has invested time in the draft so far. We reviewers do that, of course. It's part of the territory. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
"Anushka Sen" Actresswhich gave me a large number of pictures (suggesting potential notability, or a fanbase, or both). The current redrafting may find that notability
We have been reasonably cautioned to be wary of drafts about cryptocurrency. I would like a third opinion on a draft about cryptocurrency. It is Draft:Ouroboros (protocol), which appears to be a peer-reviewed protocol, and so not just promotion. However, in view of the amount of spamming and blowing smoke about cryptocurrency, I will only accept if another reviewer recommends an acceptance (or they can accept with my recommendation). If there are any concerns about conflict of interest, we should decline. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I keep oushing this back to the creating editor for over-referencing. My antennae are also starting to twitch over possible COI. I'd appreciate stepping back and having someone else look at this one in some detail, please Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The submitter of Draft:Caringo first removed Robert McClenon's comment using a deceptive (can't really AGF on a corporate SPA) edit summary and then resubmitted the draft in such a way that the previous decline notice disappeared. I've seen the comment removal for the first time, but the making the previous decline notice disappear is something that I've noticed in a few drafts previously. Are other reviewers aware of this issue? And how should we deal with it? Thanks, TryKid dubious – discuss 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Question: Are there any coverage requirements specific to BLPs that advise using sources that are more widespread than local coverage? It seems that WP:LOCAL and WP:LOCALCOVERAGE are intended for places and events, respectively. I ask to help with a borderline decision at Draft:Tammy Exum (with additional details in my last AFC comment there). I'm considering state-level House of Representatives as more local politician than national, so I'm going by bullet #2. I interpret the annotation for this bullet as saying separate outlets coming from journalists is required, but it doesn't specify how widely circulated the outlet should be. Any tips are appreciated! - 2pou ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
state/province–wide officealtogether, or if I for some reason thought
members of legislative bodies at those levelswasn't applying to state/province levels... Seems obvious now... I was unaware of WP:IPSOFACTO until now, thank you for linking! Even though that is an essay, it seems to be worded much clearer, and easier to understand than the actual NPOL. I'm also confused by Note 12 in NPOL where it says
This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion.If that bullet is secondary... what exactly is the primary criterion? Anyway, thank you for your help! - 2pou ( talk) 05:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Draft:The Pilot Newspaper. I've posed a question in this discussion which may benefit with input from editors who are versed in the purpose of the "Draft:" namespace, specifically regarding redirects and WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
After a query on the help desk, Collingwood supporter asked me on my talk page to help them with their their draft, Draft:Jye Bolton. There are obvious good intentions here, but the article is in kind of rough shape and I am neither an expert in football (which makes reading it rather difficult) nor an expert in football notability (sourcing is a bit of an issue; I don't think he meets WP:NFOOTY but I'm not sure, so presumably I would want to ask for proof of GNG, but again, not my area of expertise). Is there anyone here who would be willing to help? Thanks, LittlePuppers ( talk) 00:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes made to WP:AfC sorting:
Suggestions for other improvements are welcome. Regards, SD0001 ( talk) 10:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Name:Cyabahire Ishimo patrice Emery Known as:Cody Trice Occupation:Song writer,Singer,Business man Nationality:🇷🇼 Rwanda Label:Trice Nation Father:Bizimana Venuste Mother:Murekatete Julienne Marie Pauline Songs:Non stop
Ntawundi musa Like i do So sweet Slow down
Born on:7/5/2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirungi julio ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I am asking if another reviewer can provide a third or fourth opinion on this draft. My first thought is to accept it as a reasonably detailed discussion of a term that is being used for a topic that has had considerable scholarly attention recently. However, I can't simply ignore the history of the title, even though it was ten years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurosexism. This looks like a genuinely terrible AFD. Maybe it was a genuinely terrible stub, and I will request that the stub be undeleted so that I can compare. I certainly can't see how G3 follows, either as vandalism or a hoax or an attack page. I would take the old AFD to DRV except that I know that the regulars at DRV will tell me just to resubmit it in draft, or, in my case, just approve it from the draft. Does anyone have any advice about what to do about a good draft whose title had a terrible AFD ten years ago? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
In connection with a different scientific article that I also didn't understand, someone mentioned the possibility of accepting a questionable draft and seeing what happens to it in article space after the real physicists get at it. I welcome any scientists or non-scientists to review Draft:Phase space quantum mechanics. I think that, after having declined it twice, I will this time accept it with a note at WikiProject Physics asking for comments, and will see what happens, including that it may be stubbed down, or it may be AFD'd. However, comments from literate non-scientists (or anyone) are welcome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In the intro of Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation, one can currently read "AfC created new pages as drafts which are then submitted for review." I think there is a typo there ("created" should be "creates"). I cannot fix it myself because of the page protection. − 2003:D9:EF10:B00:4D89:4810:3FAD:575E ( talk) 07:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:AFC_submission#revisions. SD0001 ( talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I just saw Chioma_Ikokwu. The author moved it out of draft space herself. When I see this happen, should I redraftify the article and then notify someone? -- Slashme ( talk) 09:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello WPAFC, there is a request to update a bot configuration related to AFC, User_talk:Theo's_Little_Bot/afchwikiproject.js#entry_types_to_remove. It seems straight forward, but I'm not very familiar with this - if there are any objects or comments please drop a note at that edit request. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there may be some cross-wiki IP-based abuse at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, particularly from addresses starting in 92.184 or 2A01:CB0, which geolocate to Paris, France. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YtoSu for details. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Could all Reviewers PLEASE make sure that if you decline something on copyright violation grounds that aren't G12-worthy, to still do the following:
There is a large category of AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. A couple are still pending flagged ones, and a few more that just didn't get marked as cleaned by the admin who revdelled, but most are ones declined as copyvios but not acted on. Lots of these get resubmitted and so-on, so it's not just a matter of waiting 6 months and they'll be gone. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Partial copyvio handling summary
(ii) post to the draft's talk page {{subst:cclean|url=URL(s) copied from}}; just place a space between the URLs if there's more than one (note: this template automatically signs for you so place no tildes);
(iii) mark the revisions in the page history (typically the first edit and second to last edit) for redaction by an administrator by placing and saving at the top of the draft page this template: {{copyvio-revdel|start = earliest revision ID (that is, the number at end of the revision's URL after "oldid=") | end= end revision ID}};
(iv) change the decline parameter in your AfC copyvio decline template from cv to cv-cleaned – or remove that decline entirely, since you've just cleaned it, and re-assess the draft on its other merits; and
(v) warn the user, such as with {{
subst:uw-copyright-new|DraftName}}
.
Later in my time as a non-admin reviewer, Enterprisey came up with User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel which made life much smoother. The page includes the relevant instructions, which are nicely brief. Please note, as I only discovered just now, it does not play nicely if you are an admin (the various visibility bits get in the way), but obviously it is less necessary here. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
My draft is not listed. Nihaal The Wikipedian ( talk) 10:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Fiddle Faddle, When you see the category AfC submissions by age 0 days old, you will not find Draft:1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole. It was not there since nearly 1/4 of an hour. Regards. Nihaal The Wikipedian ( talk) 10:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor of Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto sent me a message pointing out that the topic seems to meet WP:COMPOSER #3 per this source. Given that, do you think the article ought to be accepted? Thanks for any help/advice. Noahfgodard ( talk) 22:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
There is reasonable disagreement as to whether the subject of this draft has either played or managed (head-coached) at a fully professional level. Because there is reasonable disagreement, a rough consensus process should be used to decide whether an article is in order. For that reason, I will be accepting the draft, because AFD is a rough consensus process, and there isn't a rough consensus process in draft space.
I have suggested that there should be Drafts for Discussion, but I usually get some agreement and more disagreement.
So I will accept it, and am aware that there may be an AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Will another reviewer please review Draft:JioTV? The author has requested another review, and I think they mean by another reviewer. For background, the author is a declared paid editor for JioTV. JioTV is currently a redirect to its parent company, Jio Platforms. One question is whether the division has corporate notability independent of its parent. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The submitters of this draft are arguing that he should be considered a Congressman-elect because he is in a safe Democratic district, and that the draft should be accepted. I will be declining the draft.
I will note that if the submitters want to test how Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply, one of them can move the draft into article space, which is the privilege of any autoconfirmed editor. There may be an AFD, which will decide whether to send it back to draft space until November. However, if the draft is resubmitted again without a better reason than they have provided so far, I will be inclined to request sanctions of some sort. I don't want to Reject the draft, because it probably will go into article space after he is elected. I certainly don't want to take the draft to MFD. But I might go to WP:ANI if it is resubmitted again. Hopefully they can wait until 4 November. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Probably a close call. I recommend another reviewer take a look at this. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a question about requesting a history merge. I reviewed Draft: Age regression. Age regression was formerly an article, but has been stubbed down to a redirect to age regression in therapy. I know that if I accept the draft, I need to request that it be history-merged with the redirect with history. So should I make that request as soon as I see that there is a new draft on the topic (now), or should I wait to make that request until the draft is ready for acceptance? I declined the current draft for tone reasons, but if those are dealt with, it might be ready for acceptance. So should I wait until the draft is ready to accept before requesting history merge? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there a standing rule on what to do if we have multiple drafts (from different creators). Would the same rule apply if they were both in the AfC queue, or just one of them?
Might be preferable if they work together, but can that be forced? How is the one chosen? etc etc Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like comments on how we should handle repeated tendentious resubmissions of individual drafts of members of boy bands or girl groups who are only notable in their groups. I decline them, saying that the submitter should explain, in an AFC eomment or on the draft talk page, how the individual satisfies musical notability. So far, that is the usual business. The submitter then typically adds one or two more references and one or two more sentences to the draft and resubmits it, with no specific explanation of how the individual is notable outside of the group. This is also what happens with an actor. With an actor or other person with fans but no real accomplishments, I sometimes Reject the draft, because it needs to be blown up and started over to establish notability, with a warning that I am ready to take it to MFD. I don't want to do this with band members, and in particular I don't want to take the offending draft to MFD. At MFD, I know that the MFD participants will correctly say that the draft should be kept, because the subject might be notable. So how do I deal with tendentious resubmissions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The bands are often Korean, but that is only important in that there are multiple Korean idol groups who have a lot of fans.
Two recent examples are Yoon Sanha and Moon Bin, but they are representative of a more general question, which is tendentious resubmission of individual group members by fans. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I declined Draft:Salin Supaya a few days ago on the grounds that its sources did not establish notability, and I received some rather strong comments here and here in return. The editor removed the notice of my declination on the page, and also resubmitted it for review. Would someone mind taking a look at the draft to let me know whether they think my assessment was appropriate? Thanks, Noahfgodard ( talk) 23:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Have studied all this for some time & still cannot figure out how a user with a COI can suggest that an article be created by someone else. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Kindly help look into the creation of this article that has recently been moved to Draft:Ipo Arakeji and suggest a possible solution please. Thank you. Anonymoussix ( talk) 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I see a lot of IMDB referencing for Film and Television articles, and quite a bit of YouTube as well. I came across what the XLinkBot does via the RSN. I haven't seen any particular rules about draft space yet, but I have to assume it doesn't monitor drafts based on how often I see these references. Do people think it is worth requesting this bot monitor drafts from new users as well to try and make it clearer to new users that they shouldn't be using these sources? A potential downside, according to the User:XLinkBot/FAQ, is that the bot would undo all of the edits that were done in sequence, having potential to effectively blank pages. This might set off alarms, but it might also bring attention to the sources the new editor is using, and when made aware, undo the bot's revert and fix the references. Thoughts? - 2pou ( talk) 17:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Template talk:Afc decline#Volunteers which could use some more input. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 17:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've just declined two versions of a draft BLP for this United States Senate candidate. I have also given the submitters of the two drafts the notice of American politics discretionary sanctions, not because they are interfering with neutral point of view, which is the usual problem, but just because tendentious resubmission of candidate BLPs is a nuisance, and I now plan to give the same notice for any more campaign biographies, for the next seven weeks.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This isn't really an AFC question. It is more a New Page Patrol question. However, my observation is that there seem to be two different scripts in use for draftifying articles that do not belong in article space yet. One of them normally pushes the article back into draft space in a state of Submitted for Review. The other one, which I have, pushes the article back into draft space in a state of Unsubmitted. I think that the latter option, unsubmitted, is better, because the New Page reviewer obviously thinks that the page does not belong in article space, or they wouldn't draftify it. If it is pushed back as being waiting for review, it needs to be declined. Well, if the AFC reviewer thinks that it is ready for acceptance, then another reviewer disagrees, and they should discuss rather than move-reverting.
Do you agree that a draftified page should be in an Unsubmitted or Declined state, rather than waiting to be reviewed when we know that it should be declined? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:XMTWIKI&diff=prev&oldid=977421856&diffmode=source Some of the text was overriden, but the part about editing and resubmitting is canned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jessie_Lavington_Evans&type=revision&diff=978493573&oldid=976518156&diffmode=source Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility.js")
on
your common.js page to post a Teahouse invitation or talkback with one click! Hope that helps!!
scope_creep
Talk
11:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Hi Folks!! Can somebody take a look at this: Draft:Dobromir Slavchev and Dobromir Slavchev. The article is absolute mess and needs to be draftified, but there duplicate in draft already. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 20:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Noon Khe page is related to the series and also has a Persian Wikipedia. Thank you ±←→° — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadhosseinrr4 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
When reviewing resubmitted drafts I occasionally see reviewers advising authors to remove sources that are not helping to establish notability. Articles can be improved by removing trashy sources so this advice is well intentioned but, in many cases, I fear it gives authors the impression that the extra sources are impeeding approval of their draft.
If you want to give improvement advice, please be clear whether acceptance is contingent on your suggested improvements. The advice they really need to be given in these cases is to find and cite additional sources to establish notability. The original sources don't need to be removed; WP:CITEKILL is not a reason to decline a draft; WP:PRIMARY sources can be useful for WP:V.
If there are too many references for you to wade through, either review a different draft or ask the author to highlight WP:THREE sources that establish notability. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a two-part question. The first part is about a draft, since we review drafts. The second part is about a confusing redirect. Obviously the first question is whether the draft should be accepted, but the more puzzling question is what to do because there is a redirect for a name, to an article, where the name nowhere appears in the article.
The draft is Draft:Sharon Bell. The obvious questions are whether she satisfies academic notability and whether the draft is neutral. The non-obvious question has to do with Sharon Bell, which is a redirect to an article about a terrorist incident, to the section about the victims, but the article does not mention a Sharon Bell. Presumably one of the sources does, but the redirect is not a useful search term if it leaves the reader wondering what newspaper to read. By the way, I am assuming that they are two different people. If the subject of the BLP had been wounded in the terrorist attack, the BLP would probably say so.
Normally I would put a hatnote at the top of the article, saying that it is about the Australian professor, and for the woman killed in Tunisia, see the article. But the article on the terrorist attack doesn't mention her name. Should I nominate the redirect for deletion, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Not so long ago, it seems, that we are at a very healthy 1,200 pending drafts. Then I left for a while, stopped by here, and now we have 3,500 pending drafts. That's a big backlog. But at the same time, Wikipedia seems to be having more activity because of the lockdown imposed around the world; so at this time, I think we, as a project, should be upping our game, and hence I am suggesting some sort of a backlog drive to serve this surge of users. Is it a good idea? Yours, Eumat114 ( Message) 09:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
number of unreviewed drafts that are arriving in the oldest date categoryis pretty static, but we only see the "growing backlog" in that oldest category because it's the only one that looks like it "changes" on a day-to-day basis. I do, of course, know what you mean by "requires deeper thought;" I cleared out 25 drafts in about 2 hours from the 17-day category earlier this week, but I can usually only do 3-5 of the oldest before I give up. Primefac ( talk) 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have created {{ draft topics}} and the associated module, to be used for categorizing AFC-affiliated drafts with ORES topics. ( WP:AFCSORT currently does this for pending drafts only, there's no equivalent for declined ones). The last time I brought this up, some editors said WikiProject tagging on the talk page would be preferable -- however that isn't feasible for an automatic bot as ORES topics don't exactly match wikiprojects. Any objections to going ahead for a BRFA and creating the category tree? Categories will named like Category:Draft articles on North America, Category:Draft articles on biographies, Category:Draft articles on chemistry, etc; all of these will be sub-categories of Category:Draft articles by ORES topic classification.
Once we have the system running, it opens a lot of opportunities like being able to combine these with other filters on tools like petscan or wikipedia search to narrow down on specific sets of drafts one may be interested in. – SD0001 ( talk) 06:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
![]()
|
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Right now this has a section that reads like this:
"Wikipedia has some subject-specific notability guidelines. Read through the submission and consider if one or more of the guidelines below applies. If it does, and the submission does not meet the relevant guideline or the General Notability Guideline you can decline the submission for that reason. The following table shows the notability guidelines for specific subjects. If the subject of the submission you are reviewing is not listed in the table below, only apply the general notability guideline. "
Um, isn't that actually... backward? If a subject specific guideline can be applied to the subject, even if it does not meet the General Notability Guideline, then it should be accept it, not declined it, no? The way this reads right now, if a subject falls into one of the categories but doesn't meet the GNG, it looks like it should be declined. My experience with AfD is limited, but I've seen subject specific guidelines used many times to justify retaining an article which does not meet the GNG by any stretch! What does this paragraph mean and shouldn't it maybe be rephrased? A loose necktie ( talk) 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If it does, and ... does not meet...is the confusing part, because the first part refers to "is in that genre/category" and the second part refers to the actual criteria for approval. Primefac ( talk) 12:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#New article created through AfC that affects us. My understanding was that drafts we accept go onto the NPP queue and are therefore subject to further work like cleanup, categorisation and tagging. It now appears this is not the case, which puts extra onus on reviewers to do those sort of things. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The results reported above about Korean drafts are about to "hit the fan", maybe at Village pump (policy) very soon, and we can expect stupid calls to abolish AFC. It will not be abolished, because there is no obvious alternative for IP editors and conflict of interest editors, but there may be reasonable calls that we should discourage good-faith registered editors from using AFC. I and most of us who are regular AFC reviewers presumably think that AFC is worth preserving. We need to be ready to handle the resulting storm. We have been declining drafts that should not have been declined. Two of us disagree as to whether the fault is primarily with AFC itself, or secondarily with AFC and primarily with GNG, but that disagreement is less important than that we agree that AFC has declined too many drafts in some areas, including in some areas where there is systemic bias.
I think that we need to reaffirm the principle that the criterion for acceptance is simply that there should be more than a 50% chance that the article will survive AFD.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I was torn between a decline and MfD, or even to accept and let the cmmunity decide at a potential AfD as an advert. I chose decline. There is a huge comment tranche at the head. I was considering collapsing much of it. Please will other eyes determine what to do with this draft. It has been lingering too long and probabky needs a better decision than simply being pushed back for improvement. Fiddle Faddle 07:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
After looking at Draft:Jo Yu-ri a few weeks ago, I looked at it again today. I concluded that the draft does not establish that she is notable apart from the girl group, and so I declined it with 'music' and 'mergeto'. That should have been routine, but then I looked at the talk page of the author to see if the decline message was what I intended. It wasn't there. So then I looked through my own contributions, and I saw that I had created User talk:Jo Yu-ri, a user talk page of a non-user. So I copied the decline message to User talk:Kelvinnnnnnn. But my real question now is why did it send the decline message to a non-existent user? Should I ask here, or at Village pump, or where? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
|u=Jo Yu-ri
, which then when you declined sent it to that user's talk (even though they don't exist). As a note, using AFCH to submit a draft gives you the option of which editor you want to "give credit" to in the |u=
field of the template.
Primefac (
talk)
17:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to offer a quick takeaway with reference to the ongoing discussion of the Korean drafts and other issues. The quick takeaway is that a reviewer who looks at a draft and does not accept or reject it should leave some indication that they have looked at it and not made a decision about it. It should be obvious to a reviewer that a previous reviewer looked at it if they moved it, either from a sandbox to draft space, or by disambiguating it. Any comment or tag, such as a copy-edit tag, or a COI tag, makes it clear that the reviewer looked at it. I would suggest that, in the future, a reviewer who looks at a draft and takes no action could, as a courtesy to other reviewers, leave a comment such as "Leaving for another reviewer" at a minimum, or identifying the notability guideline that seems to apply, such as, "Does the subject satisfy acting notability?" I will try to remember to do that myself. I haven't always been doing it, and will try to do it in the future. Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why can’t we edit these pages? 75.83.68.155 ( talk) 01:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
For those unaware the reason FloridaArmy spams AfC is due to this ANI issue — offloading the strain on AfD and other areas onto AfC. However their ongoing behaviour does not seem fair to the other submitters or on the reviewers. According to Template:AFC statistics/pending they currently have 68 open submissions (4.6% of all submission), also they just resubmit with little or no changes causing much more load. I just noticed they recently submitted multiple articles with only 1 source such as Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush which they clearly know is not good enough. Yesterday I rejected Draft:Koninklijke Militaire School with no independent sources, just the single schools own link. In the past they have added non references such just a film name as a ref for the same film and other such things that they clearly know are not valid. They clearly do understand how things work and the guidelines, but persist of submitting the junk with the good and have a more combative than collaborative attitude to editing. They appear to be getting worse (from what I've seen), maybe due to virus lockdown.... is it not time to take some action? They continue to expect others to do work for them, never submitting properly (just with {{submit}} so AFCH does not work until fixed up), rarely formatting references, first submits that have no chance of acceptance without others improving first etc. Their behaviour was not considered good enough for AfD, why should it be OK to continue in AfC? Should this go back to ANI? Should they be restricted to the number of current open submissions, and not allowed to just resubmit? I'm sure if they focused on fewer articles at once, and worked more collaboratively they would be an big positive to the project, but they way they choose to work is not fair on others (submitters and/or reviewers). Thoughts? KylieTastic ( talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"Whatever Wikipedia as a community is doing, it is more of a vehicle for contributors' self-indulgence than it is a concerted endeavour to bring free knowledge to the world."FloridaArmy is just being self-indulgent, like most editors are. Don't be surprised when the cohort at ANI defends one of their own. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel that I should mention under this header that, in my opinion, FloridaArmy has done some good work in getting drafts on state supreme court justices (of which there are well over a thousand) in shape to be moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
There is some 'stuff' going on here. Please see my comment and follow the link to the discussion and my and others' comments there. Look at the article history, where it shows a sudden appearance in Draft: space from main namespace. I have no idea what is going on. I half think we're looking at tit for tat move and counter move, but I can't be sure. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Rather than accept or decline this draft, I have left a comment on it with some concerns, since it contains a great deal of controversy about a living person. I'm setting aside any technical issues that can be cleaned up, I'd like extra eyes on the bigger picture, please.
My instinct is that it quacks, but I have been mistaken before about things Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, (born December 28, 1945, Kathmandu, Nepal—died June 1, 2001, Kathmandu), king of Nepal from 1972 to 2001, 10th in the line of monarchs in the Shah Dev family.
Son of the crown prince (later, from 1955, king) Mahendra, Birendra was educated at St. Joseph’s College (Darjeeling, India), Eton College (England), Tokyo University (1967), and Harvard University (1967–68) and traveled extensively before acceding to the throne on his father’s death on January 31, 1972. (He was crowned on February 24, 1975.) Birendra continued the autocratic tradition of his father, who had dissolved the elected parliament in 1960 and banned political parties in the constitution of 1962; indeed, for a time, Birendra was one of the world’s few remaining absolute monarchs. He managed to maintain Nepal’s independence despite encroaching influences by India, China, and the Soviet Union. During his reign Nepal was opened up to extensive tourism.
Beginning early in 1990, a popular prodemocracy movement led to demonstrations that erupted into bloody clashes between the soldiers and police and the demonstrators. Submitting to pressure, Birendra lifted the ban on political activity and on November 9, 1990, approved a new constitution that preserved his status as chief of state but confirmed multiparty democracy, a separation of powers, and the protection of human rights.
On June 1, 2001, Birendra was fatally shot by his son Crown Prince Dipendra during a dinner party. Also killed were Queen Aiswarya, Prince Nirajan, Princess Shruti, and five other members of the royal family. After the attack, Dipendra turned the gun on himself and died three days later. It was believed that he acted under the influence of drugs and alcohol and was despondent because his parents disapproved of his choice of a bride. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jay theeng tamang (
talk •
contribs)
11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance but I try to keep very well clear of AFC.
{1) Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force was created on 22 January 2020, declined on 26 February and rejected on 30 May saying " Please use the proper process for attempting to restore a deleted article." but without saying what the proper process might be. On 3 July the submitter sought review at the AfC Help Desk [1] and received an encouraging reply but which said that because of an AfD on 23-31 March, WP:Articles for deletion/Rhino Force, the matter should be referred to DRV. The submitter also approached the reviewer who had placed the rejection and was given the same advice. [2] The page deleted seems to be of the same topic and was created by the AFC submitter but the draft had been considerably changed since the AFD. Now, DRV is highly likely to bat this away somewhere because the draft has not been deleted. See WP:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 7#Draft:Hemmersbach_Rhino_Force. Assuming the AFD deletion was correct, what are the proper instructions for reviewing articles previously deleted at AFD and for resubmitting such articles after improvement?
(2) 1292simon was the reviewer who rejected the draft but I do not see the name appearing in the AFC participants list [3]. Am I looking in the right place? Recently Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2020 1#Reviewing submission without the helper script seems to show them being "recommended" to apply to be a reviewer. Is this matter being handled suitably? Also, are people giving advice at the AFC Help Desk required or expected to be AFC reviewers and is there any check on the advice being given? Thincat ( talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Having seen an unsigned comment by an IP editor on a draft I applied these templates, usingthe first incorrectly, then the second. When asking the script to 'clean up submission' the signature wandered off to thre head of the draft, making me think it was unsigned again.
Since reviewing or leaving a comment also cleans the submission this happens each time. Affected draft is Draft:Luke H. Walker which I bumped into trying to help another reviewer out. Fiddle Faddle 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
----
should be AFC-related templates.
Primefac (
talk)
22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)It is a given that paid editors exist. It is also given that part of AFC is to help them create neutral articles about notable topics. Sometimes the status of the editor is hard to determine. Another times they are up front and open. I have no problem with up front and open paid editors.
Have we discussed any form of separation of paid vs unpaid drafts by a category scheme? I ask because tend to wish to apply more care with some less experienced paid editors.
It is not hard to asses a decent editor's work, paid or unpaid, nor is it hard to assess a poor editor's work, paid or unpaid. What is useful is to check that being paid is also recorded by use of {{ connected contributor (paid)}} on the draft talk page. Even that may not be mandatory.
I suspect this is a topic we ought to look at from time to time with a view to improving assessment of drafts, helping new reviewers find their feet fast, and shortening the backlog, whether long or short already, and I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd review it properly, but sport and cricket escape my attention span. There has been a mini-brouhaha of sock puppetry over it. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imrutu. I mention it here so that anyone reviewing it can come aware before acceptance or declining. If further work is started by a suspicious editor please report further suspected soccery.
Various spellings, capitalisations and abbreviations of the article name have been attempted Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Following this discussion on my talk page, I'd like other opinions on this draft. I'm not overly sure either the person or the feat is notable, but there are enough dissenting opinions on my talk page that I figured I'd look for 2Os from this group. Primefac ( talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I have had this complaint many times. On receiving a draft that is not in English, if I know what language it is, and specify, it doesn't copy it.
See Draft:EVP GmbH. I tried to say that the draft is in German. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, could another reviewer take a look at Draft:Luke H. Walker? I've reviewed all the sources and declined it because I was only seeing passing mentions in relation to an event that the subject organized. There are also a couple of reviews of his play, one or two of which are reliable, and then some routine coverage of its production. Anyway, the editor who created the article now has indicated on my talk page that they "suspect bias" and resubmitted without making any changes.
Thanks in advance for your input! - MapleSoy ( talk) 18:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wikicommunity, I was asked to cite the article about Kai Imhof in a correct way, which I did 40 days ago. Maybe there is someone who’s can check the reworked article? Would be amazing to see the article online soon.:) And of course if you have any tips on how to improve the article, I would be happy about your feedback. Thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.240.237 ( talk) 07:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Whoever ends up reviewing this, it was a COI Draft that I cleaned up and worked out. I am not attached to it, and ran out of any resources to improve it. Unless new coverage happens, or someone finds a book on it in a library somewhere this is the article we're stuck with. If you decide it's not good enough for mainspace the only other option is to delete it, and there's no reason to let it linger for six months before doing so. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I have tried both mobile and desktop version to make the script work but it is not working. It does not show the options to decline or accept the draft. I am trying to decline this one: /info/en/?search=Draft:Sellbeta.com
Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 05:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Per the conversation at Draft talk:Michael Genesereth, I don't think the subject is notable and I've declined it but Denny thinks the subject is notable. As Denny is not an AfC reviewer, does someone else want to weigh in? I see no harm in him moving the draft into the main namespace but I'm unsure of the protocol here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I wonder if anybody fancies taking a look at it. There is a COI story behind it re:noticeboard, from the originating editor, but it is now referenced sufficiently for a small stub article. The subject was in the American National Academy of Sciences, so is notable and it is now a wee seed article. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This is another idol submission, that is, a draft for an individual article for a member of a K-pop-style idol group. Individual drafts for members of idol groups are common, and are considered based on whether the singer satisfies any of the musical notability criteria or entertainment notability criteria separate from the group. In this case, the submitter says that a single by Mark Tuan has charted in China, and the reliable source is in Chinese. I was willing to assume good faith that the source in Chinese does verify that the record charted. However, it turns out that the redirect is permanently move-protected and edit-protected, because Mark Tuan has been three times created in mainspace and three times redirected to Got7 after AFD. If the redirect were only move-protected, I would tag it for Redirects for Discussion. But I can't tag a permanently protected page. So I have made an Edit Request to tag the redirect for RFD. The instructions say to contact the protecting administrator, but User:Jenks24 is a retired or inactive administrator. Another of the closing administrators, User:FreeRangeFrog, is also a retired or inactive administrator. So I have made a Request for Unprotection for the purpose of making a Redirect for Discussion.
Does anyone else have any other ideas on how I could have handled this? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
You can change
Chikukiri ( talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Would another editor please take a quick look at Draft:Lynching of Wilbur Little? Wilbur Little has the same name as a musician. (The musician appears to be notable but does not have any references, and I have tagged the musician as not having any references. That is not the subject.) So disambiguation is needed. The current draft appears to be BDP1E, a biography of a dead person noted for one event. I have renamed the draft to Draft:Lynching of Wilbur Little. I would like to know if anyone has any comments on whether this was the right way to handle the disambiguation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Will other editors please take a quick look? The season has not yet begun to air, so that it does not satisfy television notability as usually applied. However, the articles on the previous 31 seasons are frames for the articles about the episodes, and the season 32 frame will presumably have a link to one episode added at a time as the episodes are broadcast. Accepting the draft in its present form will merely accept information about the production of the season, which is notable, and appears to be consistent with the way that Wikipedia has documented the episodes until now.
My thinking is to accept it, but I would appreciate comments first. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The draft is, in my opinion, well ready to take its place as an article and to face the wisdom of the community. I've been advising the editor, so would prefer other eyes on it in order to consider the acceptance. Obviously pushing back is an option, too. It kind of needs to be an admin because there is a redirect in the way. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
My Rejection of Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy has caused unintended confusion because I had to choose either Not Notable or Contrary to Wikipedia as the reason for rejection. In this case, neither was really right, and I used Not Notable, although I said in my long rejection discussion that an article was in order, and this caused confusion. I would sometimes like to be able to Reject a draft for some other reason, either with free text (like 'custom' decline) or with conflict of interest as the reason, or for some other reason. The next time that I would like another Rejection reason, I will mention it, but I think that, while the two reasons we have are good, some require another reason. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Little Puppets: I addresses every single feedback- I basically TNT’d it myself! I even went through the highly tedious task of adding page numbers to books references. I altered subject headings and rearranged the topics (based on tea house advice). I translated every technical word (which may be a reason why it seems promotional whereas before it seemed like it was technical. Carrieruggieri ( talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, comments such as “being taken over by “promoters” in response to a suggestion that I could benefit from editing other articles, your confidence in your assessment of me as here to “promote” is really unfair and unkind. Maybe people don’t come back again to create other articles because it’s quite rough in here. Carrieruggieri ( talk) 00:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, You write as if “she owns the mode of therapy?” Really you should probably have recused yourself from reviewing the submission because you seem to have developed an unpleasant feeling toward me and that makes it hard to not be influenced by personal impressions. Carrieruggieri ( talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
First, I have already recused myself from further reviews. I have told Carrieruggieri that I am able to advise on Wikipedia technicalities. So I make this simple point as an reviewer who was about to accept the draft, and found a redirect in the way. Had I been an admin it would have been accepted and we might be having a different discussion. I also declare that I am not in any way associated with the topic, nor with the editor.
We are discussing rejection a lot here. But I believe firmly that rejection is not what we are about. I'm not a militant inclusionist, nor a deletionist. I think, hope, I'm a pretty ordinary bloke with a reasonable judgement, and as unbiased as I can be when editing Wikipedia. And no, I am not accusing anyone of any form of bias. I am speaking only of myself.
When I started to review drafts way back when AFC was new, as many here did, I over-reviewed. I was keen as mustard to get it right. That was good in a way, yet not quite right. Then I discovered that "right" within our brief was that a draft should have a better than 50% chance at surviving an immediate deletion process.
Once I found that out and worked it out in my head I stopped reviewing for perfection and started to aim for better than 50%. I aim for a 60% plus chance of surving a deletion process. Sometimes I make an error of judgement, mostly not.
Most drafts are not difficut to review, and are a simple pass/fail. This one is hard to review. The topic is notable (0.9 probability, perhaps better). The references are complex, and one can criticise the writing. What it has, in my judgement, is a better that 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion, based on its merits, here, now, today, and ignoring all history.
Once launched into main user space we have the creating editor with a declared professional interest in it (please put it on your user page clearly, not just your talk page) rendered unable to edit it further according to our rules. We have a community of fine editors who will choose whether to edit it, to strip it bare, to enhance it, to offer it for deletion, to do unto it what we all do to and with and for articles.
So to my simple point. We cannot, ourselves, review to perfection. "Why not let it, with imperfections perceived and real, take its chance as an article?"
As Forrest Gump might say about it, "And that's all I have to say about that." Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not totally surprised thsia was not considered by the script authors.
Please see Draft:Pleasant DeSpain whcih I show here not to ask you to comment in the draft, but to ask you to look at review comments. I used a set of reference analysis templates for the first tme when commentong iin this draft {{ source assess table}} and {{ source assess}}. And they went well into the comment I added. They illustrate the referencing very well. THis diff shows the addition.
Later I added a comment to the draft, and the analysis table was removed. This diff shows the removal, by script.
I think it woudl be useful if that removal did not happen, though I accept that these templates are not (yet?) in common use by reviewers.
I have not attempted to SUBST the templates, and I don't think it ought to be necessary. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's OR because of the references, but it might be WP:SYNTH. I've left a comment for the creating editor, but am not capable of reviewing this Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Reviewing paid editing is a very challenging task for the reviewer. I've accepted some paid drafts and declined many. I think we all have. Sometimes it can sink its teeth into us and bite us badly as reviewers. A case in point is Ahrefs which was accepted as a draft and is now going through a very solid AfD. It will be deleted. It's close to a Snow verdict.
Behind this is something where I will not get into the rights and wrongs. A case has built up that needs to be answered that involves the reviewer accepting the draft. I think this will go to Arbcom, and will be difficult in all possble directions.
What this says to me is that I, personally, am put off accepting paid contributions unless and until I see them as squeaky clean. Now I knew that. I also know that I have to be able to justify acceptance as well as decline or rejection.
It's a grade of review above "Will have a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process" and I knew that, too.
The only thing we can do to protect both ourselves and AFC is to be scrupulous about our suspicions, to flag them up where appropriate, to template suspected paid editors, and to deploy ourselves {{ Connected contributor (paid)}} on draft talk pages. We also need to look out for sock farms.
Old hands do that. Our newer recruits may be more circumspect about reporting suspicions, raising sockpuppetry cases.
And that is why I'm posting this item here, for our newer and less experienced reviewers. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
There are far less qualified with a wiki. He is a well established host of 2 national shows on Sirius XM & ESPN on television. Carl Carlington ( talk) 00:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Added more references (maybe I did it wrong?). His national radio audience was making fake edits which led to the removal. As a fan for 16 years I’m trying to take initiative to reinstate it. Ty Carl Carlington ( talk) 02:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
People magazine, espn, IMDB, all access, daily mail, your own wiki page of Covino & Rich highlighting the longest running show on a platform of 35 million people isn’t suffice? Doesn’t make sense as again less qualified have pages as did Steve for over 10 years Carl Carlington ( talk) 20:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
New York Post isn’t a good reference? Carl Carlington ( talk) 20:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been working with some folk and Draft:Rishi Kumar (most complete article, preferred submission) (subtle, huh?) is the one with the most chance of acceptance. The editor has some work to do. I've withdrawn my most recent decline and offered commentary on it. Give them a few hours because right now it's an instant decline Fiddle Faddle 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, AFC Team. I'm a new reviewer, and as I've further explored the project pages, I noticed the red Backlog Drives tab. When I applied to review, I noticed that there were a lot of applicants citing a desire to help with the backlog. A recent discussion on "acceptable" backlog levels seemed to indicate that backlog levels can drop significantly. Is it worth setting up a new, upcoming Backlog Drive? It looks like there hasn't been one in six years (which is probably a good thing overall--the project has kept up for the most part). Is there a lot of overhead in organizing/managing the drive, or is it fairly self-sufficient? I.e. is it something volunteers can assist with, or does it need heavy admin support? - 2pou ( talk) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
What if the "drive" became more of an ongoing contest somehow, similar to the Montly Dab Challenge? Instead of a one- or two-month surge where quality concerns may arise, it becomes a marathon of maintaining a decent review rate. Making it long-term might make it harder to try and change the normal review patterns near term. Granted, the incentives and implementation would have to change somehow, but we'd have to get there later; this was just an idea for now. - 2pou ( talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61 and report any further suspicions. The report archive is enormous. It is likely a source of COI at best. Drafts are... poor and promotional Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The submitter seems to be trying to confuse the reviewers by submitting two drafts with different spellings. I don't know whether the subject is individually notable. It is the responsibility of the submitter to demonstrate individual notability, which is why I declined the first draft with a request to state the reason for individual notability. The submitter then removed the record of that submission, and submitted with a different spelling. Since the singer might be notable, I did not Reject the draft or submit it to MFD. The problem is one of submitter conduct, and I have reported it to WP:ANI instead. I don't like to have to report conduct at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it's WikiMacaroons. I'm interested in becoming a AFC reviewer and have read the guidelines, but I figure I lack experience. I am currently in the CVUA. What next steps can I take to build my experience? Thanks, Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this is best place to post this, but I have found what looks to be a bug on AFCH script. I reviewed and declined Draft:Campbell Pithie, and the decline message was sent to incorrect user. It wasn't sent to the article creator, but was sent to the user that moved it from article space into draftspace. Surely the person we should be sending the decline to is the article creator? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an interesting history which worked out all right, but what happened is that Draft:Elisabet Engdahl was apparently declined in February 2020 as not satisfying notability, but there has already been an article since 2012. It is true, by the way, in my opinion, that she doesn't satisfy general notability, but that doesn't matter, because academic notability is orthogonal to general notability. She is the sort of scholar who illustrates why academic notability should be separate from general notability. I haven't looked in detail at whether the draft that was declined had enough information about the honors that she has received so that it should have been accepted (except that it couldn't have been accepted, because she already had an article). She should have had an article as a distinguished scholar, and a member of certain academies in which membership is a recognition of great academic distinction, and she had an article since 2012. It is interesting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
My great grandfather, Ismael Lares was notable, having a page on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I’m unsure if Great grandfather is close enough connection to be a COI.
I don’t normally submit through AFC, as I usually take the role of reviewer. Eternal Shadow Talk
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
8232. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#8232 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Eumat114 (
Message)
10:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The text of the "blp" decline reason makes it sound like you're supposed to blank the submission when you use it, but when you choose that reason with AFCH, it uses it without doing so, or even offering a checkbox to do so. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 05:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Template:Afc b has been nominated for deletion and relisted a few times. If you're the type of person that cares about such things, please give your opinions at the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Need a second opinion on this draft. On the one hand, there is no significant coverage presented. On the other hand, this is a black man living and acting in the first quarter of the 20th century, and there are a half-dozen references to verify the facts in the draft. I don't think there will really be significant coverage from that time period. Primefac ( talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not that the draft is hard to review, it's that it is a troublesome draft whose creating editor is having difficulty understanding that it is not yet ready to be an article and that the references chosen are all PR pieces or performance videos. I've done all that is sensible there as have several others. I was tempted to send it to AfD this norning when I saw it in main space by the creating editor's hand, but chose not to. Another editor was kind to it and moved it back to draft space.
It feels as if there is some release deadline that is being worked to, with an article 'required' for some potential PR reason. If the gentleman is notable this is not the article that reports and verifies it. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I've chosen to review by comment, not to accept nor decline. I'd like other reviewers to take a look and see if I'm being overly pedantic, please. I'm sure
JakePeraltaB99 woudl appreciate other eyes, on it, too.
Fiddle
Faddle
17:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Will another reviewer please take a look at Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay? I declined this draft twice. The firs time, I declined it basically because the draft is almost incomprehensible. It appears to be written to amaze or confuse the reader, but it also makes claims having to do with the artificial brain that, if confirmed, I would have expected to read an abstract of in Scientific American. The second time, I read it more carefully, and came to essentially the same conclusion, but also to the conclusion that the subject probably is notable either as a scientist, or, more likely, as a pseudo-scientist. I checked some of the references that mentioned Roger Penrose, a great mathematician with some eccentric philosophical views. The subject did present papers at conferences that Penrose also presented papers at. However, I did not research whether the papers were peer-reviewed prior to presentation, or whether the conference was for brain-storming, and might have welcomed unproven work. I would appreciate the opinion of another reviewer. Maybe the opinions of two other reviewers, one with a scientific background and one with a humanities background, would be ideal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I moved it from his user page since he is insisitent it be considered a draft. Google suggests that he probably misses our criteria. Since I'm in danger of delivering a trout, perhaps someone else would review this submission 🌷🌷🤪 Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The creating editor has now self declared paid status. For those new to reviewing, the crypto area is one where there is a huge onslaught of badly sources spam articles. Extreme care in reference checkkng pays dividends here. At present the sources on thsi one are all execrable (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this is a stupid question, or maybe it is a question about stupid behavior. This draft was twice moved from draft space into article space by the author, and was then moved back into draft space by the author. I understand when a draft is moved into article space by the author and then pushed back into draft space by a reviewer. But what is the author trying to do by moving the page into article space and immediately moving it back into draft space? Is there some promotional reason? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I have created Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace to capture content fitting that description. If, in your travels, you happen to come across drafts which should be in this category, please add them. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Please have a look at this history which came to my notice because it is on my watchlist though I have never seen it before. It is not unique.
Is this a problem in terms of attrbution and licencing? Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks. I noticed we have this draft Draft:André Prunet-Foch and André Prunet-Foch. The draft has been rejected. Can somebody please take a look at it. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 07:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Every day I spend some time in the oldest submissions category. I have managed sometimes to get through to the middle of the second column, acceptimg, declining, or passing on where I feel incompetent to review a particular draft. I can usually review 10 or more of these in a day, plus any other reviews and 'stuff' that I do on WP.
Every day that category is swelling. Apart from the fact that I feel unable to offer reviews on some I am perplexed that the great majority I have seen have arrived there before even their first review. We cannot all of us be unable to offer revews on them, because we have good breadth and depth of reviewer, and we have new reviewers arriving all the time.
For a new reviewer the older catageories can feel scary. How did they get to be that old, they must be hard to do! But they aren't. Obvious acceotances and declines are easy, and we ask our new reviewers to get their eye in on obvious ones.
How do we handle the increasing age of the pool if drafts to be reviewed? Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I first posted this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, where I was recommended to come here with it.
Often I see an editor write at the Teahouse about how they've been told their draft needs more references. They've learned this, reasonably enough, from a template that declines the draft for lack of notability, with the words "Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these [notability] criteria should be added." But the template isn't asking for more references, it's asking (as we here all know) for better references.
Inexperienced editors waste a lot of time through this misunderstanding. We might argue that we don't care if they waste their time, all we care about is improving Wikipedia. But it's cruel to misinform people like that. I would like to see the template rewritten. At the very least, the word "additional" should be removed. Maproom ( talk) 08:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have made sandbox edits to achieve the above goals at Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox and Template:AFC submission/declined/sandbox. Please look these over to see if they look like improvements. I have changed only display wording (and added links to WP:SIGCOV in the comments) I have not changed the template logic at all. Can these sandbox changes be accepted and moved to the working templates? DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
bot-like UPE creations. There are some of them, and some not-so-botlike but probably paid creations. But there are also many who are fans of a performer, organization, or topic and want to put an article up. Many of these drafts are more or less promotional. Many are about non-notable topics. But I think a significant number are about notable topics, and can be converted into valid articles. I have worked on a few. I fear that the templates are needed to handle the number of submissions, although I would strongly encourage reviewers to supplement them with more individual comments. In any case the templates are now used by almost all AfC reviewers. I can't see that improving them makes the situation any worse. It may make it somewhat better. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
At the same time, please can we look at what happens when the reviewer adds a multi-para comment? The first para is correctly indented, and the remainder outdent. I tend to go back in and tidy, but I wish I didn't feel that I have to. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for getting as far as you have. I think things start in simpler times and we always push the limits Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Definitely do not.The correct thing to do is to use {{ pb}} to make a new line.attempt to use a colon to match the indentation level, since (as mentioned above) it produces three separate lists
<br />
will also work, but it has different semantic meaning. --
AntiCompositeNumber (
talk)
19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
{{pb}}
. The output is visually the same, but should be better for a screen reader. Any objections to this version?
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC) @
Timtrent,
AntiCompositeNumber, and
LittlePuppers:
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs
19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Timtrent, It's set to only create a paragraph break from two newlines, not one. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with single and double newlines at the same time - I'll think about it. LittlePuppers ( talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
plain=false
to
Module:String, which it can't. Do you know of any way to do that short of invoking the module directly?
LittlePuppers (
talk)
02:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Nirmal Munda led an uprising against colonial exploitation. The British government retaliated with a massacre which is now known as the Amco-Simco massacre. The massacre is clearly notable, but what about the leader of the revolt, Nirmal Munda? My understanding is that WP:1E applies, and about half of the draft is about the massacre anyway; but I'm not very sure since I've been wrong about application of 1E previously. So, should I accept the draft in this state or after converting it into an article about the massacre? Any advice? Thanks in advance. Regards, TryKid dubious – discuss 22:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I find I can't review this on the basis that I think the man is right about the current president there, so it's hard to be objectve. I think it's a puff piece intended to raise the profile of the getntleman, at least based on the references present. I know it's a declared paid piece, but that isn't biasing me against it. I know it deserves a review by a reviewer who wil take a disapasionate look at it. If declined I think that is for sourcing more than anything else. I do not see rejection, certainly at this stage Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Was previously declined, but I see potential notability in it. Unforunately there were concerns about the tone in the past, which I don't have full confidence in being resolved yet. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In the past, I have removed users from the AFCH list when it was brought to my attention that they were not performing the sorts of reviews that we would expect of them. After a series of contentious removals and discussions about removals, we to a "probationary member" system; much like the WP:PERM system, it seemed like a good way to gauge the abilities of users who met the technical requirements of AFCH access but might not have the desired "demonstration of notability criteria", and those that performed poorly could be removed without the huge, contentious discussions that have plagued us in the past.
Now, the point of this post is because it seems like every time I post a "check their reviews" thread, there are few ( if any) replies. I feel like we can't have it both ways - I get criticized for bringing up removal of reviewers when concerns have been brought to me, but yet when I ask for feedback on newer users (bad or good) I get stony silence. Should we just not care about the quality of reviewer and go back to the system we had pre-2017, where any ECP editor could add their name to the list and start reviewing? Am I just concerned about nothing? Is anybody there? Primefac ( talk) 21:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"screw over"my fellow game players out of points; rather, I recognize that manner in which we handle the new editors submitting drafts serves as the basis of whether or not those new editors stick around. Bad reviewing either adds junk to our encyclopedia that has to get cleaned up later or unnecessarily bites the newcomers who are experiencing peak sensitivity while their very first draft is on the bubble. Let the reviewer falling by the wayside seek their self-improvement. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, here is my thought for any users put "under probation" due to any concerns about their meeting of the subjective criteria (i.e. knowledge of GNG, deletion, etc). Those that are put on probation (standard time 2 months) will, upon reaching the end of that period, fill out a form similar to that used at WP:PERM/TPE, indicating:
They would then post their request for indefinite participation here. Barring any major concerns, they can be re-added to the list.
I figure this will give us ("the regulars") enough to go by as far as experience and demonstration that they actually understand the policies. That being said, if all everyone wants is just a generic "I've been on probation and I'd like to keep working" post that's fine too, I just figured having some "hard data" would make it a little easier for a quick review (as multiple people above said they had no interest in doing the digging themselves). Feel free to make tweaks/suggestions for changes. Primefac ( talk) 12:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The fact that there are hundreds of old submissions unreviewed, some of which were submitted in June is insane. We’re backlogged beyond any fix, and our most active reviewers are away. As Timtrent mentioned several days ago, it’s strongly disheartening, especially from the POV of a newer reviewer. What we need to do is to stabilize the backlog - I.e. by winning the war on all fronts, while maintaining our integrity as competent reviewers.
I don’t want to bore the rest of the reviewers with statistics, but at the rate we are going, within a couple of months we could be at a backlog of 4,000 pending submissions and 3-4 month waits for those whom are unlucky enough. My point is, there is something we all can do to prevent these things from happening, by stepping up. If we could have a pledge to make a certain number of reviews a day, we could halt the backlog, even lower it.
This is why I make this proposal: A pledge, promising to make at least x number of reviews a day at AfC. (I will let the rest of you decide the exact number of reviews pledged.)
I don’t know for sure, it’s just a proposal for now. I just thought this could help all of our reviewers here at AfC, and a lot of reviewers seem somewhat demotivated sometimes. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate seeing this idea here. — Sm8900 ( talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
We’re backlogged beyond any fixis false - we were at sub-2-months about two months ago (max age was 7-week); it might be nitpicky but the "fix" is just having folks do more reviews, which seems to be the plan listed above. I'm mostly commenting because the doom and gloom is a little hyperbolic and rather unnecessary. Yes, there's a backlog. Yes, we should all do our part to help get it down. No, we're not completely borked. Primefac ( talk) 23:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I have more than once recently observed an issue, and I don't know whether it is due to sloppiness or to meatpuppetry. First a draft is created in draft space, sometimes for a minor actor or other minor person in the entertainment sector. It may be declined once and resubmitted. Then the draft is copied into article space by a different editor. An example is Draft:Elijah Canlas and Elijah Canlas. The result is that we have an article in article space that has not been reviewed, and is not really the work of the person who is listed as the author. The loss of attribution by the original author calls for a history merge. However, a history merge, when done in the usual fashion, causes the article to be marked as reviewed. At the worst, this may be a way of deliberately sneaking the article into article space and bypassing normal review. At the best, this may be a vehicle that accidentally sneaks the article into article space and bypasses normal review.
The usual way to deal with an article that is not ready for article space is to draftify it. The article cannot be draftified because the draft is already in draft space. I see that in the case of Elijah Canlas it is waiting for review.
If the subject of the article is completely non-notable, the article can be tagged for A7, but I would prefer not to use A7 in doubtful cases. I would suggest that PROD may be the best way to deal with these copy-pastes. Of course, a PROD can be removed, and taken to AFD. Any other suggestions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
tagged the draft with {{subst:AFC draft| username}}. I just meant that submitting the draft for review on behalf of the copy/paster was a kind thing to do that I personally wouldn't feel the need to do (partly because they can do that on their own, partly because other editors working on the draft may not share the feeling that it was ready)—unless of course, it was clearly something I would accept, and there's no reason to keep it out of main space. Basically, I'll review something officially submitted, but if I catch you bypassing the process, I'm not going to follow the process for you, I'm just going to revert to what was status quo. - 2pou ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I am going to propose a new speedy deletion criteria for these cases. BD2412 T 02:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I rejected this (the second rejection) and the creator is claiming that it was unfair. Need another reviewer to take a look and see if somehow notability is demonstrated (doubtful but who am I to judge).
Are there any guidelines people use for flagging copyright violations? I think it's easy to tell when whole sections are lifted from somewhere else, but this is the first time I'm having trouble interpreting the Copyvios report here. This is for Draft:The Unanswered Ives, which was previously declined for a violation. It's one of the older film pages in the queue created by AAlertBot (Side question: is the queue age based on original creation date, or by AFC submission date?) Onel5969 removed at least part of the violation here, but the report still has a lot of red (and it's gone through a lot of edits since). Does anyone have any tips on how they typically interpret these reports? Thanks, 2pou ( talk) 17:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone monitors Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback and does anything with the comments? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Timtrent#Draft:Anushka Sen suggests my recent review to have been unfair. I'm very happy for others to comment on my recent review in which I declined it and criticised its sourcing. I have upset an editor who has invested time in the draft so far. We reviewers do that, of course. It's part of the territory. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
"Anushka Sen" Actresswhich gave me a large number of pictures (suggesting potential notability, or a fanbase, or both). The current redrafting may find that notability
We have been reasonably cautioned to be wary of drafts about cryptocurrency. I would like a third opinion on a draft about cryptocurrency. It is Draft:Ouroboros (protocol), which appears to be a peer-reviewed protocol, and so not just promotion. However, in view of the amount of spamming and blowing smoke about cryptocurrency, I will only accept if another reviewer recommends an acceptance (or they can accept with my recommendation). If there are any concerns about conflict of interest, we should decline. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I keep oushing this back to the creating editor for over-referencing. My antennae are also starting to twitch over possible COI. I'd appreciate stepping back and having someone else look at this one in some detail, please Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The submitter of Draft:Caringo first removed Robert McClenon's comment using a deceptive (can't really AGF on a corporate SPA) edit summary and then resubmitted the draft in such a way that the previous decline notice disappeared. I've seen the comment removal for the first time, but the making the previous decline notice disappear is something that I've noticed in a few drafts previously. Are other reviewers aware of this issue? And how should we deal with it? Thanks, TryKid dubious – discuss 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Question: Are there any coverage requirements specific to BLPs that advise using sources that are more widespread than local coverage? It seems that WP:LOCAL and WP:LOCALCOVERAGE are intended for places and events, respectively. I ask to help with a borderline decision at Draft:Tammy Exum (with additional details in my last AFC comment there). I'm considering state-level House of Representatives as more local politician than national, so I'm going by bullet #2. I interpret the annotation for this bullet as saying separate outlets coming from journalists is required, but it doesn't specify how widely circulated the outlet should be. Any tips are appreciated! - 2pou ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
state/province–wide officealtogether, or if I for some reason thought
members of legislative bodies at those levelswasn't applying to state/province levels... Seems obvious now... I was unaware of WP:IPSOFACTO until now, thank you for linking! Even though that is an essay, it seems to be worded much clearer, and easier to understand than the actual NPOL. I'm also confused by Note 12 in NPOL where it says
This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion.If that bullet is secondary... what exactly is the primary criterion? Anyway, thank you for your help! - 2pou ( talk) 05:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Draft:The Pilot Newspaper. I've posed a question in this discussion which may benefit with input from editors who are versed in the purpose of the "Draft:" namespace, specifically regarding redirects and WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
After a query on the help desk, Collingwood supporter asked me on my talk page to help them with their their draft, Draft:Jye Bolton. There are obvious good intentions here, but the article is in kind of rough shape and I am neither an expert in football (which makes reading it rather difficult) nor an expert in football notability (sourcing is a bit of an issue; I don't think he meets WP:NFOOTY but I'm not sure, so presumably I would want to ask for proof of GNG, but again, not my area of expertise). Is there anyone here who would be willing to help? Thanks, LittlePuppers ( talk) 00:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes made to WP:AfC sorting:
Suggestions for other improvements are welcome. Regards, SD0001 ( talk) 10:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Name:Cyabahire Ishimo patrice Emery Known as:Cody Trice Occupation:Song writer,Singer,Business man Nationality:🇷🇼 Rwanda Label:Trice Nation Father:Bizimana Venuste Mother:Murekatete Julienne Marie Pauline Songs:Non stop
Ntawundi musa Like i do So sweet Slow down
Born on:7/5/2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirungi julio ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I am asking if another reviewer can provide a third or fourth opinion on this draft. My first thought is to accept it as a reasonably detailed discussion of a term that is being used for a topic that has had considerable scholarly attention recently. However, I can't simply ignore the history of the title, even though it was ten years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurosexism. This looks like a genuinely terrible AFD. Maybe it was a genuinely terrible stub, and I will request that the stub be undeleted so that I can compare. I certainly can't see how G3 follows, either as vandalism or a hoax or an attack page. I would take the old AFD to DRV except that I know that the regulars at DRV will tell me just to resubmit it in draft, or, in my case, just approve it from the draft. Does anyone have any advice about what to do about a good draft whose title had a terrible AFD ten years ago? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
In connection with a different scientific article that I also didn't understand, someone mentioned the possibility of accepting a questionable draft and seeing what happens to it in article space after the real physicists get at it. I welcome any scientists or non-scientists to review Draft:Phase space quantum mechanics. I think that, after having declined it twice, I will this time accept it with a note at WikiProject Physics asking for comments, and will see what happens, including that it may be stubbed down, or it may be AFD'd. However, comments from literate non-scientists (or anyone) are welcome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In the intro of Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation, one can currently read "AfC created new pages as drafts which are then submitted for review." I think there is a typo there ("created" should be "creates"). I cannot fix it myself because of the page protection. − 2003:D9:EF10:B00:4D89:4810:3FAD:575E ( talk) 07:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:AFC_submission#revisions. SD0001 ( talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I just saw Chioma_Ikokwu. The author moved it out of draft space herself. When I see this happen, should I redraftify the article and then notify someone? -- Slashme ( talk) 09:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello WPAFC, there is a request to update a bot configuration related to AFC, User_talk:Theo's_Little_Bot/afchwikiproject.js#entry_types_to_remove. It seems straight forward, but I'm not very familiar with this - if there are any objects or comments please drop a note at that edit request. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there may be some cross-wiki IP-based abuse at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, particularly from addresses starting in 92.184 or 2A01:CB0, which geolocate to Paris, France. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YtoSu for details. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Could all Reviewers PLEASE make sure that if you decline something on copyright violation grounds that aren't G12-worthy, to still do the following:
There is a large category of AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. A couple are still pending flagged ones, and a few more that just didn't get marked as cleaned by the admin who revdelled, but most are ones declined as copyvios but not acted on. Lots of these get resubmitted and so-on, so it's not just a matter of waiting 6 months and they'll be gone. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Partial copyvio handling summary
(ii) post to the draft's talk page {{subst:cclean|url=URL(s) copied from}}; just place a space between the URLs if there's more than one (note: this template automatically signs for you so place no tildes);
(iii) mark the revisions in the page history (typically the first edit and second to last edit) for redaction by an administrator by placing and saving at the top of the draft page this template: {{copyvio-revdel|start = earliest revision ID (that is, the number at end of the revision's URL after "oldid=") | end= end revision ID}};
(iv) change the decline parameter in your AfC copyvio decline template from cv to cv-cleaned – or remove that decline entirely, since you've just cleaned it, and re-assess the draft on its other merits; and
(v) warn the user, such as with {{
subst:uw-copyright-new|DraftName}}
.
Later in my time as a non-admin reviewer, Enterprisey came up with User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel which made life much smoother. The page includes the relevant instructions, which are nicely brief. Please note, as I only discovered just now, it does not play nicely if you are an admin (the various visibility bits get in the way), but obviously it is less necessary here. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
My draft is not listed. Nihaal The Wikipedian ( talk) 10:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Fiddle Faddle, When you see the category AfC submissions by age 0 days old, you will not find Draft:1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole. It was not there since nearly 1/4 of an hour. Regards. Nihaal The Wikipedian ( talk) 10:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor of Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto sent me a message pointing out that the topic seems to meet WP:COMPOSER #3 per this source. Given that, do you think the article ought to be accepted? Thanks for any help/advice. Noahfgodard ( talk) 22:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
There is reasonable disagreement as to whether the subject of this draft has either played or managed (head-coached) at a fully professional level. Because there is reasonable disagreement, a rough consensus process should be used to decide whether an article is in order. For that reason, I will be accepting the draft, because AFD is a rough consensus process, and there isn't a rough consensus process in draft space.
I have suggested that there should be Drafts for Discussion, but I usually get some agreement and more disagreement.
So I will accept it, and am aware that there may be an AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Will another reviewer please review Draft:JioTV? The author has requested another review, and I think they mean by another reviewer. For background, the author is a declared paid editor for JioTV. JioTV is currently a redirect to its parent company, Jio Platforms. One question is whether the division has corporate notability independent of its parent. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The submitters of this draft are arguing that he should be considered a Congressman-elect because he is in a safe Democratic district, and that the draft should be accepted. I will be declining the draft.
I will note that if the submitters want to test how Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply, one of them can move the draft into article space, which is the privilege of any autoconfirmed editor. There may be an AFD, which will decide whether to send it back to draft space until November. However, if the draft is resubmitted again without a better reason than they have provided so far, I will be inclined to request sanctions of some sort. I don't want to Reject the draft, because it probably will go into article space after he is elected. I certainly don't want to take the draft to MFD. But I might go to WP:ANI if it is resubmitted again. Hopefully they can wait until 4 November. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Probably a close call. I recommend another reviewer take a look at this. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a question about requesting a history merge. I reviewed Draft: Age regression. Age regression was formerly an article, but has been stubbed down to a redirect to age regression in therapy. I know that if I accept the draft, I need to request that it be history-merged with the redirect with history. So should I make that request as soon as I see that there is a new draft on the topic (now), or should I wait to make that request until the draft is ready for acceptance? I declined the current draft for tone reasons, but if those are dealt with, it might be ready for acceptance. So should I wait until the draft is ready to accept before requesting history merge? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there a standing rule on what to do if we have multiple drafts (from different creators). Would the same rule apply if they were both in the AfC queue, or just one of them?
Might be preferable if they work together, but can that be forced? How is the one chosen? etc etc Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like comments on how we should handle repeated tendentious resubmissions of individual drafts of members of boy bands or girl groups who are only notable in their groups. I decline them, saying that the submitter should explain, in an AFC eomment or on the draft talk page, how the individual satisfies musical notability. So far, that is the usual business. The submitter then typically adds one or two more references and one or two more sentences to the draft and resubmits it, with no specific explanation of how the individual is notable outside of the group. This is also what happens with an actor. With an actor or other person with fans but no real accomplishments, I sometimes Reject the draft, because it needs to be blown up and started over to establish notability, with a warning that I am ready to take it to MFD. I don't want to do this with band members, and in particular I don't want to take the offending draft to MFD. At MFD, I know that the MFD participants will correctly say that the draft should be kept, because the subject might be notable. So how do I deal with tendentious resubmissions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The bands are often Korean, but that is only important in that there are multiple Korean idol groups who have a lot of fans.
Two recent examples are Yoon Sanha and Moon Bin, but they are representative of a more general question, which is tendentious resubmission of individual group members by fans. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I declined Draft:Salin Supaya a few days ago on the grounds that its sources did not establish notability, and I received some rather strong comments here and here in return. The editor removed the notice of my declination on the page, and also resubmitted it for review. Would someone mind taking a look at the draft to let me know whether they think my assessment was appropriate? Thanks, Noahfgodard ( talk) 23:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Have studied all this for some time & still cannot figure out how a user with a COI can suggest that an article be created by someone else. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Kindly help look into the creation of this article that has recently been moved to Draft:Ipo Arakeji and suggest a possible solution please. Thank you. Anonymoussix ( talk) 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I see a lot of IMDB referencing for Film and Television articles, and quite a bit of YouTube as well. I came across what the XLinkBot does via the RSN. I haven't seen any particular rules about draft space yet, but I have to assume it doesn't monitor drafts based on how often I see these references. Do people think it is worth requesting this bot monitor drafts from new users as well to try and make it clearer to new users that they shouldn't be using these sources? A potential downside, according to the User:XLinkBot/FAQ, is that the bot would undo all of the edits that were done in sequence, having potential to effectively blank pages. This might set off alarms, but it might also bring attention to the sources the new editor is using, and when made aware, undo the bot's revert and fix the references. Thoughts? - 2pou ( talk) 17:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Template talk:Afc decline#Volunteers which could use some more input. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 17:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've just declined two versions of a draft BLP for this United States Senate candidate. I have also given the submitters of the two drafts the notice of American politics discretionary sanctions, not because they are interfering with neutral point of view, which is the usual problem, but just because tendentious resubmission of candidate BLPs is a nuisance, and I now plan to give the same notice for any more campaign biographies, for the next seven weeks.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This isn't really an AFC question. It is more a New Page Patrol question. However, my observation is that there seem to be two different scripts in use for draftifying articles that do not belong in article space yet. One of them normally pushes the article back into draft space in a state of Submitted for Review. The other one, which I have, pushes the article back into draft space in a state of Unsubmitted. I think that the latter option, unsubmitted, is better, because the New Page reviewer obviously thinks that the page does not belong in article space, or they wouldn't draftify it. If it is pushed back as being waiting for review, it needs to be declined. Well, if the AFC reviewer thinks that it is ready for acceptance, then another reviewer disagrees, and they should discuss rather than move-reverting.
Do you agree that a draftified page should be in an Unsubmitted or Declined state, rather than waiting to be reviewed when we know that it should be declined? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:XMTWIKI&diff=prev&oldid=977421856&diffmode=source Some of the text was overriden, but the part about editing and resubmitting is canned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jessie_Lavington_Evans&type=revision&diff=978493573&oldid=976518156&diffmode=source Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility.js")
on
your common.js page to post a Teahouse invitation or talkback with one click! Hope that helps!!
scope_creep
Talk
11:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Hi Folks!! Can somebody take a look at this: Draft:Dobromir Slavchev and Dobromir Slavchev. The article is absolute mess and needs to be draftified, but there duplicate in draft already. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 20:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Noon Khe page is related to the series and also has a Persian Wikipedia. Thank you ±←→° — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadhosseinrr4 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
When reviewing resubmitted drafts I occasionally see reviewers advising authors to remove sources that are not helping to establish notability. Articles can be improved by removing trashy sources so this advice is well intentioned but, in many cases, I fear it gives authors the impression that the extra sources are impeeding approval of their draft.
If you want to give improvement advice, please be clear whether acceptance is contingent on your suggested improvements. The advice they really need to be given in these cases is to find and cite additional sources to establish notability. The original sources don't need to be removed; WP:CITEKILL is not a reason to decline a draft; WP:PRIMARY sources can be useful for WP:V.
If there are too many references for you to wade through, either review a different draft or ask the author to highlight WP:THREE sources that establish notability. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a two-part question. The first part is about a draft, since we review drafts. The second part is about a confusing redirect. Obviously the first question is whether the draft should be accepted, but the more puzzling question is what to do because there is a redirect for a name, to an article, where the name nowhere appears in the article.
The draft is Draft:Sharon Bell. The obvious questions are whether she satisfies academic notability and whether the draft is neutral. The non-obvious question has to do with Sharon Bell, which is a redirect to an article about a terrorist incident, to the section about the victims, but the article does not mention a Sharon Bell. Presumably one of the sources does, but the redirect is not a useful search term if it leaves the reader wondering what newspaper to read. By the way, I am assuming that they are two different people. If the subject of the BLP had been wounded in the terrorist attack, the BLP would probably say so.
Normally I would put a hatnote at the top of the article, saying that it is about the Australian professor, and for the woman killed in Tunisia, see the article. But the article on the terrorist attack doesn't mention her name. Should I nominate the redirect for deletion, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Not so long ago, it seems, that we are at a very healthy 1,200 pending drafts. Then I left for a while, stopped by here, and now we have 3,500 pending drafts. That's a big backlog. But at the same time, Wikipedia seems to be having more activity because of the lockdown imposed around the world; so at this time, I think we, as a project, should be upping our game, and hence I am suggesting some sort of a backlog drive to serve this surge of users. Is it a good idea? Yours, Eumat114 ( Message) 09:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
number of unreviewed drafts that are arriving in the oldest date categoryis pretty static, but we only see the "growing backlog" in that oldest category because it's the only one that looks like it "changes" on a day-to-day basis. I do, of course, know what you mean by "requires deeper thought;" I cleared out 25 drafts in about 2 hours from the 17-day category earlier this week, but I can usually only do 3-5 of the oldest before I give up. Primefac ( talk) 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have created {{ draft topics}} and the associated module, to be used for categorizing AFC-affiliated drafts with ORES topics. ( WP:AFCSORT currently does this for pending drafts only, there's no equivalent for declined ones). The last time I brought this up, some editors said WikiProject tagging on the talk page would be preferable -- however that isn't feasible for an automatic bot as ORES topics don't exactly match wikiprojects. Any objections to going ahead for a BRFA and creating the category tree? Categories will named like Category:Draft articles on North America, Category:Draft articles on biographies, Category:Draft articles on chemistry, etc; all of these will be sub-categories of Category:Draft articles by ORES topic classification.
Once we have the system running, it opens a lot of opportunities like being able to combine these with other filters on tools like petscan or wikipedia search to narrow down on specific sets of drafts one may be interested in. – SD0001 ( talk) 06:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
![]()
|
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Right now this has a section that reads like this:
"Wikipedia has some subject-specific notability guidelines. Read through the submission and consider if one or more of the guidelines below applies. If it does, and the submission does not meet the relevant guideline or the General Notability Guideline you can decline the submission for that reason. The following table shows the notability guidelines for specific subjects. If the subject of the submission you are reviewing is not listed in the table below, only apply the general notability guideline. "
Um, isn't that actually... backward? If a subject specific guideline can be applied to the subject, even if it does not meet the General Notability Guideline, then it should be accept it, not declined it, no? The way this reads right now, if a subject falls into one of the categories but doesn't meet the GNG, it looks like it should be declined. My experience with AfD is limited, but I've seen subject specific guidelines used many times to justify retaining an article which does not meet the GNG by any stretch! What does this paragraph mean and shouldn't it maybe be rephrased? A loose necktie ( talk) 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If it does, and ... does not meet...is the confusing part, because the first part refers to "is in that genre/category" and the second part refers to the actual criteria for approval. Primefac ( talk) 12:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#New article created through AfC that affects us. My understanding was that drafts we accept go onto the NPP queue and are therefore subject to further work like cleanup, categorisation and tagging. It now appears this is not the case, which puts extra onus on reviewers to do those sort of things. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The results reported above about Korean drafts are about to "hit the fan", maybe at Village pump (policy) very soon, and we can expect stupid calls to abolish AFC. It will not be abolished, because there is no obvious alternative for IP editors and conflict of interest editors, but there may be reasonable calls that we should discourage good-faith registered editors from using AFC. I and most of us who are regular AFC reviewers presumably think that AFC is worth preserving. We need to be ready to handle the resulting storm. We have been declining drafts that should not have been declined. Two of us disagree as to whether the fault is primarily with AFC itself, or secondarily with AFC and primarily with GNG, but that disagreement is less important than that we agree that AFC has declined too many drafts in some areas, including in some areas where there is systemic bias.
I think that we need to reaffirm the principle that the criterion for acceptance is simply that there should be more than a 50% chance that the article will survive AFD.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I was torn between a decline and MfD, or even to accept and let the cmmunity decide at a potential AfD as an advert. I chose decline. There is a huge comment tranche at the head. I was considering collapsing much of it. Please will other eyes determine what to do with this draft. It has been lingering too long and probabky needs a better decision than simply being pushed back for improvement. Fiddle Faddle 07:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
After looking at Draft:Jo Yu-ri a few weeks ago, I looked at it again today. I concluded that the draft does not establish that she is notable apart from the girl group, and so I declined it with 'music' and 'mergeto'. That should have been routine, but then I looked at the talk page of the author to see if the decline message was what I intended. It wasn't there. So then I looked through my own contributions, and I saw that I had created User talk:Jo Yu-ri, a user talk page of a non-user. So I copied the decline message to User talk:Kelvinnnnnnn. But my real question now is why did it send the decline message to a non-existent user? Should I ask here, or at Village pump, or where? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
|u=Jo Yu-ri
, which then when you declined sent it to that user's talk (even though they don't exist). As a note, using AFCH to submit a draft gives you the option of which editor you want to "give credit" to in the |u=
field of the template.
Primefac (
talk)
17:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to offer a quick takeaway with reference to the ongoing discussion of the Korean drafts and other issues. The quick takeaway is that a reviewer who looks at a draft and does not accept or reject it should leave some indication that they have looked at it and not made a decision about it. It should be obvious to a reviewer that a previous reviewer looked at it if they moved it, either from a sandbox to draft space, or by disambiguating it. Any comment or tag, such as a copy-edit tag, or a COI tag, makes it clear that the reviewer looked at it. I would suggest that, in the future, a reviewer who looks at a draft and takes no action could, as a courtesy to other reviewers, leave a comment such as "Leaving for another reviewer" at a minimum, or identifying the notability guideline that seems to apply, such as, "Does the subject satisfy acting notability?" I will try to remember to do that myself. I haven't always been doing it, and will try to do it in the future. Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why can’t we edit these pages? 75.83.68.155 ( talk) 01:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)