User talk:DM18WV

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Mattingly (August 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MCE89 were:

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

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

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The vast majority of this draft is unsourced. You need to include a citation to a reliable source for each claim you make.

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

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

MCE89 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DM18WV! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MCE89 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick review. After substantial revision and connecting facts to 28 specific references, I've resubmitted my draft. DM18WV (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Mattingly has been accepted

Sam Mattingly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jcgaylor (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello, I'm Kvinnen. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sam Mattingly, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Greetings - I'm in the middle of editing that page. Please allow me some time to include the reliable source support. DM18WV (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

In addition, you might be missing the point of these recent changes. Adding a phot from 2005 to begin the article shows Sam nine years before his death. The original 1965 photo is more appropriate for showing Sam as he began his work with NASA. That photo is well documented in several scientific publications that are already included in the extensive references. Please advise if this will suffice. Thanks - DM18WV (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say that you were unnecessarily hasty in reverting my work to the previous version. Please show a bit more patience rather than jumping in with reversions while an article is in editing mode. It's not like I'm working on something that is controversial. I'm simply adjusting for accuracy, and I'm hoping you can be a bit more patient. DM18WV (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. I revert a large number of purely unconstructive edits everyday. It is hard to differentiate between unsourced content that is meant to be worked on later versus genuinely unsourced (therefore unacceptable to be present here) content. Tip: Consider adding your source within the same edit. Thanks and apologies. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)