User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Draft:David Cancel under review for 21+ hours

Hi there! I was just AFC submission hopping and came across Draft:David Cancel which it said you marked as under review 21 hours ago, just thought I would let you know in case you forgot or something. If you like I can review it for you (more than happy to if you are busy). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: thanks! That must have been an internet connection issue. I lost connection the moment I was marking it for review which made me believe it wasn't marked at all. It'd be really kind of you to go and review it for me. I've my JEE-Main tomorrow so I'm kinda busy. Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem! I am glad I could help. I hope you don't mind that I tagged you in my declining comment to them since your AFC comment provided examples (not to say others didn't or weren't useful of course). Good luck on your exam! Also, I am new to reviewing (that was only my second review) and I was wondering how long you have been reviewing for and, if you have the time/want to (after exams of course), could possibly give some pointers/tips? I am going to ask a few people I know are reviewers but you are the first so far that I have asked (and yes, I did read this through). Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: thanks a lot! I don't mind but rather appreciate that you mentioned my comment while declining (I was anyways going to decline it). It really depends on the article about the time it takes. Some you can be sure at first look that It's going down the well and others require more through check. I do try to always check for copyright violations because then you've to clean blank it and request speedy (had only 1 case till now). To be honest, even I've just started reviewing (when I crossed that 500 edit limit) for a couple of days. I'll be sure to have a nice chat after the exam (if you can wait till 30th May because that's my last exam 😉). I've a series of exams lined up (entrance exams for engineering) so I'll only be online in between. See you later. Gotta study. Thanks once again! Yashovardhan (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am more than happy to have a nice chat with you and I have finals coming up myself in Computer Science (only mine are over in a couple of weeks haha). Didn't realize you were a new editor like myself. I have around 700-800 (last time I checked) mainspace edits and have been waiting for the time requirement to help out for about a month haha. I am glad that I was able to assist you in that and that you don't mind my tagging you. In my opinion, that draft does have some potential (possibly) if better sourced (why I linked them NY Times as an example). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: even I'm planning to take computer science engineering as my undergraduate course. I agree about that draft, i was going to decline it myself. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rejecting Template:MyDramaList name without a reason

Hello Yashovardhan Dhanania, I saw that you rejected my submission. I really don't know why you did that? There are a lot of templates like this, so why be biased against this template. There are those Template:IMDb title, Template:IMDb name, Template:HanCinema person, and Template:HanCinema film. MyDramaList is much bigger than Hancinema and IMDb in term of Asian movies and TV shows. -- Hessa94 (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hessa94: I went ahead and accepted it. But maybe you should provide an example in the documentation to add more value to it. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Thanks very much. Can you also approve the Template documentation. It will appear in the blue box to help people use the template. Like this one: Template:IMDb name. Hessa94 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yashovardhan (talk)

Request on 12:14:13, 8 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Derk van der Wal

• Derk van der Wal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:OpenHAB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, The openhab page notability is not good enough. The first time the page was written it was done by the architect / leading developer of the openHAB program. Indeed, it was too much written with his own sources mentioned.

Now I have tried to rewrite everything. The complete original sources is gone. The page has been refused now for the fifth time.

Then I tried several times. In the latest page I only mention for referencing : a) three awards and one nomination, all from independent site's b) eleven references from independent sites that talk about the openHAB software system or give an overview of possible solutions c) only one external source: the original openhab site

Btw: openHAB is a non-profit open source program. It has a large community with developers and users. When I look at other sources in Wikipedia I see many pages that have much more commercial relations than openHAB ever will have. I don't know what to do anymore. I'm a littlebit frustrated.

Can you give in detail what references are good and what not?

Regards,

Derk van der Wal

Derk van der Wal (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC) @Derk van der Wal: i suggest you go through WP:RS to learn more on what is acceptable and not. If the architect is /was editing the draft, he must declare the Conflict of interest. I'd take a look at the draft again. Thanks. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Jamie Weinand

Hi there,

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamie_Weinand I am not sure why this is not notable, subject's work has been used in multiple U.S. court cases as an advocacy tool, subject is first transgender person in family medicine, subject is related to notable breast cancer activist and American psychiatrist Mary Ann Coady Weinand.

Thank you, BM456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonmarathoner456 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bostonmarathoner456: notability isn't inherited. You need significant coverage in leading news sources for this subject to be notable. I suggest waiting till this subject receives more coverage. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am not suggesting that notability is inherited, please accept my apologies if this was how it seemed.

Weinand's research work has been used in national court cases, 4.1 Blatt v. Cabela's Retail Inc and Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education. Furthermore, Weinand is the *first* transgender man in family medicine and one of the *only living out transgender physicians*. Please let me know why this is not notable? This is exceedingly rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonmarathoner456 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bostonmarathoner456: well, if his work has been accepted widely, you should be able to find various news outlets dealing with it. Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources, rather we prefer to use secondary sources such as major news publications. I think you can resubmit adding such sources as references. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will find more secondary sources today and resubmit. Does this sound OK to you? I have been adding more secondary sources today. Today I just added another Science Daily article as well as the Advocate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonmarathoner456 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 14:58:25, 8 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Globaladvisor

• Globaladvisor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Marquardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article on Michael Marquardt. It's relatively short and there already are 9 external references. The only external links are to corporations that substantiate a fact stated in the article. I'm not sure what else to do in terms of "remove external links and add more references." Would very much appreciate your advice. Thank you.Globaladvisor (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Globaladvisor (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Globaladvisor: we don't want external links in the body. If they are references, you've to use reference tags (see WP:CITE and WP: External links). Yashovardhan (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That clarifies it. Will comply. Globaladvisor (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your AFC comment on Draft:Cowboy Smithx

Hi there, I was just reading your most recent AFC comment on Draft:Cowboy Smithx and was wondering if - by that - you would approve it and tag as being slightly biased ({{POV}})? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, the main point of being in the draft space is that the creators will be told before it becomes an article what needs fixing. We generally (i.e. 99.9% of the time) do not put maintenance tags on a draft. If it's something you notice (on, say, an already-declined draft), just leave an {{AFC comment}}. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: Thanks for the response! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On a related note, Yashovardhan, the comment "seems biased, otherwise fine" combined with a "improper references" decline is very confusing. If you're declining for references, then it's not "fine", and what do you mean by biased? It's always a good idea to give helpful advice about what specifically you noticed, and maybe point them towards a resource to help them (I regularly point people towards WP:NPOV, WP:REFB, WP:42, and WP:RS). Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, since you ec'd and probably didn't see this, it's good advice for you too. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I did see it but thanks for the tag Primefac - it is greatly appreciated. Any advice is always welcome and after reading that I adjusted my original AFC comment on it. Thank you for all the help, I'd like to think I am starting to somewhat get the hang of reviewing (somewhat - rest will come with time, experience, and questions ) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, TheSandDoctor thanks for the advice! By biased, I meant it read like a POV but only some parts of it. I'll try to leave a better comment next time. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

03:24:44, 9 April 2017 review of submission by Syroco

• Syroco (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Assassin's Creed: Freedom Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a review because my article was declined due to a misunderstanding, which my proposed article was addressing: The "Freedom Cry" page attached to the Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag page is only addressing the title (Freedom Cry) as a DLC title included within the season pass of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. Since then, Assassin's Creed: Freedom Cry has been re-released as a standalone digital title, separate from Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. That is why it deserves its own article in 2017.

@Syroco: Oh, in that case I or another reviewer will review it again. Resubmit it if you will and probably after getting approval, drop a link to the new page at the original one. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

citations

hello,

thank you for your advice, but you think I need to put more citations? every single thing I say in the article comes from important newspapers, magazine, relevant published book...I have the impression that I haven't left anything behind. What did you mean with your comment?

I appreciate your time and attention on my work.

Thank you!

Maria GrimanaMaria Grimana (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maria Grimana, I had specifically mentioned in my comment that you need to refer to WP:BLP as the subject is a living person. I mentioned that the lead sectopm which briefly mentions about his family has no citations so it can be challenged according to the policy. I request you to go through this policy - WP:BLP and add citations to the lead (and any other section appropriate). Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 14:30:31, 9 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by SianPhillips

• SianPhillips (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Matt Johnson Writer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - re your comment to refer to the WP:Author page does it require all 4 points to be met because as far as I can see point no.3 has been met and proved - 2 books have been written by the author. Re notability don't the references from the Sunday Times and Telegraph (reputed UK newspapers - not redtops) count? Thanks for your advice.

SianPhillips (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@SianPhillips: I think 2 books is too short a leeway. Would suggest waiting for more or till he meets any other criteria as well. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Camelpower

Hello! Thank you so much for your support. I got your message (I'd accept this if more references were added and inline citations were used) so I am here to kindly request your help to make this the right way. As I wrote before, Camelpower is a new unit, it's not just a neologism, it was created to measure desert performance, it has already enlisted the help of the Emirates Authority for Standardization and Metrology and International bodies such as the ISO for wider verification. Camelpower has its own scientific basis, and it was developed by engineers and by National Geographic. The experiment counted with the sponsorship of Nissan... you know, because of budget support issues, but we are willing to leave this on the side to make the article completely neutral.

I compiled all the media references about CAMELPOWER here: http://alexpinedad.blogspot.ae/2017/04/only-for-wikipedia-verification.html

Please let me know what else is needed.

Best Regards,

94.200.88.62 (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Alexander Pineda94.200.88.62 (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll be a bit busy and won't be able to help you on this. You can request help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance or WP:Teahouse. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

However, i had a run through your list and I think that should be more than enough to support the draft. However, you can't add your blog as a reference but will have to add each reference individually. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

09:54:06, 10 April 2017 review of submission by Bridsearch

• Bridsearch (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SongBird Survival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:SongBird Survival Thanks for your review. I have removed the poor sections. The subject is worth including as it is mentioned in existing wikipedia entries, such as Cat predation on wildlife and John Baillie-Hamilton, 13th Earl of Haddington - this page adds further information for these topics. Many thanks. Bridsearch (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)