This is an archive of past discussions with User:ToadetteEdit. 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.
Honestly enough living with topic bans in place is like a curse being put upon me. I really wanted to add my name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2025 Backlog Drive/Participants, but am afraid because if I do so I would be re-blocked. It's something that you wanted to participate but you are barred to do so and doing so would only make the situation worse. I am an active AfC reviewer who is trying to put down the backlog, but unfortunately cannot participate in the backlog itself. I am wondering myself if WP:PROXYING prohibits even the well intentioned talk page? Probably not, and probably yes... ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 13:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit: yeah, I think that people just want to stick to the letter of the law, though I'm sure that everyone will still see and appreciate your contributions :) it's unfortunate, but in the present situation, it is what it is, so best of luck I guess - it'slio! | talk | work13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
By the way, are you intersted in joining the AfC team? AfC is the roots of NPP and requires just an understanding of P&Gs as well as some experience in AfD and content contributions. The backlog has been in the highest point since the last drive. Hopefully by joining you might also want to participate in the drive. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 16:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I intend to eventually participate in AfC, but I think I'll focus on my current commitments and gaining more experience in content contribution first :) Thanks for your invitation! Have a great day, it'slio! | talk | work02:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
NTA Metropolitan Mass Transit System Ltd.
Hi, I'm new to English Wikipedia, so apologies ahead if I'm not following the right steps :) I'm writing the article for NTA Metropolitan Mass Transit System Ltd. which is a major, government-owned company in Israel, constructing national, multi billion USD transportation projects. How many references are expected? and of what kind? Are you aiming for references that prove the very existence of the company? A little guidance would be much appreciated. אסף ברקת (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance. I still don't understand what kind of article or source is needed. the company is the Israeli government's branch to build and operate the light rail and metro lines, so these projects are its core and only operation. There are no references about NTA that don't discuss at least one of these projects.אסף ברקת (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Declining the article Yoram Kraus
Dear ToadetteEdit,
Thank you for reviewing the draft article on Yoram Kraus (User:Amir Segev Sarusi/Yoram Kraus). I respectfully request a reconsideration of the decision to decline it on the grounds of "lack of reliable sources." I believe this decision may not fully take into account the breadth and quality of the sources already provided, especially including:
The article references major independent Israeli news outlets that meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources:
Calcalist
TheMarker
Globes
Haaretz
News1
These publications provide substantial coverage on key aspects of Kraus's career, particularly:
His role in founding the startup InfiBond, which reached a valuation of $1.25 billion,
Its subsequent financial collapse and sale for $7 million,
His founding role in Sella Capital, a publicly traded REIT.
All of these are covered not with trivial mentions but in-depth reporting and investigative journalism.
The article references two different court proceedings that are publicly available and reliable:
a) Derivative Lawsuit Involving Sella Capital
Case No. 8095-09-15: K.R.N.A. Ltd. v. Sela Capital Investment Ltd. et al.,
Ruling dated July 5, 2017, specifically Section 3, which confirms Kraus's foundational role in the company.
This adds legal and documentary verification of his position beyond media coverage.
b) Official Insolvency Proceedings of InfiBond
Insolvency Case No. 37468-03-20: InfiBond Ltd. v. The Commissioner for Insolvency and Economic Rehabilitation,
Proceedings are available on the Israeli government's official insolvency portal,
Confirms that InfiBond entered liquidation and its assets were sold — with Yoram Kraus mentioned in connection with the company’s corporate structure.
These legal records come from official court databases and offer primary, government-verified documentation of the subject’s central involvement in two major business events. That surpasses typical standards of verification.
The only section that relies on less prominent or formally verifiable sources is the brief mention of the subject’s hobbies. This information was included to provide context and human interest, and it does not carry significant weight in the article. In any case, personal hobbies are seldom covered by high-profile or formally documented sources, yet I think it is warranted to include them in biographical entries where available. --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@Amir Segev Sarusi, you'll really need to cite all statements for verification and ensure that the sources significantly discuss the subject in detail. The subject of the article is only mentioned. It should instead discuss the subject. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 09:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Declined Catholic Apostolic Church in North America
Good Morning ToadetteEdit -
I have added every article I can find related to Catholic Apostolic Church in North America (CACINA). CACINA is a history church in the United States with a 75 year history. I see many other churches in Wikipedia with a lot less history and a lot fewer articles.
@Revtonygreen, you have tried your best to find any other source available. In fact, your latest attempt is that you added no source that actually contributes to notability; that is, sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and discusses the subject in some depth. Of the sources in the article, only one meets all criteria; the rest are primary or only mention the other affiliated people involved in the church and not about the church itself.
I am in worry, though, because the next time this is resubmitted, it might get rejected as non notable. Because of this, please put more effort into finding more valid sources, whether online or offline, whether in English or not, to add into the article before hitting the submit button. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@Treemarsupial, the page is not deleted; it has been moved to the draft space for being in a promotional tone and also because it might have been written using an AI program. To publish the article, you can submit the draft for review by clicking the blue button in the above notice, but only after you significantly addressed the concerns raised. Or, you may also move the page to the mainspace, although I do not recommend that. Also see Help:Your first article. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 16:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @ToadetteEdit - thanks - I do understand I can edit it and resubmit. I just don't understand why it was even flagged as promotional and AI. How can I improve it? I added so many reliable sources, the topic is generic "corporate gifting platform" - it's a category, it's not promoting any specific product or company. It's a Human resources, marketing, sales tool category. I'm happy to make the edits, I just need your guidance on what's expected. Thanks again. Treemarsupial (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@Treemarsupial, the article has prose issues that can be fixed (or removed). Here are the issues.
AI chatbots typically present content in bulleted lists with bolded titles, e.g., in the "Functionality" section. That section should also be removed since it is currently unsourced and somewhat inappropriate unless verified by reliable sources. Other sections include "Challenges" and "Trends," which are not appropriate encyclopedic section headers IMO; these sections also have that AI-generated bullet listing.
The article is promotional in nature. It is clearly not written in a WP:Neutral point of view. An example is Corporate gifting has evolved from traditional practices, such as sending holiday baskets or branded merchandise, to sophisticated digital platforms.. This should probably be reworded to something like Corporate gifting evolved from practices such as sending holiday baskets to digital platforms. This is just an example; there are more (e.g. from the lead section: These platforms help companies personalize, automate, and manage gifting campaigns with minimal logistical burden, offering a modern alternative to traditional promotional merchandise or manually coordinated gifts). You may want to review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, especially the Puffery section, on how to avoid using such terms in order to have a neutrally worded encyclopedia. You may also want to read the manual of style to understand how encyclopedia articles are written.
Hopefully, you should understand why your article was tagged as having promotional and AI content and how to overcome those issues. And as always, the teahouse is always available for any inquiries from you. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 17:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Very interesting, thank you! I will read the manuals you provided and try to edit again. Funny that I just like bulleted lists and I purposefully made those with bolded headlines –visually I find that easier to read but good to know to avoid doing so. Thanks again! Treemarsupial (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Question About the Draft Rejection
Hello,
Thank you for reviewing my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CARiD.com. Your feedback would help me better understand how to move forward.
When I was working on the article, I believed I'd included at least three sources that meet the notability criteria. I'm referring to sources like Barron's, The Wall Street Journal, The Street. From my understanding, these sources are reliable, independent from the subject, and the articles are detailed enough to cover the subject in depth. I'd really appreciate your feedback on where I might have gone wrong. Thank you. GearNerd (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@GearNerd, the problem is that, even though the criteria are met, most of the sources are announcements that do not contribute anything to notability. Also, note that most sources are also referring to PARTS iD, which might be related to CARiD. If you think you have improved the article even more, you can submit your draft again. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 10:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Declined Re-Submission of AVL List Draft
Hi ToadetteEdit and Fade258,
the article draft AVL List was again declined although there are so many articles about similar companies live on the English Wikipedia that lack a lot more external references or citations, such as Anton Paar or Internorm - just to name a few.
That, unfortunatly, slowly leads me to the point of view, there seems to be a double standard here. I really tried hours after hours to find the few reliable sources existing on the web and nevertheless, the optimized article draft is declined for like the 10th time, while these named articles and so many others often don´t show a single external in-depth source - but they are live!
Please explain me, if this fact based comparison really fits within Wikipedia Guidelines? In my opinion, articles that are not yet equipped with enough sources are launched in order that they will be - by the help of other users.
Looking forward to your answers, Norbert NorbertAdam1980 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@NorbertAdam1980 , not only was the draft declined due to parts of unsourced content, but also that most sources are press releases, an interview, and announcements, which do not meet the sources demanded by this section of the relevant guideline. You can continue to add more valid references to the draft and remove the unverifiable ones out. In the end, if you think you addressed the concerns raised, you can resubmit the draft, after which it may get accepted or get declined again. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
For the two articles that you provided above, having a section that is full of primary sources does not mean that it automatically gets an article. Notability guidelines do not apply in the draftspace, but the reviewers check the sources in the draft and not elsewhere and make their decision, so that the editor can learn more about what kind of sources are accepted. As for the first article, I have also nominated it for possible deletion since I failed to find any other source other than routine announcements and press releases. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
First, I really must correct you concerning the sources which you rated to be "press releases, an interview, and announcements". In fact, these are non-paid redactional articles in independent Austrian quality newspapers written by notable journalists meeting exactly the topic for the citation. Or one from an Austrian Government Site and one from an Austrian University. I don´t know which KI tools you use for checking, but this is really false alarm. So please re-check manually and tell me again exactly, which sources are definitly invalid in your opinion so I will delete them.
Secondly, I surely can delete all unsourced content, so you mean the first three paragraphs?! Please tell me exactly, which parts you mean, otherwise its extremly difficult just to guess.
I think going through this, it leads faster to a good final result.
@NorbertAdam1980 , lead sections do not need referencing, as long as that same content is referenced elsewhere, so no removal is needed. All you need to do is to remove the unverifiable content in the body of the article (excluding the lead). And to clarify the "press release, interview. announcements" part, press releases are rejected as sources as they are primary sources expressed by the company, so do interviews through affiliated people. Finally, announcements are often interpreted as routine coverage, so they are not good sources to use. So regardless of whether the article's, whether in English or German, is paid or not, they are all treated as equal. Those sources should discuss the company's history, etc., rather than having sources start up with something like "<company> announced blah, blah, blah...", and proceeding with quotes from key people; that would be considered as a routine announcement. I do not use any tools, I instead use my natural knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to determine which source is valid for notability and which source is not. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 12:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, ToadetteEdit, I try to take your advices to heart and will then re-submit the draft.
Hello, you recently denied my draft based on the sources, and I was curious which sources were the issue here? I took a similar approach to this article as other speech and debate topics so I am curious where I went wrong.
Do you mind being more specific about which source doesn't describe the tournament, which source isn't in-depth enough, and which primary sources you have issues with? On the primary sources topic, I know that some sources like the By-Laws and Constitution are from the NFA itself, but I believe they are OK to use considering that they are reputably published and only being used for descriptive statements of facts. For example, the National Football League article uses multiple primary sources in the same manner. This is my first draft that I am attempting to publish so I would appreciate any advice. Thank you for your patience! ElPython (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@ElPython, four of the sources are from the association's website: this, this, this and this. They are therefore primary sources. I sources from speechwire.com are stats that do not contribute to notability. The sources whose URLs end with .edu are announcements that their respective institutions won the championship and so on. The National Forensic Journal sources also do not count since it is the journal of the association as described here. Which leaves at most one source to work on, but this is clearly not enough. I also want to remind you of Help:Your first article as a recommended reading. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review this submission, I however am a bit baffled as to reason for its rejection "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."
The sources quoted include include Academic study, BBC, Scottish Parliament etc, I suspect that your concern is about the links from the actual polling data, these are regarded as the most reliable source as it is from the actual published data tables from the Pollsters that did the Polling, this is very common practice with articles of this type which in essence arelist polling results over a period of time.
Perhaps if you have the time, could expand on your rationale for seeing these as unreliable sources Pugpa2 (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
This is not why the draft was declined; yes, it had sources that could make the subject notable, but the reason as to why this draft was declined was that there are some onsourced parts. You may continue to add more sources so as to make it easier for users to verify the fact. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me and so quickly, much appreciated.
If you have the time could you perhaps give me an example of an "unsourced part" as I am struggling here
Right there maybe a drafting issue there on my part, each Constituency is linked to a Wiki article about it including the result of previous election that includes % for each party/candidate, that is what I have used to identify target seats, using a 5% as bench mark.
Right think I'm getting my head around this, I perhaps had fallen into the trap that because I am so immersed in this that I am not reflecting how an ordinary reader might react, and see it from that perspective. I have added Citations to each of the target seats showing result for each constituency. I hope this is what you were meaning. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you're doing well. I’ve significantly improved the draft on David Allen Hough with multiple independent and reliable sources covering his work in Nepal and Micronesia. I’ve also formatted references properly and included citations from multilingual education journals. Could you kindly take another look? Thank you! JRHoughContributor (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I recently received feedback from you on the Wikipedia article that I would like to publish and share on the title "Reduced-Impact Logging (RIL)" made on May 23, 2025. Based on your comments, it appears my submission lacked reliable sources that could be verified, for me to amend my submission I would need further clarification and specificity on which sources were lacking or where in the article were they lacking. I believe most, if not all my references come from credited and recognized agencies like the United Nations, or come from peer-reviewed journal articles.
Please make sure the subject is mentioned in the sources before accepting a AFC draft. Non of the sources of Manju Latha mention her at all and it seems to be a hoax article for all intents and purposes. Sohom (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I did not catch that. Thanks for the notice, though. I will ensure that I read all of the sources in the draft before taking action. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Additional input on a draft you declined
Hey there! A mentee of mine has made a message about a draft you declined on my talk page. They seem really eager to learn the process and improve the article. Although you get many, many messages about declined drafts, I have a feeling more personalized input would be very well received by this user.
I have given my two cents on breaking down sigcov, but given you're the direct reviewer I know you may have some more specific reasons for declining. I'd appreciate it if you left a friendly follow-up message there :) Panini!•🥪15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I have replied over on your talk. So basically from a brief scan all but one online source do not make the subject notable, mainly for SIGCOV concerns. And yes, I get a lot of messages but this is what one gets if they are very active in the AfC area. I have not reviewed the offline sources so I would like for rhe submitter to provide some analysis on the sources themselves for evaluation. Thanks for the heads up though. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@JGBlue1509, finally, the new milestone ticked over. I'd just spend this time creating more entries and doing AfC work until the counter ticks 7.001M articles. There should also be news articles announcing the milestone, as will the Signpost. Let's see which article is the seventh millionth. This requires a search through the creation log though! ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 06:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Michel Roccati draft
Hello,
I've created this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michel_Roccati
Related to Michel Roccati, the first person in the World that walked again after a complete spinal cord injury. The submission has been declined because there aren't enough resources. But I have uploaded many official sources, from a Nature paper, Guiness world record and documentaries of BBC and Cnn... Could you help me to edit the page in order that comply to Wikipedia rules?
@Strongmann, the concern here is that the subject is shown to be notable because of one event and that is that thing that made him walk again. If the subject is also notable because of his paracanoe activities, then you might need to describe that further. And by the way, if you think you have satisfied the concerns, you can resubmit it for review and another reviewer will. review it. The Guiness World Record thing is only supported by a source. It is best to add another one. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I submitted this draft yesterday and it was declined because the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I understand why some of the sources might not fit the guidelines as he is a radio personality and most media about him is audio, but I think it is clear the subject ought to have a page. The subject of the article is mentioned in many articles (Atlanta Braves, Atlanta Braves Radio Network, Atlanta Braves broadcasters, Joe Simpson, Jim Powell) many times with a red link indicating the need for a page. On the list of current broadcasters he is the only English language announcer without a page. As the Braves Radio Network has the most affiliate stations in all of Major League Baseball (across 11 states) and Ingram is the primary announcer, he currently one of sports radio's most listened to voices. I understand if I may need to take out information or confirm it with other sources but does the external expression of need for the article carry weight? Merlin513 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Merlin513, regardless of whether the subject is mentioned or not does not mean that the sources discuss him significantly. Most of the sources are either unreliable (e.g. Spotify, YouTube), or simply announcements that are often considered as routine, and a few are considered primary sources considering the context of the article (e.g. Mississippi College). All you need to do is to find more sources that contribute to notability for biographies. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Can interviews with the subject ever be reliable? It is the only way to include personal details in this case. I'll work to modify it as you said. Merlin513 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Can they be okay if you make indication the information comes from the subject ie. "Ingram recalls"? I will reduce reference and reliance on them but perhaps that kind of use is permissible. Merlin513 (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm responding to "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Professor Philippou and I thought, after the last revision, that all the sources were reliable. Is the problem that some of the links are broken? Or are there specific sources that appear to be unreliable? Please help.
The sources are not a problem itself. It is about the unsourced parts of the draft. All statements should be supported by a source for verification purposes. I don't see any unreliable source according to some tool, but your objective is to add more sources in the article. And it is best to get rid of HTML tags (especially those with the <a>) as they are not supported by wikitext (the source code). ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Article on Spirit of 66
Hello,
I am just trying to publish in English an article on a famous Belgian venue which has been featured on wikipedia.fr for a long time. Please, give a second look at it.
@Wikijanot, if you think that you have addressed the concerns, you can resubmit it again for review. For me, I do not find any major concerns here (the first source is behind a pay wallet, and the second is offline), but maybe it would be helpful if you cite each paragraph with a source/citation (see WP:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners for more). Also, the "Hall of Fame" section could benefit from more sources/citations added. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks like you found it that fell short, perhaps on the references. If there's something specific you are looking for or something that is there that shouldn't be, it would very helpful to know. Any guidance, in fact, would be greatly appreciated.
And by the way, I have just declined Draft:Fourmile Corner as the sources there do not show the subject's notability. Do not expect an article on every unincorporated area in the U.S., and the topic might be one of them. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 19:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for reviewing my draft article. The comment said that the articles was not adequately supported by reliable sources. What I have done so far, is remove all citations that were self-reporting. My problem now is I do not have enough sources that tell about the events included in the article I am working on. They are employment history of the person which not all of his previous employers have a published material attesting his engagement. What could be the best next step I can do to improve this article? Thank you very much.
@RS-1hrx, you need to make sure that the sources are secondary (I.e. not from the university the subject is affiliated with) and discuss the subject in significant depth, so that the subject can meet the notability guidelines. Also, every statement, especially since the page is about a living person, should be cited to a reliable source or entirely removed if none could be found. You can find more sources that meet the standards and add them to the article, and remove statements that can not be verified. If you feel that you've addressed the concerns, you can resubmit it again for review. Hope that helps! ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 09:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Seeing as he met NPOL, I didn't think there was much getting in the way of accepting the stub, but if you think there's more to be cut feel free to tag it. Best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
@Bobby Cohn, I did not decline it for notability concerns, seeing that the subject may be notable. The article had unsourced content, which is why I declined it. It is fine to accept the draft, as it was done. And by the way, if there is some unverifiable content, I may as well put the {{refimprove}} template, but not now due to wp:NPPHOUR. Thanks for the heads up though. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
No of course, I saw the declination reasoning. My thinking is if the article can be improved by trimming (i.e.: challenging) and publishing a stub, then the project is better off for it. My note here was meant as a way of "if there's more you want to challenge" by all means. I have an additional philosophy that is "if you submit something for review, you're expecting additional eyes on it." Otherwise we wouldn't be able to accept or decline (or tag for speedy) within an hour of someone submitting it, so I think less of an NPPHOUR in that regard. If there's something you still think needs tagging, please have at it. Though it might be more helpful to tag {{subst:cn}} on the specific items you want to identify, to really guide the new editor in that direction. I'll give the submitter a heads up. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Yep, reviewing drafts often means that there is another pair of eyes out there. And regardless it can be improved in every way. The NPPHOUR thing does not apply to drafts, it is a principle that reduces the WP:BITEy consequences caused by hasty tagging upon mainspace article creation. In the end, AfC is all about feedback no matter the situation; there is no prohibition against moving to mainspace. But I get your point. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, i have seen the afc declination note in the draft page and according to the suggestion you have provided, i have tried my best to remove LLM ish or ai like texts in the article and shortened it as much as possible. ~~ BengalMC (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @ToadetteEdit, fellow citizen of mushroom kingdom. Thanks for reviewing my article on JJ Murphy (Draft:John Joseph Murphy (rubber planter)) and giving specific reasons. It's my first time writing an article.
Do I just need to find alternatives for statements made by sources 5,6,7 as they have been marked as better source needed? Bulletbilliam (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Seeking Clarification on Rejection of Draft: Sharpness Aware Minimization
Hi ToadetteEdit,
I am writing to respectfully request further clarification regarding the rejection of the draft article on Sharpness Aware Minimization (Draft:Sharpness Aware Minimization).
The rejection feedback indicated two main concerns:
the requirement for a range of independent, reliable, published sources.
the need for a neutral point of view.
Regarding the first point concerning sources, I would appreciate more specific guidance. The draft currently includes 25 references, all of which are from independent authors and published in top-tier machine learning conferences and journals. Could you please elaborate on how these sources may not meet the criteria, or what might be missing?
Similarly, concerning the second requirement, I am also seeking to better understand the perceived lack of neutrality. The article aims to provide a factual overview of Sharpness Aware Minimization, an optimization method widely adopted by the machine learning community. It summarizes the original concept and its subsequent variations, reflecting research conducted globally within the field rather than attributing it to a specific individual or group. To directly address balance, the draft includes sections detailing both the method's successes and its limitations (e.g., Scenarios Where SAM May Not Work Well or Has Limitations and Recent Progress and Variants). Could you offer specific examples or suggestions on how the neutrality or sourcing of the article could be further improved if it currently does not meet Wikipedia's standards?
Hello. The article was not declined for notability concerns (I did not look up myself). It is about the tone of the article itself. If we take, for example, SAM represents a significant step towards building more robust and generalizable deep learning models by explicitly considering the geometry of the loss landscape. Ongoing research continues to refine its efficiency, theoretical underpinnings, and practical applications. Not only is the statement unsourced and possibly original research, but also that the statement has puffery adjectives such as "significant" and "more robust and generalizable". Furthermore, the article's build is not like an encyclopedia entry. You may find the manual of style useful.
To improve the page, you'll need to significantly clean up the article (which may be AI generated), which includes renaming sections, removing puffery terms to maintain a passive and neutral tone, change lists to prose, and making the article more understandable to readers who might be unfamiliar with the subject. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
The article about J-Corry needs to be here because he is a big important person/artist. Active for over 30 years.
I have the same opinion, there should be many more references. Somebody should put pressure on those magazines and labels to put J-Corry in the spotlight. His rap catalogue speaks for itself.
There also need to be pictures, I'm looking if I'll find matching ones.
If you want to, you'll need to address the concerns raised, including rewriting the statements to meet the neutral point of view and including st least two (but preferably three) reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Just because he is "importance" does not mean that he gets an article; instead, you'll need to demonstrate that by reliable sources. Importance ≠ notability.
Seeking Clarification on Rejection of Draft: AI code agent
Hi, the stated reason of it being rejected is that it reads more like an essay. However, I believe my tone through out the draft is neutral. I am trying to summarize every secondary sources but I believe adding some sentences between them is more beneficial for the reader to understand why each secondary sources are listed together with each other. The result of doing so is that it will read more like an essay. I am a beginner at editing wiki pages so I would like a few more clarifications on how to deal with this dilemma. Thank you. Laurelli7 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@Truthsojourned, what do you mean? I have not looked at your draft yet, and you also put the page in the mainspace as a test edit. I think it has now been moved to the draftspace, so I will take a look. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 12:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, @ToadetteEdit, for taking the time to review the draft.
I understand your concern regarding the need for reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. I’ve since revised the draft to better meet notability standards by incorporating third-party references, including festival recognitions, music journalism reviews, and academic citations where available. These include:
Kansas City Experimental Arts Review – documenting the Best Experimental Feature award
Buzzslayers interview – independent music review and commentary on the film’s artistic style
TransHuman Cinema Fest Berlin Archive – festival jury recognition
I’m continuing to source and format additional references that demonstrate Metro9's cultural and artistic impact within independent film circuits and experimental media communities.
If there are specific areas still falling short (e.g., formatting, citation templates, or further third-party depth), I’d greatly appreciate your guidance so I can improve the draft accordingly. Thank you again for your time and feedback.Truthsojourned (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
@Truthsojourned, the draft will be declined again if you present these three sources. The interview does not contribute to notability as a non-independent voice is used, and the other sources are, while offline, directly from the respective entities. They may or may not discuss the subject in significant depth, but it would be useful if you link them to the websites if available so that editors can easily verify the statement without digging for the online sites. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Could you please assist with further guidance on the content that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. I've read the instructions and added citations to books and websites but wondering if there is any specific improvements you could suggest? Bec Bottomley (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I've also updated the citations to group duplicates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bec Bottomley (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the draft titled Teo A. Khing Design Consultants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Teo_A._Khing_Design_Consultants). I write in return as I remain confused, and by extension frustrated, that continuing efforts to meet several previous recommendations has not meet requirements once again. So write in the hope that you will be kind enough to talk plainly with me rather than sending a Wikipedia link in response. This outcome, while well intended, is not helping resolve mattes. No doubt the error is on my part.
The issue I remain most unclear about relates to the 'quality of sources' being used with the reservations listing a requirement for multiple sources to be (i) in depth, (ii), reliable, (iii) secondary, (iv) strictly independent. This recommendation was been raised prior to your review and it has been reiterated again.
Links within the Wikipedia site were studied at length prior to the submission you reviewed and two detailed feature articles were sourced with the help of a national publication in Malaysia that ran them. The subject of the draft is a Malaysian company. The links to these two features were both included in the updated submission and also shared in the explanation for the most recent changes to ensure they were acknowledged and read by future editors, in this case you.
The feature articles are in depth, reliable, secondary and come from an independent source. As such, the expectation had been that requirements had been met.
May I please confirm with you if the links to these two feature articles were received and accessible? (They are behind a paywall but I assume Wikipedia is not impeded by this.)
Secondly, if there is an issue with these two specific articles can I please be told very clearly what it is. No feelings will be hurt. If there is an issue elsewhere with sources in the draft, can I please be advised very directly what it is as I'm not aware of it.
Reading texts or notes can be misleading so I do want to be clear, there is no 'tone' here, there is no intended rudeness, there is only the hope that I can work with you to resolve this so that (1) I'm not continuing to clog up in boxes for editors and (2) so that a worthy addition to Wikipedia can be included in its library of content.
I look forward to hearing from you further and sincerely hope that, with your assistance, this can be satisfactorily resolved.
@Blackgoldsiro, first and foremost thing, this message is actually LLM output. Second, aside from these two paywalled sources (which are allowed to be used as sources), the others do not establish the subject's notability. As those two sources are behind the paywall, it might be that the first one focuses on the founder (?) and not fully focused on the company itself. This leaves us with the other source, but this is not enough. So the suggestion would be to add at least one other source with significant coverage, then you can resubmit the draft for review. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
ToadetteEdit,
Thank you for getting back to me quickly. It is certainly appreciated. I'll look into this further. There is something of a challenge in that the founder and chairman has often been the source interviewed and the features have naturally centred around 'the journey' of him setting up a company that has become an international success. That said, I take on your point and appreciate you spelling it out clearly. Blackgoldsiro (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Furhat Robotics
Thanks so much for your review! I've added one more company profile (see footnote 9). Does this suffice now? Viljowf (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi ToadetteEdit, sorry I misspoke: I meant news articles covering the company. Please see fn. 9 and fn. 15 Viljowf (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
@Viljowf, I'll review it later; I am currently in the process of creating a new article. Meanwhile, you can resubmit the draft so that someone else can review it. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Love this community of writers and editors. You recently rejected my article and I'd like to know more about how I can get this published. Wildboyconcepts (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
@Wildboyconcepts, the topics sources do not demonstrate that the subject is notable in any way. The sources are mainly profiles and otherwise reviews of his work, which is not significant any way. A novel featured in a review and a podcast does not mean that the subject meets the last criterion of the notability for authors. I could only see only one source that establishes the notability, but that is not enough. So please add at least one (or preferably two) more sources that are reliable, independent and with significant coverage. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Which one in the article do you think is a reliable, independent source with significant coverer age? I will use more of those. Wildboyconcepts (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven, the decline reason is used in other topics, let aside BLPs; used when there is a list of references but no or insufficient inline citation. Otherwise, it would have also been declined as improperly sourced by the way. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
@CoconutOctopus, yeah, I see not, but it would be a bit misleading to decline a draft as improperly sourced when there is a list of general references. I will keep that in mind though! ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
