User talk:ToadetteEdit#Hook (2022 TV series)

{{anchor|00:08:30, 18 May 2025 review of submission by ElPython}}

{{Lafc|username=ElPython|ts=00:08:30, 18 May 2025|declinedtalk=Draft:National_Forensic_Association_National_Championship_Tournament}}

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.

ElPython (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:@ElPython, I have a concern about this draft. Of the sources in the draft, four of them are primary sources, one appears to not discuss about the tournament itself, and one is not yet indepth enough. Sources should be a primary and independent sources that should discuss the subject in some depth. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 05:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Cc {{re|Timtrent}} for the recent comment at WP:AFCHD related to this thread. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 11:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::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: [https://nationalforensicassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024_nfa_booklet_online_rev-1.pdf this], [https://nationalforensicassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/nfa-constitution-january-2023-1.pdf this], [https://nationalforensicassociation.org/competition/ this] and [https://nationalforensicassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/nfa-bylaws-january-2023-1.pdf 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 [https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/nfj/ 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)

:@HKLionel, and you too! :) ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 12:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::{{re|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's lio! | talk | work 13:54, 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's lio! | talk | work 02:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

:Hello @אסף ברקת. There should be at least two (preferably three) sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and significantly covers the subject. As of last check, most references in the article mostly discusses about the Tel Aviv Light Rail and not about the operator itself. Hope that helps. I am not aiming to find references that identifies the subject, it's how significant the sources are discussing about it. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 06:41, 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)

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:

• 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.

• 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)

::No prob, I'll do it shortly. --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

What more can I do to get this published?

Thank you. Revtonygreen (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:@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)

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)

::Dear ToadetteEdit,

::thanks for your fast answers.

::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.

::Thanks again for advising me,

::Norbert NorbertAdam1980 (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@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 " 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.

::::Norbert NorbertAdam1980 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi ToadetteEdit! Thank you for offering to mentor me. I need your help. I tried creating a page but it got deleted for being promotional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Corporate_gifting_platform

Not sure how to make it more objective. I used a lot of sources I found on google from different publishers. The topic itself is about a category of business/software. I based it on similar articles about other business categories like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_automation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service and others.

Could you help me revisit it so I can publish my first article? Thank you for your help! --Treemarsupial (talk) 16:50, 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 {{tq|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 {{tq|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: {{tq|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)

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)

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:

1. the requirement for a range of independent, reliable, published sources.
2. 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?

Thank you for your time and for providing further insight.

2A00:79E0:2E87:7:5824:8B50:834D:5BBD (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

: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, {{tq|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)

Why was it declined? I would like to know so that I can improve the page. Dr. Precursor (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Dr. Precursor, the article can benefit from more sources to be added because the "Plug and Play development" and "reception" sections are unsourced. You should cite the sources so as to make the statement verifiable. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:34, 23 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

::Many Thanks Pugpa2 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You probably need to cite a source in the "Target Seats" section. And then you can resubmit the draft and it might be accepted. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 09:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ahhh

::::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.

::::Perhaps I need to explain that better in the preamble to section. Pugpa2 (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia itself is generally not a sources so it is best to cite them. You can do so anyway. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 09:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::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)

How do i publish the article --QMHLfan (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:@QMHLfan, you can click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button on the page, although it will pretty get declined without adding sources that could contribute to the notability guidelines. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 18:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a 2 drafts: Greenstreet, Missouri and Fourmile Corner, Missouri

Can you help me fix them and add more sorces 96.47.198.7 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. The sources should be discussing about the location in some depth. Since the decline of Draft:Greenstreet, Missouri, you added [https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/151866043#map=19/38.406439/-91.203205 this], which is an unreliable source that should not be used. I do not have any thoughts about Draft:Fourmile Corner, Missouri, and it does not exist yet. So your objective, as I said, is to look for reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 19:24, 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)

:@JRHoughContributor, you still have not cited the unsourced statements, and you really need to read Wikipedia:Citing sources to know how to cite properly. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)