Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

Thanks for the save, I clearly forgot lefts and rights :facepalm: oh and to introduce wikitext. Thanks again. Geardona (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, what you said about the General Collective Intelligence case is correct. Thank you. Second, I don't see your name listed as a volunteer. If you list your name as a volunteer, the bot that updates the status chart will recognize your posts as volunteer posts. So please sign up. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont understand why 18 citations coming from sources like the LA Times, YouTube interviews, Track and Field News, and major college Athletic website profiles are not considered to be reliable sources. And how can 18 citations be too few to meet the number requirement? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OLYMPICHAMMER: Ad Orientem has already covered the reliability of the sources over at User talk:Ad Orientem#Draft: Art Venegas; I agree with their analysis. The decline message "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." is overloaded. It can be that there are generally too few sources, but it can also be that there are non-reliable sources used where a reliable source would be required. There is no fixed number of reliable sources required to verify articles (though not having multiple ones is a problem too, albeit in a slightly different way), it depends on how many are needed to support everything in the article that Wikipedia policies mandate a reliable source for. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you guys able to go in and look at the current version of our draft? I have adhered to Ad Orientem's guidelines, and have omitted sources that dont cut it. I am interested in your opionions, if you are willing to look at it again in its current form OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for that encouragement Victor. Please see my latest comments, I am doing everything necessary to meet the standard. Please review the current state of the draft, if you are willing OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to cite sources properly, see WP:REFB. You need to remove all the promotional content, like "Venegas enjoys a reputation as a raconteur." Those are the biggest issues, there are others. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maproom, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ad Orientem, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Maproom and Ad Orientem:. I see you have mostly converted refs to use Wikipedia's inline citation format, but there are still two artifacts in the lead section. We do not cite search engines as their results are ever-changing, highly dynamic, and more often than not personalised. Jessica Cosby (Number 17 under legacy) needs a different source IMO, right now all the source confirms is that there is a coach by that name in this sports field. All the uclabruins.com-URL's need better titles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OLYMPICHAMMER There are still several issues so I have pinged an editor to the draft who specializes in sports topics to see if they are interested in cleaning up the draft. It may take some time for them to respond so be patient. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victor, I dont understand your comments-what search engine did I cite? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OLYMPICHAMMER you had cited Google search results but I removed it. There are better sources available, many of which are listed in the Further reading section rather than cited directly in the draft (i.e. LA Times). I have done some cleanup on the draft and cited a couple LA Times articles that were listed in the Fr section along with finding a couple others which I have cited but more work is needed. To be clear Venegas is notable under Wikipedia's definition so warrants an article. The main issues right now are the overuse of primary sources (those affiliated with Venegas, such as UCLA, when better sources are available), verifiability (sources explicitly support the content, preferably with secondary, independent sources) and neutral point of view which are core policies. As I stated above, I (S0091) have pinged an editor who specializes in sports topics to help cleanup it up so meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. They said they will take "at some point soon" so will see. We are all volunteers and there is no deadline. What I suggest at this point is sitting back and give that editor a couple weeks or so. S0091 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]