Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brightspeed, which you previously marked as reviewed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightspeed until a consensus is reached, and you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion.SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These updates are delivered by SodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add {{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}} to your talk page.

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Cabrils for accumulating at least 100 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils, Hi. Just thought to let you know that I don't really feel responsible for draft on Mike Abrams (psychologist). I think, but am not sure that User:Psymba might be the person himself and the major author of the article and be the one or one of the ones that needs notifying. I think he is a rather old chap (like myself) and will be a bit sad to find out he is not notable. My role was really at the afd. I think, and had argued unsuccessfully, that he is sufficiently notable based on academic publications... WP:Prof but I think... my view is lots of people take a really strong line - perhaps for good reasons -- against autobiographies... COI things... I think of myself as more forgiving but... anyway. I think it might be there are others to notify about this. I couldn't see that you had - but perhaps you have. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)) PS: I like your tawny frogmouth picture.[reply]

Hi @Msrasnw,

Thanks for the ping. You were automatically notified of my decline of the draft because you had submitted the draft for review. The post that appeared on your Talk page is a template, and I see that it truncated my full comment that appears on the draft, in which I do indeed ping @Psymba, so he has been notified.

Thank you for your kind concern.

I have great respect for your many years of editing Wikipedia, that's quite remarkable. And thank you for your kind comment about the tawny frogmouth! I see you like pictures too.

All the best. Cabrils (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I have removed some of the wording that could be problematic (too much CV-y) and added a section on Angler's debunking for various media, as well as sources that portray his person and comment on his work (I've also added some specifics about that including the WP:THREE on the draft's talk page). Let me know if this works and if it qualifies now. Happy to hear further suggestions from you. 151.62.153.100 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @151.62.153.100, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page as this will make communicating much more efficient.

Those edits sound progressive. Before I look at them, could you please address whether you have a conflict of interest (COI)? I am presuming that you are Martin Angler. While autobiographies are permitted, they are strongly advised against (see WP:AUTOBIO) because of the inherent COI.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

Thanks for your reply. You're right, I should defo create an account! No, I am not Angler, and I have no kind of relationship to him. I did check the COI section just to be sure.

Thanks again! 151.62.153.100 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply.

I must say that in my experience it's extremely unusual for a new, IP address editing account (in this case one located in Italy) to create a page of this nature and not be either the subject, or be being paid by the subject, or at least know the subject. I'm obliged to take your response at face value so I shall, but I'm still left feeling concerned.

Thanks for your helpful responses on the Talk page. I will respond there for greater transparency and the convenience of other reviewers. Cabrils (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

thanks very much. I've added additional reliable sources as for WP:THREE on the article's talk page, and I now have username too. Looking lots forward to read if you deem the article notable.

Thanks again, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this. PricklyBear76 (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on the Talk page, where any further discussion should take place please. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and Source Summary

Dear reviewer, Following your previous feedback, I have revised the article to better demonstrate notability, independent secondary coverage, and depth of sourcing in line with WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The following three sources provide significant, independent coverage about Siltech and its impact in the high-end audio industry: “Verslag: Siltech 40 jaar – onvermoeibaar aan de wereldtop” — FWD.nl (2023)

→ An in-depth feature on Siltech’s 40-year history, company evolution, and product innovation, fully independent of the brand.
https://fwd.nl/audio/verslag-siltech-40-jaar-onvermoeibaar-aan-de-wereldtop/

“Silver Everywhere: Sliding in More Siltech” — SoundStage! Ultra (2025)

→ International publication (North America) offering detailed technical analysis and market context for Siltech’s products and history.
https://www.soundstageultra.com/index.php/features-menu/opinion-menu/1276-silver-everywhere-sliding-in-more-siltech

“A New Legend Is Born: Siltech Classic Legend Series” — The Absolute Sound (2021)

→ U.S. print and online publication widely recognized for objective high-end audio reviews; provides detailed commentary on Siltech’s technology and positioning in the industry.
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/a-new-legend-is-born-siltech-classic-legend-series/

Additional significant, independent coverage: Hi-Fi+ (UK) review of Classic Legend (Alan Sircom, 2022) HiFiStatement (Germany) review of Classic Legend 380 Series (2023) StereoNET (Australia) coverage of 680/880i cables (2025) LowBeats (Germany) detailed test of Classic Legend (2022) Phileweb (Japan) listing Siltech in Audio Accessory Excellence Awards (2021) The current draft avoids promotional language, uses only reliable secondary sources, and integrates citations across multiple regions (Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific) — showing sustained international notability over decades. Best regards,

Rishkum (paid editor disclosure already noted) Rishkum (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rishkum,

Thanks for this. I have copied it to the draft's Talk page for greater transparency and convenience for other reviewers. Cabrils (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils,

First off, thank you for your detailed review of the Answer ALS wikipedia draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Answer_ALS) I'm wondering if I can get your advice on where I can update to meet the criteria for publication. I have, per your suggestions done the following:

I have removed the logo image.

I have no financial ties to the subject, no paid relationship, and no conflict of interest.

Could you please specify which sources you consider not reliable for establishing notability under WP:GNG and WP:RS? To clarify, the only citation originating from Answer ALS itself is a brief biographical note about Dr. Rothstein used for identification. All remaining citations are from independent academic journals, peer-reviewed papers, or third-party outlets. If particular references fail WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND, or independence, is if possible for you to them directly? That would help me either replace, remove, or update them.

I have also tried to revise the prose to keep a neutral tone and avoid promotional language per WP:PEACOCK. If any passages still read as advertorial, is it possible for you to flag the exact lines so I can fix them.

Lastly, if there are specific criteria within WP:NCORP you believe are not yet met, I’d appreciate your input so I can target the gaps precisely.

Thank you again for your time and efforts and have a great day. To your success, kwoodnyc Kwoodnyc (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I must say that in my experience it's extremely unusual for a new editing account to create a page of this nature and not be being paid by the subject, or at least know the subject. I'm obliged to take your response at face value so I shall, but I'm still left feeling concerned.

The WP:TEAHOUSE is your best place to seek further advice about the draft. I did leave detailed advice in my comment so I would encourage you to peruse that and the links I included therein.

All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cabrils, thank you for your detailed review of my draft. I took my time to read through the resources you had linked to in your comment, and made myself familiar with them. Taking your helpful comment into account, I have made several changes to the draft. I've removed the style section to make the article neutral, and so now the draft only contains factual information supported by source. I tried to make sure that any claims made in the article is supported by reliable sources. I've also removed citations that were inaccessible and replaced them with other reliable and accessible ones. I've also highlighted the WP:THREE sources on the talk page, and I believe that the draft meets WP:GNG. My user page also contains the WP:COI notice. I have submitted the article for review, and I would be very grateful if you could reassess it now. Thank you very much. Atlasofage (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atlasofage.

Could you please clarify the nature of your COI is that you are Oded Wagenstein? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cabrils, Oded is my husband. I hope that clarifies. Thank you. Atlasofage (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that @Atlasofage. Please see my response on the draft's Talk page, which is the best place now to continue any discussions, thanks. You will see I have reviewed and accepted the draft into mainspace-- well done. Cabrils (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected Draft:The Winston Knolls School as the creator resubmitted again without changes after you cited lack of notability as a concern. I know you had reviewed it a few times so thought I'd let you know. aesurias (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Aesurias. The draft has potential but the author is proving intransigent, and those real concerns need to be addressed. Much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too re: potential but after multiple reviews where nothing has changed and no effort has been made, it’s a waste of reviewer time to keep looking over it rather than genuinely reducing the backlog. aesurias (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're in agreement. Thanks for your time on this, and in general reviewing. Cabrils (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion (thank you) made edits to Imraan Valodia page and answered your questions and requests on talk page.

Draft talk:Imraan Valodia#What makes Prof Valodia notable

hope you can re-review! thanks OceanicManta (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page and it wil make communicating and interactions on Wikipedia much more efficient.

Thank you for that helpful information on the draft's Talk page.

Could you please address whether you have a conflict of interest? I suppose you are Imraan Valodia or work for him? Cabrils (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thanks for your note. I will figure out how to make a user page, thanks for the tip.

I am not Imraan Valodia and I do not work for him. I'm a colleague of his from another country and a big fan of his work and wishing for more economists and academics from Africa to have wikipedia pages. OceanicManta (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just resubmitted the page with extensive edits to demonstrate notability, thanks for re-reviewing! OceanicManta (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OceanicManta, please see my comment on the draft page. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils,

Thank you for your earlier review and guidance on Draft:Donald W. Light. I have now implemented the requested revisions, including adding independent secondary sources, adding a neutral “Reception and critique” section based on Derek Lowe’s 2012 Science/AAAS commentary, consolidating citations, improving tone and structure for neutrality, and clarifying that I have no personal or financial connection to the subject.

I believe the draft now satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NPROF criteria (#2 and #5), supported by significant scholarly impact and independent discussion of Light’s work. I have also posted a summary on the Draft Talk page and resubmitted for review.

If you have time, I would appreciate a reassessment. Thank you again for your help and guidance.

Best regards, TheVenetian (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page as it makes communicating (and notifications) much more efficient.

Thank you for the thoughtful amendments, they help. Also for your clarification that you have no conflicts of interest.

I've taken the liberty of adding some citations to book reviews and the awards Light received.

I would now be happy to accept the draft into main space if you would like to resubmit it fro review, and please leave a note for me here letting me know once you've done so. Nice work! Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

To clarify: I didn't technically write it. I just translated the Spanish that someone else wrote. (I left a note on the draft talk page explaining this.) I do not have a conflict of interest, but the original author does. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SuperPianoMan9167,

Thanks for that clarification. Cabrils (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sebarod8913 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Crozier Fine Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Cabrils,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article submission. I appreciate the work you and the other editors do to maintain the quality and reliability of Wikipedia.

I read through the feedback and would like to make sure I fully understand the concerns so I can improve the draft accordingly. Could you please clarify the specific areas that need attention? Please notice that Crozier is the biggest art logistics company in the world with 30+ locations around the globe, physical presence in 4 continents, and more than 800 employees. I really think they gained enough notability during the last 40 years for a Wikipedia article.

Please find my concerns below:

Notability: Are there particular types of reliable, independent sources you feel are missing or insufficient? I can probably add more sources like Forbes and others (I just found an article about Crozier that I did not include previously). I can definitely research more and add more direct quotes although I'm not sure how in-depth those articles are since they are mostly related to art logistics in general or industry specific.

Tone and neutrality: Were there sections that appeared promotional or non-encyclopedic? I tried my best to write neutral and non-biased content although I might be wrong. If you don't mind, please let me know exactly where should I improve my article and I will gladly take your notes into consideration for re-submission.

Formatting: Are there any formatting issues I should correct to align better with Wikipedia’s guidelines?

My intention is to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards, and I’m happy to revise it based on your guidance. Your feedback would be extremely helpful as I work to bring the draft up to the expected level.

Thank you again for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Sebastian

Sebarod8913 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sebarod8913,

Thanks for the ping.

Please see my further comment on the draft, which addresses most of the issues you raise. You'll see that my declining the draft does not mean it is without merit-- indeed, if you address the concerns raised there (notably whether you have a conflict of interest; and WP:THREE that will significantly progress the process.

It would be best to continue this discussion on the draft's Talk page, for greater transparency and the convenience of other reviewers.

Feel free to ping me here also if you post over on the Talk page.

With encouragement. Cabrils (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils,

Thank you for your helpful review of the *Draft:Tanya Domi* article. I’ve revised the draft to address your concerns, including:

• Improving tone and removing promotional language
• Strengthening sourcing and clarifying citations
• Declaring COI on the talk page

The revised draft is now resubmitted and pending review. If you have time to take another look, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks again!

DArtonia (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DArtonia,

Please see my response on the Draft and draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the source material for Draft:Eagle Product Inspection - Wikipedia. I appreciate your quick response and your guidance. In the next week, I plan to post to your Talk page some additional source material that hopefully meets the requirements for in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. Thank you, Crpermi (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Crpermi,

Thanks for the ping.

Great, that will help progress things along. It would be best to post your comments on the Draft's Talk page rather than here, for greater visibility and because it pertains to the content of the draft. Whenever you do get to it, please feel free to leave a note here though so I'm alerted. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabrils, I've posted some new source materials here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Eagle_Product_Inspection#New_source_docs_for_article

Please share your thoughts on whether these source materials are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and completely independent of the subject.

Thanks so much! Crpermi (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Crpermi, please see my response on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils,

Thank you for your earlier feedback on my draft. It is helping me understand how to approach this properly. I've spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the relevant Wikipedia guidelines since your decline of the draft as well as several examples and help pages. I admit I'm still sometimes puzzled about how certain articles with minimal sources remain up with lots of detail and are considered notable, but I do appreciate why the standards here, especially in a case with COI history, need to be applied carefully.

I've made a full COI disclosure and have focused on secondary sources. A friend more familiar with Wikipedia pointed me toward the guidance at WP:NAUTHOR and suggested that the strongest demonstration of notability would come from the academic reviews of books I've published and co-authored. Based on your earlier request, I've identified what I believe are the three best sources that establish notability:

- Boag, Simon (2009-10-14). "Does Psychology Really Need Another Personality Textbook?". PsycCRITIQUES. 54 (41) 6. doi:10.1037/a0017499.

- Colotla, Victor A. (2017). "On the Ubiquity of Sexuality A Review of Sexuality and Its Disorders: Development, Cases, and Treatment". PsycCRITIQUES. 62 (51). doi:10.1037/A0040958.

- Garrick, Jacqueline (2006). "The Humor of Trauma Survivors". Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 12 (1–2): 169–182. doi:10.1300/J146v12n01_09. ISSN 1092-6771.

I have included these three reviews in the draft alongside additional reviews and sources. If you have time to take another look at my new draft, I would be very grateful. Psymba (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Psymba, please see my response on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabrils, I've added some new book reviews to the draft. Please share your thoughts before I resubmit. Thank you immensely. Psymba (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Psymba,

They're good additions and refinements.

I've taken the liberty of making some minor edits, including some detail about your personal life that I feel are WP:EXCESSDETAIL.

At this point, while being mindful of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI, on balance I feel the draft is "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace" (per WP:AFCR), and meets WP:NPROF and/or WP:AUTHOR.

If you are content with my amendments to the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Good work! Cabrils (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils,

I can't thank you enough for your guidance and attention to this. I'm content with your amendments. Although I'm wondering why the Personal life was removed as excess detail. That sort of information seems to be standard on most other articles and often goes into even more detail. My wife Lidia has worked with me on some of the books mentioned in the article, so I thought it would be especially relevant to mention. The information on my children seemed to be something very common on other biography pages. I've made one correction to the draft, the date of publication on one of the books.

Please accept it into mainspace whenever you can. Thank you again for your guidance. Psymba (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Psymba,

Very happy to help, it's got to a good place now I think.

Regarding the personal details, I just felt in circumstances of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI that less is more at this stage. Perhaps in time it could be re-included.

Thanks for your patience, collaboration and willingness to adapt to the criteria.

If there's anything I can help with in the future please don't hesitate to drop me a note here, I'd be happy to do what I can.

Page now accepted into main space. Welcome to Wikipedia!

All the best, Cabrils (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carbils. You rejected my AfC submission at Draft:Faire (company). However, I was confused by your feedback. For example, you said the draft has references to blogs, press releases, twitter, etc., but all of the citations are to third party journalists. Your post said the draft doesn't have any cites besides trade press, but it cites places like Fast Company and Forbes. Your post asked me to present the three best sources to consider on Talk, but I already presented the three best cites for notability purposes in my AfC comment. Your post also said the page was previously declined and re-submitted, but this was the first submission.

A lot of these statements just don't seem to be true so it's unclear what needs to be revised to resubmit and reconsider. Let me know if I'm missing something. ~2025-39473-43 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-39473-43, thanks for the ping.

For clarity, you are also the editing account Asweazey.

Regarding COI: You have posted on your User page at Asweazey: "My name is Amy Auerbuch. I work in communications for Faire. I hope to contribute to Wikipedia in a manner that respects the site’s independence, autonomy and community policies." Thank you for doing this. Your comment on the draft states "See COI disclosure on Talk." However, no COI declaration appears on either the draft's Talk page or your Talk page. Per WP:COI: you must declare that on your Talk page.

In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).

My apologies for causing you confusion. Many of the sources appear to be paid advertorials: for example, The Independent article is clearly identified as "Advertisement Feature". The Entrepreneur article you propose in the three sources you identify to establish notability, is by a contributing author, that Wikipedia considers to be self-published: see [[1]]. The Forbes article is by "Former Staff" so could similarly be considered to be a contributing editor, in which case please see [[2]].

The page really just feels too much like an advertorial. I encourage you to absorb this feedback. If you feel you can amend the page to take account of these suggestions, please do so and if you would then like to ping me I would be happy to reassess the revised draft. Cabrils (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my draft and thank you for providing a detailed assessment of the issues. I have edited the article based on your feedback.

1. He meets criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. According to Google Scholar, his working has been cited over 24,000 times and he has an h-index of 81. According to Scopus, his work has a citation count of over 15000 and an h-index of 61. I have now added this information to the article.

2. I have removed information I felt was excessive detail and made the article read like a CV. I have only left information about his primary appointments and a chairmanship to an important working group.

3. I have declared my COI on my user page, and not on my talk page based on this guideline. I can add the same information to my talk page as well if both are necessary. Please let me know. I understand that my paid status makes me biased and oblivious to errors in the article so I am completely open to your feedback. Thank you for providing very detailed and concrete feedback while declining the article. HRShami (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HRShami,

On balance I agree the draft is "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace" (see WP:AFCR), and meets WP:NPROF. If you care to re-submit the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just resubmitted the draft. Thank you. HRShami (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done @HRShami, article accepted into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I want to leave this here because you were very thorough in the feedback you provided while declining this draft. You provided detailed information on the problems of the draft. Thank you very much. HRShami (talk)

HRShami (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @HRShami, that's very kind. You did good work, so give yourself a pat on the back too! If you draft any articles in the future, feel free to give me ping here and I would be happy to review. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. Thank you very much. I will definitely reach out. HRShami (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carbils. Thank you for your detailed feedback on the draft Draft:Perniclas Bedow. I have now added more reliable, secondary sources. I believe this subject meets WP:CREATIVE criteria #1, because their work has been the subject of multiple independent features in respected international design publications (Slanted, Creative Review, It's Nice That) and recognized by leading design institutions including D&AD and Cannes Lions.

The three best sources that establish notability:

1. Blake, Vicky (2022-07-14). "Slanted in Stockholm: Bedow - Slanted Magazine #39". slanted. Retrieved 2025-12-19.

5. "Graphic Design: Bedow create an identity that can be used as a board game". www.itsnicethat.com. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

8. Woodward, Adam (2025-09-08). "Sweden's sporting icons get typographic postage stamp tribute". Creative Review. Retrieved 2025-12-19. Pilkie02 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pilkie02,

Thanks for the information.

On balance I agree the draft is "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace" (see WP:AFCR), and meets WP:CREATIVE. For example, [this article] reports in some detail on a set of stamps designed by the subject that was commissioned by "PostNord, the largest postal service in the Nordic countries".

If you care to re-submit the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carbils-

I've added the three best to the talk page. My choices are the oscar awards (generally considered important and independant), a 4-part series describing the technology and the company in Music Technology magazine, and a Mix magazine article on the CBS/sony post-production facility, based on WaveFrame. This is also very detailed.

1. "The 76th Scientific & Technical Awards 2003 | 2004". oscars.org. 2004.
2. Meyer, Chris (1988-09-01). "The AudioFrame Explained part I" (PDF). Music Technology. 3 (2): 22–26 – via World Radio History. (4 parts)
3. Blair, Ivan (1992-07-01). "Digital Post-Production at the former Columbia Westside" (PDF). Mix Magazine. 16 (7): 48–54 – via World Radio History.

The 4th part of the meyer article is not available online, I have purchased a copy on ebay, and will try to get it onto the archive site.

I've added several references, and corrected a lot of spelling errors.

I think I've properly note the COI.

any advice on editing, finding spelling would be helpful, I can't find any tools in the editor. WhaleFarm (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make the tone more neutral, and added more references.

I've also tried to expalin and document the other path that the equipment took to getting another, earlier Oscar.

WhaleFarm (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils,

Thank you for your detailed review.

I have carefully reviewed your comments and made edits to the draft accordingly. I significantly shortened it. I want to address several points you raised:

Regarding notability: The subject has received significant coverage in major art publications including The New York Times, e-flux, Artforum, and other established art media outlets. Several other editors have also found the subject notable, and I believe the extensive list of museum exhibitions—including participation in the Venice Biennale—speaks to the subject's standing in the contemporary art field.

Regarding sources: I have not used social media sources (Twitter, Instagram, Spotify, etc.) in the references. However, if you could point out specific sources you find unreliable, I will address them immediately and replace them with stronger secondary sources.

The six best sources establishing notability are:

1. ART FORUM (the most important art publication worldwide) https://www.artforum.com/events/anton-ginzburg-237080/

2. The New York Times (T-Magazine) https://archive.nytimes.com/tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/visiting-artists-anton-ginzburg/

3. White Chapel London museum https://www.whitechapelgallery.org/events/anton-ginzburg-at-the-back-of-the-north-wind/

4. e-FLUX (Venice Biennale announcement) https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/35502/anton-ginzburg-at-the-back-of-the-north-wind-collateral-event-of-the-54th-venice-biennale

5. US State Department https://art.state.gov/personnel/anton_ginzburg/

6. Museum of Wyoming University https://www.uwyo.edu/artmuseum/exhibitions/2023/index-anton-ginzburg-ashnest.html

7. Calgary Contemporary Museum https://www.contemporarycalgary.com/whats-on/anton-ginzburg-surface

I believe this draft meets WP:CREATIVE criteria #3, as the subject has exhibited at internationally recognized institutions and received sustained critical attention in reliable art publications.

I welcome any additional specific guidance and would be grateful if you could review the revised draft. Thank you.

Ekaterina Ost (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the helpful notes on the Vidhya Rangaraju draft.

I went ahead and posted the WP:THREE best sources to the draft's talk page like you asked. I focused on her feature in The Scientist, her SfN award, and her citation stats. I also specified the WP:NPROF criteria she meets.

I also added the COI declaration to my own user talk page to be totally transparent. Whenever you have a moment, I'd appreciate a reassessment. Thank you! Fabianb85 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cabrils,

Good morning. Thank you so much for your constructive feedback and editorial guidance. It certainly made my day to read your comment - "well done on creating the draft." Now that I have had a chance to reflect, I have substantially revised the draft to focus on independent, reliable secondary sources and to remove CV-style and promotional content.

Notability rationale (WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG):

This latest submission is based on sustained, independent coverage of my work outside academia in national media outlets with editorial oversight. I have been featured or cited as a marketing and consumer behavior expert in multiple independent secondary sources, including Global Finance, Observer, and Baltimore Sun. These sources are not affiliated with me or my employer and discuss my expertise in contexts unrelated to institutional promotion.

The draft intentionally excludes CV-style detail. Wherever possible, it mitigates the use of internal university sources, and podcasts. Instead it focuses only on verifiable third-party coverage. In its present form, I believe the article meets WP:ANYBIO through significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, satisfying WP:GNG.

I am grateful for your counsel. As instructed, I have inserted the COI declaration to my own user talk page to be totally transparent. I have also provided a brief explanation as to why I chose this course of action.

These days, I am sure that you are swamped with submissions. Yet, whenever you get a chance, I would greatly appreciate a reassessment. Once again, thank you. Anjou Le Roi (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils - thanks for taking the time to review the draft. I've left a note on the Talk page listing the WP:THREE best sources per your guidance and wanted to provide you with them here as well:

• Newsweek [3]
• Los Angeles Business Journal [4]
• New York Business Journal [5].

Thanks again for your time and efforts. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]