User talk:BBISCAGLIA

This is BBISCAGLIA's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ealing Village (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusty Cat was:

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.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ealing Village and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~ Rusty ^meow ~ 23:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rusty Cat:,

Thanks for reviewing my draft of Ealing Village previously. I’ve now made substantial edits based on your feedback, including improving the sourcing, ensuring a neutral tone, and better establishing notability with independent references.

I’ve just resubmitted the draft and would really appreciate it if you could take another look when you have a moment. Any further suggestions are very welcome.

Thanks again for your time and help!

Best regards,

Bernardo BBISCAGLIA (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BBISCAGLIA! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 23:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query

There are many issues with this draft, which I could help with. But before I do, can you clarify; do you have a professional/commercial/personal link to the estate? I see it’s the only article you’ve ever edited. That, and the tone of the draft, make me curious. KJP1 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's a fair question. I just moved to the estate and I find it immensely beautiful and architecturally relevant enough to deserve a Wikipedia page. I'm surprised it doesn't have one already. The Ealing Wikipedia page has a picture of the estate and it's probably one of the most interesting landmarks in the whole of Ealing. BBISCAGLIA (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks for responding. I see you've begun a further re-write which goes the the first of a few points I wanted to flag:

Puffery - this is the term we use to describe "peacock terms" that offer subjective commentary, rather than objective description supported by citations. The original lead had a fair few of these; e.g. "one of the most remarkable historic developments in the area, known for its unique character and enduring charm." It's good they are gone.
Listed buildings - the best way to cite these is to use the Historic England template. You'll see what I mean in the draft, where I've given the listing for the swimming pool. I see that the village actually has multiple (17) listings. If you were to use all of these, it would go a long way to addressing your citations/reliable sources issue. Listed buildings have Notability under our rules.
Citations to Reliable sources - this is the next, and biggest issue. Basically, on Wikipedia the article subject is shown to be Notable by the fact that a range of Reliable sources have written about it. That they have, is demonstrated by citing those sources. So, to get an article onto Wikipedia, you have to show that a number of sources have chosen to discuss Ealing Village. At present, you don't have enough. If you added the Historic England sources, you likely would, although a range of sources, rather than an overreliance on one source, is always better. Just by way of an architectural example, Cragside has 137 citations. You don't need nearly that many, but it will give you an idea of one approach to writing about buildings.

Hope that's helpful. KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank KJ, thank you so much for taking the time to edit and give me your feedback. I've changed the article to align to your suggestions. Will you please have a look once again when you have time, just in case I missed anything or misinterpreted your instructions. Thanks. Bernardo BBISCAGLIA (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given it a bit of a tidy, although your amendments had addressed most of the issues already. I've used the sfn style, as I find it the easiest to work with. If you don't like it, I can change it back for you. I've also split the Sources from the References - I think it helps the reader, and reviewer, to see the two at a glance. Lastly, I've added Pevsner. It doesn't say much but it's always worth having. Personally, I now think it's good to go, but I can't review it myself as I've been involved. Hopefully another reviewer will come along shortly. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. It would be very good to get the relevant page numbers for the other three cited books. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.p.s Is there any good reason why the images aren't working? KJP1 (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]