User talk:Pedantical

Draft:David Ardia

Would he pass WP:PROF under criteria #5, "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research ...."? Bearian (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I think you’re on the right track about the notability requirement being met (by the Reef C. Ivey title, at least). That would seem to be reasonable enough based on what I can see about that program/title. But, I think the other large concern is that the article draft (as it stands) is pretty barebones/minimal and needs context about why this person is notable, and what the world sees as the person’s contributions to their industry/field.

When it comes to academics, you’ll always find plenty of press releases published by a university or research group about someone’s position or research at that organization, but those aren’t ideal sources about the person (even when seeing the press releases republished by a third party, like a “legal scholar news outlet” in this case maybe). Likewise, summarizing the person by citing their own published works also isn’t great of course, since that is primary source material about what the person does/researches.

Right now, the draft mainly lists this person’s credentials, but it could be more well-rounded by adding more context from independent, secondary sources (Wikipedia articles should summarize what others have written about a person).

It would be helpful to include reputable sources that discuss this person’s contributions, impact, or significance in their field.

Let me know what you think here, I’m happy to provide some more guidance around things! Pedantical (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't paying close enough attention to who I was replying to apparently! Didn't mean to come across as over-explaining the whole reputable/secondary sources bits there!

Nevertheless, still happy to chat more on this article for creation! Pedantical (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian, maybe someday I’ll even remember to properly tag someone in a reply back to them :) Pedantical (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem about explaining issues. I'm the sort of person who needs a gentle reminder periodically about the basics. I do prefer a "ping" like Pedantical because I follow hundreds of pages and replies get lost in the electronic clutter. In this particular case, I have "no skin in the game." Bearian (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2025

Women in Red | June 2025, Vol 11, Issue 6, Nos. 326, 327, 339, 340 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ | Alphabet run K & L Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page. The World Destubathon, 16 June - 13 July, 2025 Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,492 articles during this period! 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% (2,061,363 bios; 414,126 women) Tip of the month: Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all your thorough comments on AFC submissions!

GoldRomean (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on John J. Duggan

Hello Pedantical. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on John J. Duggan is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, John J. Duggan will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on Jesse Dodge

Hello Pedantical. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Jesse Dodge is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Jesse Dodge will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

• News and notes: Happy 7 millionth!

• In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion

• Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians

• Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past

• News from Diff: Call for candidates is now open: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

• Opinion: Russian Wiki-fork flails, failing readers and editors

• Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA² debriefing

• Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3)

• Comix: Hamburgers

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

June Backlog Drive is almost over!

Our pending drafts!

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Railway (Cloud)

Thank you for the feedback. I have edited the article and resubmitted. Please let me know what other changes would help the article, happy to make however many edits necessary! Sarahkb125 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sarahkb125 hello! I see it was just re-reviewed and declined again due to lack of notability. I think that speaks to the need for more reputable sources of secondary information.

I do still think the company could be considered notable per the guidelines set in WP:NCORP (do take a look at that and read more about what to specifically look for!) but it’s gotta come down to well-sourced references that talk about why the company is notable within its industry.

Particularly in the world of tech, where startups are everywhere and constantly being written about and constantly being funded by investors, be sure to find sources that build up the article to support what makes Railway worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I don’t mean any of that to be disparaging or critical, but to help set the perspective that one should have.

Some prompts that might help you identify what makes Railway notable could be:

What about their 20 million in funding was special? How was different from any other 20mil investment from angel investors?

What significant contributions has the company made to the industry that perhaps no other company has done? Did they invent something novel?

Has the company done anything that received significant news coverage (including both positive and negative or controversial events)?

Have they received particularly notable awards as a company (not paid promotional awards/contests, but neutral third party designations that are rare or significant)

You can certainly resubmit this if you make more changes, but it might be good to hold off until it can be definitively said that it meets all notability criteria.

What do you think? Any ideas?

Pedantical (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the specific ideas. I have a few ideas about the sources, and will resubmit only when I have more citations to add. Appreciate the specific feedback! Sarahkb125 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sarahkb125 yeah you bet! I’m happy to help review sources with you too if you’d like to bounce ideas around! If I find any reputable sources, I’ll post them on the talk page or tag you in a reply here. Pedantical (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)