User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 27

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello DoubleGrazing,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I want to change title please tell me how to change title? Hpring Tsin (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hpring Tsin: you cannot change page titles, as such; you instead move the page to a different name. Why do you want to do that? And which page/article are you talking about? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to change title Draft:Kachin Soldiers:The famous forts from Kachin region to Draft:The famous forts from Kachin region. You said Kachin soldiers is not relate to forts that’s why I want to remove Kachin Soldiers from title. Hpring Tsin (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

On Logos Olori

I think the editor has found a way to put the article Logos Olori on the mainspace after three or four drafting @DoubleGrazing. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ibjaja055: yes, it happens. We shouldn't keep draftifying if the author disputes it, so it usually ends up where the author wants it. Deletion of one type or another may then follow.

I see that they and their sock both socks have now been blocked, so maybe that'll put an end to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. I hope it puts an end to it. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Uyianopopsi (07:56, 25 September 2023)

Good morning sir, I wanted to know if I could edit any article on wiki --Uyianopopsi (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Uyianopopsi: indeed, the basic principle of Wikipedia is that anyone(*) can edit any article(**), and is encouraged to do so in a way that improves the article. See WP:HOW for advice on how to get started.

Of course,

(*) Some users may have restrictions placed on them to prevent damage to the project, and

(**) Some articles may require the editor to have particular permissions

...but these are exceptions, rather than the rule.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Stefan Ytterborn

Hi DoubleGrazing, so far you're the only person who's given me any actually useful and constructive feedback on this article. It's been the bane of my life for months now, and I really just want it finished and out of my head!

Could you perhaps point out the key parts of the draft that are missing references or require better referencing? I appreciate some of the sections miss references and I am trying to address those, but I would just like to know what steps I can take to ensure it gets published.

Thanks very much Samwalker22 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Samwalker22: I'm not quite sure what you're asking. You ask me to "point out the key parts of the draft that are missing references or require better referencing", but then go on to say that you're working to improve the referencing anyway.

The "steps [you] can take" to get this accepted are: improving the referencing, and demonstrating notability, as these are the reasons why the draft was declined. I refer you again to my comments when I declined this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Lepke99/sandbox

Snap! 👀 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hee hee, you copycat, you @Timtrent! Oh wait, I'm the copycat. No, who's the copycat...? :)) DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

giggles 🐅 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Say, that's a handsome cat. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Request on 15:07:11, 27 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Itsernedj

• Itsernedj (talk · contribs)
  • User:Itsernedj/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I'd like to inquire what exactly is wrong with my references and citations? What do I have to fix to be able to publish this article?

Itsernedj (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Itsernedj: there is no evidence that the subject is notable. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage of him in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I see. Do the Dominican Taekwondo Federation posts about him count as significant coverage? Itsernedj (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Itsernedj: they may count as significant coverage, but they are primary and non-independent, so wouldn't count towards GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Help Please

Hello, I created a draft that was rejected. (Draft:Ekhart Wycik - Wikipedia). Ekhart is my brother-in-law and lives in Germany. I am no pro at this but he created and published a version of this article in Germany on the German Wikipedia cite. I have failed to translate it and publish it here. Frankly, I am not a professional at this and I am wondering if I can get help from a professional or someone knowledgeable. I am sure this is nothing more than cleaning up. Are there readlines available that show the exact areas that need attention? The instructions seem general. Thank You Bowled 300 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bowled 300,

There are quite a few things to pick apart there.

Firstly, I didn't reject your draft, only declined it. The difference being, decline means you can resubmit the draft once you have addressed the decline reasons; with a rejection, that's the end of the road.

Secondly, given your personal relationship to Wycik, you will need to disclose your conflict of interest. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions.

Thirdly, the fact that this article has been accepted into the German-language Wikipedia means nothing in what comes to its chances of being accepted here. I know that's not quite what you were saying, but I thought I'd mention that anyway, lest there be a misunderstanding. Each language version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements.

As to the main issue at hand, the biggest problem with this draft is insufficient referencing. In articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details – in practice, everything! – must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. As a bare minimum, every paragraph must have at least one citation, and ideally also end in a citation. Each time you make a statement where a reader might ask "wonder who says that?" or "wonder if that's really true?", these are by definition contentious statements, so you must cite the source that provided that information next to the statement. If you cannot cite a reliable source to support content, then that content must be removed.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank You, this helps, and I am learning. Let me look into this matter further. Then I will resubmit. I appreciate your time. Bowled 300 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Mashahary

Hi, can u please help me by explaining me wt should I remove or wt should I add more the thing is these are the only true notable sources based on Charles Mashahary can u please help me out should I have don't anything wrong i also don't feel like the way I've written is like advertisement thank you!!! XERI MUSIC (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind seeing if I am being overly pedantic, please

An editor from Australia has created articles on:

• Jim May (chemical engineer)
• Alan Jackson (businessman)

and is creating others in their sandbox. My concern with them is obvious, expressed here and on their Commons talk page. I've chosen not to link to them here or on Commons.

I feel I have got to the point where I may be standing too close to both the topics and the author to be able to be totally objective in my handling of them and their work. Clearly I see deficiencies, but you may not.

I believe you have not been involved with the editor, nor their topics, thus would appreciate your spending a little time looking at them, and indeed at my actions. The overall objective is better articles, drafts, and good editor relations.

I believe I am now rendered incapable of the last with this editor, and their perceived relationship with me (Commons talk page) makes it unwise for me to continue to interact with them further to seek to guide them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Roger wilco @Timtrent, I'll 'ave a butcher's... DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm grateful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: there certainly are problems with those creations, incl. borderline (at best) notability, and possibly also some COI issues. My guess is this is someone doing 'local history' or similar, writing about topics which are probably close to them but not objectively noteworthy. Given the way they've gone about it, combined with the rather adversarial approach, I'm surprised they got away with only that one short block.

The Commons behaviour is worrying, and IMO would have warranted blocking a long time ago. Their assurances that they've learned their lessons is probably what saved their skin, but still continuing to upload images as their 'own work' suggests that problem might not have fully gone away. (Note that I'm basing this only on their Commons talk page, I haven't tried digging deeper than that. Or should I say 'mining'?)

Speaking of 'own work', has the obvious question been asked about their COI, if indeed all these pictures are theirs (in other words, asking the user to choose whether they wish to own up to a COI or CV)? Of course, you don't always get a meaningful answer, and AGF it can be difficult to push the point very hard, but occasionally it gets a resolution of some sort. (Sorry, don't mean to be teaching anyone to suck eggs here!)

Other than that, not sure what I'd do with this. Whether there's anything there worth pursuing, I don't know. And even if there were, is it worth the aggro? I know I shouldn't be talking – letting go of a juicy bone of contention isn't one of my strong suits (!), but even I'm trying to learn in my old age. :) It seems to me you've certainly done your share of the housekeeping duties, and then some, and undoubtedly put up with a lot.

I don't think any of that was of much use to you, sorry. Still, ping a reply if you want to iterate further. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I am reassured that I have not been an unduly pedantic prat! (0.9 probability!!)

I also have no idea whether or how to pursue it. They turn it ad hominem very fast, and I feel it is to 'get their retaliation in first', but that may be the product of my having tried very hard to educate them, and their either choosing to to be educated or being unable to be3 educated.

I think local history amateur. Carey appears to be the name of their hometown. I am sure I asked them about COI and received a simple answer. They are too poor at this to be paid, surely?

Their displayed behaviour at Commons is troubling, but Commons has very different blocking rules from enwiki.

The articles possess a little more than WP:ROTM, but are coupled with WP:BOMBARD, and uncheckable referencing. I have formed a mind picture of a 1950s retired colonel, puffing on a pipe, with ruddy cheeked indignation at being questioned. I'm sure that is unfair to the sweet, petite, white haired old lady who is likely to operate the account!

I am not minded to let them slip though the cracks, but I am concerned that I am unlikely to be able to get their attention except by appearing combative. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: yeah, agree with all that.

Except, I did not say you're not a pedantic prat. ;)

Also, rather than a colonel, I was picturing a captain. Captain of a golf club, that is.

Anyway, now that I'm in the loop, sort of, I'll keep an eye on some of the upcoming drafts, so we can at least job-share.

Take care, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok I give in. I knew I was a pedantic prat! 🤡 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay_Mathur

Hello DoubleGrazing, thank you for your review of the Draft:Sanjay_Mathur and your helpful comments. All the changes you noted have been implemented and I would be very happy if you could have a look at the article again. Best regards, Wildkirsche90 Wildkirsche90 (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Wildkirsche90: I don't normally do re-reviews on demand, but I remember being quite impressed by this, so it should be quite an easy accept for me as long as the issues raised have been rectified. I'll go take a look. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much Wildkirsche90 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Women in STEM | Geofocus: Sub-Saharan Africa Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" Good Article editathon Tip of the month: When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful 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. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Clan Watson

hello, I read your My no.1 pet peeve and was amused by the way you foresaw all the arguments I was going to put in defence of the editor who is working on Clan Watson. So I will address the main demand. I personally do not think Clan Watson would be published with no, or grossly inadequate, sources. The article seems to be referenced, and not inadequately in my view. Clan articles often have to rely of 19th century references and clan web sites for their information. Clans with chiefs have the advantage of being able to create information or enhance it (e.g. the chief says the clan x is descended from Mac X, or that it has a war slogan is "all attack for glory", or that Smith is their clan sept, or such a plant their crest..... the clan web sites publish this, then the clan literature follows, and sources are abundant. Clan Watson does not have a chief and so is at a serious disadvantage. But even in this light is seems to have found reasonable sources, at least for an armigerous clan. Hope this helps, yours ever, Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Pedantic old fart again

I had another look at Mr May. The references are even worse than I thought, I've tagged them individually and it does not make a pretty picture. I have string doubts that this fella is actually notable except to the who loved him or those who feared him. All I can see is a memorial tribute. But I am hesitant to AfD it (again). I'm not hinting that you should, but I have run out of ideas short of AfD.

What I have done is made a WP:GOCE copyedit request for him and the other chap. If they accept it that may solve it, and there is no deadline. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably they did not accept it, but some serious other editing has taken place. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh. :( I was just going to say that I didn't even know the Guild offers something like that, but it sounds like a good way forward... well, sounded at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I performed a source analysis. It reinforced my view and it has arrived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim May (chemical engineer) where all opinions are welcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nick Kyrgios page. How to get a reply - 'vandalism'

Hi, I have waited to get any sort of reply from people in charge of Kyrgios's page. Many sections are obsolete or irrelevant, using very out of date sources and prejudiced material. I can't get a reply or edit it as it is 'reverted'. It seems they 'own' the page and won't allow updating or use of recent reputable sources. The entries do not represent the current situation and are judgemental all through (as well as boring and lengthy). The only answer is suspected vandalism on my part. Can you put me on to someone I can talk to? The talk page doesn't seem to operate.SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SueoftheAntipodes: I'm afraid your only option, pretty much, is to continue trying to get consensus via the article talk page. Users with an interest in this subject are likely to be watching the article and its talk page, and they are the people you need to involve. (Note that there is nobody "in charge of" that page, as this is an entirely volunteer-based community effort.) You can also try to 'ping' (see WP:PING) specific users to get their input.

You may also wish to open a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis, to see if that gets you anywhere. (You can either discuss this there, or invite interested parties to the Kyrgios article talk page to join the discussion(s) you've started there. I would probably do the latter, so that it's all happening in one place.)

There is a formal content dispute resolution process, starting with the 'lite' option of discussion at the D/R noticeboard, but they won't get involved until you can show that you've discussed this at the article talk page. Although it's too early for that, I just wanted to mention it in case you want to take a look and see what that involves. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's such a pity really. Not surprised that nobody tries to change things. Might try to Tennis page. It's hard to get any sort of discussion going on Kyrgios as he is a 'divisive' figure. SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it seems that I have been flagged as a Conflict of Interest (!!!) or someone with a personal connection with Nick Kyrgios. I live in UK, have never met him or any players, am not related to them...but I am a tennis fan concerned with getting the balance right and using the most recent material. I understand that WP doesn't want people making changes that are biased. But how do we remove sections that are obsolete or irrelevant to the current state of things? Are we only allowed to add negative topics? Are any positive topics presumed to be added by someone with a COI?SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@SueoftheAntipodes: I don't know who the editor (who added that tag) had in mind when they added it – why do you assume it is you? I also can't really say why they added it; perhaps you could ask them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: It seems the tag has been removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone called 'Theroadislong' has been replying to my queries on how to explain that I am not a vandal. They put a link to COI on our correspondence. So I replied at length explaining that I have no COI as described in the WP guidelines. Just a fan with a desire to get it right! I presume most volunteers care about their topics so have a sort of COI. So they must have removed it. How do you ask someone about a heading on a page? I have put a topic on the tennis page. Honestly don't want to argue with anyone or confront volunteers. I was hoping to contribute positively.SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@SueoftheAntipodes: in the case of Theroadislong you can just post a message on their talk page at User talk:Theroadislong... or you can continue the conversation taking place on yours.

Don't unnecessarily take things adversarially, until and unless they become so; Wikipedia editing should be collaborative and collegiate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This collaboration was what I was sincerely hoping for. Everyone working towards the same goal. It's just that someone put 'suspected vandalism' at the reverse of my edit and I got quite a shock!SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello DoubleGrazing,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

-- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

please see this if you not busy

hi. please see this article: Constance Ullner.I was very careful about the nobility and references and took 2 hours to create the article, memorizing most of your tutorials while writing. Did I make some progress? —Patricia (Talk) 16:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we secret twins?

Seems you got an amusing accusation as well! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent we must be MBFAMs. :)

Should we form a partnership and pool our ill-gotten gains?

Is this a new fashion, accusing reviewers of being on the take? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It must pay more than being an admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: haha, you would say that, being an admin! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

ok, MBFAM? I get BFAM, but what is the leading M?

I'll share my £0.00 with you with pleasure. 50:50 split? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Curling in Portugal

Good afternoon.

First of all thank you for the review.

I would like to know which references do you wish me to further add to a page listing sporting results, other than the ruling body's official results.

Best regards

Thejmfcardoso (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, all the referencing appears in the 'Achievements' section; I would like to know where the rest of the information is coming from. Wikipedia articles are written by summarising what reliable published sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources against the information they have provided. When there are entire sections (albeit short ones) without any citations, it begs the obvious questions of which source has provided that information, or is it based on original research, and how accurate is it? Those questions should never have to come to the mind of the reader. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arif Demirer has been accepted

Arif Demirer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers @Theroadislong, appreciated. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Need guidance for Draft:Anandmurti_Gurumaa

Hello DoubleGrazing,

I've put in my best efforts to create the draft for Anandmurti Gurumaa, using neutral language and reputable references. However, it appears that there might still be issues with promotional content. Could you please provide me with specific guidance on which edits I should make to address these concerns?

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Please help!

Thanks and Regards,

Manan Arya Mananarya22 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Stefan Bringezu

Hello DoubleGrazing, I have totally redone the Draft of Stefan Bringezu. Could you take a look, cause the references should be fine by now :)

Thx a lot and have a nice evening All the best Cora Cora1106 (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Shot peen forming

Hello DoubleGrazing, Thanks for your quick response. I think it would be clearer as an independent article with links from Peening and/or Shot Peening. These articles are already very unwieldy with a lot of information on the use of peening as a work-hardening process to enhance strength. In the case of peen forming, the primary aim is to change the shape of the component permanently. There is already a specific mention of peen forming under History in the Peening entry, so that would be an obvious choice for a link. And/Or it could be linked under Applications in the Shot Peening entry. Thanks so much for your help. CSK45Kays (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@CSK45Kays: okay, understood. I think I'm pretty happy to accept this. Just one thing: three of the sources are books, but they're being cited via a website (shotpeener.com) which degrades them into looking slightly non-reliable or even spammy sources. Could you please change them to cite the original source, ie. the actual books directly? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, will do my best.

Thanks again CSK45Kays (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing,

I have managed to change two of the three sources. Unfortunately, I couldn't track down a different reference for the first one (Baughman, "Peen Forming"). I'd still like to keep the source, however, as this was an important, relatively early article (1970) and is downloadable as a pdf from The Shot Peener journal. Although it's essentially a trade journal, The Shot Peener has built up an extensive and very accessible library with a wide variety of articles on the history and science of shot peening. As such, it's useful for anyone interested in the process.

What do you think?

Thanks CSK45Kays (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CSK45Kays: yeah, I think this should be good to go. I'll accept it, but I won't patrol it myself, as I don't know anything about the subject matter myself. Also, please note that even though I'm accepting this as a standalone article, there's nothing stopping someone else proposing a merger to one of the other peening articles. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Perivoli Foundation

Hi @DoubleGrazing and thank you so much for your feedback on my Draft:Perivoli Foundation. I have made several amends to the edit now, including multiple new references from reliable secondary sources. I've also removed one that was a person associated with the organisation talking about it. I would be so grateful if you could take another look for me and let me know if you think this now is looking okay. Thank you so much. Leecullen14 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision of Draft:DAB Motors

Hello @DoubleGrazing

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft article about DAB Motors. I have taken your feedback and completely re-edited the article. The article has been trimmed substantially to only contain key points about the company backed my relevant references. If anything still does not meet wikipedia guidelines/ standards I am more then happy to edit accordingly.

Thank you for your help! RatKing26 (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)