This is an archive of past discussions with User:DoubleGrazing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Aloittamasi keskustelu MS Estonia -artikkelin jakamisesta osiin on ollut auki jo melkein yhdeksän kuukautta, äänin 11 puolesta - 3 vastaan. Milloin tästä oikein tulee jokin päätös? Mitä asialle voi tehdä? JIP | Talk 13:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Moi @JIP: kiitos että muistutit, olin jo unohtanut koko jutun. Pelkkien numeroiden valossahan tuo kyllä näyttäisi menevän jakamisen puolesta, mutta en tiedä mitä 'säännöt' sanovat, riittääkö enemmistö vai vaaditaanko yksimielisyyttä?

Pääasiallinen argumentti jakamista vastaan kai on, että laiva sinällään ei ole notable, joten pitää varmaankin etsiä lähteitä joilla tämä saadaan näytettyä, jonka jälkeen ei mielestäni pitäisi olla mitään syytä olla jakamatta. Yritän etsiä moisia tässä ihan lähitulevaisuudessa, jotta saadaan homma pakettiin. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

When they admit to it at UTRS, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I am new at creating entries but I worked hard to create a good-faith, fact-based entry for Demola the Violinist. I am a paid contributor of this article, (and have added this to the Talk page) but I'm also an experienced journalist and editor of published encyclopedias. I created it in good faith, following the Wikipedia rules of notability and verified sources. I reviewed a dozen other similar Wikipedia entries while creating this, including Daniel D. (violinist), Miri-Ben-Ari, Damien Escobar, and others. I believe that Demola is a unique, highly talented musician, worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. He has a unique skill of being a violinist, composer, singer, as well as playing many other instruments. He has worked with other verified people featured on Wikipedia, including Mathew Knowles and Davido. The sources featured include a Houston, TX TV station; Houston, TX newspaper; and multiple music and international media outlets. I included one instagram link to demonstrate the point that he creates music videos that go viral: The Shade Room share of his Mack the Knife video was viewed more than 1 million times. I did not use promotional terms in the article. In one case, I shared a quote, and attributed it to the source. I do not know Demola personally. Though I was paid, it was not very much and I would not have taken this assignment if I didn't think he was a notable musician and the sources verifiable. Please advise on next steps on removing doubt about this entry. Thank you!LindaTI1 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LindaTI1: thank you for declaring your paid status, even if it was done after the event, so to speak. Please also add a disclosure to your own user page, per WP:PAID. You must also list there any websites etc. where you advertise your paid-editing services.

As for the article, I nominated it for deletion on notability grounds, which has nothing to do with whether this person is 'highly talented' etc., and everything to do with satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you wish to save the article, you should address the criteria detailed in WP:GNG and/or WP:MUSICBIO. Although purely in my personal opinion, if the sources currently cited in the article are the best that can be found, they are unlikely to suffice. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm confused about the sources concern because the source references aren't trivial. They're not "passing mentions."

Each source talks extensively about the artist and they are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the musician, as indicated by WP:MUSICBIO, point 1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

RE: notability, Wikipedia, Notability (music), point 6: Demola has recorded and released music with Davido and Wande Coal, both of whom are deemed notable by their inclusion on Wikipedia.

6: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles..."

Also point 7: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

In the Houstonia magazine article citation, the famous chef refers to Demola on his TV show, when referring to the importance of the local West African culture and music in Houston.

I've spent hours on this entry and want to get it right.

I'd appreciate your guidance.

Thanks!

LindaTI1 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@LindaTI1: I've had another look at the sources, and I'm going to stick with my assessment. Interviews don't count towards notability, neither do social media accounts. At least one of the sources doesn't work at all. Some seem to replicate the content of others, which suggests that either they're just regurgitating it, or trace their origin to the same press release or similar promo material.

Once you disregard all those, whether there is then enough left, and whether the remaining sources can be considered reliable (and on this point, note that for example the Daily Mail, a 125-year-old British newspaper, is not regarded as reliable, so for some niche online music and lifestyle etc. publications reliability is far from guaranteed), is what is being tested here.

Having said all that, we can just agree to disagree on this, because it's neither my opinion as the AfD nominator, nor yours as the article's (paid) creator, that matters; it's what other editors taking part in the AfD make of it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi! I wrote the submission for the Center for Italian Modern Art. When I was in the drafting stage, I was advised to get a photo so I called the Center, and they sent it to me! SO did I make a mistake saying it was mine to use? I told them the purpose and the they said they owned the copyright. Thank you!! Askkaty2write (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Askkaty2write: my (entirely non-copyright-expert!) understanding is that by uploading it to Commons under those terms you have relinquished the copyright and the image is now freely in the public domain. Which the actual copyright holder a) may not be aware of, and b) may not be very happy about if and when they find out. I also don't think you should have uploaded it as your 'own work', if it isn't. But this is little more than conjecture on my part; you should probably ask eg. at the Commons:Village pump where someone who actually knows these things will hopefully be able to help. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Askkaty2write: yes, you made a mistake. You should request deletion of the file on Commons (add the template {{SD|G7}} to the top of the page). If you'd like them to submit the photo, ask them to email [email protected] for instructions. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli:,@DoubleGrazing: Thank you both for the great feedback, but I am not sure it's a mistake if CIMA owns the photo of the building and gave it to me when I asked for it? I was just writing up the Museum because I was so taken with it, but I don't have an photo of my own to provide. I will see if I can get in touch with the photographer. Askkaty2write (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Askkaty2write: they sent you the photo, but they did not clearly license it. Just having access isn't enough - just like how being able to watch a movie online doesn't mean it's legal for you to make copies and sell them to others. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: - good example. What would you suggest I do? They said I could use it as an illustration for Wikipedia. Should I go back and edit the image caption? Thank you for your patience! Askkaty2write (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Askkaty2write: ask them to send permission to c:Commons:OTRS. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: major thank you!74.101.46.225 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello — I just wanted to thank you for the edits and the info, I've read a lot before publishing the page but I'm still new to this, so just wanted to thank you for the notes and tips and for improving the page, cheers! TheMetalPedia (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yo, DoubleGrazing! Thank you for letting me know how this page can be improved! At this point, I am mostly embarrassed by how little the page contains. I will attempt to start adding more information and sources to it. However, because the quartet is somewhat over-looked and underestimated, it might prove tough to find trust-worthy info about them that may be good to add.

I hope to put in its track listing and personnel, as well as some reviews and backgrounds on its songs when I can.

Thanks again for your advice and interest! Sincerely, Quail & Metal (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DoubleGrazing. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @TonyBallioni: appreciated! :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Ak-Talaa is the correct spelling. Could you help to move the article to Kosh-Döbö, Ak-Talaa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermokarst (talk • contribs)

@Thermokarst: done! :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm DoubleGrazing. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sufism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This message came from you above, which is very wrong, I wrote a good and good paragraph on Sufism, in which online platforms will not be found on Sufism, you have reduced the information of your users, which I had kept pulse on Sufism. Immediately put back on Sufism page.

moneyism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookmark000001 (talk • contribs)

Hi DoubleGrazing, you added a tag questioning the notability of I Lie Here Buried with My Rings and My Dresses, I believe that the article meets WP:GNG by having 3 reliable sources that provide significant coverage to the topic,

1. [1] website:Exclaim!
2. [2] website:Stereogum
3. [3] website:Gay City News

I have included the citations in the article. If you still think that the album is not notable enough, please ping me while replying.

Justiyaya 05:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Justiyaya: thanks for dropping by. I've had another look at the sources, and still think that notability is at best borderline. Of the various criteria at WP:NALBUM, it seems #1 is the only one likely to be satisfied, which is essentially the same as GNG anyway. Whether the two sources Exclaim and GayCityNews are enough for that, I'm not sure (the Stereogum one is not sigcov enough, IMO). But if you think they are, you're of course free to remove the notability tag — your call. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added more citations, thanks for adding categories to the page before :) Justiyaya 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1300 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Hi User talk:DoubleGrazing, you have nominated the page Naseer Sankranthi for deletion and have made the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naseer Sankranthi. Its been 2 weeks since you have done this. I have made many changes to the article and added more content and references. Moreover it seems that most of the people are supporting the page to be kept. So I request you to end the discussion close the afd and keep the page.Please....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal Mathew (talk • contribs)

@Sonal Mathew: yes, I did nominate it for deletion, and stand my ground. In any case, even if I wanted to, I couldn't withdraw my nomination now that there are !votes both ways. We'll just have to wait and see how the AfD turns out. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't request you to change your preference. I just said that the Afd has turned out such that most of them are supporting to keep the page. So I just asked you to close the Afd and Keep the article. Sonal Mathew (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

There are 5 keep votes, 1 weak keep and 1 delete vote. Its been 2 weeks since the discussion has started. Wikipidia says that usually discussion is held for 1 week. So I asked you to keep the article based on the current voting and dicussions made in the page. Please.... Sonal Mathew (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sonal Mathew: I'll say again: I couldn't close it even if I wanted to. Also, it's not just about the numbers, it's also the strength of the argument; in fact, it's much more about the latter. And as for 'usual' duration, usually AfDs remain open until they are decided. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I just thought that the person who nominated should close the afd.. I have a doubt, so who is supposed to close the afd. Sonal Mathew (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sonal Mathew: the nominator should not close the AfD, unless they are withdrawing their nomination; the closure is normally done by an admin, see WP:CLOSEAFD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok Thank You 😊 Sonal Mathew (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The citations are not easy and I appreciate the guidance. I will hope to get it there -- eventually. He is listed as an architect for Sea Ranch, but there is not yet a page for his name on that page. Once I get the article set up, it should be able to link to the other page, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHCMCM (talk • contribs)

I tried my very best to improve the article. Hope, it is better now? Best GreetingsRundstef (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon Double Grazing! I would really appreciate if you could give me some more pointers on the article I submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naza_Alakija, that was recently declined due to insufficient references. Firstly, were the sources/citations I did provide deemed sufficient and reliable? Is it just the parts of the article that didn't link to sources/citations that aren't allowed? Thanks so much!

Replying on your user talk page, as you're editing from IP address. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm logged in now! Thank you

Hi DoubleGrazing, Just a note to say many thanks for the useful tips on tags and for your review of the archaeosphere draft. It's good to know that new pages are subjected to proper scrutiny and checks. I agree with what you say about the archaeosphere being a neologism that needs good independent sources to verify it, and I will endeavour to provide these in subsequent edits. all best--Strat188 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I made updates to the Visible article, per your suggestions, including removing some language that was probably a bit too advertorial and adding new sources. Would you mind taking a look again when you can? Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Visible

Djb2183 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Djb2183: I've had another look, and while I still think the sourcing is a bit on the weak side, the tone at least is neutral and suitable for inclusion, so I'm leaning towards accepting it now. BTW, is this Visible the same as what this redirect Visible Service LLC relates to, do you know? Because if it is, then that name could point to the draft article once published. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @DoubleGrazing: Happy to find more sourcing if you'd like to get it over the finish line. To answer your question, yes, it's the same company, and there are a few other articles that mention Visible, so I had planned on linking to this newly published article once it's live. Thanks so much for your help. Djb2183 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Djb2183: okay, I think it's safe to publish. I'll go and do that now, and tag it with refimprove, you can then remove that once you've added more sources. I'll also leave it for you to do the linking to and from, and pointing that Visible Service LLC redir to this article. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Many thanks for your help. I'll take care of sourcing and linking. Have a great day! 12:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, User:DoubleGrazing. I wanted to thank you in person for reviewing my previous article on wikipedia a few months ago. I just translated another two pages from Croatian wikipedia: Draft:MGI_Entertainment and Hotel Imperial (Croatia). Would be glad if you review, edit or criticise it. Best, Lesli --Lesli Strong (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Lesli Strong: thanks for your message. Firstly, just to clarify, I didn't review your Pravo (publishing house) article as such; I tagged it with a few maintenance templates, which sometimes marks it as technically reviewed if I don't remember to stop that. As for your new articles, the MGI Entertainment one has already been declined at AfC review, and I wouldn't want to dissent. The Hotel Imperial article seems to be still in the main article space, but should IMO be moved to drafts, since it only has a single (close) source, cited only once, which is nowhere near enough. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: Imperial has already been taken to AfD, it seems. Moving it to drafts would have prevented just that. You can still ask (at the AfD) for it to be draftified, or you can try to add more sources and citations (but be quick, before the AfD starts to accumulate delete votes!) and maybe rescue it per WP:HEY. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lesli Strong: it only just occurred to me that you said you translated these articles from Croatian? You need to be very careful when doing that, so that you don't inadvertently 'import' problems with the original article. AFAIK, the English-language Wikipedia has some of the highest, if not the highest, standards for notability and referencing, and even if other language wikis will accept an article with very limited or even no sources, here that gets quickly flagged up, and the article taken to drafts or deletion. (I sometimes come across articles on the Finnish and Swedish wikis which I would like to translate/recreate here, but I end up passing on most of them precisely for this reason, as I cannot find sufficient sources.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Добрый день, подскажите пожалуйста, Вас в моей статье не устраивает надёжность источников подтверждения информации? Или количество источников подтверждения информации? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitrii358 (talk • contribs)

Hi @Dmitrii358: thanks for your message. However, please...

1. Communicate in English on the English-language Wikipedia, as that is the common language of us all here.
2. Sign your messages on any talk page.
3. Create a new section for a new topic; you can do this by selecting the 'new section' link on the top of a talk page, or in the case of my talk page, by clicking on the 'start a new topic' link.

(Thanks.)

Now, in answer to your question, the Draft:Andrey Aksyonov you presumably refer to does not IMO have enough sources and citations in general. Moreover, specifically the sections on family and religion are completely unsupported, which isn't acceptable in an article on a living person (see WP:BLP), especially on subjects which are private, controversial or otherwise sensitive in nature. Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, tell me, you are not publishing an article because of bad sources? Or are there more problems?

@Dmitrii358: I declined this on the basis of inadequate referencing, meaning not enough citations, and barely enough sources. I wasn't commenting on the quality of sources (if that's what you mean by 'bad'). And yes, there are more issues that need to be addressed, as highlighted by the maintenance templates on top of the article, but those were not the reason why I declined this. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me what are the requirements for creating an autobiography in the English Wikipedia.

@Dmitrii358: see WP:BLP for the guidelines on creating articles about living people. As for creating "autobiographies", as you say, that is a really bad idea and not something you should do at all — see WP:AUTOBIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm missing here. I pared back a lot of the redundant information with the articles about his books The Meat Racket and Kochland, and -- based on the "WP:AUTHOR" guidelines, I think Leonard meets the criteria at least as well as David Epstein (journalist) or Jesse Eisinger. A previous admin told me I couldn't link to "About" pages - without doing that I don't know how to "Cite" his time at the New America Foundation. If you read the article for Meat Racket there are many citations of reviews for the book and incidents where Leonard is referenced by peers. Without recopying that article, I don;t know how to get those citation into the article on him. It just seems absurd to have two articles about his books, but then no article about the author of those books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DneColt (talk • contribs)

Hi @DneColt: thanks for dropping by. A few separate but related comments in reply:

1. I don't agree that WP:AUTHOR notability is met; if you do, please clearly and specifically point to whatever you feel does that.
2. As for general WP:GNG notability, the article needs to cite significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources about the person, to establish notability. It current cites none: the sources are all primary.
3. While it is certainly always a good idea to review other, similar articles, pointing to them as justification as to why your article should (or should not) exist, isn't always helpful; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
4. You can always reuse sources cited in another article, that in itself is not "recopying" (unless of course you simply copypaste everything, incl. access dates and ref names etc., and create problems by doing so); please feel free to cite sources already cited in earlier articles.
5. It isn't "absurd" to have articles on this person's books, but not one on himself: notability, which fundamentally determines whether an article is warranted, isn't inherited — an author may well be notable even if their books aren't, and vice versa.

Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: Please sign your comments, using the four tildes or by clicking on the signature button on top of the edit window. Thanks.

• Annesobol (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Richard B. Sobol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear DoubleGrazing, thank you for reviewing my submission. Please permit me to respond to the four points you raise.

1)2) The Heading The Duncan Cases was intended to introduce the following three sections (each section addresses a Duncan case), and these three sections are documented in 24 footnotes. The first of the two sentences under the heading The Duncan Cases was intended to introduce the Duncan cases, and the second sentence to set out how these cases are documented in a recent book and documentary (the sole topic of the book and the documentary are the Duncan cases). Perhaps I could better avoid a promotional tone by a) editing the section to read "Sobol represented Gary Duncan from 1966 to 1972 in a criminal case that took place at the time of the desegregation of the Plaquemines Parish schools." I could drop the names of the book and documentary into citations or I could include the names of the book and the documentary in the text, but include formal citations to the book and documentary at the end of the second sentence naming the book and documentary. Or I could b) drop the summary section The Duncan Cases all together, and just proceed to discuss each one of the three cases as I do in the following three sections of the draft.

• I didn't realise the three individual cases were intended as subsections of 'The Duncan Cases', although in hindsight I should have; this makes sense. Accordingly, I have now demoted them by one level (to do this, you simply add an extra pair of equation marks into the heading). This being the case, you could possibly get away without referencing the introductory sentence under 'The Duncan Cases', as long as it is short and doesn't make any material claims that would normally need to be supported, but I think it is better not to leave anything unreferenced. Of your suggestions, I think I prefer the one where you do mention the names of the book and the documentary in that sentence (short paragraph) and also reference them through the usual footnote citations, but I'm sure other approaches could work equally well.

3) The source that supports the sentence "It was expected as he grew up that Sobol would be a lawyer, too" is the interview which the African American History Museum did with Sobol, the transcript at p. 2. The interview is linked in the fifth of the six external links at the bottom of the draft. Thank you for showing me that I had failed to cite this, I mistakenly thought this sentence came from Kit Seelye's obituary in the NYT, but I see that it didn't. I can cite to this page in the transcript of the interview after the sentence in the draft that you mention.

JM: Yeah, thank you. Mr. Sobol, let me start, if I could, just to have you give a basic sketch of your childhood, um, family and upbringing in New York City.

RS: Um, I grew up in New York City. I lived on the West Side of Manhattan. My father was a lawyer. My mother was a mathematics teacher in one of the high schools in New York. Um, I, uh, went through schools in New York. I went to the Bronx High School of Science and I went to college at Union College in Schenectady, New York, and came back to New York to go to Columbia Law School.

JM: Yeah. Um, always had sort of anticipated you’d be a lawyer?

RS: My father was a lawyer, and I was – it was explained to me early on that I was going to be a lawyer, and I accepted that. [Laughter]

• Okay, thank you. The specific point of supporting that particular statement will be covered by you adding a citation, as you suggest. The wider point in my comment concerns referencing more generally: while you do not need to reference every single sentence, of course, you should reference every material statement. This often means that the same source (say, a lengthy profile piece or obituary, with comprehensive information) gets cited numerous times: it is better to cite the same source twenty times (ideally with named references, as you have done with the NYT obituary) so that everything is fully supported, than to cite it only once and assume that the reader will be able to figure what information came from which source. This also helps to avoid any suspicion that the article contains original research or synthesis.

4) I have read guidance on external links, and I think you must think that the referral to the trailer for the documentary does not fit within the accepted parameters. The links to oyez for Sobol's Supreme Court arguments and to the African American Museum interview on the Library of Congress site seem to me to fall within the list of permitted external links.

• I had to think about this one. My concern was/is that the 'External links' section is often misused by including large numbers of promotional, social media, and other similar links. For this reason many editors patrol that section especially, and they might take issue, as I did, with the number of links included there, rather than their nature.
• My first thought was to rename that section 'Further reading', but I'm not entirely happy with that, either, and of course the links are not to reading, but rather to audio files (I don't know if that distinction matters here, but still).
• Another possibility would be to move all the Supreme Court arguments into a section of their own, eg. as a subsection under 'Career', possibly prefaced with a short introductory paragraph about his work relating to the Supreme Court. However, in that case it would be best to link to that content via footnote citations, as with any external matter, rather than including an external link in the body text. I don't know if this is the best approach, but it may be worth considering, at least.
• The Mosnier interview can probably stay in the 'External links' section, no matter what, especially if it is to be the only item there.

You say "Happy to review again after these improvements," and maybe this means my choice now is to proceed to make what I think you're asking for. Is there any possibility you could respond to what I say here before I make changes? Annesobol (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed, you are welcome to continue editing the article draft, whether in line with my suggestions or otherwise. If I can be of any assistance in this, please do not hesitate to let me know (eg. here on my talk page); I am happy to take another look 'informally', and provide further comments if needed. And whenever you feel the draft is ready for a formal review, again I am happy to do that, unless of course you wish to get another reviewer's perspective. All the same, I am keen to see this article published, and will try to help as much as I can.

Hello @Annesobol: thank you for your message. I have responded to your comments individually above, indicated with bullet points.

I should, of course, mention that I am not an administrator or any other arbiter of Wikipedia policies, and my views on this matter carry no more weight than any other editor's. There are also sometimes alternative, equally acceptable ways of doing things, and my suggestions may not be the only, let alone best, ones. Nevertheless, I hope you find these comments helpful and constructive. Best Regards, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks a-bunches for your help Ashifrin (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: thanks for your re-review of my AfC review of Draft:Antstream Arcade. As I'm relatively new to AfC, it is great to get useful critiques. I started out using "reject" far more often than I possibly should have, and have changed that, partly thanks to your useful comment. But now the question: if my rejection of this draft should have been a decline, should I (can I?) go back and change it, so the author has a chance to resubmit? Or is it better to let sleeping dogs lie? --Doric Loon (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Doric Loon: thanks for your message. Just to say firstly that I'm also new to this, and my opinion in no way trumps yours, of course, so don't feel under any obligation to change your review on my account. In any case, I don't think you need to do anything yet; you can wait to see if anyone else comments on that, or maybe even ask one or two of the more experienced reviewers for their comments, and then take it from there. When the drive ends next week, I expect quite a lot discussion and analysis of the whole review process will ensue before the dust has settled. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)