User talk:Garsh2

Linking to new articles

Hi, thank you for creating these new articles on classical compositions! To make it easier for readers to find your new article, here is a check list to do after creating an article:

• Add the article to the composers Navbox, e.g. {{Jean Sibelius}}
• Link the article in the list of compositions, e.g. List of compositions by Camille Saint-Saëns
  • If the work is significant enough, include it somewhere in prose in the composer's article
• If there is a repertoire list for the work's genre, add to it, e.g. List of violin sonatas
• Add appropriate redirects:
  • For alternative names, e.g. Caprice on Danish and Russian Airs → Caprice sur des airs danois et russes
  • For catalogue numbers, e.g. D 328 → Erlkönig (Schubert)
• If there is an opus number, add to the Op. dab page, e.g. Op. 1
• If a year of composition is known, add to X in music, e.g. 1821 in music

Thanks for your contributions! intforce (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Intforce Hello, thanks for the list! I was doing some of those already, though I was planning to do some other Saint Saens compositions (like Symphony in A and Symphony No. 2) and add them to these lists all at once. If this is not the best practice, I will add them individually. I was painfully unaware of the 1821 in music type articles and will keep those in mind. I’ll make sure the other articles I created have been added in the proper places. I see on your user page that you are planning to work on the uncreated Saint-Saens piano quintet article, is this something you are doing in the near future? If not, I’ll happily create the article. Garsh (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, please go ahead! For Saint-Saëns, I can highly recommend this source, which is often cited by other sources: Ratner, Sabina Teller (2002). Camille Saint-Saëns, 1835–1922: A Thematic Catalogue of his Complete Works, Volume 1: The Instrumental Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-816320-6. intforce (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Move request

Hello, Garsh2,

You'll get much timelier action on your move requests (Draft space>main space) if you format them properly. Using Twinkle, select CSD>G6>Move and in the field, put the page title of the page you want moved. Then a patrolling admin can delete the redirect and move the page with one edit. There is also an active link so that the admin can review the draft first. Most editors and admins are busy and the easier you make things the faster response you see. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. I’m not sure I understand what you are referencing, as I did use the twinkle CSD module. If you are referencing the draft title, I was not aware that it is necessary to type the “Draft:” namespace. Some tools require this, others do not (such as AFCH). If that is indeed the issue, I will keep it in mind. Garsh (talk) Garsh (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Question as to why my article was declined

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

Hello. I had an article of mine regarding "The Santa Cruz High Cardinal Regiment" which was declined for not achieving "sustained notability." I my article I describe multiple instances in which the band has received adequate notability. It played in the Vancouver World's Fair in 1986, it's played for many years at the college football All-Star game, it's played King Kamehameha Day Parade (a televised Hawaiian event) in 2005, they've traveled to New York and played in Carnegie Hall! Even then there's countless events that I didn't include because the sources were not exactly phrased or presented in a way that was useful. For example, the band annually plays at the city Holiday Parade and always closes the event. It has become a staple for the parade, so much so that the official website of Downtown Santa Cruz features a picture of our band for the event (see this link: https://downtownsantacruz.com/events/downtown-holiday-parade). It should also be noted that none of the sources I used are affiliated with the band. That includes the article "Santa Cruz High School marches past 85 years of music, memories" (https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2010/10/12/santa-cruz-high-school-marches-past-85-years-of-music-memories/) by the Santa Cruz Sentinel. This is the largest newspaper company in Santa Cruz and is named after the name of our city. This article was done because they wanted to honor us by showing even more people about the history of this distinguished group in this community, not for any reasons regarding affiliation. I could have also used this website from one of the largest amusement parks in California https://beachboardwalk.com/band-review/ yet it didn't seem to fit the idea of a valid source.

I'd bet that 90% of all Santa Cruz locals know who this band is, so I cannot fathom why there would be an absence in notability. JFitz42 (talk) (Aug 2nd, 2024) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@JFitz42 Hi there, this was a review I made over a month ago and I've looked at it again. The main concern in notability I have now that I should have articulated better was the article's heavy reliance on publications from a single source, the Santa Cruz Sentinal, for both sourcing and notability. I see now that the initial conclusion that the band is only covered for its Carnegie Hall trip was not necessarily true, and I apologize for causing confusion. The article from "downtownsantacruz" listed above would likely be considered trivial coverage (which is not always bad but unhelpful for your purpose), as it is a passing mention in an article otherwise discussing an event. While it could be included, you are correct that the "beachboardwalk" article would not have been a good source. Adding more diverse sources covering the topic will go a long way to show notability.

Looking the article again, there are some other reasons that I should have included that would likely be brought up upon resubmission. The article reads like a promotional piece, violating WP:NPOV. Have a look at MOS:WTW if you're stuck trying to find words that may make the article less than neutral. Some examples include phrases like "over the decades", "long line of award-winning", "flourish", etc. Additionally, there are a good number of unsourced claims made in the article (especailly in the "Current participation in competitions" section) that could be challenged and removed by other editors.

This article is a good start, and I appreciate your adherence to the COI policy. If the article is resubmitted after the above changes are made, it would have a much better chance of acceptance. While I will happily take another look upon improvement, I will let another reviewer make the final decision. I try to avoid reviewing the same article twice (unless issues are egregious, fixes are beyond a shadow of a doubt, or no change is made) so that it has a chance for review under fresh eyes.

Garsh (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Request on 18:41:19, 5 August 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Goodsoilrecords

• Goodsoilrecords (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mr. Husband (Musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been diligent in providing sources and structuring this article in the exact way that I see other published articles on musicians. I need to understand what is missing from the article. The sources are large international publications with thousands of readers and can easily be verified. I also was told there is a "COI" issue and do not understand the meaning of this. Please assist if possible. Thanks!

Goodsoilrecords (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the confusion. COI refers to "Conflict of Interest" (see WP:COI). This concern mainly stems from your username which appears to identify you as someone with close relation to the subject. See the message left on your talk page by another reviewer.

Wikipedia has a set of criteria that determines which topics qualify for a Wikipedia article. These guidelines are sometimes hard to understand and can be subjective at times. WP:GNG is a good place to become familiar with them. Reiterating the reason provided in the decline, the references provided may help verify information provided in the article but they don't show significant coverage of the topic WP:SIGCOV. References one and two are from the same publication, which is not necessarily a problem on its own but does not count twice towards notability. The third reference is a fairly brief mention that may not be significant coverage. For more criteria for notability of music related topics, see WP:MUSICBIO. If you feel that any of these criteria are met and references can prove it, please let me know and I'll have another look.

The article is a good start. If the conflict of interest concerns can be addressed and additional sources are added to show notability of the topic, the article has a good chance of acceptance. Let me know if you have any additional questions! Garsh (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services published

Just letting you know that I moved Draft:Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services to Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services as you had requested. Feel free to cleanup the tags per AFC standards when you can. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I’m a big fan of redirects but they do get in the way sometimes with AfC reviewing. Garsh (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)