User talk:Faminalizblr

Reply[edit]

You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:

When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.

Having so many refs so easily is a clear indicator that most are not appropriate. I can see at a glance LinkedIn, Crunchbase, her own books and other stuff written by her, interviews with her, and so on. We don't want to see what she says, we want independent third-party sources writing about her in reputable sources, which will be much thinner on the ground than the kitchen sinkful of low grade sources you have used.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

Lots of promotional tone, and I note that the only wikilink in the entire article is to her metric, even University of Delaware etc don't get a link. Promo includes renowned... is widely recognized... a performance indicator aimed at maximizing profit within the field of hospitality.... her pioneering work... two highly regarded best-selling books... and numerous educational articles... the first online learning course on hospitality technology. And that's just the lead section

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. If you are writing about yourself, or someone you know as a friend, colleague, client, employer or relative, you have a conflict of interest, and you must disclose the nature of that COI.

Please clarify the nature of your connection with her Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response @Jimfbleak and the detailed explanation. I appreciate your time.

Sorry, I just wrote on your talk page before I saw your response here.

To clarify the nature of the connection: we used to work together a while back and I have been admiring her educational articles for over a decade, along with thousands of other people in the industry who have benefited from her contributions. This is perhaps the reason why my draft read as more biased than neutral.

I apologize for not clearly understanding what sources are not allowed. I should have done better research before submitting the draft.

There are however multiple third-party independent sources and mentions available that support the content. I'll clean it up and only keep the citations that are considered reliable by wikipedia. I will also do my best to remove any non-neutral language in the draft.

Can you kindly clarify what options exist for the next step? Should I submit another draft (incorporating your feedback) or is there a way to reinstate the deleted draft and edit it?

Please let me know.

Thank you again for your time. 70.179.6.100 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you should not edit when signed out. I can restore the draft to a sandbox for you, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Whe i do so, you should mention that you know her on the article talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will do. Please reinstate the page in the sandbox and I'll take another stab at it. Will add the details about my connection on the Talk page.

I appreciate it. Thanks again. Faminalizblr (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored to User:Faminalizblr/Ira Vouk. Two additional points. Her books should be listed under a "Publications" heading, without references. They shouldn't be used as references though. You should add {{Connected contributor|User1=Faminalizblr}} to the talk page and save Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll work on incorporating all your comments and will submit for your review. Faminalizblr (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Jimfbleak

I've just made changes to the draft. I did my best to incorporate all your comments.

- I removed all sources that weren't qualified as independent/reliable

- Found and added a few more qualified ones

- Rephrased and shortened the article to eliminate promotional language, did my best to remain neutral

- Added a section with "Publications" where I listed the books and other articles

- Added {{Connected contributor|User1=Faminalizblr}} to the talk page

Please take another look when it's convenient for you.

If you find something else that needs to be updated - please let me know. I apologize in advance if it's still not up to wiki standards. If so - I'll be happy to incorporate more changes if needed.

Sincerely,

@Faminalizblr Faminalizblr (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's overreffed, for example, the phrase the originator of the Adjusted RevPAR (ARPAR) metric, a performance indicator used... doesn't need five refs for verification

It's underlinked, for example, two universities unlinked

In 2018, joined Cloudbeds, no ref

Her books shouldn't have the titles in full caps, title case and italics please

Additionally, Ira Vouk is a contributing writer for several publications and media... I'd list these items you have here with what you currently have as their references, with no further ref, eg *"Ira Vouk - HospitalityNet author". HospitalityNet. Retrieved 13 October 2023. HospitalityNet is a hospitality and tourism media-hub

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak

I have just addressed all your last comments. Please take another look when convenient.

Thank you again for all your feedback. Faminalizblr (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, although Crunchbase isn't really suitable as a source. I suggest you move it to draft and submit for review to see what others think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Yes, I was hesitating about crunchbase but it's the only reference for her founding iRates so I decided to leave it to avoid that part of the article being unlinked.

I've moved it to drafts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ira_Vouk

I hope I did it right?..

Thank you again for all your feedback! I really appreciate your time. Faminalizblr (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak Sorry, another question. Do I need to do anything specific to submit it for review or will it just sit in queue in the draft space until someone reviews it? Faminalizblr (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add {{subst:submit}} to create the review box, and then, as you say, just wait... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you again! Faminalizblr (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ira Vouk (October 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Johannes Maximilian were:

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Ira Vouk 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Johannes Maximilian.

Thank you very much for your prompt review!

I will do my best to edit the article to your satisfaction.

Would you be so kind to point at specific sources that you believe are unreliable and unverified, I'll be happy to remove them. I did my best to follow the guidelines and worked with another user on this article before submitting it for review (please see the conversation in my Talk above). My understanding was that all remaining sources were compliant with wikipedia requirements (as third-party, independent, reliable and verifiable). The only one that I was hesitant about was crunchbase but it's the only source supporting the content about her being the co-founder of iRates, and crunchbase is traditionally a reliable source for looking up startup information.

Similar to the above, on the second topic. I have reworded the article a few times to keep the formal and neutral tone and I apologize if it still reads as informal. Could you point at specific words/phrases that feel like "peakcock terms". I will be happy to remove them.

I would greatly appreciate your help with the above so that I can edit the article to fit all necessary requirements. Thank you again.

Sincerely, Faminalizblr (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ira Vouk (November 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not enough independent, significant coverage.

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:Ira Vouk 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Faminalizblr! 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! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @WikiOriginal-9 for your prompt review of the draft.

I have just added more secondary reliable sources that contain significant coverage about the subject.

My concern now is that it looks too messy due to many sources used. Perhaps there are some that can be removed without taking away from the credibility of the content and still satisfying wikipedia's requirements for citations?

I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look.

Sincerely, Faminalizblr (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ira Vouk (November 9)[edit]

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Ira Vouk 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.

Lightoil (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]