User talk:Matandi2001

April 2024

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Weep Not, Child, from its old location at User:Matandi2001/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Weep Not, Child (April 19)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Notability not established, as of the three sources, one is the author's website, and a second is only a mention in passing.

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:Weep Not, Child 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.

Greenman (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matandi2001! 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! Greenman (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Weep Not, Child (May 30)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Weep Not, Child instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please review the article, and assess whether anything can be added to the article.

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:Weep Not, Child 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Robert, for your review and advise.

To be honest with you, I tried to edit the Title to "Weep Not, Child (The Novel)," but was unable to find the right button for the task. That seems to be my only huddle at the moment.

Regards,

Johnson. Matandi2001 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matandi2001, in reviewing the above articles, I would encourage you to copy the section "Reception" from Draft:Weep Not, Child to the main article Weep Not, Child, as it is the most complete in referencing and is not covered on the main article.

Specifically, this would be done by:

Clicking the [ edit section ] link next to "Reception" on the draft page
Copying everything from the header (from the start including ==Reception==) to the end of the of the section
Pasting this into a new section on the main article. This can be done by clicking the Edit Source link at the top of the page. My recommendation would be to place this in the article below "Themes and motifs" and above "See also".

You can add other content to the main article as well in this manner, or any of Wikipedia's other 6,865,527 articles as well. Articles are collaborative and don't need to be written solely by the people who drafted them.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, or you can browse the guidance for this type of work at Help:Wikitext.

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marcus!

Done.

Now please tell me what to do so that my other 2 drafts can see the light of day. For instance I always thought that academic journals and books that have been referenced by other researchers are "independent, reliable, published sources" as long as they are relevant to the subject.

I was working on 3 articles on African History but I have honestly developed cold feet in presenting the third one which I have just completed.

I have been doing minor edits on existing published articles but I didn't know that I couldn't publish a single article in Wikipedia.

I had very high hopes when Draft:Pre-colonial trade routes in Africa was received warmly here but those hopes have apparently been dashed with a stroke of a pen, so to speak. When you said that it was only a misplaced citation and lack of citations for a couple of sections, I had honestly believed you. But as it turns out the fate of my 2 articles seems to be (or have been) sealed.

I would appreciate if you could point out the references that I have used which do not meet the threshold of "independent, reliable, and published" so that I don't repeat the same mistake should I contemplate writing another article for Wikipedia in future. I say this in good faith and without ill will or prejudice.

Regards, Matandi2001 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those hopes have yet been dashed, the article Draft:Pre-colonial trade routes in Africa is still pending for review, myself and another editor have simply left remarks as either suggestions or comments to the review. Just be patient, the template notification at the top of the article still says "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,239 pending submissions waiting for review."

Feel free to continue writing if you are inspired. Remember, this project is a work in progress and there is no deadline for any of the work we have here.

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Pre-colonial trade routes in Africa has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pre-colonial trade routes in Africa. Thanks! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marcus! I hope you're doing great.

Thanks, again, for your corrections on my first article. I really appreciate.

I have since corrected the wrong citation and and added more citations on the article to get rid of the sparsity, as you pointed out.

On the same breath, I have applied the same principle on on my newer article, which you might want to look at:

Draft:African Maritime History and Navigation

Thanks, again. Please let me know of your thoughts.

Best regards, Matandi2001 (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maritime history of Africa (June 6)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Otherwise very good article, however excessive use of purple prose fails to ensure this article maintains a WP:NPOV. See WP:Wikipuffery.

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:Maritime history of Africa 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.

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Matandi2001! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi Matandi2001, I wanted to respond to your message here and give some insight on how talk pages and messaging work on the platform, and leave you some notes on your two articles I have come across.

I see above that you responded to my message. However, to ensure that someone sees a response on a talk page, you have to do this by using the notifications system. This can be accomplished by using the {{ping}} template like so: {{ping|MicrobiologyMarcus}} with the exception of other users' own talk page; a user is always notified when someone leaves a message on their own user talk page. The user talk page is generally the best way to get in touch with other editors.

In regards to the citation requirements, how you cited things in Draft:Maritime history of Africa is what I was trying to convey in my earlier remarks on my own talk page in regard to Draft:Pre-colonial trade routes in Africa. It's fine if the entire paragraph has been sourced from a single citation, that just needs to be clear to the reader. In academia and citation styles in general, this is accomplished by citing the first part and the last part. Anything that needs to be specified (i.e.: a statistic, a quote, etc.) can be accomplished by citing a specific page from that source, and we have citation styles to do that as well on the project (see {{sfn}}).

I did some copy editing in Draft:Maritime history of Africa prior to my declination so that it falls in line with our typical style of other pages on the project (see WP:Manual of Style). I also moved it from "Draft:African Maritime History and Navigation" to its current title in line with our typical page naming conventions (per MOS:CONCISE, MOS:PRECISE and MOS:AT) and other articles, such as Maritime history of the United Kingdom and Maritime history of California.

In regards to my declination, the article uses a lot of purple prose. Writing like "... encompass the diverse and rich traditions of ..." and "... was a complex and tragic aspect of this maritime history." or "The economic influence of maritime trade on African societies was profound." is very ornate but not very encyclopedic. The above is not very descriptive, but instead appear to be an introduction section or closing statmente to an argumentative essay. We aren't trying to convince our readers of anything. I notice that these sections are cited, but not specifically. You can say things like "historians have described thing as fancy/powerful/rich" if they have, provided you cite to specific sections in a source. but we can't use the authority of Wikipedia to argue for that.

If you're interested, read further into the documentation of {{sfn}} to see how arguments like that could be made with page citations, if those citations exist.

Otherwise, very good job improving your style and writing that most recent draft article. Feel free to respond to me here when those issues have been addressed.

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

It looks to me, then, that I am not ripe for Wikipedia.

Best regards, Matandi2001 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marcus!

I thank you again for your elaborate communication on purple prose.

It looks like I replied to your message without reading your text fully—at the spur-of-the-moment! After carefully reading your text, I now grasp the gist of your argument. I believe I have now cleared the article of ornate prose.

Here's what I did, hopefully, successfully:

Removed overly subjective phrases and promotional language.

Focused on neutral, factual descriptions.

Ensured the article is balanced, particularly regarding the negative aspects of the slave trade.

Enhanced specificity and precision in language.

I hope I have polished it enough. But should you find anything else that needs revision, I will appreciate your feedback. Thank you.

Regards, Matandi2001 (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, Marcus! I left the latest message to you but forgot to ping you as you had taught me. @MicrobiologyMarcus: Matandi2001 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matandi2001, glad to hear! I will try and take a look at the review the next chance I get. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve History of metallurgy in Africa

Hello, Matandi2001,

Thank you for creating History of metallurgy in Africa.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Excellent work, however, placing citations inline, rather than only at the end of sections should be prioritized for clarity of information, especially when using sources such as books that may be hard to independently verify.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|IceBergYYC}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

IceBergYYC (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IceBergYYC: Thanks for your guidance. I am in the process of placing inline citations other than only at the end of a section.

Regards, ~~~~ Matandi2001 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @IceBergYYC: I have effected the changes you suggested. I have interspersed citations and added more. I have also expanded some sections.

Please have a look and advise.

Good day!

~~~~ Matandi2001 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]