User talk:Bobby Cohn

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Click here to start a new discussion.

List of Horrid Henry characters

[edit]

Hello. I have just made a draft for List of Horrid Henry characters. The first article for the list that I did in 2024 was a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. To differentiate the new article from the old one, I have added more references, including from the books, and left out the infoboxes and alphabetical headings, presenting the characters in different sections ("Main characters", "Recurring characters", "Books", "TV Series", "Horrid Henry: The Movie"). Is this draft okay to submit for review? Bladerunner09 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladerunner09 of course there is nothing wrong with submitting it but browsing through your references, I think it falls short of WP:N as I don't see where there is independent notability for a list of the characters or the subject of the haracters themselves. I'll admit this was a cursory browse, if you think there are three that demonstrate WP:SAL or WP:NLIST and give them here, I will take a look. However unfotrunatley the formatting and citing to the primary sources of the content themselves—while beneficial and inline with WP:V—do not aid in the other criteria which was the cause for concern with the prior discussion. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have added secondary references to the books Humor in Contemporary Junior Literature (2010), Onomastics in Contemporary Public Space (2013), What Is a Short Story? (2015) and Happy Holidays - Animated!: A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year's Cartoons on Television and Film (2019), and archived references to Horrid Henry's Wicked Website (seemingly an official website), most of which describe the characters and their personalities from the Horrid Henry books. Bladerunner09 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bladerunner09, those first books you've given look much more promising as secondary sources and look like they conduct some critical analysis. I don't have the time for a full review at the moment so that might be worthwhile to submit for review in the meantime. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Frederick Astbury

[edit]

Dear Bobby

Thanks again for your earlier message. I have been able to review the content several times now. The example of the old theatre is most helpful. I am still trying to address the observation in the Clean Up Tag ‘This article relies excessively on references to primary sources.’

In that context, Nature Magazine has been used in Citations 3, 10 and 11. I was pleased, therefore, to find an interesting article in the Economist Magazine independently endorsing the credentials of Nature Magazine as a reliable scientific journal. This is the link: https://www.economist.com/babbage/2013/02/27/changing-nature

Please can you let me know if you think there is scope for the endorsement of Nature Magazine from the Economist to be used as a secondary or tertiary source to balance the use of primary sources quoted in the observation?

I apologise for posing such an open ended question. If you think this could be a way forward, please could I ask if you would be kind enough to edit the entry accordingly? I am prevented from doing so firstly because of COI and secondly because of lack of experience.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Nigel Kestrel2Zero (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kestrel2Zero, of course I'm happy to help. I'm not doubting that Nature isn't a reliable journal—by the way, if you're ever looking for a shortcut to checking if something is reliable, we keep a collection of previous discussions at WP:RS/PS; from footnote (a) most prestigious academic journals like Nature are considered de facto reliable, but this may help your searching in the future.
Rather, I'll focus instead on the use of a source published by the subject to demonstrate the concerns I was explaining earlier. From the article:

During his tenure, he designed and conducted an experiment on campus to measure changes in the Earth's magnetic field during the total solar eclipse on February 25, 1952. His findings contributed to ongoing global research on the topic and were published in Nature on July 12, 1952, under the title "Micro-Magnetic Variations During the Solar Eclipse of February 25, 1952.[1]

Now let's consider re-arranging this:

During his tenure, he designed and conducted an experiment on campus to measure changes in the Earth's magnetic field during the total solar eclipse on February 25, 1952. His findings, published in Nature on July 12, 1952 under the title "Micro-Magnetic Variations During the Solar Eclipse of February 25, 1952", contributed to ongoing global research on the topic.[1]

Except now we should consider exactly what the citation is support, so let's move it to be more accurate:

During his tenure, he designed and conducted an experiment on campus to measure changes in the Earth's magnetic field during the total solar eclipse on February 25, 1952. His findings, published in Nature on July 12, 1952 under the title "Micro-Magnetic Variations During the Solar Eclipse of February 25, 1952",[1] contributed to ongoing global research on the topic.

And by separating these clauses apart from one another, we see that there is a claim about the source being supported by the source. The problem becomes even more obvious if maintenance tags are added:

During his tenure, he designed and conducted an experiment on campus to measure changes in the Earth's magnetic field during the total solar eclipse on February 25, 1952. His findings, published in Nature on July 12, 1952 under the title "Micro-Magnetic Variations During the Solar Eclipse of February 25, 1952",[1] contributed to ongoing global research on the topic.[according to whom?][independent source needed]

While this is a pretty minor example and not a particularly egregious phrasing, the same can be applied to other aspects of the article. Things written by Astbury of course can be used as citations throughout the article, but we must be careful with our phrasing and praise of Astbury if they weren't otherwise said by an independent source. And to the extent that the article largely relies on Astbury's work, that is the cause of the primary sources tag at the top of the article. I hope that helps. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bobby - Thank you for such a prompt and focused reply. Let me study what you have laid out for me and get back to you. Your help with this matter is invaluable. - NigelKestrel2Zero (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bobby
I have now read and reread your comments several times. Your guidance is very clear and helpful; it was most kind of you to spend time and effort on this for me.
I am now at a bit of a loss as to what to do, or try to do next. My father’s peers will all have passed away by now, so there is unlikely to be a contributor ‘passing by’ with contemporaneous knowledge who might happen across the entry and be able to provide the type of source material that would be helpful.
Please can you tell me if you think that there is anything that I personally can do to address the concerns in the Maintenance Tag. Alternatively, would I be remiss in simply accepting the impairment created by the over reliance on primary sources? Would there be any negative implications if the Maintenance Tag were to remain there for an extended period of time?
Best regards - Nigel - Kestrel2Zero (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kestrel2Zero, there is nothing inherently wrong with the maintenance tag staying there for a long period of time: nothing will happen to the article. It does at it to a hidden tracking category where other interested editors may review and work on it over time. The maintenance tag could be further refined by replacing it with specific instances of {{primary source inline}} in specific spots in the article and removing the top banner. If we were to do this in a methodical way line by line, we could identify specific references where there are claims being made as demonstrated above and placing the tag to produce [non-primary source needed] and not worry where the references are only verifying a basic fact that we aren't worried about having a secondary source there. Looking at the current version of the article as of today, I think references 1, 7, 11, 16, 17 are authored by the subject,[a] so instances where those are cited can be reviewed and either be re-worded or tagged as necessary.
It is also entirely possible that I'm being overly "stickler"-y with the tag; my opinion is definitely not the be-all-end-all. I've asked at the WP:Teahouse for someone to review my advice here or jump in with further guidance. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmemaigret added some comments to the thread (Wikipedia:Teahouse § Review my advice on my talk page re: primary sources) and reviewed the page and made some changes to referencing style, separating out primary sources. It looks like a good approach to me, you'll note that references authored by Dr. Astubry have the style <ref group=na> placing them in the {{reflist|group=na}} section of the references. Hope that helps, and feel free to ask if you have further questions about the formatting of Wikitext either here or at the Teahouse. All the best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the time and effort you have put into creating this new structure. I think it works very well. Best Nigel Kestrel2Zero (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Unless I'm reading the citation style incorrectly. I'll note the references don't always use our common citation templates, see {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, etc.

References

  1. ^ a b c d Astbury, N. F. (1952). "Micro-Magnetic Variations During the Solar Eclipse of February 25, 1952". Nature. 170 (4315): 68–69. Bibcode:1952Natur.170...68A. doi:10.1038/170068a0.

MedAire Article Page

[edit]

Hi Bobby,

Is there anything more specific about the content that you can pinpoint that makes this more like an advertisement? Mean time I will review policy one more time.

AviationInsight3

AviationInsight3 (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationInsight3, as an example, "Garrett's inspiration came from her experiences responding to medical emergencies in remote Arizona locations, including cases where patients could not be saved due to lack of immediate expert medical guidance" is not sourced and sounds like a promotional brochure for the company. This is in your first body paragraph. Like I said in my comment, only put what WP:SIRS have said about the company into the article. That's how you avoid those types of promotional issues. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup, which you previously marked as reviewed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion.SodiumBot (botop|talk) 05:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These updates are delivered by SodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add {{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}} to your talk page.

This is an interesting edge case @Sohom_Datta. The article's provenance was
  1. Article at Afd (I marked as reviewed)
  2. AfD results in redirect (redirect is marked as reviewed by @Tamzin's bot)
  3. RfD doesn't want the redirect, kicks it back to AfD.
Does the software think my "review" of the original article is valid? Would I have seen this in the NPP queue after it was re-converted back into to an article, or does the software think my patrol is now valid and holding? I see the purple "autopatrolled" checkmark on the article right now; is that mine, despite not having the autopatrolled flag? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Draft: ProProfs review

[edit]

Hello Bobby,

Thank you for reviewing my draft and for the detailed feedback. I understand your concerns about promotional tone and the product-list format. I will work on revising the article into a more concise, neutral history-based draft that only highlights coverage from strong independent sources (e.g. The Next Web, TechRadar, Wall Street Journal, CBS News, VentureBurn), and remove the product catalogue style. I appreciate the guidance and will reframe the content to better align with WP:NPOV and WP:ORG. If you have any further suggestions on structuring the article so that it better meets notability expectations, I’d be grateful.

Thanks again Vaibhav Delight (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vaibhav Delight, happy to help. Just to let you know, you should be aware of some of the concerns regarding the citations previously used. I would suggest you review the previous AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProProfs (closely, understand what the problems where with each of the citations) to understand the common shortfalls with organization and corporate referencing. If you still think the article and sourcing is acceptable and would like to proceed, let me know after you've done the next draft and I'll override my previous rejection to allow resubmission. Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bobby,
I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to guide me through this process. I’ve read through the AfD discussion as you suggested and reworked the draft into a much simpler, neutral version. I’ve removed the detailed product lists and focused only on history and the independent coverage I could find (The Next Web, VentureBurn, TechRadar, The Wall Street Journal, and CBS News).
I know you’re busy, but if you could kindly take a moment to glance at the new version and let me know whether it’s moving in the right direction, I would be very grateful.
Draft:ProProfs
Thank you once again for your patience and advice.
Warm regards,
Vaibhav Delight Vaibhav Delight (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Vaibhav Delight, I saw you removed my rejection and comment, I would have instead submitted it above the previous AFC history. However, I did review the draft. The language is better but unfortunately I don't believe the citations at this time demonstrate that the corporation has sufficient notability to warrant an article. Sorry, I'm sure this wasn't the decision you were hoping for. If you have another topic you are interested in writing about, I would encourage you to maybe try another topic, or you can always try your hand at simpler tasks at the Wikipedia:Task Center. All the best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]