This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
SCAM WARNING!
If someone contacts you asking for money to get a draft published, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article—do not trust them! These offers are scams. Report them to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. See WP:SCAM for more information.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.
This user talk page often deals with similar or reoccurring topics. Please use a descriptive section title when leaving a new message. Generic titles of messages may be refactored for clarity, such as renaming the section title to a link of the topic page.
This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template him. Though he will appreciate if you expand on your reasoning should your concern not be immediately apparent.
Hi Bob, I hope this finds you well, it's being a while since I talked to you. I still have some doubts, since my submission was declined, I’d like to know if I can start again by submitting only part of the original article. If that portion is accepted, I could then gradually add more to the same article. My main goal is to have at least some information about him included, and if that works, I can expand on it over time. I also want to make sure I am doing it correctly to avoid another rejection. If it's possible how should I proceed? I will be working on the draft, should I send you the draft? @Bobby CohnAgroLover (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AgroLover, last couple times you left a message, my replies went unanswered, but the advice is still valid. See my previous replies in the archives at the following locations:
Hi @Bobby Cohn Thank you for your guidance, and I apologize for any messages I may have missed—I sometimes think I’ve responded when I haven’t. I’ve now edited the article up to the section where the Florida Ag Expo begins. I know you previously explained the process, but I would appreciate your feedback on the parts I’ve worked on so far to ensure I’m on the right track. Additionally, if this section is acceptable, would it be possible to publish it as is and add the remaining content once I’ve completed it? AgroLover (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The good: right away I see that there's some positive changes to reduce promotional wording:
−
Rechcigl'sextensivecontributionsspanvariousfacets of agricultural research, notablyin vegetable, floral, and strawberry production, as well as breeding.
+
His work spans multiple areas of agricultural research, including vegetable, floral, and strawberry production, as well as plant breeding.
This is perfect and exactly like what I described needed to be changed to remove WP:OR and unnecessery promo and WP:PEACOCK words. The paragraph continues on for more of the same, and without checking the inline citations, I also see that when describing praise (as opposed to presenting it in Wikivoice) as with the following change:
−
He has garneredinternationalrecognition for his innovativeapproaches to agriculture and urban environments, earning a reputationasavisionaryleader. Rechcigl'stenureasa science administratorisdistinguishedbyhisexceptionalleadershipandcommitmenttoadvancingscientificendeavors in agriculture and environmental studies.
+
Rechcigl has been recognized internationally for his contributions to agriculture and urban environments, with a career in science administration focused on promoting research in agriculture and environmental studies.
That this is supported by a citation to an external source not authored by the subject.[1][2] That is exactly what I meant in my 21 August 2024 message. Well done, and thank you for heading my advice. If the rest of the edits continue in this fashion, the article will be a lot better off once published.
The bad: from a cursory glance, it looks like some citations for personal information has been removed.
−
He graduated from the [[University of Delaware]], majoring in plant science (B.S., 1982), and studied soil science at [[Virginia Tech|Virginia Polytechnical Inst. and State Univ.]] Blacksburg, VA (M.S., 1983; PhD., 1986).<ref>{{Citebook|last=RechciglJr. |first=M. |title=Czechmate: FromBohemianParadisetoAmericanHaven|publisher=[[AuthorHouse]]|year=2011|pages=361–365|language=en}}</ref>
+
He graduated from the [[University of Delaware]], majoring in plant science (B.S., 1982), and studied soil science at [[Virginia Tech|Virginia Polytechnical Inst. and State Univ.]] Blacksburg, VA (M.S., 1983; PhD., 1986).
As this is just a generic fact about the subject, and one that can be verified by the source regardless if it is independent or not, this is actually okay to leave (I'm assuming this is a graduate thesis?). Alternatively, a biography from an organization that he belongs to would also not be independent but okay to cite to for basic facts. Otherwise, this statement is unsourced. In a biography of a living person, everything that could be challenged needs to be sourced or removed.
To your orignial question on if it could be published now: as with anything, I would say it depends. I've given my opinion that WP:Notability is not what is precluding this from being published but rather the content of the article itself, see both of my Comment: at the top of the draft article. You've hit on the advice I have given in my previous replies, that it the draft wasn't written correctly, it is easier to largely cut and then re-add the content as appropriate moving forward (per WP:BACKWARD).
So in a way, I do endorse that idea. However I say that and I emphasize the idea that the content to be re-added must still follow all the correct policies once added in the mainspace; publication now and then working on it later inappropriately is not a way to game the system. The benefit of working on it in the draft space versus the mainspace is that you can leave the inappropriate text in place in the draft space and fiddle around with it, remember WP:there is no deadline or rush to publish. But once placed in the mainspace, anything inappropriate can just be challenged and removed immediately by anyone on site, there is no grace period for WP:BLPs.
So it's up to you. I will ask for the thoughts of another editor here whose opinion I respect greatly. But if you are set to go down that route, here's how I would recommend you proceed:
You can copy the contents of the article to your sandbox, located at User:agroLover/sandbox, so you have an easily accessible copy for later.
Per the last bit of advice at WP:BACKWARD, go through the remainder of the draft article located at Draft:Jack Rechcigl—everything beyond § Florida Agricultural Expo if that's what you say you have done—and cut judiciously everything that is inappropriate. This would be the version that could then get moved to the mainspace.
Becuase there is no deadline, you can work on the article section by section in your sandbox and move paragraph by paragraph to the mainspace as it becomes acceptable and within policy.
In my opinion, I do think the subject is notable, and Wikipedia would be better served by having an article on the subject. That is, after all, why we're all here. I hope this helps. And remember, my opinion is just that, I'm by no means the be-all-end-all decision maker. I'm just giving you the best advice I have after poking around this website for a while as a hobby. Remember, we all started somewhere. You've definitely picked one of the harder tasks a new editor can tackle in trying to write an article, but you are on the correct path, so thank you for your efforts and and thank you for incorporating the advice.
@AgroLover I have been asked to look at the advice here. I am in general agreement with all of it. Why not resubmit it, and let me or Bobby know? Or one of us may do that on your behalf after a decent interval of at least seven minutes 23 seconds. It seems to me to pass the hurdle of WP:NPROF. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"Focus on Younger Generation: Jack E. Rechcigl (1960-)". Zpráavy SVU SVU News. pp. 8–9.
Thanks @Bobby Cohn. Points well taken although as a first time editor I see why so many people seem to be so frustrated with the medium and its consecutive and at times conflicting reviewer input. This is a notable subject given its mission/remit and coverage by several secondary sources. I have now re-expanded key descriptions. Thanks again.
Hi @Las-Giddy 1995, I understand your frustration; witing a new article from scratch is often noted as being one of the more difficult projects for a new editor to tackle. Note that what makes an organisation notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term is discussion of the subject by secondary and independent sources, we don't really care about its mission/remit for establishing notability. I see you've resubmitted, so another editor will pick the draft out from the queue and conduct their own review.
Thank you for responding to the PAID notice on your talk page.
Comment: at the top of the draft article. You've hit on the advice I have given in my previous replies, that it the draft wasn't written correctly, it is easier to largely cut and then re-add the content as appropriate moving forward (per WP:BACKWARD).