User talk:HLCobb

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Duncan.Hull (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Sadie Watson. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have added lots more sources now. I hope that helps establish notability! HLCobb (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I am declining your draft because it doesn't yet demonstrate how the subject meets our notability guidelines. That's not to say that she doesn't (or couldn't in the future), but it must be supported and verifiable in the sourcing. Right now, all of the references are either 1) primary (written by subject herself) or 2) non-independent (affiliated w/ the heritage alliance). I encourage you to review our policies on reliable sources and verifiability for notability in biographies. Thank you,

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:Lizzie Glitheroe West 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.

Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks so much for your feedback! I have now added more references to meet the notability guidance and have resubmitted. I hope this is now ok!

Best wishes,

Hannah. HLCobb (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HLCobb! 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! Zzz plant (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HLCobb. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Hannah Fluck, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't have any kind of external relationship with Hannah Fluck. We are both archaeologists and we are both called Hannah (I am Hannah Cobb - you can check out my own Wikipedia page!) but we work in different areas of archaeology and have no connection. I hope this means the page can be published!

Many thanks,

Hannah. HLCobb (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The cited sources still are heavily tied to the subject of the article, either by authorship or by her organization. Reference 5 *might* be supportive of notability, but it's mostly just a short bio in an announcement. Other mentions are trivial in pieces about other topics. We need significant independent coverage specifically about 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:Lizzie Glitheroe West 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.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Sarah May (archaeologist) 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.

ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Rachel Crellin 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:SafariScribe, please would you reconsider the article? The article references BBC News coverage of a project that Crellin has led and there are multiple reviews of her work cited (in Antiquity and American Antiquity). Together these comprise "multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth".

Is the log you maintain correct in recording that the review took 24 seconds? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell, I would have accepted if I saw this earlier but anyways, the draft has been accepted into mainspace. Congrats! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: The publication of the article has been resolved, but I'm concerned about how long was spent on the review. Even if the review lasted longer than 24 seconds, it was barely two minutes between the review of the article on Rachel Crellin and the previous draft. That doesn't seem long enough to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read drafts earlier before coming to decline or accept them. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: If User:SafariScribe/AfC time log does not give an accurate record of the time spent reviewing an article it may be beneficial to either change the approach so that it starts counting earlier or to retire it as User:SafariScribe/AfC time log already notes which articles were reviewed on which day. If the time log is not an accurate reflection of how much time you spend reviewing articles, it is doing you a disservice. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]