User talk:FreeMarsThen

This is FreeMarsThen's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: Draft:Usman Haque has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Usman Haque. Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've made some changes as you requested, please let me know if what I've added has improved it, and I've also added some stubs identifiers to make clear that it still needs expanding if that helps. Appreciate your feedback. FreeMarsThen (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there're other things that immediately jump out. I think he is probably notable for WP, but the draft article needs clean up. Here are some suggestions for improvements:

It reads rather promotionally. WP is not a place to promote people's career that is what Linked In or other social media platforms are for. For more information see: WP:SOAPBOX, and also WP:NOTADVERT. It seems excessive to frame his work around all of these hats: architect, artist, designer of interactive installations, digital artist, participatory designer, urbanist, environmental psychologist, entrepreneur. And the sentence about "one of the most influential figures" sounds like puffery or peacocky see: WP:PUFFERY and WPNPOV. If you were to chose the most important two, what would they be?

Several of the sources are low quality and should be removed or replaced with better citations, as they do not contribute to his notability. For example:

The Forbes contributor piece by Hester Lacey, Forbes is ok, but "Forbes.com contributors" has been deprecated as "Generally unreliable" per WP:FORBESCON. It should be removed.

The two TechCrunch citations are also low-quality per WP:TECHCRUNCH, and are often conflict of interest pieces. I suggest removal.

The Unpacked interview is flagged as unreliable because it's a Wordpress blog, and it's also an interview which is a primary source - anyone can say anything they want about themselves, what is needed are what others say about him who are completely independent of the person. It should be removed.

The reference to Christiane Paul's book is not a citation at all, it point to book sales site. This is promotional and also unverifiable. WP:PROMO and WP:V. Link instead to what Paul wrote about him in the book. Links to sales sites should be removed.

The UgoTrade citation is also low-quality as it is a blog by one person, not vetted by an editorial staff. It's also an interview, a primary source.

Sorry this is so long! Hope that the feedback is helpful. Netherzone (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Netherzone, that was really helpful. I've implemented most of your suggestions (except: I moved the Forbes link to further reading because it is a good text for connecting all the dots; also kept one interview reference but only cited the text that was by the author, i.e. not part of the interview) and added one other interview link purely for biographical career info (again not in the interview text). I also added multiple references for some things where the notability citation didn't give the fullest explanation, or where other citations had more information and images. If you are able to have another look and give me feedback I would really appreciate it.

One other question https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Usman-Haque/3058021 has a lot of information on his own writing but I couldn't figure out if it would be considered a reliable reference. FreeMarsThen (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FMThen, I'm so pleased that you found these suggestions helpful; good call on moving the Forbes con link to further reading. The primary sources are fine for establishing certain things, but they don't contribute to notability, which is why I suggested focusing on the secondary sources to make sure an article doesn't get deleted for lack of notability. I'll have a look at the article, I'm traveling at the moment, so don't have my usual WP focus. Re: Semantic Scholar, it's a type of search engine for academic papers, similar to Google Scholar, so it is often useful for certain kinds of sourcing - you'd source the publications themself, rather than Semantic Scholar, but you probably know that. ;-) Personally I find Haque's interest in Gordon Pask fascinating and important research work as Pask was an important artist-engineer-cyberneticist type who sort of slipped thru the cracks of history. Netherzone (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Inter-Action Centre has been accepted

Inter-Action Centre, which 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Hoary (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above is machine-made; this is a human speaking. Well done with the article. The building "[made] concrete the ideas of flexible architecture and impermanence", and "could be reconfigured over time as its occupants' requirements evolved". I suspect that this could (and should) put it in one or more additional categories. Not being an architecture specialist, I can't guess what they are. What you could do is look at articles on buildings that are similar, and see how these are categorized. (I thought of Centre Pompidou, but this only has "Category:High-tech architecture", whatever the hell this might mean -- wild guess: "Buildings that, when very new, had their viewers utter 'Wow, cool!', or its place/period-appropriate equivalent".) -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I discover that there's actually a style named High-tech architecture. Well well. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hoary, really appreciate your nudge to improve the article, also your comments and suggestions, and for the effort you spent on the final cleanup to get it in publishable shape. I think I've learned a lot from it and hope to put this to good use on my future contributions. I will explore further classification. FreeMarsThen (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]