Jump to content

User talk:Upstreamtech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer (September 5)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes 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.
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.
Utopes (talk / cont) 20:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Upstreamtech! 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! Utopes (talk / cont) 20:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]
Thanks for creating a draft!

Hello Upstreamtech, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer to WikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here. ~Liancetalk 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer (September 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Urban Versis 32 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:
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.
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.
Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer (September 11)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance 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:
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.
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.
~Liancetalk 19:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer (October 27)

[edit]
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 submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Upstreamtech. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upstreamtech, you are confusing "reliable" with "secondary". Material needs secondary sourcing in order to prove notability. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Can we chat? I think you are right, I am very confused. The rejection said I have not sited reliable sources. ASTM is truly beyond reliable, and is the primary source. And then I've listed secondary sources from universities, Georgia Department of Transportation, Nevada conservation district. It seems like they would be considered reliable. I must be missing something.
Any specific advice or guidance you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Upstreamtech (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a standard template. It's shorthand, if you will. It was rejected before, with a slightly different template: go look at those and follow the links. You actually have one proper source in there, a secondary one, but it's not written up or referenced in a way that makes that clear. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it now. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for taking the time. I do appreciate it. Is the proper source the ASTM standard? And it looks like there is now a "Citation needed" in there. "The Green-Ampt theory, developed in 1911, provided a framework for estimating infiltration rates by incorporating factors like soil suction head, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and time.[citation needed]" The citation would be the ASTM Standard which uses all of those factors in the equation. If I cite the ASTM Standard, do you think this is ready to go? Thanks again, Upstreamtech (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an unverified paragraph so yes, I added the tag. But that information, the historical background with 1911, is not in the ASTM source. Green-Ampt is mentioned there, in a really confusing and probably grammatically incorrect paragraph, but it doesn't really say the same thing. And again, the ASTM is probably a solid source but I don't see how it adds much to notability. I can't assess yet if it needs more secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful. I just edited it and added a source for the historical context, green-ampt section. I didn't see a save button. Does it just update as you type? Upstreamtech (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. You need to click "Publish changes". You've done it before. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I thought that submitted it. You are right. Just published if you have time to take a peek at it.
Thank-you, Upstreamtech (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"in 2018, the MPD test was formally adopted"--that part is not in that source. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D8152-18 the "-18" denotes 2018, or whatever year an ASTM Standard is first published.
If you go here: https://www.astm.org/Standards/D8152.htm
Just above the title on the left, hover your mouse over the "i" inside of a circle. It breaks down the numbering system. Upstreamtech (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer has been accepted

[edit]
Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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!

Drmies (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for all of your help!
It is very much appreciated. Upstreamtech (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Upstreamtech&oldid=1283477164"