Talk:Fly Anakin

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia..

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Name

Varoon2542, there will be disagreements on Wikipedia. When disagreements happen, ill intent may not be involved. Keep a cool head and assume good faith. I'm letting you include the name in the article but do give a reliable source for your claim. Satrar (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Varoon2542, I am again asking you to stop adding poorly sourced material and please read WP:VER. It means other people can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The best sources have a professional structure for checking facts. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be careful when sourcing content related to living people. Moreover content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not reliable sources (which you are trying to add again and again). During a dispute discussion, you should not revert since it is considered WP:WAR. Please do read Wikipedia:Reverting § Avoid reverting during discussion.--Satrar (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Hi Bearian, this seems to be a well referenced article. There are 29 references on a relatively short article and nearly all the publications and websites are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. Which ones do you think are not reliable? And what further citations do you think are needed? The article has already been reviewed, the prose seems to read through well enough. Could you explain what aspect of the quality is below standard? Thanks :)Memoriesotomorrow (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Rock Feedback and Passionweiss are not reliable. The former is a dead link. The latter interview doesn't help notability. I'm willing to remove the tag when I remove the essentially unsourced information. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I did my part to fix this article. There are still two issues: it's written poorly – and the subject was ripped off by paying for someone to edit his article. The two issues are no doubt connected. Bearian (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

tagging articles in this way is not constructive. It’s too vague. You’ve “fixed” the links that you took objection to, but there’s still the vague “poorly written” issue. This is a great opportunity to explain what you mean.Memoriesotomorrow (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)