Talk:Isaak Dore

Review

Hello @Nthep, Do you think this draft now has enough sources and is sufficiently different to pass the copyright inspection? Please let me know what edits you think are necessary as well! Thanks again for all your help! Charlzs (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I've no problems with copyright. As I said previously, it's all titles of works or positions held. You can submit for review by adding {{subst:Submit}} to the top of the article. Nthep (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Notable under WP:NAUTHOR

Hi @Charlzs I think the subject is notable through WP:NAUTHOR as several of his books have been reviewed in scholarly journals, e.g. , , , (there are more). If you have access to JSTOR, I suggest that you include citations to as many book reviews as you can find against the books in question, then you should be good to publish. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you for this feedback! Do I have to do anything to designate this article as WP:NAUTHOR? I will certainly go back and add as many book reviews as I can find. Should I add a paragraph about the book reviews under the scholarship section as well? Charlzs (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You should read WP:NAUTHOR in full, but in a tiny nutshell, a subject needs multiple (two or more) books with multiple (two or more) reviews in decent sources (so not Amazon or Goodreads or someone's random blog) to meet the notability criteria. Reviews in scholarly journals or major publications are best.

So the first thing to do is get the reviews in there, to demonstrate notability. Then in your submission to AfC / move to mainspace use an edit summary like "Meets WP:NAUTHOR - multiple books, multiple reviews" to show why you think the subject is notable.

Then, summarize the reviews within the article if you can to illustrate the subject's scholarship, opinions etc. That can be the most interesting part of the article, and it is much preferred to base this on secondary sources, i.e. the reviews, than primary sources, i.e. the books themselves.

Two final minor points:

• You probably don't need a reference to each book that's the publisher's page or anything like that, as that tends to clutter the references too much. As long as you use the {{ISBN}} template in the book listing, that should suffice.
• Don't include every book in there: that tends to violate WP:NOTRESUME, and as long as there's an external link to the subject's official website, then the reader can access a full list if they want. My general rule of thumb in a Selected works section is ten items.

Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @SunloungerFrog! This is super helpful. I will make edits based on the WP:NAUTHOR and your suggestions before I try again!

Best wishes! Charlzs (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @SunloungerFrog, I found your prior advice to be very helpful and was hoping that you may lend a hand again. I am trying to make this article more neutral per the last denial and to ensure that it is properly sourced. I already read the linked pages in the denial for explanation and subsequently attempted to adapt the article to those linked pages but am unsure if I did this well. I feel as though it is pretty neutral as of now. However, as I wrote this article, I feel I may just be biased towards my own writing and would love a second opinion. I tried reaching out to the reviewer that denied it for advice but haven't gotten a response. Additionally, I am thinking of removing the visiting professorships and honors/awards sections, as I really cannot find any additional sources other than the slu.edu one, which I think may be a factor in the last denial. If you have any advice or thoughts on this, I would appreciate it very much!

Cheers, Charlzs (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you remove the visiting professorships, and any of the awards that don't themselves have a Wikipedia page? (I haven't looked so don't know which ones that takes in). I always think less is more: really focus on the important stuff, rather than include the majority of his resumé. Then let me know, and I'd be happy to take a look. I must admit I was slightly perplexed by the recent rejection for non-encyclopedic tone, because it looked OK to me.

On a related note, is there a specific reason you're putting it through AfC? That is not mandatory, and you should be able just to publish it yourself. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, great that is what I thought re:visiting professorships as well and will edit as such. Concerning the AfC, I had just been doing it that since I started. So, it is what is familiar to me. Is there a better way to do it? I know the subst:Submit way as well. Best, Charlzs (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, as you have declared a conflict of interest re Isaak Dore, I think that you are required to submit through AfC. But for articles on other subjects, you can just move them to mainspace yourself. No need to use AfC unless you want to. Anyway, I'll take a look at the Dore article when you've made those edits, and then you can try submitting again. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense. I knew that you could submit directly to the mainspace, but I initially thought since I was a beginner it wouldn't allow me to do so until I had sufficient experience. I've edited the article quite a bit in general and removed those visiting professorships and awards/honors that do not have a page themselves. If you have the time to review I would love that. I appreciate how helpful and kind you have been! Have a great weekend, Charlzs (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Good day @SunloungerFrog,

Have you had you a chance to take a glance at the Dore article? Any feedback for me?

Thanks again for all your help, Charlzs (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been taken up with other things. I will try and take a look over the next couple of days. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the heads up! Charlzs (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Tone

Hello @MediaKyle Thanks for the review! I have gone back through looking at the WP:WORDS page to try and remove anything that could have been puffery or not neutral. Could you please direct me to some examples where I can eliminate puffery in this new draft? I figured that you took issue of the portion where I discussed academic reviews of the books, so I put most of my rewording efforts there. Are there other sections where you find it is not neutral, or is the rewording of the academic reviews still not neutral enough? Any help/advice you can offer is greatly appreciated! Best, Charlzs (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)