User talk:KennedyBroseguini

An article you recently created, Bequia English, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~Styyx^Talk? 18:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bequia English, 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!

Artem.G (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KennedyBroseguini. Thank you for your work on Gustavia English. Another editor, Botterweg14, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this article! I'm marking it as reviewed, but this really needs improved sourcing. One essential thing would be to include the publisher and an ISBN or DOI for the Williams source. I was not able to figure out which book with this title was being used, which would be essential for verifying the information. In improving the article, there do seem to be quite a few high quality sources out there including [this https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004188242_005], [this https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/further-studies-in-the-lesserknown-varieties-of-english/english-of-gustavia-st-barthelemy/51D9E53D96B812539896EC74AA9FD6CD], and also [this https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/eww.25.2.04dec] which has some interesting sociolinguistic information.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Botterweg14}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Botterweg14 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, here are some details (This is the source I used and the only one I have access to):

Edited by Jeffrey P. Williams, Texas Tech University, Edgar W. Schneider, Universität Regensburg, Germany, Peter Trudgill, Universitetet i Agder, Norway, Daniel Schreier, Universität Zürich

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Online publication date: May 2015

Print publication year: 2015

Online ISBN: 9781139108652

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108652 KennedyBroseguini (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]