User talk:Carolina2k22

❧

This is Carolina2k22's talk page, where you can send her 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.

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Carolina2k22. Thank you for your work on Declaration of inconsistency. Another editor, Cloventt, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for the split! Good luck with the GA.

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

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa Thank you for the barnstar! I really appreciate it. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Functional-Structural Plant Models

Hi Carolina2k22,

Thank you for the feedbacks on the article Functional-Structural Plant Models.

Could you please help me understand where more references are needed? I got similar feedback in the former drafts and I have included pertinent references since. But I am sure somewhere something is missing and I would really appreciate if you can help me with that.

Also, chatgpt was used in early stages to make a draft and create the stucture but has been edited manually by different scientists working on this modelling approach. Could you point out where the draft still shows signs of LLM? I tried to remove all vague and unsubstantiated text from former drafts. It would be really of great help if you could point me the sentences that are still not convincing

Thank you a lot! ~2025-42915-50 (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request for Draft:Bedrock Robotics

Hi Carolina2k22 and thank you for reviewing the Draft:Bedrock Robotics! I’ve since pared it back to a much drier, more strictly encyclopedic version. Here’s the diff.

If you’re open to it, I’d really appreciate your take on a few points from an independent reviewer’s perspective:

Notability. With the current sources (primarily Engineering News-Record, TechCrunch, and Forbes + supporting media), does the company now feel clearly notable, or still borderline in your view?
Level of detail. I’ve tried to strike a balance between clarity and restraint. From your perspective, do these still cross into name-dropping, or do they feel reasonable in this context?
- brief founders background to explain early coverage,
- AWS/NVIDIA mentioned only to describe how the system works,
- named contractors to keep operations concrete rather than abstract.
- Also, maybe I deleted something important/interesting in my attempt to dry up the article?
Resubmission. Based on what you see now, does the draft look ready for resubmission, or would you expect further trimming or reframing first?

I completely understand if you don’t have time to respond, but any guidance at all would genuinely help me avoid another misstep. Thank you again for the work you do! I know AfC reviews are rarely easy (especially with COI/paid). Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 17:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Carolina2k22, quick update: I’ve resubmitted Draft:Bedrock Robotics keeping only the most widely covered, independently sourced facts. I’m still finding it hard to judge what might feel promotional versus purely factual to an independent reviewer. So any thoughts on possible adjustments would be very welcome. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 16:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Gunner Elliott

This article does not meet GNG and should not have been moved to mainspace. I have reverted. Giant Snowman 19:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:MS J. A. Mowinckel

Hi Corolina,

Thanks for going through the page. I would appreciate if you can assist in why my article has been rejected. I believe its due to referencing are you able to help in anyway so we can get this approved?

Many Thanks. J.A.MOWINCKEL (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah @J.A.MOWINCKEL, it's mainly due to a mix of notability and referencing. There isn't much of a variety in terms of the source, so it's primarily difficult to prove that this ship is notable (it has to have sources that talk about it in-depth, that are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject; and there often has to be a few of these). Carolina2k22 • (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)