Talk:Chronolog

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 30 May 2025 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Climate change

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 29 May 2025 by [[User:|]]. Error: Disclosures that use the |checked= parameter should also use |editedhere=yes for at least one contributor.

Cassiville (talk · contribs)

Context for AFC request

Hello, editors — I'd like to propose that this article draft replace the current redirect for 'Chronolog' in mainspace. Currently, searching 'Chronolog' will redirect you to the article for NBC News. I’d like to propose turning "Chronolog" into a standalone article, as it meets greater notability standards IMO. As I have a COI with Chronolog, I humbly submit it to AFC for other editors' consideration.

Some notes on notability: Chronolog is a widely used citizen science tool that helps document environmental change through timelapse photography. The current redirect refers to an NBC television program from the 1970s that aired for five years. The redirect page itself hasn't seen much traffic since it was created (31 views total since 2023). Meanwhile, the modern Chronolog platform is active across 10 countries, has been featured by NPR, Yahoo News, and PBS, and is listed on U.S. federal agency sites like NPS, USFS, and BLM. Local newspapers in 17 states across the U.S. have also published independent stories about the platform.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Cassiville (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed punctuation during review.

Sorry, moved some references MOS:CITEPUNCT while review is in progress. Then read review panel... No big changes. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nowell Welcome changes. I have been able to accept the draft after the removal of the redirect that stood in its way. I am certain it still needs work, but that is what we accept even imperfect drafts. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We accept even imperfect drafts" - I had noticed that. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left by AfC reviewers

Comment: Thank you for the time you took to give this feedback, Timtrent. As for the note you left on my talk page-I will declare a COI. I consult very part-time with the company, I am not a full employee, and I have NOT been requested or paid to edit wikipedia on their behalf. I hope I am understanding the distinction between WP:COI and WP:PAID correctly... Please correct me if not. (I will add the template for connected contributor to this page and leave the section for review blank). I submitted the article through AFC understanding that this is important information to disclose and that it may be grounds for declining the article. However, I do believe the notability of the subject has been sufficiently proven through sourcing.
Thank you also for your note about sourcing/references. Sentences with more than one reference were typically because there were multiple ideas expressed within the one sentence, for which there were different sources. I have made edits to clarify which points are supported by which references and have deleted superfluous citations. I hope that meets your feedback and expectations. I am grateful for the note and for your time. - Cassiville (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree about WP:CITEKILL. The last sentence has 6 references, which seems too many. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than decline this I will leave you this comment. You have several areas which are prime examples of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.
The difficulty citekill presents us is that we cannot work out which references you will keep at the place they are and which you will repurpose. Once you resolve that then we can review more easily.
A common self made trap is that "more references must be better". That is not the case. We need only sufficient references of excellent quality. Thus if you pare down the 16 you have currently into sufficient excellent ones everyine, including the readers, will be pleased.
While speaking of references, they must pass WP:42. Blogs cannot, press releases cannot, PR material of any sort cannot. Any references that are in those categories must be replaced, please 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]