Hello, thank you for reviewing the draft. I’ve now addressed the notability concerns by adding multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of my work, including articles from Variety, Los Angeles Times, France-Amérique, Back Stage West, and Daily News. Several of these are cited with archived scans uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, as some original links are no longer available online due to age. I understand the concerns regarding neutrality and have made sure the tone remains objective and encyclopedic throughout. I welcome any further feedback and am happy to collaborate to ensure the article meets Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your time and consideration. 104.174.118.250 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to share a few concerns that might affect its acceptance:

• It doesn’t currently include any independent, verifiable sources. While several press outlets are named, there are no working links or bibliographic details, and I couldn’t find reliable coverage through web search.
• The writing style feels very smooth and polished, with detailed claims and a promotional tone WP:NOPV, which often suggests possible AI assistance WP:AI.
• Phrases like “recognized for his contributions” and “pioneering innovations” come across as non-neutral, more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article.
• Without solid sourcing, it’s hard to assess notability per WP:N, and if the tone and sourcing aren’t improved, the draft might meet criteria for WP:G11.

Vodnir (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]