User talk:LaMona/Archives/2016/06
User talk:LaMona/Archive Header/header=Archive for %(monthname)s %(year)d
Procore draft edit
Thank you taking the time to review the Procore draft and for your helpful feedback. I've reworked the structure per your comments, moved the physical plant details to the history section and built out the introduction to do a better job establishing notability up front. I've also added some additional sources. Would you be willing to give the updated draft a glance before I resubmit it? Extraface (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Extraface, this is much improved! I don't know if it passes notability, but the article is definitely well-structured and coherent. If you haven't done so, read the notability guidelines as WP:CORP to see if there is anything you missed. The article should strive to show notability. But I think it is worth resubmitting. LaMona (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey edit
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
12:53:20, 19 May 2016 review of submission by Ex-paparazzi edit
- Ex-paparazzi (talk · contribs)
Dear LaMona, thank you so much for helping me see where more citations are needed. I corrected all the places you marked and also added a few more references in other parts, following the same pattern. Please let me know if any other edits are needed. Thank you for your time and effort. Have a nice day!
- User:Ex-paparazzi - Another thing: you cannot copy text from your sources. The paragraph that begins "More than 300 entries from around the world..." is taken directly from Wallpaper magazine. That is a copyright violation, and could get your article summarily deleted in order to protect Wikipedia. You must reword information so that it isn't copied. Plus, the style of writing of a magazine is not suitable for Wikipedia. Note that you can use a reference more than once if it is the source for information in more than one area of the article. LaMona (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Corrected, thank you! --Ex-paparazzi (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear LaMona, is there anything else I need to do before my article can be approved? Please let me know. Thank you! --Ex-paparazzi (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ex-paparazzi. Yes. The references must actually verify what you say in the article. For example, in the section on the India competition, what I see there is an entry form, but no mention of the winners. The information on the winners has to have come from somewhere that can be verified. This article is overly long for this type of content, and seems to go beyond what the sources say. You must cut it down to just contain verifiable facts. Also, we discourage long quotes, especially those ones that appear to be promotional. The two quotes by Baturina do seem to be promotional. LaMona (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Just letting you know, Alexandra Kaur Bhathal, which you approved via AfC, has been nominated for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
16:50:58, 3 June 2016 review of submission by 8.26.18.68 edit
- 8.26.18.68 (talk · contribs)
Hi LaMona,
I have substantially increased the citations for this article and would like to request a reconsideration.
Patty Walters Draft edit
Hi,
Thank you for reviewing the submitted article on Patty Walters. I went through the article and rephrased some of it as you suggested, however I am not sure why you removed three of the sources in this edit. Per Wikipedia guidelines, all three of the removed sources are considered reliable as they are statements by the subject of the article about himself. With their removal, the article is left without sources verifying Walter's birth name, date of birth, and specific information about his early music education. Though they do not establish Walters' notability, as other sources used as references in the article do, they serve as valid sources. Thank you.
~Peter Dzubay (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- ~Peter Dzubay, you can add those back in, but having multiple references to non-independent sources is not a good idea. If others have not found his early education worthy of attention, then it isn't worthy for WP. You have to consider whether those facts support notability. Where he lived as a child isn't key information unless it has some demonstrable affect on his notability. Otherwise, it's trivia. Also, you have some of these facts cited to rather generic Alternative Press articles that I don't find on the AP site, even though there are many other articles about him. I would suggest looking at the sources you have and deciding what are the key facts that support notability, and removing much of the trivia. Fan magazines like "New Rock Stars" are not considered good sources of information (professional writers? fact checking?). Some sources mainly quote him (see this),- and note that that article sources directly to his own Youtube video (primary source) and that does not support the facts in the Team Rock article (# of viewers). So that's not a good source because they are not doing their homework. You can't source to things he says, and you can't source to sites that are not known for doing quality sources of their own, or that clearly do not do fact-checking. Any sources where reviews are crowd-sourced or done by amateur reviewers are not reliable. You also can't cite a source that doesn't say what you say - for example (and this is why it's a good idea to remove the primary sources), cite #2 does not say that PW is professionally known as Patty Walters. It's just a short article announcing an event that has his name in it. You need a cite that says that his "real" name is X and his stage name is Y. You don't have that. So basically you do not have sources for that information. It would take me hours to check all of the other sources, but having seen that some do not follow the reliable sources guideline I have to say that I'm skeptical about the others. You need to reduce the article to reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft:St.Yesterday edit
Hi LaMona,
Just wanted to discuss the notability of the article Draft:St.Yesterday you had declined, I had refrenced the charts only to confirm that the releases had not peaked in the top 100 and I apologize if it was unecessary- that said, the guitar player mentioned (Mike Turner) and lead singer (Daniel Panetta) are both independently notable along with the producer (Noah Mintz) which falls under criteria #6 in WP:BAND one even so far as winning a Juno (the highest award in Canadian music) although to keep this article independent of the artists individual accomplishments I wanted to focus only on the ensemble and its references.
As it stands I found plenty of additional questionable references related to a national tour with another major label act but nothing solid enough for reference however the group is listed as part of the Wellcraft Records (tenured Canadian indie label) roster along with quite a few large Canadian acts.
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at the article (if you see any improvements that could be made let me know and I'll be happy to make the changes) but I do feel the group definitely qualifies for an article independent of the individuals involved.
Regards JPanic15 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- JPanic15, the entire way that notability is rated at WP is through sources. So regardless of how famous or whatever someone is, there have to be sources in reliable publications that are significantly about them. There has to be a somewhat non-subjective criterion for notability here because we all have different "feels" about topics. If those folks you mention are independently notable, that also must be shown. There is a WP article for Mintz but you've got the wrong Mike Turner and Mike Turner (musician) doesn't look very good as an article, so I'm going to tag it as not having sufficient references. As for your references, Panoram Italia is a local freebie. The Simcoe is just a name-check. The UMM is an interview and interviews do not count toward notability. etc. Your link to allMusic only barely shows that the person exists, but it does not verify the Juno prize -- and even if it said so, AllMusic is crowd-sourced so key data like awards cannot be sourced to it. It would be better to use the Juno site. So you need to take a lot of care with your references. that's what matters. LaMona (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona,
I completely missed that link being the wrong Mike Turner! Totally my mistake haha, what I will do is spend some time cleaning up the musician page for Mr. Turner and add better refs for him and his awards. (At least three Junos w. Our Lady Peace #67 Top Juno Winners plus a few CASBYS and MMVA's). According to their website Panoram Italia covers Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa and their associated readers so I sourced it as per normal publications being as it contained proper curated editorials vs the "community" type magazines that are usually spotty for proper references. UMM is indeed an interview however what was referenced came from the interviewer (specifically blurb at the beginning with the mention of signing with 3PK) not the artist. I'll do some more sourcing but I am trying to keep the articles as independent of one another as possible and as the group doesn't have the tenure of some acts of 10+ years reference quantity can be limited but I'd prefer to have quality anyway.
Given the criteria that is met and the impact that those involved have had on the Canadian music industry would you not deem the article worth writing?
Cheers,
JPanic15 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- JPanic15, the Juno link doesn't say anything about him. You have to have sources that actually say that about him - not that have to be interpreted. And freebie mags aren't generally consider very high up on the citation scale. LaMona (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
LaMona, the Juno link names his project (Our Lady Peace) as having won 4 awards (Billboard even mentions his departure during which they were up for another five Juno nominations). There's no need for the award to mention him directly as his name is synonymous with the group (Amoeba music even heralds Our Lady Peace as one of the most successful bands to come out of Canada) and as per all Juno awards - recipients only receive a single statuette titled with the winning artist/group name. As it stands with his, Daniel Panetta, and Noah Mintz's involvement together in St.Yesterday (including their joining the Wellcraft Records roster with Amy Sky, Bobby Curtola, Tara Oram, and The Good Brothers among many others) it would by definition qualify them as a Canadian super group (see Crash Karma - also with Mike Turner) so at the very least their own article space should be no stretch would you not agree? I don't disagree with the need for additional reliable sources however as each individual's history within Canada is quite substantial would it not be acceptable for the article to be entered as start-class and updated accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPanic15 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the source must mention him directly. If the article were for his band, then your source would be fine, but a person does not inherit notability from their band - they have to have sources that name them to be notable on their own. What you are doing is something we call wp:SYNTH which is that you are synthesizing the information from different sources - e.g. A =B, B=C, thus A=C. We don't allow that. If he isn't notable on his own, he doesn't get an article on his own. LaMona (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
LaMona, I don't believe we're on the same page, I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and wp:SYNTH does not apply here. In Canada winning a Juno while part of a group still constitutes winning a Juno (see photo). You're saying that a three time Juno winner (the highest honor in Canadian music) signed to Sony, eOne, Coalition, and Warner Music (that's four major labels) and founder of one of the most successful bands in Canadian music history does not meet the notability requirements for his own article? JPanic15 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia notability is not a judgment of the notability of the person in "real life" it is an assessment of sources. You must have the sources that support that notability. Surely you can find an article about the person that says "He won 3 Juno awards". Otherwise, you must stick to the facts, which is that his band won three Juno awards, which you can say in the article about him, but you cannot say that he (individually) won the awards. You cannot assume inheritance from the band to him as an individual. If his band is signed to labels, then you can say that the band he is in is signed to labels. You are still lacking evidence of individual notability. wp:MUSICBIO says: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." That's what you have to demonstrate with your sources. Emphasize his solo work and show it in the sources. LaMona (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
03:30:16, 6 June 2016 review of submission by Round4figure edit
- Round4figure (talk · contribs)
Dear LaMona,
Could you please review and re-edit the latest revision of the Burnaby Lake Club draft? I would like to re-submit it again for publication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Burnaby_Lake_Rowing_Club
I expanded the history section and provided additional references. I also added the club logo. However, the image cannot be used because is not referenced in any existing Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burnaby_Lake_Rowing_Club_Logo.svg
The main issue with the previous revisions of the article was that there were only "two references about the club and they are both in sources that are only local." I added references that are not local, for example, the Life magazine.
I researched other Wikipedia articles about rowing clubs around the world. Interestingly, there are 118 pages (articles) about specific rowing clubs in England (I can provide the list). This is a partial count because it only includes the clubs on the river Thames and Cambridge clubs. On the other hand, there are only 10 articles about Canadian rowing clubs in the category Rowing clubs in Canada. Why aren't Canadian rowing clubs distinct, while English ones are?
Thank you,
Round4figure
- User:Round4figure First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, Wikipedia is, and will always be, incomplete. The articles that are here are ones that people have voluntarily created. So if there aren't many articles in your area, it just means they need to be created. I looked at some articles for British clubs and they have quite a bit of history to draw on, a disadvantage for us new-worlders. To use images you need to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons first. That's explained here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Uploading_images. Logos are usually held under copyright, even if no one pays much attention to that, so your usage of it would have to come under "fair use/fair dealing", and you should give that in the area where they ask for a license. Do not list it as "own work" unless you actually created the logo and hold the rights in it. I'm a bit confused about the list of rowers in the Olympics - these are folks who row with the club, but were on the Canadian Olympic team? It would be good to clarify that. I suspect that while this is kudos for the club, it does not inherit the "Olympic fame" from its members directly, so that's interesting information but may not support notability. (Being an Olympian I believe is automatic notability.) You should resubmit and see what happens. LaMona (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
21:08:46, 6 June 2016 review of submission by 108.39.238.28 edit
I was wondering if there were particular sections of information that did not cite reliable sources.
I see 3 citation needed occurrences in the draft page itself - 2 for the universities that he went to (those were just being linked to Wikipedia since that seems to be the thing to do for organizations/locations referenced in other articles.) If the wikipedia links are removed, does that resolve the need for the citations? I'm not terribly certain how to get a citation for a university degree that would be considered valid.
The 3rd citation needed occurrence is one I understand - the claim needs validated so we can get some additional information to bolster it.
Thank you for any information.
- All facts must be verifiable, from what school he graduated from to the awards and honors. Nothing should be in the article that is not referenced to a third-party source. It's not only "how do we know it is true" but also "where did the editor get it from?" Using information from your own knowledge is not permitted. All information must come from third-party sources. LaMona (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
13:24:32, 6 June 2016 review of submission by Laura at Merrithew edit
Hello, thanks so much for taking the time to review this entry. I modeled the text on the entries of other companies, such as GE and The Coca-Cola Company—could you please expand on what you mean by "nothing encyclopedic about it"? Are you referring to style, or to content?
Also, in line with a previous editor's comments, I slimmed down the reference list (the comment was that there were too many), and I've included information from third party sources including Bloomberg, several well-known industry magazines and the official patents databases for the U.S. and Canada. I'm not sure if I should return to including more references?
Any further information you could provide on how I can improve this entry would be very much appreciated!
Thanks in advance for your time.
- User:Laura at Merrithew. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, from your username it is pretty obvious that you have a conflict of interest. There is a message about that on your user page. We take it very seriously that those working on WP are here to create a better encyclopedia of knowledge, not to use WP to promote a company or person. You are clearly here to create an article for Merrithew, which is not entirely forbidden but you must follow the guidelines for paid editors. (WP:PAID). Next, to be in Wikipedia companies must meet the requirements for notability at WP:CORP. This includes "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Companies like GE that have had a major impact on history and science are obviously encyclopedic. An average company that has done nothing more than be a company, not so. LaMona (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:LaMona Thanks for your response. I know I have a conflict of interest, and I haven't tried to hide that I work for the company. As per guidelines, I've listed my position with the company on my user page. Since this is my first time really using Wikipedia, there are many things that I'm learning along the way, so I appreciate your advice. I'll review the guidelines for paid editors and take the appropriate actions. I also changed the language of the entry to more accurately reflect what would be found in an encyclopedia, following a previous editor's advice.
I understand that average companies do not encyclopedia entries make. But this company founded Stott Pilates (which has its own Wikipedia page, and each of the founders have their own Wikipedia pages), which has been hugely influential in the health and fitness world. I hope that any issues concerning my conflict of interest don't obscure the accomplishments that this company has achieved. Given this, do you have any advice for additional references or information that I can provide that could show that this company is worthy of a Wikipedia entry? Thanks again for your help! Laura at Merrithew (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Laura at Merrithew, have you made your COI/paid editing declaration, as required by the policies? As for the article, everything here is based on sources, so you need to find third-party, reliable sources that are substantially about the company and that show its importance. LaMona (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Martha Hunta (talk · contribs)
Martha Hunta (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear LaMona
Thank you so much for your time in reviewing the article created for Claude Wilfrid ('Willy') Etoka. I really appreciate your feedback comments and thank you for amending the links to exclude google translate - I wasn't too sure when I was submitting it!!
Please could you let me know where I should remove / delete regarding the companies which is not relevant, I would be grateful to have your feedback so I know exactly which parts I should remove to have this accepted!
Thank you and best regards Martha Hunta (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Martha Hunta - I removed the paragraphs that I thought were not directly about him. If I got that wrong, you can add data back in. If it looks ok to you, just re-submit. LaMona (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Martha Hunta (talk · contribs)
Martha Hunta (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you LaMona for your help! Your version was also consistent with my separate edits in removing the company information - so it was definitely useful to use your copy as a check and reference point. I have resubmitted your version. Fingers crossed it will be accepted! Many thanks for your help and guidance
Martha Hunta (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 8 June edit
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Draft:Claude Wilfrid ('Willy') Etoka page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Submission article Rayco Garcia edit
Dear Lamona, My article Rayco Garcia was rejected, I am a new user i have tried to use the guide for reference but it still complicated for me to understand, The references i have added came from very reliable sources such as famous newspapers and official sports website. Could you please tell me what is wrong is it only the references ? did i not add them correctly ? Please help me to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nora sankour (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nora sankour - there are a number of things. First, look at your references - do they look correct? There are three duplicated lists, so you have that wrong. Next, the references are not linked in the main article. See your reference #1 for how a correct in-line reference looks. Next, you have statements like "one of the most influential" which may not be supported by references. To say that, you must have a reference that actually says that, and then you can say "is considered by some to be one of the most influential"... This is because Wikipedia only accepts facts, and "most influential" is a judgment, not a fact. LaMona (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
08:52:04, 9 June 2016 review of submission by Mudheno edit
Hi LaMona. Thanks for reviewing Ginislao Paris draft. I have made the suggested changes, please have a look when you have a chance. Thanks Mudheno (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)]
- Mudheno, you should re-submit the draft. There may be other issues, and other reviewers will look at it. LaMona (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done that. Hope it will make it this time :)Mudheno —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft for James E. Daniel, III edit
Did you get my question?Gmdaniel04 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft for James E. Daniel, III edit
LaMona,
I was confused about what was incorrect with the article I submitted. Can you provide me with what needs to be updated so that I can resubmit.
I did have numerous reliable sources and references. And the person is notable in sports based on the wiki guidelines.
Please help.
v/r
Gloria
Gmdaniel04 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
James E. Daniel, III edit
Good Morning LaMona,
I received a submission back from you on a page I created for James E. Daniel, III (college athlete who is notable based on the wiki criteria). Unfortunately I did not receive clear cut direction as to what was wrong with the article. I did get online with wiki help and was told to reach back out to you for a more clear diection. Was there a problem with the format? The other editor indicated that they did not see why it was sent back.
Please assit. Gmdaniel04 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Gmdaniel04 - I commented on the formatting, which needs to be fixed. Please follow the manual of style. In particular, do not use bolding in headings, and use bold only for the name of the subject in the first line. Also, only use as references those sources that support the facts of the article. The reference to Langley does not support that he was born there. If you do not have a reference for that fact, you should remove the sentence from the article. LaMona (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
My article you reviewed - Bobby Lalonde (musician). edit
Hi LaMona, thank you for the review. I have reviewed your comments and I believe I have made the appropriate changes. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a second look to see how I've done. I'm new to the wiki world... any comments or criticisms would be appreciated. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonlalonde1234 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
21:52:06, 9 June 2016 review of submission by 99.245.112.171 edit
This article is meant for information about a new company, not to advertise. There are many pages on Wikipedia about brands of alcohol manufacturers such as... Smirnoff, Bacardi and Jack Daniel's.
- Those pages are about the companies, even though they do include the products. But they show what is encyclopedic about the companies - for example the history of the Bacardi company. Your article is about the product and how good it is, and many of your sources are "advertorials". You also WP:REFBOMB by including too many references for single facts. You should use one, maybe two, references per fact. Otherwise, the article is deemed to be pushing a promotional tone. You cannot use linkedin or Wikipedia as sources, and the Guiness book of records is a promotional stunt, so that doesn't make the brand notable. You need to look for serious writing about the company. LaMona (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
My Article Re submitted edit
Hi LaMona I resubmit the article Draft:S. M. Joe Simon after considering your objection. Now you can go through it and let me know whether it is fit for Wikipedia or not.--స్వరలాసిక/Svaralaasika 03:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
08:17:39, 10 June 2016 review of submission by Vdgvince edit
Dear LaMona,
thanks for reviewing our page. We noticed you declined it and i fully respect your decision of course. However, could you be more precise about what were the main factors of your decision? We have a decent independant press coverage and try to stay as neutral as possible, but we are still pretty much newbie on wikipedia writing. Any tips are more than welcome.
thank you, vincent
- Companies must meet the notability requirements at wp:corp, which generally states: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Just being a company is not enough - it has to have something about it that is encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
An espresso! edit
|
Thanks for you quick attention and helpful suggestions! (I wanted to send you a piece of Italian Renaissance art but I couldn't figure out how...) Alfhild-anthro (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article. I am going to work on it more, then resubmit it. A quick question - the subject of my article is a CBE, which is awarded by the UK monarchy. Is this not significant enough to be deemed notable? Or is it the reference I've used to back it up that isn't strong enough?
Any feedback is much appreciated.
Thank you again.
TreacleTurtle (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Last time I looked, CBE's are hundreds per year. So it helps, but it isn't enough that other sources are not needed. You still need multiple sources that are substantially about him and that come from reliable published sources. There isn't much here about Andrew Cook, and some of your sources do not meet wp:rs - e.g. youtube, his own book (by him, not about him) and wikipedia (which can never be used as a reference). Mentions of him in articles about the company are weak sources. LaMona (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I can understand how a few of the resources are from "gossip" and "fan magazines" (though I'm not sure if any really were fan mags), but most are biographies from places she's worked in the past or interviews with the subject herself, which seems like pretty relevant information about, say, her personal life (a matter only she would fully be able to give information on). I apologize for the sources that were merely gossip articles, as it was an oversight on my part to merely source some of the freshly translated elements of the new article with the sources presented on the original, French article without regard to those sources' natures —— nevertheless, I feel like her somewhat grassroots journalistic career at a major French media outlet and her married status to a prominent director warrants the inclusion of an article for Céline Bosquet on the English Wikipedia, and that most of the specifically cited sources (even some of them whose homepages/publishers would otherwise be regarded as gossipy) effectively and objectively reflected those noteworthy aspects of her life either in an objective biographical context or via a first-hand interview with Bosquet herself.
If you could help me find sources that better fit the criteria needed for the article's acceptance into the encyclopedia, I would be very grateful. I again apologize for the few oversights on my part as the translator of the article, and I would like to collaborate as much as possible with you – the article's reviewer – to improve the quality of the article before it is published. Perhaps you could better explain what you mean by "serious reviews of her work", as the term "review" seems to imply a subjectivity that seems to betray the modifying adjective, "serious". I think the original article included some awards, however, so perhaps you want me to include those in order to show noteworthiness.
Please write back with more information as to how I can improve this article's quality. Crossark (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Crossark (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Crossark The basic criteria for notability on @en WP is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:N Biographies from places she has worked are not independent sources and therefore do not support notability. The same is true with interviews - those are her speaking about herself. Also see WP:BLP for guidelines for living persons. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers for people in the entertainment area. You need articles in reliable sources (newspapers, serious magazines) that are about her. If those do not exist, then she does not meet the criteria for an article in WP at this time. A serious review of her work would be a review in a standard newspaper that also covers the arts. Here in the US a review in the New York Times is a serious review. Awards do help, especially if they are well-known awards like Emmys. Note that being married to a prominent person is not a route to notability - see wp:NOTINHERITED. LaMona (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 12 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aileen Ward, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Newark and Radcliffe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
12:26:55, 9 June 2016 review of submission by Flashpepi edit
Hi LaMona,
thank you for taking the time to look at my submission.
As a newcomer I am confused. Is it only the 'Life' section that needs extra work? If so can you give me an example of references I have not put in or, could you indicate if I was to remove everything without footnotes, in the life section, would the article still be viable?
Do I have to give a reference to that fact he is the youngest of five children? That he has served in various units of the British Army? That he studied under various other sculptors? That he was enrolled in various teaching institutions? I was only trying to give a bit of background information and, unfortunately, it would be impossible to find solid references for some of this general information. The only reference would be Clark's autobiography but I understand you cannot use them.
Clark has contributed to many major monumental works in Victoria, New South wales and the Australian Parliament House (the last collection is being catalogued but there has been no indication from the curator how long that will take but I did find some information on "Monument to a Hero II). These works depict famous explorers, war memorials and politicians all sited in prominent parks and gardens.. It would be sad if information about the artists who created these works was not promoted in a manner easily accessible to the public.
Kind Regards,
John Flashpepi (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Flashpepi (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Flashpepi - the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect information that has been found worthy of report by other media - newspapers, journals, magazines, and film. If others have not reported on a subject, then it must wait until they have before there can be a Wikipedia article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable by the readers. How do you know that he is the youngest of five children? Where does that information come from? And even more importantly, is this fact needed in an encyclopedia article? If it doesn't appear in reliable sources, you can assume that it isn't part of his notability, and that information should be left out of the WP article until it does appear elsewhere. Remember that a WP article is never "finished" so you can continue adding information as sources become available. LaMona (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks LaMona. I have deleted the 'Life' section and if anything comes up to substantiate the original document I will add it later. Could you please have another look and give me your thoughts,
Kind Regards,
John Flashpepi (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Flashpepi (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Flashpepi, if you have made substantial changes, please resubmit. Most likely another reviewer will catch it this time. LaMona (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Will do, Thanks for your help LaMona. Flashpepi (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Pedro Joia edit
- Hi, User:LaMona!
Thank you for your time in taking a look at the article I submitted about the Portuguese guitar player Pedro Jóia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Pedro_J%C3%B3ia&action=submit. As a new contributor to Wikipedia, I am still learning the ropes. I have added many references to substantiate the article, I hope this works! Kind regards, John JohnHagie (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- JohnHagie, you have uploaded a photo that looks to be professionally shot, but you list it as "own work" - that would mean that you are claiming to be the photographer. Is that the case? If not, you need to remove the photo unless the photographer has explicitly placed it in the public domain. One of the criteria for musicians is to be released on major labels. You need to include the labels his albums were released on. That information is also needed to fully identify the recordings. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Karen_Civil edit
Hi LaMona, The resource for the draft has been added. Please review.
09:58:09, 13 June 2016 review of submission by 62.46.195.90 edit
- 62.46.195.90 (talk · contribs)
Dear Reviewer, We believe that the references provided are both substantial and reliable. We cite a number of sources, including the New Yorker, New York Times, and numerous other media publications. Given Kilian Kleinschmidt's status as one of the foremost experts on international relief today, I believe that a submission on him is necessary. If there is a way to communicate exactly which parts of the submission do not meet the requirements for an entry, I would greatly appreciate it.
- Four of your 6 sources are not reliable and must be removed. You cannot use linkedIn, his publisher, nor his own organization as references.(*) Assuming that he is notable, you will be able to find other sources. There must be verifiable sources for all content in the article. (*)Note, for non-controversial facts, non-independent sources may be used but it is discouraged. LinkedIn can never be used. LaMona (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Gregorio re-edited 13. June 2016 edit
Dear LaMona,
thanks for reviewing my article. I think, external references are difficult for a software article which's main topic is the history and features of the software - which are described on the project's own website, of course. Compare the LilyPond article: Just 5 external refs out of 24 (I had 5/15).
Nevertheless I have extended the list of projects using this software to proof the notability. Now there are 10 external refs out of 20. Believe me: It is the standard in its niche.
Could you review the article again? Thanks in advance. --Johannes Arnold (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Johannes Arnold - resubmit and it goes back into the queue for review. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Was already done... --Johannes Arnold (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
20:49:23, 13 June 2016 review of submission by Joe F Lunghi edit
- Joe F Lunghi (talk · contribs)
Hi, I'm requesting a reconsideration as there are numerous less notable bands with validated Wikipedia entries, I plucked a band at random, Grotesque (band), which has two references only, a Blabbermouth article and a mention of the band in a book, my proposed article on Righteous Pigs also has a Blabbermouth reference and a mention of the band in a book, as well as two e-zine articles (and other less verfiable ones, such as discogs etc.) I am struggling to find other links due to the band being defunct for so long and due to their underground nature, they are one of a few of many Nuclear Blast artists (or former artists) without a Wikipedia entry, despite being a notable act, not least due to the connection with Napalm Death and the Manson Family murderer Susan Atkins, I appeal to you to look into reconsidering if only because of the precedence of much less notable acts, with scant references already having a Wikipedia presence. I've been involved in extreme music over twenty five years and I'm surprised this band have no presence on Wikipedia - I presume this is due to scant in the way of references as they were notable and sold many (in relative terms) units, please let me know what you think? Would Terrorrizer, Kerrang! etc. (print only versions) mentioning the band be acceptable? Thanks for your time, Joe
- User:Joe F Lunghi, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, it really doesn't matter what other articles there are in Wikipedia - Wikipedia is full of incomplete and down-right bad articles, and that doesn't mean we should create more like them. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted for not meeting notability. The purpose of AfC is to get an article on solid footing before moving it to main space, with the hope that it will not be subjected to a delete challenge (called AfD - Articles for Deletion). As the writer of the article, your job is to find sources. It can be difficult, there's no doubt. You do, however, need to delete the references to Discogs, which has been determined by the music project to NOT be a referenceable source, and the reference to @de wikipedia. When the article goes to main space you will link to @de wikipedia through the language links in the left-hand column of the page. We can check the other sources to see if they are considered reliable. There is a reliable sources board that discusses sources, which is where I learned the status of discogs. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Metal-archives is considered a good source. If you remove the bad sources, what remains may be enough to pass notability. But the bad sources do have to be removed. LaMona (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
00:25:46, 14 June 2016 review of submission by 162.245.21.61 edit
Looking for guidance on the references that you deleted from this post. The references that were removed were not included to establish notability, but simply to list the lenders who offer their services through the Credible platform. These references were included as primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."[1]
Since the company's notability is established by numerous, reliable third-party sources elsewhere in the article (NBC Nightly News, Tech Crunch, Inc, re/code) [2] [3] [4] [5] it seems that these primary sources [6] [7] [8] should be permitted.
"Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." [9]
Thanks!
162.245.21.61 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I removed those sources because they were promotional and supported promotional content. If one needs a primary source to confirm a date or a location, neutral facts, then they may be used. But links to products are not. Also, listing sources that have mentioned the company is also considered promotional. Rather than saying "A, B, C have written about the company" you should use the content of those articles to add to the article, then cite them as references. LaMona (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
- ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/startup-promises-to-lower-student-loans-saving-thousands-666283587746/
- ^ http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/28/with-500k-in-the-bank-credible-launches-a-kayak-style-marketplace-to-simplify-student-loan-refinancing/
- ^ http://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/credible-scoops-up-10-million-from-lendingclub-co-founder.html
- ^ http://recode.net/2015/09/30/credible-raises-10-million-as-silicon-valley-sets-its-eyes-on-student-lending/
- ^ https://www.credible.com/refinance-student-loans/
- ^ https://www.credible.com/student-loans/
- ^ https://www.credible.com/personal-loan/
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independence_of_sources
Hi Lamona,
Thanks for taking the time to review the page. If I could ask a little more of you, would you be able to provide a little more detail on what you've found lacking about the page?
I've taken for reference associations and groups of a similar nature and reviewed their apparently approved pages on Wikipedia.
For example: - The British Orthopaedic Association (BOA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Orthopaedic_Association - The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Orthopaedic_Surgeons - The Indian Orthoapedic Association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Orthopaedic_Association - The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSE): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College_of_Surgeons_of_Edinburgh - The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College_of_Surgeons_of_England
These pages, for associations of a similar nature and scope as the Australian Orthopaedic Association, are far less extensively referenced than the page I've submitted for approval, yet seem to have been published with little objection.
Perhaps these pages are due for revision, but if that's the case I'm left with little point of reference for establishing a page that matches the tone and scope of those on similar subjects.
If you could outline at least a few particulars relating to the objections you've raised to the page in question, I'd be most grateful.
Kind regards, Katsch22 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Katsch22
Katsch22 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Katsch22 - do not look at existing WP articles for guidance - there are many that are not good quality, and that have been added without going through review. Your point of reference are the policies, some of which are listed in the AfC templates. The problem with your article is that it has few independent sources, and too much is referenced directly to the association's own content. Sometimes removing primary content actually makes an article better. Many people create articles backward - they have content they want to present, then they look for sources. In fact, writing an article should begin with the gathering of third-party, independent, quality sources; then the article should be written using the information in those sources. Pretend that you knew nothing about the subject until you began doing research - what you find in sources will tell you what is encyclopedic about the subject. LaMona (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
10:27:09, 14 June 2016 review of submission by Outside2016 edit
- Outside2016 (talk · contribs)
Could you please advise why I could not use the hotel website as the references while other hotels could use that?
but if you would recommend other website are more trustworthy so I would revise my article accordingly.
Thank you for your time for reviewing my article. Outside2016 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Outside2016, the policies on both notability and reliable sources state that sources must be independent of the subject of the article. WP is not interested in what a subject says about itself, but what (reliable) others say about it. Primary sources (e.g. the hotel's web site) may be used for minor facts, but only after secondary sources have established notability. As the writer of the article, you must find those secondary sources. An article that leans too much on primary sources can be deleted from Wikipedia, and hundreds of articles are deleted each day. LaMona (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
12:03 14 June 2016 review of submission by JohnHagie edit
Hi LaMona, Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I feel that I am inching forward towards approval for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pedro_J%C3%B3ia ! With now 30 references for 262 words, I honestly feel that the notability of the Portuguese guitar player Pedro Jóia is established. If not, it is my submission, not Pedro's notoriety in cause, as he is very well known in classical, flamenco and fado circles in Portugal and abroad. Thank you for your help. JohnHagie (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- JohnHagie, I, too, think that Joia is probably notable as a musician. The question here is entirely about the expression of that in the Wikipedia article. First, you must not use sales sites as references (as on his recordings), and Discogs is not a reliable source. For his recordings, please include a full citation including the label on which he recorded. (Looking at WP:MUSICIAN, labels are important criteria.) To reference them, ideally you would find reviews of the albums. Otherwise, leave them unreferenced. You should avoid using more than one (maybe two is ok) reference on a single fact. Where you have major sources, do not also include minor ones (like performance announcements). It is the quality of citations, not the quantity, that counts. The photograph you use is one that he has used professionally. You list it on Commons as "own work" which would mean that you are the photographer and that you are placing the photo in the public domain. If you are not the photographer, then the photo rights are held by someone else and you are violating that person's copyright by using the photo on Wikipedia, so remove it. All in all, this article needs mainly tweaks, and I think you are on the right road - Wikipedia's requirements are particular, but we can get you there. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
07:04:11, 14 June 2016 review of submission by PiggyPinata edit
- PiggyPinata (talk · contribs)
Hi, I'm not sure whether this would qualify as a neologism considering it is quite a popular term used in several discussions on privacy issues regarding data usage. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2016/03/16/why-data-minimization-is-an-important-concept-in-the-age-of-big-data/#6fbe7485327f is one of the news articles that does detail the importance of the concept. Do let me know how I can improve this article, quite new to Wiki! Thanks a ton and really appreciate the feedback.
Other links that could be considered as valid news pieces perhaps - https://www.insideprivacy.com/tag/data-minimization/ https://iapp.org/news/a/can-data-minimization-be-the-answer-in-the-internet-of-things/
- User:PiggyPinata, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, the first thing you need to do is follow the WP manual of style. You need to style your headings and the remainder of the article. Next, you need to show that the concept is wide-spread. Unpublished works (the Colonna piece) do not show that. To show that it is, I would look for articles in publications like the ACM, IEEE, and other reliable sources in the area of computing, as well as addition news sources. Your FTC paper link gives a 404. I do not doubt that the concept is valid, but you need to show it conclusively. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
05:17:58, 14 June 2016 review of submission by Peter O'Brien1984 edit
Hello,
I have researched a few other Romanian company Wikipedia pages and instead of having external sources they have their own website as a source. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Drinks_%26_Foods; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romstal and I can go on and on. The company I have written about has 3 external sources. Would you be able to elaborate a bit on why my sources are not reliable? Or if there is anything I should leave out that would make the article passable.
Kind regards, Pete
- User:Peter O'Brien1984, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, do not look at existing WP articles for guidance - there are many that are not good quality, and that have been added without going through review. Eventually they will be deleted for not meeting the notability criteria. Note the box at the top of the second one - that is step one toward the deletion process. Rather than look at existing articles, read wp:corp carefully and do what you can to follow the criteria there. Note that the policy begins with: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Just being a company is not enough, and WP is not a business directory -- there must be something encyclopedic to report. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Review of Submission by BlackDogg1169 edit
Hi LaMona,
I submitted a page regarding politician Bud Pierce. I was rejected again and I am trying to see why. He won his first election to be the primary candidate in the governor's race in Oregon. He has had significant coverage by news media including newspapers, tv, radio etc. and is even getting on some national news.
The criteria for politicians being notable includes "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." I have 3rd party sources for 8 out of 11 of the citations. For example one of his former opponents has a Wiki page and he hasn't won a general election either and an roughly equal portion of his sourcing is from his website or closely linked sources. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Alley
Is it that I haven't put in enough third party sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Dogg1169 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Black Dogg1169, there are noticeable differences between Alley and Pierce - Alley has held federal positions, for example. Pierce, other than running for office, has little in his bio that sets him apart. You also have at least 5 references that are not suitable sources: 4 from his campaign site and material (6, 7, 10, 11); his office page (8), and his statement regarding the bill (9), which is by him, not about him. So you do not have 3rd party sources for 8 out of 11 citations, and you need to have 3rd party sources for all of your citations. You especially should not be sourcing to his campaign. LaMona (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Review of Submission by Philbutler edit
Hi LaMona,
I saw your comments on my submission of SnapShot, GmbH, and I see what you mean. As you probably noticed, it is only my second creation, please bear with me wile I figure a "BUNCH" of stuff out. I will work on the tone and the references now. Philbutler (talk) Whew, a lot left to learn. Thanks for all you do. —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Review of Submission by UserSCL1958 edit
Thank you for the review of this first submission and for your feedback. Clearly referencing to the CDs or to Amazon/other sales sites is not acceptable, per your comment. Can I check whether the following sites or magazines are all acceptable to Wikipedia: the Gramophone, the BBC, www.musicweb-international.com? I will then repair as necessary and resubmit using these, as there is no single website listing all the works. I will omit any works not mentioned in these reviews.UserSCL1958 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- UserSCL1958, the criteria for reliable sources are at: wp:rs. (Scroll to the bottom for some helpful essays.) Some sources have been discussed by the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, and you can search for them on that page. But in most cases you have to decide based on the criteria. LaMona (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Amendments made: Is the article now suitable for re-submission? edit
I have, as you suggested, reduced the reliance on the News Shopper as the source of so many of the references and introduced other sources.
I have also improved on the details of the subject's position within the wider Folk community. With these changes made, in your experience, is this article now ready to resubmit or are there other changes you might recommend before it could be published?
Thanks. CPBearfoot (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- CPBearfoot, you still have many links to the Morris site (which is a primary, not a secondary source). ProperMusic bills itself as a sales site, thus isn't appropriate (we don't do sales on Wikipedia). You have an entire section (style of dance) that is unreferenced. And you really shouldn't be using the news shopper at all. The article must be built from information found in reliable third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. It is better to reduce the article than to use unreliable sources. No un-referenced material is allowed. LaMona (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you for the feedback LaMona. I can remove the 'style of dance' section - it was there to add meat to the bones rather than anything else. Similarly for the subject's music CD, although tracks from this have been played recently on BBC Radio Kent so maybe I should use this instead?
Three of the references to the Morris Ring (rather than the Ravensbourne) website are grouped together purely because of the way that the Elected Officers are listed there. Admittedly it is clumsy but the only way I could think to support the notability claim which is quite an important one within the context of the folk movement. I am a little confused as to the problem with the News Shopper. It is an ABC verified newspaper that covers a sizeable part of London and I thought that regional newspapers were allowed. Again, your assistance is much appreciated by this novice. CPBearfoot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Shopper is a freebie - freebies are not known for the informational or editorial content. It is really an advert paper. We're looking for the kinds of papers that The Times would quote. Having been played on the radio is not one of the criteria for notability. If no one who has written about the group has deemed to write the "claim which is quite important" then it's not important enough for Wikipedia. The article must be written based on what other sources have decided is important. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you! edit
|
|
I am grateful for the time and effort you have taken to review my submission. Thanks a ton! Amgodbole (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC) |
Draft: Abt Associates edit
Hi LaMona,
My submission has been declined a number of times, so I'm trying to get a better idea of what I need to do to make it acceptable. You mentioned that it does not pass notability -- do we need more outside references? Any guidance would be helpful! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciaj102 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not all companies meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. This one may not. The article only shows "business as usual" which doesn't make this company stand out as having special qualities; acquisitions alone don't make a company notable. There are not many strong references. You may find more information later.
The draft will remain for at least six months without changes, and you will be warned before it is deleted. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Phoenix Country Club edit
Hello LaMona,
I have resubmitted my article for creation Phoenix Country Club. I have added additional sources that I sincerely hope will meet your standards. As you should notice, a great deal of work has gone into the article and as I'm sure you can see (all previous source insufficiencies aside) the topic of the article in question is indeed notable since its original architect (Lescher & Mahoney), landscape architect (Lloyd Wright), and nineteen members of the club already warrant wikipedia articles, and it was the original host of the world famous and wikipedia articled Phoenix Open. I implore you not to deny this article again.
Thanks,
Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Ditat Deus
AfC reviewer thanks edit
Hi - I just wanted to say I really appreciate your excellent work reviewing janstrugnell's and my recent AfC drafts. I'm relatively new to writing biographies, so your feedback has been very helpful. So that you know that we're not ignoring your reccommendations, I'm saving up all non-acccepted drafts to fix up all together (e.g. adding key-publication bibliographies).
Thank you again for the good work in looking through them. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo), you are welcome, and thanks for adding more women scientists to WP. Some of them simply may not have yet achieved notability, by WP's guidelines for academics. In that case, their articles can be submitted when they do. For academics to reach the "top of their field" often takes some time, so you might concentrate first on the "elders" within your area of interest. It's rather sad when the first article is done from obits :(. LaMona (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
10:25:44, 9 June 2016 review of submission by Artemu4g edit
Dear LaMona, Thank you for reviewing my article about Anthony Melikhov. Unfortunately it has been rejected.
I’m also a new user at WP. I have tried to use all necessary wiki guides to create this article.
I’ve added all main references which came from reliable sources (newspapers, official websites).
LaMona, could you help me with this article ? What can I improve, rewrite in it?
Thank you very much in advance.
- I gave you this information: "Article must be specifically and only about the person. Use neutral language. Do not include lists of recipients - WP is not a random collection of lists." That means write about the person more than about the organizations. Use references that are substantially about the person. Do not include long lists; those are not good for reading, and don't give much information. Lists can be instead on an organization's web page. LaMona (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for quick reply LaMona. I will rewrite article from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemu4g (talk • contribs) 12:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona, I've edited article could you please check it again ? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemu4g (talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
18:21:26, 17 June 2016 review of submission by Neutral Milk Motel edit
Hello LaMona! I just had a quick question. On my submission of CoverHound- was it more of an issue of references? Or on notability via the content?
Thanks! Neutral Milk Motel (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Milk Motel, the company has to be notable, and the sources have to show it. If the company is just an average company, there's not much you can do. WP isn't a directory of companies, although many company pages have been added that shouldn't have. LaMona (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft:William_B.Taylor_(historian) edit
This article is clearly notable as the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC with flying colors - his named professorships and achievement awards are more than enough to assert notability. Please let Amuseclio (who is a highly competent editor who is well able to assess the notability of historical topics) create her articles. See also the following sources: [1][2]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that the person passes wp:academic. However, we still don't allow unreferenced statements in blps. Notability and sufficient referencing are separate but equal requirements. Note that I'm not stopping anyone from creating articles - if the person is experienced they can create their articles directly in main space. AfC is not for the purpose of blocking articles but for getting them into good shape, meeting WP criteria. Pass it along if you wish, but it will get tagged as lacking sufficient references. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are literally tens of thousands of BLPs that are less well sourced than that article. And the reason you gave for your decline was lack of notability, not lack of sources. Also note that BLP does not require inline sources for every piece of information - only quotations and that which is "challenged or likely to be challenged" or "contentious".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And note that the AfC templates are very limited in number, and often none of them actually meets the situation. That is why we have an area for comments. So unfortunately the only BLP-related one (and there isn't an academic-related one) says that it does not yet show that the person is notable. There is one for "not properly referenced" but the messages on that one are even less helpful. So we work with what we have, and I know that it can be confusing to the recipients. I would like for the templates to be better. Folks can always go to the talk page and ask for clarification. Those are the tools we have at the moment. LaMona (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are literally tens of thousands of BLPs that are less well sourced than that article. And the reason you gave for your decline was lack of notability, not lack of sources. Also note that BLP does not require inline sources for every piece of information - only quotations and that which is "challenged or likely to be challenged" or "contentious".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that the person passes wp:academic. However, we still don't allow unreferenced statements in blps. Notability and sufficient referencing are separate but equal requirements. Note that I'm not stopping anyone from creating articles - if the person is experienced they can create their articles directly in main space. AfC is not for the purpose of blocking articles but for getting them into good shape, meeting WP criteria. Pass it along if you wish, but it will get tagged as lacking sufficient references. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
10:01:21, 19 June 2016 review of submission by 89.8.23.101 edit
- 89.8.23.101 (talk · contribs)
If You see any language errors You can correct them.
11:44:04, 19 June 2016 review of submission by 203.106.156.98 edit
Can you explain why articles on these four movies - "Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Couetesan (1972)", "Furious Slaughter (1972)", "Fist of Fury (1991)", and "Insomnia Lover (2016)" - can be accepted to be published in Wikipedia? These articles have more or less the same source references as "Ma Su Chen (1972)". "Furious Slaughter (1972)" originally has fewer information and no source reference. Links:- 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_Confessions_of_a_Chinese_Courtesan 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furious_Slaughter 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fist_of_Fury_1991 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insomnia_Lover
- There are many articles in WP that did not go through AfC, which is a fairly recent addition. It is also possible today for seasoned users to create articles directly in WP main space. Just because an article is there does not mean that it is a good article. Rather than look at other articles, you should be looking at the criteria for notability, and in particular the criteria for films. Adding more less-than-ideal articles to WP does not benefit anyone, and I assume that you are committed to the concepts of quality information that guide this encyclopedia. Note that each day hundreds of articles are deleted for not meeting the quality criteria. If you don't want that to happen to the article you are working on, you should continue working on it until it is out of that kind of danger. BTW, I've just marked those articles you mentioned as not meeting referencing criteria - that's the first step toward getting deleted. However, if you think those articles should remain, please provide additional references for them from reliable sources (not IMDB or HKMDB), and they will remain. LaMona (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
05:45:01, 19 June 2016 review of submission by 203.106.157.104 edit
Can you explain on why "Intimate Confession of A Chinese Courtesan" (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_Confessions_of_a_Chinese_Courtesan) can be published be published and not "Ma Su Chen (1972)" so that I can know what to improve for "Ma Su Chen (1972)". Both have the same source references and "Ma Su Chen (1972)" has more and one of the reference was suggested by one of your fellow reviewer. From what I can see so far is only some prejudice and bias among you reviewers which is unprofessional as a reviewer for wikipedia.
- WP exists on some social niceties which keep things running smoothly in most cases. First is that we assume good faith on the part of others. We all have different points of view and different abilities, but we assume that we are all here to create a high quality encyclopedia. Next, we are civil - it is uncivil to accuse others of prejudice and bias, and it would be best for you, if you are new here, to understand this. Name-calling is simply not appropriate, and you should refrain. LaMona (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Lawrence Watson edit
Dear LaMona,
We are resubmitting the draft Lawrence Watson. We have deleted and omitted a great deal of narrative that was not supported by documented references. Although some of these historical events were documented by black periodicals and local newspapers, their current online archives do not go back far enough to allow us to access the full length articles focusing on Mr. Watson. We will have to pay and contact these resources that document for example his election to the Ithaca Board of Education, a significant historical moment. He is the founder of the Cornell University Festival of Black Gospel Music and other noteworthy firsts, that can be added at a later date.
Please specifically offer us guidance on what remains unacceptable in the current draft that impedes the publication of this entry for Mr. |Lawrence Watson.
You have raised the question of duplication and ambiguity of names. If this remains a issue please consider using the name Lawrence "Larry-Butch" Watson or Lawrence "Larry" Watson.
We look forward to hearing from you.
User talk:Hattie WalkerHattieWalker (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- HattieWalker - You can use non-online sources, so if those are where you found the information, please leave the information in and cite the sources. Since there won't be a convenient hyperlink, do make sure that you give as full a citation as you can, including place and date of publication and page numbers. I'm happy to send this along to main space (if no one does before me) but there still needs to be some copy editing to make the language meet WP's "formal, neutral, encyclopedic" language requirements. We don't editorialize here, such as "Watson embodies his positive message in his art and in his commitment to human and civil rights" - we just report the facts, e.g. "Watson founded..."
Dear LaMona,
I have received your message, about the non-acceptance of my (draft) page 'Land governance'. I have two questions about this.
First, your general comment is: "Not at all sure that this is not already covered in various article about land ownership and management. In any case, see WP:ESSAY on how to turn this more into an article of facts." While I agree that the balance between essay-like writing and facts had not always been struck right (and I will work on that), I do think that 'Land Governance' merits an own entry. It is not land administation, it is not land reform, it is not land grabbing: it is the whole of policies concerning land. I really do feel it is not covered yet in Wikipedia.
Second, and just to make sure: below the general comment it says (it is a general message, I guess): "Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer." Did you make any comments in the text as such? Because I am not sure how to look for them.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to review my draft article!
Regards,
Jur Schuurman (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Jur Schuurman (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Answering your second question first, the comments you saw were the ones noted in that message. So you did get the comments. Next, whether or not it merits a separate article is up to you. To be sure, you should make sure that your article integrates well with other related information in WP. The inter-relation between articles is what makes Wikipedia a viable knowledge base. Also, if there is information you could add to articles already there - even before creating your own article - then that would be ideal. Generally we like to have broad-based articles with short sections that point to more detailed articles where necessary. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! And while I'm at it, I have a technical question. You may have seen that in the article I have a box (in fact it is a two-row, one-column table) on Burkina Faso that I would like to make less wide (now it runs across the entire width of the page). How do I decrease the width of the only column so that it all looks somewhat nicer? Thanks in advance...
Jur Schuurman (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
03:42:22, 20 June 2016 review of submission by 203.106.157.108 edit
You postedin "Furious Slaughter" this template? This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (June 2016) This came bout because you the idiot reviewer remove two additional references from the edited "Furious Slaughter". Hey idiot reviewer. There were three sources - hkmdb, imdb, and hkcinemagic, Do you know how to count? It became single because you remove the sources hkmdb & imdb.
- MartinDiane (talk · contribs)
Hi LaMona,
Thank you for reviewing my draft called AppMixture.
I would like to know the reasons why my draft was not accepted. What are the criteria assessing whether an article is written in a neutral point of view? And why was my article considered as advertisement? Please let me know what I should edit in my article accordingly.
Also, regarding the references, they all come from a third party writer, either a journalist or a blogger. Please let me know your thoughts about the references too.
Thank you very much! Diane
Diane Martin 09:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The documentation on that is at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. It's the difference between stating facts and sounding like a marketing brochure. If you are used to writing marketing brochures, it may be hard to see it. I'll give some examples:
- "YES.TAP, AppMixture’s parent company, develops mobile solutions for food catering services to target customers on-the-go. The mobile apps they deliver allow customers to skip the queue by making contactless pre-orders and advance payment from their smartphone" --> "AppMixture's parent company, YES TAP, develops apps for food catering service allowing ordering and payment from a smartphone."
- "Building on this, Google decided to use the YES.TAP app solution for an even more ambitious project. In September 2014, in cooperation with Bilder & DeClerq, YES.TAP launched a Remote Ordering & Payment app solution for Google. " --> "The YES.TAP app has been used by Google since 2014."(will need a citation)
Hullo LaMona, Greetings,my name is Linda, thanks for reviewing this article which I had created. I am requesting you to help me beef it up. The sources I had referenced are all independent and verifiable, save for a few from Wikipedia, about people and institutions. The page is about a journalist who is battling cancer. He has worked for notable media houses and still does even as continues to undergo treatment. Here is the link to the page. Kindly advise me how best I can enrich it, otherwise in my view he meets the notability test especially in this part of the world. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edmund_Kagire
Mbabazi Linda (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Mbabazi Linda, the fact that the person has cancer is not of concern to Wikipedia. Wikipedia only cares about the notability of the person. The problem with the article is that there is a lot of information there that isn't referenced to a third party source. You obviously know this person and have included information that you know directly, but that is not allowed. You can only include information that is verifiable in sources. It's a very different kind of writing from, say, writing for newspapers or journals. For example, the entire section on his early life is unreferenced. Even worse, it says "Kagire says his resolve to become a journalists was confirmed then." You cannot say that unless you have a verifiable reference, such as a newspaper article, that says that he says that. But in fact it is best not to include such statements about people's feelings or motivations, only statements of fact about what they actually did. LaMona (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to regarding Draft:BCMC_College_of_Engineering_%26_Technology. This is a genuine information of an education institute.
NiravAsif (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- NiravAsif, it is the article that has problems, not the college. You must create an article that is styled like a wikipedia article. Do not include long lists of features of the college - write a textual article about it. Wikipedia is not a web page for the college, it is an encyclopedia. You also must include references for the information in the article. LaMona (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
10:31:35, 21 June 2016 review of submission by 2A02:C7F:681D:9900:569:6701:274D:6C6D edit
Good morning LaMona. Thanks for your feedback a few months ago regarding the draft page mentioned above.
I've made substantial alterations according to your suggestions: rewritten the article to be less list-based; removed the reviews-sourced material; entered cross-references as wikilinks rather than citing pages; and ensured that the article contains no non-neutral points of view, as far as I can tell (unless they are from external sources).
In terms of notability, it is true that the band has not charted or recorded on a major label, because of the niche nature of its music and audience. However, the band does meet several notability criteria, and I have tried to demonstrate them in the article:
- "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" The Froots article quoted in the opening paragraph meets these criteria, as (I imagine) would the Guardian's "best music" lists; - "9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" The Everstiener award cited is Germany's foremost, Pan-European, world music award; - "12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" As well as the features on S4C (Wales' national television network) and BBC Radio Cymru (Wales' national, Welsh-language radio station) listed at the bottom of the article, the band's most recent "substantial broadcast segment" was a live session and interview on BBC Radio 3's "World on 3" programme - which show is itself considered to be a benchmark of notability in the roots and world music genre.
If these changes in style, content and format bring the article in line with wiki standards, then thank you for your help along the way, and I shall look forward to seeing it go live. If not, please do leave further feedback so that I may refine until it's right.
(I will re-iterate my conflict of interests in posting the article, as I am a member of the band in question - but I am hoping that it is still possible to generate an unbiased, genuine Wiki entry.)
Best wishes, iolo.
- First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Second, please make your conflict of interest clear on the talk page of the article and on your own user page. There are formats for that at WP:COI. Next, the article has formatting issues, and fixing those will make it much easier to assess the notability of the band. You need to use sections, and WP:SMOS gives you an idea of the usual way that articles are sectioned. Look at articles for bands to see how they are often divided up. Do not use Youtube videos of the band performing as references -- those are not ABOUT the band, and references must be ABOUT the band. Do not reference ANY wikipedia, not even german Wikipedia. Once this is cleaned up, resubmit. LaMona (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
11:40:46, 21 June 2016 review of submission by JeremyRenals edit
- JeremyRenals (talk · contribs)
Hi LaMona,
re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:8over8 (am I in the right place with this?)
I’m working through your comments, but still not getting it. Sorry to make you do this in your time out. I’m normally quite good at judging these things. You guys mostly make good sense so I hope you can help. I’ll be as exact as I can:
The references in general to notability (“No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization”), I’d assumed that “…significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources” was covered with at least some of the 20 separate references. I get that being part of a FTSE250 company isn’t merit in itself, and that some references fall into the category of listings or mentions. However, regarding ‘unrelated reliable sources’ I’m not getting why the following are not sufficient: - http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/aveva-acquires-derry-software-firm-8over8-for-26-9m-1.2055126 - http://schnitgercorp.com/2015/01/05/aveva-snaps-up-8over8-for-contract-execution-management/ - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cambridge-based-aveva-buys-8over8-27m/story-25806814-detail/story.html - https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-375870401.html - https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-376694801.html - http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-oil-companies-projects-idUKBRE9BG0NG20131217 - http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2013/january/global-enterprise-license-agreement-for-shell-from-8over8.html - https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-68311888.html
“The company may be notable, but this article doesn't reveal it.. ” I’d assumed that featuring in and winning industry awards would suffice. I didn’t mention that it was bought for £27m and had saved industry $12.4bn - I’ve added that now.
“The products and customers sections here is promotional and should be re-written with wp:NPOV.” I’m pretty sure I’ve avoided stating opinions and assertions as facts, as well as facts as opinions, and I’ve aimed for non-judgmental language. I’ve also tried to give relative balance to a range of views, inasmuch as I haven’t overlooked anything negative. I’m wrestling with adding awards etc to demonstrate notability vs giving the impression of imbalance. In fact I deliberately wrote with a NPOV in mind, and am disappointed that I failed. It looked OK to me. Anyway, I’ve had a go at trimming these sections - hope it complies now. If not, can you help?
“Also, are there other points of view that should be included? Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a company web page.” I didn’t omit any. They just didn’t show up in searches. I pretty much included anything that seemed notable from an independent source. As mentioned I’ve now trimmed back the sections you identified. If you consider that the ‘Other organisations’ section qualifies as ‘advertising and promotion’ then I guess I can pull it.
I’ve got to say, I’m looking at your criteria and definitions and thinking that this page complies, but if you still think I need help I’ll listen.
Thanks very much, I appreciate your time.
JeremyRenals (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- JeremyRenals, the criteria for companies at wp:core begins with: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." A company being a company is not sufficient for notability. Making money, buying and being bought, having officials hired and leaving -- none of these attest to notability. Try to emphasize the aspects that are not "business as usual". Also, avoid referencing closed sources (Highbeam). Instead, provide a proper citation for the article, not just a URL. Some of your references are just warmed-over press releases (like this). Those do not support notability and detract from the article because they look promotional. Only use sources that are analytic and neutral. LaMona (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Appreciate it. Thanks :)
12:52:20, 21 June 2016 review of submission by Saragigante02 edit
My page got rejected, and I want to improve my page so I can get the page up on Wikipedia. What should I improve ? How can I get it up? Should I add more scourses ? Saragigante02 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Saragigante02
- Saragigante02, as this is a small, local group, it is going to be difficult to show notability. Wikipedia is not a place to create a web page for a group, it is an encyclopedia of topics that have been shown to be of importance. The way that we judge that importance is through what others have published about the topic. Those published works must be in widely accessible reliable sources like national newspapers. Most of your citations are to the group's own page, not to third-party sources. If third-party sources do not exist, then the group does not meet WP's criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
13:32:11, 21 June 2016 review of submission by Rdmaxwell edit
Thanks. I have made the changes you recommended. I also have a photo that I wish to add but that will have to occur later. Thanks for your patience and assistance. --Raymond Maxwell
- First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, you still need to take what you have in further reading and incorporate those into the article as references. Obituaries are especially good sources of facts like date and place of birth, education, etc. An article like this rarely has a further reading section, and the ones you have here do not seem to fit what such a section would normally be. Also note that you have a stray reference at the very top of the page that I assumed you intended to place elsewhere. Please move it. LaMona (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft: Integrated landscape management edit
Hi LaMona Thanks for your recent review of Draft:Integrated landscape management. I'm new to this, so took some queries to the teahouse (where I've pinged you) - perhaps I should just have written here instead, in which case, apologies! Anyway, I have attempted to fix the article in response to your review comments, and in response to the tips from the teahouse, and just re-submitted it. I am resisting the urge to repeat my teahouse questions here, but if you are able to follow the 'ping' to that space, and if you can offer any more specific suggestions for what needs to change (if my changes aren't already enough), I would be immensely grateful. I imagine it will be a while before it is re-reviewed, which could give me time to attempt to fix anything further that needs to change.
BTW I just scrolled down your page to see how an editor's talkpage works and am really upset by the abuse you get :-( THANK YOU so much for continuing to review/help out/be civil and nice in the face of some pretty nasty and deeply unnecessary language! You editors rock!!! Sincere thanks for all you do Hazel Gough (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hazel Gough, you did well going to the Teahouse, and the article is much improved! I think it helps to get input from more than one person. It's back in the review queue and someone will get to it, although I warn you that we are backlogged at articles for review, so try to be patient. LaMona (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello LaMona, I am trying to understand where I need to add more reliable resources in the Dr. Alan J. Russell draft. There are 3 places that list (citation needed) and while I understand the 3rd one, the 2 associated with his degrees leave me puzzled. How do you cite a degree?
Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
206.193.253.35 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You don't cite a degree - references are to be published information about him, preferably. Therefore if someone has written about him, for example in an article about awards that he won, and has given his "bone fides" including his education, then you can cite that. The main question is: where did you get this fact from? Assuming it's not out of thin air, then you need to show that it really is a fact. If necessary, you can cite his own CV, but that's the least preferred option. If you got him from Russell himself, because you work with him or know him socially, then you have what we call a conflict of interest and you need to make that clear, mainly on the talk page of the article. Our preference is that people do not write from their own personal experience and do not write about people they are close to, as it leads us to situations like this where there is information in the article, but we can't verify it. That's not very "encyclopedic" since encyclopedias are supposed to be about established facts. LaMona (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you! edit
Thank you for approving my Draft page! I have been trying to get it into acceptable form for quite a while and was ready to give up if I failed again. Thank you!
22:48:31, 21 June 2016 review of submission by Rbayha edit
Hi. Just wanted some clarification on what you mean by independent sources for my submission. Other entries from NIH on Wikipedia, such as this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Office_of_Technology_Transfer#References) have no references but have been published. Can I ask for your opinion of how I could get this published? The NIH Office of Science Policy is an internationally recognized office and is a distinct entity within NIH and deserves its own page.
- User:Rbayha, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, the article you refer to did not go through the Articles for Creation review but was created directly in main space. Look at the box at the top and you see it was "post" reviewed and marked as not meeting the criteria. There are a lot of poor articles already in Wikipedia, which is why we now encourage that articles go through review. We want the best quality encyclopedia. Articles that do not meet the criteria can be deleted, and hundreds are deleted each day. If the office is internationally recognized there will be sources that confirm that, and you should add those to the article. LaMona (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Added few reference for the article M.K.C High School edit
Hello! LaMona, I have added two reference supporting the article Draft:M.K.C High School. One of the link refers to the list of school published on the official website of Department of School & Mass Education, Government of Odisha. Could you please review the same once again and let me know if I can resubmit it once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javed.email (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Javed.email, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, you can always resubmit if you have made significant changes. I would suggest, though, that you read through this guideline for schools: Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools) and see if there isn't more that you could do. LaMona (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding rejection of draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parthiv_Shah edit
Hey LaMona,
The person qualifies on notability given the range of national and international project he has done in the field of Arts and humanities. The references for the same are enlisted. I think it can be worked upon more to include references of personal writings, but going through the Almuni page of National institute of Design (A reputed design institution of India)I believe the subject qualifies for notability. He is acknowledged to be an active part of the reputed Alumni network. The references for the same is available on the institutions wiki page.
Please let me know your thoughts on the same.
Regards, KshitijK15 (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)KshitijK15
- KshitijK15, please see WP:CREATIVE for the criteria for creative professionals. The awards listed are actually scholarships, and do not in themselves confer notability. Notability for a creative professional is based on awards in their area. For visual arts it is their works being in significant permanent exhibits, such as in national museums. For authors, it is generally based on reviews, being on "bestseller" lists, and significant writing awards. I think he may be notable, but the simple lists of books and films don't explain much. Perhaps you should add more text explaining where he fits in to the art/photography space in India. Don't assume that your reader knows all about that area, as you do. LaMona (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
03:28:43, 23 June 2016 review of submission by Cini gra edit
Hello, LaMona
Please can you help with any information following your recent decline of the article LES NEWMAN OAM.
The submission is already supported by a multitude of linked references, wherever possible, so I am requesting some specifics to go forward.
It would be of immense assistance if you could just say where/what are the exact problems? Otherwise it's guesswork, and the article is 2,700 words long.
I note in your cv that you claim a "perhaps" unhealthy obsession with references and expanded references, so I'm sure you understand that not all facts are available as links on the internet - thus the need for Wikipedia - much information is only known in the real physical world.
For example, lists of past Presidents of regional societies only exist in bureaucratic documents in old filing cabinets and the memory of living elders. Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say there's not sufficient verifiable referencing? If so, how can I remedy it?
Should sections of this history be deleted because they're not on the 'net?
What else precisely do you want verified and what kind of non-internet references are acceptable to you?
Thanks for making the process simpler.
Cini graCini gra (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cini gra, all facts in an article must be verifiable in reliable sources. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability You can use sources that are not on the Internet, you just have to be sure that you include complete citations so that someone else could actually find and verify the data. If the lists exist only in the memory of elders, where did you get it from? The information has to have come from somewhere, we aren't dealing in magic here. We do discourage use of wp:PRIMARY sources. If there is information that cannot be verified in a published source, it must be removed from the article. This is the nature of WP being an encyclopedia, and not a web site or a blog. Articles are build from the information available in sources. The reason we rely so heavily on published sources is that WP is a compendium of well-documented information; if no one in academe or media has found the information worth writing about, then we consider the information non-notable as well as not verifiable. Also, consider that an article is never "done" - as other sources appear, you (or someone else) should return to the article to add any new information and the reference to that information.
- Since we're here, I should also add that you should not include a long section giving the history of an organization in the midst of an article about a person. In fact, one or two sentences should be all. The article must be focused on the person solely. Then you can consider creating an article for the organization if it is notable and you have the sources. That would reduce the size of the article considerably, and also remove a great deal that isn't referenced. LaMona (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Vajrasati Yoga page edit
Hallo! Regarding the interconnected comments. Indeed these are part of the school's practice. Would citations help here? And as for the general comments about yoga you refer to, perhaps I could add (backed up) statements such as "in common with....." What do you think? Thanks! Ali MrAliMcCall (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, MrAliMcCall. You do indeed need references for all of the statements. And as for the general stuff, if you can, keep the article tight and use wp:WIKILINKs to take readers to more detailed information on the related info. Also, avoid terms like "great teachers" or other superlatives. That's what violates wp:NPOV. Just say "teachers". LaMona (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona I've beefed up my citations for the 'body as a doorway' comments and removed 'great' as a factual descriptive word Alos ensured I mention (and cite) that many of these techniques are common in yoga. Hope we're a little closer now. Sorry it took me so long, work, you know how it can be....Let me know ;-) Thanks! Ali MrAliMcCall (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
16:00:06, 23 June 2016 review of submission by CD0060576 edit
Hello there, I'm somewhat bemused with your rejection on the above article and not too clear in my own mind for the rejection ....
If this article is not allowed I really need please to understand the reasons, in plain English. The story / article is true and historically factual correct and the photographs are factual from a reliable Sources (as mentioned)which are over fifty years old. The photographers who took this group photo (from Preston) doesn't exist along with the recruitment photograph taken by an Isle of Man newspaper.
From my perspective this story / article fit perfectly on the Fulwood Barracks (wiki) site.
If this article needs a revamp of sorts please explain how this can be achieved. Preferably if someone wants to take ownership of this article are most welcomed.
Thank you for your efforts (not always appreciated :-) Best Regards Charles Dobson
- User:CD0060576, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, notability is defined on WP as a function of the sources provided, and various policies including verifiability. It is not a judgment about the reality of the topic, or the importance of the topic, but whether the information in the article is verifiable in reliable sources. Your article has no references and therefore the reader cannot independently verify the statements in the article. There is nothing here to show that you didn't make this up whole-cloth. Take some time to look at Wikipedia and you will see that articles are referenced, often heavily referenced. That is what is required. Note that there are no owners of articles here - all articles are open for anyone to edit. All work is done on a volunteer basis. If you don't want to provide references for this article, you can post at the Teahouse or on the to see if someone wants to take it on. Another place to post this would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. If no one takes it up, the draft will expire in 6 months. LaMona (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
16:47:14, 23 June 2016 review of submission by Wikiamulya edit
- Wikiamulya (talk · contribs)
Sources from the startup news page website Your Story have to be allowed to complete this publication. Startups do not have many third-party sources providing relevant information and Your Story has been blocked by Wikipedia policy. There are 3 articles on the website that can provide detailed, relevant information. Please allow citations from addresses belonging to the YourStory domain.
- I have no control over what is and what isn't blocked here. If the startup does not have sufficient reliable third-party sources then it does not meet WP's criteria for notability at this time. It may in the future, but in general startups and other topics that that are not yet proven through reliable sources are not considered notable. LaMona (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- 82.33.183.90 (talk · contribs)
Hello there, many thanks for getting in touch so quickly. There are a several of points I would like to put forward.
(1) I am not a Wikipedia expert and never will be, it's too unnecessarily complicated and the language is not plain and straight forward. Wiki assumes people like me who submit articles are wiki-experts, I'm not !! A little more tolerance would be appreciated please.
(2) It was mentioned I could of made this story up, which isn't true, I was there !!. If anyone who wants to verify this article should go to Manx National Heritage, as I say in my article ... This information was kindly provided by the Manx National Heritage (www.manxnationalheritage.im) who holds the Isle of Man Daily Times archive newspapers.
(3) Finally it was mentioned this article could be sent to Wiki-Military Projects. I have had a look at these pages and I am completely dumbfounded. the complexity of how to redirect this article is a mine field (pun not intended) Any assistance in pursuing this option would be gratefully received, better still if anyone would like to forward this article would be heaven on earth.
I will apologise if I sound a little stressed as the whole experience has been a nightmare.
Thank you for your time and efforts
Best regards Charles Dobson ( Not forgetting the squiggles)
82.33.183.90 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 82.33.183.90 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you need more help, you can ask for help at the Teahouse. Just click on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and once there click on the big blue box "Ask a question". Folks there are volunteers who help people unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Directing people to Manx National Heritage as a whole will not fulfill the criteria - the article will need citations to specific newspaper and journal articles, or even books. Again, if this is more than you wish to take on, you can let the draft expire. LaMona (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Hall of Fame! edit
  | |
|---|---|
|
Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon
| |
--Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
13:39:50, 24 June 2016 review of submission by Simonflai edit
Hello LaMona,
now the page should be fine. Please, let me know if you know more than this.
Thanks,
Simon
- Hi, User:Simonflai. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, have you read through WP:MUSICIAN? You need to emphasize the criteria that are there, such as recording with major labels and charting. I can't find information about the label Blue Garret. You cannot use Discogs, though, because it's not a "third-party" site -- anyone can edit it, so the musician himself could put whatever they want there. You have to use only reference sources that have editorial oversight. LaMona (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
17:47:51, 24 June 2016 review of submission by 76.103.191.29 edit
Hi, I was hoping you could tell me what I can do to make this article more acceptable for submission. I based my article off of Leanplum's competitors for consistency, so I'm not sure what I'm missing. Thanks for your help in advance!
76.103.191.29 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The company must be shown to be notable, and notability is judged on sources. Read the policy guidelines linked from the box on your user page. Also read WP:CORP and WP:GNG. You have only one independent source (directory entries do not support notability), and all it says is that the company raised funding. All companies raise funding. What makes this company notable? LaMona (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have rejected this submission. I have included references from important architectural journals and newspapers including the NY Times that talk positively about the subject's work. If you want me to remove the quotes from the article and just refer to the content of the articles that I am referencing, I can certainly do that. Please let me know what is going on. I am new to submitting work, so I am not sure what you are referring to, since I believe that there were 14 references like the New York Times article.----
I have removed everything that is not supported by a major newspaper or magazine article. I have also removed words of praise that are not direct quotes about the function of buildings. I can't imagine how you can say that the references are not independent of the subject. They include the NY Times, the Stamford Times, and many architectural journals. Fuller has created many significant Educational buildings. Almost every paragraph in the article has a reference to a newspaper or magazine article. I am new at Wikipedia and html, but referencing is referencing, no? I have used Turabian for years, and went over your referencing section as I compiled the references. How can you say that I have not included major newspapers when the references include the New York Times?----
Eperless (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Eperless, please see WP:VERIFIABLE. Yes, you have good references, but you must have references for all of the information in the article, and the entire Career and company section is unreferenced. We have to know where that information comes from. Also, you list the awards as references but they aren't actually references -- just names of the awards. Awards, in particular, have to be verifiable. I can't parse "Schooldesigner Best Bronze Academy of Info by Fuller D’Angelo" to figure out what the name of the award actually is. "SCHOOLDESIGNER" as a search turns up some Microsoft product. You also have red wikilinks in the article. If you expected those to link to a Wikipedia article, you probably need to make sure that you have the right text between the brackets. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Following your review, I've sent a message to Teahouse a few days ago but haven't received a response yet. In my first message to you I mistakenly thought that I had omitted the footnotes in my submission draft, but they were all there (28 footnotes). All the facts in my draft are substantiated by reliable third-party sources, as you can see, so I don't understand the reason for the decline. Please enlighten me. Kiki (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Kiki (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Kikiha, there are a number of issues with your article that would be good to fix. In terms of formatting, WP does not use bolding except for the first use of the name of the article in the first sentence of the WP:LEAD. Next, you have paragraphs in the biography section with no references. Undoubtedly the information came from references that you already have, and you can use a reference more than once. It is a good idea to put a reference after statements of fact like where he was born, who and when he married, etc. For easier reading, I would break each of the two film descriptions into paragraphs - one as the introduction, one as the plot summary, and one as the reception. They do not need subheadings, just breaking up. I agree that the person is notable and that you have good references. It is just a matter now of creating a well-formed article. LaMona (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you LaMona for your comments - they are clear. I will correct and resubmit. Kiki (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
21:47:21, 24 June 2016 review of submission by Eperless edit
Thank you for your comments, LaMona. As far as Notability is concerned, I believe that Fuller qualifies under points 2 and 3 of Creative Professionals. In tems of point 2, AITE is a significant new concept, in that it exposes the technology of the building as a teaching guide for technology students. The quotes from the Stamford Times article make this clear. As far as point 3 goes, I have cited 16 magazine and newspaper articles, including one in the NY Times. I have also removed any words of description from the text that might be interpreted as other than factual. Thank you for your consideration.----
- User:Eperless - please read what I told you. I am not questioning notability, but you must provide references for all statements of fact in the article. Also, the ending punctuation for talk pages is four tilde's not four hyphens. LaMona (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey there! Just reminding you that the redirect Bob Bryar has been deleted from your comment on Draft:Bob Bryar. Thanks. Sekyaw (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Micko.west (talk · contribs)
Hi, Please help me as I am very unclear as to how to quote/cite reliable source references, as I have been told to 'Remove all in-line http links - not allowed'. I thought that this was the method used in order for references to be verified.
Many thanks
micko westmoreland
Micko.west (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking - linking within the text only uses Wikilinks. External links ("http") belong only in the External links section. Note that I left a conflict of interest and username policy on your talk page. This is very important and you must respond to this before continuing editing. LaMona (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding rejection of draft Mame Khan edit
LaMona,
Thank you for your help with the article. I re-worked it and added more sources. I hope this has imporved the article. In case you have time to look again at it I would be grateful for your feedback. ( is this the right place to contact you?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LillyMusic (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:LillyMusic, first here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. And also, always put your message at the bottom of the page. As for the article, it is good that you have added references, but all references must be published sources ABOUT the artist, not links to his works online. Also, the sources must be reliable by WP standards, which means no social media, no fan sites, etc. You still have a lot of unreferenced material (I marked some of it). The problem is that you first wrote the article from what you know or have learned somewhere, and then you looked for references. A WP article should be written in the reverse of that: first you find references, then you write the article from what you have in the references. Try sketching it out from that point of view and see what you have. LaMona (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
14:25:01, 26 June 2016 review of submission by Progwriter edit
- Progwriter (talk · contribs)
Hi LaMona,
since there was no problem with acceptance of the same article (of almost identical content) in the German Wiki, it would be helpful if you'd let me know which passages/content of the text you think need more reliable sources, so I can try and find them. There are more picture ressources as well if that would help prove what's said within the text. Thanks a lot for your help, so I can add the necessary sources as soon as possible.
- User:Progwriter, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, each language wiki has its own rules, so you need to familiarize yourself with the various policies here on @en Wikipedia. I gave you good hints about the problem with the sources, so how about you follow those first. You need to compare all of your sources with wp:rs. This might help: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_checklist. LaMona (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding rejection of draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NVIDIA_SHIELD edit
Hello LaMona,
Thank you for reviewing the article. The reason for creating the article was to correct the misconception that NVIDIA SHIELD is a product - specifically, the SHIELD Portable. SHIELD is actually a family of three different products. If possible, could you please refer to the main NVIDIA SHIELD page on shield.nvidia.com where the three products in the SHIELD family are linked.
Would it be better to edit the SHIELD portable page to become the family page and then create a new portable page instead?
Thank you. Esoterickal (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Esoterickal - Hi, thanks for stopping by. Yes, you guessed it - it would be better to clear this up on the Nvidia page. Then, if there is much more to say about it (and there are enough references) you can create a linked article that goes into more detail. The preference, though, is to keep topics together where possible, which is better for readers, rather than scattering related information in different articles. See what you can do at Nvidia. You should read through the talk page there, and begin to engage with others on that page, in case there are other editors who are watching the article. There you can discuss the need to move SHIELD out to its own page, leaving a brief description on the Nvidia page and of course creating the appropriate links between the documents. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Morris Burke Belknap (1780-1877) edit
Thank you, LaMona, for your review of this draft for Morris Burke Belknap (1780-1877). You mention that one should not cite images from Wikimedia or Wikipedia as references but that it is okay to include the images themselves. I think you are probably referring to the illustration for the iron works. I remember citing the image because I did not know how to convert the image file to thumbnail size. This is a problem I frequently have. What is the accepted procedure for reducing the size of the image? I usually look for the file that says "thumbnail", but it often, as in this case, shows up greatly enlarged. I appreciate your careful editing. Thank you once again.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, User:Mitzi.humphrey. I am not an expert on working with images. I can point you to the documentation here, but if that is confusing (which it might be) you should ask at the Teahouse. They probably get this question all of the time. LaMona (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, LaMona. I'll take the question to the Teahouse.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Thank you again, LaMona. I printed up the pages recommended to me at the Teahouse, and I am becoming much more adept at managing image files.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
20:53:04, 27 June 2016 review of submission by TheTruthCreator edit
Thank you LaMona,
I am unclear how much more I require to include. At least six of my sources are legitimate scientific journals, international scientific conferences on crime prevention, and publishing houses. Can you please advise how many more verifiable sources I require?
There may be some confusion since 2nd Generation CPTED is the original foundation of the SafeGrowth concept, but readers must know how one has evolved into the other. This is a major new movement in crime prevention and I feel it is a shame to exclude it from Wikipedia.
Here are the source verifications:
Abramovic’s study on 2nd Generation CPTED (the foundation of SafeGrowth) was published in the proceedings of an international scientific conference in 2004. Calthorpe’s book was pubslihed by the Princeton Architectural Press.
Coupeland’s study on SafeGrowth was published by the government of Alberta
Saville’s 2nd Generation CPTED study (which the foundation of SafeGrowth) as published by CRC press.
Saville’s 2009 SafeGrowth study was published by the Built Environment journal from Cambridge University.
Saville and Mangats article on SafeGrowth was published by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, a Congressionally funded national non-profit based in New York.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejka007 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to check with you on how you suggest that I improve my post by including reliable and verifiable sources. I have cited several sources in text and provided background information for the concept of SafeGrowth, whcih is built upon CPTED (especially 2nd generation) and urban planning (Smart Growth). The article then also links directly to published SafeGrowth material such as the ones by Saville and Saville & Mangat.
Looking forward to your reply.
Thank you and kind regards,
Tejka007
Tejka007 (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tejka007, having some sources isn't enough -- every statement of fact in the article must come from reliable sources and be WP:VERIFIABLE in those sources. In other words, your information has to have come from somewhere, and you need to show where that it. LaMona (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Closing of draft submission edit
Regarding your closing of Draft:Rita Schwarzelühr Sutter. Did you notice that Rita Schwarzelühr-Sutter already exists? Debresser (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
06:49:31, 28 June 2016 review of submission by 103.194.119.66 edit
103.194.119.66 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC) pls tell me what I need to change for my article to be posted .
11:54:16, 28 June 2016 review of submission by 86.173.209.129 edit
I've made the changes and hopefully met the requirements now. If there are still issues please let me know! Thank you very much.
- I sent it on to main space and we'll see if it survives. I was surprised that the charity with her and her husband's name was not included. Remember that no article is ever "done" so this could require more work. I did some editing, added fuller citations for the books, created section heads. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Maurice Green (virologist) draft advice edit
We are seeking your advice on how to get final approval of our draft Wikipedia entry for Maurice Green (virologist). This is the first Wikipedia page that we have created, and so we are a bit confused and are still learning!
The person being described (Maurice Green) is a highly accomplished research scientist. As such, we modeled our draft entry on the established pages for a number of analogous research scientists-- the links to four of these individuals are provided below (for David Botstein, David Baltimore, Howard Temin, and Eric Lander). In all of these other cases, the main text summarizing the scientists research careers cited References that are papers written by those researchers (in other words, the cited scientific publications provided the support for the text). Also below, we give examples of the subjects’ papers being cited in the text and that are included in the Reference section).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Botstein (see References 8, 10, 11, 12—papers published by David Botstein) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baltimore (see References 17, 25, 27, 28, 59—papers published by David Baltimore) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Martin_Temin (see References 2, 7, 8—papers published by Howard Temin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lander (see References 3, 8, 9, 10, 16—papers published by Eric Lander)
In developing Maurice Green’s Biography text, we cite ~10 key papers co-authored by Maurice Green that support the points being made. This is very similar to what was done for the Wikipedia pages of the above four researchers. Is there a reason why we cannot use the same approach for the Maurice Green page?
Meanwhile, you suggested moving Maurice Green’s papers to a Bibliography section. However, we did not find an example of a researcher’s page having a separate Bibliography section for their published work; in all cases that we looked at, the researcher’s papers were included in the main References section. Would it be okay if we keep Maurice Green’s papers in the main Reference section since they support important points in the main text?
Finally, the other sources of information supporting the text (besides the published papers of Maurice Green) come from family members, in particular Eric Green, M.D., Ph.D.. Is there a way we should be citing Eric Green as a source of most of this biographical information? We were not exactly sure how to do so since there isn’t a published document or web-based citation that we can use for this.
We are receptive to modifying the draft Wikipedia entry, but are uncertain what to do in light of the above explanations. Thanks for helping us finalize this Wikipedia entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinals90 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cardinals90 - the first thing I need to say is that the "we" above is concerning. Wikipedia does not allow users to share accounts - every user account must be for an individual. If this is not the case, then you need to make sure that everyone editing has their own personal account. Next, do not base your decisions on what you see in other articles. DO read the policies. Key ones here are wp:rs, wp:primary, wp:or. It isn't hard to find articles with bibliographies - Bent_Jørgensen_(statistician), Benoîte Groult, William Inboden, etc. Note, as per original research you cannot take information from family members. You can only use information that comes from published sources. If there is no published source that says that he did certain research, then you are engaging in original research when you write that. Basically, you are declaring yourself as the expert, but with no editor or peer review. That is what is not permitted. Also look at conflict of interest - if you are talking to family members, you are probably too close to be writing this article. LaMona (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
21:07:44, 28 June 2016 review of submission by TracieBurns edit
- TracieBurns (talk · contribs)
I believe I have made the changes you requested, including taking out "stories" and significantly trimming the publications list. In doing so, however, I found that I had left out a section that I meant to include under Life in Science. Thus, I do not know that the article is shorter, but I do know that it is tighter. I hope you can review again and reply to me soon if you have any other issues. Thank you very much for your feedback.
TracieBurns (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns
Phoenix Country Club Second Rejection edit
Hello LaMona,
I apologize for what may appear to be persistent confusion however I remain somewhat confused by your rejection of my article for creation Phoenix Country Club. You rejected the article on the grounds of a lack of references. As far as I can tell, all of my text is supported by cited references. If you could explain to me which text in the draft is unsupported I would appreciate it. I apologize for my submission's insufficiencies.
Thanks,
Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Historiarvm Arizonensis I marked sections needing references. If need be, you can re-use references more than once in an article, but a statement like "The club also hosted the Western Open in 1941 and 1942." needs a reference. LaMona (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the link from Barry Goldwater to Street Gang: The Complete History of Sesame Street as a reference for his belonging to the club does not show up for me in a search of that book. Ideally, all of the named "famous people" would be referenced. The Golf Connoisseur magazine article does not mention the club. And page 190 of Wright & Ditson's Officially Adopted Lawn Tennis Guide doesn't appear to say what you say in the article. Those are the references I checked, and they do not check out. LaMona (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- LaMona, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you had done me the courtesy of marking where citations were needed. Thank you so much for doing so and thank you for your helpful suggestions. I will get to work improving my article immediately and have it resubmitted as soon as possible. Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Draft of Michael Stever-Rejection edit
Hello LaMona,
First, thanks for taking on the review of the Michael Stever draft. Second, I understand and thank you for the clear explanation and for pointing the way forward.
(I love books and libraries and having read your background applaud you loud and long for your work as a librarian. In my book - pun intended - that makes you tops.)
--Wordmasternewyork (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Which references are you referring to that don't have anything to do with the subject?
AuthorKJ (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Although you say that he commissioned the poll about kidney donors, none of the articles that I can access connect him to the poll. He may have been involved through the organization, but that isn't about him if he isn't mentioned. Assuming that he was instrumental, without direct sources, is called WP:SYNTH -- drawing conclusions that are not in the references. It isn't allowed. In fact that entire section on the poll would be appropriate for an article on the organization, but not on him unless he is shown to be directly involved. He isn't mentioned in the article on the Wellness hour. That the show of the Wellness hour "included guests such as Dr. Andrew Ordon in his pre-"The Doctors" days" is not about Darling, it's about Ordon and the show. You have to stick to information that is directly about Ordon. Also, you cannot use Facebook as a source - it isn't reliable. Darling's own writings or appearances on TV are not ABOUT him they are BY him. The article is WP:UNDUE and needs to be greatly reduced in size and content. This isn't a magazine article about him, it is an encyclopedia entry. Just the facts, in as plain language was possible. LaMona (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
OK I understand. Thank you.
01:30:23, 29 June 2016 review of submission by TracieBurns edit
- TracieBurns (talk · contribs)
Re: Lloyd Jeffress Memorial Resolution. Unbelievably, UT has pulled this document down after 15 years online. It was there as recently as two weeks ago! I have sent a note to the Faculty Council to get them to repost, especially as this deletion could well effect other WP pages we know nothing about. I'll chase it down, and get back to you tomorrow, if possible. There is another version on the American Psychological Association's PsychNet, but it's a pay access rather than open access, so I would prefer UT solve its problem so that you can get to the PDF - which I have, but which is no longer anywhere else online except in Google searches. I'll be back in touch as soon as I know something.
Other than this citation problem, do my other fixes resolve your issues?
Thank you for a quick response. TracieBurns (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns
07:29:16, 29 June 2016 review of submission by 206.214.54.68 edit
Please identify the portions of the article that you deem unsupported so I can remove them and submit that is acceptable 206.214.54.68 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I need to take down Provost Hai-Lung Dai's wiki entry. He is no longer in this role and I don't want it on wikipedia as is. How do you delete an entry? Thanks. Hedy
15:03:50, 29 June 2016 review of submission by TracieBurns edit
- TracieBurns (talk · contribs)
Re: Lloyd Jeffress. UT is migrating their web platform (predictably), so that is why the Memorial Resolution for Lloyd Jeffress link went dead. I imagine that's going to happen quite a bit for UT over the next 6 months. The PDF is up, but I don't know how to cite it because you can't link directly to it. You link to a page of Memorial Resolutions, then go down to the Jeffress PDF.
Here is the site: https://wikis.utexas.edu/display/facultycouncil/Memorial+Resolutions, but then you have to scroll down to jeffress.pdf.
So, the good news is that the Memorial Resolution exists online, but the bad news is this new double-click access. How should I handle this?
Thank you, TracieBurns (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns
Draft: Zuto edit
Hi LaMona - I noticed you have rejected the draft for the page Zuto. With the additional award entries and PRNewsWire content now removed from the page, would you consider this draft fit for re-submission? Keen to work with you to get this page live! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DConnor17 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm. You have this interesting tendency to write adverts for companies. I'm not keen on letting this through, and it seems others feel the same way. WP is not to be used for advertising. It cheapens the encyclopedia and makes a mockery of the honest work that has been done here. Don't count on me. LaMona (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
17:55:55, 29 June 2016 review of submission by 86.132.14.205 edit
This is not a request for a re-review just a point of clarification- take on board your point about notability and I’m considering re-drafting. But is the convention for Wiki to include references to reviews of the book within the article, and would that mean expanding the article to include discussion of why a particular reviewer/journal/ academic thinks the work is important maybe ? Or do I just need a link to show that it has been reviewed by a range of prominent journals in the field, in the way that external links to book show the books actually exists?
Sorry, if I’ve posted this twice trying to get used to the system ! ☺ 86.132.14.205 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Don't worry about posting twice ;-). Generally, references are cited when the book is mention in the text, or in a list in a bibliography, but not both. That does NOT mean expanding the article to include the discussion of why the reviewer said what he/she did, unless you have ANOTHER source that addresses that. You do not get to do any explaining - that is left to the published sources. The reviews show that reliable sources thought the book was worth their time to review. Reviews do not have to be positive; in fact, you should not eschew reviews that are less than flattering, in the interests of honesty. LaMona (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding rejecting of draft for music artist: Nigel Good edit
Hey LaMona,
Thanks for your comments on my proposed Nigel Good article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nigel_Good
I have replaced the words you describe as promotional in nature. Added a link to support the fact that Nigel's 2013 single 'This is You/Always Running/The Balance' was actually his first single picked up by several international acts.
Regarding references for charting. I am aware of this problem and contacted my colleagues at Silk Music (the owners). I asked if they could provide any direct links for these charts. They replied that only thing they had were screenshots of the Itunes and Beatport charts from back in 2013/2014. I have them on my desktop. I have yet to find out how to find these older charts on the internet. I can send you the screenshots? Or maybe you know how to retrieve such charts?
Please let me know what I can to help in the process of having this article approved?
Btw I am the official manager for Nigel Good's digital platforms Spotify & Apple Music Connect. He is aware that an article on him is in the proces.
Kind Regards, MariusEJ Silk Music Spotify Director // Nigel Good Spotify / Apple Music Connect Manager
- Well, User:MariusEJ, since you've let me know that you are his official manager, I need to let you know that you have what we call a conflict of interest here on Wikipedia. You can continue to work on the article, but you must abide by our policies for editing with a COI. I will put the information on your talk page, but you need to also know that you are only allowed to edit the page while it is in draft. ONce it goes into the main space you can only request edits on the talk page. This is all because we do not allow promotion of people or products on WP, and folks with a COI, even when they try hard, have at least an unconscious bias. Please follow the directions that you'll find soon on your talk page, and you'll be fine.
- You need to replace ALL of the promotional language. I gave you a few examples so you would know what I mean, but the entire article reads like a press release. You must stick strictly to the facts. This is an encyclopedia. Your entry will be alongside those for Einstein and Kierkegaard. Think about that.
- Now, as for the charts: I'm not sure that itunes charts are being accepted. Itunes and Amazon and other sales sites change chart positions minute by minute. A published source would be much better.
- Last, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~.
08:58:05, 30 June 2016 review of submission by 203.59.96.162 edit
The data supplied is for an Australian public figure who already has a wikipedia page for one of their projects and has directed a number of projects. His IMDB page is here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1622138/ I have even provied references to his twitter and facebook accounts.
- IMDb, Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources by WP's definition. The latter two are his own writings, thus not ABOUT him but BY him, and are informal communications. IMDb, like Wikipedia itself, is open to editing by anyone, and therefore is not a reliable source. See wp:rs for a definition of reliable sources. Generally that means published sources like newspapers and journals. LaMona (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Rejection for DRAFT: Emily Zapotocny edit
Hello, I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing (aren't we all), and I'm confused on what is missing from my contribution? I've compared it to other similar pages, and I just can't seem to figure out if I don't have enough sources or what is wrong? Help please, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezapotocny (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, your username is "Ezapotocny" which appears very close to the name of the person whose page you are attempting to create. You may have chosen the name by mistake - the username is supposed to represent you, and you can edit any Wikipedia pages you would like, so you should not create a username that is the same as a page you are creating. The other option is that you ARE the person and you are creating an autobiography -- the latter is greatly discouraged, to the point of being a violation of Wikipedia policy. If so, you should cease editing.
- To change your username to something that represents you, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing_username, in particular see the fourth point under "Alternatives to consider."
- That covered, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and its policies. Begin by reading wp:rs which is a page about reliable sources. Also read wp:n and wp:Notability (people). To be in Wikipedia there has to be a certain level of proof of notability, which you will see described on those page. It isn't a matter of the number of references but the quality of references. You cannot use Wikipedia or IMDb as references - you need newspaper or magazine articles that are substantially about the person (e.g. feature articles). LaMona (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)