Archive: 2015 October / 2015 November 2016 January
Contents
- 1 Caonashi -DKICP- 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- 2 11 February 2016-James McNulty (Irish activist) approval
- 3 10 February 2016-Draft: Hubbell Water Heaters review of submission
- 4 7 February 2016 - Draft:Real_Poseidon_Ahmedabad review of submission by Sneha Satish Pai
- 5 23:43:47, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac
- 6 15:18:08, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Taylorcarson
- 7 08:40:47, 3 January 2016 review of submission by Pianogac
- 8 23:35:38, 5 January 2016 review of submission by PalettePic
- 9 09:06:37, 30 January 2016 review of submission by Abbasvattoli
- 10 Re: Draft: Justin Gaethje
- 11 19:02:06, 1 February 2016 review of submission by Treespin
- 12 CSD of an article you approved
- 13 found new sources
- 14 Request on 12:47:05, 7 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shaibelinsky
- 15 Request on 05:30:48, 8 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Australianblackbelt
- 16 11:14:02, 8 February 2016 review of submission by Artsceneedit
- 17 21:45:09, 8 February 2016 review of submission by Dot1978
- 18 Piece of advice
- 19 Your submission at Articles for creation: BuckleyGrayYeoman (January 28)
- 20 Draft:Dr Lal PathLabs
- 21 01:38:27, 10 February 2016 review of submission by 69.181.128.250
- 22 Promotional Language
- 23 thanks, made my day!
- 24 00:17:59, 11 February 2016 review of submission by ExtremeMusic123
- 25 Request on 17:56:56, 11 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Streamizm
- 26 Request on 23:28:58, 11 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Carrieruggieri
- 27 03:50:31, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Esomers
- 28 08:03:51, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Igfa1983
- 29 Mandymlal
- 30 15:44:57, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb
- 31 Apology
- 32 Trio biennal
- 33 Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy has been accepted
- 34 LockLizard review
- 35 Request on 16:03:45, 13 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Klidenengro
- 36 Ivan Pope.
- 37 13 February - Draft:Underground Elephant
- 38 22:47:32, 13 February 2016 review of submission by Team BLRC
- 39 Request on 01:52:20, 14 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Belleminjuan
- 40 Homa Vafaie Farley article submission
- 41 06:58:27, 14 February 2016 review of submission by Team BLRC
- 42 15:21:52, 14 February 2016 review of submission by RaniaD87
- 43 Draft:Pi Gamma Omicron
- 44 StealthMachines article creation denies
- 45 Ermis article draft denied after sources change?
- 46 00:16:49, 17 February 2016 review of submission by DigitalBrandMakeover
- 47 Request on 01:08:10, 17 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Odubhain
- 48 00:38:21, 18 February 2016 review of submission by KarmaTZangpo
- 49 08:04:55, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Sangram12
- 50 15:46:22, 18 February 2016 review of submission by 209.26.165.52
- 51 16:02:46, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Sitarartiste
- 52 02:26:26, 19 February 2016 review of submission by Labrodorite
- 53 Thank You !
- 54 re: Draft:T35_Hosting
- 55 04:02:04, 21 February 2016 review of submission by Round4figure
Caonashi -DKICP- 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough review. Very much appreciated. I've followed the instructions you've posted and indicated the COI. Again, thank you for your attentive consideration.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caonashi (talk • contribs) 10:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
11 February 2016-James McNulty (Irish activist) approval
Hi Lamona,
Thanks for the approval of James McNulty (Irish activist) It is my very first submission. I have wrestled with it for about two weeks now - It is very rewarding to see it approved - I am wide open to any suggestions on how to improve it too. Thanks! Pajokie (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)pajokie
Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajokie (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pajokie, there are quite a few articles around Irish independence - both the early 19th century, which you wrote about, and the later "troubles". You want your article to be integrated into that topical thread, so you should look for articles that could be linked to the one you created. If there are articles about particular events that McNulty was involved in, you can add a sentence explaining his involvement and link to your article. It'll probably make more sense when you get there, but think about WP as being a topical whole, not just individual articles, and you'll find lots of places that you can work on. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Very Helpful Thanks Lamona! Pajokie (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)pajokie
10 February 2016-Draft: Hubbell Water Heaters review of submission
Hi LaMona,
Your most recent response to Hubbell Water Heaters page is very confusing. According to Wikipedia's wp:corp "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." Looking further into different company's Wikipedia pages, Bradford White (which is an industry-related company) only has a press release for a reference, and their article was accepted. Countless other articles such as Minister for Water and Power, United Illuminating, Bruno Hoffman have also been accepted with no notable references.
On another note, according to wp:corp, notability is established through newspapers, books, and sources of that nature. Hubbell Water Heaters has several of these types of sources. The wp:corp page also indicates that "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." This has been noted and is understood, but with each submittal, multiple articles that were in the Connecticut Post, which is a statewide newspaper, were referenced and not written by the company. And throughout these articles, there has been in-depth coverage about Hubbell's water heaters, one being about the US Navy which is a global organization, and another about PEMEX, a petroleum company based in Mexico, which shows Hubbell's notability and worldwide coverage.
Please help me to better understand why submittals that follow Wikipedia's criteria are not being accepted. Thank you for your time Carrierc (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, User:Carrierc, the policies are complex, and must be viewed as a whole. Multiple articles in a single source are considered a single statement for notability purposes. CT Post has a circulation of ~50K and the areas it covers are listed in the article. In addition, patents are expressly excluded from notability. The United Illuminating article as been tagged as not having sufficient sources, so you should not take that as an example. Plus, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That the company sells internationally does not make the sources international, and selling to the military is not itself a guarantee of notability. Notability is all about the attention the company has gained from independent, reliable sources that are widely paid attention to. Meanwhile, you have large sections of the article that are not referenced - i.e. big chunks of the history. Those have to either be sourced or removed. Unless the company gets much wider attention, it fails notability. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona,
I still can't comprehend why Bradford White, a company page that is in the same exact industry, has an article on Wikipedia. They have one reference-a press release. Can you please explain to me how that works?
Thanks,
Carrierc (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for pointing that out. I just marked it as not meeting notability. Eventually it will be put in the queue for deletion. Some articles are created directly on WP and did not go through a review process. Our review processes have gotten better, so it's a matter of cleaning up the articles that are there. A couple of hundred articles are deleted each day. LaMona (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
7 February 2016 - Draft:Real_Poseidon_Ahmedabad review of submission by Sneha Satish Pai
Hi Mona, really appreciate you for taking the time to review my first article. As an Indian, I am proud to know that India now has its very own and first under-water restaurant which is also a purely vegetarian one (respecting the rich customs and traditions of Gujarat - the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi) and hence I thought this would be something worth writing an article about.
I have made additional improvements, and addressed your concern by adding more references from reliable sources. I am hoping to add more information as and when I get more strong reference links for the same. Request you to please take some time again to review my article and help me make this live since I am new to Wikipedia.
Following are the additional links that I have added as references:
1. http://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/india-gets-its-first-underwater-restaurant-in-ahmedabad-1272437 2. http://daily.bhaskar.com/news-ht/TOP-indias-first-under-water-restaurant-the-real-poseidon-in-ahmedabad-5237744-PHO.html 3. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/international/india/indias-first-underwater-restaurant-inaugurated-in-ahmedabad 4. http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food-wine/dine-under-water-at-this-unique-restaurant-in-ahmedabad/ 5. http://www.mid-day.com/articles/mumbai-diary-tuesday-dossier/16918176
Thanks in advance!
Warm Regards, Sneha Satish Pai (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sneha Satish Pai, I'm sure that the restaurant is quite exciting. The problem is that Wikipedia is not about news but is about things that have shown themselves to have endured and had some history. Sometime in the future this restaurant may be notable, but having just opened there is little to say about it. Individual stores and restaurants must have some role in the culture or historical events to be notable. See the essay on Wikipedia:Businesses_with_a_single_location. You should wait a bit and keep an eye on reviews and stories, and possibly bring it back then. LaMona (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
23:43:47, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac
I should have added that the last reviewer said "we were getting closer". You seem to be saying that we are still far away from being accepted. Does this show a difference of opinion by the reviewers? If so, it makes it very difficult to know what to do next! Can you please give explicit example of what is needed? Thanks Geoff
15:18:08, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Taylorcarson
- Taylorcarson (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Donald Lavoie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello, I also have other sources that explain and reference the points I have said. I revised the page to make it sound not so much like a story. Please help, if I could source movies or books i have that, that would be great.
08:40:47, 3 January 2016 review of submission by Pianogac
First to thank you for the improvements which you have suggested. I have made some further changes and re-submitted the article. 'hope I have made the article more appropriate for Wikipedia. 'hope to have further reactions from yourself or another reviewer. Cheers Geoff Cox
23:35:38, 5 January 2016 review of submission by PalettePic
- PalettePic (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Palette Pictures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi Mona, thank you much for taking your time to review my article. I made additional improvements, and addressed your concerned by adjusting the line your question to make sure it reflected what you could verify with Google Translate.
Have a great 2016!
Thanks, Gabriel
09:06:37, 30 January 2016 review of submission by Abbasvattoli
- Abbasvattoli (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Amal College of Advanced Studies, Nilambur ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sir I have made the suggested improvements to my article 'Amal College of Advanced Studies Nilambur'. Now please kindly review it and accept if eligible.
Re: Draft: Justin Gaethje
I believe the article is creation protected as it was created in the past when the subject had not been of sufficient notability, and supposedly still is not of notability despite being undefeated and on a 15-fight winning streak.
19:02:06, 1 February 2016 review of submission by Treespin
Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. It is exactly this input from experienced editors which is so valuable.
- Re: unsuitability of references i.e. book catalogs, I have removed this.
- In order to illustrate the author's positive reviews over a period (87 years) I had intended to refer instead to a 1925 review in "The United Methodist" available via https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk However their system is down for upgrading to Pure, possibly until March. I may have to suspend my resubmission until then.
- There is a name clash with Ernest Moore (professor) via a redirect which I'm not sure how best to resolve.
- Thank you for link to The Teahouse.
Treespin (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Treespin, thanks for coming by. I moved the redirect "Bernard Moore" to "Bernard E. Moore" which is the name that fellow used. There shouldn't be conflict now, but eventually we should create a disambiguation page for all of the various Bernard Moore's. I'll look into that. As for the 1925 review, if you have the full citation you can reference it even though you don't have the link right now, and you can always add the link later. We don't require that all references be online, and in your case it may be that some of your best references are not digital. So feel free to reference books or newspapers or other sources that are only in hard copy. I'm also going to look at how WP handles pseudonyms - they may prefer to combine the real name and pseudonym on a single page. I'll get back to you on that. LaMona (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
CSD of an article you approved
Hi, I just tagged Shannon Sedgwick Davis, which you approved from AfC. I tagged it under G11. The article itself is ina woeful state of NPOV issues, as well as poor sourcing overall. I am very surprised this was accepted.
The lead is:
Shannon Sedgwick Davis is an American attorney serving as the CEO of Bridgeway Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to ending and preventing mass atrocities around the world
with no refs, this is a big alarm bell.
As an attorney, activist, passionate advocate for social justice, Ms. Sedgwick Davis has guided Bridgeway Foundation in pioneering solutions in challenging and often remote environments.
. Again, no source here, so a really big peacock with no source.
Sedgwick Davis currently lives in San Antonio, Texas, with her husband and two sons.
Unsourced, in a BLP, a bad mix. The subject overall seems notable, but the article in its current form just isn't ready for the big time. Not to mention the sources themselves are quite poor, with some not even mentioning the persons name.
Thank you for understanding, --allthefoxes (Talk) 08:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- allthefoxes, I kind of understand, but at the same time, the decision must be made on notability, not entirely the state of the article. There is an entire New Yorker article about her, which puts her squarely in notable. The article can be improved. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry but that is completely incorrect. Here is a flowchart which you can find on the AfC wikiproject page that shows the steps in revewing an article. Checking for NPOV issues is absolutely one of these steps [1] --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- allthefoxes, I kind of understand, but at the same time, the decision must be made on notability, not entirely the state of the article. There is an entire New Yorker article about her, which puts her squarely in notable. The article can be improved. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
found new sources
Draft:Bruce M. Davis was declined because of a bad source. Have re-sourced those parts of the article and resubmitted.Feoffer (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Feoffer - great job! I sent it on to the main space and will watch it for a while. Given that the murders were so sensational, and that you mention Scientology, there may be some reaction to the article in terms of appropriateness. To my reading, you have been very careful with your wording, but we'll see how others react. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Request on 12:47:05, 7 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shaibelinsky
- Shaibelinsky (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Zcast ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi, and thanks for taking he time to review my article about Zcast, it's one of my first articles so your feedback is very important to me :) I thought about writing this article since I just started using Zcast after I saw all the hype on the big publications I referenced in my draft, but as you said, it needs more notability.
What do you suggest I do? wait for more reviews and articles about this go live?
Thanks again,
Shai
Shaibelinsky (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Shaibelinsky, thanks for stopping by. Yes, you have guessed the best answer - the app needs some time before it becomes clear if it is or is not notable, so you should give it that time. Generally, new product announcements are not notable because many (or even most) product launches garner some press, but so many of them are never heard of again. It has to become notable, it isn't born so. Keep an eye on the places where it may be reviewed, and try again later. LaMona (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona, you were right! It was actually less time but I looked up for some articles and found some reviews (and interesting ones). Let me know if I should change anything else - Should I add an external link to their site? should I add their logo? I don't want to overcrowd the article. Thanks again for your time :) Shaibelinsky (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Request on 05:30:48, 8 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Australianblackbelt
- Australianblackbelt (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Carmen Ibis Novoa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi Mona thank you so much for the very help full explanation, I didn't realize title was not the tittle of the person who wrote the article, silly me! I will make sure to mention that the Spanish news papers are all national as well as some for overseas... I will limit the local English newspapers too, Also I will remove the publish works section. Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Australianblackbelt, I'll be the first to admit that Wikipedia formatting is not intuitive -- if you have questions as you are editing, the chatroom is often able to give "instance answers" - at least within normal US daytime hours. LaMona (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
11:14:02, 8 February 2016 review of submission by Artsceneedit
- Artsceneedit (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Melanie Clore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dear LaMona - many thanks for your feedback. I have edited the page and would greatly appreciate your comments before I resubmit. Many thanks. Artsceneedit (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good job! I did a little more formatting (some details) and added links to other Wikipedia articles. You can resubmit now, but I think it could use some more info about her if you can find it. For example, is she related to Sir Charles Clore? Any idea when or where she was born? There were some articles you cite that I can't get to (paywalls), and I found numerous quotes (e.g. in NY Times) but those are not significant -- officers in an organization are often quoted. It would be nice to have more about her. But don't wait for that - resubmit and let's see how it goes. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
21:45:09, 8 February 2016 review of submission by Dot1978
Hello LaMona, thank you for the feedback on this article. I will revisit the references as suggested.I would appreciate your help and consideration with the following please:
Tobin's 'services to the digital economy' have been recognised by The Queen of England and the Commonwealth with an OBE, which is only awarded to people 'known nationally' in their area of expertise. Before an OBE can be awarded, the merit of nominee's achievements are considered by an independent Honours Committee, the Prime Minister and then The Queen. The honours nomination process is an equal opportunities process awarded only on the merit of the recipient's achievements, which is why anyone can make a nomination. Unfortunately the actual citations are not published, only the outcome of successful nominations. However, I think it is notable that in 2014 Tobin was one of less than 20 widely reported OBE recipients in The New Year's Honours List who were listed in various Press including The Telegraph.
He is also named on the Telecity Group wiki article as a key person.
I also noted that Tobin's public profile has similarities to other OBE holders listed in the Wiki category dedicated to recipients, including business and philanthropic achievements as well as significant awards received (OBE/Ernst & Young etc) and I have referenced these in the article - though I appreciate these articles are also always under review.
Further citations already referenced in the business area of the article refer to Tobin's impact on the digital economy (driving an industry leading merger between rival global entities, and reported for his unusual and sometimes controversial management style). Perhaps this requires more emphasis?
Tobin's background was added to the article as a point of interest as this has also been reported in a variety of the Press citations/references listed.
Thank you for pointing out where further citations are required. Should I add these/adjust and then resubmit the article?
Many thanks again for you help and advice.
(Dot1978 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC))
-
- Yes, you need to add references where indicated. If there are minor details that you cannot reference it is better to remove them, especially if they don't speak directly to notability. (Sometimes person life info isn't really necessary.) As for the OBE, few in the US (and many of us reviewers are American) know much about the OBE and might assume that it's equivalent to our presidential medal of honor which goes to 6-8 people a year and only after a long lifetime of achievement. So it does matter that some context is given. I would not consider the OBE to automatically confer notability. LaMona (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Great thank you for your feedback LaMona, I will work on this further and resubmit for review when ready.
(Dot1978 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC))
Piece of advice
Dear LaMona,
Thank you very much for reviewing my article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malaria_Eradication_Research_Agenda_%28malERA%29
I found this article, which has a very similar approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project
I was wondering if you could provide me a few tips on how to improve my article. Thank you
-
- You are right that it is a similar approach in terms of style, although the content (an archive of Einstein's papers) is considerably different. Your article is about a research agenda, and rather than emphasize the papers it may be more useful to readers for you to emphasize the research. You could report on what the research found, indicating which papers the information is recorded in. But you can also re-submit for review if you have made changes. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: BuckleyGrayYeoman (January 28)
Hi, I reviewed my article since then but I had no feedback. Do you know how does it work in that case? would you be able to have a look at it again and let me know if you think it s now in line with Wikipedia's policy ? Thanks a lot for your help
- It's in the queue for review. I try not to re-review back-to-back, so hopefully someone will pick it up soon. I'll keep an eye on it. LaMona (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Great thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectureZMJ (talk • contribs) 09:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Dr Lal PathLabs
Hi LaMona! First of all, thank you for your tireless work reviewing AfC articles. It's much needed and much appreciated. I did have some questions about your decline for Draft:Dr Lal PathLabs. Myself and a few others on IRC have been working for some time now with SpeechlessWorld on getting it cleaned up and more presentable. I know it's far from perfect, but it does seem to me (relatively unexperienced as I am) that it might just survive a theoretical AfD. There's notability (barely, admittedly) and the text doesn't seem terribly WP:PROMO to me. You declined for promo reasons, would you be willing to share what you found with it that was unsuitable? Or do you feel that the article isn't salvageable? If not's it's OK, I'll do my best to explain to the user when they come back to IRC. I just was hoping for some clarification for myself and the user. Again, thank you for your time and your efforts. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Chrisw80. Glad you asked. The boilerplate we're given for reviews often doesn't hit the mark. The problem is that it is merely a statement of the services of the company, so it reads like a company description that could be in a brochure or profile. Since WP is not a company directory, this isn't appropriate. The company needs to be in some way "encyclopedic", and I know that is hard to describe. There is nothing here that shows that this company is different from any other. The statement of amount of money earned is not relevant (unless WAY off the charts), since it is assumed that companies exist to earn money. Even being the first IPO in the area isn't all that notable, since an IPO is a normal part of business and someone has to be first. They do medical testing -- again, not unusual. So I just don't see this company as being anything but a nice business that seems to be doing well -- at least, that's what is shown in the article and the sources. To be in Wikipedia, IMO, the company needs to do more: to invent something that effects a change; to be a trend-setter; to have social value over time. That's what I look for in a company article. This one just doesn't have it. But I'm willing to continue this conversation because the whole wp:corp to me is poorly defined, and we are assailed at AfC with people seeking SEO. I would myself love to have a clearer set of criteria. LaMona (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- MANY thanks for the extremely specific response! :) This is very educational for me and it's appreciated. I do completely understand about WP not being a company directory. The user had more varied material earlier, but we were trying to avoid too much marketing fluff. I'll look through what's been removed any see if any is suitable for re-inclusion provided it's not actually fluff. I'll agree that it's very possible that with marketing fluff removed, if we're left with just a "directory profile" that it might be a good indicator that it's not suitable. I do agree that a clearer set of criteria for WP:CORP would be useful. Even if this particular article gets declined, perhaps some productive discussion can be had regarding it. I would be happy to participate in any such discussion. Again, thank you! Chrisw80 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Update: I went ahead and made some sourced additions to the article. I'm curious if you would take another look (totally informally) and let me know what you think. I'm mostly doing this for my own personal edification. I really don't have any stake in this other than that I've put some time in it and want to learn from the experience. Mostly the changes are regarding some controversies surrounding the company (including some very recent stuff), and a little extra info about some awards received. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I see the new stuff. I must admit that it doesn't really change my assessment. Part of the problem is the context -- the context in India is so different from ours that it is very hard to find a single set of notability rules that cover both (not to mention rules regarding what is appropriate language!). Awards are often the key to notability, but I have no idea what that award means. I also don't entirely get the Zika story, in part because I have no idea what Rs 4500 means in the story - is it a bit high, by Indian standards? way high? Shkreli high? So I can only judge by the story as it is told, and it doesn't seem to be notable. It is plausible that if someone with journalism skills took over the article that the import of it all would be clear. Bottom line, for me, is: is this company a stand-out from all of the thousands of similar companies in the world? LaMona (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
01:38:27, 10 February 2016 review of submission by 69.181.128.250
- 69.181.128.250 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Mack & Moxy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
You say it's not appropriate to have an article if the show hasn't aired yet, but I see examples of articles for upcoming shows and movies all the time. Why the discrepancy? Here's one example of an upcoming Netflix show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaked
-
- wp:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fit here. LaMona (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Promotional Language
Thanks for your feedback on the Draft:KlowdTV article. My dad and I use KlowdTV to watch soccerr and I was interested in getting into creating Wiki articles (assignment for high school). Could you be a bit more specific on what kind of language in the piece you consider to be 'overly promotional?' All the information in here has been covered by publications; none of it comes from the brand itself.
I based my structure for the KlowdTV article on Sling TV, which reads very much like a promo piece for the brand. The 'History' section is seven paragraphs long. I have also come accross articles like Ducktv, which seems to be approved dispite only having one source. How is the approval process for Wikipedia articles kept consistent accross different articles? Again, I am a newbie just trying to complete a wikipedia page for a hs assignment. Thanks for your feedback
- Hi. Don't forget that on talk pages you have to sign your articles with four tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work on Wikipedia because it is a work in progress and those articles you are looking at could change or even be deleted at any time. So it's best to concentrate on the policies. It reads like a simple description of the product, with nothing to indicate why it is encyclopedic. A mere list of product features is one of the things that is excluded by wp:corp, the policy for companies. Statements like "catering to fans of international soccer, hunting, equestrian sports", and the inclusion of prices are considered promotional. Non-promotional would be something like: "Sports programming picks up X equestrian shows. Hunting programs from Y are also shown." You also do not have strong references. You have at least one press release from the company (businesswire) which should be removed; the company is listed as one of 8 in the USnews report (not highly notable); ReelMockery appears to be a blog (not a reliable source); the "Fierce" group seems to be a very small number of folks, and I see no editorial statement. The Broadcast & Cable source is good, but multiple articles from a single source counts as only one source for notability. As this company has not made headlines or been a game-changer (yet) there seems to be little reason for it to have a WP article if promotion is not the primary goal. Some advice: you appear to be new to Wikipedia. Creating a new article is the hardest thing you can do here. Spend some time learning to edit by making edits to existing articles. Do participate in discussions on the talk pages of those articles. And by all means create a username for yourself because you cannot fully participate using just an IP address. LaMona (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thanks, made my day!
![]() |
Thank you LaMona I really appreciate you taking the time to get indepth with my draft for Fife Contemporary Art & Craft and all the care you took in getting it ready. Loolah (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
00:17:59, 11 February 2016 review of submission by ExtremeMusic123
- ExtremeMusic123 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Extreme Music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We copied the layout of our competitor, Killer Tracks, when submitting this wiki page about our business. I'm wondering why their page (which also included notable artists and sales sites) was not rejected and ours was? Further, we included links to many sources talking about our company, none of the sources are written by us. Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, and Sound on Sound are not affiliated with us.
I'd love to get more specific notes on how I can get a page on our very established company approved.
ExtremeMusic123 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- ExtremeMusic123. Let's look at the references. PRnewswire is a press release, and therefore cannot be used as a source (press releases, by definition, are promotional). The links to iTunes and Spotify are both primary sources but also promotional because they are sales sites. So you should delete those from the article. Some things are not supported by references (e.g. the long list of musicians in the second paragraph - any that are not verifiable must be removed). The first cite is the Extreme Music web site -- not an independent source and does not add to notability. If there is another source for the information it is referencing, it should be preferred. The SoS article is a good one, although it doesn't cover everything in the WP article. The Procite link has a problem -- it just takes me to the Procite home page. However, from what I can tell, that's where artists can create their own page, so it's not a third-party, independent source. The Variety article is a mere mention of Extreme being in the same building. The Hollywood Reporter is very brief, so not a substantial source. Another thing -- your username. Your username uses the name of the company, which violates our wp:Username policy. You can create a new username that represents you, a person, not a company, as users on WP are people. But that also brings up the question of conflict of interest - whether you are truly independent of the company. COI is complex, so I'll post the standard boilerplate about it on your talk page. If you do have a relationship with the company, that will point to instructions on how best to handle this and stay within our rules about not using WP to promote companies or products. Thanks for listening! LaMona (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Request on 17:56:56, 11 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Streamizm
Dear contributor, I am new to Wiki editing, and I may need a bit of help. My point of interest is online video and I am eager to contribute. The company that I wrote my first draft, is a company that I've worked with personally and have more than decent information. I am confident it is a well-known, reputable brand and deserves a wiki page.
I am going to edit the page according to your recent suggestions. The sources are there, I may just need to rearrange them. How will that "conflict of interest" affect the page, could it be a block to its publishing?
Appreciate your assistance.
Streamizm (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Streamizm. Conflict of interest will not affect whether the draft is accepted - in fact, the draft space is the best place for COI editors to create an article. However, you must make your COI clear using the mechanisms described in the information I placed on your talk page, and once an article is in "main space" users with a COI need to limit themselves to only uncontroversial, factual edits (such as correcting a date). You can ask on the talk page of the article for other editors to make edits that you think are necessary. The reason for this is that un-involved editors are more likely to write content in a neutral tone. Do a good read of WP:CORP, the policies regarding corporate entries on WP. That should guide you on where to put the emphasis. WP is more concerned with innovation, trend-setting, and social impact than it is with earnings, mergers, and other aspects of "business as usual." LaMona (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Request on 23:28:58, 11 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Carrieruggieri
- Carrieruggieri (talk · contribs)
- Draft:AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thank you LaMona. I actually had the opposite impression - that wiki prefers heavily referenced articles. There is an issue with the statement..." developed by (reference 2000) and has been evolving ever since" -- the many references are different people with unique contributions or a period of 16 years, or are references that highlight significant changes. It seems to me to be important information. Could I make that a footnote and attach these references to the footnote?
Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Carrieruggieri, what Wikipedia wants is that every statement of fact can be verified in a reliable source.
If the references you have found have different and important points of view, then those points of view should be in the article, each with its reference. Readers of the article will not know those points of view unless you include them - you can't assume that readers will follow and read every reference. The references are there to verify that the information in the article is reliable, not to show how often the subject has been mentioned. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you LaMona, will you be the editor following this article, or are will there be different editors with each submission. Also, is it ok to submit portions of the draft for review, or is it better to submit the completed article. This will be a rather long one.Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
03:50:31, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Esomers
- Esomers (talk · contribs)
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2016/EmilyCarrLibrary ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello, I created a sub-page to the Vancouver Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2016/EmilyCarrLibrary), which worked, but the declined submission warning is still showing at the top of the page. How can I get rid of this warning? Should I resubmit again, even though it's not intended for the main WP space? Thanks!
Hi, User:Esomers - the notice seems to be gone now, at least when I just looked at it. Great page. I added an asterisk in the sign-up list by your name so others can follow that example. Let me know if the submission warning appears for you. LaMona (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
08:03:51, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Igfa1983
Hi, i am not sure that i understood your comment. I have checked the links and they are all ok. Natural ventilation is an existent article. Both ventilation with architecture. Apologies it is my first attempt to wikipedia and maybe something is missing.
- User:Igfa1983 - Sorry! You are right. I saw a red-linked wikilink in the Ventilation article and thought that Natural ventilation didn't exist. It does. So now the question is: how is your article different (topicwise) from what is already in Natural ventilation? Your article says: "Ventilative cooling refers to the use of natural or mechanical ventilation strategies to cool indoor spaces." and Natural ventilation says: "Natural ventilation is the process of supplying air to and removing air from an indoor space without using mechanical systems." It seems like there is at least some overlap. We try to avoid this kind of overlap in articles. If you think there is a good division between the topics, but see some overlap, then you need to open a conversation on the talk page of the Natural ventilation post and see if you can get agreement with the editors there about a good separation of the topics. A reminder: on talk pages, you need to sign your posts using four tilde's in a row. Look at the bottom of the edit box and you'll see a reminder and a link you can click on (if typing four tilde's is just too much :-)). LaMona (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Mandymlal
Hi LaMona, Can you assist me with the creation of my article that I have resubmitted to Articles for Creation. I am not sure if I am doing it right as I submitted it two weeks ago and it said that 337 submissions were waiting to be reviewed before mine which has since escalated to 448 submissions to review before mine. Can you advise if i am doing something wrong on my draft page New Media Vision. Please help me!
Mandy Mandymlall (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mandymlall, the numbers aren't submissions ahead of yours but submissions in total. I'll look for yours to see where it is. Different reviewers have types of articles they feel comfortable with, and ones they don't - for example, I avoid sports articles, but always look at ones that might be authors. So the right reviewer just hasn't hit on yours. Let me see if I can move it along, however. LaMona (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me LaMona. I will look forward to your assistance with this article. I have edited it and added other sources, hopefully it will pass all the guidelines required. Thank you in advance for all of your help with this. Mandy Mandymlall (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
15:44:57, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb
- Norac Eeb (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Threat Intelligence Platform ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thanks for your review, I would like to seek some additional clarification about your comments. Specifically the comment that it lacks reliable sources. Gartner, and other sources are cited which are considered highly reputable and notable in the cybersecurity industry. How many reference sources should I aim for and which specific ones do you have a problem with? You mentioned blog posts, in this industry they are often considered authoritative. Please could you advise which need to be removed, if at all. Thanks!
Also a note was added that questioned that a "Threat Intelligence Platform" is a "neologism". It's an industry accepted term, as the cited reference support. Is this something I need to address?
Thanks! Norac Eeb (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Read wp:rs about reliable sources. Blog posts are not suitable as references (with a few unique exceptions). This article is clearly being offered to support Draft:ThreatConnect, which is overly promotional and by the same editor. LaMona (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Norac Eeb You have six independent references. Two use the term "threat intelligence platform", one uses "threat intelligence" and the other three are about a "Diamond model" and don't use the term you use. So it isn't clear that it is broadly accepted. It does seem to me that the concept of threat intelligence is not yet well-covered in Wikipedia, but you seem to be interested in the "Platform" aspect that would link directly to your product. Before there can be a platform, however, there has to be the general topic. (And note that right now Diamond model is an article about a business model, not the threat model that you've cited). So it looks like there is a lot of work to be done in the area of cyber security before an article on a single type of platform will fit in. Since you have an interest in this area, you should probably hook up with the Portal:Computer_security, which is coordinating this topic area, and see what you can contribute. Just adding in your own product is not contributing to the knowledge base that is the purpose of WP. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Apology
Hi, LaMona! I've just (unintentionally) done something rather rude: I've declined a submission that you were apparently ready to accept, Draft:Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy. I do apologise, I missed that one-line comment until after the tool had done its stuff. That was rude of me, and I'm sure you will feel free to reverse my action if you think fit.
However, the comments I made there about the history of the article and the possibility of this being yet another conflict-of-interest editor stand. I have to admit that I just have no idea why we take a firm stance against COI editing … and then allow it in draft space. It's my opinion that that text would have survived about ten minutes if the user had created it in mainspace, and I don't believe that it should be moved there in its present state. A better approach would probably be for unconnected editors to develop a brief section about the college in the University of Hawai'i at Hilo page (which has also had a fairly embattled history), and only consider splitting it off if it becomes disproportionately large in relation to the whole. Thoughts?
Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, Hi, thanks for letting me know. I've worked with that editor a bit (oh, the original peacock was bright), and the article is pretty much parallel to ones for other pharmacy colleges. I agree about the whole COI thing, but if we disallowed it entirely WP would actually be very small and would have almost no articles for organizations, companies, or living people. This might not be a bad thing! - I admit that I am thoroughly fed up with fighting the SEO-seeking commercial folks at AfC. However, in this case I'll resurrect it and send it along to join its brethren. sigh LaMona (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Trio biennal
Hi, you rejected my draft. Please think it over. The exhibition has been shown in the most important museums of Rio de Janeiro, and many well known artists participated. Even if the bienal will not take place again, (I don't think so) - the article is worth being accepted. There are a lot of articles in newspapers. And the first reviewer, User:SwisterTwister only wanted more sources. These I've brought. --Robertsan (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Robertsan, you may be misunderstanding the role of notability in WP which is different from notability or importance "in real life." Please read WP:EVENT for the policies about articles for events. It says: "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." So a recent event that got great coverage may not be enduring. Also, a lot of your sources are announcements that the event will take place. That is covered on that same page as: "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." Many newspaper announcements are simply taken from press releases coming from the organization itself. They do not support notability, since newspapers routinely include announcements of local, upcoming events. Although SwisterTwister said you need more sources, sources are not judged by quantity but quality. So announcements of a future event are low in quality. Analyses, criticisms of the event during or after are higher in quality. I havne't the time to read through all of your sources, so you should make a selection of the best ones, and use those to show that the event has "enduring historical significance". LaMona (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi! Thank you for your answer. For it is too soon, in your and User:SwisterTwisters opnion, because it is a bienal and happened once, I suggest. You call the sources announcements. But please see that there are many with the name of the authors as well, which are the "critics" you wanted. I will work on it. --Robertsan (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC) P. S. I added a note at the talk page of my draft.--Robertsan (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy has been accepted
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
LaMona (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)LockLizard review
Dear LaMona,
I appreciate very much your taking the time to evaluate my draft for publication and making the insightful and detailed comments. I am sure that your intention is to improve this article and have it accepted. I sincerely appreciate that.
However, it appeared to me that you missed the labels at the bottom of the article that state that this is a STUB article: "This article about a company of the UK is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." With the limited time I had, my goal is not to write a FULL article at this time but rather a STUB article that can be expanded in the future by another editor. I applied and stick to the following Wikipedia definition of a STUB article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub . I wanted to do just the MINIMUM for now.
Although your remarks are excellent and helpful (thank you for reading inside the references), I am not sure they should penalize the STUB article I submitted at this time. Therefore, I will be very grateful if you would reconsider your evaluation in the appropriate context I just explain and accept this article for publication. Of course, in the near future, when I have time, I will certainly use your excellent suggestions to expand this article into a FULL fledged article with all the details required.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. OrwellG1984 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- OrwellG1984, Hi. Articles can stay at AfC un-edited for at least six months, so you have plenty of time to fill it in. The problem with putting a "stub" in main space is that you either need to at least show notability, or risk speedy deletion. Once deleted, a record remains and it becomes harder to get an article added. For companies, an article with just product information is likely to get speedy deleted because of the tendency for people to want their company's name in WP for SEO purposes. So the folks working "speedy delete" are pretty hard on articles that look like advertisements or SEO-fodder. It really needs to go with in ironclad notability established. Wikipedia is a "long view" product so there shouldn't be any hurry in getting the article in. Take your time, it'll be there when you come back. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Request on 16:03:45, 13 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Klidenengro
- Klidenengro (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Violet M Digby ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dear LaMona
Thank you for your helpful comments with reference to the proposed page about Violet M Digby which you referred back to me on 9 Feb. (And thank you for your help, if it was you, with the problems I was having with formatting the article.) I am about to resubmit the article for your consideration.
You mention the problem with references. Wikipedia clearly prefers secondary to primary source material for the good reason that primary materials may not easily be available to the reader. In the case of Violet M Digby, there is an archive of material which is available to public, and which has been used in the writing of the only book about her, and that book is now referenced throughout the article. I am still hesitant to reference every sentence to the book, but it can be done if you think it will help.
The statement that "Violet had spent quite a lot of money on her expeditions to Kashmir and was feeling the pinch” was included as a contribution to an understanding of her suicide. I have changed the tone to one less informal and I have given references to the book, and to her suicide note, which is photographically reproduced in the book.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was not acquainted with Violet Digby and the article is not written from personal knowledge. I have tried to avoid reference to primary material in the archive (which I have seen), referring now only to the material that is contained in the published book.
Please let me know if there is anything further I should be doing. This has been quite a learning curve for me! Thank you.
Klidenengro (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Klidenengro, thanks for getting in touch. The caution against using primary materials is not about availability, it's the question of original research. An encyclopedia is a compendium of existing knowledge that has been synthesized by reliable sources. These latter are considered reliable if published in a source that is known for fact-checking. Since anyone can edit WP, and most users are pseudonymous, we cannot check the bona fides of the persons contributing to the encyclopedia, to know if they are expert in the topic or not. So instead we rely on previously published material to provide that authoritativeness. I'll let another reviewer look at the article - I try not to review twice in a row, since at that point I already have an opinion and might not be neutral. I may do some additional formatting, however. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Ivan Pope.
Greetings. I am still working on this article. Thanks for your comment (Dec 2015). LoopZilla (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
13 February - Draft:Underground Elephant
Thanks for taking the time to review, but could you provide some more specific information on why this article was denied approval? I feel that saying the article could be a brochure is a charge that could be levied against a variety of company pages that are already included on Wikipedia (example). I tried to provide a third-party source for nearly every statement. Can you highlight which parts you feel are promotional instead of factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getgoti (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
22:47:32, 13 February 2016 review of submission by Team BLRC
- Team BLRC (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dear LaMona, I would like you to re-review the article. I added two new references to address your concerns. Reference [2] is from a local newspaper from the town of Osoyoos in BC and reference [3] is a program from St. Catharines, Ontario. Both of these are local sources. Could you please identify criteria for a local source, specifically newspapers. According to Wikipedia, there are only two newspapers in Canada with national circulation: the National Post, founded in 1998 and The Globe and Mail, founded in 1844. It is a very narrow view to see only nationally-circulated newspapers as reliable. My original resource [1] is from the Vancouver Sun newspaper, and [2] is from the Burnaby Now newspaper. The newspapers are based in Vancouver and Burnaby, respectively.
Sincerely, Team BLRC
- First, I hope that you check your talk page and respond to the issues relating to conflict of interest and the username policy. These are very important. Now, the policy on organizational notability has a section called "Audience" which reads: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." You say that you have a Vancouver newspaper link, but what I retrieve is this which is a metadata record for an archive. If there are newspaper articles in there that you wish to use, you need to reference those directly. LaMona (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Request on 01:52:20, 14 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Belleminjuan
- Belleminjuan (talk · contribs)
- Draft:SkillsCommons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi, I am from the SkillsCommons team and would really like to have an entry about SkillsCommons. However, this has has been difficult experience. The first entry I submitted, was taken from skillscommons.org, About page. This is our team's suggestion. Wikipedia marked it for deletion and quickly deleted it.
I then wrote a new piece, citing skillscommons homepage and also our boss' presentation at an official venue, a professional and scholarly conference. However, the article is rejected again for lacking citation of reliable sources. Help please. I really need to get this done. SkillsCommons is a large repository of Open Educational Resources and is supported by Department of Labor. The MERLOT team from California State University is managing SkillsCommons. MERLOT is already an entry in Wikipedia. We truly believe that SKillsCommons would be a nice addition!
Can you please let me know what to do, to make the article accepted? Thank you! Minjuan
Belleminjuan (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. You should first read about conflict of interest. I will put additional information on your talk page. Next, you may not copy text from another site and put it on WP - that is a violation of copyright, and will get immediately deleted. To have an article in WP the topic of the article must have been the subject of multiple published sources, such as newspaper or journal articles. See wp:rs on reliable sources. If that criterion cannot be met then it may be possible to add SkillsCommons to the MERLOT article. It is often preferable to have subordinate organizations or projects together on the page with their superordinate bodies. The bottom line is that to be in WP the subject must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and if it does not, then it cannot have an article. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Homa Vafaie Farley article submission
I have read your comment on the talk page and there are also references from the UK and Iran. The references are not online but from magazines and newspapers. Do i need to submit a scanned copy of these? if so could you please tell me how.
RaniaD87 RaniaD87 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, RaniaD87. Sources do not need to be online. However, if they are not, do be sure to give a complete citation - name of the magazine or newspaper, place where it is published, date of publication, title of the article, and name of the writer. You will find a handy pull-down when you are in edit mode that have a form to fill out with all of that information. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
06:58:27, 14 February 2016 review of submission by Team BLRC
- Team BLRC (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi LaMona, I added two additional references, including a citation from a national engineering magazine in Canada. My first reference is to an article from the Vancouver Sun which does not have a public http link. I originally included the link to the printed article in the City of Burnaby Archives.
- Hello, Team BLRC. As I said before, you are in violation of the username policy and may NOT continue to edit using this name. Go change the name immediately, because you will be blocked from editing and the article may be deleted. This is serious and you must do it. If you have made changes to the article you can resubmit, but only after having made the name change. Please look on the talk page of your user account. Also note that anyone with a conflict of interest is not allowed to make further changes to the article once it exits draft space. Conflict of interest is also taken seriously here. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona, do you mean that I should delete my current account and create a new account with different user name? If I delete my account what will happen with the draft article? I thought it would be fine to edit the article, sorry about that. It says 'You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page.'
Thank you, Team BLRC Team BLRC (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- You can create a new name and use it, abandoning the old one. Edits done under the old name will not show up on your account, but you have only edited that one page, so it shouldn't matter. You should put on your user page under the new name that you once edited under the name Team BLRC but are no longer doing so. The other issue is your conflict of interest. You are clearly associated with the organization whose article you are creating. You must make the appropriate declarations, as found in WP:DISCLOSE. And, as I say above, anyone with a conflict of interest should not make changes to the article once it is no longer a draft. LaMona (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
15:21:52, 14 February 2016 review of submission by RaniaD87
There are references from Iran and the UK as well, There are just more in the UAE as that is where she lives.RaniaD87 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Pi Gamma Omicron
Hi, I'm a relatively experienced user, and have been helping User:BlackAmerican. I went in and significantly upgraded the references (putting them into cite format) as well as adding information, reflist and categories. Since your issues don't appear to be with notability, could you take another look given the upgrades that I've done?Naraht (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Naraht, thanks so much for the citation help! That seems to be the big stumbling block for many users. I've accepted the article, and I hope it can progress beyond stub class. But it's a good start. LaMona (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, @BlackAmerican: was in a situation like a lot of new users in that the citation templates are cryptic at best. As for progression, I'm not sure there *is* that much more data, I'm not sure the first few years of the Chicago Defender are archived. :(Naraht (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
StealthMachines article creation denies
Hi LaMona!
I saw that you just declined the article which I worked painstakingly hard to produce and properly cite :(. I noticed your reason for declining the article was a lack of reliable sources, but I was confused on this point as I felt the article had too many sources and was considering removing some of them. Among the sources listed were Maximumpc magazine with a readership of 750,000, Tek Syndicate with over 500,000 subscribers (youtube), and Jerma985 with 500,000 subscribers (youtube)... to name a few. I find this saddening that comparable pages like Digital_Storm have an article with sources from the same outlets, but this StealthMachines (which I feel is much more unique) does not.
If you take me under your wing and help me to get my first article published, I would really appreciate your time! Thanks!
-Argusg In regards to Draft:StealthMachines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Argusg, did you read my comments on the post? Your problem is not the number of sources but the quality of sources. You need to remove the sources that are not allowed - crowd-sourced, blogs, its own site, etc. Then we look at what is left and see if there are enough good sources for it to meet notability. There might be, it isn't clear yet. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
LaMona, Sorry! I just checked your comments. I had based the use of "its own site" as a source from comparable wikipedia articles I had also seen wherein they cited the entity's website in order to substantiate information. Does a fact which is self-evident upon further inquiry; such as the dimensions of a computer chassis being the smallest of that form factor in the world; stand a better chance at Wikipedia acceptance than attempting to substantiate such facts with the entity's own website? I felt it more appropriate to include the source in addition to the self-evident fact in this instance.
Tek Syndicate is very reputable in the gaming computer world! I'm not sure how they could be classified as crowd-sourced?
I'll get right on those changes and hope to hear from you soon in regards to my clarification questions. Thanks!
-Argusg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- I doubt if there's anything encyclopedic about the dimensions of the product, so that shouldn't be necessary at all. That's something that would go on a sales site or brochure, but doesn't add to notability. As for Tek Syndicate, I looked at it - there is no listing of editorial staff; reviews are listed as "posted by..." and when you click on those names you are taken to a (so far always blank) "forum profile" with a username, not a person's real name. If the review staff is not paid professional staff then the reviews cannot be used for notability because there is no way to know if it's all on the up and up. People may rely on it, but that doesn't make it reliable by WP's standards. LaMona (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ermis article draft denied after sources change?
Hi LaMona,
I did the requested changes that you asked for. I changed (in the main article and added some of them at the end) all sources and put in there third party sources such as: newspapers, the official webpages of the ProClubs that did take the players and make direct reference to them, even a link to the national broadcast (to watch it) and yet; another reviewer appears and declines it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enasaplos (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- First, do not remove the AfC banners that have been added. They are noted as "do not remove this line" and that is for a reason -- it helps reviewers know what advice has already been given. Second, yes, adding the sources does not mean that the article will be automatically accepted. Without the sources we cannot know if the organization meets general notability. All Wikipedia articles are based on sources, and the depth and quality of sources is a key factor in meeting notability. The sources you have are not strong - there are mentions of the team but I don't see anything in depth, nor anything from national newspapers or journals. All of your sources are sports magazines, which makes them narrow in scope. If the organization has been written up in mainstream media, that would help the cause. That said, as the other reviewer pointed out, a local sports organization for school-aged children will probably not meet notability unless it is quite unusual. The organization must also meet wp:corp, the criteria for corporations and organizations. That says: "1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization." LaMona (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
00:16:49, 17 February 2016 review of submission by DigitalBrandMakeover
- DigitalBrandMakeover (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Laurie Moore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello LaMona,
Thank you so much for your review. This is my first time to submit a Wikipedia article. I had a request from an author and friend to create a Wikipedia page for her. In doing this, I researched by looking at the page for C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling -- and then so as to look at something more comparable (as this is a niche author with a fanbase, but not a best seller) -- I looked at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_Baker
In reviewing Deb Baker, I tried to follow the format so as to make an article on wikipedia that would be reasonable.
There were two suggestions --
- 1) As per your suggestion, I did remove the GoodReads citation. I thought it was a good one, but as it is deemed not credible, I was fine with that!
- 2) Please provide a complete citation for the books listed (publisher, place of publication, date, ISBN). --- I took at look at C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling and Deb Baker and see no citations with ISBN numbers for their books. The only ISBN citations were for where the authors were mentioned in someone else's book publications. In the case of Laurie Moore, I do not have any book references.
I am hoping that the article will be worth submission to Wikipedia and I certainly believe that it is comparable to Deb Baker's article. Her books are also independently published -- through Barnes and Noble's CreateSpace program.
- Hi. User:DigitalBrandMakeover. The reason we need the full citations is that it is part of how we evaluate notability. One of the big differences with the J.K. Rowling page (other than the fact that she's both rich and famous thanks to her writing) is that nearly all of the books on that page point to complete wikipedia pages for the individual books -- thus those books are covered in full detail. You need to look at a page for an author who is a bit less famous, like James Gleick. If you don't have book references, then I can't imagine where you got the information from. If you got it directly from Ms. Moore, then you have a problem. All information on WP needs to come from independent, third-party sources. If you need additional bibliographic information, you can use WorldCat or Amazon. You say you are a friend, and that unfortunately leaves you directly in the position of having a conflict of interest. I hope you'll consider that duly. As for the Deb Baker page, you should notice the box at the top which indicates that the article does not meet WP's criteria for sourcing, and therefore is at the first step on the route to being deleted. It doesn't matter what other articles you find in WP, the fact is that the article you are creating must meet the criteria. If the author is primarily self-published, then they do not meet the criteria. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, La Mona. I don't know the author personally, but I'm friends with her on Facebook. I didn't realize that Deb Baker's page was actually an example of what -not to do-, and now that you've pointed this out to me I fully understand. The list of books that I have were not from her directly, they are easily found on dozens of websites that sell her book including Amazon, Good Reads, and the WorldCat website that you mentioned (https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=laurie+moore&qt=results_page), etc. The ISBN #s and date of publishing are easy to source in that manner.
This being said -- according to your response -- as the author does appear to be self published (which I did not realize at the time that Five Star was a self publishing platform) -- she cannot have a Wikipedia page until she is actually published by a commercial publishing house. I considered that rules for musicians must be different as there are many musicians who are self published -- however, because they perform concerts and their published work is not what defines them, this must be different. Laurie does book signings, but that's not comparable to booking a venue wherein people are paying for a performance and building a following.
This was a fun experience and I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia in the future when I find topics and corrections that are more relevant to Wikipedia that fit in the guidelines. Thank you for also showing me the amazing community support that makes Wikipedia such a great resource! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalBrandMakeover (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Request on 01:08:10, 17 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Odubhain
Thanks for the critique on the article about Anne Elizabeth. I think the interviews that she has done indicate notability for her as it demonstrates that she is well known in both the Romance field and the Graphic Novel/comics field. She also conducts other high profile activities (presentations and author-fan interaction sessions) at the two main conferences for Romance Writing: RWA and RT. In addition to that, she has a major presence at the main Comic Con event in San Diego, having a booth each year and sharing it with another notable author Majorie Liu.
I removed the interviewing references to major writers and comic figures. I left in her work as an interviewer for RT Booklovers Reviews and being a feature writer (along with a few citations to verify that).
I'm concerned that the citations I provided to her ebooks that are available on Amazon and at Barnes & Noble might be considered to be non-Wikipedia approved. Do I need to go to other reviews/citations like like Booklist and Kirkus
Is there anything else that needs to be done to get the article accepted? I plan to complete all ISBN references and any wordsmithing that may be required.
Thanks for the criticism.
--Odubhain (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Odubhain (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi. The main thing you need to do is to read the related policies: general notability, and authors and other creatives. You should also look at reliable sources. WP has its own definition of notability which isn't the same as we use in everyday life: in WP, notability is defined by what others say (or write) about the subject. So her doing interviews is not something someone else is saying about her, so, no, it doesn't lend to notability. You need to find sources about her, not by her. That's really all that counts. For authors we generally look for reviews of their books in reliable sources. The "bottom line" reviews are in places like Booklist and Kirkus - publications that exist mainly to review. The top line would be reviews in newspapers or magazines. Reviews on social media sites, like Amazon or Goodreads, are not allowed as sources since they have no editorial oversight (and can be heavily gamed, so they aren't trustworthy.) LaMona (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- For the books, you should not reference the books themselves -- that is, do not create a reference to the information for the book as it appears on Amazon or elsewhere. That IS the book, not something ABOUT the book. Do add references to reviews, however, which show that the book was noticed. Note that none of this guarantees that the article will be accepted. Adding the references gives reviewers the information they need to determine if the subject meets WP's notability criteria. Consider yourself to be making the case for notability. I have to warn you that authors who self-publish do not meet those criteria. In her case, there are some books that are not self-published, so there is a small chance that notability will be met. It is far from guaranteed, however. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
00:38:21, 18 February 2016 review of submission by KarmaTZangpo
- KarmaTZangpo (talk · contribs)
- Draft:UTS ePRESS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi LaMona,
Thank you for your review. In response I have removed the Press Release reference and the older books and journals. In my research I noted that the live University of Melbourne Press Wikipedia entry (below) have not used any external sources for their entry, while I have provided several. If you could please let me know what you think of the changes that would be great.
Thank you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_University_Publishing
- Please see wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an answer about the Melbourne UP article. I have marked it as needing better citations. I will let other reviewers have a chance to respond to your article. I can say that the Trove reference will not be accepted as it is simply an email, and at best could be considered a kind of press release, which are not allowed as references. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
08:04:55, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Sangram12
15:46:22, 18 February 2016 review of submission by 209.26.165.52
- 209.26.165.52 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Bernard Katompa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi there, with regard to 'reliable sources', I have listed Business Insider Magazine, the BBC and CNBC Africa, in addition to the Henry Jackson Society of London. Eager to meet the requirements in order to have the page created for reference. Shall I list these again or perhaps more clearly? Many thanks in advance.
- The references must be in-line in the text. The formatting needed is explained here: wp:cite. All information in the article must be taken from reliable sources and all information must be verifiable. LaMona (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
16:02:46, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Sitarartiste
- Sitarartiste (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Rohan Dasgupta ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi, I would be grateful if you could suggest me how can I make the article proper in order to meet the Wikipedia standards.
- I believe I gave you specific information in my message. You need to become more familiar with WP's policies. You must read the policies that have been cited in the messages that you have received. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
02:26:26, 19 February 2016 review of submission by Labrodorite
- Labrodorite (talk · contribs)
- Draft:International Ocean Discovery Program ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
LaMona, thank you for the careful review of my submission. I greatly appreciate it, especially as you are the first person to notice the typo in the title. I've fixed that. It now correctly says "International Ocean Discovery Program" (instead of "International Ocean Discovery Page").
You also had a question about the references. There are two reasons the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program appears in the references. First, is that the article/reference was written about the International Ocean Discovery Program before it was named, so the author was assuming the future program would still be called the Integrated Ocean Discovery Program. I think the only reference where this isn't true is the report by the National Academies of Sciences. This reference supports a statement about the history of the scientific ocean drilling programs, which is what is covered in the report.
Please let me know if that clarifies the issue with the references. Thank you again. Labrodorite (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Labrodorite, thanks for the clarification. You should mention in the article (unless you did and I missed it) about the name change. I'll go back later and take another look at the article, now that I'm less confused ;-) LaMona (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi LaMona -- I think it is explained in the article, but please take a look and let me know what you think. Here's what I did: First, I only used "IODP" to refer to the International Ocean Discovery Program; the acronym is defined in the first sentence (the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program is always spelled out in this article). Second, the relationship between the programs is mentioned in the first paragraph: "IODP began in 2013 and builds on the research of...the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program." I also included the primary difference between the programs further down: "The IODP funding model differs from the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program in that NSF, MEXT, and ECORD each manage their own drilling platform." I didn't discuss the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program further in this article because it has it's own Wikipedia entry. After you take a look, could you let me know how to proceed? Do I need to resubmit, or can I continue to work directly with you to get it approved? Thanks again for your help! Labrodorite (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank You !
re: Draft:T35_Hosting
Hey LeMona - Thanks again for your feedback on my first draft[1]. I'm still new to wiki and am still trying to get the hang of things. I spent the last few weeks speaking to some of the editors in the chat room, reading the documentation, and using the feedback you provided to improve my draft (now with over 20 sources). I know you're probably really busy, but I'd love to hear your feedback on my updated draft. It's currently awaiting review but can still be edited & improved in the meantime. Thanks again and have a great weekend. Amelen1 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
04:02:04, 21 February 2016 review of submission by Round4figure
- Round4figure (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi LaMona, I created a new user name Round4figure and I continued to edit the article. I added a COI declaration. You said that anyone with a conflict of interest should not make changes to the article once it is no longer a draft. Does this mean that I have to edit all the information before submitting the article again? Would it be fine to ask you to review the article before I submit it because I will not be allowed to make any further changes?
Thank you, Round4figure