Jump to content

User talk:LaMona: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 615: Line 615:


[[User:Ballantinesrose|Ballantinesrose]] ([[User talk:Ballantinesrose|talk]]) 21:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Ballantinesrose|Ballantinesrose]] ([[User talk:Ballantinesrose|talk]]) 21:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

== 04:35:59, 24 March 2016 review of submission by Timothydunn ==
{{Lafc|username=Timothydunn|ts=04:35:59, 24 March 2016|declined=Draft:Got_Ur}}

Requesting a re-review bc more content about the subject has been published since my last edit!

Also, a question- the name of the listing I'm editing is "Got Ur #" (aka "Got Ur Number"), but the main draft is still titled just "Got Ur," presumably because the system assumed the "#" was an error. Will this correct itself once the listing is approved?

Thank you! [[User:Timothydunn|Timothydunn]] ([[User talk:Timothydunn|talk]]) 04:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:35, 24 March 2016

Archive: 2015 October / 2015 November 2016 January

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


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


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



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.

13:58:07, 26 February 2016 review of submission by GreyFoxBluegrass


Hello. Please tell me what I need to do to allay your concerns of a conflict of interest. Thank you. ----

Teahouse invitation and Draft:Vienna Institute of Demography

Hi LaMona, is this the right way to respond? (or should I reply at my own talk page, to your message?) I have been around WP quite long in fact but mostly I'm just editing and correcting minor quirks. I posted my request for assistance at the Teahouse which I didn't know of (thanks, interesting place!). And I also hunted up a load of sources, though many of them are from "the community", see my comments at the Teahouse query. Still, I hope it's better now. Anyway, thanks for the nice way of declining --WernR (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WernR. I can see that you have been adding sources. You need to pay attention to the rules at wp:rs - only some sources are considered suitable. Things like links and directory listings are not among those. Also note that it's not only getting a certain number of sources but being sure that all information in the article can be verified in at least one source. So you can't say anything in the article that doesn't come from an outside source. If you are writing the article from your own knowledge, then that's a problem - articles should be written from published sources. Kind of like writing a school paper. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I put in a number of new sources to the article now, what do you think? --WernR (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is better. I did some formatting and wording changes (mostly minor). Remember that WP articles will last indefinitely, so there is no "currently". Personally, I would like to see more about the work of the institute than about the history. But you should send it back for review and see if anyone else has suggestions. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hints, I see what you mean about time-referencedness. As for VID's work, this would be covered much more extensively by "independent sources" (like newspaper articles), but wouldn't it be out of scope for a general article about an institution to cite individual research contributions? Although there are some that are quite well-received among academic peers, and others even in more popular media (because the results are on the spectacular side). I wouldn't really know where to reference something like that though—with the specific research fields maybe?
As for "sending it back for review", I thought I already did so by rewriting and amending the draft, or do I have to push a particular button to actually submit the article anew? And: yes, there will be a logo shortly --WernR (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is back for review, so you did that right. As for covering the work, if the institute itself isn't credited with the work then it is going to be hard to have references about it. Let's just see how it goes with the review. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I won't change anything for the time being (except for an incorrect italics command), but of course one could stick one or more citations of articles in major journals and/or conference calls naming one or more researchers, and their affiliation would be VID, so does this help? --WernR (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue to edit it, especially if you find more references, since those are key. LaMona (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:58, 8 March 2016 review of submission by Genauein


Hi LaMona, Thank you for your time and review of this submission. I have gone back into the file, and added additional citations for all requested material. Please let me know if any additional edits are needed.

Thanks!

Hi User:Genauein. Here in talk space you have to sign your messages using four tilde's in a row. That puts your username at the end of the message. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. OK, to the article. You unfortunately cannot use her own web site as a reference for the awards. References must be independent of the subject of the article, and you have used her web site a number of times. It's ok to use it for things like date of birth or maybe what school she went to, but for the awards we need an official and reliable source. So for those it's better to leave off the reference, and perhaps you will find one in the future. This doesn't guarantee that the article will be accepted, however. You have the disadvantage that most of these awards are at the student level (from what I can see with a quick look), which means that she is just starting her career. While she may be "up and coming", WP articles are limited to those who have already "up and come." This is one of the big differences between an encyclopedia and, say, a newspaper. WP takes a longer view. You can resubmit, and you can also come back to the article later. Articles are kept for at least 6 months after the last edit, and you will get a notice at that time if the automated system is marking it for deletion. You just need to make a small edit to keep it around. LaMona (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:19, 8 March 2016 review of submission by Genauein



Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your message. I have made several edits based on your recommendation. Many of her awards listed are prestigious young artist awards, and the Chicago Tribune link with the feature article is linked in the beginning. I found additional sources, and included the links to the artists official website, which provides additional verifiable details. Please let me know what other edits may be needed. Thank you. Genauein (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great, you signed your message! Thanks. (Quick learner, obviously) I think you should resubmit the article at this point, and let's see what kind of response you get. LaMona (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Bohemia

La Mona. I can't believe it's been accepted first time. Many thanks indeed. I still have heard nothing further about my Joseph Swensen article. It's been quite a while so I hope it's OK. You said it was, so here's hoping. It hasn't been lost, has it? I'm working on the Eddie McGuire (composer) article which I asked you about yesterday. I'll do some more tomorrow but I haven't yet deleted the long list of compositions - I'm rather nervous about that and I haven't yet replaced them with another list. I won't be able to search libraries for reviews for a while. Our local one is closed for renovation but I hope to visit the Edinburgh Music Library at some point. I'm truly grateful for all your help. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've starred the Opera bohemia article to see if anyone objects to it in main space. It goes through a "new article" queue there, and sometimes issues come up. If you want to keep an eye on it, make sure that the star on the article is blue. ( I didn't realize it was your article, so I approved it "anonymously". Also, it sounds like a wonderful group; wish I weren't half a world away. [California]). LaMona (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona. Now you've lost me! I can't see a blue star anywhere! All this is so new to me. As for Opera Bohemia they are super. I've been to three of their operas and look forward to seeing more. The productions are so much more intimate than those in huge theatres with full-blown 'everything'. But yes, I enjoy those too - most recently a Handel opera, Ariodante, by Scottish Opera (whose wiki entry by the way is pretty poor!) California surely has some good productions? Perhaps you would guide me to the 'star'. Thanks again Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the article in the middle there are tabs: Read, View Source, View History... and to the right of that there's a star. If it isn't blue, click on it and it turns blue. Then, you need to click on "Watchlist" from time to time, and if there are any changes to the article you'll see it in your watchlist. A way to test this is to put your own page on your watchlist (by turning star blue), make a change, then click on Watchlist and you should see it listed there. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona. Thank you. Yes, I must be a bit of a 'numptie'.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:28:57, 9 March 2016 review of submission by Usfcartwright



LaMona,

I appreciate you taking the time to review my article for submission a week or so ago: SkyBroncos Precision Flight Team. I appreciate your input and will work to correct the errors that you believe I had made.

Thank you

Cartwright

Review of Simon Letch

Thanks for your review. However, I am not clear on your reasons for rejection. Mr. Letch has been named as one of the year's best illustrators 4 times by the National Museum of Australia. The Hawkesbury City Council has also listed Mr. Letch as one of Australia's 14 most acclaimed illustrators. The .M Contemporary also awarded Mr. Letch the People's Choice Award. These certainly make him notable.

In addition, there are a number of articles about other illustrators which have 0 citations. I'm not clear on why these articles are okay, but the proposed article about Mr. Letch is not okay. These illustrators steve adams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Adams_(illustrator), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Akerbladh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ann and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arnold_(author_%26_artist) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Eekman all have 0 citations indicating any notability.

Please let me know.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs) 04:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, on talk pages you have to sign your posts by putting four tilde's in a row at the end. There's a reminder just below the edit box. Now, as for the article. My initial reaction was that there was very little text in the article, which is too bad. The point of a wikipedia article is not to prove that someone can have an article but to provide information. It should be possible to say some interesting things about the artist. The question of references, though, is not just having some number of them but having the right ones. References must be third-party - that means that what you must use as a reference is not his own work but what people have said about his work. References 4-11 are links to his work, not articles about him and his work. So those are not appropriate references. You can, if you wish, link to some of those in a section called "External links". Being listed in "the year's best cartoons" is good, but those references say only a few words about him ("Simon Letch has worked at Fairfax for more than 10 years."). Even the Sydney morning Herald has only a few sentences about him. So he's clearly well thought of, but you need to provide articles that are ABOUT him, such as biographical essays or significant reviews of his work. As for the other illustrators, remember that anyone can create a WP article, and anyone can add to the article, but also anyone can suggest that an article does not meet necessary criteria and should be deleted. Hundreds of articles are deleted daily. I will now mark those articles as not meeting the referencing criteria. and they may go on the path to deletion if no one comes along and adds the necessary references. Having looked at a few, some date from the early days of Wikipedia before these requirements were put into place. There is constant cleanup going one. In fact, if you would be so kind as to do some research to add to those articles, that would be very much in the spirit of the encyclopedia. LaMona (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Swensen

La Mona. I'm sorry to bother you again. I'm concerned about my article Joseph Swensen. You were happy with the final version and I resubmitted it. That's now over two weeks ago - days before my Opera Bohemia submission. Is there something the matter do you know? Could it have been lost? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just hasn't gotten noticed in the queue. I don't know why. I'll look for it. The queue is not taken in order but articles are thrown at as "randomly" and perhaps the algorithm is flawed. LaMona (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona. How do I thank you? Strawberries or kittens? Seriously I'm most grateful. I'm still working on Eddie McGuire's (composer) site. It's not easy but I'll get there. He's a very important but unassuming composer. I don't know him personally, by the way - just know of him and his music and what others think of him. I've only one grievance in relation to Wiki (and I really do find it upsetting) and that is in connection with my first article on Feargus Hetherington. If you would look at it and what has been placed on 'Talk' selection relating to my struggle before I submitted it you will see what I mean. I did receive a lot of help as the whole thing was so baffling at the beginning. I regret and resent this insertion - it's like a carbuncle - very much as it reflects badly on the subject - and not on my inadequacies. I also feel it's most unfair to have pre-submission dialogue posted here. There was no warning that that might be the case. I've tried to have it removed and only got my 'head bitten off' so to speak. Sorry to bother you but I don't know what else I can do. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Balquhidder2013. I looked quickly at the Hetherington article. First, you can't really remove the talk on the talk page, so I'm afraid you'll have to live with it. I don't know why the article got so much attention - those things tend to snowball. This area that you are working in is difficult because you are trying to bring some not very widely known musicians to Wikipedia. The problem is that Wikipedia mainly deals with the "already well-known." The references you have are not terribly strong -- even though the person is greatly appreciated, it's mostly "local attention." (There are many times when I wish that WP were divided by country rather than by language, because it is harder for a smaller English-speaking country to get its due in WP @en than it is for, say, US topics. And the cultural differences between, say, the US, UK, India, and Nigeria are pretty dang intense!) One thing I would caution is quoting "raves" from reviews - this is considered to be promotional, and will prejudice folks against the article. It falls under "NPOV" - not using a neutral point of view. The reason is that someone wanting to show that a person deserves an article will rarely cite a poor review, and yet, being neutral, if you cite any you need to cite all points of view. If you have access to a library with a good reference section, there may be music reference books that will help fix this person's place in the world. I'll see if I can find anything, but it's better to be closer to the scene, which you seem to be. LaMona (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona. I'm very grateful to you but of course I'm disappointed. It was a tricky one and my inexperience didn't help. Reviews are difficult to come by and for example, reviews don't mention the orchestral leader. I had a number of good refs thrown out for that reason. Anyway, I'll try to absorb what you've said. And yes, by country rather than language would work better. Small is good! (I'm Irish so I've got to say that!) It's good of you to 'listen' to my gripe and to offer some help if possible! I hope you have a peaceful weekend.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:35:20, 10 March 2016 review of submission by 31tkkbq


Just checking to see if it is ok now with the new references? (31tkkbq (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

It looks ok, although if there are writings by her you should create a bibliography and put them there. I must admit that I'm a bit confused about the chronology - some articles say she's a school principal, others that she's a doctoral study, others that she's a researcher. It would be good to put her accomplishments in some order. If she hasn't published a lot and does not hold a faculty position, it may be too soon for her to have the credentials needed on which to base an article. At the moment it's hard for me to tell. LaMona (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:43:00, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Vikingo999


Thanks for the feedback, I've gone ahead and added more citations that hopefully broaden the article. Unfortunately this topic is an emerging area and so there are not a tremendously large source of citations available.

Hi, vikingo999 - if the topic is just emerging there may not be enough backing yet to support an article. If that is the case (and we'll hear from other reviewers when you re-submit), then it will have to wait until it evolves a bit more. Note that drafts stay around for at least 6 months after their last edit, and authors are warned before they might be deleted (and, hint, hint, even a minor edit sets the clock back to the beginning), so you can hang on to this if it's too early and come back to it when there's more supporting documentation. LaMona (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:48:26, 11 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Deadwaster


Hi LaMona, First of all, many thanks for taking the time to review the article I created. I have resubmitted the article with an extra link to an article which has more emphasis on the studio itself and puts it in the context of the studio complex at Nalepastrasse. I understand your point and very much hope that this extra link fulfils the need for more specific reference to the studio itself. I would just like to point out, that a comparison with other wikipedia pages of recording studios, for example AIR studios, shows that their references are even less specific. AIR studios has just two references: one which is its own facebook page and one reference to a BBC article about some children that recorded there. Is there a reason for the discrepancy in requirements here? May I add that, in my opinion, what makes this studio interesting and therefore worthy for an article is that it was a unique focal point and catalyst for international indie music in Berlin during its five year existence, as evidenced by the plethora of notable albums which came out of it - three of which are considered so culturally important that they have their own wikipedia articles. The physical attributes of the studio itself are less important from a cultural perspective than the music scene which built up around and was engendered by the studio. The media seem to prefer to write about the bands and their albums than about the studios where they recorded. I think that it is perhaps for this reason that I can not find any articles dedicated solely to the recording studio itself, but I hope you might be able to see my point that the absence of such articles does not diminish the importance of the studio from a cultural perspective. This studio was the hub for international indie bands in Berlin, something which cannot be attributed to any other studio in Berlin at that time, and as such it took on an importance greater than its status as a mere recording studio; in the same way, but to a lesser extent, as Studio 54 which was unexceptional as a night club but took on a broader cultural importance due to the scene it engendered. Regards Deadwaster (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Deadwaster (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deadwaster. Unfortunately, the absence of articles is exactly what counts in Wikipedia. We can't judge importance in a rational way without them. Notability is defined as "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." So we don't decide what is notable, we let the world of media and research decide, and we just report. That's the only way to have a rational criterion. It is true that many roles get less attention than others (it's very hard to have a WP article for second violin, no matter how excellent, for example), yet those are our criteria. As for the other articles, there are many article in WP that do not meet the standards. You will often see boxes with messages at the top of these saying things like: this article needs more references; this article doesn't meet notability criteria; etc. Bit by bit those articles go through a process where they are either improved or deleted. WP is always a work in progress. You should not give up looking for sources - try books, try reference books, etc. LaMona (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:24, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Duncan R2


Hello LaMona - just to let you know that I've just resubmitted the above referenced draft which you correctly rejected a week ago. As you surmised, I had submitted it too early because previous submissions I'd made have taken 3 to 4 weeks to review but you got to this one within a week. Anyway since you rejected it, the album has now charted in the artist's homeland (Germany) so I think it now fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements. Also, regarding your comment about the reviews being exclusively positive, I have now included the only negative review I can find (published this week) and slightly toned down my covering notes on the positive reviews. So I think it's good to go but would be grateful if you could take a look and let me know what you think. Regards Duncan R2

It does look better. I personally would drop the concert reviews, since this is about the album, and in general reviews should be references, not part of the article. But let's see what other reviewers thing. LaMona (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, LaMona - just to let you know that the revised version of the article was accepted a few days ago with the reviews remaining in the body of the article. Thank you for helping me with this and I wish you all the best in your tireless work for Wikipedia. Regards Duncan R2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan R2 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:21:01, 12 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands


Hello again, I've been working with Pamela Marshall on this page since you last looked. I wonder if you could take a look again to see if what I'm creating is moving in the right direction. It's by no means finished yet but would appreciate some input. Thank you. Sjukmidlands (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your references are still not inline with the text. References should be in the text, the way they would be in an academic article. See wp:REFBEGIN for how to do that. Then you need to remove the flowery language that you are using (e.g. " purest, most challenging way"). WP articles are factual without any embellishments. LaMona (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:59:11, 12 March 2016 review of submission by Luly Yang


Hello, I've tried multiple times to not make the article sound like an autobiography. What is the question in particular that you have about the conflict of interest? Thank you.

It is the fact that your user name is Luly Yang, and the article is about Luly Yang. If you are not Luly Yang then you should choose a new and different username. The username is supposed to be you, not the article you are editing. You don't have to use your real name, just any name you'd like. Here's how to do that: Wikipedia:Changing username. After that, in editing the article you need to have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles are not to be in praise of someone, but to be neutral information about the person. On the other hand, if you ARE Luly Yang, then you need to stop editing the article and, if you are notable, assume that someone else will come along and create the article. Is that clear? LaMona (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

LaMona, I figured that you'd appreciate a heads up... A recent AfC draft by that you declined under the auspices of WP:NOTNEWS (and rightly so!), along with several other issues, was uploaded to the mainspace, bypassing Articles for Creation. The user similarly uploaded a self-promotional article about themselves, which has since been deleted; the user was blocked indefinitely for socking in order to keep the content. The draft is here, and the duplicated content on the mainspace (with the same issues) is here.

Aside from the general notice, I didn't know if you had any ideas as to what to do with it, whether it be redirecting/merging it elsewhere (I'm honestly not sure where), proposing it for deletion, move it back to draft space, et cetera. I looked for a place to merge it and rewrite, but to no avail. So I figured one of the latter two (or both) might be the best bet. Let me know what you think. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I think the only sensible thing is to propose deletion. I would expect it to be an uncontroversial delete. Also, it looks like the editor is now blocked for socking. I also notice that they've been removing AfC info from their talk page. A very problematic user. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:12:34, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26


Hello there LaMona!!! A Pleasant Good day to you. By the way thanks for dropping by to my draft of reviewing of it. Hope that you can help & assist me on this particular matter very sincerely. I've already received your message regarding to my draft that you've reviewed on it a while ago and you declined of it due to your basis that my draft(article) is "not supported" in terms of reliable sources. Here's my conclusion to your assessments:
First, as you can see, that my draft has a LEGAL basis and all of its sources is very "ACCURATE" & very "RELIABLE" and I've already checked and reviewed on it many times, by sentence to sentence, it's spelling & grammar and also the statements is already fixed at all and for me there's nothing now to be fixed since it has a LEGAL basis.
Second, in terms of notability and legality of this draft(article), here's my conclusion to your that I can prove of it to you:
Notability of the article
I Wave26, created the page Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano is hereby confirmed that my article has a "Notability" according to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and the page I made is very informational and encyclopedic for a variety of reasons:

  • Kenneth Earl Medrano is known by many people ever since he is the "KING OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines due to his "Twerk It Like Miley" Dubsmash viral video he made like the QUEEN OF DUBSMASH, Maine Mendoza.
  • Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already by many people because of the viral video that earned him popularity on social media, he joined the contest on Eat Bulaga's That's My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest on GMA Network and winning the title as the "Ultimate Bae Grand Winner" on the said contest.
  • Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already after winning the contest, he entered showbiz by having some TV appearances on GMA Network & GMA News TV like the characters BENJAMIN on Ismol Family, GEORGE on Wagas (GMA News TV) and the same time, he is one of the cast of Buena Familia as PACOY ALVERO, & the upcoming TV series The Millionaire's Wife as JOAQUIN, one way that the subject is an actor at the same time he is one of the members of "That's My Bae" as a dancer on Eat Bulaga!.
  • Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already since he made a "CAMEO ROLE" on the blockbuster movie, "My Bebe Love" which is starred by Vic Sotto, Ai-Ai de las Alas together with Alden Richards & Maine Mendoza
  • Kenneth Earl Medrano already won awards like "Most New Handsome Face" & "Best New Male TV Personality" awarded by Social Media TV Poll (SMTVP).
  • I also believe that the info given is neutral, informative, and non biased.
  • There is no conflict of interest as its purpose is for knowledge and no more.
  • There is neutrality towards my subject as I am of no relation to the subject matter.
  • There is also no conflict of interest as I am of no relation may it be professional or familiar. the only point of the creation of this page is for the general's public knowledge of good design.

If you could help me with the page I created and define what I need to change, I will do so accordingly.

Thank you and please do approve of my page
Wave26 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wave26. I'm not sure what you mean by a "legal basis". What matters in Wikipedia is that there are third-party, reliable sources for all information in the article. How popular someone is does not matter here. Read about notability as it is defined in Wikipedia, which has its own peculiarities. You cannot use videos of him performing (the saveviz site). You cannot use social media sites (facecebu, twitter). All of those have to be removed. As I said before the GMA network is his employer, so that can be used for some facts but it does not support notability. Sources must be independent of him, like regular newspaper articles. Fan sites cannot be used. The only possible reliable source (by Wikipedia's standards) is the SunStar, but that unfortunately is an interview, and interviews are not third-party sources, they are the person speaking about themselves. So again, it can be used for some facts, if needed, but it does not support notability. You must look at your article from the point of view of Wikipedia's definition of "notable". LaMona (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:19, 14 March 2016 review of submission by SRoberts1988


Hello LaMona. Thank you for your comments. Based on your suggestions I have rewritten the article. Is it ok to use published press releases to show that a brokerage exists in a certain city? Or is it best not to attribute? Thank you.

Hi, User:SRoberts1988. Before going on to your question, here on talk pages you have to sign your messages by putting four tilde's at the end (usually space+four tilde's). There's a clickable reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Now, about press releases. Using a press release from the company is essentially proof that no one else has bothered to say anything about the company, and that's a heavy negative. What counts in Wikipedia is what others have said about the company. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of companies. A company needs to have some characteristic that is "encyclopedic" to qualify for an article. The opening at wp:corp 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." So a company like Microsoft has had an effect on society. But merely being a company, even a successful company, is not notable. So you have to show what this company has done that has made the world a different place. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:17, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands


Please can you take a look at the revisions and work I've done on this page and let me know if what I've so far done is correct and along the right lines. Sjukmidlands (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did one inline reference so you can see how it is done. Basically, int he place in the text where the reference belongs, you put it between <ref></ref> tags. Then the display program numbers them and displays them at the bottom of the article. I also added the infobox, which you will now see there. LaMona (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:53:37, 14 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sivan dror


Hello, thank you for your feedback on our BATEMAN SETTLER value we can add information about the settler but there is already information about it in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixer-settler how do you suggest we proceed? i dont have sources but we have a patent for the BATEMAN SETTLER i also wanted to upload a picture explaining all the parts of the settler but the system didnt let me, i think because i already have another draft in your system.... this is a very confusing platform :-) i appreciate your help and hope we will be able to create the new value have a good day Sivan

Sivan dror (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I went ahead and made some changes based on the article for Mixer-settler so now it has some context. You will need references - those are essentially the driving force in Wikipedia. Every statement of fact must be verifiable in a third-party, reliable source (newspaper, magazine, or a reliable web site). So start looking for those. You can add the patent information, but it doesn't make the topic notable. You should also consider that this could be a section of the article on Mixer-settlers, not an article on its down. It may make more sense to put it there as that's where readers are most likely to go for information. If it does become a standalone article you will need to make connections between the two articles - connecting related information creates the fabric of Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:38:59, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Sslatt


Hi LaMona - Thank you for your detailed comment and suggestions. You have been very helpful! I will be making edits to the Bio like you mentioned, further highlighting his writing/books, as well as pairing down some of the other content to ensure that we have adequate references to support the content.

Should I completely remove the sources such as his page on Entrepreneur.com and Huffington Post? I know that they are from the subject himself, but I wasn't sure if they helped prove that he actually does write for these online publications. Secondly, (I will research more on this as well) what types of sources would be best for this type of individual as well as how many? I thought for sure that his televised appearances on CCTV and Fox News covering SuperBowl Ads/Marketing would help the cause, as well as the properly sourced proof of the Awards he has won.

I will keep working at this as I know that Jim is a great figure in the Marketing industry and deserves to be on Wikipedia! :) If there is any other insight you can provide I would really appreciate it! Thank you for your time!

Hi, User:Sslatt. First, on talk pages (but not on article pages) you have to sign your message with four tilde's at the end. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Trying to show that a person writes for a journal is awkward, and personally I've never found a good explanation on how to do that within the rules. So leave those for now, but know that they do not support notabiity, so they are minor as references. The main problem is that you don't have any really strong references, and adding up a lot of weak references doesn't really help. You should remove information that you cannot source (like his personal life, which doesn't make him notable, or the fact that he loved to ski), and stick to information that comes from strong sources. You have things like an article about the toothbrush that you say he invented, but the article doesn't say that he invented it. You have to reference that to an article with that information. That's the kind of thing that needs clearing up. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona - Thanks so much for that reminder! I am new to this :) I appreciate it! And thank you for the feedback. Super helpful and I will definitely take another stab at this and clean things up based on your suggestions! Thank you thank you! Sslatt (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:55:34, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26


Hello there again LaMona!!! First of all, I want to say very sincerely to you a very thank you so much for your great help of assisting me regarding to my draft(article) entitled Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano. I really appreciated all of your comments and suggestions to my work it's because for me it's very accurate and a very big help for me to improve this draft. Based on your suggestions, I want to say that I've already checked and rewritten the draft(article) by following your comments to remove some references of Mr. Medrano that you've reviewed a while ago like (the saveviz site), (facecebu, and also twitter). I've been looked again to my draft if there's any sources that came from a fansite but I think it's already fixed and OK with it since I've seen no fansites of it. Also, I already revised it's contents like removing some of the shows that Mr. Medrano guested on GMA as what you've been suggested to me that it should be removed. Because of this, I sincerely make a favor again to you if do so, if you can take a look again to my draft to check on it if it's ready to be publish as an article or not. And if there's any lacking or more, please let me know of it by helping and assisting me on this particular matter and give me some more comments and suggestions if ever what I need to change.
Thanks, and I hope this time my draft(article) will pass and approve.
Wave26 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wave26, this is much improved. My guess is that reviewers will want the language toned down to be less "enthusiastic" and more neutral, but you should resubmit and see what advice you get. There is the issue of notability, and you should look at WP:CREATIVE for the notability criteria that are used for what we call "creative professionals." The subject of your article is popular, but popularity is not the same as notability. Self-published works (most "viral videos") don't have a lot of weight, and having a few acting credits doesn't add up to notable. The question may come down to whether the Twerk It contest is notable. It may not be considered to be notable by Wikipedia standards, because it is kind of a one-off, rather than a contest with a history. In any case, you have learned to Wiki! Good for you! LaMona (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An AfC Barnstar for you

The Articles for Creation barnstar
I've noticed that you consistently go above and beyond over at AfC to help new articles get up to standard. Keep up the good work!  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:22, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Ssinyakov


I have provided the references where the information can be verified. The family data was obtained from Ansestry.com and Anna's story from the Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Austin TX. Besides that I am not sure we can get references on an "ordinary" person of the early 20th century. What is your suggestion?

If there are no third-party references then there cannot be a Wikipedia article for the person. Basically, Wikipedia reflects what has been deemed notable by cultural and social sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books. Most "ordinary people" won't get a Wikipedia article, only the extraordinary. You might try checking local media and history books to see if you can find something there. Otherwise, an article just isn't in the cards, sorry. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:28, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Ntu2cmu


I am requesting a re-review under the feedback that "There's nothing here that meets WP:CORP" – after reviewing multiple times, everything in this page meets WP: CORP guidelines: 1. I disagree that "All of the references refer to "business as usual": routine product announcements, getting funding, opening branches" – yes, there are mentions of funding announcements, but there are reputable, independent sources talking about the product and how it has changed the game for social recruiting – that's not news, that's not a product announcement – that's a reputable 3rd party source stating the impact it has on a society/behavior of a society (which is something that is required for noteriaty). 2. I am confused as to why "The only substantial article that I see is the TechCrunch one" – all of the sources referenced in the page are reputable – including Business Insider. Business Insider works independently of Jobvite and other companies – please read their publication "about" section – independent media/news company. As for the other references sited, they all fall under the same category: they have no affiliation with Jobvite. Sources are reliable, and independent of the subject and have a neutral point of view. According to wikipedia's definition of a "source" – these are all articles written by reputable journalists, which are sources. None of the sources fall under the following: press releases, press kits, or similar works; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization; patents, whether pending or granted;[5] any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

Also, there is a depth to the sources – there is not just 1-4 sources being cited here.

Very confused as to how this is not a "reputable" company based on the fact the sources (and it's content) meet all of the guidelines. Please let me know ASAP. Thank you.

The question isn't "reputable" it is "notable" which is a different concept. Please read wp:rs about what are reliable sources. Note that very short articles (Buisness Insider) do not have the same weight as ones that are in-depth. The point of a Wikipedia article is not to prove the reputation or even to prove the notability of a company, but to provide encyclopedic information. You say in your message that "it has changed the game for social recruiting" but that is nowhere to be found in the article. If there is information in the soruces that is needed to assert notability, that information must be in the article. You cannot assume that readers will go off and read all of the sources -- they expect to find the important information in the article itself. This is essentially what I said in the review. You must say more if you want people to understand what is important about the company. LaMona (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Sean Young, Phd

I see that the photo of Sean Young (psychologist) has been removed. In my last correspondence, I contested why the file had been flagged for removal, given that I am the rights holder, I assigned the proper commons rights, and took the photograph. See below for my note. Would you please let me know how the photograph may be added to the entry again -- should I simply add it to Wikimedia Commons again and reinsert the image? Moreover, is there something that must be done prevent this from happening again? Thank you.

"A few points: Yes, I am a professional photographer (http://www.lynwoodlord.com/). There's no deception involved with the Sean Young, PhD, photo, so again, I request that it not be deleted. The initial photo was removed simply to remove any indication of impropriety (even though that is also my own work; I was simply not familiar with the submission process)." Metalhorn1 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it. You need to look in the history of the article because that is where it says who deleted it. You responded to the delete request of mine, and I don't know why the person decided to delete it but you'll have to contact them. It is possible that the rights information was not complete or not clear. I do know that there is a process by which a resource (like a photo) is certified by a rights holder, but I assume that requires some clear identification of the person doing the certifying. All of that information is on commons, not wikipedia. There is also a process for undeletion: here. I don't know what they need as proof of rights or identity of asker -- you can ask about that on commons at their help page. LaMona (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Metalhorn1 - Here's a link that goes into more detail on the kind of declaration that must be made to clear rights in a photograph (or text): Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries.This is done as an email, perhaps because it requires the person's actual name. LaMona (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:41:48, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26


Hello there again LaMona!!! Thank you so much for your feedback, highly appreciated of it. I didn't first resubmit my draft(article) it's because I want to make sure of it that my work is OK and fixed.
In regards to the "notability" issue of the subject, I've already read the WP:CREATIVE for notability criteria. And my assessment of it that the subject is definitely passed and qualified and is consider to be notable for the following reasons:

  • First, I decided to merge the "Twerk it Like Miley Dubsmash" and "Thats My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest" sub-contents under the Career section into one and I leave his "Acting Career" as its sub-content its because as you said earlier that these sub-contents is not considerable as notable since the contest that Mr. Medrano joined is only a part of the 'segments' in Eat Bulaga that aired on GMA Network and it has no history of previous winners like reality shows, national, or international contests etc. But Mr. Medrano is known already and he has done "remarkable" works in terms of his talent like acting and dancing and became a part in a local variety show in GMA Network in Cebu before his dubsmash hit became viral.
  • Second, it's true that as you said that 'self-published works' especially his viral videos don't have a lot of weight. But the point of it is that Mr. Medrano is the one who started and originated to "trend" the song Twerk It Like Miley by Brandon Beal in the Philippines through his dubsmash perfomance that the people catches their attention. That is why his videos became viral that earned 2.6 million views overnight and the rest was history, and that's the reason why he earned the title "THE KING OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines like what Maine Mendoza was first discovered and known by people to her before their accidentally paired with Alden Richards also declaring her as the "THE QUEEN OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines. In short, Mr. Medrano is already popular and known to people.
  • Third, Mr. Medrano is already a "public figure" by people when he joined "That's My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest" in Eat Bulaga!. So in short, Mr. Medrano is consider a notable.
  • Fourth, Mr. Medrano plays on different acting skills on GMA and one of his major break on his career when he do his major role in Buena Familia as Pacoy Alvero on GMA Network, that caught the people's viewers attention. It's because of their pairing with Kylie Padilla as Celine Buena. His exposure catches the viewers attention, forming their love team as "Kenlie", aside of it's rival against Harry, character portrayed by Martin del Rosario. In spite of being a first timer appearance in an actual teleserye, the big impact of the team-up make the people's viewers appreciated, and because of this, Mr. Medrano makes a contribution and has a remarkable image on television that the people always remember of him through his character role.
  • And lastly, as I mentioned before on my first message to you in the "Notability of the Article", that there is also no conflict of interest as I am of no relation may it be professional or familiar. the only point of the creation of this page is for the general's public knowledge of good design.

Through these assessments and proofs I have, I hope that my draft(article) this time will be approved since I already resubmitted it for re-review.
Thank you so much for your great help and please help me and assist me on this particular matter, you can look my draft again and please give me some more comments and suggestions if ever what I need to change.
Wave26 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:25, 17 March 2016 review of submission by Kamalaindia


Could you please recheck the content of the submitted article ? If still there are any points to improve please let me know. Thanks

(Kamalaindia (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Kamalaindia. I didn't look at every reference, but most of what I saw were just the organization's name in a list or directory. The one source that had some information about the organization was supplied by the organization itself (Youth for Europe). You need third-party sources that have written about the organization - newspapers or magazines. Directory listings don't support notability. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:18:27, 17 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Nhv2001


Hi LaMona,

Thank you for reviewing my draft of Jonathan Rosand's biography. Criterion 5 of the notability requirements for academics -- at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) -- states that academics are notable if they hold named chairs at a major institution of higher education and research. I indicated in the second sentence that my subject holds a named chair, so I believe notability is established. I was not attempting to establish notability through my subject's parents.

The link I added was my attempt to provide a secondary source corroborating notability (it's a Mass. General news bulletin on Rosand's promotion to the named chair).

Further, regarding the use of secondary vs. primary sources, the Wikipedia materials I found -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources -- state that secondary sources must be used to establish notability (which I attempted to do) but that primary sources can be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." I believe my uses of primary source material fall under the category of references to "straightforward, descriptive facts," such as where my subject attended school, that he founded the International Stroke Genetics Consortium, etc. I therefore feel my use of primary sources was consistent with Wikipedia's policies.

For the above reasons, I request that you kindly reconsider your decision to reject my article. I would also welcome more detailed feedback on any remaining objections you have. I consulted Wikipedia's live help chat, and it was suggested that I communicate with you directly about my concerns.

Thank you!

Nhv2001 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, [User:Nhv2001|Nhv2001]]. AfC is iterative, so you can always re-submit. LaMona (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LaMona, I would like to avoid another rejection. I assume another reviewer is likely to see the two previous rejections and follow suit. How do I explain that I've established notability by indicating my subject is a named chair at MGH/Harvard before the reviewer takes a look at the article? Or do you have any other suggestions for avoiding another rejection? And please also tell me if you think my arguments above are just a bunch of hot air. Thank you! Nhv2001 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and put it through. It passes notability; that's all that matters for AfC. You can continue to work on. 22:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Rosand has been accepted

Jonathan Rosand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

With respect to [1] Scientists are notable for the science they do, not their personal life. All that is necessary for notability is a source to show they meet one of the requirements of WP:PROF. I accepted the article . DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please note that the science listed there was not authored by him, so there is still no proof that he did any science. Many don't mention him. Some SYNTH maybe possible, but none of the articles I looked at made a direct, verifiable connection. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, LaMona! I should have time this weekend or Monday to improve the referencing and provide proof of his scientific work. Nhv2001 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Deleted ZMR Page to ZMR section on En Masse Entertainment Page

As the Draft:ZMR page submission has been declined, can ZMR references be redirected to the ZMR subsection on the En Masse Entertainment page? This was done for the Fruit Attacks and Pocket Platoons sections. Thank you. Baraqorn (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Baraqorn. I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, so I'll guess. If you wish to add the references you have (and additional information) to the En Masse page, that would be fine. Eventually, if you find enough sources, then you can make the ZMR section there short, with a direct to a more ample page like has been done with TERA. This is always the best way to start when adding a page for something that is already a section in another page. LaMona (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona. Thank you. I will add some of the information on the draft page to the En Masse page. What I was hoping for, however, is to have a redirect for when people search for ZMR or Zombies Monsters Robots that leads to the ZMR section on the En Masse page. This was done for Pocket Platoons and Fruit Attacks when their pages were declined. Now, when I search for ZMR, or click on the link in the info box on the En Masse Entertainment page, I get message that the page does not exist. However, if I search for Fruit Attacks, I still get the "page does not exist" message but the first result is the En Masse Entertainment page with a "redirect from Fruit Attacks" message. Can this be done for ZMR as well? Thank you. 50.46.239.236 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes - now I see. Yes, you can create a redirect from ZMR to the appropriate section in the En Masse article. I can do this now if you are sure that's what you want. (They're easier to create than to delete.) LaMona (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please create the redirect. I am unsure how to do that. Thank you. Baraqorn (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona: I have edited the ZMR page to be a redirect to the ZMR section of the En Masse Entertainment page and have re-submitted the page. Please let me know if there is more I need to do to complete the redirect. Thank you. Baraqorn (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:30:46, 20 March 2016 review of submission by Cjj.cell


Question for LaMona: Thank you for the feedback. I will find links for all of the festivals that the band has listed on the Wiki. Is it best to create a Wiki page for each one, or shall I link to the url as a reference? Some of the festivals are from the 1990's so it may be difficult to find a digital reference. Any suggestions on how to handle this? There is another band that is not nearly as notable as this band. They are "Larry and his flask". I am surprised that they have a wiki, and we could not get ours approved. If I am able to verify all of their festival appearances, will this suffice? Thanks CJ Cjj.cell (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cjj.cell. It's not really a matter of finding the links to all of the festivals, and it wouldn't be appropriate to create articles for the festivals if they themselves do not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built on third-party sources - that means that articles are based on what some independent but reliable source has said about the subject. This is necessary for verifiability -- we cannot have information in Wikipedia that cannot be verified in a reliable source. Reliable sources are things like published newspapers or journals, and sometimes web sites that have an editorial policy. In addition, Wikipedia is not a place for lists of performances. Such lists may be appropriate for the band's web site, but by aren't encyclopedic. Instead of a list you should have a sentence saying: they have played festivals such as (name two or three, preferably with a third-party reference like a review of their performance in a newspaper). As for Larry, I just marked that page as not meeting various requirements. Every day hundreds of pages are deleted from WP for these reasons. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:37, 20 March 2016 review of submission by Rob.Bale84


Hi LaMona. Following the indication of not enough references, I've added the references I know from Reuters, BusinessWire, and LifeHacker - all established web sites in the fields of digital businesses and services, keeping the original text and referencing the capabilities. More references can be added but may create a reference to word ratio that seems unnatural. Please guide and thanks in advance.

Hi. First, on talk pages (for reasons that ... well, just go with it) you have to sign your messages with four tilde's, which are then replaced with your user ID by the system.There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. (Possibly off-screen unless you scroll down.) As to the references, it's not so much "not enough" but "not good enough quality." Unfortunately, two of the three you just added, BusWire and Reuters, are reprints of a company press release. Press releases are definitely not allowed because they are by the company itself and intentionally promotional. More advice: Maqtoob is a "submit it yourself" site that is mostly a blog. Mobility Lounge is run by a single person - making it not a published or reliable site. El Androide Libre: "Blog de referencia Android en español." Generally, blogs are too informal to meet our criteria for reliable sources. http://www.racunalniske-novice.com/ gives only two sentences. Xaluan is the same - two sentences. What we're looking for are published sources with actual editorial policies and paid staff that that are not helping promote the software and that write a substantial article about the topic. LaMona (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vees article

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for looking over my article so thoroughly. I will address these issues and resubmit!

As for the COI inquiry, I was considering making a wikipedia username and such for awhile now and finally found an opportunity with creating a page on Jack Vees (hence the username - Chez (or "about" Vees). I plan on creating more pages as I see the need for them, and picked the username as the place to start. What steps would you recommend to clarify my COI to others who will be looking at publishing submissions? Should I change my name?

Many thanks, ChezVees (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ChezVees. Well, in fact "Chez" means "at the home of" which sounds closer than "about". (definition) When you are no longer editing the Vees article, no one will notice. However, it is unfortunate to use the name of an article for your username, since your username should represent you, not a particular article. It might be better if you simply adopt a new username, and on the user page simply mention that you made a few edits as ChezVees but realized it wasn't a good username and abandoned that one. It's hard to get actual usernames deleted, and so it's best just to quit using it and create another. LaMona (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:34, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Infoiarm


Hi, User:Infoiarm. Did you mean to leave a message? LaMona (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona,

Yes I thought I had left a message but now think I must have done something wrong because I cannot find it any more. The essence of it was the following:

Thank you for your feedback relating to the draft of Agile Financial Management for which I am made a number of changes including converting the web links citing other non-book materials - these now appear in the References list. This was an editing oversight that was not intended to skew/bias the article content. Also I noted that a Google search for agile financial management is likely to turn up many off topic items since the term "agile" is often used as an adjective in finance and does not refer to an overarching method or approach per se. This article is specifically focused on financial practices as they relate to agile projects (e.g., software development).

For purposes of full disclosure I am an SME participant in this field but am not interested in promoting specific publications, services, companies or even agile methodologies (though a few are mentioned in the article as examples). The intent of this article is to act as a rallying point for a topic that is not yet in Wikipedia.

Infoiarm (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have no idea what SME is, so please enlighten me. If you are not promoting specific publications, companies, etc., then it may be difficult to explain why your username uses the name of a particular company in this area Institute of Agile Risk Management IARM, and that so far the articles created have the same titles as the sections on that web site. Those latter could be coincidence, but the user name clearly is not -- info+IARM is a pretty obvious statement of interest. Please explain. LaMona (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:03:42, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Km13oj


Hi there!

Can you help me understand how I can improve my sources? I tried to include reliable news organizations, like Global and CNBC, as well as tech sites. Is it an issue with the citation style?

Thanks.

Hi, User:Km13oj. First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down. Next, sources: it would sure help us reviewers if your references were "complete" - that is, title of the article, author of the article, newspaper or journal, and date. Otherwise we have no idea what kind of link it is until we click on it. Here's what your CNBC cite could look like:

  • Creegan, Matt (September 25, 2013). "Who's viewing your Instagram, and profiting from it?". CNBC.

The code for that is:

{{cite news |title=Who’s viewing your Instagram, and profiting from it?|first=Matt |last=Creegan|date=September 25, 2013|url=http://www.cnbc.com/2013/09/25/whos-viewing-your-instagram-and-profiting-from-it.html|publisher=CNBC}}

But the easiest way to do it is to fill in the template from the pull-down that opens when you click on "Cite" at the top of the edit box. Fill in whatever information you have, but the title of the article and the name of the source are key.

That said, you need to look at wp:rs which is the page about reliable sources, and also wp:corp which is the page about notability for corporations. Basically, you need to find articles that are substantially about your subject. Back to the CNBC article, it has two short paragraphs about Crowdbabble (that don't say a whole lot about the company) and two quotes from the CEO. As you'll see in the policy pages, quotes from officers of a company have very low value in terms of notability, so although that is CNBC, it isn't a strong source about the company. The GlobalNews article is similar -- the article is about the issue of mining user data, and Crowdbabble is mentioned, but the article is not substantially about the company. The Crunchbase entry is not in support of notability because Crunchbase has entries for every company, and therefore isn't a show of notability. (Forbes and Bloomberg profiles are the same.) You have have articles that are entirely or at least substantially about the company. If none exist, then you cannot prove notability, at least not today. You can let the article rest - they don't get deleted for at least 6 months after the last edit, and you will get notified beforehand so that you can make a small change that will keep it around. LaMona (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:13:50, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Wikicatzndogz


Hi, I have been trying to create an artist page for Catz 'n Dogz. My last review apparently had "too many third party sources", while the time before that it apparently had too little. Can you please advise on what type of sources would be adequate? Resident Advisor IS a reliable source in electronic dance music, as an online magazine, source for news, releases and events.

Could you also please advise more specifically on how to improve the article ?

Many thanks.

First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down.
Next, I left a message on your talk page about both about conflict of interest but also your username. If you are associated with the group, then you have a conflict of interest. You can continue to edit the draft, but you must declare your COI opening (the instructions are linked from the message on your talk page), and you will not be allowed to edit the article in mainspace. Next, WP does not allow user names that are the same as a company, a band, or any other group entity. I left you instructions on changing your username. You need to cease editing with this current one, or you may find yourself blocked.
As for sources, there is no such thing as "too many third-party sources". What you had were a large number of "primary" sources -- that is, not third-party at all. A video or sound file of the group performing is a primary source, and primary sources, while they can be used sparingly, do not support notability. Notability in WP depends entirely on what others have written about you in reliable sources. (Please read wp:rs about reliable sources.) As for RA, I checked on our list of known reliable sources and it isn't there. I note that some of what you link to are the output of polls that readers have voted on -- those are not considered reliable -- they are basically crowd-sourced popularity, and popular is not the same as notable. (Also note that Discogs is on the WP list of non-reliable sources, so it cannot be used). Anything that is crowd-sourced is considered not reliable. Something that is just the announcement of a concert or show does not confer notability (e.g. this). The line-up at the Parklife Festival also does not confer notability. You need articles written about the group (preferably reviews of the music) in newspapers or magazines that have a reputation for fact-checking. Fan sites do not count. I will ask on the reliable sources noticeboard about Resident Advisor and see if they have any opinions on that matter. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:14, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Ballantinesrose


Hello LaMona, I have have worked on the draft for the Yogi Aaron page and taken into account your advice. I have given it a more objective tone, revised my sources and cleaned up my references section.

As far as the sources go, I have The Huffington post, New York Daily News, The Dallas Voice, The Guardian, and Costa Rica News.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks

The problem with the first three of those is that they just have short quotes from him and they are not about him, they are about hot naked yoga. So those do add to notability for him. The Costa Rica one is about him, but that is not considered a major paper. The Dallas Voice is a short article, and the book you list mentions him once. None of these are the substantial sources that we require for notability. He may become notable in the future, and an article then would make sense. LaMona (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]




Ballantinesrose (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:54:06, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Writer1977


Hello LaMona,

Thank you for your feedback on the draft of the page for Jeffrey Marsh. I have removed the citations to his personal Vines, tweets and YouTube video, as well as the citation to his IMDB page, and re-submitted the Wiki page for re-consideration. I'd love it if you could share any additional feedback.

Writer1977 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You still have a problem with sources. The HuffPost is an interview, so that's not a third-party source (does not support notability). Digg is not a reliable source. We discourage linking to sales sites (iTunes, which I removed), and the upcoming book is upcoming -- when it is published and has reviews, you would link to the reviews. Linking to the publisher site is considered promotional (the publisher promotes the book, and is not a neutral source of information). Mashable is not considered a reliable source. Buzzfeed is borderline - sometimes reliable when stories are written by staff writers - however that is one 6-second video in a list of 49, so it's not going to support notability on its own. Vine videos (like youtube and other "upload it yourself" sites) are considered to be self-published works, and self-publishing and self-publishing is kind of like singing on the street corner - many people may pass by and enjoy your sound, but you're still an amateur. So perhaps if, when the book comes out, it's a bit hit, then he might be considered notable. LaMona (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for Tenex Software Solutions Page

Hi LaMona,

Last week you posted in the deletion page for Tenex Software Solutions and I appreciate you voting to keep the page up. I was wondering if you had any advice you could share with me that would improve the content on the page thus keeping it from being deleted. I'm sure you are very busy but any advice or comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time!

Stevenjohnson14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjohnson14 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steven - Unfortunately it is not going to be easy because there aren't many good sources about the company. I did searches, as did other people, and the company's story does not seem to have been picked up by normal business sources. But that's what would be needed. I'm with you on documenting the impact of (early?) attempts to use automated voting, but unless you can find more sources about the company (and not just about that one incident) it will be deleted. At that point, it would make sense to add at least a few sentences to the electronic voting page, with hopes, perhaps, that eventually someone will make that section its own page. That's the outcome that makes the most sense to me. LaMona (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ball State University Greek Life

Given the the 36 entries in Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college, it may be reasonable to have this page one day, but for now, I think most can be folded into Ball State University#Student life, do you agree?Naraht (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. It is definitely less of a writing and sourcing burden for you. You will still be linked out to other wiki pages, and you may find articles that should link to that section of the Ball State article. That's probably plenty of work, and you can always expand it later. LaMona (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the draft, I just went looking through the drafts containing Fraternity or Sorority in the text. Note sure when I'm going to get to it, but I've reached out to the original author. Also, some of the entries in Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college are 4 or more pages long (List of fraternities and sororities at the University of Minnesota), so there will definitely be room to expand. :)

15:30:53, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands


Hello again and thank you for your help. We have worked extensively on the page and have put all the clickable references in-line as you suggested. Could you have a look again at the Denis Parsons page we created and see if it might be ready and good enough for submission and approval again? Thanks you! Sjukmidlands (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before resubmitting, you need to do the following to avoid another rejection: 1) all information in the article must be cited to third-party sources, and every statement of fact in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in reliable sources. I have marked some areas where you do not show where you found the information. Those references must meet criteria for reliable sources. For example, the "who's who in art" is probably not a reliable source because the information is provided by the artists themselves, and therefore is not a third-party source of information. ("WHO'S WHO IN ART is compiled from information personally provided by the individuals in the book.") 2) you have listings following the references that do not belong there. I don't know if those are supposed to be references or what, but you need to use them or remove them 3) the references need to be actual citations, like one would do in an academic article. If you don't provide the full reference, you must at least use the actual title of the reference, not a descriptive title, which is what you have now, nor the name of the site. I did a few for you. LaMona (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your feedback and for your help! I'm learning from this, thank you. I'll let Pam know about the Whos Who in Art reference and we'll probably remove it. The references left at the bottom are ones which have no web presence, therefore nothing to link to. I do understand that it is permissable to include these physical as opposed to web references but maybe I'm doing it incorrectly? The places where you requre citation, for instance, Denis Parsons work for Bridgemans and later set up his own studio - I'm not sure what we can add here, as Bridgemans does not exist as a business now, it closed several years ago, yet what is stated is factually correct but there is nothing I can think of which might prove it now... I think I need to understand citations better to know what to look for to include there. Thanks again though for your contiuning help. Sjukmidlands (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't leave those references there, so we need to find a use for them. It is ok to have references that are not online. the main thing for those is that you need your citation to be complete enough that another person could find the same document. So for something like this: "1994 Architects' Journal 27th April - Article on Denis Parsons" you need the title of the article, the author's name, and the page numbers. If Architect's Journal has an ISSN that should be included, because there can be more than one journal with the same name. There are instructions at wp:cite. So, do those sources support some information in the article? If so, add them in the appropriate places as references. If not, they could go under a heading such as "Further reading", but further reading does not support notability. As for "factually correct but there is nothing I can think of which might prove it..." you have to be getting your information from somewhere. If your information is coming from what someone remembers, then you cannot use that. All information has to have its origin in reliable third-party sources. It is better to leave information out of the article than to have unverifiable information there. We cannot rely on what is in someone's head, but mainly we cannot verify it and all information must be verifiable. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another request

Dear La Mona. You've been so helpful to date that I dare approach you again (remember Joseph Swensen, Opera Bohemia etc?). You also took a look at Feargus Hetherington for me and Eddie McGuire (composer). I have not yet managed to visit the Music Library in Edinburgh but still hope to soon. In the meantime I've made considerable minor changes. First, Feargus Hetherington. I reverted somewhat to my original intention of proving notability on the basis of a wide-ranging career. I know this is not covered in the Guidelines but guidelines are simply guidelines? Nevertheless, even in relation to those I feel strongly that there are some strong reviews included - they are 'strong and detailed' in so far as classical reviews here ever are. Surely 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18 more than meet the 'reviews' guideline - and that is solely for duo work. By the way, had he not been 'notable' he would not have been approached for an interview concerning his instrument for the Strad Magazine. The other person interviewed alongside him was Raphael Wallfisch, a world-famous cellist. By the way, I had listed about 6 prizes with dates but as you'll see they were deleted as 'puffery' yesterday. Some of these same prizes (for other years) are listed by others with no verification. See Ani Batikian. As only one prize still stands I'll possibly delete it. As for Eddie McGuire I will try to find some reviews as you suggested but am I on the right track in relation to the style of listing etc?

I feel very strongly that the 'notability' paste should be removed. Any help you can give would be much appreciated.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't include specific information like prizes unless you can provide references. Did you make that up out of thin air? Probably not. So where did you learn that, and was it a reliable source? It also looks like you are engaged in a rather unpleasant competition with Theroadislong. You might want to just let that article sit for a bit until it's less heated. Looking at it today I would not expect it to be deleted if that is proposed, but there's no guarantee. Note that to be deleted, the article is listed at "Articles for Deletion" for at least a week, letting others weigh in on whether or not it meets criteria. Someone would have to nominate it for deletion - the "not notable" tag is just a hint to other editors and does not have any effect on the status of the article. There are some references that are weak, unfortunately, and I do understand that for classical musicians, who are often working only in ensemble, it isn't easy to be a "star". However, adding more weak references won't help your cause. Also, you have some common "errors" such as speaking about "currently" (an encyclopedia article endures, times should be given as "beginning in 2015..."), and using terms like "widely" ("toured widely"), which is imprecise and promotional. Toning down some of this might make your co-editor less reactive. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona. Thanks for your reply. The point about prizes was simply an assumption going on many other articles. Thanks for the warning on 'common errors' - I'll go back over it. As for deletion I hope that won't happen. I've put a huge amount of work into it and I feel strongly that it should be retained. I will try to watch out for future reviews. Sorry to have bothered you.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:21, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Ballantinesrose


Thank you LaMona, I get your point. Hot Nude Yoga may seem to be the primary focus of most of the articles. But when you read under the Naked Yoga section on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_yoga), Aaron Star was listed as the creator of hot nude yoga, and as such had a predominant role in shaping the hot nude yoga movement. While reading the Naked Yoga wikipedia page I wanted to know more about this person hence why I created the page. I believe the subject would be of interest for others too. Given that hot nude yoga had a notable exposure, it would be useful to provide information on who created it on Wikipedia. Just in the same way as the Bikram Yoga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikram_Yoga wikipedia page links to its creator BikramChoudhury, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikram_Choudhury,

There is solid evidence to back the works of Yogi Aaron, and I have more sources that are dedicated entirely to Yogi Aaron/Aaron Star. (links below) Some, like Out.com, NewNowNext, and OutSpirit are national gay community magazines, while other sources pertain more to yoga, such as Yoga Journal and LA yoga. While these sources may attend to certain domains, they are seen as some of the most prominent within those realms and pertinent to certain communities (i.e. yoga, gay, mindfulness).

http://www.yogajournal.com/uncategorized/naked-yoga-the-end-for-kim-and-kris/ http://layogamagazine.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=212:loving-your-own-skin&catid=103:special-section http://www.newnownext.com/why-would-out-magazine-send-a-straight-male-reporter-to-hot-nude-yoga/01/2008/ http://myoutspirit.com/index.php?pag=article&id=42 http://www.out.com/entertainment/2008/01/13/yogi-bares

The above sources, in addition to the credible ones I've already added should allow for the creation of a brief, three section Wikipedia page to benefit readers. While I understand that Aaron Star is listed in paragraphs or sentences in these sources as opposed to whole sections or articles, he is still being discussed in prominent sources which should be reflected in the Wikipedia notability requirement. (sources as mentioned are : Huff Post, NYDdaily news, The Guardian, Dallas Voice and the book "Yoga in the Modern World: Contemporary Perspectives"). In addition, the Costa Rica Star is a website that deals with current events in Costa Rica and shapes English news media for the Costa Rican expat community.

Lastly, I was reading the Tara Styles and Katryn Budig wikipedia page and I noticed that for each of them,among some more "official" sources, references include * own website, * Yogaworks bio, *Elephant Journal, *Women's Health magazine, *YouTube, *Internet Movie Database, *Twitter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Stiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Budig

Waiting to hear your thoughts.

Thank you

I'm not sure that you do get the point, unfortunately. If he is notable, there will be published sources that are substantially about him in reliable news sources. It's as simple as that. As I said before, a single sentence or a short quote does not meet WP's criteria for notability. As for those other articles, first, why do you care if someone else has an article in Wikipedia? It's an encyclopedia, not a business directory or a site for advertising, so there is no competition for attention here. Second, it's like when you said to your mother "All the other kids are doing it" - that's not a good reason. Wikipedia is always in progress, articles come and go. And in terms of going, I just marked those two articles as not meeting the criteria and for being overly promotional. They need to be changed. However, Tara Styles has a very long NY Times article about her, which does establish notability. LaMona (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]







Ballantinesrose (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:59, 24 March 2016 review of submission by Timothydunn


Requesting a re-review bc more content about the subject has been published since my last edit!

Also, a question- the name of the listing I'm editing is "Got Ur #" (aka "Got Ur Number"), but the main draft is still titled just "Got Ur," presumably because the system assumed the "#" was an error. Will this correct itself once the listing is approved?

Thank you! Timothydunn (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=711666662"