User talk:Onel5969
Onel5969's Talk | |
---|---|
Born | |
Nationality | American |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Edit count
Wiki mark-up link
Hi! You might find these handy:
Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Gyrus Systems company page
Hello,
I understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gyrus_Systems submission was declined due to not non-objective language and/or opinion.
I reviewed the site and all the references for non-objective language and/or opinion so it would be very helpful if you can give me specific examples.
Last week we won the Training Industry Top 20 Learning Management Systems watch list award https://www.trainingindustry.com/learning-technologies/top-companies-listings/2015/2015-learning-portal-companies-watch-list.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virenkapadia (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in advance.
Viren Kapadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virenkapadia (talk • contribs) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Virenkapadia - First off, please always remember to sign your comments, using the 4 ~'s (that automatically signs and puts a time stamp on your comment). Second, there is a conflict of interest issue with the article. Wikipedia frowns on, but does not prohibit, COI contributors. The reason being that it is very difficult for such editors to remain objective. Look at the COI guidelines, you need to place a COI statement on the article. Third, I actually did not decline it for a lack of objectivity. I didn't get that far. In its current state, the article does not meet the notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Much of the article is based on a single article from a Richmond newspaper. There is another article from the same source. And the article from HR magazine, which is mostly about one of their pieces of software. That's it. The rest are brief mentions, or simple listings, or non-independent sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Gyrus draft FYI
Someone happened to come in and ask about this on IRC while I was there. The editor is clearly associated with the company, and while I don't know who it is, I'd venture a guess that it was whomever is the main/most recent contributor to the draft. I see no need to open a COI on a draft article that was declined, but it should be noted therein that it is a distinct possibility. MSJapan (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi MSJapan - another editor has tagged the article with the COI tag. See the comment right above this one regarding the article. Thanks for the heads up though! Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
21:06:03, 31 August 2015 review of submission by RFreeman5713
- RFreeman5713 (talk · contribs)
I just wanted to ask the reviewer if any of the citations in this draft article meet the criteria and, if so, which ones. Also, how many approved citations there need to be.
Thank you,
21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)~Robin Freeman
RFreeman5713 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi RFreeman5713 - There are two types of references/citations: those which are good to verify facts in the article, and those which are used to show notability. First of all, technically, you don't have any citations in this article. You have a list of "See also". But that's just semantics. If you had titled that section "References", then they would be references. But regarding them as valid references, let's call those which are good for verifying facts "A", those which are good for notability purposes "B" (which can also be used to verify), and those which aren't good for either, "C". You have 10 listed. In the "A" category are: 1, 2 (a very weak one), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10; in the "B" category - none; and in the "C" category: 4.
- The book may or may not be useful. There is no page cited, so I have no idea. When a source can be used for verifying, it should be used as a footnote, not a general reference. If not, then your impulse to put it in a "See also" section is the right direction, although "See also" means that it points to another Wikipedia article. You'd want to create an "External links" section, and put them there. You should also learn how to format references. You can find out about citations at WP:CITE, and about formatting them at WP:CIT. You can also learn about what constitutes notability at WP:GNG, in general, citations should be in-depth from non-related sources. Typically those are newspapers, magazines, etc. (but not press releases). I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
21:22:04, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Wills473
Dear One15969:
I'm not requesting a re-review at this time, but I have some questions for the reviewer.
I see that the response paragraph outlining your reason for declining my submission is boilerplate, so I’m not sure if all of the violations enumerated are actually a problem in my submission. For example, I don’t see an example of a peacock term, and also don’t understand the problem with my references.
Respectfully, I would appreciate it if you could point to examples of what you have in mind as violations of encyclopedic style. Also, the reviewer of the previous submission of the article cited length as a problem, but this version is much shorter. Can I assume the article’s current length is acceptable?
Best regards,
wills473
Wills473 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Wills473 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Wills473 - You're absolutely right, it is a canned response. To be more specific, peacock terms are those which build up the subject in a subjective way. Sometimes they are not grandiose terms, but are more simple, such as saying "major New York newspapers". Drop the major, it's subjective, and mean to puff up the comment. But I don't see a lot of peacock terminology. In your case, it's more of a style issue, phrases like "Edson’s father was educated, and driven to become wealthy", "the dream of a socialist paradise", "furnishing it on Edson’s modest salary was proving difficult", "He immersed himself in primitive backwoods life, fishing, raising corn, smoking his own meat, and cutting railroad ties for cash." "arrived in possession of the inside story of the Appeal to Reason debacle", "But Edson was not destined to remain long in this job either". These are examples of informal writing, not of an encyclopedia article. Your article is chock full of them.
- In addition, you have quite a few statements in your article which make declarative statements, without any sourcing, such as: "a staple of newspapers at the time", "In the wake of a scandal Edson was dismissed, although he had nothing to do with the false reporting.", "But Brentano's, his publisher, felt that the book might stimulate more interest if promoted with a teaser advertising campaign." These are just a few.
- Overall, there is way too much detail about his personal motivations, too much detail about each of the books. When you become overly detailed, that in and of itself is form of "puffing" up the subject. I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing and accepting Antoni Koper. I realize that I could have created the article without submitting it for review by AFC, but I am eager to become a better editor, and hoped to learn how to improve my contributions based on the feedback. I have to admit, as I review the examples of other start class and c class articles, I am a bit disappointed and confused by the start class designation. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't mean to challenge or question that determination in any way. I just want to better understand it. I know this is a lot to ask, but would you be so kind as to offer me some specific advice about how I might improve the article to a c-class article?( Due to the limited verifiable encyclopedic content available on the topic, I doubt it will ever qualify for b-class.) I know the article needs an image; I'm expecting one to be available in the commons by the end of the week. But otherwise, I'm unsure how to proceed. Thank you in advance for any assistance or advice you might offer. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Malcom Gregory Scott - No worries. It was a borderline call, I relooked and moved it to a C. The difference is depth. I don't think anyone will argue with a C designation. Pictures are nice, but not required. There are C articles with no picture. No B articles, but C. Overall, nice job. Keep it up. And don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to reconsider. Your decision and your message are both very encouraging. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
22:15:35, 31 August 2015 review of submission by 108.222.145.105
Hi Onel5969, thank you for reviewing my article.
When writing this article, I made sure to follow Golden Rule and to use verifiable, independent sources (such as: Diario ABC Color and Primera Edicion Newspaper).
As far as the notoriety of the artist, if you simple Google "Pato Garcia" you can see pages and pages of results, including photos and videos. This is the biggest artist out for Missiones, Posadas and very well known not only in Norther Argentina, but in Paraguay, Italy and in the latin folk music world.
Please kindly re-review or provide me with suggestions as to how to improve this article. But it is a true shame that such an artist does not have his own wikipedia page.
Thanks!
108.222.145.105 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - you simply need to add more independent sources, if they are that big, that shouldn't be an issue. You should have at least 4. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
review of submission of Tanveer Alam
please allow to create this page, u may find that he is have so many link on wikipedai and is notable person, please allow to creat this page,
- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Tanveer-Alam
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFTDA joint secretary of IFTDA, apex Directors body
- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6097787/
- http://www.iftda.co.in/eventus/call-for-entries-%E2%80%93-16th-mumbai-film-festival
- http://www.amarujala.com/news/city/mathura/haunted-rooh-movie-will-shoot-at-braj-hindi-news/
- http://epaper.amarujala.com/svww_zoomart.php?Artname=20150626a_008140007&ileft=457&itop=543&zoomRatio=136&AN=20150626a_008140007
- http://www.mazale.in/haunted-rooh-release-date-cast-2015-hindi-movie/
- http://www.janwani.in/Details.aspx?id=52167&boxid=143170844&eddate=7/9/2015%2012:00:00%20AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywhitefox (talk • contribs) 08:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Mywhitefox - please see WP:GNG about how to show notability, and WP:RS as to what constitutes a valid reliable source (for example, imdb is not). And also take a look at WP:CIT about how to format citations. Onel5969 TT me 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi let me know please Mr. Tanveer Alam notable or not for wikipedia.... i found he is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywhitefox (talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Re-review Crime & Punishment Brewing Co
Hi, Please could you take a second look at a draft page now that I've updated it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Crime_%26_Punishment_Brewing&redirect=no
I've included external references from Travel + Leisure (Time Magazine's leisure edition) and Philly.com (the online wing of the Philadelphia Inquirer). Let me know if you need any further supporting evidence of notability. Manc1234 (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently tried to post a page explaining what CoalFace Capital is and you kindly edited it for me - I understand it may read like an advertisement but we are a new start-up and wanted to explain to people what it is about - I guess we are bound to be enthusiastic about our own pet-project! Could you suggest or make some changes that would help us to get the page published please? Many thanks in advance! Regards, Declan McEvoy (my email is declan.mcevoy@coalfacecapital.com - we are based in Dublin, Ireland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoalFace Capital (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi CoalFace Capital - Those are good citations, but the requirement for notability says, "substantial coverage". While those mention the brewery in quite favorable fashion, T&L is just a mention, not in-depth coverage. The Newsworks article is nice, as is the Philly.com you just added. If you could come up with another 2 like the Newsworks I think you'd meet the notability requirement. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Request on 16:39:01, 1 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Paul Berkowitz
I received a declination notice for my submitted article on Leonard Berkowitz (1919-2007), indicating insufficient "notability."
I will attempt to locate additional references, such as newspaper articles, etc., and will also attempt to add further supporting narrative. However, I would think the already cited references in three books, along with cited references from universities, etc. would be sufficient. I'd welcome any specific suggestions you can offer.
Also, let me explain the initial motivation for submitting my article.
Previously, in your article on the Sierra Club's Ansel Adams Award for Conservation Photography, my dad's name (Leonard Berkowitz) was correctly listed as the 1973 recipient. However, the hyperlink w/ his name went to the incorrect person ... another "Leonard Berkowitz" born in the 1920s." One of the reasons for creating this new article is to correct that error, and assure the link goes to the right person. That apparently required the creation of a new Wiki article on my dad, Leonard Berkowitz (1919-2007), who was the actual recipient of that national award.
In the process, it seemed appropriate to address my dad's other accomplishments in music (along with photography). The result was the submitted article.
I will make edits/additions the article ... but, again, would welcome any specific suggestions you can offer.
Thanks,
Paul Berkowitz (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Paul Berkowitz - Your father might be notable, but there are two main issues with the current article. The first I did not know about until you contacted me, and that is you have a conflict of interest. These are not prohibited, but they are discouraged. You need to post a message on the article letting editors know about this. Second, the references currently provided do not meet the notability requirements. Take a look at WP:GNG and WP:RS regarding references. In a nutshell, they should be from independent reliable sources, and have in-depth coverage. In other words, your mother's book is out (for notability purposes). Other wiki articles are also useless. Take a look at WP:CIT about how to format citations. When you are using books as sources, you must ALWAYS give page numbers. If they have a link on something like google books, that's good too. I hope this helps. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 TT me 16:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message
Hello, Onel5969! Thank you so much for your message regarding my article creation (Draft:HeliotropeBooks) that was declined. I will certainly be rewriting the article to comply better with Wikipedia's standards. Really appreciate your taking the time to reach out to me; I will be in touch at some point at the Teahouse. --Vitebella (talk)Vitebella —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Liu Bingzhang
Hi Onel5969, Can you please kindly enough to explain why this submission is rejected? Thank you. Irene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireneeng (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ireneeng - Hi. As the reason on the declination stated: the references don't meet the notability criteria. Please read WP:GNG as to what denotes notability. Also, please look at WP:CIT on how to format citations. When referencing newspapers, mags or books, page numbers are always needed, to allow reviewers to verify the information. This person might be notable, but I can't tell with the current references. They might also be a case of WP:BIO1E. I've posted this at the draft space as well, so that comments can be read there by other editors. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 17:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
06:31:46, 2 September 2015 review of submission by JasmineJLM7
- JasmineJLM7 (talk · contribs)
JasmineJLM7 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, May I ask for a review of the article? I'm the same author of the similar draft, which was actually deleted by Wikipedia. Therefore, this is the update. Please review it soon, thank you:)
JasmineJLM7 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi JasmineJLM7 - Don't see where it was deleted, only that it has been declined numerous times. Draft:BRAND’S is the version you should be working on. Onel5969 TT me 17:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Acadamics impact
Dear Onel,
with your last cleanup you accidentally deleted my last comment - I have added our conversation again below - thank you for your time and attention.
—————————
Thank you for re-rewiewing my article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wilhelm_Schneider
I have gone through the notability rules now for the third time and asking myself what else to do to comply with them: I found the following:
"4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.
->> I thought that this could be proved by accessing the kvk (German university meta search engine - see the references) and showing the circulation of a textbook within German university libraries. This information should be reliable - or do you see any doubts?
5. Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments.-->> I tried to prove this by the official website of the university - why should a german state institution give false information on its website? Logically wiki states in its rules: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." So what else can I do? I have referenced the article, given numerous publications, researched the circulation of textbooks - what else could be done? Thank you so much!
− 89.0.28.28 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
− − : Hi. Check out a google scholar search. While you can't cite the search directly, it can help reviewers determine the notability of scholars (based on how often their works are cited. When it gets to that level, I usually let another editor who has more expertise in academics review. Here's a link. I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
− − : Thank you for you nice comment. As I would base the notability as suggested in the rules by the circulation of the textbook that is just what I did. The kvk (http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/kvk.html) is a german meta seaech engine powered by one of the leading technical universities in Germany. I just searched one textbook in the latest edition (there are two which have reached 4 and 5 editions respectively) and according to the kvk are circulated quite widely. With "wilhelm schneider" and google scholar (thank you!) you also find several articles and citations. With "wilhelm schneider" and jahresabschluss also some citations. Hope this helps 89.0.34.251 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
12:18:46, 2 September 2015 review of submission by Rockefellerbm
Rockefellerbm (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Hi Onel5969,
I'm not necessarily requesting a re-review, I'd just like a better understanding of why it is that you declined my article.
You say that the page reads like an advertisement when I use hardly any subjective language. I simply outline the company's purpose, their history, and a few other pertinent items. I can't think of any portion of the article that portrays the company in a positive or negative light. So, if you could point to a specific paragraph or sentence that you take issue with, I would appreciate it.
You also mention that I do not include enough reliable independent sources. I recognize that on the first submission this was true, but I amended this issue prior to the second submission. I list: Reuters, yahoo finance, bloomberg, thebaltimoresun, and the company's website. I would say that all of those sources are both independent and reliable; certainly enough to establish notability.
So if you could just show me what it is that I'm missing in these areas, that would be great.
Rockefellerbm
- HiRockefellerbm - anytime an article has a "services" section, it's pretty much an advertisement. In the history section, who cares what its sources of income was during inactivity, or what the opening price was - those are things investors/customers look at. Regarding sourcing, take a look at WP:GNG. There are two types of sources: those for verifying facts, and those to show notability. All of your current references are of the former type. To verify notability there must be "significant coverage" in independent sources. In other words, from sources not affiliated with the subject of the article, there must be several in-depth articles about the subject. Not mere mentions, or listings, or stuff from the company website. And press releases are not acceptable (not that you have them, but thought I'd mention it). Anyway, hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I have been receiving decline notices for an article I am trying to write (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Wickham) regarding notability. I am not sure where else to add, all of the references relating to him are directorial credits for work he has accomplished, including Grammy nominations and large big-screen films for some of the world's most famous musical artists. I'm not sure what to add if these credits are not enough, since to me this level of achievement equates to notability... Please let me know if you have any suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PG1598 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Not sure this guy will meet the notability requirements, which say that coverage must be "substantial". Most of the stuff I'm seeing is "mentions" of him: he did this, he did that, but nothing in-depth. Take a look at this news search, you might be able to find some articles which go into him in-depth. Usually, you need three or four. Also, please take a look at WP:CIT on how to properly format citations. If he had won the Latin Grammy, that would be a slam dunk. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 17:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Review of Submission:Royal_Industries_Indonesia
Hi, Greetings, as a new article contributor I would like you to re-review the article I have resubmitted and suggest if I need to address anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aabbsshhiisshh/Royal_Industries_Indonesia Aabbsshhiisshh (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thank you very much for the time you spend reviewing submissions like mine. It is truly appreciated. Timoluege (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
- Thanks so much for that, Timoluege! Keep up the good work. And don't be afraid to ask questions. I see one of your interests is in emergency response, have you ever taken a look at the article Emergency management? Could really use a knowledgeable editor in that field. Onel5969 TT me 17:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Article rejection
Hi Onel5969, Thanks for reviewing Dalal Times draft. However you rejected it on the grounds of it sounding like an ad. Could you please point out to the lines that sound like an ad so that i can edit them accordingly. Thanks, RahilRahil.sk (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)rahil.sk
- Already resubmitted. Onel5969 TT me 16:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
21:17:40, 2 September 2015 review of submission by Ewert333
Ewert333 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello and greetings,
I received the message that our Clearfield Draft does not have a neutral point of view. I am unsure of what I could remove to make it read less like an ad and more like an encyclopedia entry, my thoughts are to possibly remove two of the CEO awards as they don't particularily pertain to the company, and removing Their "start to finish" fiber... because despite its truth, it could sound like an ad. I absolutely want to work with you and I am happy to change whatever stood out to you as not neutral, just let me know and I'll resubmit with the edits. Thank you for reviewing this article and letting me know. Regards, --Ewert333 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ewert333 - That would help. But there are two issues. First, is the NPOV. Articles tell us about a company, ads try to sell us that company. The history section is fine, but the lead reads like an advertisement. Its fine to tell us what they produce, but when you begin to sell that stuff to us by explaining its benefits, and who the potential customers are, it becomes promotional. The second issue is notability. The Bizjournal article is good, but the rest are just mentions. Notability is established by "significant coverage". You'll need another 2 or more articles like the Bizjournal one to meet the notability criteria. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Hastie
Hi,
I've made the changes you recommended to the references. Is there anything else it needs?
Thanks,
Klobfour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Hastie_%28politician%29#See_also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klobfour (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
15:03:14, 3 September 2015 review of submission by Dj992
Hi,
I noticed you declined my article on grounds of 'notability'. I just wondered if you could go into some detail about what exactly you are looking for in order for an organisation to be considered 'notable', as I'm finding it a little difficult to know from the Wikipedia guidelines. Many thanks.
Dj992 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi onel5969.. Thanks for informing us that there is some copyright issue with the posted content. It made me surprised to see that wordpress link which has the exact content. We would like to get one more chance to edit the content of the wiki page "Dr. Js Rajkumar". We are not sure how the content had been copied. The wordpress link we are not aware of. This might be any trick done by somebody to create issue. But still we accept your point but request you to give us one more chance to edit the content for page creation and help us in resolving this concern.
Looking forward to your reply and suggestions. Thanks for informing us that there is some copyright issue with the content. Aarvig