Jump to content

User talk:LaMona

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gorgenkor (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 24 October 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments on Draft Page for Walter D. Mooney

Hi LaMona! Thanks very much for your comments on how to improve this article entry. I have removed the references that don't mention him. My reason for putting them in was because I thought I had to have as many references in there as possible, even for the facts that aren't specifically about him. These facts seem necessary in order to describe the work that he has done. I'm just wondering now do I have enough references and is there anything else that needs to be done to it in order for it to be accepted. I've also removed the peacock language, as instructed. Thanks again! Megantfay (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megantfay, your references still do not reflect the basic rules for referencing, which is that information in the article must come from third-party, neutral sources. When you say that "One of the problems associated with the earthquake was the fact that Haiti had no seismograph stations installed, making it impossible to accurately estimate the intensity of the ground motions" and then you cite Mooney's own paper, you are engaging in original research, not reporting what others have said about him. Basically, you are writing the article that, if it were published elsewhere, would be appropriate as a citation in WP. What you are doing is creating his story, and what WP needs is verification that his story has been written. You should concentrate on the facts that support wp:academics and leave everything else out of the article. LaMona (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback LaMona. I've removed a lot of the content as well as the references that don't mention him. I think it (hopefully) meets the reference requirements now! Megantfay (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Draft Page for John Keeble

Thank you La Mona for your suggestions on the page. Some questions -- (1) You would like to have all the reviews deleted? But a brief plot summary could remain? can reviews or links to journal articles be put in the further reading area?

(2) I understand the tone and can easily change that to fit a more encyclopedic entry.

(3) Can the author's own personal site be used as a source for biography or must I find a source in books and Who Who type entries?

(4) I'm not clear on the comment about "reliable" sources--I used a variety of newspaper, internet, and published sources to link to the awards, reviews, and even biography... are their some in particular you find objectionable?

(5) I asked the author to submit an email to Wikipedia (using the form wikipedia uses) for the picture and give rights for its use -- but I haven't received anything that indicates that was received from Dannae.

Overall, the entry should be biographical, non-interpretative, encyclopedic... How does one introduce themes and styles that academics and reviewers are mentioning?

Finally, I do want to make a title change from John Keeble (writer) to John R. Keeble (writer) to make the distinction between John Keeble (musician) that comes up and because in several internet searches that I've conducted for getting references to awards, etc., it comes up as John R. Keeble. Should this title change be done before resubmission or after? Thank you,

--Newberryr 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)newberryr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newberryr (talk • contribs)

Newberryr - Good questions, all. Reviews become cites to mentions of the books in your article. The author's site is not considered a reliable source of biographical information (the author is NOT a neutral party). Some indisputable facts, like place of birth, may come from there, but it is best to get those facts from third-parties like newspaper articles. Your sources are basically ok - that comment was added by the boilerplate that comes with the decline, unfortunately. The reviews are used as links to the names of the books, and information from the reviews, except for perhaps a brief mention of some absolutely necessary factual information (e.g. "Author was compared to James Joyce by reviewers") is not included. (The praises of reviewers is generally avoided as being promotional, unless criticisms are also included, but this is generally limited to great works of literature, classics.) So, the first sentence of Crab Canyon should stay, the rest should go. All of the books could be covered in a single paragraph, with a sentence for each. Here's what I would keep: "Co-written with Ransom Jeffery, Keeble's second novel was Mine (1974). The two protagonists for this novel are Rag, a young man from Florida, and St. James, a third-generation Iowan who in 1974 are in and out of counter-culture of America. " "Keeble's third novel,Yellowfish(1980; rpt 2008), was a May 1980 Alternate Selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club, and a June, 1980 Main Selection of the Book Club of Canada." "His novel, Broken Ground (1987; rpt 2010), reveals the moral dilemma of a protagonist involved in the construction of a prison for profit in Eastern Oregon." ... etc. Obviously, your exact wording can vary. As for changing the title, I can try to do that. If I cannot, we can request it from an admin. LaMona (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Comments on Rejection Clarification John R Keeble. Thank you very much for the comments. I will make edits and re-submit. If you could change the name of the article to John R Keeble for me that would be fantastic. --Newberryr 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)newberryr

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iriebeatz (talk • contribs) 04:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iriebeatz - a couple of things. First, sign your messages by putting 4 tildes in a row at the end of your message. Second, one of the basic tenets of Wp is be civil. Making accusations, etc. are not appreciated, and could even get you blocked from editing. Third, please understand the AfC process. Nothing has been blocked. AfC is a process, and in each step of the process you get the advice of an editor. You make the changes suggested by the editor, and you re-submit. In particular, my advice to you is that you may not use sales sites (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) as references, which is why I advised that you read through the policy on reliable sources. By reading that, you will understand what references are preferred, and what references should definitely be avoided. In terms of the neutrality of language, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. Some examples of non-encyclopedic style in your article are: "Leroy has a natural love for old rhythms..." and "Loving the production business so much...". These need to be reworded, as you'll read about in the style guide, so that they are factual in nature. Another fairly strict Wikipedia rule is that all statements must be referenced. You have entire sections that have no references. If your article goes into main space with these unreferenced sections, other editors can summarily delete them, since unreferenced material in articles about living people are strongly discouraged. So by making these changes, your article will avoid problems when it is moved into the main WP space. LaMona (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok LaMona thanks then. Peace.

Rejection of Draft Page for James O'Connell

Hi LaMona, I just saw your detailed message. Thanks so much! I will make the changes accordingly. Best, Jimaning

Comment on draft page for Augustus Martin

Hi LaMona Thanks for your feedback, that was really helpful. I have changed the references for the Augustus Martin page and added dates, authors and company. I hope this time it passes

Please let me know anything else I need to do

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

Did you know that Wikipedia has its own library? The Wikipedia Library is seeking volunteers from those in galleries, libraries, archives and museums.

Sign up to help here :)

References

A puppy for you!

Golden Retriever puppy

Thanks, LaMona! This is helpful. I've deleted the two Frick references that aren't just links to taped lectures, and edited out the over-exuberant sentence. I'll be very grateful for any other advice you can offer.

(I noticed you already have kittens and thought you might like a broader menagerie!)

Rejection of draft page of Autostrad

Hi, I believe the references at the draft are reliable.. If you need more, unfortunately the rest are in Arabic. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss, It is ok to include references not in English if that is what is needed to establish notability. What I see here are short articles (some are only one paragraph) about a tour, a battle of the bands, etc. I don't see any reviews of their music, nothing about whether they've been on any music sales charts. Have you looked carefully at wp:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles? Generally, more information is needed about the musicianship. Note that the other criteria are: charting; winning major awards; releasing albums on major labels; etc. Criteria you may be able to leverage are #s 7 and 10, if the band represents a musical style that has particular cultural significance. Those latter will still need verifiable sources, but perhaps your Arabic sources could provide that. LaMona (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona I added more references, could you kindly check if they are enough and reliable? They do represent a musical style that has particular cultural significance [1] --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://arabamericannews.com/Arabic/news/id_17328/%C2%AB%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF%C2%BB-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%82%D9%89-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A.html
retroactively added the refcatcher, so the ArabAmericaNews.com cite will stop falling to the bottom of the talkpage. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
So what happens now? --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss I made some edits - I think there is a bit more you can say about the band, especially about the difficulties of performing in the political climate (as long as this is found in the references). I believe there is also something about a tour to London? If so, add that in, and then ask for another review. LaMona (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, is that necessary? Because it takes more than a week.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the only way, unfortunately. Try to be patient. LaMona (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss, it turns out that the article "Autostrad" is blocked from creation, so an administrator needs to approve it. From the history it looks like there were attempts to create it in the past that did not go through Creation, and the article had problems. This means that it will be looked at carefully. I do advise adding information you have about their albums or singles being on charts, and information about tours that you have in the references. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona I know, but I have read that if the article is accepted from the draft then the block will be automatically disabled. In Jordan there are no music charts, but as far as I have read in musician notability 'Participated or won in a major musical contest' which is the soundclash I have written about, I will add the London tour now... Thank you very much for your help. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss In fact, to accept the article the create block will need to be overcome by an admin. I'm not an admin so I can't do it. LaMona (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LaMona: I have two other similar drafts I am working on, would you care to check the references and let me know if you have any comments? Draft:Akher Zapheer Draft:El Morabba3 --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:04, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Hotdiggetyyy



Apologies, this was my first effort at adding to Wikipedia. Just a quick query on your rejection of the page I created for 'Plants and the Human Brain'. I've checked the criteria on notability as per the notification, and the three references I've provided to independent book reviews in academic journals seem to satisfy criterion 1 for notability (two or more... non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself). Could you clarify why this doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, as I was planning on doing some editing work on a number of related pages and creating a page on 'ecological roles of phytochemicals' etc. This book seems to be a central recent resource on the topic.

  • You can cite a book in another article without it having a Wikipedia article of its own. In fact, most sources cited in articles do not themselves have articles. Articles for individual books are generally limited to books that have had a great impact - either literary or scientific. This usually takes some time, and this book is barely a year old. The book reviews are in niche journals so more evidence is needed. If you look it up on Google Scholar, it has only been cited 6 times. It MAY become a classic in its field, but it isn't yet. However, feel free to cite it in other articles where it lends information to the topic. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:08:51, 30 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dushaduma


Dear LaMona,

thank you very much for reviewing the draft page on Prof Adam Scaife. I am just trying to understand what to do next.

You say that reliable sources that do not cite Scaife's own work are needed so I went to the wp.academics page you recommended and looked up reliable sources. It says that peer reviewed scientific articles are allowed :- all of the references to Scaife's work here are in peer reviewed journals so I presume these are OK? there are also many other academics on WP with similar peer reviewed references on their pages. Would you like more non scientific links to sources? the web is full of them including many from this year so I can add more if necessary.

Could you please also explain what you mean by honorifics? do you mean the letters after Scaife's name at the start of the article? again there are plenty of examples of these on existing WP academics pages but I am happy to remove if they are not allowed?

Thank you for your efforts - much appreciated

Dushaduma (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dushaduma (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dushaduma, first, the honorifics: The page needs to be named "Adam Scaife", not "Professor Adam..." This needs to be done with a move, which I can attempt if you wish. Then, the first line is fine once the word "Professor" is removed from the beginning. That's all that needs to be done, I believe. As for the reliable sources, peer-reviewed sources ABOUT the person are considered reliable; sources BY the person are not "third-party" sources. You can create a short bibliography of his key works as a separate section, but shouldn't cite them as references. The links to the awards should be links to a page or something like a press release stating that he was given the award, not to the awards themselves. The links to the awards themselves, that do not name him, do not show that he did receive the award. The key concept here is wp:verifiability - that it must be possible to verify the information in the article. If someone were to contest information in the article, the sources should show that what is in the article can be verified.
Let me give you an example of why his own works cannot be used. You say: "He leads a team of scientists carrying out pioneering research into long range weather forecasting. In 2014 he published a key breakthrough, demonstrating skillful predictions of European and North American Winter Climate months in advance." With a cite to the article. However, the article you cite does not verify that it was "a key breakthrough" nor that it demonstrated "skillful predictions". To say those things, you need a third-party source that makes those conclusions. The question to ask is: How do we know this? In addition, it is considered un-encyclopedic to use superlatives like "pioneering research" unless that is a judgment that can be factually attributed to a reliable source. LaMona (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:57, 30 September 2015 review of submission by Contributor50


I have added references to my original submission and feel everything stated in the article is now covered by third party material. The majority of the article is covered by the general reference to the Music Business Worldwide article and added inline citations cover specifics not mentioned in that article. All artists and writers are covered by either the MBW article or the Kobalt Music roster pages which are now also referenced.

Apologies for not having enough references before. Please let me know if I need to add more and if possible specific areas that you feel are not covered.

Thanks

  • Contributor50 Thanks for getting in touch. These are details that are hard to describe in a short comment! You still have sections of the article that do not have any references. Imagine that every fact in the article has to be verifiable through a reference. If you say that the person was born somewhere and studied at a certain university, then worked for a company, each of those facts has to have come from somewhere. You need to cite the source of those facts. There are now a few bits of text in the references area that are not connected to the text of the article. Those also need to be fixed. You should read through the requirements for reliable sources - using information from the person's employer's web site is generally not considered sufficient to establish notability. If the criteria for notability are not met, the article may not be accepted, or may be deleted when it is no longer a draft. LaMona (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gray

I have added the references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Gray_(photographer)TikriTab (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • TikriTab, ok, that was important, but probably doesn't give the result you would desire, because now that there are links it is possible to see that the person has not actually won any major awards, but has been an "honorable mention" in many, and most of those are not major awards.The guidelines that must be met are those at wp:creative for people in the creative arts. This photographer probably does not meet those guidelines since he has not won a major award, has not had significant shows, and there do not seem to be critical works about his photography. However, if you can find more information that shows that he meets those guidelines, then you should include those in the article. LaMona (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:53:05, 7 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smartartone100



Smartartone100

Request on 08:55:25, 7 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smartartone100



Smartartone100

09:33:44, 7 October 2015 review of submission by Ninskip


Ninskip (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Hi LaMona,[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I must admit I am struggling here. What I'm trying to do is have TransRe included as I feel the company is on a par with several other reinsurers that already have pages. In fact TransRe are mentioned on the "reinsurance" wiki page and have been around for a while now. You may be aware that in the USA around 50% of the work force in reinsurance will retire in the next 10 years, so I think it's important to the industry to have a wealth of knowledge on the web other than what TransRe host themsleves on their website.

The problem is with an (re)insurance company is most articles are about financial transactions, mergers, large deals, etc hence the percieved "advertising" picture you got. I have not found any "bad deal" press or articles.

If I was to research the Company more and provide more history would that help?

thanks,

Neil.

Ninskip, look at the article for Reinsurance Group of America and you will see that it has the same problem -- which may lead to it being eventually deleted. Then look at the article for Lloyd's of London and you can see the difference. Just being a company is not enough. You can expand the article on reinsurance, and you can add a link to TransRe in the external links area. But you should not use WP to boost the visibility of a company. LaMona (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on draft page for Nilo Hovey

LaMona,

Thanks so much for looking at this entry. I appreciate your comments and have made the recommended changes. :-) Tung (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

thanks again!

Tung (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:59:17, 9 October 2015 review of submission by Econohammer

Thanks very much for the review, LaMona. I have updated the citations that match the requirements found in wp:rs. However, for the Board service and Awards section, the only public documentation of McCormick's service is on the Institution's website itself, which tautologically is associated with McCormick. So, for example, consider the California Academy of Sciences. McCormick is listed as a board member on this page and no where else. How do I assert this position without referring to the Cal Academy site? Any guidance would be much appreciated! Econohammer (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Econohammer The way that Wikipedia's policies on notability work, if there are no third-party sources for information a first-party source can be used. However, that source has much less weight. You must have some strong third-party sources for most of the information, otherwise, the person does not meet the notability guidelines. I looked for sources myself, and didn't find any, but I didn't look hard. Unfortunately, you have mainly sources that aren't independent of the subject. You need to cast far and wide to convert as many of your references as possible to independent sources. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LaMona. I think I need some additional guidance. Currently, I have the following sources, categorized by type:

  • Three peer-reviewed publications (e.g., Journal of Appl. Ecol.)
  • Two articles or case studies in academic publications (e.g., Harvard Business Review)
  • Congressional testimony from McCormick
  • A few Wikipedia pages and various news articles.
  • A public audit from PricewaterhouseCoopers

I don't have good supporting sources for the Board Service, aside from the public sites of the institutions for which McCormick serves. If this does not meet the source standards, I can remove this section and resubmit. Does that make sense? I am trying to keep in as much content as possible. Econohammer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Econohammer The articles that you cite are articles about TNC, not ABOUT McCormick. Although he is mentioned in them, you are still low on articles that are primarily about him, not TNC. There's no doubt that TNC is notable. You have to show that McCormick is notable on his own. The public audit is entirely about TNC. By concluding that this shows McCormick's capability as a manager, you are engaging in original research -- that is, you are using primary sources to support your article. I know that it's frustrating, but notability on WP is defined to mean that reliable sources (newspapers, journals) have found the person worthy throughTHEIR original research, and you then cite those reliable sources. By engaging in original research, you are essentially asking us to believe your interpretation of the primary sources. It is actually better to include LESS information in the article and to emphasize sources that meet WP's criteria, than to include much information in the article that relies on primary sources. Every WP article is always "in progress" and as more reliable sources appear you can add more information to the article. LaMona (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It is clear from the (third-party) sources that McCormick is a major part of the storyline of TNC. Consider, for example, the Harvard Business Review case study, where McCormick is the central focus of the organization's trajectory.

  • Abstract: Almost immediately upon being appointed CEO of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Steve McCormick undertakes a radical reorganization of this global institution...

The other sources that talk mostly about TNC's performance during his tenure were for independent corroboration, rather than subjective value judgements on my behalf. I will pull more from the sources and external links. To be clear, I wasn't trying to conclude that McCormick was responsible for TNC's trajectory (the peer-reviewed pubs do that) but rather triangulate the sources with other, unrelated sources. My confusion about bios on Wikipedia, more generally, is how people are linked to the projects or organizations for which they are part. The bio on Ryan Panchadsaram is weak on his contributions to the (very impressive) organizations he serves. There is rarely citations that disassociate the leader from the org that is being led during their tenure. I will attempt this difficult feat of separating McCormick from his work, even though it was his work that made him notable. (I'm not complaining, this is fun. Thanks LaMona!) Econohammer (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, I have adjusted the article to be more centered on McCormick, rather than just the performance of the institutions he led during his tenure. Any opinion on the edits would be really helpful. I have attempted to extract statements directly from verified third-party sources. I am up to 28 sources (with about 20 that meet the requirements, with the rest as supporting context)! Econohammer (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Sophia Sider

Hi can you please re-review draft again Draft:Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Sophia Sider most of the sources are reliable.Hikeripte (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hikeripte You've sent it back for review, so if I don't get to it, someone else will. There's a certain randomness in the process. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ron_Schnell , comment about superquotes

Hi LaMona, have replied to you over there. I'm struggling with the syntax to make those long quotes more usefully-formatted, but have not quite figured said syntax out yet. I've deleted the superquotes for now. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:12, 12 October 2015 review of submission by AMWanjohi



To LaMona, I appreciate your comments. I believe Kenya Projects Organization is a noble grassroot driven organization open to noble cause for humanity and worth a space with WIKIPEDIA. Kindly let me know which areas of the article you would recommend for improvement to meet your policy provisions.

Thanks Anthony

@AMWanjohi:, Anthony, your article was deleted because it seems to have copied its content from the web page of the organization. That is considered copyright infringement, and deletion happens rapidly to protect Wikipedia. You can recreate the page, but you must not use the organization's web page as the content. Wikipedia requires that all content be sourced to neutral, third-party sources (like newspapers and magazines) and that none of it be directly copied from a potentially copyrighted source. Notablity on Wikipedia is governed by wp:N, and reliable sources that can be cited are defined in wp:rs. Also note that it is generally discouraged for pages to be created or edited by persons who are directly involved with the subject of the article. See conflict of interest for an explanation of the reasons for this. That does not mean that you cannot create the page, but you must be very careful to follow all of the Wikipedia policies while doing so, including neutral point of view. I hope that you will use your expertise to improve Wikipedia coverage of your area, but I am afraid that it takes some time to get accustomed to how Wikipedia works. You might want to get experience editing articles before undertaking creating a new one, which is admittedly rather difficult. LaMona (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:30:36, 12 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by AMWanjohi



AMWanjohi (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LaMona, Thank you LaMona for your objectivity in the feedback. I understand the 'why' of quick deletion before copyright issues arise. I should however be quick to note that Kenya Projects Organization works are founded on Creative Commons Attribution License. We shall still be back with the article: "Kenya Projects Organization". LaMona - as a third party source - consider writing about "Kenya Projects Organization!"

Thanks Anthony

AMWanjohi, it's great to hear that you use CC! Check the wp:copyright pages to see if your license is appropriate, and also Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials for the procedures to donate your materials to WP. If you re-create the article, you might want to include information about your license on the talk page. However, the writing style on Wikipedia will probably require you to re-write your materials with a different audience in mind, so copyright may not be a problem. That resolves the copyright issue, but you also need to adhere to the policies on notability and reliable sources and conflict of interest, as I mentioned before. LaMona (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Silverman

Thanks for your feedback on my article about Stanley Silverman - I have now backed up facts with references. Please check. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devushkao (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:45, 13 October 2015 review of submission by AlonIOD


Thank you for your comments. Hyperconvergence is indeed a new term, but one that is being used more frequently in the IT world. I'm a writer for the cloud computing blog iamondemand.com, and we've lately identified hyperconvergence as a term of growing importance, for instance among CIOs and CTOs.

Check out for instance this article from the Technical University of Athens that describes the evolution of hyperconverged infrastructures: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2802039. Additionally you can view this website devoted to hyperconvergence: http://www.hyperconverged.org/blog/2015/06/02/hyperconvergence-infographic/ I just added both resources to the article.

Please let me know your thoughts, and what changes can be made to make the article more suited for Wikipedia. Thanks, AlonIOD (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlonIOD, the question is if it's "new" or has reached the point of being common usage. More reliable sources that use the term as a primary topic will push it onto the side of notability. Blogs don't support notability, so you'll need peer-reviewed or other reliable sources. One question will be whether "hyperconvergence" is a stand-alone concept or if it is mainly an adjective that modifies other topics. You'll need to demonstrate that it is a topic of its own. It could be tricky, but you'll probably become one of the world's hyperconvergence experts in the process! LaMona (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Hyperconvergence" could be considered an adjective, so I decided to change the title to "Hyper-converged infrastructure" in order to make the matter clearer. This title complements the already existing article Converged infrastructure. Additionally, I added 2 more resources supporting the term from well known analyst firms: IDC and Forrester, along with the essay from the Technical University of Athens. These type of resources seem to me to be similar to the ones existing in the Converged infrastructure article.

Additionally, there are a few existing patents relating to hyperconvergence:

  • Pre-configured hyper-converged computing device[1]
  • Management of a pre-configured hyper-converged computing device [2]
  • Data storage with a distributed virtual array[3]

These are probably not suitable as resources for the article, but they do show that the term is in regular use within the IT world.


Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
AlonIOD (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlonIOD - Yes, the new title makes more sense and ties it to the other titles. You should re-submit, although there is one other change you might want to make first. You have "notes" and "references". Usually, the linked citations are called "references", not "notes". What you have as "notes" -- could that be the same as "Further reading"? If so, you should rename those sections before submitting. LaMona (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LaMona for all your helpful input! I resubmitted the article with your suggestions.

AlonIOD (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Manuel Antonio Vidal Pego

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my article. What changes are needed to make the article notable? Is this a problem with the lack of notability of the subject itself (so I shouldn't bother to make changes to it) or just a matter of presentation? Also, could you explain what you mean by this "you cannot use WP articles as references, although you can link to them within the text using wp:wikilinks"? Thanks.Fraenir (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fraenir, it isn't the article that needs to be notable - it's the TOPIC of the article that needs to be notable. Notability is defined at wp:N - click on that and go to the page. A topic (or person) either is or isn't notable, and if they are not notable by Wikipedia's criteria, then the article cannot be accepted. For Wikilinks: click here wp:wikilinks and you will see how they are done. The wp:Community portal provides many resources to help new editors learn about Wikipedia. You should check that out. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I understand that it's the subject that needs to be notable. I was asking if the article is failing to pass notability due to an inherent lack of notability of the person in question, or due to the way that I've written about the subject. Are you saying that the person isn't notable? The person in question appears, from my perspective, to fulfill "Significant coverage" (book and articles that mention the topic), "Reliable" (includes articles published by major news organizations), "Sources" (multiple sources), "Independent of the subject" (didn't use anything from the person)? If it fails "Presumed", can you explain why the person fails in this case? Can you explain in more detail to me why the person in question fails to be notable? Also, I still don't understannd this comment "you cannot use WP articles as references, although you can link to them within the text using wp:wikilinks" - I checked that page, but I don't understand what I did incorrectly there with regards to my article. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what happened. Sorry. It was the mixing of Template:Harvard_citation_documentation#Shortened_footnote with non-templated references that threw me off. (It's advised to use the same form for all citations on an article, not to mix them. This is something you can fix up later.) I've added sections so it isn't one huge text. I'm a bit nervous because this is a report of criminal behavior for a living person, but let's see how others react when it is in main space. Go ahead and re-submit. LaMona (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I copied some of the citation methods from different Wikipedia articles, so that's probably why my citation methods are mixed. I'll try to fix them later. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:38, 16 October 2015 review of submission by Wordsprite


LaMona, could you please tell me which of my references for my article, "Psychoterratic Illnesses" you consider to be unreliable and why? Also, I saw a note that said I need to use WP style citations: is this also a reason my article was rejected?Wordsprite (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:15:34, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordsprite


<! Here is my question, I have two different messages and I'm confused: Are my references not reliable OR is the problem (why my article was rejected) one of citation? Check these out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wordsprite & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Psychoterratic_Illnesses Please click on both and tell me which one is correct and whether the problem is unreliable references or if it’s citation problems. >Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsprite I super-cased the cite numbers in the text so they would stand out as references in the text. Your references, other than the books, do not provide enough information for them to be easily identified and found. I was able to find HealthEarth after some searching but not the article cited; there should be a direct link to the source cited. A primary principle is verifiability, so you need to provide all of the information needed for a person reading WP to go to the source and see for themselves. I also didnt' find source #4. BTW, the Healthearth web site is not considered a reliable source because it is the personal page of the four people who run it. You can add links to the cited sources, such as [4]. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:40:37, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by GroundScope


Hello LaMona

Thank you for reviewing my submission - can you specify what parts of this are unsubstantiated. I have all the references in the article that are available. Kind regards Therese

GroundScope (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GroundScope, if there is information for which you do not have references, then that information cannot be included in the article. (E.g. the entire history section). Also, you have inline http links and those are not allowed. Within the text you link only to Wiki pages; links that go outside Wikipedia are either in references or in the External links section. Also note that your name violates the username policy. You should change it. (You need to request a name change from an admin.) See wp:orgname. LaMona (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:20, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordsprite


This is your message to me that I am responding to because I did not see any "Reply" button on the page where I read the message. I'm repeating your message for clarity, so we are both talking about the same thing. I don't know any other way to do this. Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wordsprite I super-cased the cite numbers in the text so they would stand out as references in the text. Your references, other than the books, do not provide enough information for them to be easily identified and found. I was able to find HealthEarth after some searching but not the article cited; there should be a direct link to the source cited. A primary principle is verifiability, so you need to provide all of the information needed for a person reading WP to go to the source and see for themselves. I also didnt' find source #4. BTW, the Healthearth web site is not considered a reliable source because it is the personal page of the four people who run it. You can add links to the cited sources, such as [1]. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question: In order for me to see what you're referring to I need to know how to get to the page where you did all the stuff you said you did in the above message. How would I do that?

It's on my talk page. Click on "talk" after my name here: LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: If I get to the page where I can see all the stuff you helped me with, that you refer to in your message, what do I do then? Do I have to go to another page? If so, what page and how would I get there. Right now, on this page that I am typing on, this is what I am seeing at the top: "User page" "Talk" "Read" "Edit Source" "New Section" "View history" a red heart, a blue star, and a "Search" box. Can I get to the page I need to get to in order to see what you did by typing something in the "Search" bar----will the "Search" bar help me find my Draft or whatever other page I may need to find?

To see what changes have been made (although many are obvious just looking at the article) go to the "View history" tab, click in the circles to the left of the latest and the previous one, and then click on the button "Compare versions." This will show you what has changed. All versions of all WP articles are kept. However, all that I changed was that I made the numbers of the references in the text superscript so they would look different from other numbers in the text. Another option would be to put them in parentheses. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: What is "super-cased the cite numbers" ? In your original message to me (not the above copied and pasted one for reference), there was a tiny blue symbol where the [1] is in this copied and pasted version above. This is the line I'm talking about from your message: You can add links to the cited sources, such as [1]. What does that mean?

Did you click on it? It's a link. You should see that it's a link by its color. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Now, I need to be able to figure out what to do next, specifically, what do I click on to do whatever it is I need to do next, from this page that I am typing on. Once I leave this page, I will not be able to get back to this message (or your message) or my Draft (what do I click on to find that?). If I had not copied and pasted your message into a separate word document and then copied and pasted it into this one, I would not have known how to refer to the parts of your message to me that I need help with.

Wiki has a very complex, difficult, and confusing format for me to use. I don't know computer code. I don't know a lot of the abbreviated language that's used or the computer phraseology that's used in Wiki's explanation of things. I need straightforward directions. For instance, what does this mean: ... Wiki's instructions, pages, and formatting is filled with strings of symbols like this and as I said, I don't understand computer code. Seeing these things along with complex instructions on how to do anything on Wiki, only detracts from my being able to discern what exactly it is that Wiki is asking for or instructing me in.

You'll have to learn about Wikipedia, and there is plenty to help you. You can start by clicking the link in the left side bar that says "About Wikipedia." LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all of that, I need to talk to a live person, by phone, while I am on my computer so that when I click on something that brings me to someplace I can't get back from or that proves to be off the track from what I need, I can explain it: what I am seeing, what the choices are on the screen, so I can figure out Wiki's website and be able to use it.

That's not likely to happen here. You could take your questions to the Community portal (link also in the left side bar), and ask for individual help, but Wikipedia assumes that you at least know how to click on links and read web pages. If you need basic computer training, you may want to look for computer training in your local community - perhaps an adult school or a public library. Some communities actually hold beginning Wikipedia editing sessions in public places, like libraries. That's the kind of place where you might get the help you need. All of us here are "virtual". LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me. If possible, is there just a straightforward email (that is separate from Wiki) where I can contact you, free from computer code and providing just the simple "Send" and "Reply" buttons so we can communicate. If not, and if you get this message (I'm unsure I'm doing the right things here so I don't know where this is going to end up), but if you do get this, when you Reply to me, please include very clear, very straightforward instructions for how I can Reply back to you. Please do not include computer code in the instructions or any symbols (like the little blue symbol in your last message to me, that I referred to earlier) because if I don't understand everything in the message, I won't be able to respond.

The little blue symbols are links. If you put your mouse pointer over it, it shows you what it links to. However, it won't show when you copy the text to a Word document. You have to view the links on the Wiki page; don't copy the text elsewhere. I can't get any more basic than that. Clicking on links is a basic skill that you need to have if you will edit Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your patience and understanding. Please know that I am not blaming you for the fact that the Wiki website for public use is so complicated and complex. I just need some real, plain-speak answers. I want to edit my Draft (if I can find it and if I can figure out how to do that) because it is important to me to get it accepted. But I am so lost - it's like trying to find your way home from a foreign country when you've never traveled before, don't know the systems involved with doing that, don't know where to find the information because the way to look it up is filled with rules and an assumed knowledge of how the system operates, and when you do ask the right questions to connect to the answer you need the answer contains information that's in another language you don't speak so you try to look up those words but can't because there is no English To (fill in the blank with a foreign language) book. And that is where I am. Wiki is a foreign country with little or no translations of the things you need to know and be able to understand in order to figure something out. Help me get home. WordspriteLaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsprite (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:22:45, 17 October 2015 review of submission by Prak nat


This has been a very long process for us. We have been working on this edit for over 8 months now and each revision has brought with it a different reason for being declined. For the writer who knows the non-profit and the work it does, it has been difficult to recognize what comes across as puffery. Would truly appreciate it if you could highlight the lines or the text that do not conform to standards so that the next edit becomes easier.

We only get one category option, even if we think that more than one category applies, so you often aren't getting the whole sense of the reviewer. I went through and changed some of the language, but the article still reads like a description of the program from the point of view of the program, not based on available sources. This is why we recommend that people NOT create articles for their own organizations. For a WP article, you are supposed to base the article on available sources, not what you know about the organization. A person unrelated to the organization would not be able to include un-sourced information (e.g. all of the information about the programs, which probably doesn't appear in sources about the organization). So what you've written is the organization's view of itself, not the organization as seen by neutral third parties. This is a general misunderstanding about the role of Wikipedia -- it is not a directory of organizations, but a gathering of encyclopedic (and public) knowledge. Your article has been rejected mainly because it is not encyclopedic. To be so, much of it would have to be deleted (e.g. everything that is not sourced to a third-party neutral source). I could make those edits if you wish. At that point, it would pass notability. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks Farhankhalid87 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:03:57, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Qkeddy


Hi - I am not sure why this article being proposed for submission keeps getting the "not notable" issue. First off Star Analytics introduced an important technology for the ability to provide proprietary Oracle data in an open standard format for other technology vendors to use and leverage. In the enterprise software world this is very important and IBM recognized this and acquired the company Star Analytics. In 2013, Star Analytics was one of four acquisitions made by IBM. There are other Wikipedia articles about other software companies such as "Hyperion" that were acquired and are no longer in existence and had a major impact on changing the landscape of Enterprise Software. As for references, there are several independent references cited in this article about Star Analytics and the value that Star Analytics' technology brought to the enterprise software landscape. We respectfully request that you please review this again.

Qkeddy (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qkeddy (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:21:50, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ilonam23


Hi I see you have rejected my page because you say the references have been generated by the subject. They articles written by journalists about the subject, they've not been written by the subject. Could you please advise how I can improve this?

Thank you

Ilonam23 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilonam23, if you read the message I left, the problem is that many of the articles are not about the company -- they are about events, with a mention of the company. Mentions are not enough to establish notability, and there need to be articles about the company itself. If those don't exist, then the company does not meet WP's notability standard. LaMona (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, OK thank you. I will try to find some other links that are hopefully more suitable. Ilonam23 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:59, 19 October 2015 review of submission by 27.32.138.183


Hi Lamona, I've made a number of changes to the article that you rejected. I hope that this responds to the issues in a sufficient way. If not, can you specify the particular places that remain insufficient? Thank you.

Your article must conform to notability for academics. Please read that carefully. The person must meet one or more of the main criteria listed there. You still have 1) large sections that are not referenced and therefore do not come from third-party sources 2) references to writings BY him, not ABOUT him. You must remove all of the unsourced material. The fact that you have unsourced material probably means that you are too close to the subject of the article and are not taking your information from third-party sources. All information must be neutral and verifiable. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:16:11, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ninskip


Hi,

I think there are a couple of issues here, firstly if I was doing a research project on Reinsurance I would want a sound and unbiased source of information relating to reinsurance companies - that could be now, or in one hundred years time (if it was for historical reseach pruposes). Possibly there may be no reinsurance, but we'd never be around to know. Secondly the comparison to Lloyds is not exactly comparing apples to apples, Lloyds being a collection of different entities operating under the same governance structure. A better comparison is TransRe to Swiss Re, obviously the TransRe group has not been in existance for as long Swiss, but I can't see how that makes them more or less notable or potentailly significant in the furture.

Finally I note there are millions of company profiles on WP (surrounding many different industries), surely many of these could be construed as adverts?

I would appricate some asistance on how we can make our article less like an advert and more like an "WP article" given that TransRe's life span (although 40 or more years) does not seem to be able to provide suffient material to warrant inclusion.

Many thanks,

Neil.

Ninskip (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninskip, you may need to accept that the company does not meet WP's standards for an article. Right, your company is not Lloyd's, and Lloyd's definitely meets the standard. The topic of reinsurance is covered in WP if people need to know about that. WP is not a company directory. If people want to find reinsurance companies in their locale, there are directories that can help them. Yes, many of the company profiles do read as adverts, and they do come up at Articles for Deletion. WP is a constantly changing resource. But adding more adverts isn't going to make it better. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:56, 19 October 2015 review of submission by PinkBlueGreenPowder


Hi LaMona, the submission has been edited to include more information to demonstrate the notability of Gigamon and includes many more third-party sources. Is this more what you are looking for? Happy to edit further with some more direction if anything remains insufficient. Thanks! PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PinkBlueGreenPowder, after you make edits, you should resubmit it for another review. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, thank you. The draft has been resubmitted. PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on review of the Parables TV article

LaMona, thank you for reviewing the article submission for Parables TV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TV) I will edit the article per your recommendations, but first can you please clarify if you want me to add new sources to the ones I already have vs. deleting any of them. A few of the sources are published works from BeliefNet and Charisma which are well known in Christian media circles, while others are published by lesser known but well read industry sources in the same genre. Can you please clarify why these sources are not considered reliable so that I can correct or improve this article? If these are not considered reliable, I am somewhat confused by which kind of sources I need to find. Thank you for your directionLG Brichetto (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LG Brichetto, whether or not Beliefnet and OneNewsNow are reliable sources is something we would need to take up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard although it may just be best to analyze the articles individually rather than making a blanket decision. The one you point to has a byline of "Posted by..." which sounds more like a blog than a news organization. The criteria we use for similar sites, e.g. Huffington Post, is to evaluate articles individually. This one is no more than a product announcement, with no analysis, so it's low on the scale. Charisma news has an editorial board of 2, which makes it an iffy source. The BusinessWire article has no byline and reads like a press release, giving the company contact at the end (typical of press releases). So your sources are weak. Also, the mere fact of being a streaming service is not enough to Wikipedia notability. There has to be some inherent encyclopedic value, which I do not see. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Game Manufacturing (possible COI)

I don't think I have a COI with Draft:Panda Game Manufacturing. I don't have any affiliation with, am not paid by, and have no possible gain from Panda but I have used their services.

Thanks in advance for your help sorting out this possible COI issue. I am new to editing on wikipedia but I am really enjoying contributing. In particular I'm really proud of the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company draft and I hope it see the light of day. Would you be so kind as to answer a few questions?

I do have a COI on the page Draft:Cartography_(board_game) and possible on Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps. Ten years ago I worked at Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps but no longer have any ties with them. I have no affiliation with the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company except that Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps was eventually located on the same property.

  1. Does using a services of a company constitute a COI?
  2. What else needs to be added to the Draft:Panda Game Manufacturing draft to allow it to be created?
  3. What else needs to be added to the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company draft to allow it to be created?
  4. Can a page be created in draft form when there is a COI if another editor publishes it?
  5. Does previous employment by a company constitute a COI?
  6. Does previous employment by a company located on a property later used by a company constitute a COI?

I hope this brings clarity and transparency. Thank you for your time, Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon.opus, thanks for answering. Past employment generally isn't considered a COI issue, nor does use of a service. If you do have a COI, you can create a draft, but should not edit the page when it goes to main space (with the exceptions you see on the COI page, like vandalism). For any true COI, you need to include a statement on the talk page of the article, as per the COI guidelines.
As for the Panda Game article (I haven't looked at the lumber company one), you need stronger references, as I said in my note. Hobbyist sites, blogs, informal sources are not considered reliable. If those do not exist, you might want to find a page (or more than one) on WP where the information can be added, such as on the page for one of the games. More resources may be published later, at which time a stand-alone article would be warranted. LaMona (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, Thanks so much for your help! That really clears things up for me. One more question. For the COI draft I have should I include the statement in the talk page now or if/when it goes to the main space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jon.opus, it's always good to include the COI on all of the work, even drafts. It helps reviewers understand the situation. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:22, 21 October 2015 review of submission by NataschaEssl


Dear LaMona, I have seen that my draft for the ZeroProject was rejected again. This is the first time that I am creating an article in Wikipedia, so I beg your padon for resubmitting although I haven't changed the sources of the articles. But I can't figure out what I shall change, because the sources are reliable (see United Nations, EASPD, GAATES, DRPI etc.). Could it be the case that I have refereced too often to the "zero Project homepage" itself? I thank you in advance for your advice! Best regads, Natascha

It was rejected again because you hadn't changed the sources, even though you were asked to. The problem with the sources is that you have used the site of the organization itself as a reference. This is not allowed (with some rare exceptions). All information has to come from reliable third parties. If you cannot source information from third-party sources, then that information must be removed from the article (it can be added back in if sources appear).
All references have to be ABOUT the subject. That means that you do not include a reference for the home page of the Essi foundation, since that page has nothing about the ZeroProject. Do not reference the organization's own publications -- those can be included in a section called "external links". If you remove all of the inappropriate references, you are left with very little. That an organization has a "successful" conference is not encyclopedic. You need to find other sources, such as newspaper or journal articles, that give information about the organization. LaMona (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Wesleyan Assurance Society page

Hello. I notice that my draft page created for Wesleyan Assurance Society was rejected yesterday to to 'notability'. I have added an additional info box to the draft and looked at the pages of many smaller financial companies that seem to have been accepted. My WP has far more citations and I was hoping recent additions would make it clear of the society's reach and size? As the society has more than 100,000 members and assets of £6 billion pounds, I was wondering what I need to do to make it deemed notable? Any additional help or feeddback would be welcomed. Especially around citations etc. The society does a lot of work for the children's hospital, hence me wanting to create this page. I also have several doctor friends who can't believe that they don't have a page. Thank you for taking the time to view my draft and for any feedback. Inquasionable (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inquasionable most companies, and most doctors, do not meet WP's criteria for notability. That you see articles in WP that look like yours does not mean that they are correct. See other stuff exists. Read wp:corp carefully. Doing business, creating partnerships, changing management, or having the CEO receive a prize does not confer notability on the company. It may be that this company is notable, but it would be hard to dig through the references to find that. You need to reduce the article to those things that make it notable. Among the things you should not include (from the wp:corp page) are: "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Once you remove all of those, then we can see what the article looks like. Also do not include references to other companies (e.g. Pinsent Masons) in this article. Those references do not create notability for the subject of the article. You also have facts that are not sourced. All information in the article must come from third-party neutral sources. Unsourced information must be removed (although it can be added later if sources appear). LaMona (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the reply. This was my first attempt at a page and I am trying very hard to get it right. Apologies if there is a lot wrong with it. I know that it is notable but I am struggling to get that across so will keep trying and amending. I thought the Pinsent Masons bit may be of interest but will take that out. Do you think I have perhaps been too eager and added too many things? And does my recent additions of the infobox (I'll add citations) and NASUWT approval etc improve its chances of being accepted? Thank you for the speedy reply!! Inquasionable (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inquasionable it is not the quality of the article that determines notability, although a good-looking article that is fairly complete is going to get a more favorable review. Notability is determined entirely by meeting the criteria set out for notability in Wikipedia's policies. Either the organization is notable or it isn't -- your job is to find the sources that support notability. LaMona (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:58, 22 October 2015 review of submission by 173.61.14.26


Hi, thanks to the editor for the helpful pointers about how to improve the entry. Detailed elaboration and plenty of citations have been added this article. Is it in good shape now? Thanks very much for any feedback.

Read through wp:rs, the policies on reliable sources. You shouldn't be summarizing her writings -- that is considered original research -- and you can't use her own writings as references. References need to be from neutral third parties. That means that you probably will not give much detail about her academic work in the article unless others have written about her. If you look at what is needed for notability of academics you see that you need to emphasize career accomplishments (awards, key academic positions, etc.). Rather than saying: "Discussions of her work have appeared in The New York Times, Wired Magazine, Humanity+, Big Think, 3 Quarks Daily, Discover Magazine, Science Magazine, Motherboard, Slate (France), Popular Mechanics, and more.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" the article should use information from those discussions, not from her own writings. Also, I looked at some of those links. In one Humanist article, she is mentioned in a comment -- that is not a suitable reference. To be a reference, the article has to be primarily or significantly about her. Don't cite minor or inappropriate sources. Unfortunately, her book, Language of Thought, shows only 34 cites on Google Scholar, which is not very strong. Perhaps you can find other indications of academic status? (Just being a full professor is not enough.) LaMona (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:56:23, 22 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mjwill46


Thank you for the feedback. I'll make the suggested changes and resubmit. That's reason I'm trying to be very careful to go this route as sometimes blind spots come up in the language and things veer into unintended directions. Thanks again.

Mjwill46 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:08:38, 22 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tigerbeat20


Dear LaMona,

Please be more specific regarding your comments in rejecting my page on Nick Gromicko. The facts about him and the organization he founded--InterNACHI--are found primarily on that site (www.NACHI.org). What else are you looking for so that this page will be approved? It stood for many years without interference until recently, so I rewrote it to delete any potentially objectionable content, and now I can't get it approved, despite his being quoted in several well-known newspapers, publications and websites, as noted. So, I need more specific guidance about your objections so that I can rectify what seem to be new issues that were not a problem earlier.

Thank you. Tigerbeat20 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:38, 22 October 2015 review of submission by Tigerbeat20


LaMona has not provided any clarity as to her reasons for rejecting this article. The links she cited offer no help. "Each and every fact must be verified" is non-specific. Her remark that being quoted in notable publications (which this person has been, in many such publications, including the NYT) does not confer notability actually makes no sense. (Why would he be regularly sought out for a quote if he's not a notable person?)

I need more specific guidance from LaMona, or I would like another editor to review the page and provide specific feedback. Thank you.

Rather than me being more specific, you need to do the reading that I gave you: wp:rs, wp:cite and wp:mos. That he founded an organization does not meet the notability standards, much less wp:blp. Being quoted does not confer notability. It's all spelled out in the policies, but you have to read them. No one is going to do your work for you. You have homework to do. LaMona (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:41, 23 October 2015 review of submission by Palacenewmedia


Thank you for reviewing the article. 5 of the 10 references cited are completely third party, while the other five substantiate information given. When I look at a page such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ice which has almost no information, citations or references (besides a long bibliography), I am left scratching my head. How is this Thomas Ice person "notable" and how is this article following the "golden rule" and yet is was approved? I can certainly find a lot more info, but I would hate to go through all of that work only to have it declined again. Any clarification would be helpful. So far there seems to be an inconsistency when I look at other "people" pages (such as the example I gave you above). And yet mine keeps getting declined. (And here I thought I had this all figured out on my last edit. Haa!!!)

  • See wp:otherstuffexists. That there are articles that seem to be less notable does not mean that they meet the requirements. Every day about 100 articles are deleted from WP for not meeting the guidelines. As for your article, the only references that are about him are not third-party or are not reliable sources. #1 is not a third-party source, it's the site of his church #2 is Amazon, not usable because a sales site #3 is a blog (not usable, not a reliable source) #4 him speaking, not about him #5 doesn't mention him #6 his own site #7 references a self-published book, not a reliable source #8 doesn't mention him #9 a quote and a mention (not enough for notability) #10 Schimmel talking about Bieber, but not about Schimmel. The conclusion is: not one reliable reference that can support notability. LaMona (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:00:11, 23 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kacey3


I am obviously having a hard time determining how to show notability. The help text says to try using more citations, which I did. I nearly tripled the number citations from my first submission to the second. I have looked at similar individuals in the field and found examples with far fewer citations who have been approved, so I am not sure what to look for as an example of a successful article.

I have worked to find third party reputable sources - local and national news and media - to illustrate the notability of this up and coming critic. He has been flagged as "someone to watch" by several news outlets and is a member of several prestigious critic commissions.

Any assistance on improving my article would be greatly appreciated.

Kacey3 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The number of citations isn't the answer, it's the quality of citations that matter. "Someone to watch" means that this is someone who has not yet "made it." One is eligible for Wikipedia only after "making it," as evidenced by sources. LaMona (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:47, 24 October 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor

Thanks for reviewing my article.  I've focused on the 2013 canoe journey, but meant to show it not just as a single event, also as a beginning to ongoing efforts that it has inspired.    The article in the Atlantic Monthly ("The Iroquois are Not Giving Up") describes how the journey was intended to begin a grassroots movement. The messages from the UN session, the Onondaga Nation's new legal appeal to the OAU,  and the Canadian campaign next summer are good examples of its influence.  I plan to edit the article to  show how the journey's goal was to  revive the Two Row treaty and start to apply it as the basis for new campaigns. Would that address the concerns expressed?  Thanks again for your helpful comments and insight.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=687296688"