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 Jdxzhu (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 15 December 2015 (→‎A kitten for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive: 2015 October

20:49:45, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


Hi LaMona well it was not a matter of promoting a product, but other albums that won this award are on WP too. So why this exception , while added so much references ? I thought it was about the relevance of the album ..but I suppose that is clearly not accepted here. As you could see in the talk to Flat Out I am the producer of the album and I liked to merge it into the wiki pages of the artists. I suppose the tv url didn't help either ? than I give up ... Please note I appreciate all volunteering for WP ofcourse. It is just a pity you decline this honoustly

20:56:38, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


I understood what you said and I wanted to use this page to cite in another article but I cannot cite this album if the page does not exist. Anyway I sense you are getting very upset , using cap locks, so I give up. Sorry to bother you

Rejection of post by Surfjk

I really don't understand this. The post that I submitted and you declined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WalletHub) has plenty of sourcing that shows why it is notable. Why, if that entry isn't notable, are these considered to be notable?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HelloWallet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motley_Fool - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NerdWallet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doordash

Can you please tell me that because the feedback I am getting from editors and from seeing what is and is not posted seems very contradictory and somewhat arbitrary!Surfjk (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten two replies to your article that you have not acted on. One is that too much of the article is about a trademark dispute that is not notable. That information, if included at all, could be single sentence. The other is that you say that NYT, etc. say things about the company, but you don't say WHAT they say. This is to be an article about what is notable about the company so you must say why they find the company worth writing about.
As for the other pages, I won't look at them all, but if you look at HelloWallet you see that the articles cited are ABOUT hellowallet. In your case, the WaPo article has a single graphic from WalletHub and doesn't say anything else about it. The NYT article is about taxes and includes a half dozen sentences about wallethub. Another NYT article refers to a WalletHub survey, but doesn't say anything more about it. There's a significant difference between the coverage. The articles actually ABOUT WalletHub are in lesser-known publications. That said, it is possible that if you remove the less valuable articles and most of the trademark dispute information it will be possible to see better whether the sourcing shows notability as per wp:corp. Note that wp:corp has a list of the types of corporate news that do not support notability, and it would be best NOT to include any of those in the article. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really thought that I had made sufficient corrections to the previous editors' feedback, especially after looking at other similar entries that have been approved (which I would consider to be relevant as examples). I see your point regarding the NYT article, but the WaPo article seems like another story. The whole article is based on an infographic made by the company, and it's more than just one graphic in the article. There are numerous images accompanied by the writer's commentary on different statistics from the company's infographic. WaPo covered another report by the company in the same manner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/04/03/are-the-people-in-your-state-good-with-money/. These are articles specifically about research done by the company that are written by a reputable news outlet and filed under news on their website. How does that not qualify? Please let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks so much in advance!Surfjk (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must have articles that are ABOUT the company. You do not have those. No amount of editing of the article is going to change that. Yes, some journalists have made use of the company's research -- that is the product that the company provides. But those articles are NOT ABOUT THE COMPANY. They cite WalletHub, but they do not talk ABOUT WalletHub. It's like a movie where the hero drives a Ford in it is not about the Ford - it's about whatever the movie is about. These journalists use WH data, but they write their own stories about topics other than WH. So now I have to ask: why are you so bent on getting this company into WP? Are you connected with it? Otherwise, just move on to something else. There are a lot of articles on WP that need work. LaMona (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not affiliated, I would just like to add an article that has not been posted before and i like to see things through. I honestly don't even know if I will continue using Wikipedia after all of this though. Policies seem too inconsistently enforced, as evidenced by the already posted entries that you said you would not look at. But I'd like to give it at least one more shot. Your analogy makes sense to me for passing mentions, but what happens when the movie is ABOUT Ford cars? Just because that movie might have some action or drama or touch on broader themes wouldn't change the fact that it's about Ford cars. Along those lines, would these be examples of sources that would be acceptable? http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/sc-cons-0430-started-20150427-column.html and http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/plano/headlines/20140610-here-are-reasons-why-plano-makes-one-list-for-best-cities-for-families.ece and http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/22/cost-of-smoking/22144969/Surfjk (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hardest thing you can do on WP is to create a new article. There are lots of edits that you can make on existing articles that take very little time and might even get some thanks. Unfortunately, many people begin on WP by trying to create an article, not knowing how hard it is and how much time it takes to do the research and write the article. I have one article that I edited extensively that took me four months of research. We probably should put a warning label on the articles for creation page: "WARNING! Creating a Wikipedia article can suck up weeks if not months of your life. Think twice!" That said, the one promising article that you sent is one I can't get to (Chic Tribune) because they require signing up. The other two are like I said before -- they are Fords in a movie, not a movie about Fords. That doesn't mean that WH's product isn't good -- it just means that it so far has failed to be written about. That could change at any time, if you want to come back to it. Another option is to look for articles in WP where the HW data could contribute, and add it in. When you think about it, how many people are going to come to WP looking up Hellowallet? They'd have to already know it exists. But if its data appears in articles of interest about cities (for example) then it is being useful. Unless, of course, your interest is SEO instead of WP. LaMona (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but I have already spent a lot of time writing this entry and trying to adjust it to the vagaries of reviewers who seem more inclined to throw their weight around and lob accusations at contributors than to encourage contribution and provide constructive feedback. From my perspective, it seems like the real bias is from the reviewer's perspective, because there's little rhyme or reason regarding which posts get approved and which do not. Or there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what the company's "product" is, combined with a surface-deep review. You say that WalletHub's product has not been written about, but it's pretty clear that research reports are one of of the company's main products, and a quick Google search reveals significant news coverage of these reports. The coverage is not about the subject matter of WalletHub's reports generally, but rather what WalletHub's reports reveal about those subjects in particular. If that wasn't the case, I don't see why so many news outlets would include the company's name in the titles of their articles (see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=intitle:wallethub&hl=en&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV2tjUsazJAhXL4SYKHX5AA8EQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=866). That said, I'll take another stab at adjusting based on your feedback, but if that is not sufficient for you I guess we can escalate to mediation. Surfjk (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Surfjk If you want more opinions, you can post at the Articles for Creation help desk. You can also post at the TeaHouse. There is no mediation process that I am aware of for AfC. You seem to disagree with the policies for notability and how they are being applied. Either of those places (or both if you wish) could lead to helpful discussions in that area. LaMona (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:41, 4 November 2015 review of submission by Kamishiro


I've made some changes & additions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Sinnicks - not sure at this point whether it's a help or a hindrance. LOL Would appreciate further input, regardless. T.I.A.

01:42:52, 11 November 2015 review of submission by Dshargrett


Hello,

Thank you for your feedback. I have updated references to include Vanity Fair, Drum! magazine and Jazz Times, all very-well established references.

Draft:Bitsbox and RS

I was just having a look at WP:AFC and came across Draft:Bitsbox. Thanks for your work generally at AFC, but I'm just wondering about the review you gave the creator of this draft.

many sources (e.g. the first 3) are not considered reliable

Some of the sources seem pretty unreliable, but source two—this TechCrunch article—seems pretty reliable. It's written by an experienced writer for a website that has editorial oversight and whose work has been republished/syndicated to more mainstream journalism outlets. Just wondering on what basis you consider it to not be reliable. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at the draft I was seeing here. There were blogs and personal sites. And, amazingly, the creator seems to have figured it out -- the article now looks much better. LaMona (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:06, 15 November 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor


Thanks for reviewing my article on the Two Row Treaty Renewal Journey and pointing out its narrow focus on the event of the journey itself. I have revised the article to put the event and the treaty in historical context and to add some of the ongoing impacts of the renewal campaign, including applications of the treaty in Congressional testimony against use of racist mascots, in the campaign against fracking in NY, and in support of other environmental and human rights causes. I believe the new version will give a more encyclopedic view of the treaty's renewal, and would respectfully request another review.

Also, I would like to revise the title slightly, to become "River Journey to Renew the Two Row Wampum Treaty." I've tried to do that while I had the article in Edit mode, but didn't see a way to change the title there.

  • I'd advise you to begin by adding any new information you have to the article on the Two Row Wampum Treaty. An existing article is always the place to start. Your article is still primarily about a single event. If you have enough material for a separate article on the efforts to renew the treaty, then treaty renewal could potentially be an article of its own. But the canoe trip is unlikely to be encyclopedic itself, while efforts to renew the treaty could be. (p.s. article name changes can be done at the time of acceptance, or as a "move" function.) LaMona (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking more closely at that article, I would imagine that a section headed "400th Anniversary Celebration" would make sense. It should be only a paragraph or two -- I'm thinking something like the opening paragraph of the Atlantic article -- basically saying that it was celebrated with a 13-day trip along the river, stopping for celebrations like (name one or two), and culminating at a meeting at the UN. Then I think you may have content that could be added to the section on Interpretation. If you wish, we can begin to sketch this out on the talk page of the article Talk:Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty.That is the usual place to discuss changes to an existing article. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:18, 15 November 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor


Thanks - I would be glad to work on a short "400th Anniversary" section of the Two Row Wampum article. I'll go to the talk page for that article, to discuss the possibilities...

09:08:10, 16 November 2015 review of submission by Kino domino2015


Dear La Mona,

Could you please review once again an article abot Andrey Bystritsky, I added links to the reliable sources and media. Moreover an article about this person already ewxists on Russian Wikipedia. When this article would be accepted to show for the public?

Best Regards,

Nikolay

  • Hi, Nikolay. thanks for your effort. However, you still have a lot of unreferenced statements in the article. So it's not just having links, but having links for every statement of fact that shows that you built the entire article from reliable third-party sources. Note that every WP has their own rules, and even their own interests, so the fact that the person has an article in another WP doesn't mean that they meet the criteria for WP@en. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:18:28, 19 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Purpledamaris


Hi LaMona!

Thanks for your feedback on my article! However, I need some help from you because I'm a newbie here and would like to hear your thoughts.

1. Regarding notability, I will search more references talking about the online app. Other Wikipedia editors mentioned that I can reference reviews as long as they are not written by individuals but written in professional sites with editorial oversight. Would you have any other suggestions of references that I can use for this? I thought my previous references were all right, but you have removed 2/3 of them so now I am not sure which ones are ok.

2. Regarding user downloads, I noticed that other Wikipedia pages talking about apps like Instagram or UC Browser had sections talking about the number of users and downloads. That is why I also included this in my article. Maybe I can include these again but under a different heading such as "Popularity" or "Users"?

Hope to hear from you soon!

Michelle

Purpledamaris (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, Purpledamaris. In terms of reviews, you must use sources unrelated to the company. You may not use blogs, personal sites, or crowd-sourced sites. Ideally you should find articles in newspapers and magazines that are regularly published and even found on newsstands - the better known the better. Beyond that, make sure that if you cite a web site that it has an actual editorial board and staff (cf. Techcrunch). As for the information about number of users and downloads, that is relevant if your software is notable, but you cannot use that to establish notability. Prove notability first, then that information becomes secondary. However, in your article, that was just about all you were saying about the software. It's a bit hard to compare your article to the one on Instagram, but note that in that article there is a lot that is said about the software, and the user stats are only a minor portion of it. In addition, those stats should come from reliable, independent sources. You need to find much more to say about the software, and you can possibly get that from reviews. Also, keep in mind that not every company nor every product can have an article on WP -- only those that have been proven notable by the fact that they have been written about by a good number of reliable sources, and that those sources had a significant amount to say about them. If you don't find enough sources now, you can always create the article in the future when more appear. You can keep this article around for about 6 months, after which it may get deleted during a clean-up of old submissions. Come back if you have other questions. LaMona (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Gill Fielding Draft

Dear LaMona. Thank you for your review. As suggested, I am no longer referring to Gill by first name and I have removed all references that link to any of Gill's business pages. The only one I have retained is the one linked to the BBC radio interviews hosted on her website. These audio recordings are the only source I can find for the radio interviews but if you think I should remove it I will. I have resubmitted for approval. Thanks again. Neilho (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neilho. I'll take a look at it when I have a chance, and we'll see how it fares with the next reviewer. I'll let you know if I have specific suggestions. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona. I am sorry that you feel that I have not made significant changes to the article. I had responded to all of your specific points and to those of further reviewers. I honestly believed we were nearly there with the tone. I hope the notability issue has been resolved and this is predominately just a tone issue now. I feel that when someone is famous for who they are rather than what they do it is easy to cross the line between factual statements and personal promotion. This is the first 'person' article I've written from scratch and I feel that it would be a shame to delete an article about a notable person when I have clearly done my utmost to gather as much information as possible and work with every reviewer on their specific issues. Do you feel this is really not salvageable? By the way, I actually missed the reviewer who mentioned reference number 18, and will address that point now. Neilho (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the difference between the previous review and the one I reviewed: [1]. As you can see, only a few small bits changed. But all of the reviewers have pointed to rather serious problems that would require quite a bit of re-write. You have whole paragraphs that have no sources so it isn't clear where you got that information from. See the paragraph beginning "ielding was born in West Ham in 1957..." You say things like "was inspired by money" -- where does that come from? Can you prove that? If you can't prove it, you can't include it in the article. "realised she was financially free" - not found in the article you cite. You have been writing a story that is not in the sources you cite. You can't make statements about her feelings or realizations if those aren't directly in sources. You say "Fielding has appeared on numerous TV and radio programmes" -- that's not in any of your sources. You can't say things that you cannot verify in a third-party, independent source. You should start with the sources you have and write an article based on what is in those sources. Otherwise, you are making things up. LaMona (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft WP Page for Rexnord

Thank you for your feedback. I kindly ask that you not suggest my article to be deleted. I'm very new to Wikipedia, and fully disclose I am an employee of Rexnord Corporation. I'm trying to bring the references up to WP standards but would really appreciate suggestions on how to improve the page. I understand simply being a company is not enough to publish an article. You might understand that being new to Wikipedia with no prior experience is intimidating, and much of the direction and feedback I've received is not explained in a manner that I fully understand. I am sincerely trying to follow the direction I have received. I'm not trying to flood the article with unreliable sources. Would you be able to identify which sources do not support notability, and which ones do? I have been scouring Google news for independent and national news sources. I've also seen dozens of pages with substantially less reliable sources that have been published, including companies. I have been working on this article for months. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Emily.white89 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily.white89 Note that a draft remains for 6 months after it was last edited before deletion. However, repeatedly bringing a draft to AfC for review without fixing the stated problems ends up just annoying the reviewers because of the time it takes, so you should not resubmit unless you have made significant changes. OK, the article stuff: If a company is not notable, no amount of work on the article is going to make it so. Basically, there are no strong sources in your article, that I can see, but a whole lot of weak ones. Is the company notable? The only way to know is to remove every source that is not primarily and significantly about the company. That includes every source that names the company in a single sentence or short paragraph.Here's an example: http://www.gurufocus.com/news/371288/water-water-but-not-everywhere. First, there is just a short mention of Rexnord in the article. That's not good enough, that article should go. Second, "gurufocus.com" is not a known or highly valued source. So that reference should be removed, along with any information it supports (which probably isn't much because it doesn't say much.) Any source that just names Rexnord but does not give in depth information that you have incorporated into the article should be removed. When you remove all of those, then we can see what's left and whether the company meets notability guidelines. I'm on the road so I don't have much time or I could go through and delete the ones I think are inappropriate. However, you should know them well and should be able to do the deletion with less effort. Yes, the company wants to be on WP. But that isn't a valid motivation from the point of view of Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants information about topics that are encyclopedic and notable. Consider that you may have taken on a job that had unfounded expectations -- many companies think that they can have a Wikipedia article if someone writes it for them. What they don't know is that Wikipedia has policies that govern its content, and so such an article may not be possible. In the future, you may want to include wording in your agreement that you will "attempt" an article, but because of WP policies, you cannot guarantee. I found this video from a company that creates WP articles to be very honest about that. In fact, in the future you might want to analyze whether the company is likely to meet wp:corp before making an agreement. You could even have them watch that video. LaMona (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Kathryn Barger Page

What other sources would be acceptable if you are not looking for news sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersc11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andersc11 - First, on talk pages you need to sign your posts with four tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Next, there's no problem with news sources - they are fine. Do read reliable sources. You will see that her own pages and pages of related persons are not considered independent and neutral. So you have only one reliable source, the LA Times, and it doesn't say much about her. Your article needs to be created from third-party reliable sources. That means that first you find sources, pretending that you know nothing about the subject, and then you build the article from the information in those sources. You should have no information in the article that cannot be verified in the sources you cite. LaMona (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the sources to only news articles and one government website. I am fairly certain all information on the page is pulled from these articles. Draft: Kathryn Barger Andersc11 (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Andersc11[reply]

Thanks for remembering to sign your post here! As to the sources, I removed some that were not considered reliable -- the "meet the staff" which is not independent, and the Google search -- searches aren't citable. What you have now is one LA Times artlcle and some articles from the San Marino paper and a local radio station. As I said in my first comment, local politicians are not immediately considered notable -- there has to be some thing special about them. They also have to have had an impact beyond their local area. The San Marino newspaper articles can provide information (and they do), but they do not support notability of the subject. The LA Times article is more support for notability. Unfortunately, one article isn't enough for the person to be considered notable. LaMona (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What if I included other Los Angeles Times articles featuring her for notability and not necessarily content addition? Andersc11 (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Andersc11[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about notability but not content. If the article doesn't say anything about her that you can include in the WP article, it's not clear how you would cite it. Maybe you can link here to some of the articles you mean? LaMona (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled some other articles that are pertinent to her notability (she's frequenting major newspapers) and put them in the article Andersc11 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Andersc11[reply]

Yes, but none of these have any significant information about her. That she is mentioned in a single sentence in newspaper articles is not sufficient for notability. There have to be articles that are about her, not that she is briefly quoted or named in an article about something else. I'm sorry but I just don't think that she meets notability at this point. She may very well later in her career, and at that time a WP article would be appropriate.LaMona (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:46:00, 25 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eric Musgrave


Hi LaMona, With reference to the latest rejection of my entry on Don McCarthy, his notability was acknowledged months ago by a previous editor. Mr McCarthy is one of the most successful and significant UK retailers of the past 25-30 years. Your opinion may be coloured by the fact that, unlike several of his peers, he has not courted publicity and so is not so well known to the general public, but among the fashion retail sector he is very highly regarded and admired. He is still very active in the sector, which makes his inclusion in Wikipedia all the more appropriate. All previous requests from your editors for clarification and editing have been met, so I hope you can reconsider your decision, which is, as I say, contrary to what was confirmed to me several months ago. I look forward to hearing from you.Eric Musgrave (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Musgrave (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric MusgraveL Decisions in WP about notability are based on the sources that are (or can be) added to the article to show that notability. So the statement by one reviewer, "IT is likely that the gentleman passes WP:BIO" is not an acknowledgement of his notability, nor is it a promise that we will accept this article. Until someone has done the research, it isn't clear if one meets the WP requirements. The reviewer was probably saying that it appears that this is worth continuing to work on. But the sources have to be there. Two of us now, however, have highlighted the mixture of information about the person and the companies. Information about the companies can be used to verify statements in the article, but only sources about the person can support an article about the person. For the person, though, you do not have strong sources. There is quite a bit of text about him in the biography and early career for which you have no sources. Facts cannot appear out of thin air; they have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere has to be a reliable source. A Bloomberg profile is just a directory-type listing, and therefore is not considered a source that supports notability. Articles like "Chinese buyer offers £450m for House of Fraser" have mentions of the person, but are not about the person. It would be better to drop both these cites and the information they are citing. Your task, as editor, is not to show how important the person is, but to show that others have found the person worthy of significant published attention. LaMona (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:08:14, 25 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eric Musgrave


Eric Musgrave (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:25:48, 25 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eric Musgrave


Hi LaMona. Further to my earlier note today, I should stress as a response to the point that the references are about Mr McCarthy's companies rather than him specifically, in his career he has mainly been a major shareholder, chief executive officer and/or executive chairman of his companies. Therefore, whatever the company has done has been down directly to Mr McCarthy. Throughout his career he has shied away from personal publicity and this now seems to be a main reason why Wikipedia is not posting my article. I look forward to your response. Best wishes. Eric Musgrave (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Musgrave (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer to your previous questin -- I have tried to answer it there. Let me know if it still isn't clear. LaMona (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Mary McPartlan page

Hello, thank you for looking over this draft page and giving me your feedback, it's much appreciated. I take from what you written that the issue is that notability has not been established by the sources provided, and you have recommended finding more sources such as reviews and stories with significant information. I will try and do this, but I have a few questions (I don't mean to be argumentative with any of these, I'm just not very experienced!); -You mentioned that the BBC and Irish Times sources are not strong, can you elaborate on why? I thought they were good because I saw them as reviews by a neutral third-party source. -When you said 'Articles that mention the person but don't provide much information are generally to be avoided unless they support a specific fact (NUI Galway)', Is what you mean here that the NUI source should be avoided because it doesn't provide much info other than I saw the NUI Galway source as supporting the specific fact that she lectures and runs the performance programme at NUI.

I was mainly motivated to make the page when I noticed she didn't have one but her trad/Irish folk music contemporaries did (e.g. the people I linked to on the page). I had a look at the notability guidelines and was mainly just thinking of number 1. I've had another look and I'll have another go, this time with 1, and possibly 4 if I can find coverage, 7 (lots of reporting from Galway media/she's often referred to as 'renowned Irish singer' Irish as generic meaning), 8 (would meteor award nomination count? it's like the national music awards for Ireland. She was nominated in 2005 for folk, she's listed on the page) maybe 10 (she's on this comp album, if that helps at all?)

One problem I've had is that there seems to be deeper coverage in archived print that I need to pay to access. This includes Irish Times, and a few other newspapers/mags, e.g. here lists a feature coverage with here that I can't see.

Thanks, sorry for the long message! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossiesto101 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ossiesto101. You mis-understood -- I said that the BBC and the Irish Times are medium sources since neither says a great deal about her (which isn't unusual for reviews). It is difficult to support notability for musicians (and other artists) who are mainly known within one cultural area, like a single country. You should look at the specific requirements for musicans and see if that helps you. Those two reviews take you pretty far, but you should emphasize recordings, and the record labels she has recorded on. In order to give the full bibliographic reference for the albums, you can make a section called "Recordings" and list them with the dates, the labels, and any identifiers that exist. (I'm a librarian, so I'm seriously into full citations ;-) but it also makes it easier to verify the information). Since she teaches, try to capture as many of her academic writings or activities that you can. I share your pain/frustration with not having access to archival news. I don't know where you are located but you can often get copies of individual articles through your local library. If that fails, you can put out a call on the reference desk asking for someone who does have access. I'll also look around at the sources I have, but being in the US it's not likely -- a UK volunteer might be more helpful. LaMona (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some links:
  • The Irish Times: The Arts: Coming out from the backstage shadows - Mary McPartlan is used to the entertainment world, with a record as a theatre producer and director. Now she is taking to the limelight as a singer. Siobhan Long reports. Irish Times (Dublin, Ireland), February 10, 2004, 4pp
  • [2] (not a strong RS)

That's great thank you, I'll keep trying! Also I just noticed a bunch of off grammatical errors in the post I made above, sorry if that was confusing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossiesto101 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:16, 27 November 2015 review of submission by Cjmcgown


Just looking to get a little more feedback on SPECIFICALLY why the submission was rejected. I understand that everything stated must be verifiable through reputable sources, but much of the narrative about the history of the company is know only to company founders and was never reported on in fact-checking publications. What was written was done in an attempt at complete neutrality, with a simple stating of the facts.

I see that in several other similar articles that recount history, there aren't always references. For example, in the article about George Washington it states:

"Born into the provincial gentry of Colonial Virginia, his family were wealthy planters who owned tobacco plantations and slaves which he inherited. He owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime, but his views on slavery evolved."

None of these passages are referenced.

In any case, just looking for a little more direction. Are there issues with the types of sites referenced? WIth the content itself? Thanks!

Hi, User:Cjmcgown. First, see wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is a work in progress with quite a bit of work yet to be done. That you can find articles with flaws does not mean that we intend to add more flaws to the mix. Note that in the article on GWashington that you cite, the are special rules for the "lede" -- the opening section. The lede is a summary of the article, and statements do not need to be referenced as long as they are referenced in the body of the article. (Also note that the GW article is not typical, being especially long and of a much-studied person, so it's not a good one to look at for guidance in your case.) Second, if there is information that is only known to people involved in the activity, that information cannot be included in the Wikipedia article. Everything in the article must be wp:verifiable. LaMona (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Submission: Churchill Retirement Living

Hi LaMona - thank you for taking the time to review the article I submitted. It looks like I need to work on the tone and the sources and to pare down the content. Separately, the pointers in the text are very helpful in understanding the specific areas to improve. I'll look to improve and resubmit - thanks Fbell74 (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article and worked on the sources so that now everything included is supported. I saw what you meant by the sources not backing up the text in some instances. I've addressed this so hopefully it's not an issue now. I also removed the section on the facilities that are available to tenants, as this seemed to be the most likely culprit in terms of making the article seem promotional. To me the rest of the article reads as neutral, but if this isn't the case perhaps you can highlight the relevant areas. When you have a moment, would you mind casting your eye over the article (Draft:Churchill Retirement Living) and seeing what you think? Fbell74 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LaMona - I noticed that you edited the draft article following my revisions. Do you think it is acceptable now? Fbell74 (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you still need to improve the references, at least in my opinion. The editing that I did didn't take care of that. LaMona (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I thought with the revisions I made, that I had supported all of the information in the article with reliable sources, but perhaps I missed out on some. Can you clarify, which parts I need to add to?
Those that I've used have included a few national UK newspapers, several local/regional newspapers, a couple of local government publications and a few industry publications as well. Separately, there is another article about a similar organisation in the same field (McCarthy & Stone). The latter are a bigger company, but in terms of sources, that article uses some of the same (Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Construction News) as my draft article, which presumably means these are acceptable. However, there are far fewer overall. Obviously, I'm looking at it from my perspective, but it seems that the Draft:Churchill Retirement Living article is well sourced in comparison? Fbell74 (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can resubmit for review if you feel you have done what is needed. I may not have seen your most recent edits. LaMona (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'll give it a go and hope for the best. Thanks for the reply Fbell74 (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:23, 29 November 2015 review of submission by Petehampson


Hi LaMona,

Firstly, thanks for your comments and your help in editing my article for tone. However, I don't know if I'm going to be able to do much more with this. I take your point about Knox-Johnstone as a primary source, but rreally I included that link and the information about certain personalities in the club because I was asked by previous reviewers to add more references to prove notability. I think this only made the article more flabby, but it did include the references.

The references to cwflags and seran1926, whilst not from official sources, are fairly well researched sites on very specialised subjects. There are not a dozen alternatives to choose from, although I could cite similar alternatives. Would this help? I can also cite official sources that add nothing more than to verify that a warrant for a blue ensign was awared to the club, but add no more detail than that. Again, would this help?

I must admit to getting slightly disheartened. Looking down the list of yacht clubs page on wikipedia I can't find one of them that has the same depth of reference as this entry, and most prove nothing about their notability, undoubted though it is in some cases. The Carmel Sailing Community was only formed in 2014 and the article on it has done nothing to show notability, as yet the page has passed. I'm not suggesting that we dumb wikipedia down - far from it - but I can't see much consistency here. Have I misunderstood?

Regards, --Petehampson (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petehampson, I take your point about this being already fully researched. If you don't mind, I'll do some more edits, mainly to remove some areas that I think aren't really encyclopedic (e.g. who is commodore today, where the club is located, etc.) and then we can send it through. Is that okay with you? LaMona (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona,

Thanks, that would be brilliant. I will take all the help I can get. If you think taking out the location information makes it more encyclopedic, then let's go for that.

Regards, --Petehampson (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petehampson, if you think "encyclopedia" then things like who is commodore today becomes less relevant. That's the kind of thing that one can look up on the web site. As for location, that is ok but the various moves, renovations, etc. aren't really about the club (well, except to members who have to get there). So let's take the view. If you'll repost for review, I'll make a few changes and send it on. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, I had a stab at making the amendments to save you the trouble. I have also added a short section on training as that information has been lost on removal of "Today's Little Ship Club" section. I also added a couple of references about the affiliation with the RYA and co-habitation with the City Livery Company. With rehgards to Citation Needed over the ensigns recovered from Dunkirk, I can include photos. Would this help or do we need the external citation?

I moved it to main space, but you can keep working on it. (Wikipedia articles are never done!) The "citation needed" can remain as a reminder; eventually a source may turn up. Now that it's in main space we can look for any existing articles that either mention "little ships club" or that SHOULD mention it, and add a link to this article. There is at least one I know of Vertue (yacht), and probably also Sir Knox. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great LaMona. Thanks once again for all your valuable help on this.

--Petehampson (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:23:35, 29 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tnelms


Hi LaMona, I've read through the article creation and evaluation pages, but I'm mostly new to Wikipedia, so apologies for my ignorance. I thought I would try to work through the anthropology pages on Wikipedia, and was surprised not to find a page for Bill Maurer, among others. In any case, I was confused by your comments on reliable sources w/r/t the Bill_Maurer_(anthropologist) page: 1) The sources where Maurer is quoted are situating him in an academic literature, which establishes his contributions to the field. Why wouldn't those be considered reliable? 2) For explanations of academic work, why wouldn't one cite the author's own work -- not to establish notability, but to describe his findings and contributions.

I've trimmed the research section of the piece, removed references to Maurer's contributions to the popular press, excised the citations from UC Irvine, and inserted references to major grants Maurer has received. Please do take a second pass at the page, if you are able. I would appreciate the help.

Tnelms (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tnelms, yes, I realize it is a bit confusing. WP articles are to be entirely based on external sources -- independent of the subject of the article. For academics, their own writings are given in a bibliography, not as references -- references must be about the subject, not by the subject. Mixing in the "by" sources causes confusion. The main purpose of the policies is to make sure that any information in the article comes from a source that has received editorial oversight. If WP article writers draw their own conclusions, then no editorial oversight has been exercised. As for quotes in journalistic sources, those are not a good source of notability; journalists aren't often very discerning on who they quote, and thousands of folks get quoted. So it's nice, but not notable. More important for an academic is being cited by other academics, which we can see by looking up the person's work in things like Google scholar. -- Thanks for listening! The article looks great now. Resubmit and I'll hop over and send it out to main space. You can, of course, continue to work on it. You should also search WP to see if there are articles that should link to this one. LaMona (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, thanks very much for this -- your explanation is super helpful. I appreciate the support.

Thank for accepting page: Jee Hyun Kim

Hi LaMona, Thank you for accepting my article on Jee Hyun Kim. I am very new to Wikipedia and would love some guidance on how to improve this article from its current C class status. What is your advice for how to move forward from here? Thank you so much, I really appreciate the feedback! Izbukvic (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Izbukvic, C Class is not bad at all, and it was only a guess on my part. The article can stay at that class for any length of time, and some never move from that. However, if you wish to have your page considered for evaluation, you should probably do so through the appropriate project, which I presume would be Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Work_behind_the_scenes for information on how to tag the article as part of the project, and how to evaluate its importance. Becoming part of the Medicine project might give you a good community to work with. For most projects, you become part of it just by showing an interest and participating. Happy WP-ing! LaMona (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, thank you very much! I will definitely follow that up. All the best, Izbukvic (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Nehemia Azaz

Thanks for your time reviewing our page, and for accepting!

Tomi raz (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of draft:House_of_Spyra

Hallo LaMona,

You refused the historic article using "arguments" like: "homosexual cannibalistic Heruli" not adhering to a "neutral point of view".

I'm asking You how can You in a "neutral" way describe a homosexual militant hierarchy of the ancient Heruli also found in modern times in many military organisations and to an extended amount in prisons???

Recent excavations from France and Germany further confirm their cannibalistic traditions - what is a "neutral" description for a cannibal???

Somehow the term "cannibalism" was accepted here Lusatian culture, but was omitted here [[Heruli] where only "human sacrifice" was used.

The other tribe - Vandals - were commonly known for vandalism - so there seems be no reason to further describe them.

The "neutral" German synoym for a Nazi Germany concentration camp is "education centre" and the current Polish "neutral" synonym for a stalinistic concentration camp is "health care facility" - but the truth can't be hidden nor falsified - even by Wikipedia.

This is not meant to be an article about ancient barbarian German tribes - so they were described very shortly, just to show the situation and circumstances of settlement of the direct ancestors of the House of Spyra the White Serbs and White Croats - closely tied to agriculture.


Yes there is much in the article that is already covered elewhere - but the portions used are directly tied to House of Spyra - which is omitted elsewhere. When You study the history of House of Spyra You will find enough reasons why both German and soviet occupants of their domains are trying to extinguish all remaining informations.

Why should there be any text or illustrations removed - they are all related to House of Spyra directly! The many relations to Piast dynasty, Arpad dynasty, House of Odrowąż, House of Vasa and others were just scratched.

Please by more specific and honest - why denying publication.

By the way: there are still so many fascist and soviet propaganda publications approved and published - why??? Just one related example may be Schlesier, where the term Silesian is NOT applied to indigenous Silesians but to German invaders and settlers instead and where not Silesian but German history and folklore is presented. In a similar way the history of many Slavic cities and settlements Kopnik, Miśnia, Drezno, Lipsk e.t.c. is falsified. In most cases their history related to House of Dervan, Union of Samo, House of Coloditi (ancestors of Piast dynasty), Poland and Bohemia is falsified or simply omitted. Stalinistic censors of articles in Polish language are acting rapidly, when it comes to facts about stalinistic crimes often just in seconds - often leading to discrepancies between article versions in different languages.

This is a warning about behavior. One of the policies at Wikipedia is wp:civil -- that we do not call each other names, do not accuse each other of being "fascist", etc. Uncivil behavior can lead to you being banned from editing. If you wish to ask others to weigh in on your draft, you can post your questions to the Articles for Creation Help Desk. LaMona (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Day

Dear LMona, I changed my article according to you wishes, but cannot post it for reviewing, please see my changes in the article you have, Mathdaybfmint

User:KHEname - First, remember to sign your posts to talk pages by ending them with four tilde's -- there's a note at the bottom of the editing box that you can click on. You only made a change to one sentence in the article, so it is not ready for a new review. The article needs to explain what the Math Day and BF-MINT are about other than just saying "enrichment" -- you need to describe the programs. Also, you cannot just point to documentation like: "documentation in [22],[23]. In[24] " -- references support the article but do not substitute for text. You'll need to do considerable re-writing of the article before posting it again for review. LaMona (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Inquiry

Good afternoon,

I received a message saying I may have a conflict of interest simply based on my username. I'm not sure if that means my submission is denied but to address the concerns, my username is simply bc I am a fan of the band/subject involved. I have never worked on Wikipedia before so I had no username. I chose my username bc it was available and related to the purpose of my user account creation. If my submission is declined based on this then what is the process for appeal? I'm not affiliated with the subject so I don't believe it's a conflict of interest.

Thank you.

First, you must sign your messages on talk pages with four tilde's -- there's a link to click on at the bottom of the edit box. Next, if you do not have a conflict of interest then there's no problem. However, it is best to avoid user names that appear to be representative of an organization or group. See the policy on promotional user names. If you need your username to be changed, you can apply at Wikipedia:Changing_username. However, if you have only made a few edits on WP, it may just be easier to create a new user name that is in line with the general policy. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:24:46, 1 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elenabolo


Dear LaMona,

Following your recommendations, I added the references to the reliable outside sources (books and journals, protocols from the national and international science societies, references to the funding sources) and inserted internal wiki-link references. Also, I edited the text to make more emphasis on the relevance of the subject in the international context.

May I please ask you to review the revised version and let me know if it is ready for submission?

Thank you very much for your help!!

Elenabolo (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Elenabolo, go ahead and resubmit it. You've done a lot of work! LaMona (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing of Draft page for MadRat Games

Hi LaMona. Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't included the exact link for Manthan Award - have done it now. Thank you for bringing that to my notice. Also the INK fellow was for one of the founders (Halder) - yes, but it was for her work as Madrat founder and especially for Aksharit which is the company's flagship product.--Yoginipatil (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should say exactly that in the article -- that one of the founders, Halder, was given an award.... etc. The statements in the article have to match what is in the source. Note, however, that the source has only one sentence, and you cannot draw other conclusions. It is best to be very direct. LaMona (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:55:44, 3 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kiaora1980


Hi! Thank you so much for your review -- I have corrected all the references so that the sources are linked in the text, as you requested. I hope it can now be approved?

Kiaora1980 (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kiaora1980 That was quick! - there is a bit more of cleanup you can do. First, you've got a lot of links that now are in the references area and follow the in-line references. Some of those are used as inline references, so they should be deleted. The remainder can be 1) deleted because not needed or 2) used as references or 3) added as external links. However, they all need to be removed from the "References" area. The other thing is that you have some "http" links out from the article to the web. If there is a person or organization that you cannot link to a WP article, you may have added an http link. Those are not allowed in WP. Again, you can simply delete them, or you may want to add them to a list of external links. Usually they are just deleted. Happy editing! Chat with you soon. LaMona (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:51:03, 4 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kiaora1980


Done, and done, LaMona :) Thank you so much for your guidance! I have eliminated all unnecessary references and have deleted all external links. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do. Thanks!

Kiaora1980 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:39:50, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Mbattistella


Hello LaMona, Thank you for your critical review of my entry on Gregory V. Jones - it was very helpful and I also appreciated the time you took to format according to convention. I've read through all your edits and comments on other pages and see that you are careful, committed, and *very* patient. I wonder if you would have time to review the updates I've made before re-submitting. Thank you for your time. Maureen.

Mbattistella (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gregory V. Jones has been accepted

Gregory V. Jones, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection longform L van Dipten

Hi LaMona,

You reviewed my article by saying: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Long-form journalism instead"

I do believe longform and longform-journalism is not the same thing. Longform is a growing genre online and is not journalistic per se. I do blieve longform is simular to what Adorno called the essay, which can be a critical piece of work. As longform is growing in popularity online, I do believe it is important that wikipedia has a page about it. What can I do to get it online? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Longform

You have to show that it is different from longform journalism, which your article does not. The citations and much of the text are about journalistic uses. You need to eschew those examples and find ones that are not at all journalistic in nature. I'm not sure what that will be -- possibly academic essays? But you shouldn't quote journalism profs or journalism conferences. Also, "longform" is an adjective -- it desperately needs a noun. LaMona (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Dear LaMona, thank you very much for all of the time you spend and all of the input you give!! Your work is highly appreciated!! Elenabolo (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etta Federn

Just a note of thanks, dear LaMona! Good to get more women's history on Wiki, I think. I'll keep working on the Etta Federn article and consider contributing additional entries.

One question: I'd love to add a photo, but I'm not finding any photos of Etta Federn online that are clearly in the public domain. Can I take a photo of a book cover with her picture, and crop it somewhat (so you can see that the photo is part of the book cover?) Or does that not fly? Do you have any other suggestions? (Also, I own a letter that has her signature -- if I took a photo of her signature, would that be appropriate for Wiki?) Many thanks to you. Gecko990 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a copy of a copyrighted photo is still copyrighted. Why don't you note on the talk page that you are looking for a rights-free photo, and see if anyone has one that they took themselves that they can offer. I don't see any reason why you couldn't take a photo of the signature that you have -- but I'll check the copyright pages to see if they say anything about that. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your expert advice! Much appreciated. (I fear that Etta Federn falls in a gray zone, in terms of her photographs. She died too long ago for anyone to have a photo they took of her, but not so long ago that existing photos are out of copyright! But we shall see....) Gecko990 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona. Hello again! How about the photo that appeared in this Barcelona newspaper (Mirador) in 1934? More than 70 years have passed since publication: 

      http://www.estelnegre.org/documents/federn/federn.html

Many thanks to you, once again! Gecko990 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule (as I read it) is life of the author of the photograph, plus 70 years. Of course, we don't know who took the photos, or if the rights in the photos belong to the newspaper and not the person. i think the best thing to do is ask here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. Presumably the copyright experts hang around there and answer questions. In the US there are some exceptions in the copyright law relating to news reporting, but as the photos were published in Spain, it's much too complex for me. Let me know if you get a clear answer! LaMona (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I'll give the copyright folks a try and let you know if.... All my best!Gecko990 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of page: UK Climate Change and Migration Coalition

Hi there, thanks for your feedback. In line with your comments I have done the following. Deleted everything that could not be referenced using a source that was not connected to the organization in some way. Further I have deleted content that was about issues more broadly. The article is now almost entirely referenced using external reliable sources. I will not resubmit the article for review. Thanks. PaperGoldFish (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:09, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Bingham28


Hi there LaMona, thank you for taking the time to look at my draft page.

Would you please give me some feedback on how I can fit the required guidelines? Here are some issues I face -

• The charity is a Non-public facing charity - therefore the charity is not featured in more mainstream media • There are 30 references including the Scottish charity register and Charity Commission for the UK • Looking at similar charities - for example the Retail trust - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_Trust - I am confused as to what deems reliable sources, independence and notability? • The charity is notable as it has existed for nearly 160 years, has helped thousands of people and is an important part of the grocery industry. • The charity is represented in all major supermarkets such as Tesco, Asda etc.. is a big part of their corporate social responsibility programmes and prominent in retail - the largest employer in the UK.

  • Major suppliers to Grocery stores E.G Kraft, Coca Cola enterprises, Heineken also recognise and support GroceryAid

Please advise me of my next steps with this article.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Nathan B FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Save page" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!-->}}

Hi, User:Bingham28. Thanks for coming to chat. First, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, there are many articles that are not perfect (to say the least). For that reason, one of our common responses is that "other stuff exists" does not justify not adhering to policies. I've just marked that Retail Trust article for not having any third-party references. The next step is that it can be nominated for deletion. As for your organization, the way that Wikipedia defines notability does require third-party sources. With a quick search I found this, and this, which tells me that there is more to be found in mainstream sources. These are the ones that attest to the impact the organization has on society. Presumably you are in the UK so you should be able to find more. Finally, remember that on talk pages you have to sign your posts with four tilde's (which then adds your username). There's a link to that just below the edit box. LaMona (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again LaMona Thanks for your quick response. I have taken your feedback on board. I have added 3 mainstream sources to the article and removed 3 primary as per the feedback! Unfortunately the ones you mentioned were not about the said subject but thank you very much for helping me to research. If you are able to have another look and tell me if I'm heading in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. 

Bingham28 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:05:50, 7 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LazarouMT


Hello, thanks for looking at my submission. Could you give examples of the errors you mentioned?

LazarouMT (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LazarouMT, thanks for stopping by. I did give you one example of a "name check" in my comment. The other issue is that you are using information from the "All About Trans" own site for many of your statements, like this. The organization's own site is not a reliable source of information about the organization because it is not independent or neutral. You need to limit the references independent sources to support the article (of which you have many, btw). The Wikipedia article needs to be about the organization and what it does. For this reason, lists of press events aren't really of interest (cf. "Many All About Trans volunteers have been on British radio discussing trans matters and their experiences. Examples include people speaking on BBC Radio Manchester [50],Radio Cardiff , BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire [51], and BBC Radio Cambridge[52] ") Those don't tell a reader about the organization, and both interviews and quotes by officers are specifically listed in the policies on corporations as not attesting to notability. So think of the article less as "showing how important the organization is" to more "telling people what it does." That's what people come to Wikipedia for. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:31, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Tiffin71


I have made some small edits right now and can continue to look for citations- some items I may only be able to find citations for in the publication itself- I understand that is not ideal, but is it permissible if that is the only option? There was a comment implying that the piece was taken from the Linkedin page- I had not seen the Linkedin text nor can I quite see where the plagiarism is supposed to have occurred- I have removed the word sprawling in any case Please respond with advice

First, remember that on talk pages you need to sign your messages by putting four tilde's at the end - that inserts your username after the message. There's a reminder that you can click on at the bottom of the edit box. Next, I don't think anyone said anything about plagiarism. The issue is that the article isn't factual, but instead tells a story, and the information in the article isn't verifiable. Encyclopedia articles must be factual in nature, and every fact must be sourced to a third-party source. So if you say "Rural Intelligence provided a boost of encouragement..." you have to prove that someone independent of the subject and reliable printed that statement, either in a newspaper article or a web site with editorial oversight. If there are no third-party sources for some information, then you cannot include that information in the article. All together the article must reach a standard level of notability. You do have 3 third-party sources, but they do not cover all of the information in the article. Basically, the article must be built from the sources you have, using only the information in those sources. You cannot use blog posts as sources, btw. LaMona (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aflatoxin B1 Submission declined on 7 December 2015 by LaMona (talk)

Hi LaMona, my submission on Aflatoxin B1 was declined by you and you gave the reason for this as being a duplicate submission and you asked me to feel free to add to the existing page. I will like to clarify that this article is a class project. I as the author of the article had gone ahead to add the information I submitted to wiki for review to the existing page on Aflatoxin B1. Could this be why you talk of my submission being a duplicate?570ma (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should not submit a duplicate article to Articles for Creation. You can keep one in your own sandbox, but articles for creation review is for articles that are intended to go into wikipedia. I don't know what your class project is about, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about AfC. We don't review class projects. LaMona (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My class project was for me to add information to the existing wiki entry on Aflatoxin B1. So after adding to the existing entry, I saw the submit draft for review option which I clicked on. From what I understand, I was not supposed to submit my draft for review since I was adding to an existing entry. Is this correct?570ma (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. You only submit new articles to AfC. There is no review of additions to existing articles. Also, additions to existing articles is not usually done by copying the article to your sandbox, but instead making the edits in place. LaMona (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona thanks for the clarification. I will like to point out that I copied information from my 570ma sandbox to the existing Aflatoxin B1 article and not the other way round. My sandbox does not have information which is not mine. You may be getting this mixed up because I copied stuff from my sandbox and added to the existing page before submitting my sandbox for review.570ma (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:28:39, 8 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Michellemaffucci1


Hello LaMona, thanks for your message. I am curious about what to do in order to have my article accepted. This information is being taken from a resume and from an interview I personally have conducted. There is no direct weblink to this information.

Thanks, Michelle

Michellemaffucci1 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources, like newspaper or journal articles, then your article cannot be accepted. WP requires that all information be verifiable in reliable sources. You cannot submit original research to Wikipedia. You will have to find a different venue to publish it. LaMona (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

I don't know if I am posting this in the right location, but I would like to thank you and the other Wikipedia reviewers for accepting my article, "Mountain Pleasure Horse." I understand that this article is graded as "start class" and I will continue to try to improve it over time. I have researched the topic extensively over a number of years and for this article, I have cited most, and perhaps all available credible resources. Formal documentation is truly limited and this article is the most complete compilation to date. Any specific instruction you can give me to improve it from this point is welcome and appreciated. I would like to add, regarding the use of jargon, that informal writing style included in this article is largely due to directly quoted statements made by various individuals. These quotes, unsophisticated as they are, are vital to accurate documentation of the Mountain Pleasure Horse.MountainPleasure (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thanks for adding this to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a formal writing style is required, as this is an encyclopedia. I suggest you seek other outlets for the more colorful writing that you would like to do on this article. I know that it's a bit boring, but that's kind of what makes this Wikipedia and not a blog or some other web site. I hope you find lots more to write about. Even other horses! LaMona (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who tagged it as start; it may be bumped up to C-class soon. Also, if you have any free license pictures of these horses, please feel free to upload them. I added the only picture of a Mountain Pleasure Horse I could find on Commons, but it'd be great to have a full-body photo of one so people can see its conformation. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:11:13, 9 December 2015 review of submission by SylvianeB

Good morning LaMona, thank you for the review. I'm not sure this is the right place to answer to your comment, as this is my first steps on WP and I am not entirely sure on what I am doing. Said so I would like to apologize for my first clumsy step and wasted your time. I, since, sourced the list of people, linked statements and added external sources. Could you please tell me what should I do now ? Thanks in advance for your help
Thanks for stopping by. It's very hard to begin at Wikipedia by creating a new article. Perhaps you should set this aside and get more experience with Wikipedia by editing some existing articles. You can either look in topics areas where you are interested, or you can visit the Wikipedia:Community_portal where there is a list of articles needing help. For your article, you should try some searches beginning "Embassy of..." and see how others have handled this. From my searches it looks like there are not articles for individual embassies. It is always a good idea to survey the area and create articles that fit into the existing WP picture. LaMona (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
  • Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?
  • Your Answer: Yes
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
  • Your Numeric Answer: 2k
  • Your Comments: It's not numeric. All edits are not the same. I would pay more attention to participation in discussion rather than a number of edits.
  • Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
  • Your Numeric Answer: 1
  • Your Comments: One of intense interaction is enough to get anyone the experience needed. Again, it's not the number of the quality of the interaction.
  • Q#3. Arbs...
A: should not be an admin
B: should preferably not be an admin
C: can be but need not be an admin
D: should preferably be an admin
E: must be or have been an admin
F: must currently be an admin
  • Your Single-Letter Answer: C
  • Your Comments: Admin status is over-rated. Not everyone wants to be an admin
  • Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
  • Your Numeric Answer: 0
  • Your Comments: see above
  • Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
  • Your Comments: Don't remember
  • The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
  • Your Wikipedia Username: LaMona
  • General Comments: Sadly, numbers and rules are such a "guy" thing. They replace judgment made on quality. WP really is based on quality of work, not on numbers. We should de-emphasize the numbers and give more flexibility to the humans who are the intelligence behind WP. I think if the Talk page technology were easier we'd have better discussions and it would be easier for newcomers to begin to engage.
the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends
  • Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
  • Your Comments: don't remember
  • Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who?
  • Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
  • Your Comments: I think it's best if people volunteer for this, not get volunteered
  • Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
  • Your Answer: I vote, as a rule
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
E: working on policies/guidelines
F: working on essays/helpdocs
G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat
J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL
K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST
L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally
M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally
N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer: A, B, C, D, E, F, L, M
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN,
continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC,
continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o,
continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN,
continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD,
continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR,
continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT,
continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
  • Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
  • Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):
  • The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
  • Your Wikipedia Username:
  • General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
  • If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost copy-editor, leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
  • If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost column-editor, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:57, 9 December 2015 review of submission by Thehel84



Hi,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to review the submission.

It says in your comment that there was only one book and two reviews. However, Lilas Taha has published two books, the second of which has more than two reviews. There is The National (UAE based as you mentioned), The Lady Magazine (UK-based), The Middle East Monitor (online news and cultural site), and as you mentioned the TX-based newspaper, as well as another online magazine called Elan. This indeed may still not meet the criteria of notability, but I just wanted to make sure that those were all represented.

Thank you.

Yes, you are right, I didn't look at the first one in depth. I'm afraid, though, this probably doesn't change things. Being an author is not enough to establish notability -- one has to be a notable author, which means being published by major publishers, getting reviewed in major journals, and making the best-seller list. (Quick reminder: on talk pages you must sign your posts with four tilde's -- there's a click-on link at the bottom of the edit page, although that often scrolls off the screen.) LaMona (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:15, 9 December 2015 review of submission by Sachamcd


Dear La Mona,

This is a very notable politician in Montreal, Canada. He has been in politics for 4 decades and ALL of his colleagues have wikipedia pages about them. His colleagues are less notable than he is yet they have been accepted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Rotrand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Perez_%28politician%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Copeman


My original article was rejected because the references weren't notable enough. The sources I added now are from major Canadian newspapers and stations, which he appears in every other week, and I believe this alone should deem him to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. If this is not enough then I need concise instructions/advice on how to get his article accepted just like his colleagues have been.

Sachamcd (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)SachaMcd[reply]

Sachamcd Thanks for getting in touch. A couple of things about the articles you list. First, Wikipedia is a work in progress and any article may change or even be deleted at any time. Thus, we say wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping an article. Each article stands on its own merits. However, when you look at the articles you listed and yours, you see that they vary quite a bit. The Perez article has a great depth of information, the Copeland less, but all have more detail than you provide. For example, you have a single sentence about the museum with three sources - surely there is more to say about that issue and his involvement, based on what is in those articles. Maybe something like: "Searle represented museum members who opposed..." "The project was dropped due to ...." etc. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:36:55, 10 December 2015 review of submission by Davebevis


Thank you for your prompt review of my Draft:Sir George Kenning article. Following the second "submission declined" on notability grounds, I now need to ask for your help to progress the article any further.

I feel that I have already made a compelling case for Sir George Kenning to be considered "noteable" in the Recognition sub-sections of the article, as follows:

  • For someone to have a biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, they need to be a "man or woman who has shaped all aspects of the British past, from the earliest times to the end of the year 2000" (see Biography section of article).
  • For someone to have a biography in the Dictionary of Business Biography, they have to be a "business leaders active in Britain in the period 1860–1980" (see Biography section of article).
  • For someone to have a portrait in London's National Portrait Gallery they have to be an "historically important and famous British person" (see Portraits section of article).
  • For a person to receive an honour such as a knighthood in the British monarch's New Year Honours List, they would need to have gained the respect and support of their local community for their exceptional public work (see Knighthood section of article).
  • For a person to have an obituary in Britain's most-respected national newspaper, he/she has to be of national significance (see Obituaries section of article).

Have I not explained with sufficient clarity how the selection process for these various honours work?

OR

Are the citations that I have chosen inappropriate in some way?

Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Davebevis (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davebevis, hello. Thanks for asking. The big problem is that the potentially notable facts are buried in a lot of irrelevant information. You should cut down the article to just that which makes him notable. The entire family history should be removed -- WP is not a genealogy database. The "homey" stories of his youth ('In 1891, George started helping out in his father's hardware shop') do not show notability. Local offices ('He served on Clay Cross Urban District Council for almost 30 years') do not support notability. The "recognitions" section talks about his awards, but doens't say why he was given them. Rather than say that he got a Times obit, perhaps you should say what they said about him. That could show notability. But the way it is, we have a story about a person's life, but not a strong encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:30:17, 10 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ivan Mato


Dear LaMona,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my submission.

It says in your reply that the submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Currently I reference what I believe are reputable sources like Reuters, Bloomberg Business, Fortune, South China Morning Post, China Business News and Silicon Valley Business Journal. I feel that is a good spread of global news organisations and media. I feel that the articles content is also proof of the subjects' notability. Do you think that there's anything else that I need to do in terms of secondary sources?

The electric mobility industry is an area of enormous growth, and of interest for specialists and the general public, in particular in the context of a wider debate into climate change and pollution.

It is worth noting also that NEXT EV main competitors (some of them significantly smaller) have Wikipedia pages.

For instance TESLA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors ), Faraday Future (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Future), Venturi Automobiles ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Venturi_Automobiles ), LI-ON ( http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Li-ion_Motors ) and DENZA ( http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Denza ). There are currently 62 pages in the 'Electric vehicle manufacturers' category.

To have an article on NEXTEV I think would be a valuable addition to the enciclopedia as they are destined to be a major player in the industry.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this

Thank you again or taking the time to help.

Ivan Mato (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Mato (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ivan Mato. You may know why the company is notable, but it doesn't come through in the article. The parts about funding generally do not support notability -- all companies secure funding. The "core team" is also not notable -- all companies have a core team. Leach seems to be notable, but he's notable himself, and the company does not inherit his notability as per WP wp:NOTINHERITED. Then there is one sentence about Formula E. Much of what you have to say is in the first paragraph, but that is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. Imagine that your reader knows nothing about cars and you have to show why what this company is doing matters. The other thing is that it's clear that this company is just starting out -- it has one model, and all of the articles are from 2015. That works against it -- many companies start, but many also fail. It might be better to wait until it at least has a second product that proves to be successful. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Mark O'Leary

You commented that someone with admin status should delete it because the author isn't getting the message. I don't have admin status, and don't think that there is a speedy deletion criterion for it, so I did what any reviewer can do, and that is to tag it for Miscellany for Deletion. It is my understanding that this is considered an appropriate way to deal with drafts that are being tendentiously resubmitted. This will probably result in its deletion in slightly more than seven days. In the meantime, other reviewers who go to it randomly will see the MFD tag and will either ignore it or decline it, and may !vote for its deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Marc Nuttle

LaMona, I have added the sources that you requested to this page. I was able to find articles written specifically about the person and articles written by the person. I have re-submitted it for review. Would you please look it over and accept it if you think it is ready? Thanks, Jackson Jackson.lisle (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, unfortunately, works by him do not contribute to notability, and many of the other sources you've added are what we call "name-checks" -- that is, he is named or very briefly quoted. Those do not count toward notability. You can send it again for review, but you should remove all of the sources that are not explicitly about him. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:25:56, 10 December 2015 review of submission by Artlibrarian2


Thank you for reviewing the page. Confused because sources are reliable, independent and high profile industry periodicals.


There are existing pages of people in this industry with far less citations (see: Jeff Olm, for instance). Jeff Olm was hired as an intern by Rich Thorne! Thanks for your time Artlibrarian2 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artlibrarian2, hi. Did you notice the big box at the top of the Jeff Olm article? That's a first step toward deletion, and most likely that article will not survive. WP is always "in progress" and about 100 articles are deleted each day. That's why we say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for adding an article that does not meet the criteria. I removed a number of unreliable sources, such as IMDB. The remaining sources do not say much about him, at least the ones I viewed. Please point out sources that are substantially about him. And also provide links to online copies if you have them - it makes it easier to check - I had to go digging around in various magazine archives that you most likely had also visited. LaMona (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:28:35, 11 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Artlibrarian2


Hi again LaMona, first of all thank you so much for reworking the Rich Thorne article into the proper format, much appreciated.

The Cinefex citations are multi-pages but not reproduced online. I found them at special library then ordered hardcopies. Is there a way or place for me to post the content of citations that need fact checking so they can be vetted? But by the way, so much of Thorne's press is pre-internet.

Thank you again for your help and your time.

Artlibrarian2 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artlibrarian2 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but when we don't have online copies we assume good faith. So if you do have online links and can add them to the references, that would be great. However, you need to decide if those articles are "substantially about him" or just mentions. The difficulty here is that few film people beyond the star and the primary producers and directors get the kind of attention that would make them notable for WP. For this person, unless someone has written an article or a book that details what he invented, it's going to be hard to meet the criteria for notability. This is also true of other creative support personnel. It would be nice to have sources that go into some detail about what he developed. The lists of movies he worked on do not support notability, even though he is listed in the credits. (So are hundreds of others.) Some of us are just background ;-). LaMona (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined Manhattan Bridge Capital on 10 December 2015 by LaMona

Hello LaMona, My page has been declined for the fifth time. I have been getting the same feedback from other wikipedia editors I have contacted, saying that there's not enough coverage of the company in reliable third-party sources to establish that it meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. I believe it is attainable to get our company page published however maybe I have been approaching it wrong when doing the corrections. I have run out of ideas as to what I can change/add to get approval. Please let me know what you think and your suggestions. I appreciate for as much help as I can get. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhattan Bridge Capital (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Bridge Capital, it is quite possible that you cannot get "your" company published. And note that your username is is violation of the wp:Username_policy and you are in violation of the conflict of interest policy because you have not announced your association with the company on your talk page or on the talk page of the article. WP is not available as a way to promote companies, and we have policies in place specifically to prevent this. If your company is not notable by our standards, it is not notable. Each time to request a review, you are taking the precious time of volunteers who are dedicated to created a free information resource. We are not happy to be used for promotional purposes. As there is no more for you to add to the article, you should accept that, and not send the article back for more review at this time. LaMona (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Anselmo submission

Hi, LaMona! I got your comment relating to my article, thank you very much for your help. I took your advice and changed some of the wording in my article to make it sound less promotional, and I also removed the faulty Times Square Chronicles reference. However, I did keep both references by OnStage and Freshman 15; when I clicked on their respective links, they took me to the proper pages. On the Freshman 15 website, Christopher is featured under the "Members" section, and is the leftmost person on the top row as of my writing this reply. (I learned he no longer serves as music director for the group, but he still performs with them; I reflected this in the article.)

Let me know if there are any other ways I can improve the article for inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you once again! --Adenburg (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:55, 12 December 2015 review of submission by Leo1701


Hi LaMona, Thanks for reviewing our draft so quickly. I have reviewed Wikipedia's notability guidelines and have some questions before revising the draft.

Would it help to add the sanctioning organizations? Elizabeth Stampede Rodeo is sanctioned by two, both of which have entries in Wikipedia: PRCA and WPRA. These organizations do not publish lists of their sanctioned rodeos so I would not be able to cite any sources.

I may be able to find discussions of the Elizabeth Stampede Rodeo in local history books at the library but they are not published online.

Your comments on the 2nd draft said that I added only one citation. But I had added four: 3 numbered footnotes/inline citations (first draft had 1) and 4 general references which include newspaper articles (Elbert County News published by Colorado Community Newspapers), a regional rural news magazine article (The Fence Post), and 2 websites (Wrangler Network and the official page of the PRCA, Pro Rodeo Cowboy's Association). All these sources are completely separate from the Elizabeth Stampede Rodeo; the articles are available online and the Wikipedia entry includes links.

Thanks for your time Patricia Jackson aka leo1701

P.S. I created my Wikipedia account several years ago and have added a small amount of additional information to several articles and made a few corrections to others. Now that I am hoping to create a page, would it be a good idea to use my real name for the account?

Leo1701 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Patricia Jackson[reply]

Leo1701 Hi. Thanks for asking! A couple of things: no need to use your "real name". The purpose of the username is to build up a history of your work, regardless of who you are in real life. Second, you can use sources that are not online. Now, for the harder things: Adding sanctioning organizations may help some, but basically what makes a WP article is that the subject has been written about in multiple third-party, independent sources. The sanctioning organizations obviously are not "independent." Second, there really isn't any such thing as "general references" in WP. Any references that you have should be used to add content to the article, and should be inline citations. Only cited references contribute to notability. So you should try to incorporate those into the article, using what they say about the rodeo. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry

Hi LaMona. I have been having discussions with Sarah about an article she has been working on for four months getting bounced by the AFC process (here). I'm looking at the article and it looks fine to me and the subject is IMO notable. I am proposing to assist Sarah and just publish this article on a "IAR" basis, as I cannot see the rationale for turning away new editors and new articles. Can you explain why you think the article is not good enough, given that this article would not be deleted were it to take a more direct route to publication. My interest here is in encouraging a new editor when I cannot see why she is being bounced according to Wikipedia normal practices. Can you advise? Victuallers (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victuallers. As I explained in my comment on the article, there just aren't any sources ABOUT him. There's a big different between BY and ABOUT. So take the Daily Star article - it quotes him talking about the award. We learn nothing about him in that article. Quotes are "BY" him. The article with Deneuve in the title says this: "The evening gala continued, with Ricardo Karam as master of ceremony,..." That's not about him, that's what we call a "name check." So is, in the "diaspora" article, this: "Television personality Ricardo Karam opened the conference." So is the "company news in Egypt: "The forum moderator Ricardo Karam, announced the launching of the national committee." None of these are articles about him. And we require SUBSTANTIAL information ABOUT the person. Multiple someones have to have taken him as the subject of an article and written about him. But that does not seem to have been the case, therefore he is not considered notable by WP policies. This article would not withstand a deletion discussion. LaMona (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Anil Gupta (philosopher)

Hi LaMona. Thanks for reviewing and accepting the article, and for doing it so quickly. I was hoping you could clarify the reason you offered for such substantial editing: "removed unnecessary explanations of his theories -- he has a chair, he is notable." I agree about notability, but the point of including text about his work wasn't to show notability but to offer some introductory insight into what his work and ideas are about (and his work and ideas are, ultimately, what makes him notable). Would it help if I trimmed the text, i.e., if I made it shorter and less detailed? It seems to me that having at least something on his work would be just the kind of thing readers would look for and that it would help with upgrading the article from the Start Class. E.g., start by adding to the article the introductory paragraphs of the sections on his work that I've had in the previous iteration of the article.

I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks, 44 DFW (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

44 DFW, thanks for asking! The rules about notability for WP are a bit counter-intuitive at times. Adding more about his work that is sourced to his work will not upgrade the article. In fact, you cannot use his work as a source of information for the article. See reliable sources, and original research. You can use the discussions of his work, which you have listed, as sources of information about his work. Taking a quick look at those, it seems that you can talk about where people agree and where they disagree with him. That usually makes for interesting reading. If you can create a narrative from those sources it can be in the article. Do look at articles for other philosophers [3] -- other than the obvious "stars" they tend to be rather short on explanation of the philosophical theories. Explanation goes into the articles about the philosophies themselves, not the articles on the philosophers. A good controversy, though, can go liven things up. LaMona (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LaMona, that does clarify things considerably. What I think I might do—and I would love to hear your thoughts on this—would be to include some of the text on Gupta's work (nothing as elaborate as what I initially had) and cite reliable and reputable sources such as the relevant article on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, book reviews on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews and articles that are directly concerned with Gupta's work and supply expositions of it, such as, for example, this one. Do you think that would, at least in principle, be acceptable?

Thanks for your time and input, I appreciate it very much. 44 DFW (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:44 DFW, since philosophy isn't my area, I'd suggest that you hook up with the Philosophy project and chat with those folks. A project is usually trying to encourage some uniformity between articles, so they may have long ago discussed how much to cover on pages of individual philosophers, and someone there may be able to help you edit the article. Best of luck LaMona (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:59, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Midolly


Hi, LaMona, Thanks for your comments. This is my first time writing an article, so please help me get it right. First, is the numbering method I have used in the body of the article for citations (or references) satisfactory? I see that you suggest that I retitle "Citations" as "References." Also, do you consider any of these references unreliable? If so, which ones? I have read that Wikipedia frowns on newsletters as references; however, the quotes from the Kennedy Library Newsletter are a matter of public record. Likewise, the book from which I took the Edelman article does have a reputable publisher. Other sources are news articles from reputable newspaper articles published between 1986 and 1996 and articles from educational publications. I will try to verify dates, etc., for the "Sixty Minutes" and "Good Morning America" segments. There are a couple of comments by those who opposed ending the "hard tracking" of students in the schools which reporters have included in their articles, but I do not think it wise to quote them from a legal standpoint--even though newspaper articles did. Also, should Dr. Cherubini's books be included in a bibliography, as you suggest, or in the section entitled "Further Reading"? Thanks for any help you can provide. MidollyMidolly (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Midolly. The quality of the references is fine; the issue is what is meant by the section you call "References" -- As I say in my comment: "Any "sources" need to be inline references in the article. The "Citations" section needs to be "References". The sources listed in "References" should either be incorporated into the article or added in a "further reading" section. However, each of those needs to be complete so that others can find the exact article." Since the article should be as complete as possible, if you have additional sources that say anything pertinent, you would normally incorporate those into the article itself. There can sometimes be a further reading section, but not generally for biographies of living persons - further reading is usually for difficult philosophical or scientific concepts. If you have sources you decide not to use, you should just keep them to yourself. As for opposition, that definitely should be included and could be in a separate section. There's no need to quote from them -- you can summarize the points made. As long as you have sources, there is no legal issue.LaMona (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:30, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac


Can you tell to me what type of reference you would accept for a concert pianist? I am at a loss at the moment! Are you saying that only the absolute top rank classical pianists such as Daniel Barenboim are worthy of an entry in Wikipedia? Thanks Geoff

Geoff, basically, only musicians who have received substantial press (generally reviews or biographical articles) are included. That means that many will not warrant a WP article. It's the same for authors and artists and firemen and just about all of us. Unfortunately, you don't help her by using poor sources, like a photo of her taking a master class. There's no content in that. What you need are reviews of her work in well-respected newspapers or journals or other sources that would show that someone thought she was worth writing about. Youtube videos are not ABOUT her, they are her performing. Have you read through wp:music? If you have, you will see that awards count highly, so if she has won awards you should emphasize those. Note that you cannot use her own web site as a source of information.[4] Also, there's a lot that isn't clear. "Olga is a Samling musician" ? What's that? Don't assume that your reader knows this. Also, what does it mean to be "invited to work" at the Tchaikovsky Competition? What kind of work? Your reader could assume that she was taking tickets. Did she perform? What was her role? You have to show that she is notable as a musician. LaMona (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:43:47, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac


I should have added that the last reviewer said "we were getting closer". You seem to be saying that we are still far away from being accepted. Does this show a difference of opinion by the reviewers? If so, it makes it very difficult to know what to do next! Can you please give explicit example of what is needed? Thanks Geoff

Request on 07:52:58, 14 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Pianogac


LaMona

First many thanks for your detailed response - I am working on it! Just one thing - you write that "you cannot use her own website as a source of imformation.[4]

I see that but the reference I give is not for Olga's website but for the person who engaged her to perform the work.

It demonstrates that Olga is well thought of as a musician, particularly by the person who allowed the BBC (NB a respected sorce!) to film this is his own home. The man concerned is Bob Boas who has a long history of supporting classical musicians. 

"Nadine .. she recruited concert pianist Olga Jegunova who in turn found soprano Kirstin Sharpin. A crew was already recording Olga for a concert courtesy of the BBC and could also record our piece. The owners of the lovely home and hosts for the charitable concert graciously allowed it to serve as our backdrop, and a wonderful editor was found – recommended by the BBC gang. All was in place and the result was magical!"

I will make more of this info more obvious in the article.

Pianogac (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pianogac - unfortunately the person who engaged her is not an independent source. Plus, that is a personal web site, not one with editorial oversight. So you can use that link to show that she was hired to play, but you can't take any further information from it (like a description of her playing, such as "magical"). LaMona (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:13:55, 14 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac


I have just seen that you ask what is a Samling Artist? IN fact I wrote "Olga is a Samling Artist[1]. This scheme nurtures the artistic development of exceptional young singers and piano accompanists at the start of their careers"

surely this does explain what a Samling Artist is?

Cheers

Geoff

References

  1. ^ Artist, Samling. "Scheme for exceptional young artists". Olga Jegunova. Retrieved 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Uh, no. "Scheme" is pretty vague. Looking at the site, it's an intensive training program of master classes and performances for young opera singers and accompaniests, run by the non-profit organization Samling. So it sounds like she took part in the program (it would be nice to at least have the year, and for how long, but that's not essential). You still have too many primary sources in the article -- her web site, (for the Belgian performance), Youtube videos of her interviewing people (those are not ABOUT her). You also cannot use references to link to the web sites of people you mention, like Schiff -- that's not ABOUT her. To be honest, she sounds to me like a young, up-and-coming performer, but WP is interested only when performers have already up and come, and not before. When she's a headliner, then a WP article will be appropriate. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB

I noticed [5]. But a full article in DNB has been regarded in many AfD decisions as proof of notability, even without anything else--and in fact we have many bio articles based on it alone. The same is true for similarly selective national bibliographies of other countries. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, my main problem with the article is the extraneous stuff. I have to say that being one of 50K alone doesn't do it for me, but essentially the article wanders all over the place and fails to focus on what he is notable for. Unfortunately, there's no category for "poorly written article that never says much". What I'm finding is people focus on proving notability and forget that they also have to tell the reader what matters about the subject. So we get these long lists of: was quoted here and here and here and here.... which is devoid of content. Getting in WP has become a contest rather than a service to readers. I don't know how we can encourage more useful articles. LaMona (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
article content in general is a problem. We have rules we can enforce(about whether there should be an article (even if we follow them only very irregularly);we have rules about what should be in them, but no practical way of enforcing them, short of a RfC. And few of the best editors here are willing to fix other people's articles. Nobody seems to have realized 15 years ago that encyclopedias need revision. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:01, 14 December 2015 review of submission by 0x000fff


Hi LaMona,

I revised the page to make the basic concepts sourced as well. Could you take a look? And if you still find any place insufficient, would you mind be specific and point it out? Thank you!

User:0x000fff, I think it's good enough for main space. Someone with more knowledge of the topic will need to comment on the analysis section -- generally WP articles report research and findings but don't provide analysis. I don't know if your analysis here falls into original research or not. Someone will probably comment on that at a future time. LaMona (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:06:32, 14 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Abajorek


Hi LaMona!

Thank you for your feedback. Since the last review, I nearly doubled the reference list with outside sources from reputable/peer reviewed journals of music education. Is there a specific area where I can focus to further clarify the notability of John Feierabend?

Thank you!

Abajorek (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:40:40, 14 December 2015 review of submission by Hyperclassic


I have evidence for Draft:Americium-241 but I have trouble putting the refs in. If you could I would appreciate it if your could put them in for me if I give you the external pages. And also a lot of this information and existing refs are from other Wikipedia articles that I can also provide links to. λmericium ¤ 22:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Hyperclassic, paste the refs here and I will add them in. Let me know which goes with which name. 22:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)LaMona (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For comfort and purrs

Thank you for showing admirable restraint when accused of something unpleasant and unwarranted by an editor who has not yet understood referencing.

Fiddle Faddle 23:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:10:07, 15 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Fowlerjlr


Hi, LaMona. Regarding the QCT page, I've added more language describing what the company does. The information in the article can be verified with the 17 references, at least 15 of which cite magazines articles and on-line news features written by credible, third-party journalists. These publications are all widely read within the data center industry. This should be ready for posting now, correct?

Fowlerjlr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)fowlerjlrFowlerjlr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Fowlerjlr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:47:20, 15 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Petpan089


Hi LaMona, thank you for taking time to review my submission. I added as many independend ressources as possible. I think the three largest newspapers in Florida are very good independend sources. Furthermore a smaller and younger similar company named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruzin is listed and has less reliable sources for citations. What do you want me to do get this article approved? I really appreciate your help! Thank you, Pete.

Petpan089 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For your thoughtful reviewing at AfC and your willingness to help new users with references! /wia🎄/tlk 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for pointing out the notability issue on the draft Hongchi Xiao. I am in the process of gathering more references. I appreciate you.

jdxzhu 04:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=695309879"