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 Miskonius (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 10 April 2016 (→18:59:47, 8 April 2016 review of submission by Miskonius). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive: 2015 October / 2015 November 2016 January

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


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

15:18:08, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Taylorcarson


Hello, I also have other sources that explain and reference the points I have said. I revised the page to make it sound not so much like a story. Please help, if I could source movies or books i have that, that would be great.

08:40:47, 3 January 2016 review of submission by Pianogac


First to thank you for the improvements which you have suggested. I have made some further changes and re-submitted the article. 'hope I have made the article more appropriate for Wikipedia. 'hope to have further reactions from yourself or another reviewer. Cheers Geoff Cox

23:35:38, 5 January 2016 review of submission by PalettePic


Hi Mona, thank you much for taking your time to review my article. I made additional improvements, and addressed your concerned by adjusting the line your question to make sure it reflected what you could verify with Google Translate.

Have a great 2016!

Thanks, Gabriel

09:06:37, 30 January 2016 review of submission by Abbasvattoli



Sir I have made the suggested improvements to my article 'Amal College of Advanced Studies Nilambur'. Now please kindly review it and accept if eligible.

Re: Draft: Justin Gaethje

I believe the article is creation protected as it was created in the past when the subject had not been of sufficient notability, and supposedly still is not of notability despite being undefeated and on a 15-fight winning streak.

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


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

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



LaMona,

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

Thank you

Cartwright

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


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

Hi LaMona,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi LaMona,

Sorry for any misunderstanding, SME refers to "Subject Matter Expert" and as you correctly deduce the infoiarm is related to the IARM - this is an attempt to be clear concerning the source since the use of another name might not be as transparent. The subject material of the article is a pertinent topic for the agile community though one that has received insufficient direct attention despite being mentioned frequently - hence the article e.g., there is only one book though there are a number of web articles/blogs. It is my wish to be as NPOV as possible whilst also giving a voice to the topic. If you feel that this has not been achieved to a sufficient degree or that infoiarm involvement constitutes too much of a conflict then please advise as I am happy to oblige as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.203.51 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona,

Addendum to the above in light of the message you sent: please note that there is no attempt to promote IARM in any way in the current article. This is in order to avoid any sense of a COI - having read the COI details I hope that this was achieved. Please advise if you think I need to take further action here.

Infoiarm (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoiarm - You either are or you are not in some way related to IARM, but since you have taken that name the answer seems to be that you are: "as you correctly deduce the infoiarm is related to the IARM". IARM, from what I can see, is a single-person outfit: Alan Moran. It features his books, and only his books. His name is on all of the papers. And his is the only name on the site. There is no board of directors, no other authors, etc. So it's pretty obvious that a relation to IARM is a relation to Moran, not to some professional agile management group. It's not a group, it's a person. And the only person mentioned in the text of the articles you have created is Alan Moran. So this is looking very much like it is personal. Although the articles have been written with an NPOV, the use of his name in the text is a give-away. LaMona (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona,

There is no attempt here to introduce a COI, merely a desire to raise awareness of topics of interest to the agile community. In respect of this principle I would only feel happy retaining this article if you are entirely satisfied in relation to its integrity. Should this not be so, then I will of course remove it immediately without any objection. Kind regards,

Infoiarm (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona,

One question more to clarify our discussion: do you feel there is a COI involved here because an opinion is being expressed on a topic in which IARM is involved? You do understand that this is neither an article about IARM nor about Moran (or do you feel strongly that this is the case? By the way Moran is not the only cited person e.g., see Barry Boehm in the other article). Mention of Moran is unavoidable in this article owing to the fact that the only book on this topic is written by Moran. Please clarify where you see the COI and/or any measures or amendments you might recommend. It is important for me to retain balance and neutrality so I rely on reviewers like yourself to help me achieve this. Many thanks for your assistance in cleaning up the article - this is much appreciated.

Infoiarm (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To a large degree it is the name. Why did you choose to use the name of an "institute" that is a one-person operation? IARM is Moran -- there is no one else involved but him. And I disagree that you must mention (not cite, but name in the article) Moran because he has a book by that name. We don't create articles based on book titles. You have to show that this is a widely used term of art as well as a significant development in the field. In effect, you have to show that it is not just Moran but an entire community of thinkers that are furthering these concepts. You also have to show that these differ substantially from the concept of risk management in general (which is an established area of discourse in a number of fields). See WP:NEOLOGISM for how we treat new terms of art. If Moran is the only one who calls it "agile risk management" or "agile financial management" then it does not meet our criteria. From my research, Moran is not heavily cited (cf Google scholar) nor are his books heavily collected (cf. search for them in Worldcat - a couple of hundred library holdings is not a large number in that context). The term "agile risk management" appears in books published before his so he is not an inventor of this term. (I find instances as early as 2004, and other "institutes" with that name.) Your emphasis on Moran is not supported by the literature on the topic. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you posted a response - Thanks. I note some of your comments relate to how encyclopedic you consider the topic to be and of course you are right that it is not very widespread (published material has only started to appear in the last few years e.g., I found another German language book on that topic just recently). It is interesting that you discovered other institutes and references as far back as 2004 - I was not aware of these. As an aside I am not sure it is actually neologism but see why you might claim this and there is of course no claim to "invention" (the topic of risk management in agile has been discussed obliquely for a long time). Anyhow, as indicated on the COI board I would only feel comfortable if the articles completely satisfy all of the necessary requirements and so have volunteered the removal of both articles (by inserting a "db" tag into the top of the article). Thanks for your feedback, patience and clarifications. Infoiarm (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

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

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

Hello again. We appreciate your input and we've reworked the page putting references in-line and re-worded the text. Could you have another look at the page and see if it might be ready for submission again please? Thank you! Sjukmidlands (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great, you cleared up the formatting problems. Resubmit and I'll keep an eye on it. Articles are given to us randomly so someone else may get it. Eventually you may want to create a section for the images that you have linked to, including those in the article. Consider that your article is never "done" and you can (and should) work on it in the future if more information comes to light. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you very much once again. Your help has been invaluable in getting the page ready. I've resubmitted it. I do intend to create a section for the images, indeed Pamela Marshall is very keen to get a gallery of images of Denis Parsons work on the page. And we shall keep adding to the content as we get more or updated information. But lastly thank you very, very much, once again. Sjukmidlands (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, just to let you know that the page has been declined again, as it was declined because he's not considered important enough! Can't believe that. It was stated that there's no sculptures by Denis Parsons in museums! He was a architectural sculpture so his work is on great buildings but not in museums obviously! Would it be possible for you to take a look again and see if you consider it worthy of inclusion? Thanks very much in advance, Steve Sjukmidlands (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a chat - will let you know. LaMona (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for sorting it out, we see that it is now live! I have added a few more images and soon will create a gallery. Pam Marshall wants to say a big thank you for your help towards preserving Denis Parsons' legacy for posterity. Sjukmidlands (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:31, 24 March 2016 review of submission by Keithdevereux


Dear La Mona, This is the first time I have tried using this 'User talk' facility, so if it goes pear-shaped, my apologies.

Thank you for reviewing my entry for Scar For Life, I found your suggestions (more citations) to be very helpful. I have gone through the entry and added as many references as I can to back up what was originally written. In a few moments time I will resubmit the article and I hope I will have more luck this time.

Again, thank you for your input, this was very valluable.

Best regards,

Keith Devereux.

Hi, New user. This is a draft entry, and thanks for the kind words. Your message did not go pear-shaped, so that's a success. One small thing, however: on talk pages, you have to sign your messages with four tildes at the end. Then the system substitutes your user signature for the tildes. It may not seem logical, but so it goes. At the bottom of the edit box there is a reminder and a link to click on, although I find that it often scrolls off my screen. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I jsut took a look at your article and 2 things: 1) something has gone wrong in the formatting and the discography is falling off the page. I suggest using very simple styles to avoid this kind of thing 2) you have a lot of non-reliable sources (see wp:rs for the definition of "reliable"). You must not use blogs, social sites, or reviews by non-professional reviewers. It's best to remove these ASAP because they will be a red flag for AfC reviewers. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sistina article

Thanks for flagging this up for attention. I've been working to improve the Zapf articles since he died but had put this on the back burner.

Now I look at it, I feel that while it's certainly notable, there's not much meat for an article - it's basically a medium-weight set of titling capitals made to go with Palatino, one of the most famous fonts ever made, and while many sources mention it few rate it as worth commenting on - I mean, there's not much to say, it's a set of Roman-inspired inscriptional capitals. So I'm right now thinking it might be good to just merge the article into Palatino, where so many more people would see it. How would you feel about that? Blythwood (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Blythwood. I am no expert on fonts, and was about to check out some books from the library so as to provide references. All I know is that they are studied and written about so we should be able to provide references. Any adjustments that you choose to make are fine with me. I have noticed that many of the font articles (some of which date from the very early days of WP) do not have references, and I think this can be fixed. I definitely would not like to see the articles deleted for lack of references. I am willing to do some basic bibliographic research if that helps. Just let me know. LaMona (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:22, 27 March 2016 review of submission by מדיאיין


Hi, I think this article meets all the wikipedia guidelines and not written as an advertisement... please have a second look at it and if any of the many sources does not seem reliable since it is in Hebrew, a simple check will show its from a very reliable source. I checked this a few times before submitting it and also since I know this company is very huge in Israel. Thank you. מדיאיין (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Being big is not the same as being notable. The policies for corporate notability begin with: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Just being a company, even a big company, is not encyclopedic. A Wikipedia article that could just as well be a brochure from the company's PR department is in essence a form of promotion. "is the largest independent insurance agency in the State of Israel." " insured all the members of the Israel Bar Association with coverage for Professional Liability Insurance." Where is the social significance? Has the company made the news? Not the financial news, but the news? Is there any criticism of the company? Are there alternative points of view? LaMona (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, yes Madanes has made the news and is incharge of the new "area" of insurance for doctors and insurance agencies. I placed all the sources for that. מדיאיין (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, You can check the hebrew version and see. It is the biggest one and been all over the news and media is Israel as well as covrage international. מדיאיין (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LaMona!

Dear LaMona, Thank you for reviewing my page on Laurin McCracken. Can you please give me some further guidance? The awards the artist has won are published either on the awarding society's website or in their annual catalogs. Do I need to cite these websites/catalogs? Sincerely, writing4wiki

Hi. Yes, you should cite whatever is the society's official way of announcing awards. Also, you seem to have quite a bit more material about the artist that you have left as document references in the "further reading" section. Further reading does not contribute to notability, so you should try to make use of those resources to add information to the article, using the documents as references. An article like "Kramer, Sarah (2012, November 4). McCracken wins best in show. Delta Democrat Times, A3, A9" would be a fine reference for an award or a show listing. Unfortunately, you will need to remove the section you just added, the artist's statement. The content of a WP article must come from neutral third parties and never from the subject of the article. That's why using some of your further reading documents you may be able to say more about the artist. Quite honestly, lists of shows or works aren't very interesting reading, so it would be best if you could have more prose. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:08:48, 28 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Chints247


Hi, thanks for the review. As mentioned in the review. The first phase has already been implemented in Lucknow. It is the other cities which are yet to be finished. I will add them as well once they are operational

I believe this is a great green initiative taken in India and needs to be a part of Wiki. Chints247 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Chints247 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Chints247. If there is something to be said about the completed project, then please add that to the article. However, one would normally expect a project to have been in existence for a while before its impact can be measured. That impact would be of greatest interest. You should look for sources that address that - not potential future impact, but measured past/present impact. Wikipedia bases notability entirely on the existence of what has been written about a topic, not on the presumed importance. The references you have are themselves good, but they all speak only to the future project. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the response. There is just 1 line in the article which says "A 35-km-stretch costing Rs 31 Crore has already been constructed in the city". Will this not suffice that the work has partially begun. I will keep on adding as I get any other updates on the work being done. Since its just a few months old project I am sure it will take some more time to get extra details. Chints247 (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just that it must be completed - it's that the effect of its completion needs to have to written about. So that's what you need to look for. The article needs to wait until that has happened. A draft article is not deleted until at least 6 months have passed in which there are no edits. If you make occasional edits, you can keep the draft indefinitely, until the time that the project has proven itself notable. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:09:28, 28 March 2016 review of submission by Carnymike


Good Morning, Evening LaMona;

Thank you for your thoughtful, helpful criticisms.

I am re-submitting for your investigation and analysis three additions (Plot, Production, Music) with reliable references (including quotes) and additional notability information.

I would like to bring to your attention (from the new Production entry) the bizarre and unique journey of (the film) Runaway Nightmare from unauthorized VHS (with additional material added) - to un-promoted underground favorite - to slow cult status - to rebirth into a preservation effort with new prints, Blu-ray 4K ‘director’s’ cut’ revision (even a new VHS retro) and national art house cinema tour (32 years after its first release).

Briefly included is Runaway Nightmare’s actual breakneck filming that could have only existed in the historically important 1970s - early ’80s indy filmmaking era.

Also noteworthy is the adventure of one distributor (after the contract had expired with the producer and without his knowledge) having unloaded (or selling or something) Runaway Nightmare to another distributor, who filmed and spliced nude video scenes into the movie.

Released in the early 1980s, Runaway Nightmare was perhaps noteworthy as being one of the very first ‘straight-to-video’ movies distributed.

I submit another possible noteworthiness of Runaway Nightmare may be its several crew members who went on to the top of their professions in the film industry. Included are a household named movie director; a popular, respected Director of Photography/president of the ASC; and one of the important Senior Executives at 20th Century Fox studios.

Cinema Releasing Corporation and All Seasons Entertainment distribution companies are FTB Suspended and cannot be contacted for information regarding their intrigues and stagecraft. I have, however included third-party corporation information for both in the references.

You are far more aware than I regarding reliable references, but I was fairly careful to include many sources used often in Wikipedia including;

Psychovision.net Mondo-Digital.com Rue Morgue (magazine has a page of its own) dvddrive-in.com Soiledsinema docterror.com Diabolicmagazine.com Rock!shock!pop!.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnymike (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Lunchmeat VHS (has its own page) Chas Balun (with the his book containing the RN critique) has his own page. BlogTo.com (is a subset of Rue Morgue.com) flavorwire.com critcononline.com The author Jason Coffman, who wrote the Runaway Nightmare critique in dailygrindhouse is used as a reference in nine separate Wikipedia pages. dailygrindhouse itself is used in nine pages.[reply]

Resources for selected city theater exhibition examples include; VillageVoice.com for New York cinema. LAweekly.com for proof of Los Angeles cinema showtime. Drafthouse.com for Austin, Texas cinema information.

For verification of the success and fame of Runaway Nightmare crew members I use Linkedin

For film term definitions, I use filmconnection.com

For music soundtracks proof I use ‘movements.com, ‘ringostack.com’ and Catalog of Copyright Entries’ from Google books. I use ‘78discography.com’ for proof of the Imperial music publishing of one song with the copyrighted author.

For verification of one movie (Biter Heritage), one person (the Runaway Nightmare director) and one distribution company (Vinegar Syndrome) I use IMDb and BFI.org. For information on two former distribution companies (Cinema Releasing Corporation and All Seasons Entertainment) I use Californiacorporates.com

For what it’s worth, I found that the Yale University Center: Film Study has included Runaway Nightmare in its collection.

Regarding the photo, I am the copyright holder and have sent the 'Declaration of Consent for All Enquiries' template to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

If you evaluate that Runaway Nightmare’s distinct circumstance/history are not yet ready for inclusion, then I will only bother you again when the movie has earned enough evidence of importance.

Thank you for your serious and laborious efforts. Carnymike (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carnymike. Here at Wikipedia, references are everything. It doesn't matter who or what, it has to be covered in third-party references that are considered reliable sources. You need to read about reliable sources at wp:rs, because you still have many references that do not meet the criteria, and your article can't go into Wikipedia with those sources. In particular, LinkedIN, IMDB, and Mikespopculture cannot be used - we do not allow sources that do not have editorial oversight and fact-checking - crowd-sourced sites like IMDB (and Wikipedia, even) are not allowed. Personal blogs or sites are not allowed. That includes two-person sites, like soiledsinema. So you need to concentrate on finding published sources to support the article. If you are unsure of a source, you can ask here, or at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which is all about which sources are and are not reliable by Wikipedia's definition. LaMona (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey Carnymike, I just discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources which lists "good" sources for films, including a list for horror films. That might help you out. And they give advice about articles on films, as well. LaMona (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for the information :) Chints247 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:15:51, 30 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Keithdevereux


Hi LaMona

Thank you for reviewing my entry for Scar For Life, it seems this time I have gone too far with the citations! I'm in the process of reviewing your comments and where I can replacing the citations with other sources, but I have one question:

You mention that 'Blogs obviously cannot be used', which I assume refers to the use of the 'blogspot' references? The snag here is that in Portugal (at least) sometimes popular music and other sites use 'blogspot' or an equivalent as their provider. For example Songs For The Deaf is a popular music internet radio station that uses Blogger as it's internet host, while Radio Comercial - one of the most popular independent Portuguese radio stations - uses 'iol.pt' as its host, which is like Blogger. Similarly SIC, one of the four terrestrial TV stations, uses 'sapo.pt/' (also like Blogger) while TVI uses 'iol.pt' (the other two terrestrial stations are RTP and RTP2, the state broadcaster - like the BBC). So here even big companies use the 'standard' blogging platforms. I did try to back up each fact quoted with a reliable citation, it was just that some of the sources do not host their own sites.

I hope this makes sense and your opinion would be appreciated.

Best wishes,

Keith

Keithdevereux (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keithdevereux (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, yes, I was referring to the blogspot sites. The question then becomes: are these sites with paid reporters an editorial policy and fact-checking? If the sites are informal publications, then again they are not considered reliable. If they take submissions from non-employees, then they are not reliable. If they say nothing at all about their staff or their policies (e.g. Blabbermouth) then we may need to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to see how others assess the sources. You need to review wp:rs about reliable sources. Note that although some sources are able to be used to verify facts, they do not support notability. One example is interviews - interviews are the person talking about themself, so that's not a third-party source. Announcements of performances that do not include substantial reviews of the music and musicians do not support notability. For musicians, you need something more than fan material -- in particular, you need reviews written by professional reviewers in newspapers and magazines that have a reputation for editorial control. If the source is one that rarely if ever posts a negative review, then it can't be taken seriously. LaMona (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:55, 30 March 2016 review of submission by 92.225.34.124


Hi, I just looked at other artist pages for referencing, and for example the page on The Martinez Brothers uses Discogs as a source for remixes and albums released by the artists. Can you please let me know then, why in your review you mentioned Discogs as an unreliable source?

Thank you very much. Much appreciated.

Hi. The decision about Discogs was made by the wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in this posting: [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_201#Discogs]. As it is user-generated content, it is not reliable. This means that any statements in an article where it is used could be contested and potentially deleted. (That it has been used doesn't mean that it should be used - you weaken your article by using it, and leave yourself open to deletions of content.) Many of your sources do not support notability, such as announcements of upcoming performances. Those can support that fact that a group was scheduled to perform, but that's not notable. For musicians, you need something more than fan material -- in particular, you need reviews written by professional reviewers in newspapers and magazines that have a reputation for editorial control. If the source is one that rarely if ever posts a negative review, then it can't be taken seriously. There has to be thinking going on, not just enthusiasm for the music. That's what we are looking for. You can evaluate your sources against Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_checklist. And be sure that you have read (and possibly re-read) the specific criteria for musicians: Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Those are the criteria that are used. LaMona (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more about your sources: BBC and the Guardian are de facto reliable sources, but the Guardian only has a "name check" on the band, and the BBC entries are just their music in a playlist. Interviews are not considered reliable sources because it is the person talking about themself, not a third party, so although you can cite them, they do not support notability (Pulseradio, Clubber). Announcements of performances and other "name checks" do not support notability (various sources). Fan polls do not support notability (Munoludy). Their own writing is not a third-party source, does not support notability (Bigshot). You should try to remove as many of those as possible and see what is left. Then you need to find better sources to take their place. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:27:05, 30 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Todkiry


Dear LaMona,

Thank you so much for reviewing the latest updates to the entry for Insurify. I have provided some more details about the notability of the website and company. There are no other websites which provide auto insurance comparison of 80 real time carriers' quotes in the United States. The site is publicly available and accessible through https://www.insurify.com

Part of the TechCrunch article is referring to another product, EVIA which is in limited public beta. But the rest of the service is publicly available.

I appreciate your time and attention to my contributions to the Insurify page. Please let me know if there are any other items you would like me to address.

Best regards,

Todkiry (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todkiry - As you've probably surmised, what counts on WP is sources - third-party sources that write substantially about the company, not just as a company but as something that has had a lasting impact. That's what encyclopedias are about. Wikipedia's goal is not to become a directory of companies - those already exist, and they have a different goal. One of the hurdles you have is that the company is a startup, so it may not have been around long enough to become what is needed to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Getting investment money is not notable - no business gets started without it. Announcements of new businesses or new products are generally not considered notable. (You can see this in wp:corp - such announcements are considered routine.) So the company needs multiple sources saying: this makes a difference, and here's why it makes a difference. That may be in the company's future, but it seems hard to prove today. LaMona (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:34:31, 31 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gilbride


Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your review and I appreciate your input. There was another 'new' reference (reference numb er 20) which does discuss the person in detail which adds weight to the two other references I added and you commented on. I also ask that with all of the references put together does that provide a full picture?

Thank you for your time.

Gilbride (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cite you added is not terribly strong - just a short article. If you have re-submitted we will see what another reviewer says. Did you see the analysis on the talk page? That gives you a good indication of the depth of the sources. LaMona (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:04, 1 April 2016 review of submission by Cybernavigator


Hi Onel5969,

I am a full-time professional mentalist with no side job. All of my income is generated from entertainment. Yet, I am not submitting any entry for myself because I do not consider myself big enough. Oz Pearlman, on the other hand, honestly is among the top performers on the planet. He is current the most famous mentalist in the United States of America because he just won 3rd Place on America's Got Talent. I am not receiving a penny to create his Wikipedia entry. I cited sources that prove he was on America's Got Talent and a number of other national TV shows. He travels the world in airplanes delivering world class, original art (sometimes for 5 figures per gig) and just won 3rd Place on AGT. He was even on national TV the same day I submitted the original entry. He's HUGE. Even without fame, this guy was honestly the real deal and far more skilled than a plethora of people who already have a Wikipeida entry. What revision(s) must I make to have the entry accepted? Is there any chance you can generously donate your time and talents to modify mistakes in the entry and submit it? Thank you for any help.

Hi, Cybernavigator. I don't think the article has "mistakes" per se. What you need to do is to read up on the policies that Wikipedia applies to assert notability. First, there is wp:rs which defines acceptable sources, and the concept of "third-party sources." This means that what matters on Wikipedia is what others say about him, and only that. Therefore, videos of him performing do not assert notability, because it is not what someone has said about him. Photographs do not say anything about him, so those aren't helpful. You need writings about him in reliable news sources. You have a few of those, but you have to actually remove any information that you cannot source to reliable sources. Also read wp:BLP which gives special rules for when you are writing about living persons. If you want help with the article, click on "Community portal" at the left, and then on "Peer editing help". That's the Teahouse, and folks who have volunteered to help hang out there. LaMona (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:42, 2 April 2016 review of submission by Dot1978


Hi LaMona,

I wonder if you could help me please. Since your review I made the discussed changes to this article by adding more context and citations where necessary (eg. ref [2]) and re-submitted for review. However the next editor/reviewer commented that only one change had been made and that it was a copyright violation (which I didn't realise as I had cited it with a reference) and ignored all other changes made. They then went back to a previous version and reviewed that instead and declined it.

Rather than lose the other changes and additions I had made after your advice and before their rejection, I have now gone back to the previous copy, changed the sentence that was said to be a copyright violation (ref [4]) and wish to resubmit for review again, but there is no option to do that now as being an older copy it says it has already been resubmitted.

I wondered if you might be able to help me by showing me how to resubmit the copy I have gone back to and made revisions to since the last editors comments please?

Many thanks for any help or advice you can give me.

(Dot1978 (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, (User:Dot1978. You can't edit older versions, you have to work on the current one. This gets complicated when there are different edits that have been done, and it is a shame that the person who found the copyright violation reverted so many of your edits. What you'll need to do (and it's a horrid nuisance, sorry) is to open the article in two different windows. In one you'll have the current version, which is the one you can edit. In the other, you will need to have the latest version you had added references to (which I believe is this one), and then copy over from the latter to the former, then resubmit. Basically, you have to do that work all over again. That said, I agree with Onel that the article is not written in a neutral tone; in fact, it sounds very promotional, with statements like " Best known as the former ‘maverick" and "Michael Tobin was the key figure in leading the success of the UK and European data centre industry", and "which has been labelled a ‘radical’ management book". First, you cannot refer to him as Michael - we aren't on a first name basis in an encyclopedia, and you need to use "Tobin" when you refer to him, or "Michael Tobin" but there are many places where you have used "Michael" as if he's a pal. Next, you have to stick to the facts. Unless you have a reference that says that he was "the" key figure, etc., you cannot say that. And even if you have such a reference, it has to be a strong, neutral source, something like Financial Times, that wouldn't say that lightly. Wikipedia is just for facts, so "and father William - who Michael describes as a ‘bit of a villain", which is a homey bit of personal story, is not appropriate. Neutral, factual, perhaps even a bit dull, that's what goes into an encyclopedia. This means that your article needs more than adding sources - you need to re-write it in an encyclopedic style. As an example, for the book we usually give an actual bibliographic reference, like you see in library catalogs, following by references to any reviews. We don't praise the book, or even quote praises, although if it was on a bestseller list you can say that. But that's all. What you have to remember, also, is that a WP article is supposed to give all points of view, including anything negative. So for each bit of praise you mete out, you should also be looking for equal criticisms. So, for example, his book is held in only 139 libraries that are listed in WorldCat ([1]). That is out of about 70,000 libraries in that database. That's not a high number. If his book was reviewed in financial magazines, you can cite those. But if not, you can just list the book. The quotes that you have there MUST be removed because they come from an interview and it's what he says about his own book. That's not ok. When you do all of this, then it will be clear whether or not he meets WP's notability requirements. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, Thank you for your advice here. I had followed the style of other articles I had found of similar Wiki entries but appreciate these are always under review so may not have been right themselves. I'm keen to get this first on right so that I can do more in the future so I'll work on this again. Many thanks for your help again. (Dot1978 (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

23:17:23, 3 April 2016 review of submission by WikiAlexandra


Hi LaMona, thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I've removed the "Traffic" section as suggested.

Regarding sources though, it's fairly difficult to find references that go in depth about the subject (as opposed to the subject's content), when the subject itself is an online publisher website. In this case, the vast majority of references will usually point towards the subject's content, since that is what identifies the publisher and establishes its popularity. I've reviewed some of the other sites in Category:Automotive websites (such as Pistonheads, Autoblog) and, in most cases, the sources that actually talk about the subjects themselves are mostly just about them being acquired by another company.

I've also consulted with some of the previous reviewers as well as with editors in the live chat who mentioned that, in the case of a publisher website such as this, one option to improve the draft for approval would be to expand the "Content" section with examples and references about the content that makes the website reputable (in this case, I've expanded on the site's image renderings and its original studies). There are also a few sources that actually talk about the publisher, even though not in very much detail, such as this or this (for the latter, I've actually also found the offline newspaper version here, but I'm not sure how I can reference the exact issue and page, although the content is pretty much the same as with the online version).

Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks again! WikiAlexandra (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The criteria for web sites is at Wikipedia:Notability_(web). It states: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." or "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Those are the criteria. "Non-trivial" generally means that there needs to be an article that is expressly about the web site, not something that makes use of content from the web site. A paragraph in the Spike article is not much, and the Miami Herald is short and is about the business of the website, not what it is as a website. In general, being popular and/or making money are not considered notable, per se. Instead of the articles you mentioned, look at CarGurus - with articles in Boston Globe and Washington Post. Or TheCarConnection.com, with articles in SJ Mercury News and TechCrunch. Those are closer to the kinds of sources we look for. As for those other articles, I marked them as not meeting the criteria, so others may take a look at them with an eye to deletion. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


12:39:23, 04 April 2016 review of submission by Taichi-Kungfu


Hi LaMona, thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I kindly ask you some suggestions about the removal of some sources. You write me to "You must not use blogs, informal sources, sources without editorial oversight, nor sources directly related to the subject of the article." Actually the task is not very easy. As far I see there is no blogs in my references. I used the Chen style Taijiquan China official Portal because is the most important governative information site of Taichi in China. Is it considered a blogs? If yes, it's very hard to find something with more authority about Martial Arts in China. Also very difficult to find something not directly related" with the subject of the article. The martial arts world is small... So to prove that for example he is a judge in Taijiquan competition in UK, I can only use as references the Uk Federation where he is actually the Judge, I think that it will never happen that New York times will publish such kind of news ;) So for me at the moment it's not clear what remove and what improve. Many of this site are famous for Martial Artists.. Or for example the Magazine Martial Arts Illustrated it's the most important Martial Arts magazine in UK. Is this considered with our without editorial oversight? Please consider that Martial Artists are a niche in the world.. It's not easy find press coverage that it would be normally used for an Actor a politician or something like this... And many of the sources are in Chinese, so very hard for us understand and find in the net.. I started this project on Wikipedia, and I already published GrandMaster Chen Zhenglei bio.. My dream would be to write a little bio for each of the 7-8 and 9 duan Grandmasters of Taichi in China. So I need to understand if it's just an impossible task (because none of them or very few of them will match the notable criteria of Wikipedia) Thank you in advance for any kind of suggestions about this.

First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down. Next, it is indeed difficult to add articles to English Wikipedia where English-language sources are limited. It is also the case that the kinds of policies that apply to this Wiki are based on certain standards that are hard to apply globally. However, those are the standards here. Please read wp:rs (and perhaps some pages linked from it) which describes the criteria for sources on this Wiki. In particular, sources should have an editorial policy and reviews should be written by professional reviewers or sports journalists, not by fans or others. As an example, the Malta Boxing News Blog does not appear to meet these criteria. It may be an important publication in Malta, but not by English Wikipedia standards. I don't believe that Listverse is a reliable source (there is no reason to believe that their "top ten" items are really "top"). We can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you doubt that. I don't know about Rednet - we are generally not open to uploaded videos (e.g. Youtube, etc.). The Institute of Chinese Medicine is a notice of an appearance. It can be used for facts, but does not confer notability. Same with the http://www.neidao.org/ and ditto the Evening Times article, which is mainly quotes by an acolyte, not a journalistic article. Martial arts illustrated is an interview, and interviews are the person talking about himself - ok for facts, but does not confer notability. I haven't looked at all of them, but you must read about reliable sources and make the decisions yourself. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:20, 4 April 2016 review of submission by Keithdevereux


Dear LaMona

Thank you for your review of the entry for Scar For Life. As requested I have been through all of the citations, have checked them against the criteria set and have removed or amended them where possible. I have also updated them to the 'cite web' format, which is certainly an improvement and makes everything much more consistent. One of the sources you commented on was 'Blabbermouth', and I have checked with the relevant message board and it certainly seems that opinion is mixed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Blabbermouth.net) but on the whole it is considered reliable and I have certainly found a lot of Heavy Metal Wikipedia entries have used it. I have removed or replaced sources that are deemed unreliable (Metal-Archives was one that you mentioned) and removed entries to Blogs. The only exception to this was quoting 'Songs for The Deaf, which as mentioned is an actual radio station that uses Blogger as it's host (as I mentioned it is not uncommon for quite large and reputable Portuguese and Brazilian companies to use free blogging sites as their host). When checking each citation I have reviewed the 'editorial' section of the site the reference is used from to determine that the sites are not being run as a blog and that there is overall editorial control (much like Blabbermouth). I have also removed entries that I know were made by 'guest writers' (one was actually mine, for Metal Rules, though I was working closely with the Editor when producing it), though I have left in entries by freelance writers (Marcos Garcia and Miguel Blardony are two examples of Portuguese writers who specialise in writing about heavy metal and are used by a lot of sites outside the country).

I have tried to locate independent sources and where I can have avoided using the band's website for source material (the entry for Sigur Rós for example quotes from their website quite heavily). I also appreciate your comment about using interview material and can confirm that this has only been used to reference what the individual was intending and I have not used this as a source for other conclusions. However, one of the difficulties I have found in producing this entry is that although Scar For Life enjoy a good reputation in Portugal, they are still not well known outside the country and so to find entries from newspapers or other sources is difficult. The band is able to work with quite well-known musicians (in heavy metal) but this does not make the international press as much as it should (which is a shame as it would make my entry much easier). Even the big Portuguese metal bands, like Moonspell, don't seem to get much recognition outside of Portugal.

There are some excellent Portuguese heavy metal bands and I was hoping that this entry would be the first of many, so I certainly appreciate your input and your intent of making this entry the best it can be.

Best regards

Keith

Keithdevereux (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Keithdevereux. It is best not to look to current articles as representative of quality - many articles in Wikipedia do not meet the quality criteria, and about 200 articles a day are deleted for this reason. Because anyone can add or edit Wikipedia articles at any time, the current state is always temporary. You say: "although Scar For Life enjoy a good reputation in Portugal, they are still not well known outside the country and so to find entries from newspapers or other sources is difficult..." If they are not well-known outside of Portugal then they probably do not meet the criteria for @en Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote bands or to bring them to the attention of a larger audience. In fact, it is the opposite. Wikipedia is a survey of what is already notable - consider it a non-activist response to its environment. If the sources do not exist, then the article must wait until they do. LaMona (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dear LaMona

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. You raise an interesting point with your comment 'If they are not well-known outside of Portugal then they probably do not meet the criteria for @en Wikipedia'. English Wikipedia. I tend to think of Wikipedia as a global encyclopaedia so it is true that from an English-speaking perspective perhaps this entry is an unusual place to post it. However, promotion of the band is not the aim, I believe Scar For Life is an entry that is worthy of English-speaking Twitter since they interact with many other entries and fit in nicely in the heavy metal 'family tree'. For example, Daniel Cardoso (the band's first drummer) is now in the British heavy metal band Anathema and they have worked with musicians from a variety of internationally known bands (TEN, Whitesnake, Black Sabbath, to name a few. I first came across Scar For Life at Vagos Open Air (certainly an English Wikipedia entry that I will be happy to work on when I have a moment) and I certainly found them notable. It was disappointing that I could not find much about the band in English when I was preparing my report for Metal Rules so I decided to do something about that. Definitely a 'non-activist' response.

Still, thank you for your response, much to ponder.

Best regards

Keith

Keithdevereux (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:56, 5 April 2016 review of submission by Lilybones


Hello! Thank you for reading my draft and giving me good feedback. I've since gone thru the article and added citations where they are missing and removed any information that I couldn't locate where I had originally read it. Writing an article has been quite an experience! I am interested if you have any more feedback or thoughts on my revised draft before I resubmit it. Thank you again for your time! Lily Lilybones (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lilybones. Glad you stopped by. The referencing on the article is much better now, and, yes, writing an article is an education in itself. What I believe you will face now is the impression that this article is overly promotional - it reads like it could be a page or brochure for the company. In fact, WP is an encyclopedia, so there must be something encyclopedic about the topic. We also required a neutral point of view which means that any article that has only positive statements for a company is somewhat suspect. I'll see if there aren't any minor changes I can make to tone it down a bit. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that would be wonderful! Lily Lilybones (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kyler Pettis

Hello. This is about Kyler Pettis that is currently under review. The article has been declined thrice already. I've edited the sources. I got rid of the magazine sources - Backstage and TV Guide. Can you pls check the draft and get back to me? So I can work on making more changes. Thanks.

--Princessruby (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down. Next, the Kyler Pettis article - the problem is not yours, really. The person has had two TV parts in soaps and was in one short film. The only attention he has gotten is in minor publications, mainly soaps publications. (The Backstage link wasn't a problem because it was a magazine - it was a problem because it was just a directory listing, and such listings are routine, so they do not show notability. Anyone who acts gets one.) WP requires quite a bit more before a person is considered notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. This person seems to be just beginning his career, and WP articles are for those who have proven themselves and there are the third-party sources to prove it. The only non-soap source here is about his father. There just isn't enough here to warrant an article. If he becomes better known and more is written about him in the future then an article may be possible. LaMona (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the quick reply and good explanation. About the signature, was in a haste so forgot to sign. --Princessruby (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:25:01, 6 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wodaly


Regarding the article "California Water Plan" and your rejection of it: yes, along with a number of secondary sources, we do reference some primary sources, because what the plan is cannot be understood without some referencing of it. The newspapers you suggest do a minimal job of covering the plan, which is probably because the three main volumes of the plan run roughly 3,500 pages and cover nearly all aspects of water in California. Such articles often are highly superficial in their coverage, often the main thrust being that the plan is being released. Also, you mention that all aspects of the plan must be covered. Frankly, that is an impossible task, particularly for a medium such as an article on Wikipedia. It would take a sizable book to pull off such an endeavor, and then whether the book had done so successfully would require a subjective conclusion. Further, there really is no such thing as viewpoints that "disagree with the plan." The five-year plan is so expansive and inclusive, it's far more the case that thousands of people may agree with certain specific recommendations and disagree with others. For example, the latest plan recommends 18 objectives and more than 300 actions related to those objectives. Each resource management strategy includes recommendations specific to that resource area, and there are at least 30 resource areas. The plan itself neither endorses nor proposes specific projects; it doesn't tell Californians or State of California agencies what they must do. It includes 10 hydrologic regional reports and two hydrologic overlay regional reports that range from 120 to 180 pages each, with history, hydrologic information, region-specific data, summary of projects, recommendations, and so forth. Now, if the article were to describe this, what secondary source could one find that would do so-- the LA Times or the Sacramento Bee? That is hardly the case. To effectively make this point, an educator would point a student to the plan itself. I ask that, with perhaps this better understanding of the plan, and noting that we do use secondary sources that comment on the plan and reference its content as well as its transformation over time, you reconsider your rejection of the article. If you still feel that we have not provided an article sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards, would you please point me to a Wikipedia article that "covers all aspects" of its topic. I have not yet found one, and I've read hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Thank you! ~William O'Daly

Wodaly (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can send this to the reviewers' discussion page and see what people thing. BTW, the "all aspects" in WP means that you need to cover different points of view -- pros and cons. This is covered by the policy WP:NPOV, for "neutral point of view." It does not mean getting into all of the details. We assume that the details are available in the sources you cite, so the WP article is generally a round-up of the issues, and the references lead an interested reader to the full detail. In a case like this we don't rely on newspaper articles for the technical details, but as an indication that there was popular interest. But, I'll see what other reviewers think, and will get back to you. LaMona (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to article about Gene Van Dyke

Thanks for your comments. Edits in the works. I do take issue with your comment "that he was a boy scout is irrelevant" He is an Eagle Scout. That achievement is often mentioned in other wiki articles: read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rowe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Aaron,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Weekley - the list goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMWalden (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:17:13, 8 April 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb


Hi LaMona,

I had a couple of questions about your rejection comments about this article:

1) You state that the terms "Threat Intelligence Platform" is an neologism. On the contrary, given the cyber security challenges facing many private and public sector organizations, many organizations are seeking to adopt a proactive approach to cyber threat management. Rather than just preventing and blocking attacks as they occur, the move towards actively seeking out threats (using threat intelligence) and adopting security policies to mitigate them, before they happen, is moving beyond an emerging technology (enabled by threat intelligence platforms). At the recent RSA security convention, threat intelligence is now a ubiquitous term, and is made possible by the platform described in this article. See here: https://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/agenda/sessions/1562/threat-intelligence-is-dead-long-live-threat and here: https://www.rsaconference.com/writable/presentations/file_upload/spo2-t09-separating-signal-from-noise-taking-threat-intelligence-to-the-next-level.pdf and here: https://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16/agenda/sessions/2740/application-and-threat-intelligence-driving and much more.

Please would you reconsider the term as anything but a neologism?

2) You mentioned that the use of blogs as references is not allowed. However, the reference material in this article does not point to blogs but authoritative articles and papers, by Gartner, etc. The blogs are only listed as additional reading, not reference material to anything cited in the body copy.

Look forward to your thoughts and comments, Thanks Norac Eeb (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Norac Eeb. There is no question that "threat intelligence" is a common term, but to show that "threat intelligence platform" is not a neologism you must provide sufficient sources that would demonstrate that this is a widely used phrase. Instead, you have only two independent sources using the term, and your sources show that it is a newly coined phrase. DarkReading refers to startups in this area and says: "These "threat intelligence platforms" promise to provide a single funnel for channeling and analyzing the growing firehose of threat data ..." That they give the term in quotes and speak of the products with the future tense emphasizes its newness. Then you've got the Gartner report, which is unfortunately a ~$200 publication so we cannot assume wide-spread access. When I search on "threat intelligence platform" as a phrase I get a small number of products being advertised but not much general chatter, so this is a buzzword for a new kind of product, mainly used by the companies promoting these products. But the main thing is that many of the top cites I retrieve are from Threatconnect, whose article you have also created. This appears to be a rather obvious case of product promotion, something that is not allowed on WP. I will add the information about editing with a conflict of interest to your talk page. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on the article for Threatconnect. It is now much less promotional. What you should add are interesting cases that have been solved or at least revealed to some extent. I would also be good to say more about the crowd-sourcing model, which is what is both unique but also socially responsible. I couldn't find more about the free option, but that, too, should be in the article. As a hint, what matters to the company (getting funding, expanding staff, etc.) is not what makes it notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia looks for impact -- business impact but also social impact. Inventing a new way to do things is one way that a company is notable. Providing information on some of the big name hacks is another way. Basically, think about what a person researching security who knows nothing about the company would find interesting. Most readers will not be investors nor buyers of the company's products because those people have other sources of information, like business journals. Wikipedia is for everyone else. LaMona (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:47, 8 April 2016 review of submission by Miskonius



1. I disagree. On many of the pages i have referenced it is stated that KillDisk is being recommended for use as a data security measure. So it's not only being used, it is also being recommended. However I do agree that I could drop a certain amount of links for better clarity. 2. I have only referenced the standards that are not present on Wikipedia. This only goes to explaining software capabilities. The references in my article can be used for creation of future 3. The article is about the software and not about the company. Lsoft has in its portfolio at least 15 different types of software. Now, if Wikipedia editors agree I might create another page about LSoft Technologies, but at this point article is about KillDisk and not about LSoft technologies

Rather than referencing the standards, since they are not about the software, you can put them in a section called External links. That is for anything that is relevant but cannot be a reference. Then, as for the "recommended" links -- what you link to are organizations that are using the software, e.g. customer sites. Those are not what we call "secondary sources". (See wp:rs for advice about usable sources.) Note that the articles you link to often say very little about the product, but also list it among other similar products that can be used. That doesn't support notability by Wikipedia's guidelines. What would be better would be to find and cite independent reviews or articles about the product. I was rather quickly able to find PCWorld, but it will take more hunting to find others. If there isn't enough about this particular software to meet notability guidelines, then you might look at wp:corp to see if the company might meet guidelines for corporate notability. LaMona (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standards are about the software, actually if there are no standards there is no software. Take a look at this screenshot from KillDisk UI you will see that user has to choose which standard he wants to use while deletion has being performed. Standards are an essential part of the software and every data deletion software has to mention which standards it supports. As for software notability there are so many sources that I can further add that would make your head dizzy. For example we know that NASA used KillDisk from 2002 and stopped around 2010 when they switched to physical device destruction. Since the news is old I didnt see the value of adding them in the article. Bear in mind that when it comes to data security no company really wants to advertise which data deletion software they use, especially when it comes to defense contractors. I can find you at least 2-3 more KillDisk reviews from reputable sites, but the problem is that the reviews are not reputable and they basically dont say much about KillDisk. For example this teat that was being conducted on Edith Cowan University is worth as 20 of those so called reviews. For example this guy reviewed only the Demo version and gave it 3 stars because the demo has limitations, this one as well. Its not about us not getting the reviews that we think we deserve its about misinformation. Those people could have contacted us to get they keys for the Pro or Ultimate versions. My point is, that although sites are reputable the reviews arent. Of course, anyone can add those reviews later in the article if he wants. But the reason why I put so many links towards Universities and gov agencies is because I genuinely believe that when I say "it is being used and recommended by a number of Universities and government agencies" I really have something to back it up. This is why I put reputable Universities and government agencies who actually use the software and know what is it all about. Regardless of them being our clients as you can see our product is mentioned only in passing or with clear instructions (for their employees) on how to use it. But like I said I do agree that so many links might be just too much. So lets say 2 for Universities and 2 for gov agencies would be enough? When it comes to company itself, this is not a company that works on self-promotion, I dont think that there are enough reputable independent sources that speak solely about LSoft to make it notable. LSoft's products are notable in their own niche. So maybe creating one more page about LSoft Technologies and mentioning its reputable software might be enough? Of course this is another topic, I might have to create a talk page and consult with everybody prior to starting anything.

Miskonius (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius, the entire definition of notability on WP depends on sources, and the sources must be third-party, independent, and with a reputation for fact checking. There's really nothing else to base an article on. Using "recommended" for the organizations that are using it is a misnomer. They are customers, and they offer it to their students or employees. You can say "used" but unless the article says "recommends" you can't say that. For example, here's what the Illinois article says (and this is all that it says) "But they can also fully wipe a drive using KillDisk, or put new drives into empty computer shells." FSU talks about recommended procedures (not recommended software) and lists Killdisk after saying "Software applications to accomplish this task include:". McGill says: "ICS has tested two hard drive eraser programs that are free for download. Active@ KillDisk and Darik's Boot and Nuke (DBAN) are designed to erase all data (files, folders, etc.) located on the hard drives of Windows computers." These are hardly recommendations. It would be as if everyone using Windows is de facto recommending it - and we know that is not the case. Also, you cannot determine that a review in a reputable site isn't itself reputable. In other words, you cannot exclude it because you do not like the review. That is exactly why we discourage one to edit information about their own company or product. You either have to be able to be neutral, or you should ask for someone neutral to create the article. (See how to do that in Help, to the left.) The NASA information is fine if the sources are good (I didn't look at them), so I see no reason to exclude it. The bottom line: you must adhere to the policies that have been established. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona Like I said it is not about we/I liking or disliking the review. The reviews listed are very superficial at best. How could anyone's review of a book for example be relevant if he read only 5 pages out of 300 of them? The test that I showed you from Edith Cowan University (scroll down and see recommendations) isnt exactly positive about KillDisk since it lacks, in their opinion, one standard. We might disagree on our part about that particular issue, but the test is solid for the most part. I will remove the links where KillDisk isnt specifically recommended, but does that mean that basically all links from gov and edu sites should be removed? Also do we agree on the importance of listing the supported standards?

Miskonius (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:34:11, 9 April 2016 review of submission by Philip b taylor


I have added several more references. In particular, I have added citations to 2 well-regarded history books: Ronald Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon", and Sheila Rowbotham's "Edward Carpenter" (the definitive biography). I have added extra details of community residents such as the pagan Dion Byngham and expanded on Edward Carpenter's influence and connections with the community.

Great work, and it looks like it was quickly accepted. A good next step is to see if there are articles already in WP that could link to this one. Much of the discovery on WP is from links within articles. You may need to add content to related articles to make the links, but only do so if that content truly enhances the existing article. Now, I hope you can find other articles to add to or improve, since you've become an "experienced" editor. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Villy

Thanks for the bracketing + punctuation tips (within the code). Hopefully things look better now + stand a chance of publication. Dmacfady (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

smckinnon /Caribana/ KInron Community Event Planning Services Inc.

Lamona,

I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.

Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.

You should take these comments to the page linked in the message I left you. We can discuss it there so that the noticeboard is aware of the discussion. LaMona (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=714603350"