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 20:14, 19 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 2016 February 2016 March

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

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]

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]

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]

This is quite a frustrating process, I don't get notifications when you add your comments to this thread. So I was left to wonder who was editing and why? See my later talk post. Thanks for taking the time to try and clean things up, however, I am still trying to refine this piece before gaining additional feedback.

Norac Eeb (talk) 20:30, 11 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? Edit: I know that we are getting into realm of playing with words, but doesn't "recommended procedure" and the list KillDisk a recommendation itself? Deleting data on devices with KillDisk requires procedure, it doesn't happen just with a push of a button.

Also: "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. But how are they not recommendations if they are listed on their sites as clealry stating to their employees (or anyone else), what to use if they want to delete data?

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

Naming the standards supported is fine, it's the question of using them as references. References must directly about the subject of the article. If the standards do not actually name Killdisk then they should be named in the text but not used as references. If you wish to give links to the standards then you list them in a section called "External sources" and the links are not given as references but as HTTP links. I looked to see if there were WP pages for those standards but didn't find any. If there are some that I missed, then a wikilink is the preferred method. I won't comment on the rest because I have already said what I would say. LaMona (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMonaVery well I will do as you asked. I was thinking about making a Reception paragraph where I would mention Kill Disk reviews, as well as notable gov agencies (NASA, etc), and mention universities that solely recommend KillDisk, is that OK?

PS

Please mention my name when replying I havent received any notifications about your previous 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]

What Every Science Student Should Know

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from What Every Science Student Should Know, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I believe the article satisfies WP:BKCRIT #1 or WP:GNG, at least, due to this article and this one about the book. WP:BKCRYSTAL is a potential concern, but the book has a publishing date set, which is a big part of that. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! clpo13(talk) 00:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per What Every Science Student Should Know, I do not see how this can meet wp:NBOOKS. The only reviews are from Oakland Press, from Oakland County, Michigan (seems to be the home of one of the students); Yonhap News Agency, of South Korea; and the Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, which is a student paper. The AMA Wire article is not about the book but is about the students themselves. What do you see as meeting GNG? LaMona (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:31, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb


Hi - I am currently attempting to refine and edit this piece. I noticed you made additions. This isn't in review or public mode. Could you kindly wait until I submit for review again?


Norac Eeb (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norac Eeb - you should make all changes to the one copy of the article, not start a second one. All articles are open to editing by anyone. It is sometimes less efficient to work this way, but that's how Wikipedia works. You shouldn't replace the original article with a new one because the record-keeping of changes will be lost, including comments made by reviewers. LaMona (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't started a second article? I've been editing the original one!!!!

Norac Eeb (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misundertood your statement about "review or public mode". Carry on! LaMona (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Romeo Mancini

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for taking your time reviewing my wikipedia script abiut the artist Romeo Mancini. I thought I had sorted out the problem related to the tone, as you mentioned, since in the last rejections the problem I had been told was just about the notes. I replied by text to the other guy that work on it, trying to explain that I do not have so many things to quote more that I haven't done yet. The artist, has only one book dedicated to him, and I have got the info all from that.ù I have already tried to explain this and I have resubmitted the script, but than the didn't reply to me and someone else working on it just read the comments left on the page, without getting to know what I have answered or explained. Could you please answer me and approve the script since I quoted the book where I got all the info from? Thank you very much best regards, --Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lisa33 The article still has problems. It is overly long, and many of the paragraphs are not referenced, so it isn't clear where the information comes from. You have notes (e.g. #13) that state facts that are not referenced. There are also problems of language that make the article unclear. For example, the statement: "Here Mancini was presented with two ceramic high reliefs..." I believe that what you want to say is that his work was represented by two...etc. "Presented with" means someone gave him something. Note that English Wikipedia has a very different style from Italian Wikipedia, and different policies. It is hard to move an article from one to the other. It requires quite a lot of adjustment. LaMona (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gene Van Dyke

You left the following comment: "only include information that speaks to his notability". Unfortunately, that's a bit of a laugh. We appear to encourage editors on a large scale to categorize biographical articles only according to the subject's birthplace, even though in countless instances their birthplace has zero to do with their notability. Whenever I've brought this up in the past, I'm usually greeted with strawman arguments which are reasonable in and of themselves on the surface but carefully sidestep the issue of undue weight. I would think that if we're "striving to achieve consistency", that this includes philosophical consistency and not just consistency in the context of appearances' sake to the untrained eye. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right - there's a subtlety here that is hard to explain in a short message to an editor. There's relevant and there's irrelevant, and it's somewhat subjective. We get a lot of homey anecdotes when people write about their favorite uncle or are trying to please their boss or professor. Those articles wander around and don't get to the point of what makes the person notable. "Focus on what matters" would be an even less helpful comment, although that's what I'd like to say. Date of birth is a key element of identification (that's why it's on your medical chart); place speaks to a concept of culture, but it often doesn't really matter in terms of facts. Oddly, if I read an article and it has neither of these, I feel that I know less about the person even if the article has a interesting information. Then there's the subtlety of what is and isn't "encyclopedic" that I run into a lot on articles for companies. Getting funding and having products are the norm for companies; when do these become of interest to Wikipedia? I honestly don't know, and I'm pretty sure I couldn't explain it to someone whose only contact with Wikipedia is writing an article for their company (which is what we get a lot of at AfC). I do try to explain, but it's hard. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Draft Matthias Tanzmann

You rejected the draft with the note: "Most of your sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards"

1. Id like to ask which sources do suit the notability guidelines if the New York Times, discogs.com(working similar as an encyclopedia) or Ibizavoice are not consistent enough. Please provide an information why you doubt in those sources.

2. Even some of other sources may not meet all the guidelines, they still show the relevance of Matthias Tanzmann and can be deleted seperatly.Which sources would you quote as not reliable?

3.Generally one lists only a sample of key works. I have researched articles of similar artists and have found several amounts of stated works. How many key works are usefull for a article ?

4. I carefully read the thumb rules of "Wikipedia:Notability (music)" and I am sure that this artist deserves to be mentioned on english wikipedia, as well as in the german version. I'd like to ask you herewith to help me as a young contributor to improve wikipedia with this article.

Thank you for your time already, sorry for my bad english and all the best. 2A02:810A:13C0:31AC:3835:6CB7:ADD0:1C7B (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Read wp:rs for the criteria that English Wikipedia uses for reliable sources. Any source with user-supplied information (Discogs, Wikipedia, blogs, etc.) are not considered reliable. (The Discogs decision is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_201#Discogs.) Sources that are essentially "fan" sites may or may not be notable, and those sources are judged based on the reputation of the writer and the reputation of the source for accuracy. Sources that do not meet the guidelines should not be used, and if you use them then others can remove the content sourced by them as unreliable. For notability, you must have sources that are independent of the subject. Bios on sites that feature his music (e.g. lastFm) are not independent. Reviews should be by professional reviewers, not fans. For biographies, information taken from interviews does not contribute to notability because that is the person speaking about himself, and those are generally not fact-checked. The reason to provide a sample of works is that Wikipedia is not a CV, it is an encyclopedia, and long lists are both boring and not terribly informative (especially because people tend not to read them). Those lists belong on the artist's own web site. Lists of works, especially unreferenced lists, do not contribute to notability. Think of how to make those lists useful to the reader, perhaps with links to reviews, or point to a single place where the user can be confident of finding an up to date list (remember, this article will get out of date very quickly). LaMona (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:48, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Raymond Trencavel



Hi LaMona!

For "Bastir!"...

For the word "labeling" ... The management of the movement "Bastir!" called "Steering Committee", "labeled" candidates in French municipal elections and the departmental elections: the "Steering Committee" said "ok! you are officially candidates of the movement ".

If there are faults present / past, you can correct them, no problem.

Thank you!

"to label" / "labelliser" = officially give a (political) label, is very used in French... Not in english ?

16:28:16, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Raymond Trencavel



Hi LaMona!

For "Bastir!"...

For the word "labeling" ... The management of the movement "Bastir!" called "Steering Committee", "labeled" candidates in French municipal elections and the departmental elections: the "Steering Committee" said "ok! you are officially candidates of the movement ".

If there are faults present / past, you can correct them, no problem.

Thank you!

"to label" / "labelliser" = officially give a (political) label, is very used in French... Not in english ?

Raymond Trencavel (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Raymond. No, we don't use that in English, and in the USA I don't think there's a similar action. Candidates here choose their own party for elections. I think maybe "designates" or "accepts" will work, but I'll see if I can find something similar in another article. If you find other good articles on French elections in English WP let me know, ok? Also, please go through and fix the tense where you can, since it's your article and everyone here is volunteering their time. LaMona (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona.

"Officially Designates" seems to be the right translation (I think?). Yes, candidates choose to join the movement" Bastir! ", But the Steering Committee decides only if they can provide in the name of this movement. Thanks for eventually pass a little bit of your time to correct my eventually forgoted tense errors (sorry for my english, it's not my natural language).

Good week-end.

Raymond Trencavel (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swan 48

La Mona

Thanks for your review on my draft Swan 48 article. This is an article about a well known industrial product which like many other Swan boats such as Swan 36 and Swan 65 (see my articles here in Wikipedia) are famous for their international racing success. Their stories are intertwined with each other forming the foundations for the Swan brand and the success of their manufacturer Nautor Oy (Nautor's Swan). The notability of this industrial product is it's racing success and the draft article contains relevant verifiable information about the most famous racing results of Swan 48. Even though thie draft article is very brief, it's an important piece of sailing history which should be regarded as notable encylopedic information. There is a lot more information available about Swan 48 but I am afraid all notable and historically important fact based information is already there.

Sami

Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 06:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sami P. Lehtonen - My only comment was that you have to explain in the first sentence or so that this is a boat, for people who are not familiar with the terms sloop or yawl, which are specialist terms. LaMona (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will elaborate the meaning of those specialist terms, however there are separate articles available for most of those terms which is why I've used Wikilinks to explain them in more detail.

Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:29:14, 17 April 2016 review of submission by 89.211.176.117



I have revised the article on Kim C Sturgess and it now appears to have more references than many wikipedia articles on similar academics. I do not understand exactly what as a reviewer you want to have done to this text

09:43:08, 17 April 2016 review of submission by 89.211.176.117


I still need clarification of exactly why my article has been rejected. I noticed the example below for another academic - this accepted by wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hudson_%28Shakespeare_scholar%29

the article on Kim C Sturgess has more supporting evidence than the one for Hudson.

First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Now, academics are judged based on the criteria at WP:ACADEMICS. Please read the criteria there. Basically one must a) hold a named chair or other high position or b) have made significant advances in their field or c) received specific honors in their field. Thus, sailing around the world is irrelevant for notability in this case, and the person does not meet other criteria. Or, if the person DOES meet any of the other criteria, you have not included that in the article. Hudson probably does not meet these criteria either, so expect that his article at some point will be reviewed and either updated or deleted. I have tagged it now as such. LaMona (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Bumper Cars

Thank you for your review of Bumper Cars and the edits you made. The previous reviewer advised that the back cover of the book was an adequate source but I have removed the quote from the back of the book anyway. I have included the 2 online resources that you reference. Many thanks. Doinggreatthings (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, the previous reviewer did not say that the back cover quote was ok; the previous reviewer noted that there was no reference for the quote, and therefore did not know that it was from the back cover. Promotional blurbs are never considered reliable sources. You will need to find reliable sources for this book, as at the moment it does not have enough to meet notability. LaMona (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page on Poet Roy Bentley

I appreciate your help with the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roy_G_Bentley that I have been working on. I have made the changes you suggested and I appreciate your insight, especially how I had tended to add my interpretation to his poetry - that is now deleted. I hope now the case is well enough made for this excellent poet, who speaks out for the plight of the poor in the USA. I hope that my changes are adequate to publish this page now, as I was also able to add an additional outside 3rd party review of his work, as per your suggestion. Brad Brock Baran (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Brad Brock Baran[reply]

Brad Brock Baran - showing notability for poets is difficult because there isn't a lot of mainstream attention on poets. I did some more editing on the article so that it more resembles the WP style, but you need to make sure that all of your references are clear to reviewers by having a full citation: title (of the thing you are citing, not a made-up description), author (if there is one), name of journal or web site, and date. "Web site of the NEA" is not the title of the page (and, btw, that link fails so it needs to be replaced). You still have too many primary sources and not enough secondary sources. His own statement on the NEA site is not a secondary source. His own writings are definitely not secondary sources. Please read about sources. LaMona (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) review of submission by Bucinskas

First thanks for the comments and help with my first wikipedia submission - Draft: TrackDuck. I've made some slight adjustments to the article and would like to move to the next step. Let me know if anything else needs to be changed. Bucinskas (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a minor statement in the lead which was not supported: "actively contributes to its growth". You cannot make that "interpretation" unless it says so directly in one of the referenced articles. Your article is fine without it. Stick closely to what the references say. It will be difficult for reviewers since this is English WP and the product and references are nearly all from outside of this environment. EN WP makes its decisions based on the reliability and strength of sources, and few here will be familiar with the press outside of English-speaking countries. I personally cannot help you further, but wish you luck. LaMona (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=716084750"