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 20:52, 11 May 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

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.

Miskonius (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona can you please check the draft now. I have edited everything that you have requested apart from adding images. I was informed that this will be done later when the draft receives an approval.

Regards, Miskonius (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius I read through the TeaHouse discussion and you did get good advice. However, in this version you have quoted positive reviews. If you do not want to include less than positive reviews, you must remove this section as it is promotional. Also, we generally discourage use of praise copied from reviews because, like those "Best picture of 2016!" blurbs on movie ads, you don't know what else the person said. In the first review, you diminish the criticism by saying that features were missing from the demo version, but that is not in the article, so you cannot say that. I found at least one other review that said that the free version was less useful than other free programs. ([1]) I think that if you send this back for review, it will be rejected for advertising. My guess is that if you drop the "reception" section, but link some of those articles to information in the article about features, this will pass. LaMona (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona the first review is based on the demo (free version), is says so in the headline. KillDisk has Demo (a free version) and a pro (paid) version. That particular review was put for the sake of balance (so its not all positive), at it doesnt worth much in my opinion since the man clearly bases his opinion about the whole software just by reviewing a demo. In the article Fisher says Cons: 

   - Some options only work in the professional version
   - Supports only one wipe method

...which are all limitations of the demo version. KillDisk is not a free software per se. Yes, it does have a Demo version which is free but with significant limitations. Maybe the mistake is using the "reviews" that are based only on the demo... Miskonius (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Miskonius, I am saying that the mistake is using reviews at all. The article should describe the software, not try to sell it. The sales pitch will get it deleted. Try as I said and link the descriptions of the software in those various journals to the parts of the article where you describe what the software does. A lot of that is unreferenced, and this would add references at the same time that it would remove promotional material. LaMona (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, LaMona I have been searching other maintenance software on Wikipedia and software in general and all of them have Reception section, for example CCleaner . If such format is applicable and acceptable for Wikipedia could the same format be applied for KillDisk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskonius (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius, as long as it is fair and non-promotional, sure. I think the CCleaner one is getting close to promotion,, but doesn't quite step over that line. Remember, though, that anyone in the future can edit the article and can add other reviews, perhaps ones you are not happy with. A more neutral method is to create an "Awards" section (if the software has won awards) because those are factual and verifiable. LaMona (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona I have absolutely nor problem with that,a s long as the edits are based on facts. So, can I use from CCleaner: "CCleaner is mentioned on different software directories, like Softonic, etc" or "CCleaner has been reviewed by Chip.de, etc". If i find any awards (I think I remember one award)I will create Awards section? Miskonius (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius, that sentence with "mentioned on" is not particularly strong. "Mentioned" doesn't mean "listed on". You might say that the software is downloadable from various sites online such as... and name two or three. Or you can say that it is included on software download sites. Then it is best to name some of the biggies, like CNET and PCworld. That should suffice. That shows that it's a mainstream program, since that's what those sites carry. LaMona (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


LaMona sorry I should have been more clear. When using "Mentioned" I was thinking of adding that test from Edith Cowan University

Miskonius Mentions are not going to further your article. Mentions do not support notability. LaMona (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona OK help me out here how should I add that particular test, without being slapped that the article is promotional or being not conclusive enough (aka there are other software tested/mentioned)? KillDisk performed the best there with one other software. Btw this is the also the article that I also get from the Scholar tag (second from the top of search) that you left in my article. Miskonius (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miskonius - just state the facts as plainly as possible - software was rated n out of n. LaMona (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona I have edited the article, can you please review it before I submit it. I have removed the Reception section and havent included Awards. KillDisk got awards (if we mean the same thing), from Software Informer and Download 3K. Although the are not un-notable they are not really notable as well, so I decided to skip the Awards section. If down the line someone wants to create Awards/Reception section i will not object or if you think they are notable enough I can add them. Please also check my reference to Edith Cowan University which performed the testing, does it seem promotional? Miskonius (talk) 20:52, 11 May 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 ?

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

11:33:51, 21 April 2016 review of submission by Louisa Leontiades


Hi LaMona.

Thanks for your help so far. After a period with other priorities, I have recently made a lot of changes and updates to the draft text. You can see them on the web at the moment.

I'm still convinced Barker in fact passes the WP:ACADEMICS standard. I have added several references evidencing this, e.g. the references to them in Clarke et al (2010), Weeks (2011) and Burr (2015), which are all academic level publications.

On Google Scholar the "Meg Barker" search produces more than 11,000 entries; they have a "verified entry", and under that heading are cited 1492 times. This seems to be well in line with many others who have a wikipedia entry based on their academic credentials, in social sciences and psychology in particular. E.g. Allan Schore, Jerome Kagan, Philip Bromberg or Lisa Diamond.

Do you think this is all right? Shall I resubmit it, or do you have some other advice for me? Many thanks?

Louisa Leontiades (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Leontiades, I made some changes, removing references to her own works. To my mind, Barker passes Academic on their writings. What is weak is the position at Open University, which isn't as scholarly as one would like. I think it's worth resubmitting. I'll make a note on the page about Barker's H-index, which is high. LaMona (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:15, 22 April 2016 review of submission by PascaldeLacaze


Dear LaMona, thanks for your review and good tipps. I edited and shortened the article and deleted some of the OEM partners. Note that Graebert's notability is given by the fact that Graebert pioneered several CAD technologies (see also awards).

We are resubmitting the article now.

Kindly, PascaldeLacaze

Draft:No_Fault_Found

I have amended the article to add more citations. I already had one citation of an industry publication and one peer reviewed journal article. I have added a further 3 peer reviewed journal articles that discuss this topic. I trust this is sufficient reliable sources. JPelham (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JPelham - it looks good, but there is a redirect from NFF to Failure analysis that I can't get around. I'll ping an admin. LaMona (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona - I think i've managed to remove the redirect JPelham (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JPelham, that remove the redirect code, but the article is still there. I can't delete it, so it'll have to wait for someone with admin privileges. LaMona (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona - It looks like someone has deleted it now. JPelham (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JPelham, great. Now there is the question of the article title. We generally only upper-case proper nouns, so this should be "No fault found" unless there is a special reason why it cannot be. It should also be that in the failure analysis article. I will do those two changes - they can always be changed back. LaMona (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona great that this is now an article. In my view it should be capitalised as it frequently appears in academic papers and reports as the acronym NFF.JPelham (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can make an acronym from something that isn't capitalized. In any case, WP has its own style rules, and we should follow them. Note that the failure analysis article lacks references - you could start that process by adding ones for NFF. LaMona (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:07, 27 April 2016 review of submission by Michael at BKL


LaMona, I could use some guidance on how I can improve the referencing on my article? Any guidance that you can give would be appreciated. I also noted that our article (albeit an old version) appears on Speedydeletion. I can't see anything on the DRAFT page which suggests that it will be deleted but I just want to make sure.

Michael at BKL, WP guidelines require multiple references in reliable sources that are substantially about the subject of the article. Notices of "business as usual" (mergers, name changes, new products) do not indicate notability. Trade publications do not figure highly in determining notability because we look for companies that have had a broad social or scientific impact. The guidelines for companies says: "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." Nothing in your article speaks to that. What you show here is that the company exists. Even within that, much of the content is unsourced. WP articles are created from sources, and only sourced material can be used. Editors will remove unsourced material when found in an article. At least one of the awards is one where you nominate yourself - we generally don't take those seriously. It is very probable that this company does not meet the notability requirements for companies. If you believe it does then you need to show otherwise.
Another thing, you are editing with conflict of interest and you need to make a declaration of that on the talk page of the article. You will not be allowed to edit the article in the main article space because of the COI. It is not YOUR article. All articles on WP can be created and edited by anyone, and no one controls the content. It is a collaborative process. I also note that when I search on the company name I find sources that you have not included, such as Berg Kaprow Lewis fined for audit breaches. You cannot create a one-sided article that only shows the company in a positive light. That violates the policy of neutral point of view.
The article was scheduled for deletion because draft articles are deleted if not edited for 6 months. You got the 5 month warning. Any change to the article will start the clock ticking again. LaMona (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

draft page

Thanks for revising the page i created it looks a lot better now, can you advise when does a draft get approved and cease to be a draft?--Chriswright68 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chriswright68. I meant to comment after editing but got distracted by something else. I think the article is in good shape although I have two questions: 1) is "pubco" a usable shorthand? I ask because I googled it and didn't find it used that way, but there is at least one significant company called Pubco which is unrelated to pubs (construction materials) 2) does the article adhere to WP:NPOV? Statements like "pubco's were also represented by a weak trade body (BBPA)[12], members rules were ignored" sound biased to me. I can send it to main space with a note to check the point of view, but it would be better if you could temper the wording a bit. Could you say that in a more neutral way? For example - "the trade body BBPA did not have the desired effect"; "the pubco's produced 6 drafts, but none satisfied the goals of the ..." etc. LaMona (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks again, the use of pubco or pubco's is very widespread in the UK sector that covers the pubs trade, it is of course shorthand for the more formal 'pub company' but thought I'd covered that well in opening para of the draft? Re comment on bias, bit tricky this as the lack of company code by BBPA members is a fact as is no sanctions by the same org for failure to follow rules, all in all would indicate a weak organisation hard to come to any other conclusion. The 6 drafts were actual operating versions not drafts they kept amending them in line with their membership demands again mostly supporting the weakness point. The effect was to do the bare minimum to satisfy govt and clearly they undershot that in the end for the large pubco's but I wasn't sure it would be something that would help the readership in going into the dark corners of trade body policy.--Chriswright68 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but you can't call it a "weak trade body" unless you find those words in a third-party reference, and even then you should say "X called it a 'weak trade body'." "Weak" is a judgment that you must not make in a WP article that adheres to NPOV, but you can attribute it to others. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are many references to BBPA in that context throughout Hansards and govt select committees but not sure it adds anything on reflection so changes have been made. Hope you can send it to the mainspace now. Chriswright68 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can send it to the mainspace now or do i need to do anything else? Thanks in advance. Chriswright68 (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chriswright68 If you re-submitted it to AfC then a reviewer will pick it up. I try not to review articles twice in a row, with occasional exceptions. I did however think more about "pubco", and since WP uses formal language I think that should be expanded as "pub company" throughout. But that's a minor point and can be done later. LaMona (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sahibzada_Muhammad_Ishaq_Zaffar

hello dear you have rejected my article on 27th march i have improved it a bit please look again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sahibzada_Muhammad_Ishaq_Zaffar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amer zaffar01 - OK, you did good edits, and I sent it on to main wiki space. However, given the similarity in names, I must tell you that if you are related to the subject of the article, you must abide by the policies for conflict of interest. The main things are that you must declare your COI on the talk page of the article, so that other editors are aware of it, and you must refrain from making anything more than very minor corrections to the article now that it is in the Wikipedia. You can request that edits be done by others, however. All of this is explained on the page about WP:COI. Thank you, and I hope you find other articles to work on - there are about 5 million here and many of them need further editing. LaMona (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: LifeBEAM

Hi LaMona. I added a sentence each to the sections on the two main consumer products that notes the existence of product reviews and cites to the major ones. I hope you find that an adequate response to your request for product reviews. I didn't attempt to summarize any as I can't see how it could not come across across as promotional. For the products themselves, I tried to just be descriptive. I don't think I expressed any subjective points of view e.g. "comfortable", "highly accurate", "inexpensive." Looking at the article for Fitbit, a close competitor, I see that the article includes more technical specs per product. I didn't do that because the consumer products aren't as popular at Fitbit and I didn't want to violate WP:UNDUE, but I can add more information per product if you think it's needed.BC1278 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

23:18:17, 3 May 2016 review of submission by Buddroyce


Hi I'm requesting a re-review of this draft as it has been revised from the feedback I have previously received (mostly stripped of irrelevant stuff). I also found additional references from major publications which this was previously lacking as the lawsuit that was filed against the company by electronic superstar deadmau5 finally went through.

PS. Thanks again for the feedback. It really helps me be a better contributor to Wikipedia.

Buddroyce (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Buddroyce - yes, editing at Wikipedia is indeed a learning experience. I'm glad you've gotten into the spirit. To get another review, you need to click on the blue "Resubmit" button. It then goes into the queue and will be picked up by a reviewer. I usually try not to be the reviewer back-go-back since someone else may have better ideas or be more familiar with the subject than I am. I did some editing for wording and style on the article, but don't think I changed the meaning of anything. There is still the hurdle that the information about the lawsuit is more than that about the label itself, so if you can find more to say about the label (through reliable sources, of course), you can add those in, even after re-submitting. LaMona (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Henley & Partners Ltd

Hi LaMona

Thank you for accepting my draft page for Henley & Partners Ltd, and moving it into the article space. Please can you assist me in editing the title of the page, to remove the "Ltd", so the title simply reads "Henley & Partners"? Your assistance is greatly appreciated!

Mara.ispas (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mara.ispas, Done. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:20, 6 May 2016 review of submission by Khalaf Smoqi


Khalaf Smoqi (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Hi LaMona,First, thank you for reviewing my draft for the informative comment. I've updated the draft, I've included in-line citation, I removed the unreliable references from the main reference list. I organized the reference list by making "Additional References" list. If possible, Can you please consider a re-review, Thank you in advance.[reply]

Khalaf Smoqi, I see that you have queued it again for review. I try to let other reviewers take it rather than review twice in a row. LaMona (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:11:34, 6 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lx3h


Thanks LaMona, I do agree with your comment "There has to be more to say", but I based my draft on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Auto_Association, which has been approved and it is about electric vehicle association, so I used it as template. I do want to say more, but I fear I get rejected if I say too much to start with. I thought offering what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Auto_Association does will at least get the article published first, then more details can be added later.


Lx3h (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lx3h, not all articles in WP have been "approved" - many are created directly and are looked at later. That article does not meet the requirements and may be deleted if noticed. Do not base your article on what you see in WP, but on the policies. Otherwise, your article may be deleted later, when you are not looked at it, and the information will be lost. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:34, 6 May 2016 review of submission by Dmulan123


LaMona,

Thank you for taking out time to review this submission and leaving constructive feedback that I could work on. I have added more citations from external sources as you had suggested. I hope the changes make a stronger case for the article!

Dmulan123 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Dmulan123[reply]

Request on 04:22:21, 7 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lx3h


Thanks La Mona, I have added even more details and references from media and press such as Forbes and InsideEVs, as well as official government page such as Hong Kong Trade Development Council. Future events to hold include FIA Formula E. Hope this meets both the notability and 'more details' requirement.

Lx3h (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating


Thank you for your contributions


Almost 400 new articles were created

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

(check out our next event Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Draft article: Direct Line for Business

Hi LaMona - thanks for taking the time to review this article. I noticed that you had removed the company's annual report as one of the sources. The most likely reason for this, I imagine, was that it is produced by the company, which is itself the subject of the article. Notwithstanding, would it matter that annual reports are audited by third parties and companies have a legal requirement to ensure these annual reports are true and accurate, that this would make them acceptable as sources? Fbell74 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fbell74, Hi. A business's own report (audits are third-party but not independent of the company, since they are paid for and managed by the company) may be used to support some minor facts, like location of the headquarters, but should only be used if no other sources are available; and primary sources can only be used to fill in those minor details once the notability is established with secondary sources. What matters in Wikipedia is what others have said about the company, not what the company can say about itself. If no one else has considered that an important piece of information to put in a source about the company, then it's as if that information did not exist. The other thing is that the internal view of the company is not often encyclopedic. The actual money figures for a company are not what make it notable here -- after all, companies make money as a matter of course. The policy on notability for corporations begins: "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." Wikipedia is not a company directory, so you have to think: what makes this company encyclopedic? Has it had a social or historical impact? Have journalists written about it as a game-changer? Has it done something long-lasting? What is it about this company that is not just "business as usual"? That's what you need to put into an article on a company. LaMona (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Sometimes it feels like a bit of a grey area as to what is considered reliable and what isn't. I felt sure that an annual report would be acceptable even though it is a document that has been produced by the company itself. After all, an organisation has to stand by the accuracy of the information it contains and there can be serious repercussions if it is seen to be unreliable. Thank you for the comprehensive response in answer to my query. It was kind of you to clarify. It's back to the drawing board, I guess.Fbell74 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined draft

Hi LaMona, thank you for taking the time to review my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kurt_Kotrschal. I read on the criteria that you cited as not being met and think I understand. I then looked up more third party information on Kotrschal and there are many interviews with him, comments on his work and references to research by him in trustworthy sources, but essentially all in German. There is also a German wikipedia article on him. Kotrschal is well-known in Austria (and less so Germany) as a popular science figure and I think this would justify an English wikipedia article. I would appreciate some guidance on what to do (e.g. how to add references). Here would be some examples for references that I found: book by Kotrschal; criticism on a comment he published in daily paper; interview with him in another daily paper; TV interview and CV by German public broadcasting; a selection of articles about him in the biggest Austrian tabloid. Thank you for your consideration. --Biophil23 (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Biophil23. You can use non-English sources, although they must meet the reliable source criteria in English-language Wikipedia. That means that they must be published sources (even digital) with an editorial policy or peer review and a reasonable expectation of fact-checking. The sources must be ABOUT the subject, not BY the subject, and cannot be crowd-sourced, so links to Amazon or Amazon reviews, etc., are not relevant here. Interviews and videos of the person speaking are not considered third-party sources because that is the person talking about themself, not an independent view of the subject. Biographies that are linked to the person's work (e.g. bios on the University site) are not independent, and are often supplied by the subject himself. You should also read carefully WP:ACADEMICS to see the criteria that is used specifically for academics. There are some factors that support notability in the absence of other sources, such as holding a named chair or receiving important awards (a Nobel prize is a good one!). This person falls somewhere between WP:AUTHOR AND WP:ACADEMIC, but either can be met. LaMona (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LaMona and thank you for your reply, this was useful as I intend to write some other articles on Austrian scientists and science facilities soon and should get a better understanding of the rules that come with this. I read the sources you recommended for learning more about the notability criteria and it made me realise that the notability will be more from Kotrschal's significance as a popular science figure than as an academic. I edited the draft accordingly by changing the introduction and elaborating on his media appearances. I also changed some sources (I find it surprising that CVs on university websites are not accepted as trustworthy sources; yes, the academics portrayed will provide them in most cases, but a reputable university should be trusted to ensure a certainy quality in the information it publishes and thereby endorses - but anyway, I found other articles about Kotrschal citing his biography that are certainly independent sources, e.g. national media; in addition, I also referred to the feature he had in Die Presse and ignored other Presse reports, as one could see him as a Presse insider). Note that the sources I added are from different media in Austria and Germany, but all with wide reach in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, no local papers. Do you consider this sufficient evidence for notability?--Biophil23 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Biophil23. You are still rather low on notability. The media appearances are BY him not ABOUT him. Also, calling a section "Trivia" looks trivial. You can't use searches as references, and the list of articles he wrote is again BY him not ABOUT. The point is not just to prove notability, but to write an article about what he has done that makes him notable. So if there are newspaper articles about him, you use the content of those to tell the story in the article. If, instead, there are not significant articles about him, then he does not meet notability at this time. LaMona (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LaMona. Thank you for reviewing the article again. I re-named the trivia section into "Media". I consider this section the one that also provides evidence for notability. Please note that I added references 9, 10, 11 and 12 specifically to underline this point; they are all articles in decent media from Austria and Germany ABOUT Kurt Kotrschal and his work, NOT BY him. I gave reference 8 separately, this one links to a feature BY him, but the point of the sententce where I set ref. 8 is exactly to inform that he is also known as an author from this feature, which I think justifies using the results page of a search to provide evidence that indeed, he did write a feature and not just an individual article. [[--Biophil23 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)]][reply]

License requirements for Wikipedia

Hello, LaMona. :)

I'm cleaning up some old copyright issues and came upon Draft:RNLB Charles Burton, where you did some much appreciated investigation into the issue. Given the note you left, though, ("We've determined that the original text is under a GNU license, which allows re-use but requires attribution. I've advised the editor to re-word the text since attribution for a whole text probably doesn't work.") I did want to offer you some input on the way incorporating licensed content can be done and on the licenses that we can accept.

While many decry it as a bad habit, we can actually copy en masse from compatibly licensed sources so long as we offer attribution as described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism - we have attribution templates that serve to attribute entire articles. Reasons some have objected to the practice include the inability to determine, as the content grows, which parts came from the source, once it is intermingled with original material, and concerns that copying content from other sources is not quite the right way to go about things when we could (and arguably) should write it ourselves. I myself am agnostic on the practice. I've done it before, but haven't done it in a long time.

That said, due to some peculiarities with our own licensing history, we are no longer able to accept text content that is licensed under GNU license unless it is also licensed under another license that is compatible with CC-By-SA 3.0. There's a list of major licenses that are (and some that aren't) at WP:COMPLIC. So even though whole-article attribution can be used, in this case it could not.

The deadline is well past, so I am deleting this draft, but I much appreciated your efforts there and just wanted to offer you more information. Working on drafts is a critical workflow, and I thank you for the time you're putting into it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:49:39, 9 May 2016 review of submission by Jhasmanysp


Hello,

I am wondering what exactly needs editing on our page... My understanding is the citations?

Hello, Jhasmanysp. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, I left you this specific message: "To support the article you must use third-party, independent sources, not the group's web site or related organizations. Do not reference the home pages of organizations you mention -- all references must be substantially about the subject of the article, Biblioworks. Do not use social media as references. And stick with a formal writing style, as is required in an encyclopedia." The template has links to the rules for reliable sources. You must read those carefully, and then make the necessary changes. The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. Those sources must be referenced in-line with the text they support. No un-referenced material is allowed. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:48, 9 May 2016 review of submission by Jzsj


I have added 14 third-party references. Please see footnotes 1,2,4,5,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,21,24,26. Thank you.Jzsj (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj - there are 3rd party sources and 3rd party sources. Source must be not only 3rd party, but reliable and substantial. Adding a bunch of mentions does not support notability. Also, adding sources is not enough - you must remove the primary sources as those are not permitted (with some exceptions, but it is best to avoid them). Please read both WP:RS and WP:N to understand what is required in the quality of sources. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you'll find that many of these are independent sources, as desired by Wikipedia. How many such sources do you require? It seems like a presidential award would count, and place this among he more notable such organizations. Do you find none of these sources to be reliable? I see all your contributions are on very notable persons. Where do social service organizations in the Third World stand in your estimate of encyclopedic value? Thanks for sharing. Jzsj (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, I believe that I have already said this: it is not a question of QUANTITY but of QUALITY. You need quality sources. Every source that is to the Regis site is a primary source and must be replaced with a third-party source. Third-party sources with mere mentions (we call them "name checks") of a person or subject are not good sources. In WP:N it says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Read that page again. LaMona (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what Wiki says there, again and again, and I don't see why you question whether these are third-party sources. They independently verify what the Center says about itself. I can remove some of the references – I agree it's not a matter of quantity – but then Wiki requires support for statements, which I see imposed mainly on statements that seem excessive or questionable. Unlike famous persons, service centers like this don't have complete books written on them: one goes to a compact summary like Wikipedia for that. If this center with the praise it's received cannot qualify as notable, then how many can?... Should we place very rigid criteria for inclusion of these very significant works centered at schools, which may be as significant for society as the existence of the school.Jzsj (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, institutes and centers are covered in the articles about the larger institution. To have a stand-alone article they must meet the rules for general notability, which requires independent sourcing. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Parts_of_schools_and_school-related_organizations. There's no use arguing with me about this -- I have no power to change policy, and what I tell you is only advice. My goal is to get your article to a point where others will not want to delete it because it doesn't meet the criteria. I also try to make the article a "good" article, one that reads well and provides the readers with understandable content. I'm not a gatekeeper. Some other AfC'r may pass your article on. You can always resubmit if you have made significant changes. LaMona (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, I think you should take note of Lamona's suggestion. The quality of references in the articles on Jesuit-related subejcts that you are pumping out is very low. As well as this, the notability of the places you are writing about is suspect. The two articles of yours that I AFD'd last week were deleted. I just found two more that I have nominated for deletion. In all of these articles, the issue is that you created articles on non-notable subjects using very low quality references. I think it would be very helpful to both the wiki and to your article survival rate if you were to carefully read and undertsand the reliable sources explanation contained at WP:RS, as well as the rules on general notability at WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop "pumping out" these articles (working up to 14 hours a day on them) but I do believe that some would find the few independent references sufficient and the topics worthy of note. Also, such articles would clutter the main article page of most universities (see Ateneo de Manila complaint that I took to heart). I believe we omit significant accomplishments of great note when we rule out these articles, which can counter-balance the systemic bad news which seems to be the preference of our media.Jzsj (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:31:36, 9 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 66.130.101.221


Hello LaMona,

The Pub St-Paul is an authentic venue in the Old Port of Montreal since 1992. Although there mentions in various blogs and magazines (some of which were submitted in my initial request), it doesn't have any mentions in papers or official news outlets. What I did find was this: http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do;jsessionid=0001sLQb6TRnzeah4BXVHrKG4-1:11VIIVT17Q?lang=eng&prtl=1&sbPrtl=&estblmntNo=234567157475&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=1921&app=sold&searchNav=F

Let me know if that passes as a good source and whether it's enough sources to publish the article.

Thanks! Konstantin

66.130.101.221 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin - unfortunately, if the venue is not covered in papers or other published materials, then it does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. No one would doubt that the venue exists, but there must be evidence that it has been substantially written about by independent sources. That really means "written about", not listed in a directory of businesses. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=719797252"