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 JIS0130 (talk | contribs) at 19:59, 29 May 2016. 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

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

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

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]
Hi LaMona. In response to your last points, I made some changes to the article and summarised them along with my view on the notability issue in the above paragraph. I would appreciate it if you could approve of the draft now or comment on my statement above if you have other issues with the draft. Thank you. --Biophil23 (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding School Zone Interactive

First of all I would like to thank you for reviewing this article I created. I did not think it would pass directly. I'm not a new editor to be honest with you, but this is the first time I have created an article about a company. It seems more challenging than I anticipated. There are other educational software companies that meet Wikipedia requirements such as Edmark, Humongous Entertainment and The Learning Company. The real difficulty is finding the most relevant information about the company's history. Do you know of a better way to list the software products? At the very least, the company's first ever game "Alphabet Express" should have it's own paragraph. If there are particular pieces of information that should be added to or removed from the article, please let me know. Any help you can offer is much appreciated. Deltasim (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deltasim, the main thing is that you list company "milestones" but don't say anything about why its products matter. So you say: "School Zone's first software product was "Alphabet Express" designed for Ages 3 to 6 " but you dont' say what the software is about, what it teaches. So in the end the article sounds like a company profile, which is not encyclopedic. The policy 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." The USA today article says: kids can "generate moving kaleidoscopic pictures using blend sounds, They can create animations with rhyming families that spin, twist and move to funky music." It would also be good to show if these products are based on known learning standards. LaMona (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:34:19, 15 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Crisbbacon


Thanks for your review. I wonder if I could ask you for some help.

In making this submission I tried to follow examples from similar notable people e.g. politicians with a business and media elements to their lives. Hence why for Mandy Boylett I included some of her other business interests and past activities. She is most notable for the political song / brexit anthem that was created this year, and I can easily make the main focus of the submission just that item. I note the singer of the Remain Anthem, Gruff Rhys, has their own wiki!! Mandy Boylett's Brexit Campaign Anthem is also now quoted and accepted on several other Wiki pages, which I assumes helps with demonstrating Boylett's notability.

If I deleted Boylett's business interests section would that make the article stronger and would you then approve it?

Or should I do something else as well?

Thank you Crisbbacon (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Crisbbacon Crisbbacon (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Crisbbacon (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisbbacon, I think that your problem is that being known for a single novelty item, the Brexit song, tends to fall under wp:BLP1E -- which is a person known for a single thing or event. It's also somewhat of a trivial thing, even though it is getting attention. (Attention and popularity are not among the criteria for notability on WP.) The press attention is about the video, not her, and there isn't much about her in the articles, except to say that she wrote the song. She's not really a politician, unless coming in third means something different in the UK, but we don't usually consider losers to be actual politicians, just "also rans". She's a business person, but probably isn't notable within those criteria. If she were notable for something stronger, then having other "peripheral" bits of info would be fine. The Brexit song would probably be one of those peripheral bits. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:53:36, 15 May 2016 review of submission by Cap603



LaMona,

Just a point of clarification about my trilogy, Benjamin's Field. You stated in your comment that the books don't have ISBNs. That isn't correct. They do and always have.

Book One, Rescue: ISBN 9781505391572 Book Two, Acent: ISBN 9781507613252 Book Three, Emancipation: ISBN 9781507613245

Also, you observed they are 'self-published,' as though that means the works are less worthy. Is that Wikipedia's policy?

J.J. Knights

Cap603 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cap603 Ok, we have a couple of things to talk about here. First, yes, self-published materials have less notability because they have not been given the imprimatur of a publishing house or peer review (for academic materials). We generally do not considered self-published materials or authors of those materials to be notable, with exceptions for those that are notable for other reasons. (See:Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Self-publication) But the other thing is that you said "my trilogy." This means that you are writing about your own works, which is problematic, and here on Wikipedia that is considered a conflict of interest. I will address this on your own talk page. LaMona (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:10, 15 May 2016 review of submission by Adamreinman


Thank you for your help. What do you think about the current version? Does it need additional citations? Thank you.Adamreinman (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamreinman - Great! that was just what was needed. I sent it on through. LaMona (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:57:29, 15 May 2016 review of submission by Potguru


Consensus that marijuana = cannabis has never been achieved.

If we follow standard protocol on wikipedia we need to notice that: mescaline and peyote have different articles (mescaline is a drug found in peyote) heroin and opium have different articles (heroin is a drug derived from opium)

And therefore we need to do the same for marijuana and cannabis.(marijuana is a drug found in cannabis)

--Potguru (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion on the talk page for Cannabis (drug) and for other pages that use that term (quite a bit of talk discussion at Cannabis dispensaries in the United States), I would open a dialog with the editors there to get an idea of what the "consensus" is. The article states: "Cannabis, also known as marijuana among other names", the article is "Cannabis (drug)", and Marijuana redirects to Cannabis (drug), so a decision was made in the past to use this terminology. It also looks like the current article may intend to cover what you are calling Marijuana, although with different sections so you may have information to add to that article. There is already a separate article for cannabis the plant. Rather than starting up an article without addressing what is already there, it would be best to clarify this with the interested parties. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that advice. We are trying to, and have been trying to, achieve concensus. As you can see in my Colorado centric article about marijuana dispensaries there is plenty of good reason to believe the word marijuana is preferable to the generic term cannabis in many instances, particularly when the scope is regional. (see the opposite argument below). --Potguru (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This person Potguru is on a mission now changing Cannabis articles to Marijuana articles without consensus and despite the request of other editors to stop. The latest three are here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_Indiana&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_Tennessee&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_Tennessee&action=history.

Can we get an admin block so they can be stopped from making a mess? Lipsquid (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_in_West_Virginia&action=history Lipsquid (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lipsquid is very upset with me because I correctly moved an article incorrectly titled "cannabis in Kansas" to the correct name space "marijuana in Kansas" with this note:

May 2016 Marijuana Vs Cannabis use of terminology dispute I just made several important edits based upon the actual sources quoted. While some people from outside Kansas might want to use the term Cannabis instead of the more appropriate term Marijuana, this is not the place for that debate. If you look at any of the references cited in this article they all choose to use the word marijuana instead of the word cannabis. The reason for this is that cannabis is not regulated in Kansas, instead what is regulated is a portion of the cannabis plant called Marijuana.

While I was mid edit another editor came in reverted several important edits]. If there are no objections, after a while, I will revert the edits to their proper term "marijuana".

And like his edit before I would contend this talk page is not the place for such a debate. --Potguru (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And while the discussion is still taking place, you continue to change article names from Cannabis in xx t Marijuana in xx. Lipsquid (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two levels of issue here. One is international (a general article about marijuana) and the other is regional (a state article about what is regulated within that state). I do not beleive your complaints on this talk page are not the most appropriate way to accomplish your stated goal of getting me banned. --Potguru (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potguru My only goal is to have a good encyclopedia, I have no POV one way or the other on the topic as long as the articles are consistent. I have asked you politely twice now to stop and gain consensus first, if that doesn't work, I am not sure what to do other than ask for a topic ban. Lipsquid (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your stated goal is to get me banned because you are mad that I am changing the incorrectly used word "cannabis" on state level article where all the sources CLEARLY point to the word "marijuana". If you want to make this a great encyclopedia then help me correct the text in the body of articles to actually reflect the cited source, not some fantasy avbout what we want the source to say. And please, one more time, take this petty conversation off LaMona's talk page as none of this is any of LaMona's concern. --Potguru (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William D. Duke

I saw that you were the last reviewer for this draft. I was not the draft's creator, but I did try to clean it up a bit, and also added a few extra refs. Please take another look if you have a chance. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92 , thanks, I published it. It could use more work, but he's notable by wp:ACADEMICS so it can continue to be worked on in main wiki space. LaMona (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:32, 16 May 2016 review of submission by Dmulan123

Hello LaMona, I have made edits per your suggestion and added additional credible third party sources. I see you have made further edits as well - thank you for that! Was wondering why you didn't accept the article? Dmulan123 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Dmulan123[reply]

User:Dmulan123, when you resubmit it does back into the review pool -- most likely someone else will get it. LaMona (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:35, 17 May 2016 review of submission by M.Nishant


Hi, thank you for your valuable feedback. I have made the required changes to the content as well as added some references to the article. Kindly have a look. M.Nishant (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, M.Nishant. It is better, but remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Companies must be encyclopedic in nature to have an entry that meets the criteria. The main policy, wp:corp 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." So it is those that have had an impact on history, society, or education that are a good fit here. I don't see that in the company in this article. Sorry. You can, however, resubmit to get the opinion of a different reviewer. LaMona (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for review my article Dingtone and offer me kind advice. I am a green hand on WIKI and i will follow the helpful tips to make my article neutral and reliable.Thanks a lot:） Ellen Cooper (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submission article on predictive engineering analytics

Dear LaMona, Thank you for reviewing my article on 'predictive engineering analytics'. I am a new user, so thanks for explaining me that references are absolutely necessary. I have added now references to the different sections. Can you let me know if this is sufficient? Thank you! BartVanLierde (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BartVanLierde. I see that you have added some references. However, there are still sections that are entirely unreferenced (and the article is overly long). Surely the information comes from somewhere, and that is what you must show. Everything in WP must be verifiable - so it must be possible for a reader to see where you got your information from. In terms of the length, look at WP:ESSAY and see if that doesn't help you understand how to edit the article. It is also possible that some of what you have is already covered in other articles - if that is the case, you should not repeat it here, but refer to those articles. Your article should be integrating with other articles on the same general topic, so think of your topic in the context what already exists. LaMona (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, I have added all references now. Everything in the text has at least one reference that users can use for verifying the information. I also made the text a bit more compact as to your recommendation. For some content I could indeed refer to other wikipedia-pages. However, I also had to frame them in the context of my subject. As this concerns an industry approach to design and development of products, it de facto combines multiple elements, which makes the page lengthy anyway. I cannot leave parts out... Thank you for helping me making this page better! I hope you like it and it can go online! Kind regards BartVanLierde (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:LaMona! I don't know if you saw my message... Forgot to 'mention' you. So maybe you overlooked it. Are my edits ok, and can the article move to publication? Thanks BartVanLierde (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BartVanLierde, Hi. It's in the review queue, so someone will pick it up. I did see that you added references, so that is good. I usually don't review two times in a row on the same article because it's good to get other eyes on it. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:LaMona! Ok, I see. Thank you! BartVanLierde (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:LaMona! Is there a way I can see if someone is doing the verification? How does this work? Does this happen in a sort of chronological order? Or do I just need to wait until someone finds this sufficiently interesting to verify? Thanks! BartVanLierde (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat random, and it often takes a while. Right now we are backed up, so it is taking longer than usual. LaMona (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:07, 17 May 2016 review of submission by Ex-paparazzi


Hi, User:Ex-paparazzi - You didn't ask a question, but I can provide some advice. This is the second article you have created here, and you need to adjust your expectations of Wikipedia so that you can write in the appropriate style. Wikipedia does not allow promotion or advertising - it is an encyclopedia and provides facts about significant people, places, events, and other topics. Articles must be written in a neutral, factual tone. ALL INFORMATION in the articles must be sourced to third-party, independent sources, like newspaper or magazines, but not promotional sources. Any information that is not sourced may be removed by other editors. I will do some editing on the Natalia Valevskaya (fashion designer) article so you can see what I mean. LaMona (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, User:LaMona! Thank you so much for your help. Yes, I am very aware of the Wikipedia rules but am a bit confused. Does this mean that the whole article must be comprised of citations from other sources? I cannot write any of my own text whatsoever? I would be very thankful if you could edit the article I am trying to submit. The Natalia Valevskaya (fashion designer) article was made many years ago, I really had almost no sources of information except for their corporate web site. Here, on the other hand, I have a lot of sources but it still doesn't seem enough. Maybe you could put "citation needed" marks wherever you think is necessary? That would really help me see what to look for in the future. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex-paparazzi (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ex-paparazzi, yes, the whole article must be taken from other sources, although you must take the information that is those and put it into your own words. Information that you know from your own experience cannot be included unless you can source it. If you have no sources other than the corporate web site, then the subject does not meet the criteria for a WP article. For the BE OPEN article, I would greatly reduce the section on the awards, much of which is not sourced. Then, you have to make sure that what you say in the article is actually in the sources. The best way to create an article is to first gather the sources and what they say, then write the article from that. If you write the article from what you know, you may not have sources for everything. As an example, the 1st paragraph of Inside the Experiment has a reference to Schnabel, but that reference does not include the information in the first part of the paragraph, only the reference to Schnabel. It's not a matter of just putting references on each paragraph -- every fact in the article must be verifiable in the references that are provided. I can mark a few areas, but I would have to read every reference in order to edit the article -- that's a lot to ask. I'd rather you take a pass at it first. I'll mark a few spots as examples. LaMona (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, you also must use less promotional language. WP is an encyclopedia and its articles are made up of facts. You need to state things factually. This means that you cannot say " for a spectacular initiation period." Spectacular is not neutral. Also statements like "the journey of discovery" and " a totally new approach" are marketing-speak. As long as phrases like this are in the article you will have difficulty getting it accepted. I edited some paragraphs for neutral language. LaMona (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:09 18th May Review of C9orf91

Hello,

On my sand box page, I responded to one reviewer's comment, by removing the section of question. Then you stated this does not answer his question, which to me it seems it does, could you be a little bit more clear on this?

Thanks,

Akhilbhargava (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Akhilbhargava, we're looking at: "The protein has been identified from primates up to the common fruit fly. To the current date, there has been no protein expression found past insects." The problems I have are with the "up to" and "past". First, one doesn't usually go from a more complex organism "up" a much more simple one. It would probably be best to say something like: "has been found in organisms from fruit flies to primates. No protein expression has been found in organisms simpler than insects." I don't know if "simpler" is the right term here, but perhaps you do. There are other awkward phrasings in the document. I will see what I can do for those,at least where it doesn't change the meaning. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:20, 19 May 2016 review of submission by Ex-paparazzi


Dear LaMona, thank you so much for helping me see where more citations are needed. I corrected all the places you marked and also added a few more references in other parts, following the same pattern. Please let me know if any other edits are needed. Thank you for your time and effort. Have a nice day!

User:Ex-paparazzi - Another thing: you cannot copy text from your sources. The paragraph that begins "More than 300 entries from around the world..." is taken directly from Wallpaper magazine. That is a copyright violation, and could get your article summarily deleted in order to protect Wikipedia. You must reword information so that it isn't copied. Plus, the style of writing of a magazine is not suitable for Wikipedia. Note that you can use a reference more than once if it is the source for information in more than one area of the article. LaMona (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex-paparazzi (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:59, 19 May 2016 review of submission by TeddyRome


HI! I added as many references as I could and I hope they will substantiate the article, but how do I save the changes without posting it? I wanted someone to review it before publishing it, but if I click the save button it is automatically published. Anyway, I will try once again and, as per Wikipedia's rules .. I'll be bold and keep trying! Thanks for your help! TeddyRome (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)TeddyRome[reply]

Hi, TeddyRome - I'm not sure of your distinction between "saving" and "publishing" -- basically, all changes on Wikipedia are visible, so that may be what you wish did not happen ;-). However, your article is not submitted to the review until you click on the "resubmit" button. There are a number of formatting issues (we have a style manual that needs to be followed). I'll fix some of the more glaring ones, and that will make the article look better. Then you can resubmit. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it now looks great. Resubmit and I will look for it to move it to the main Wiki. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LaMona thank you for your help! Before resubmitting it I have added another reference next to the first school he attended and added the links to John Cabot University and Gallaudet. It really looks nice to me. I hope it will be approved! have a nice day! TeddyRome (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)TeddyRomeTeddyRome (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:24, 22 May 2016 review of submission by GB-Ferrari


Hello LaMona, I tried my best to bring the article into form. Please let me know, if I could do anything more. Would be great if you could assist. Regards GB-Ferrari (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GB-Ferrari, I added some more references and sent it on. It still needs some more references for the history area, but hopefully others will work on it now that it is public. LaMona (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thoughtful reviews // Houston, We Have a Problem (2016) // Ladydevlish

Hi.

Thanks for your feedback about reviews etc. The issue is that the movie only had 4 days of run-time in the US (and it won't have any more, as it won't have a general release), in Slovenia it' still running, in Croatia it stopped due to the complicated political issue and in Serbia it just started it's run.

The press clipping for US: http://www.thewrap.com/docu-fiction-movie-confuses-tribeca-film-festival-audience-and-thats-the-point/ http://blogs.artinfo.com/outtakes/2016/04/24/tribeca-parting-thoughts/ http://moveablefest.com/moveable_fest/2016/04/ziga-virc-houston-we-have-problem.html http://www.full-stop.net/2016/04/22/interviews/michael-schapira/ziga-virc/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-at-the-2016-tribeca-film-festival-and-beyond/ https://tribecafilm.com/stories/interview-houston-we-have-a-problem-documentary-ziga-virc-tribeca-film-festival http://dailyfreepress.com/2016/04/22/tribeca-film-festival-15-film-review/ http://www.metro.us/entertainment/12-films-to-see-at-the-tribeca-film-festival/zsJpdm---fCdXwmoVJgpQA/ http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/festivals/tribeca/2016/tribeca-2016-viewpoints https://viewofthearts.com/2016/05/02/houston-we-have-a-problem-review/

I've got a lot of press for Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, which I gladly provide. All the relevant big media have had a say, the professional, really hardcore film critics will probably not review it, as they see it as too commercial, all the relevant regional festivals will be either in the fall or next year... The articles are all in the regional languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.211.195 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should add what reviews you have, like those above. Don't just list them - use them to provide content. And if you can find any sources about it being blocked, those would be important. The thing is, on Wikipedia sources are everything. If the movie is obscure, hasn't been seen much, nor has been reviewed much, then it doesn't pass notability. (See WP:GNG). However, if you can show that there is controversy that is being discussed, that may provide the notability, and it would explain the lack of viewing. LaMona (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:41, 23 May 2016 review of submission by Mporter1



Hi,

There appear to be valid Wikipedia entries for a number of other similar challenger energy companies, such as -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovo_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Utility

Hence, I'm unsure why GB Energy Supply are regarded as 'not encyclopedic', as they are very similar. Additional sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/think-you-got-the-cheapest-energy-deal-through-a-comparison-site-think-again-a6756356.html http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/lancashire-energy-firm-eyes-100m-mark-1-7902212

Thanks.

Mporter, whether or not those are similar, your article must meet the criteria in WP:CORP for notability. Your article is spare and has only three sources. Note how much more content there is in those other articles. The GB company is called "fledgling" in late 2015 so it may be too soon for the company to meet WP's notability criteria. If so, the article can be updated when there are more sources and more content. But remember that the point of WP is to impart information for readers. Just adding sources is not enough. You have to explain to the reader what matters about the company. Anything important in the sources must be brought into the article for the reader. LaMona (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:15:02, 23 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 87.224.29.5


Wikipedia continues to decline sources for Asante Capital yet the very same sources are used on competitors page (Rede Partners, Campbell Lutyens, etc). Why is it acceptable for them to do so but not for Asante Capital? Seems a bit biased.

87.224.29.5 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with "competitors" -- you haven't put the references inline with the text. See wp:Refbegin, and if that doesn't make sense to you, ask for help at the TeaHouse. Basically, you have article formatting problems that have to be resolved. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:39, 23 May 2016 review of submission by PaintbrushArt



HI LaMona, I see the change you made on background section. I do not know how to code this or websites. What I did was something that I could see and copy. I do not understand how to do the footnotes. Can you please show me the formatting so i can copy it.

Thank you PaintbrushArt PaintbrushArt (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaintbrushArt, when you are in edit mode, at the top of the edit box there is a row with things you can click on, like Bold or Special characters. Click on "cite" and a new row will appear with a pull-down for templates. Click on that, select the template you want, and fill in the boxes. You don't have to fill in all of the boxes, just the ones for which you have information. It's ok to just have a URL and a title. Someone else may come along and fill in more information after you. Do this with your cursor at the place where you want the reference to go, and it will be placed there when you click on "Insert". If this still doesn't work for you, ask for help at the Teahouse. LaMona (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Jing

Hello, I would like to rename my draft Huang Jing to Huang Jing (artist) because a same name article already exists... how can I do it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsheng (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, so you should now find it at Draft:Huang Jing (artist). LaMona (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Charles Cunningham Oke

Thank you for your helpful review. I will attempt to make the suggested changes. Klossoke (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)klossoke.[reply]

16:03:10, 27 May 2016 review of submission by Jeanettenj11



Hello, I resubmitted my page with your suggestions and edits to ensure the article was neutral in tone. I was wondering if you would be able to review it again? Many thanks! Jeanette

When it is resubmitted, usually a different reviewer gets it. But someone will review it. Also, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. LaMona (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nle043

Hi Mona, thank you much for taking your time to review my article. I has made an additional improvements, and addressed your concerned by adjusting the topic and some of the content.However, I am unsure on how to link it to another article " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_student" section as per requested. How do I address this issue?

Nle043 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nle043, to link to another Wikipedia article, you put the name of the Wikipedia article in square brackets. You do it from some text that names the article. So if you want to say that "There are many international students." you would write "There are many [[International student|international students]]." The simple explanation is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking -- there's a more detailed one, but I just looked at it and it would frighten most people away. The manual of style page, and only the first few sections, should be all that you need. It also helps explain when to link, and how to not "overlink". If you have trouble figuring it out, the volunteers at the TeaHouse are very good at explaining this. LaMona (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:17, 28 May 2016 review of submission by Abjorck42


Hi, thank you for reviewing my article submission. I was hoping I can ask you a few questions about your review. I'm a little bit surprised that she is not found to be notable enough, considering the facts that 1. She has written a song for an major record label Universal Music Japan's artist 2. Her music is featured in Japanese TV shows and Australian TV commercial 3. Her latest album is produced by the multiple Grammy-winning producer Will Ackerman, and featuring the Grammy-winning cellist Eugene Friesen 4. The album is currently ranked at No. 3 on a national radio chart (Zone Music Reporter), although this this is not notated on the draft 5. A short film that she wrote music for got a coverage on The Huffington Post 6. Her music is currently used as a theme song for a weather forecast show on Tokyo Metropolitan Television

I have seen a few artists who has similar or fewer notable career highlights than her on Wikipedia. Would you be so kind to give me advice regarding how I can improve the article and show her notability properly?

Thank you so much for your time.

Hi, User:Abjorck42. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. That's different from the actual article pages. Next, it isn't whether she is or isn't notable, but whether there are sources to support notability. That means that there need to be sources that are about her, not by her, and preferably the sources would be substantially about her, not just a sentence that says that she provided the music. The HuffPost coverage is of sort of medium weight, since that's a blog and not very formal in terms of content. If she has charted, then you need to put that in the draft. If you read WP:MUSIC you will see that charting is one of the main criteria. Have there been feature articles about her? There is of course the difficulty that this is English wikipedia and ideally there would be sources that show that she has notability in the English-speaking world, although sources in other languages are accepted. LaMona (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and advice. I will fix the article and add references accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abjorck42 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Edward Leung Yiu-ming

I added a little bit of information with a third source. I hope that's enough, right? --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, you need to show that there are substantial sources about the person. Listings in directories can support facts, but do not show notability since most directories are inclusive. The same is true of the book you cite because it is intended to be an inclusive filmography. So you have supported facts, but you have not shown that this person has received significant attention, which would mean newspaper or magazine articles about him. It is hard with screenwriters because their work is mostly behind the scenes and they don't get much attention, but you need at least some sources that are substantially about him. We don't consider having ones name mentioned on one page of a book to support notability. LaMona (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found one award nomination. Is that enough? George Ho (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, Nominations are pretty low on the notability scale. It's great that someone was nominated, but wins for major awards are what support notability. It is possible that this person's career is taking off, and that soon there will be more evidence to support notability. If you cannot complete the draft today, it remains here for at least 6 months after the last edit. You will be notified when there is one month to go, and even any small edit will give you another six months. So you can continue looking for sources without any real deadline. LaMona (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help with the Jessica Lynn Wiki page. I really appreciate the chance to continue to work on it and am hopeful that with your advice, it will pass muster. Thanks again!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=722721066"