User talk:LaMona

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iriebeatz (talk • contribs) 04:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Iriebeatz - a couple of things. First, sign your messages by putting 4 tildes in a row at the end of your message. Second, one of the basic tenets of Wp is be civil. Making accusations, etc. are not appreciated, and could even get you blocked from editing. Third, please understand the AfC process. Nothing has been blocked. AfC is a process, and in each step of the process you get the advice of an editor. You make the changes suggested by the editor, and you re-submit. In particular, my advice to you is that you may not use sales sites (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) as references, which is why I advised that you read through the policy on reliable sources. By reading that, you will understand what references are preferred, and what references should definitely be avoided. In terms of the neutrality of language, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. Some examples of non-encyclopedic style in your article are: "Leroy has a natural love for old rhythms..." and "Loving the production business so much...". These need to be reworded, as you'll read about in the style guide, so that they are factual in nature. Another fairly strict Wikipedia rule is that all statements must be referenced. You have entire sections that have no references. If your article goes into main space with these unreferenced sections, other editors can summarily delete them, since unreferenced material in articles about living people are strongly discouraged. So by making these changes, your article will avoid problems when it is moved into the main WP space. LaMona (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok LaMona thanks then. Peace.

Rejection of Draft Page for Nicolas Michaelsen

Hi LaMona, I just saw your message about COI, however I could not find a link to that document in the post. Would you mind sharing it with me again?

Best, Pesanteur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesanteur (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pesanteur, you can find the information at wp:coi. As the page says: "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict." Note that while there is some stigma to COI editing on WP, those who are upfront about it and follow the guidelines are appreciated. Remember, also, that on talk pages you have to sign your messages by adding four (4) tilde's to the end of the message. There is a reminder at the bottom of the edit box, but it often scrolls off screen for me, so you may not have noticed it. LaMona (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Page for James O'Connell

Hi LaMona, I just saw your detailed message. Thanks so much! I will make the changes accordingly. Best, Jimaning

Comment on draft page for Augustus Martin

Hi LaMona Thanks for your feedback, that was really helpful. I have changed the references for the Augustus Martin page and added dates, authors and company. I hope this time it passes

Please let me know anything else I need to do

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

Did you know that Wikipedia has its own library? The Wikipedia Library is seeking volunteers from those in galleries, libraries, archives and museums.

• Become an account coordinator to distribute research accounts to editors
• Get involved in some of our special projects:
  • Expand our Resources page with free resources for editors in all subject areas
  • Help develop a template for citing archival collections
  • Write guides to accessing and using library resources

Sign up to help here :)

Talk back

Hello, LaMona. You have new messages at Artfiend1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mara_Ahmed

Hi LaMona. Thank you for your suggestions on how to include more references in the body of the article and on how to use specific links that talk about the work being referenced. Changes have been made accordingly. There are now a large number of references in the article which link to a large number of well-known sources such as PBS (WXXI), The Hindu, City Newspaper, etc. Please let me know if the article can be formatted any better. Thank you once again for all your help. Artfiend1 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Thank you for making changes which integrate references much better into the article's text. You help is much appreciated (and was much needed). Pls let me know if the article needs anything else. This is the first article I've edited for Wikipedia and your suggestions are most welcome. Look forward to hearing from you. Artfiend1 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Artfiend1 - You're welcome. However, I didn't actually finish because I ran out of "awake time" last night, so if you could see if there is any more of that kind of editing that you can do, it might soon make sense to re-submit. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Wonderful to hear from you. You edited most of the text - once again thank you so much. I looked at her Art section and her Writing section. The Art section is short and straightforward with the correct references it seems. Her Writing section is organized based on the topics she writes and speaks about i.e. Pakistan, diversity, etc. Each of those topics are cross-referenced with things that she's written or presented. Is that ok? I see that you also looked at her articles and fixed the formatting. Pls let me know what you see as missing and I will be happy to fix. Thanks! Artfiend1 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Finished correcting the formatting of all the references based on your corrections. Should the article be resubmitted? Pls let me know your thoughts. Thanks so much. Artfiend1 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Artfiend1 - yes, resubmit! LaMona (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

thx LaMona. Just resubmitted! Artfiend1 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, thank you so much for all your help with the article. You are obviously a brilliant editor but also an extremely generous contributor to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for being so supportive and accessible. Artfiend1 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, LaMona. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi LaMona-- Thank you for your feedback on the Anchor Graphics article I'm writing. I added more outside references. I do appreciate your comments so please let me know if this is ready, or closer to being ready. Thanks again-- Marilyn Propp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proppjones (talk • contribs) 03:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proppjones - I wish it were possible to get a PDF of the demo3 issue because I think there is good stuff in there but the fancy formatting makes it impossible to read. I think that there is much more to be said about Anchor, but a WP article is never really finished. I'm going to let someone else give it final approval since I've been editing it. If it doesn't make it through then we need to dig more into Demo and see what we can pull out. LaMona (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona-- I DO have the DEMO article as a pdf-- How can I attach it so you can have it? Thank you-- Marilyn Propp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proppjones (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proppjones There isn't a way to attach it here, and it is undoubtedly copyrighted so it can't be uploaded. Do look through it for more content for your article. It seemed to me that there was quite a bit in there. LaMona (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A puppy for you!

Golden Retriever puppy

Thanks, LaMona! This is helpful. I've deleted the two Frick references that aren't just links to taped lectures, and edited out the over-exuberant sentence. I'll be very grateful for any other advice you can offer.

(I noticed you already have kittens and thought you might like a broader menagerie!)

Draft:Judy Wood

Hi, I wanted to let you know that the reason I didn't include any information on her book ("Where Did the Towers Go?") was that I couldn't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. Best, Everymorning talk 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Everymorning, you can still say that she wrote it, and there is proof of that.You can add the web site for the book to the external links. There is as much evidence of this publication as her academic publications, no? The big problem with the book is that it is self-published, so that detracts from her credentials, and the only reviews are in "fringe" sources. But it seems odd not to at least include the book in her list of publications. Include the ISBN and it becomes linkable. LaMona (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD== Thanks for the hlelp with the veery clear explanation. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Abelardo

Hello, I'm Carlos Vicioso, I recently submitted my article about my father, Abelardo Vicioso, a Dominican writer, and already placed all the reliable references required (34 references), but still no answer. Is it still in process? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvic65 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Carvic65: Your article does not appear in the list of draft articles. Did you re-submit it? If so, please reply to me the URL and I will try to find it. Also, on talk pages you have to sign your messages with four consecutive tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box that you can just lick on. Note that since you are writing about a relative, you should read carefully through Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest policy. The advice there will help you avoid going against policies for writing and editing in areas where you are not just a neutral observer. LaMona (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:57:32, 13 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg

• Latimeria bg (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Drug2Gene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

First of all, thank you for your review and your comment.

I asked for help from Sulfurboy, too, as he was also a reviewer to the Drug2Gene draft after resubmission following your initial decline.

I would like ask for some more advice and explanations on what is lacking to prove subject's (Drug2Gene database) notability and what makes the references not verifiable and not able to prove notability?

You have commented that except for the sole article on this subject, there is only one more mention that is by one of the same authors as that article, and some promotional listings found through a Google search, but no third-party neutral sources for this topic are available. However, 5 references were included in the article, 1 on the Drug2Gene database, and 4 other publications entirely independent on the subject, non of them having the same author as the authors of the Drug2Gene publication.

Is the problem that the referencing does not adequately support the statements in the article, or that references are not enough in number to prove notability, or that they are not discussing Drug2Gene importance and usability? Three of the cited sources find Drug2Gene important enough to mention it as available public drug-target database, along with DrugBank, ChEMBL, TTD, MATADOR, KEGG Drug, etc., one of them (Glaab et al) is commenting its usefulness: "Drug2Gene [29], the currently most comprehensive meta-database, may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries".

Could you please advice me how should be improved in the Drug2Gene draft so it could become worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Thank you very much in advance!

Latimeria bg (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Latimeria bg (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Latimeria bg, in the draft article, there is a journal article about the database, then some journal articles about the general topic of data visualization in the field in question that mention the database. Mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. You need more sources that are about the database itself, or that have significant coverage of the database (more than a mention or a single paragraph). LaMona (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:58:05, 14 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg

• Latimeria bg (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Drug2Gene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, thanks a lot for your reply. I understand.

I have added two more citations in the resubmitted version on Aug 11. However, they also seem not to be enough.

So, we need more articles on the database itself, as well as independent resources referencing/mentioning Drug2Gene and discussing its usability with a deeper coverage, or at least one of them, right?

Thanks again!

Latimeria bg (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Latimeria bg (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Latimeria bg, that's right. You need to show that others have considered it important enough to write about it. The articles don't have to be solely about the database, but they need to have more than a short mention of it - perhaps a review of databases and the relative advantages of each? (Don't know if your field does that kind of thing.) If it hasn't gotten that attention yet, you may need to wait until it does. If you wait, it is a good idea to create a copy of the article on your own computer because old drafts can get deleted. LaMona (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello! LaMona, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Snowycats (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

23:33:06, 16 August 2015 review of submission by Roma247

• Roma247 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joseph F. Rigge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, I'm not sure how this talk thing works so I hope I've got this right.

Thanks for your comments on my article. You're right, the tone needed some work. Ironically, I was just representing in my own words the actual source material, but nevertheless, it did need to be toned down. I edited it for this and I think I removed anything that sounds too much like peacock language. Let me know if I missed anything.

I hear you about the primary sources, but in this case, since I'm not making any conclusions, I'm only using that as a way of citing my facts (dates, places, etc.) hopefully that shouldn't be a problem? Roma247 (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Roma247 (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Roma247: I was able to easily find two books that at least mention him, and that may provide information for the article:

• [1]
• [2]

This tells me that there are secondary sources for information about him, and secondary sources are preferred over primary sources (like you have now). So I would advise adding in secondary sources where you can find them -- probably from book sources.

P.S. I find the talk page thing confusing as well. LaMona (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@LaMona: Thanks again for the advice...I was able to find several more references above and beyond those you pointed out and even found some new facts to improve the article. Now resubmitted.Roma247 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Tring-Albania

Hello,

I removed much of the content of the article Tring Albania and changed many of the sentences. Please can You review it once again, and maybe suggest me what else should I removeor change so the article can be acceptable for Wikipedia? Many of the references are in albanian. Some of them are statistics written by government agencies.

We would like to have an article similar to Digit-alb and Sky.com

Thanks in advance!

Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Andjelo Dragovic I looked again at the article today. Unfortunately, you still do not have many sources that are ABOUT the TV network - and the ones that are either by the network or by affiliates do not support wp:notability. Also, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as references - you can link to them in the text of your article as internal links (that show up blue, and are text surrounded by two sets of square brackets), but you can't use them as references. What you need to do is find newspaper or magazine articles, or business journal articles, about the network. If you can find some in English, that is a plus, but they do not have to be in English. LaMona (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, Tring TV now is only a part of Tring. Of course, the name "Tring" would be more suitable for the page, but since Tring is registered on Wikipedia as a city in England, I can't use it. That's why I thought to use the name Tring-Albania. I also removed again some of the texts in the Article Draft:Tring-Albania Please can You take a look again the article?Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Andjelo Dragovic, you have a number of inline links in the text and in the lists. These are not allowed in WP - you can either turn those into references (if they support the content of the text) or you can use them as external links. (See the change I just made by looking in the History tab.) As far as references, you still have only a small number of references and they don't say much about the network. Surely there are business magazine or newspaper articles that describe the company and give an analysis of it. That's what you need to find. LaMona (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello LaMona, many thanks for the responses. I removed all the inline links from the article. The reference to the institutemedia.org, links to an article that talks about the Development of the Digital Media in Albania. This article writes about Tring in many pages, but specifically in page 16 it writes about Tring customers, about 290,000. This is not a small number compared with the size of Albania. Maybe this article could be published but have the "This article does not cite any references or sources." notification? There are many articles in WP about different companies that do not have the size, notability, reliability of references. Tring-Albania is now so short and full of references. Can You please suggest an further improvements? Again, many thanks. Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Andjelo Dragovic, I reduced the article to the referenced information. There may be more information in the articles that you could add that would make the article richer. However, I think at this point that it is 1) not promotional 2) fully sourced. You should send it again for review. LaMona (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks LaMona, i really appreciate your help. I am going to submit it for review now. Please if you have time, Accept the Subnission and publish the Article. Please...Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, I added a referenze to an book in English, Telecommunications Companies of Albania, I cant se the content of the book, but can see from the description that it contains content about Tring. So, Please LaMona can You accept the article Draft:Tring-Albania ? Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft of Graydon Hoare

Hello LaMona,

Thanks for your comments on the article! I followed your advice and added links/references to interviews involving the subject before resubmitting. I am not sure why those modifications are not appearing since you mentioned you could not see any changes. Please let me know how I should proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.154.86 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the history tab of the article, there are no edits there after mine. Are you sure that you are saving your changes? LaMona (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the diff I see between the initial rejection and the changes I made thereafter: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AGraydon_Hoare&type=revision&diff=676230101&oldid=676000384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.154.86 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, now I see it. Perhaps I did the wrong diff. However, the article is still only two sentences, and you don't have any "reliable sources", that is, sources that are about the subject of the article, not by him. Although you can glean info from interviews, they don't establish notability. The programming languages themselves are notable, but it is quite possible that the individuals who wrote them are not independently notable. (Tip: sign your messages on talk pages by putting four tildes at the end. See the hint at the bottom of the edit box.) LaMona (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

16:41:11, 18 August 2015 review of submission by Nick Saturday

• Nick Saturday (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marcin Przybyłek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

thanks for your explanations and suggestions. I tried to do what you told me. I hope I managed to show the external resources and that I edited everything properly. Please tell me if the text (and sources) are fine now or if I still need to correct something.

Nick Saturday (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick Saturday (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• User:Nick Saturday Thanks for getting in touch. You still have many sources that are not considered reliable. It is actually better to remove those than to just add more sources. Sources that are not reliables are: Wikipedia (you still have a reference to a WP article); blogs; fan sites; Facebook, Youtube, and other social sites that are not governed by an editorial policy; any site that sells his material or that promotes him in some way. I am not familiar with Polish gaming sources, and for gaming it is difficult in general to find references in the mainstream press (newspapers, etc.). I cannot advise you as to particular sources that would be considered reliable, but using the list I have given you try to reduce the number of un-reliable sources, which will detract from the perceived value of the page. Do read the suggestions for reliable sources at wp:rs. p.s. I may do some editing for style on the article, if that's ok with you. LaMona (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, thanks for another set of ideas. I'll try to do my best. Unfortunately with games, it's virtually impossible to omit promo as here sellers and producers and publishers are often closely linked. Przybyłek & his publishers often give access to his books in electronic version, hence many pages about him, have direct connections to shops... which also sell his game... Any mainstream magazines are actually gamers magazines which also advertise & sell games... I've got the same problem with omitting Facebook & Youtube. The Facebook page is not about Przybyłek, but about his creation, Gamedecverse... More than half of his writing is related to that. And the game as well... His Youtube Channel is the way he takes part in public discussions. If I omit that, then I'm nor reliable? Blogs I present belong to literature and game aficionados... They are highly specialised and very often quite critical. The two sites about gamedecverse are not fan sites but are managed by Przybyłek. Should I remove them? Is that advertising? When it's a source of info about the author and his publications, convents, etc.? I do understand that I need to edit my sources, but most of those are best you can find.

Nick Saturday (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. To be sure I'm not leading you astray, I suggest you pop over to the Wikipedia video games project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Video_games. That describes some reliable sources in the video games arena. Most are English-language sources, but you can also ask on the talk pages for that project about the sources you have. Let me know if you do and I'll follow the discussion -- it'll be a good education for me, as well. As for his Youtube channel and his Facebook page, those can go in the external sources section of the article. That's where you put sources that are relevant but aren't usable as references. (I'm so glad you keep coming back! And I want to work with you to get this article into shape for main space.) LaMona (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

08:03:51, 22 August 2015 review of submission by Theorignal JD

• Theorignal JD (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sabina Brennan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, first of all thank you for reviewing this article. I have added new references many from reliable TV interviews with the subject on National News station and TV talk Shows. Also additional references from the print media. Are these now sufficient - perhaps you can advise now or should I just resubmit

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucane/programmes/2014/0222/506035-marian-finucane-saturday-22-february-2014/?clipid=1424195#1424195

http://www.tv3.ie/ireland_am_video.php?locID=1.65.74&video=76440

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2014/0218/20528192-researchers-at-trinity-college-develop-online-videos-on-brain-health/ Hello Brain

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20659401%3A0%3A%3A

The Lancet Neurology|date=March 2015|volume=14|issue=3|page=251}}</ref>

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/buff-up-your-brain-power-1.1954869?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Flife-and-style%2Fhealth-family%2Fbuff-up-your-brain-power-1.1954869

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/282964.php%7Cwebsite=Medical News Today

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/the-week-in-politics/2015/0412/#page=2

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1387505.ece

My apologies I didnt know that IMBD doesn't count - do I need to remove those references?

Theorignal JD (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Theorignal JD It is best to remove the IMDB references -- the article looks more "serious" without them. I'll take another look at the article today. LaMona (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Re- submit Dafna Lemish page - by Lihi NT

Hi LaMona,

I've made some changes in Dafna Lemish page, according to your suggestions: I've added several links containing information on her Public engagement and voluntarism,an announcement in the college newspaper regarding revciving an award, another artical she wrote for a convetion she has participate, and a video - an interview about her research on children and media.

Also, i've eddited the References - it looks much better now :).

I realy hope you'll confirm the artical now. It's very important to me, and i think this page is truly reliable and accurate; as most of the information has been given to me by Dafna Lemish herself.

I hope to hear good news. Have a good week

LihiLihi NT (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lihi NT Unfortunately, that you got your accurate information from Lemish herself is a problem. All information in Wikipedia needs to be sourced to third-party, neutral sources. Please read reliable sources. You still have large portions of the article that do not have suitable references, probably because the information came from her. The information that you got from her and that you cannot cite to a published source should be removed from the article. Information that comes directly from the subject of the article is considered original research: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." For the article to be accepted into Wikipedia main space it must use information only from published resources. However, I am convinced that there are suitable published resources (although the article will not have some of the personal information about the subject) and that the subject probably meets the guidelines for academics (another page you should read). LaMona (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Article on Jason Smart

• 62.80.166.138 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jason J Smart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per footnote 22, it does directly mention Smart, here is the quote, "27 апреля руководители партии Ф. Кулов и Алиев Э.Т.приняли директора Евразийского отдела Международного Республиканского Института/США/ Стефена Никса (Stefen B. Nix,Esq. Director Eurasia Division IRI) и директора Международного Республиканского Института в Бишкеке Джейсона Смарта (Jason Smart Resident Country, Director IRI)." It is towards the bottom of the page. I verified that nearly all (though you are right about the Cruz quotes), directly mention him in English or Russian.

62.80.166.138 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that "mentions" are generally not sufficient for sources to be considered adequate. In other words, if the person's name appears in the text but the content is not primarily about the person, the source is too minor. An article primarily using minor sources does not prove the notability of the subject. It is better to have only a few major sources (ones truly about the subject) than to have many minor ones. If there are no major sources, then the subject's notability is not proven, and the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's all about sources and notability. You should edit the article with that in mind. Adding more minor sources is actually a detriment to the article, so concentrate on the major ones, and take your content, where you can, from those. LaMona (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I will take another stab at it. I thought that reference was good, as it talked about his meeting and advice to the Kyrgyz political leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.166.138 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

13:53:11, 31 August 2015 review of submission by HaileFrance

• HaileFrance (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kalypso Kollege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, thank you for your review.

The links that I posted all make reference to the radio programme Kalypso Kollege. One refers to its time slot on the radio station on which it is aired, one refers to a show produced by the Kalypso Kollege which is one of the activities of the show, and two are by writers who refer to the programme. Is it that the articles must be exclusively about the Kalypso Kollege from start to finish?

HaileFrance (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

HaileFrance, the references need at least have substantial information ABOUT the radio program. Mostly what you have are what we call "name checks" -- the name appears, but no further information is given. Program listings are not sufficient - they just verify that the show exists. In two of the references, the show is not even mentioned (#s 5 and 6). You need to find something like a review of the show, or a write-up about its importance in a newspaper or magazine. LaMona (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LaMona. Is there a deadline for me to provide the references? I dont want my article to be deleted, but it could take a week or two for me to complete the research. HaileFrance (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

HaileFrance, don't worry, you have plenty of time. Just don't request another review until you've made the edits. LaMona (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Boy afd

Hi LaMona, sorry if i got a bit carried away in the above discussion.

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Coolabahapple No problem. A lively exchange of views is what it's all about, and all was civil. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Many thanks!!!!! :)))) Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:45:51, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Csinacola

• Csinacola (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Perry Rosenthal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, Can you offer more detailed guidance on this article? You suggest it needs further reliable sources. Earlier versions went into greater detail, with sources, but those versions were rejected for lack of third-party verification/adjudication, and perhaps, although previous reviewer didn't state as much, because the theories advanced are controversial. I can restore those references and add additional ones, but it would help to know what specific points of the profile are being challenged. Any help is appreciated. Csinacola (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Csinacola (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Csinacola, let me see what I can figure out. The field (ophthalmology) is not one I am familiar with, so I'll need to dig around. What will probably solidify his notability will be the awards, so if you can find the text of any of the awards he has gotten that talk about his accomplishments that will help out a lot. An award like "2005-2012 Best Doctors in America" needs a citation because there are lots of organizations and journals that give those out, and not all are considered reliable. I'll check earlier versions of the article to see if there are any references that need to be kept. LaMona (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Link - don't transclude

In your comment on draft:Northern Border Regional Commission you wrote {{wp:cite}}. This caused the entire text of {{wp:cite}} to be dragged into the page. This in turn caused someone else to tag the page for deletion as "copy and paste job nothing to do with Northern Border Regional Commission" and me to delete it. To refer to a template rather than using it, use {{tl}} thus: {{ping}}. But in this case it should have been a link anyway thus: "(see wp:cite for how to …". Apologies if you knew all this already. Why did you not look at the page after applying your comment? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - it was a typo, since [ and { are unfortunately on the same key. I'll be more careful. 15:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:09:39, 2 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg

• Latimeria bg (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Drug2Gene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, LaMona, thank you once again for the prompt reply. Last weeks I had limited access to internet, and I was not able to respond earlier.

You say that when others discuss the database, it should be reviewed in a comparison to other similar DBs. One of the citations included as reference (Glaab et.al.) in the Drug2Gene Articles for creation draft says: "Drug2Gene [29], the currently most comprehensive meta-database, may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries. Other repositories have a more specific scope, e.g. PDBbind [30] focuses exclusively on binding affinity data from protein–ligand complexes in the PDB...". It is a kind of comparison, rating Drug2Gene as "the currently most comprehensive meta-database" and commenting on its usability as well: "may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries". In the re-submitted version from August 11, I have extended this citation with direct quotation of the text of the reference, though not quoting the comprehensiveness comparative evaluation, but the usability comment only ("By providing a single access point to numerous publicly available, as well as predicted compound-target interactions, Drug2Gene may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries[2] relevant to identifying either known chemical compounds targeting a given gene or gene product, or known targets of a given drug.").

Is the problem that the referred discussion on the database advantages are not quoted or discussed in the text of the draft article (do I need to include quotations or at least rephrase of the sentences discussing the current resource)? Or is it that this in this reference the evaluation/review is not deep enough, but is again too short? Or if it is ok, is the problem that it is not enough to have only one such reference evaluating the resource usability, comprehensiveness, significance, etc.?

If a new publication on Drug2Gene becomes available, would it be enough in addition to the current references to cope with the notability criteria and make Drug2Gene worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia? Or more citations with deeper coverage would still be required?

Thank you very much again (and also for the advice for saving a copy in case of a longer waiting)!

I really appreciate your help!!

Latimeria bg (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Latimeria bg, sorry, I'm not sure if I answered this - I seem to have lost track. There need to be articles about the software that are written by people who are not directly involved with the software, and those articles need to have more than mentions. So the quote above, Glaab, is a single mention in a single sentence in an article about the general subject. There will need to be more substantial writings about the software by neutral third parties. This is what you called "not deep enough" and that is a very accurate way to saying it. And one reference is also not enough. So you need multiple references, all of which discuss the software in some depth. You may find some guidance at Wikipedia:Notability_(software), although I find that particular policy to be less helpful than some. LaMona (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Peter Sklar

Thank you, LaMona, for the further input you commented on my draft, Draft:Peter_Sklar. I responded to your comment on the page, but I'm not sure if that lets you know I responded or not, so I'm writing you here as well (please excuse if this is a double message).

Based on your specific recommendations, I have shortened my two largest sections (including omitting the part about Mr. Sklar's cousin), eliminated over a third of my citations, retaining only those most relevant to Mr. Sklar's career, (and using 2 citations for one statement only where the statement makes multiple references that can't be found in the same source), and made several additional requested edits as well. I hope the current draft is now acceptable. I would appreciate your feedback if you are able to give it- thank you! WriterFly (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Latimeria bg (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:06:03, 4 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Csinacola

• Csinacola (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Perry Rosenthal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, Not sure this posted properly, so forgive the repeat in that case!: In response to your questions: “Are you being paid to create this article? Do you have a conflict of interest (as per wp:coi)?” I am employed by a firm that has done professional writing for Dr. Rosenthal relating to an array of projects. As part of this work we did prepare this Wikipedia entry highlighting his career as an eye surgeon, including his development of theories regarding dry-eye disease. Dr. Rosenthal has reviewed and approved all drafts. I am willing to post to my user page whatever necessary and appropriate disclosures are required to make this clear. There was, in any case, no effort to deceive or misrepresent the work. I have reviewed the guidelines regarding conflict of interest, and appreciate the distinction between appearance and intent with regard to COI. In composing the entry, I have made every effort to present the information in as factual a manner as possible, offering citations and sources wherever possible. I believe the information regarding Dr. Rosenthal’s career and theories is notable and of public interest, can be properly sourced, and is of interest to ophthalmologists and the general reader. I take no position regarding the validity of his theories, and have no interest in their acceptance or rejection. CSinacola Csinacola (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Csinacola (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Csinacola, thank you. Please create a user page for yourself (just click on the red link that appears with your name) and follow the instructions and examples at wp:coi for creating a declaration of your paid editing on your page. This makes it possible for all Wikipedia editors to see and understand your position. For each article that you are paid to edit, you should place a link on your user page. The important thing is to be transparent. LaMona (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:27:20, 4 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nrsmoll

• Nrsmoll (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My page "ischemic cardiomyopathy" was rejected and instead the reviewer mentioned improving the generic page "cardiomyopathy". Ischemic cardiomyopathy is a distinct page, and I have added a link from the page "cardiomyopathy". Could I have the page "ischemic cardiomyopathy" reviewed for inclusion again?

Nrsmoll (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nrsmoll, your link will cycle back to Cardiomyopathy because Ischemic cardiomyopathy redirects to that page. This was obviously a decision made in the past. You should probably check with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_Medicine for further information. You can also begin a discussion on the talk page for Cardio... to discuss with others whether isc-card should now become a separate page or whether it would be preferable to add the information to the existing page. It is always a good idea to make much use of talk pages in subject areas where there is quite a bit of coverage. LaMona (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of draft page of Autostrad

Hi, I believe the references at the draft are reliable.. If you need more, unfortunately the rest are in Arabic. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, It is ok to include references not in English if that is what is needed to establish notability. What I see here are short articles (some are only one paragraph) about a tour, a battle of the bands, etc. I don't see any reviews of their music, nothing about whether they've been on any music sales charts. Have you looked carefully at wp:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles? Generally, more information is needed about the musicianship. Note that the other criteria are: charting; winning major awards; releasing albums on major labels; etc. Criteria you may be able to leverage are #s 7 and 10, if the band represents a musical style that has particular cultural significance. Those latter will still need verifiable sources, but perhaps your Arabic sources could provide that. LaMona (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

LaMona I added more references, could you kindly check if they are enough and reliable? They do represent a musical style that has particular cultural significance --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So what happens now? --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss I made some edits - I think there is a bit more you can say about the band, especially about the difficulties of performing in the political climate (as long as this is found in the references). I believe there is also something about a tour to London? If so, add that in, and then ask for another review. LaMona (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, is that necessary? Because it takes more than a week.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's the only way, unfortunately. Try to be patient. LaMona (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, it turns out that the article "Autostrad" is blocked from creation, so an administrator needs to approve it. From the history it looks like there were attempts to create it in the past that did not go through Creation, and the article had problems. This means that it will be looked at carefully. I do advise adding information you have about their albums or singles being on charts, and information about tours that you have in the references. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

LaMona I know, but I have read that if the article is accepted from the draft then the block will be automatically disabled. In Jordan there are no music charts, but as far as I have read in musician notability 'Participated or won in a major musical contest' which is the soundclash I have written about, I will add the London tour now... Thank you very much for your help. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss In fact, to accept the article the create block will need to be overcome by an admin. I'm not an admin so I can't do it. LaMona (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

23:31:17, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Parkywiki

• Parkywiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Parkywiki (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the draft article on Michael Proctor (botanist). Having looked at it again I do agree that I was not as precise as I should have been regarding the citation of sources. Although all the key factual information was present within the twenty or so references I originally included, they were not as clear or accessible as they should have been, plus I did make a couple of errors. So, following your review, I have revisited the citations and enhanced or repeated them within the text at the appropriate points to support each factual statement. Perhaps you would take another look and let me know if this revision seems acceptable to you and if it is suitable for re-submission. If not, I would welcome further feedback on where citations still need enhancement. Many thanks. Parkywiki (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Parkywiki, I moved the page to Michael Proctor (botanist) and made some style changes. There are still too many primary sources referenced. When you say, for example, that he contributed to the 5-volume work, it is preferred to cite a secondary source that verifies that, not the 5-volumes themselves. Or you can include those volumes in his bibliography. But they should not be references. References are for secondary sources that are ABOUT the subject, and should not include his own writings unless needed to support some particular fact that cannot be found anywhere else. This will reduce the number of references, but that is a good thing -- a few correct references are better than many inappropriate ones. Also, do look at wp:academic for the criteria that are used for academics. These are the facts that matter, and they include: honorary appointments (chairs, etc.), prestigious awards, demonstrated contribution to ones discipline. I think this person achieves that. LaMona (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for making those tweaks. As you suggested, I will move a few of the primary sources out into the bibliography before resubmitting. I appreciate all the hard work you're doing - your recent contrib list is huge. (I also found both your blog posts for April made interesting, too). Regards Parkywiki (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

15:00:30, 5 September 2015 review of submission by 109.144.245.149

• 109.144.245.149 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Organizational Anatomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, Thanks for your effort in reviewing my article “Organizational Anatomy”. I am completely new to Wikipedia which makes me a bit frustrating about certain terms and conditions. I am kindly asking for your help and expert advice, please. As per your suggestion, the article should be written in more neutral or encyclopaedic manner. Can you point out or show me a sample on how it should be changed, and I will take care of changes in appropriate manner. Thank you in advance, Olkonol 109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

15:00:50, 5 September 2015 review of submission by 109.144.245.149

• 109.144.245.149 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Organizational Anatomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, Thanks for your effort in reviewing my article “Organizational Anatomy”. I am completely new to Wikipedia which makes me a bit frustrating about certain terms and conditions. I am kindly asking for your help and expert advice, please. As per your suggestion, the article should be written in more neutral or encyclopaedic manner. Can you point out or show me a sample on how it should be changed, and I will take care of changes in appropriate manner. Thank you in advance, Olkonol 109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• First, if you are going to edit Wikipedia, please create a user name for yourself. With an IP address only it is hard to communicate with you. Second, I'm not at all sure that your article is appropriate for WP - it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. The topics in it are covered elsewhere. You might want to begin by reviewing articles in the area of Anatomy and seeing if there is a place there for you to add your content. It isn't always that case that a new article is needed, but sometimes a new section is needed in existing articles. The important thing is that your information fit with information already in WP; it's rare to have to start anew on a topic that is already generally covered. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a page that gives some information about deciding whether a separate page is need: Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages LaMona (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)