User talk:LaMona

Archive: 2015 October / 2015 November 2016 January

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

• Pianogac (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Olga Jegunova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Taylorcarson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Donald Lavoie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Pianogac (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Olga Jegunova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• PalettePic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Palette Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Abbasvattoli (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Amal College of Advanced Studies, Nilambur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.

10:53:37, 22 February 2016 review of submission by 158.169.40.9

• 158.169.40.9 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Grumiaux Violin Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, the purpose is for the Competition to get is own wikipedia page in order to add correct category and not to mix with the violinist page. Is it possible to do so ?

I'm still uncertain on the inclusion of winners for various reasons. One is that they are often minors, and are not public figures, so including their names in such a visible source may not always be what they would choose for themselves. The lists are available on the competition's site, which seems more appropriate to me. Next, unless someone is committed to updating this every year from now to eternity, that list will soon become out of date. How will future winners feel if no one has updated the page? Will those who took second place be upset that their name isn't in Wikipedia? The same is the case for the list of jurors -- is that for every year? this year? how often will it change? Remember, this article will remain after you "finish" it. Think about what it should look like 5-10 years from now. I know that this article is very similar to ones for other competitions. I have some of the same reservations about those, and will probably start a discussion about naming minors here within the WP community. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello LaMona, thank you for your comment, you're right I have removed the winner list from the page. There is a link anyway to the public site.

concerning Notability, I ve seen other reference than newspaper from Belgium. (From Turkish, US site etc ...) for example the competition has an article on the famous Strad Magazine from London, and theviolinchannel from US.

• Article on The Strad
• theviolinchannel

So maybe this competition is not known as the queen Elizabeth Competition, but there are a lot of similar competition in wikipedia and I don't see a lot of more notability for them. Here are some examples : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citt%C3%A0_di_Brescia_International_Violin_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fritz_Kreisler_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Violin_Competition_Henri_Marteau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Violin_Competition_of_Indianapolis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leventritt_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Thibaud-Crespin_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Lysenko_International_Music_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishinihon_International_Music_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Henry_Vieuxtemps ... ...

and many others from this category : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Violin_competitions

Even if this competition began is 'young' notability, I think we can put the Grumiaux competition on the same level than the others ...

The page is already included into the Arthur Grumiaux page. but the problem is that we cannot tag it with Violin Competition category. As the page talk about the Violonist himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.10 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a saying here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's both a good argument, and a bad one. Most of those competitions have the same problem as yours, so I'm trying to get opinions from other editors about them. They are also similar to some of the sports articles where the majority of the article is lists of competitions and winners. It seems to me that WP needs a policy about these. But in any case, there is still general notability that must be met. As an experiment, I have created a delete discussion for one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Fritz_Kreisler_Competition. This challenges other editors to prove that the article meets general notability and to "vote" their opinion as whether it should be kept. The votes have to be based on existing policies. Such a discussion often grabs the attention of someone who is able to find enough good sources to save the article. We'll see how it goes. LaMona (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• GreyFoxBluegrass (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

07:26:55, 28 February 2016 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU

• DmitryPopovRU (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alex Gilbert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona. For this draft I will keep on improving it. I have since added a new source from the Huffington Post. See [1]. Thanks! I will resubmit if more sources come about later on. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, DmitryPopovRU. The problem is not just adding more sources. First, you have a lot of sources that all say the same thing. For any one statement of fact you should have only one source. You should select the best source and delete the others. Piling on sources is called wp:REFSPAM. But it's not clear that you can do anything to the article that will make a difference -- it's the reality, not the article, that is lacking. This person is known for one thing, and that is that he found his birth parents. Other adoptees also sometimes find their birth parents. The difference is that he seems quite adept at person promotion and has turned this into a career of sorts. That doesn't however make his story notable. Getting attention is not inherently notable. It's still just a simple story. Now, if in the future his non-profit develops into something important, then he might be notable, and this story will just be a footnote. LaMona (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I will keep improving it however. Things may change! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC) UPDATE. Hello LaMonda. I have fixed this and updated. I have left you a note. Thanks! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Arnon Mantver draft

Hi LaMona, I updated the article of Arnon Mantver following all your suggestions. I removed all unrefferenced data, and removed all pictures and just left a picture I took myself. Please advice me if you think there are more issues that need to be updated. Best regards. EyalEyal123456 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, is there any aditional change I need to do? Or it is ok now? Eyal80.246.139.151 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice

Hi LaMona, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on creating an article. I am a student and I wanted to make a wikipedia page for the brand I am studying, Allumer Jewellery. I have submitted twice and been declined both times with the feedback being not enough sources which I understand. Could you please let me know which types of sources I would need to use to make my article more credible. The company is not a huge brand so there are limited sources from Google. Would references from Vogue and Professional Jeweller (online publications) be considered as good sources to use, and do you have any advice as this is my first time trying to create a wikipedia page and it is proving to be quite difficult. Thank you Elvislondon (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Elvislondon. Have you edited Wikipedia articles before? If not, starting out trying to create a new article is the absolutely hardest thing you can do here. There are a lot of rules (actually, guidelines, but they often function as rules) and a very deep culture here at Wikipedia. It takes some time to get into the swing of things, and the best way to learn is to edit existing articles, not start a new one. If the company you have in mind is "not a huge brand" it is quite possible that it does not meet the criteria for notability, and therefore there is nothing you can do that will fix that. Many companies do not meet the criteria we use. The other problem is that companies have found that having a Wikipedia article increases their visibility on the web, so there are many people wanting to use Wikipedia to promote their company or product. We do not allow that - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. Therefore we try to be very strict when dealing with articles about commercial entities, making creating those even harder. I advise you to find a different project, one where there are existing articles and that are not commercial in nature. There are a lot of articles on science, history, etc., that need improving. You can find articles that need work by clicking on the Community portal link on the left-hand side of the page. LaMona (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LaMona. thank you for getting back to me. I appreciate your advice and I will definitely take in mind to edit existing articles so I can get the hang of things. I was wondering however, there is a competitor of the brand I am studying that has a wikipedia page that I was looking at for inspiration. The brand is Monica Vinader Ltd, the page has 'multiple issues' but it is still available to look at. The page is not too far from what I had created for Allumer in terms of content and references so I was just curious as to find out what the differences were that meant my page was deleted. Thank you for your help Elvislondon (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi LaMona. Someone has removed references below the automatically generated Reflist! Could you please correct any other mistakes for me?

Jenny Patranella (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I may have removed them, but those were the only big formatting errors I saw. In general, an article will not be held back for formatting problems -- the reason that citations matter is that we need those to understand if the subject is notable. I added my voice against the deletion for copyright reasons. I'll see if I can go back and removed that "threat." (I've never done that before - there's always something new to learn here.) LaMona (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

14:13:35, 1 March 2016 review of submission by GreyFoxBluegrass

• GreyFoxBluegrass (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I put the coordinator of the Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival's email as a contact because I thought you might need verification of information, and for use of photos (which I have been unable to attach to the draft). Please replace that email with my own if that will clear up the problem. I am jmocapitol@aol.com. Thank you. Sincerely, JMOGreyFoxBluegrass (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JMO. We don't use email much here at WP, so that's not the issue -- the issue is that you seem to have confused the idea of a username with that of an article. The username is supposed to be YOU. You can edit any article on Wikipedia (and I hope you will contribute in that way) and your Wikipedia username represents you for all of those edits. You should not have a username that represents the festival -- that's the subject of the article. They are two different things. So you need to create a username for yourself, as a person. It can be anything you'd like, as long as it isn't the subject of the article. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:25:17, 1 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ryanholeywell

• Ryanholeywell (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kinder Institute for Urban Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you provide more guidance? I would have thought that widespread news media coverage would have provided ample coverage of the Institute being notable. (Generally, news media only cover things considered notable).

Ryanholeywell (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ryanholeywell - the media coverage alone doesn't give the reader the information that is in that media. You have lots of good information in those sources that you don't bring into the article. For example:

• from Houston Public Media: "The metropolitan governance program will explore ways to consolidate some services provided by the city, county and other governmental agencies in Greater Houston.

“And then the third and really most ambitious program area is urban disparity and opportunity,” Fulton says. “The disparity program, we’re going to take a serious crack at documenting the disparity and inequality in the Houston region.”

• From Houston Chronicle: Perhaps most striking are the shifting attitudes on gay rights, with general acceptance coming in less than a generation. When Klineberg first asked the question in 1993, just 31 percent of Harris County residents said they supported same-sex couples having the right to marry. That number has risen steadily ever since and hit a record high in the new poll - 51 percent of those surveyed. And more people in Harris County than ever, 51 percent, believe same-sex couples should be able to adopt children. That's up from 17 percent in 1991, according to the Kinder Institute.
• "Perhaps most striking are the shifting attitudes on gay rights, with general acceptance coming in less than a generation.

You have one paragraph on what the institute does, but much more on its funding, relation to Rice, etc. What is does is what is important. Show what the institute does first, then put funding at the bottom, because that's the least interest to most readers. Assume that the readers of the WP article will not also read the newspaper articles (and mostly they won't) - it's up to you to show them what the Institute has done because they will not discover it on their own. So a WP article is CONTENT that is verified with SOURCES, but sources alone won't do it. LaMona (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:01:00, 1 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ojonaso

• Ojonaso (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Start Making Sense (podcast) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello

In regards to the "Start Making Sense" page I'm trying to post, and your recent feedback:

The Wikipedia page "Help: referencing for beginners" says the purpose of referencing is "to verify content and inform the reader of its source." That's exactly what we have done here.

Other Wikipedia entries on podcasts do not cite articles about the podcast and its impact, written by neutral third parties-- for example, "The Majority Report" has won the "best political podcast" award several years in a row https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast_Awards#Categories_and_winners and their Wikipedia entry has almost no citations of any kind, much less reviews written by neutral third parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Majority_Report

Is there some aspect to interpreting what it means to verify content and inform the reader of its source that I'm missing, or might vary from reviewer to reviewer?

Thank you for your assistance.

Ojonaso (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ojonaso (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what other articles exist in WP (because anyone can create articles here), the basic rules for articles require sources written by third parties. That is not orthogonal to "to verify content and inform the reader of its source." but contiguous with it. Linking to the listing of the podcasts online is like linking to a name in the phone book - it doesn't prove anything except that it exists. You have to show that the podcast is considered notable enough that others have written about it. Also, if you insist on a list of shows, you should make it a list with embedded links - those links should not be used as references. References are reserved for sources ABOUT the subject of the article. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 23:04:54, 1 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by WoodyMutt

• WoodyMutt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hyatt Regency O'Hare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

LaMona,

Thanks for reviewing my article. Part of why I would like to add this page is because it is a significant example of the architect's work, but also because it has 15 other pages which reference the same building. And while it would be possible to add to this article by referencing those pages, I can't help but think it would make more sense to instead create this page and edit those pages, linking them to it.

I understand that this isn't the largest or most comprehensive article on Wikipedia, but it is more substantial and has more outside references than several other buildings by the same architect. And I genuinely believe that others will help it grow if only somebody takes the time to create the initial article.

WoodyMutt (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, WoodyMutt. The problem is that none of your references speaks to the architecture of the building. You have directory entries (Emporis, SkyScraper, and ChicArch) that do nothing more than give the name of the hotel and its address. Then you have their own blog and factsheet, which aren't reliable sources because it's the company talking about itself. Then you have: fire issues, parking fees, and a piece of art. Nothing here about the architectural significance. If you can find sources that speak to that, then the article would make sense. As it is, it's just a hotel with nothing special about it. LaMona (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: Draft, SkySync

Hello LaMona

Thank you for reviewing the draft of the SkySync and providing feedback on the sources. I am a little confused however as to why I seem to be having so much trouble providing sources that prove notability when there are pages that have passed the Wiki approval process with far fewer reliable sources (i.e. Tervela[[2]]).

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached that Concentrate Ann Arbor is not an independent source. Here is an excerpt from parent company IMG's business partnership underwriting policy: "IMG honors truthfulness and strives to avoid conflicts of interest in our reporting. This includes real conflicts and acts that may appear to be a conflict. To this end, we opt to disclose any relationships with underwriters that could be perceived as complicating our journalistic mission."

Additionally, you say that Baseline Mag is "minimal at best." Are you referring to the coverage provided? While the name 'SkySync' may not be used frequently within the article, it is apparent that the company profiled, Shawmut, was able to achieve the success they were profiled about due to the product. An excerpt: After installing SkySync in April 2014, project management moved into the digital age. The system makes it possible to push out changes to employees and subcontractors in the field, who may be using a mobile device, such as smartphone or tablet.

Lombardi reports that the three project managers are now able to devote their time and energy to more strategic tasks. "They essentially went from spending about 40 hours a week keeping everything running to only a couple of minutes per week," he says.

Any insight you can give as to why there is such a discrepancy between requirements for this article vs. some approved articles for similar products in the software space would be helpful. As you can see from my many submissions, I have been trying very hard to get this in-line with Wikipedia's requirements. I truly appreciate your time in reviewing articles for creation on wikipedia.

Krystalelliott (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. First, don't compare what you are doing to articles already in WP - many articles do not go through the review process, many are older before guidelines were set (Tervela is from 2011), and hundreds are deleted daily for not meeting criteria. Note also that since WP has become a major aspect of SEO for companies, we now have every company wanting an article so they will be on the first page of Google. However, being an SEO boost is not what WP is about. There is some indication that you care about that because you compare your article to another company that might be a rival. If your interest were encyclopedic information, you wouldn't care about that. Now for details. The problem with Concentrate Ann Arbor is that is reports only on local business. To be notable a business must have broader attention, preferably national, but at least regional. Most of the references are for the cloud "niche" and the sources are far from being major tech sources. As for the others, like InfoWeek, articles must be "substantially about the subject" and there must be multiple sources to show notability. BTW, I have now marked the Tervela article and it may move on the path toward deletion. LaMona (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response LaMona, I do appreciate the feedback. I have just been examining similar articles in the software space to model the SkySync page after and was confused on some of the differences I have seen so it's good to have that cleared up. I will incorporate your feedback, and continue researching for more substantial, national resources on the subject before resubmitting. Thank you again for your time and for doing your part to keep Wiki clean, reliable and informative.

Krystalelliott (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Who What Who What" submission

I figured that it would be notable since it was included in a feature-length film. Hard part about writing about this band being in Canada is that, you know for a fact that works like these are notable, it's just difficult to *prove*, haha I'm pretty sure the single did in fact chart, just gotta find a source for that. General809 (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, notability is all about sources - third-party sources, reliable, and substantially about the topic. Finding the chart would help, but you'll still also need reviews or other articles about it. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse invitation and Draft:Vienna Institute of Demography

Hi LaMona, is this the right way to respond? (or should I reply at my own talk page, to your message?) I have been around WP quite long in fact but mostly I'm just editing and correcting minor quirks. I posted my request for assistance at the Teahouse which I didn't know of (thanks, interesting place!). And I also hunted up a load of sources, though many of them are from "the community", see my comments at the Teahouse query. Still, I hope it's better now. Anyway, thanks for the nice way of declining --WernR (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, WernR. I can see that you have been adding sources. You need to pay attention to the rules at wp:rs - only some sources are considered suitable. Things like links and directory listings are not among those. Also note that it's not only getting a certain number of sources but being sure that all information in the article can be verified in at least one source. So you can't say anything in the article that doesn't come from an outside source. If you are writing the article from your own knowledge, then that's a problem - articles should be written from published sources. Kind of like writing a school paper. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I put in a number of new sources to the article now, what do you think? --WernR (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. I did some formatting and wording changes (mostly minor). Remember that WP articles will last indefinitely, so there is no "currently". Personally, I would like to see more about the work of the institute than about the history. But you should send it back for review and see if anyone else has suggestions. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints, I see what you mean about time-referencedness. As for VID's work, this would be covered much more extensively by "independent sources" (like newspaper articles), but wouldn't it be out of scope for a general article about an institution to cite individual research contributions? Although there are some that are quite well-received among academic peers, and others even in more popular media (because the results are on the spectacular side). I wouldn't really know where to reference something like that though—with the specific research fields maybe?

As for "sending it back for review", I thought I already did so by rewriting and amending the draft, or do I have to push a particular button to actually submit the article anew? And: yes, there will be a logo shortly --WernR (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is back for review, so you did that right. As for covering the work, if the institute itself isn't credited with the work then it is going to be hard to have references about it. Let's just see how it goes with the review. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I won't change anything for the time being (except for an incorrect italics command), but of course one could stick one or more citations of articles in major journals and/or conference calls naming one or more researchers, and their affiliation would be VID, so does this help? --WernR (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You can continue to edit it, especially if you find more references, since those are key. LaMona (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 02:06:55, 3 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Js112456

• Js112456 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Acorn TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clarification on references for the Acorn TV article Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. I was hoping for clarification on your remark regarding sources for individual shows. All of the linked articles were offered as supporting documentation for the fact that these programs were offered by Acorn TV in the US. Each article mentioned the service in the context of the show. I'm happy to remove them, just wasn't sure if pulling them and leaving the Premieres section would result in the article being flagged. Thank you again! Js112456 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Js112456 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing that up because I took a quick look (we've got over 500 articles in the queue!) and missed that. It still seems overly list-y to me, and not at all interesting reading. One solution would be to select a few, turn them into a paragraph, and include the links. For services (think iTunes or NetFlix) we don't want a full list of their offerings - because WP is not a directory, but also because it will change frequently. If you want, include in the external links a link to the browse page on the site. As it is, it would be nice if the article "explained" more. It seems like a choppy list of statements, and that adds to the sense that it's mainly an ad. What's encyclopedic about this? What makes it more than just a product? LaMona (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this valuable feedback! I have updated with your suggested fixes, added some additional explanation/history, and tried to make the whole article flow better. Js112456 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've done some editing, but there's much that seems under explained. I added an explanation of the Agatha Christie Limited - there would be no reason for your readers to know that was the licensing agency for AC. I have no idea what this means: "Acorn TV launched as an extension of the Acorn brand’s direct-to-consumer catalog and e-commerce site in 2011". What was that extension? Also, is there an actual definition of a "niche provider" in this market? Can anyone call themselves niche, or does it have specific meaning? Try to find a friend who knows nothing of your business and have them read the article for clarity - it is written kind of like from one insider for another, but your readers may know nothing of this business. (Like me). LaMona (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 08:12:49, 3 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by InstanT001

• InstanT001 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Doctor Insta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Mona! Can you please help me with referencing? You elaborate comments will help me in knowing what's wrong with the reference or the style of writing.

InstanT001 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your references are formatted correctly, they just do not meet corporate notability. You can ask for help at the TeaHouse or chat, but the bottom line is that if the references do not exist, there isn't much you can do because the company isn't notable. Also, you have ignored the request to respond about conflict of interest, and you must deal with that. LaMona (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ricardo Karam

I'm about to move Draft:Ricardo Karam to main:space as IMO this article is good enough for Wikipedia. The guy is notable and although the current author/draft may have some errors it is on balance fine. If it had been typed directly into main space then it would not have had significant problems. I see that there are some points that could be improved, but what stops it from being moved to main space? Why are we not encouraging this author to do more? Thanks for your work. Victuallers (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the editor did as advised -- previously, all links went to the subject's web site, even though they were for third-party sources. That fixed, it now looks much better. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Zillya!

Hello.

I got the message: "I think it may be time for you to take a break. There are no sources here that would show notability - being in partnerships and participating in testing (where the product did well, but was in the third tier of "well") is not enough for notability. And that's all that there is. Maybe in the future there will be more." Despite the fact that Zillya! is a young company, and not so famous on the international market, but famous in Ukraine. Could you please tell me a few examples what exactly sources will confirm our notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwinZillyaOEM (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't do that because I do not know what sources exist in the Ukraine. But generally notable sources are articles about the company - look at some other companies' articles and you will see. (e.g. Avast_Software) Also, if it is famous in the Ukraine but not in a way that it is famous internationally, it may be more suitable to another Wikipedia, not @en Wikipedia. Other Wikipedia's may have different criteria for notability, and the company may meet those. We do not guarantee that every company will find a place here. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

15:08:59, 3 March 2016 review of submission by Proposal Planning

• Proposal Planning (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Proposers Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there

Would it be possible to highlight to us what sounds like advertising on our page?

Thank you

Pretty much the whole thing. Such as: "Founder and CEO Daisy Amodio has always been a very romantic person with attention to the finest detail. So it was no surprise when her brother asked for help popping the question to his girlfriend in 2011." "They then proceeded to help him light all the candles and offered to take pictures of the moment from behind a tree. So they did, he proposed, they have pictures that will last forever," WP is an encyclopedia of established facts. Facts. Not heart-warming stories that would make one use a company's services. Please read (many) WP articles to get a sense of the content and tone that is the style here. LaMona (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

01:28:19, 4 March 2016 review of submission by Ballantinesrose

• Ballantinesrose (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yogi Aaron (Aaron Star) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, thank you for your prompt review and response. Before I proceed, I would love your guidance about -re editing this draft so I can give it the right voice and make it neutral and informative.

First, I am not clear about what it means to clean up the extraneous citations? Are those the references at the bottom? I see that there is a list of citations and a list of references but I am unsure if that is what you mean.

So if I understand correctly, the sources the are preferable out of the ones I've used are Huffington Post, NY Daily News, Dallas Voice and the Guardian? Rather than out.com or Blue Osa or Yogi Times?

I understand Wikipedia itself (namely the naked yoga page where Aaron Star is mentioned) wouldn't count as a particularly reliable source?

What I was thinking of doing is removing some of the information coming from more niche yoga/ entertainment websites and focusing more on the reliable sources I mentioned above.

Do you think that would work?

Thanks so much!

Ballantinesrose (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. There is no such thing as "citations vs references" -- all sources must be cited in the article, and those are then gathered by the WP display program at the bottom of the article as references. You should not have "references" that are not linked to the text of the article. The way that a WP article should be written is that first you find reliable sources that talk about the subject. You gather the information in those sources and use that to create an article. It's a research project, much like writing a paper for a class. If you start with only the reliable sources (yes, known newspapers; HuffPost depends on the kind of article and the author) then your article topic is likely to be considered notable, and you are less likely to write a promotional article. So you might try that technique and see where it gets you. If you haven't done so already, read Wikipedia:Your_first_article. It has a lot of helpful advice. LaMona (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

00:08:23, 5 March 2016 review of submission by Buddroyce

• Buddroyce (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Play Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! First, thanks for reviewing the draft in the first place. I really do appreciate it. I'm asking for a re-review of the entry as I've fixed the entry so it better reflects the notability of the company. As someone who's in the entertainment business dealing with artist contracts and other legal mumbo-jumbo, the deadmau5 vs Play Records lawsuit that began in Oct 2015 is actually something of interest as it involves something we as business owners all dread, which is getting sued. What makes this case and Play Records notable as a company is that it's an example of Moral Rights being exercised in Canadian copyright law which is something that very rarely ever happens and there are very few recorded cases. This is honestly the first ever case I've seen/heard of involving a company getting sued over remixing music that they own the rights to. Buddroyce (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Buddroyce. The main thing about the article is that you have very few third-party, reliable sources. Let me go through them with/for you: The first four are directly related to the subject of the article - its own site, or sites of partner companies. Those cannot be used to confer notability. #5 is not a source with a "reputation for fact-checking" or "clear editorial policy." So it doesn't contribute much to notability. #6 is the listing of the award, but it does not say anything about Play Records, not even a name check there. So in terms of information, it's very skimpy. #7 is an okay source. #8 is the best source you've got. Both #7 and #8 are about the lawsuit, which is related to the company but is not its main business, so although it is interesting, it doesn't necessarily make the company notable. (There are lengthy policies about how lawsuits count in WP - I believe you can find some at wp:corp.) #9, the Canadian law, isn't about the company at all, and probably doesn't belong in the article. #10 again is the company's own site. So you have two good references, but about a side issue relating to the company. It may be an important issue, but it doesn't make the company notable. Some lawsuits are notable on their own (cf Roe v Wade in the US), but in general being involved in a lawsuit is not an act of notability. I don't see anything about the resolution of the case, but it's recent so it hasn't become a legal precedent. (That you help with notability of the case, but not the company) You need some strong articles about the company, and preferably in the national press. LaMona (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Mike "Greeny" Green

I would suggest asking at the miscellany for deletion talk page what the proper procedure is for a second MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. will do. LaMona (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening a second MfD

Hi. I saw your attempt to reopen a MfD. That's not the right way to do it. The instructions for doing so are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. If you open up the instructions box, you'll see it mentions how to make a second or subsequent nomination. Please do ask me if you need help with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked it up and worked it out. I think it's ok now. Something to learn every day. Appreciate that you respond. LaMona (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost - I fixed it for you. These things can be confusing. The correct code was {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've also fixed the discussion page and completed the third step of the instructions for you. If you use the code I posted above correctly, the resulting template includes the code you need to use in steps two and three - you can then just copy and paste that. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! Forgot third step. (Note to self: read the instructions!) LaMona (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:22:02, 7 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by JaneB0318

• JaneB0318 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marie Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

LaMona, You recently reviewed the entry for Marie Force. We are baffled by your comments about the New York Times list and wonder if you are aware of what it actually takes to make the list—usually in the range of 15,000 sales in one week. The fact that the author currently has a different book on sale for free has absolutely no bearing on the singular accomplishment of making the list not just once but 21 separate times. We’d recommend you look into the competitive nature of the New York Times list before you discount an author’s achievement the way that you have in these comments. JaneB0318 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Cheryl

JaneB0318 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The bestseller lists are known for being hackable, so although we don't ignore them here, we don't take them as an absolute truth. See this, this, and there is more. With hard copy books it is more difficult to have an affect on the list, but with ebooks it is easier. All downloads at Amazon count as "sales" even when the price is zero, and one obviously should not compare a product "sold" at $0 to one sold for $14.95. This is just good sense, and I don't mind pointing it out. Also note that you must provide verifiable citations for all statements like "21 times". More verifiability = more notability here on Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

LaMona: That is absolutely FALSE. You cannot make the NYT list with a free book.I think you need to research this before you make inaccurate and potentially damaging statements.

Regarding the bestsellers lists, if I provide the links to the NYT and USA Today lists to each and every bestseller, would that make it more verifiable? I thought in an earlier review you advised against lists. I have them and would be happy to send or post them.JaneB0318 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Cheryl

The way WP works, you should have a reliable source that verifies the statement about bestsellers. If you do not, then the statement may be removed from the article as unsourced. Note also that WP notability is not based on popularity. A person or product can be very popular but not meet WP's notability criteria. For authors, notability is generally based on reviews in sources known in the area of criticism (as in literary criticism). So it matters more to have a book review in the NYT than to be on the bestseller list. WP is looking for culturally important creatives. The criteria are here: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Note that it says nothing about sales figures (which is what a bestseller list is), but it does say "(c) has won significant critical attention,". That's what you should be aiming at in the article. LaMona (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice please

Dear La Mona

You were very helpful with my article on Joseph Swensen (conductor and violinist). It's still in the queue for acceptance. My question just now relates to another article which I've just begun editing. Eddie McGuire is a prolific and hugely important Scottish composer but his page is sadly lacking in any kind of verification etc. I've begun working on the opening but I intend doing more with it.

What I would like to know is what to do about the list of compositions on his page. This is clearly a copy and paste from http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/edward_mcguire_(composer). Should I leave this as it is or should I select from http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n80-143739/ ( a secret you let me in on!)?

Many thanks. Your advice will be much appreciated. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Balquhidder2013. glad you like the WorldCat info. In general, we try to avoid full lists of things - they aren't very interesting reading and a mere list of titles doesn't really tell the reader much. It is better to pick a few that have something written about them and then include a link (in External links) to the full list. Note that the lists in WorldCat tend to be in order with the most frequently held first, so that gives you a clue for picking out which might be considered the most important. If you are stuck getting better references, I suggest going to (or checking online) a local library, since there might be info in music reference books that you cannot find online. LaMona (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. Many thanks indeed. I'll see what I can do. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

22:59:19, 7 March 2016 review of submission by Holowiki

• Holowiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Richard B Hollis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello!

Thank you for reviewing the page! I took out the photos and have an article about him being Boy of the Year, however, it is a paid subscription as a source. Will I be able to use that as a source? Also, for his early life biography, do I have to source everything? I have sources for his Boy of the Year and him graduating from San Francisco State from interviews he has done in the past. Please let me know if that works, I will fix ASAP. With the exception of the early bio and taking out the additional photos, does everything else look ok since it is sourced?

Hi, User:Holowiki. First, here on talk pages you have to sign your posts by putting four tilde's in a row at the end. There's a reminder just below the edit box. The system then substitutes your "signature" there. It's ok to use sources that are behind paywalls. However, again, you should only include information that is key to his notability, and a youthful "Boy of the Year" probably doesn't make a difference. Yes, you have to source everything in the biography - it all has to have come from a published source. Anything that doesn't come from a published source (that you kind of know by magic, as it were) has to be removed. We aren't allowed to say anything here that cannot be verified.

As for the rest, you do have to be careful of your wording. WP articles must be written factually and with a formal tone. A statement like "As a result of this epiphany" cannot stay in the article. The article also cannot be seen as promotional. If it is, it may be deleted as violating WP's rules. LaMona (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

16:42:58, 8 March 2016 review of submission by Genauein

• Genauein (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Becca Conviser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, Thank you for your time and review of this submission. I have gone back into the file, and added additional citations for all requested material. Please let me know if any additional edits are needed.

Thanks!

Hi User:Genauein. Here in talk space you have to sign your messages using four tilde's in a row. That puts your username at the end of the message. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. OK, to the article. You unfortunately cannot use her own web site as a reference for the awards. References must be independent of the subject of the article, and you have used her web site a number of times. It's ok to use it for things like date of birth or maybe what school she went to, but for the awards we need an official and reliable source. So for those it's better to leave off the reference, and perhaps you will find one in the future. This doesn't guarantee that the article will be accepted, however. You have the disadvantage that most of these awards are at the student level (from what I can see with a quick look), which means that she is just starting her career. While she may be "up and coming", WP articles are limited to those who have already "up and come." This is one of the big differences between an encyclopedia and, say, a newspaper. WP takes a longer view. You can resubmit, and you can also come back to the article later. Articles are kept for at least 6 months after the last edit, and you will get a notice at that time if the automated system is marking it for deletion. You just need to make a small edit to keep it around. LaMona (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

17:21:19, 8 March 2016 review of submission by Genauein

• Genauein (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Becca Conviser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your message. I have made several edits based on your recommendation. Many of her awards listed are prestigious young artist awards, and the Chicago Tribune link with the feature article is linked in the beginning. I found additional sources, and included the links to the artists official website, which provides additional verifiable details. Please let me know what other edits may be needed. Thank you. Genauein (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, great, you signed your message! Thanks. (Quick learner, obviously) I think you should resubmit the article at this point, and let's see what kind of response you get. LaMona (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Opera Bohemia

La Mona. I can't believe it's been accepted first time. Many thanks indeed. I still have heard nothing further about my Joseph Swensen article. It's been quite a while so I hope it's OK. You said it was, so here's hoping. It hasn't been lost, has it? I'm working on the Eddie McGuire (composer) article which I asked you about yesterday. I'll do some more tomorrow but I haven't yet deleted the long list of compositions - I'm rather nervous about that and I haven't yet replaced them with another list. I won't be able to search libraries for reviews for a while. Our local one is closed for renovation but I hope to visit the Edinburgh Music Library at some point. I'm truly grateful for all your help. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've starred the Opera bohemia article to see if anyone objects to it in main space. It goes through a "new article" queue there, and sometimes issues come up. If you want to keep an eye on it, make sure that the star on the article is blue. ( I didn't realize it was your article, so I approved it "anonymously". Also, it sounds like a wonderful group; wish I weren't half a world away. [California]). LaMona (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. Now you've lost me! I can't see a blue star anywhere! All this is so new to me. As for Opera Bohemia they are super. I've been to three of their operas and look forward to seeing more. The productions are so much more intimate than those in huge theatres with full-blown 'everything'. But yes, I enjoy those too - most recently a Handel opera, Ariodante, by Scottish Opera (whose wiki entry by the way is pretty poor!) California surely has some good productions? Perhaps you would guide me to the 'star'. Thanks again Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

At the top of the article in the middle there are tabs: Read, View Source, View History... and to the right of that there's a star. If it isn't blue, click on it and it turns blue. Then, you need to click on "Watchlist" from time to time, and if there are any changes to the article you'll see it in your watchlist. A way to test this is to put your own page on your watchlist (by turning star blue), make a change, then click on Watchlist and you should see it listed there. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. Thank you. Yes, I must be a bit of a 'numptie'.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• Usfcartwright (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Western Michigan University SkyBroncos Precision Flight Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Review of Simon Letch

Thanks for your review. However, I am not clear on your reasons for rejection. Mr. Letch has been named as one of the year's best illustrators 4 times by the National Museum of Australia. The Hawkesbury City Council has also listed Mr. Letch as one of Australia's 14 most acclaimed illustrators. The .M Contemporary also awarded Mr. Letch the People's Choice Award. These certainly make him notable.

In addition, there are a number of articles about other illustrators which have 0 citations. I'm not clear on why these articles are okay, but the proposed article about Mr. Letch is not okay. These illustrators steve adams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Adams_(illustrator), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Akerbladh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ann and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arnold_(author_%26_artist) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Eekman all have 0 citations indicating any notability.

Please let me know.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs) 04:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

First, on talk pages you have to sign your posts by putting four tilde's in a row at the end. There's a reminder just below the edit box. Now, as for the article. My initial reaction was that there was very little text in the article, which is too bad. The point of a wikipedia article is not to prove that someone can have an article but to provide information. It should be possible to say some interesting things about the artist. The question of references, though, is not just having some number of them but having the right ones. References must be third-party - that means that what you must use as a reference is not his own work but what people have said about his work. References 4-11 are links to his work, not articles about him and his work. So those are not appropriate references. You can, if you wish, link to some of those in a section called "External links". Being listed in "the year's best cartoons" is good, but those references say only a few words about him ("Simon Letch has worked at Fairfax for more than 10 years."). Even the Sydney morning Herald has only a few sentences about him. So he's clearly well thought of, but you need to provide articles that are ABOUT him, such as biographical essays or significant reviews of his work. As for the other illustrators, remember that anyone can create a WP article, and anyone can add to the article, but also anyone can suggest that an article does not meet necessary criteria and should be deleted. Hundreds of articles are deleted daily. I will now mark those articles as not meeting the referencing criteria. and they may go on the path to deletion if no one comes along and adds the necessary references. Having looked at a few, some date from the early days of Wikipedia before these requirements were put into place. There is constant cleanup going one. In fact, if you would be so kind as to do some research to add to those articles, that would be very much in the spirit of the encyclopedia. LaMona (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Swensen

La Mona. I'm sorry to bother you again. I'm concerned about my article Joseph Swensen. You were happy with the final version and I resubmitted it. That's now over two weeks ago - days before my Opera Bohemia submission. Is there something the matter do you know? Could it have been lost? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it just hasn't gotten noticed in the queue. I don't know why. I'll look for it. The queue is not taken in order but articles are thrown at as "randomly" and perhaps the algorithm is flawed. LaMona (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. How do I thank you? Strawberries or kittens? Seriously I'm most grateful. I'm still working on Eddie McGuire's (composer) site. It's not easy but I'll get there. He's a very important but unassuming composer. I don't know him personally, by the way - just know of him and his music and what others think of him. I've only one grievance in relation to Wiki (and I really do find it upsetting) and that is in connection with my first article on Feargus Hetherington. If you would look at it and what has been placed on 'Talk' selection relating to my struggle before I submitted it you will see what I mean. I did receive a lot of help as the whole thing was so baffling at the beginning. I regret and resent this insertion - it's like a carbuncle - very much as it reflects badly on the subject - and not on my inadequacies. I also feel it's most unfair to have pre-submission dialogue posted here. There was no warning that that might be the case. I've tried to have it removed and only got my 'head bitten off' so to speak. Sorry to bother you but I don't know what else I can do. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Balquhidder2013. I looked quickly at the Hetherington article. First, you can't really remove the talk on the talk page, so I'm afraid you'll have to live with it. I don't know why the article got so much attention - those things tend to snowball. This area that you are working in is difficult because you are trying to bring some not very widely known musicians to Wikipedia. The problem is that Wikipedia mainly deals with the "already well-known." The references you have are not terribly strong -- even though the person is greatly appreciated, it's mostly "local attention." (There are many times when I wish that WP were divided by country rather than by language, because it is harder for a smaller English-speaking country to get its due in WP @en than it is for, say, US topics. And the cultural differences between, say, the US, UK, India, and Nigeria are pretty dang intense!) One thing I would caution is quoting "raves" from reviews - this is considered to be promotional, and will prejudice folks against the article. It falls under "NPOV" - not using a neutral point of view. The reason is that someone wanting to show that a person deserves an article will rarely cite a poor review, and yet, being neutral, if you cite any you need to cite all points of view. If you have access to a library with a good reference section, there may be music reference books that will help fix this person's place in the world. I'll see if I can find anything, but it's better to be closer to the scene, which you seem to be. LaMona (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. I'm very grateful to you but of course I'm disappointed. It was a tricky one and my inexperience didn't help. Reviews are difficult to come by and for example, reviews don't mention the orchestral leader. I had a number of good refs thrown out for that reason. Anyway, I'll try to absorb what you've said. And yes, by country rather than language would work better. Small is good! (I'm Irish so I've got to say that!) It's good of you to 'listen' to my gripe and to offer some help if possible! I hope you have a peaceful weekend.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

23:35:20, 10 March 2016 review of submission by 31tkkbq

• 31tkkbq (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jessa Rogers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just checking to see if it is ok now with the new references? (31tkkbq (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC))

It looks ok, although if there are writings by her you should create a bibliography and put them there. I must admit that I'm a bit confused about the chronology - some articles say she's a school principal, others that she's a doctoral study, others that she's a researcher. It would be good to put her accomplishments in some order. If she hasn't published a lot and does not hold a faculty position, it may be too soon for her to have the credentials needed on which to base an article. At the moment it's hard for me to tell. LaMona (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

02:43:00, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Vikingo999

• Vikingo999 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Carbene radical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the feedback, I've gone ahead and added more citations that hopefully broaden the article. Unfortunately this topic is an emerging area and so there are not a tremendously large source of citations available.

Hi, vikingo999 - if the topic is just emerging there may not be enough backing yet to support an article. If that is the case (and we'll hear from other reviewers when you re-submit), then it will have to wait until it evolves a bit more. Note that drafts stay around for at least 6 months after their last edit, and authors are warned before they might be deleted (and, hint, hint, even a minor edit sets the clock back to the beginning), so you can hang on to this if it's too early and come back to it when there's more supporting documentation. LaMona (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 09:48:26, 11 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Deadwaster

• Deadwaster (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Studio East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, First of all, many thanks for taking the time to review the article I created. I have resubmitted the article with an extra link to an article which has more emphasis on the studio itself and puts it in the context of the studio complex at Nalepastrasse. I understand your point and very much hope that this extra link fulfils the need for more specific reference to the studio itself. I would just like to point out, that a comparison with other wikipedia pages of recording studios, for example AIR studios, shows that their references are even less specific. AIR studios has just two references: one which is its own facebook page and one reference to a BBC article about some children that recorded there. Is there a reason for the discrepancy in requirements here? May I add that, in my opinion, what makes this studio interesting and therefore worthy for an article is that it was a unique focal point and catalyst for international indie music in Berlin during its five year existence, as evidenced by the plethora of notable albums which came out of it - three of which are considered so culturally important that they have their own wikipedia articles. The physical attributes of the studio itself are less important from a cultural perspective than the music scene which built up around and was engendered by the studio. The media seem to prefer to write about the bands and their albums than about the studios where they recorded. I think that it is perhaps for this reason that I can not find any articles dedicated solely to the recording studio itself, but I hope you might be able to see my point that the absence of such articles does not diminish the importance of the studio from a cultural perspective. This studio was the hub for international indie bands in Berlin, something which cannot be attributed to any other studio in Berlin at that time, and as such it took on an importance greater than its status as a mere recording studio; in the same way, but to a lesser extent, as Studio 54 which was unexceptional as a night club but took on a broader cultural importance due to the scene it engendered. Regards Deadwaster (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Deadwaster (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Deadwaster. Unfortunately, the absence of articles is exactly what counts in Wikipedia. We can't judge importance in a rational way without them. Notability is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So we don't decide what is notable, we let the world of media and research decide, and we just report. That's the only way to have a rational criterion. It is true that many roles get less attention than others (it's very hard to have a WP article for second violin, no matter how excellent, for example), yet those are our criteria. As for the other articles, there are many article in WP that do not meet the standards. You will often see boxes with messages at the top of these saying things like: this article needs more references; this article doesn't meet notability criteria; etc. Bit by bit those articles go through a process where they are either improved or deleted. WP is always a work in progress. You should not give up looking for sources - try books, try reference books, etc. LaMona (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

16:25:24, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Duncan R2

• Duncan R2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Live at SO36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona - just to let you know that I've just resubmitted the above referenced draft which you correctly rejected a week ago. As you surmised, I had submitted it too early because previous submissions I'd made have taken 3 to 4 weeks to review but you got to this one within a week. Anyway since you rejected it, the album has now charted in the artist's homeland (Germany) so I think it now fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements. Also, regarding your comment about the reviews being exclusively positive, I have now included the only negative review I can find (published this week) and slightly toned down my covering notes on the positive reviews. So I think it's good to go but would be grateful if you could take a look and let me know what you think. Regards Duncan R2

It does look better. I personally would drop the concert reviews, since this is about the album, and in general reviews should be references, not part of the article. But let's see what other reviewers thing. LaMona (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

00:21:01, 12 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands

• Sjukmidlands (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Denis Alva Parsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello again, I've been working with Pamela Marshall on this page since you last looked. I wonder if you could take a look again to see if what I'm creating is moving in the right direction. It's by no means finished yet but would appreciate some input. Thank you. Sjukmidlands (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Your references are still not inline with the text. References should be in the text, the way they would be in an academic article. See wp:REFBEGIN for how to do that. Then you need to remove the flowery language that you are using (e.g. " purest, most challenging way"). WP articles are factual without any embellishments. LaMona (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

00:59:11, 12 March 2016 review of submission by Luly Yang

• Luly Yang (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Luly Yang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I've tried multiple times to not make the article sound like an autobiography. What is the question in particular that you have about the conflict of interest? Thank you.

It is the fact that your user name is Luly Yang, and the article is about Luly Yang. If you are not Luly Yang then you should choose a new and different username. The username is supposed to be you, not the article you are editing. You don't have to use your real name, just any name you'd like. Here's how to do that: Wikipedia:Changing username. After that, in editing the article you need to have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles are not to be in praise of someone, but to be neutral information about the person. On the other hand, if you ARE Luly Yang, then you need to stop editing the article and, if you are notable, assume that someone else will come along and create the article. Is that clear? LaMona (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Heads Up

LaMona, I figured that you'd appreciate a heads up... A recent AfC draft by that you declined under the auspices of WP:NOTNEWS (and rightly so!), along with several other issues, was uploaded to the mainspace, bypassing Articles for Creation. The user similarly uploaded a self-promotional article about themselves, which has since been deleted; the user was blocked indefinitely for socking in order to keep the content. The draft is here, and the duplicated content on the mainspace (with the same issues) is here.

Aside from the general notice, I didn't know if you had any ideas as to what to do with it, whether it be redirecting/merging it elsewhere (I'm honestly not sure where), proposing it for deletion, move it back to draft space, et cetera. I looked for a place to merge it and rewrite, but to no avail. So I figured one of the latter two (or both) might be the best bet. Let me know what you think. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think the only sensible thing is to propose deletion. I would expect it to be an uncontroversial delete. Also, it looks like the editor is now blocked for socking. I also notice that they've been removing AfC info from their talk page. A very problematic user. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

03:12:34, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26

• Wave26 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there LaMona!!! A Pleasant Good day to you. By the way thanks for dropping by to my draft of reviewing of it. Hope that you can help & assist me on this particular matter very sincerely. I've already received your message regarding to my draft that you've reviewed on it a while ago and you declined of it due to your basis that my draft(article) is "not supported" in terms of reliable sources. Here's my conclusion to your assessments:
First, as you can see, that my draft has a LEGAL basis and all of its sources is very "ACCURATE" & very "RELIABLE" and I've already checked and reviewed on it many times, by sentence to sentence, it's spelling & grammar and also the statements is already fixed at all and for me there's nothing now to be fixed since it has a LEGAL basis.
Second, in terms of notability and legality of this draft(article), here's my conclusion to your that I can prove of it to you:
Notability of the article
I Wave26, created the page Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano is hereby confirmed that my article has a "Notability" according to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and the page I made is very informational and encyclopedic for a variety of reasons:

• Kenneth Earl Medrano is known by many people ever since he is the "KING OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines due to his "Twerk It Like Miley" Dubsmash viral video he made like the QUEEN OF DUBSMASH, Maine Mendoza.
• Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already by many people because of the viral video that earned him popularity on social media, he joined the contest on Eat Bulaga's That's My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest on GMA Network and winning the title as the "Ultimate Bae Grand Winner" on the said contest.
• Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already after winning the contest, he entered showbiz by having some TV appearances on GMA Network & GMA News TV like the characters BENJAMIN on Ismol Family, GEORGE on Wagas (GMA News TV) and the same time, he is one of the cast of Buena Familia as PACOY ALVERO, & the upcoming TV series The Millionaire's Wife as JOAQUIN, one way that the subject is an actor at the same time he is one of the members of "That's My Bae" as a dancer on Eat Bulaga!.
• Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already since he made a "CAMEO ROLE" on the blockbuster movie, "My Bebe Love" which is starred by Vic Sotto, Ai-Ai de las Alas together with Alden Richards & Maine Mendoza
• Kenneth Earl Medrano already won awards like "Most New Handsome Face" & "Best New Male TV Personality" awarded by Social Media TV Poll (SMTVP).
• I also believe that the info given is neutral, informative, and non biased.
• There is no conflict of interest as its purpose is for knowledge and no more.
• There is neutrality towards my subject as I am of no relation to the subject matter.
• There is also no conflict of interest as I am of no relation may it be professional or familiar. the only point of the creation of this page is for the general's public knowledge of good design.

If you could help me with the page I created and define what I need to change, I will do so accordingly.

Thank you and please do approve of my page
Wave26 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wave26. I'm not sure what you mean by a "legal basis". What matters in Wikipedia is that there are third-party, reliable sources for all information in the article. How popular someone is does not matter here. Read about notability as it is defined in Wikipedia, which has its own peculiarities. You cannot use videos of him performing (the saveviz site). You cannot use social media sites (facecebu, twitter). All of those have to be removed. As I said before the GMA network is his employer, so that can be used for some facts but it does not support notability. Sources must be independent of him, like regular newspaper articles. Fan sites cannot be used. The only possible reliable source (by Wikipedia's standards) is the SunStar, but that unfortunately is an interview, and interviews are not third-party sources, they are the person speaking about themselves. So again, it can be used for some facts, if needed, but it does not support notability. You must look at your article from the point of view of Wikipedia's definition of "notable". LaMona (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

12:12:19, 14 March 2016 review of submission by SRoberts1988

• SRoberts1988 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Redefy Real Estate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona. Thank you for your comments. Based on your suggestions I have rewritten the article. Is it ok to use published press releases to show that a brokerage exists in a certain city? Or is it best not to attribute? Thank you.

Hi, User:SRoberts1988. Before going on to your question, here on talk pages you have to sign your messages by putting four tilde's at the end (usually space+four tilde's). There's a clickable reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Now, about press releases. Using a press release from the company is essentially proof that no one else has bothered to say anything about the company, and that's a heavy negative. What counts in Wikipedia is what others have said about the company. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of companies. A company needs to have some characteristic that is "encyclopedic" to qualify for an article. The opening at wp:corp states: "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 a company like Microsoft has had an effect on society. But merely being a company, even a successful company, is not notable. So you have to show what this company has done that has made the world a different place. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

16:42:17, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands

• Sjukmidlands (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Denis Alva Parsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can you take a look at the revisions and work I've done on this page and let me know if what I've so far done is correct and along the right lines. Sjukmidlands (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I did one inline reference so you can see how it is done. Basically, int he place in the text where the reference belongs, you put it between <ref></ref> tags. Then the display program numbers them and displays them at the bottom of the article. I also added the infobox, which you will now see there. LaMona (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:53:37, 14 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sivan dror

• Sivan dror (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BATEMAN SETTLER™ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, thank you for your feedback on our BATEMAN SETTLER value we can add information about the settler but there is already information about it in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixer-settler how do you suggest we proceed? i dont have sources but we have a patent for the BATEMAN SETTLER i also wanted to upload a picture explaining all the parts of the settler but the system didnt let me, i think because i already have another draft in your system.... this is a very confusing platform :-) i appreciate your help and hope we will be able to create the new value have a good day Sivan

Sivan dror (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I went ahead and made some changes based on the article for Mixer-settler so now it has some context. You will need references - those are essentially the driving force in Wikipedia. Every statement of fact must be verifiable in a third-party, reliable source (newspaper, magazine, or a reliable web site). So start looking for those. You can add the patent information, but it doesn't make the topic notable. You should also consider that this could be a section of the article on Mixer-settlers, not an article on its down. It may make more sense to put it there as that's where readers are most likely to go for information. If it does become a standalone article you will need to make connections between the two articles - connecting related information creates the fabric of Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

21:38:59, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Sslatt

• Sslatt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jim Joseph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona - Thank you for your detailed comment and suggestions. You have been very helpful! I will be making edits to the Bio like you mentioned, further highlighting his writing/books, as well as pairing down some of the other content to ensure that we have adequate references to support the content.

Should I completely remove the sources such as his page on Entrepreneur.com and Huffington Post? I know that they are from the subject himself, but I wasn't sure if they helped prove that he actually does write for these online publications. Secondly, (I will research more on this as well) what types of sources would be best for this type of individual as well as how many? I thought for sure that his televised appearances on CCTV and Fox News covering SuperBowl Ads/Marketing would help the cause, as well as the properly sourced proof of the Awards he has won.

I will keep working at this as I know that Jim is a great figure in the Marketing industry and deserves to be on Wikipedia! :) If there is any other insight you can provide I would really appreciate it! Thank you for your time!

Hi, User:Sslatt. First, on talk pages (but not on article pages) you have to sign your message with four tilde's at the end. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Trying to show that a person writes for a journal is awkward, and personally I've never found a good explanation on how to do that within the rules. So leave those for now, but know that they do not support notabiity, so they are minor as references. The main problem is that you don't have any really strong references, and adding up a lot of weak references doesn't really help. You should remove information that you cannot source (like his personal life, which doesn't make him notable, or the fact that he loved to ski), and stick to information that comes from strong sources. You have things like an article about the toothbrush that you say he invented, but the article doesn't say that he invented it. You have to reference that to an article with that information. That's the kind of thing that needs clearing up. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

LaMona - Thanks so much for that reminder! I am new to this :) I appreciate it! And thank you for the feedback. Super helpful and I will definitely take another stab at this and clean things up based on your suggestions! Thank you thank you! Sslatt (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

02:55:34, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26

• Wave26 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there again LaMona!!! First of all, I want to say very sincerely to you a very thank you so much for your great help of assisting me regarding to my draft(article) entitled Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano. I really appreciated all of your comments and suggestions to my work it's because for me it's very accurate and a very big help for me to improve this draft. Based on your suggestions, I want to say that I've already checked and rewritten the draft(article) by following your comments to remove some references of Mr. Medrano that you've reviewed a while ago like (the saveviz site), (facecebu, and also twitter). I've been looked again to my draft if there's any sources that came from a fansite but I think it's already fixed and OK with it since I've seen no fansites of it. Also, I already revised it's contents like removing some of the shows that Mr. Medrano guested on GMA as what you've been suggested to me that it should be removed. Because of this, I sincerely make a favor again to you if do so, if you can take a look again to my draft to check on it if it's ready to be publish as an article or not. And if there's any lacking or more, please let me know of it by helping and assisting me on this particular matter and give me some more comments and suggestions if ever what I need to change.
Thanks, and I hope this time my draft(article) will pass and approve.
Wave26 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wave26, this is much improved. My guess is that reviewers will want the language toned down to be less "enthusiastic" and more neutral, but you should resubmit and see what advice you get. There is the issue of notability, and you should look at WP:CREATIVE for the notability criteria that are used for what we call "creative professionals." The subject of your article is popular, but popularity is not the same as notability. Self-published works (most "viral videos") don't have a lot of weight, and having a few acting credits doesn't add up to notable. The question may come down to whether the Twerk It contest is notable. It may not be considered to be notable by Wikipedia standards, because it is kind of a one-off, rather than a contest with a history. In any case, you have learned to Wiki! Good for you! LaMona (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

An AfC Barnstar for you

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		I've noticed that you consistently go above and beyond over at AfC to help new articles get up to standard. Keep up the good work!  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

15:24:22, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Ssinyakov

• Ssinyakov (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anna Reinke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have provided the references where the information can be verified. The family data was obtained from Ansestry.com and Anna's story from the Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Austin TX. Besides that I am not sure we can get references on an "ordinary" person of the early 20th century. What is your suggestion?

If there are no third-party references then there cannot be a Wikipedia article for the person. Basically, Wikipedia reflects what has been deemed notable by cultural and social sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books. Most "ordinary people" won't get a Wikipedia article, only the extraordinary. You might try checking local media and history books to see if you can find something there. Otherwise, an article just isn't in the cards, sorry. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

17:01:28, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Ntu2cmu

• Ntu2cmu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jobvite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a re-review under the feedback that "There's nothing here that meets WP:CORP" – after reviewing multiple times, everything in this page meets WP: CORP guidelines: 1. I disagree that "All of the references refer to "business as usual": routine product announcements, getting funding, opening branches" – yes, there are mentions of funding announcements, but there are reputable, independent sources talking about the product and how it has changed the game for social recruiting – that's not news, that's not a product announcement – that's a reputable 3rd party source stating the impact it has on a society/behavior of a society (which is something that is required for noteriaty). 2. I am confused as to why "The only substantial article that I see is the TechCrunch one" – all of the sources referenced in the page are reputable – including Business Insider. Business Insider works independently of Jobvite and other companies – please read their publication "about" section – independent media/news company. As for the other references sited, they all fall under the same category: they have no affiliation with Jobvite. Sources are reliable, and independent of the subject and have a neutral point of view. According to wikipedia's definition of a "source" – these are all articles written by reputable journalists, which are sources. None of the sources fall under the following: press releases, press kits, or similar works; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization; patents, whether pending or granted;[5] any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

Also, there is a depth to the sources – there is not just 1-4 sources being cited here.

Very confused as to how this is not a "reputable" company based on the fact the sources (and it's content) meet all of the guidelines. Please let me know ASAP. Thank you.

The question isn't "reputable" it is "notable" which is a different concept. Please read wp:rs about what are reliable sources. Note that very short articles (Buisness Insider) do not have the same weight as ones that are in-depth. The point of a Wikipedia article is not to prove the reputation or even to prove the notability of a company, but to provide encyclopedic information. You say in your message that "it has changed the game for social recruiting" but that is nowhere to be found in the article. If there is information in the soruces that is needed to assert notability, that information must be in the article. You cannot assume that readers will go off and read all of the sources -- they expect to find the important information in the article itself. This is essentially what I said in the review. You must say more if you want people to understand what is important about the company. LaMona (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo of Sean Young, Phd

I see that the photo of Sean Young (psychologist) has been removed. In my last correspondence, I contested why the file had been flagged for removal, given that I am the rights holder, I assigned the proper commons rights, and took the photograph. See below for my note. Would you please let me know how the photograph may be added to the entry again -- should I simply add it to Wikimedia Commons again and reinsert the image? Moreover, is there something that must be done prevent this from happening again? Thank you.

"A few points: Yes, I am a professional photographer (http://www.lynwoodlord.com/). There's no deception involved with the Sean Young, PhD, photo, so again, I request that it not be deleted. The initial photo was removed simply to remove any indication of impropriety (even though that is also my own work; I was simply not familiar with the submission process)." Metalhorn1 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. You need to look in the history of the article because that is where it says who deleted it. You responded to the delete request of mine, and I don't know why the person decided to delete it but you'll have to contact them. It is possible that the rights information was not complete or not clear. I do know that there is a process by which a resource (like a photo) is certified by a rights holder, but I assume that requires some clear identification of the person doing the certifying. All of that information is on commons, not wikipedia. There is also a process for undeletion: here. I don't know what they need as proof of rights or identity of asker -- you can ask about that on commons at their help page. LaMona (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

03:41:48, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26

• Wave26 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there again LaMona!!! Thank you so much for your feedback, highly appreciated of it. I didn't first resubmit my draft(article) it's because I want to make sure of it that my work is OK and fixed.
In regards to the "notability" issue of the subject, I've already read the WP:CREATIVE for notability criteria. And my assessment of it that the subject is definitely passed and qualified and is consider to be notable for the following reasons:

• First, I decided to merge the "Twerk it Like Miley Dubsmash" and "Thats My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest" sub-contents under the Career section into one and I leave his "Acting Career" as its sub-content its because as you said earlier that these sub-contents is not considerable as notable since the contest that Mr. Medrano joined is only a part of the 'segments' in Eat Bulaga that aired on GMA Network and it has no history of previous winners like reality shows, national, or international contests etc. But Mr. Medrano is known already and he has done "remarkable" works in terms of his talent like acting and dancing and became a part in a local variety show in GMA Network in Cebu before his dubsmash hit became viral.
• Second, it's true that as you said that 'self-published works' especially his viral videos don't have a lot of weight. But the point of it is that Mr. Medrano is the one who started and originated to "trend" the song Twerk It Like Miley by Brandon Beal in the Philippines through his dubsmash perfomance that the people catches their attention. That is why his videos became viral that earned 2.6 million views overnight and the rest was history, and that's the reason why he earned the title "THE KING OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines like what Maine Mendoza was first discovered and known by people to her before their accidentally paired with Alden Richards also declaring her as the "THE QUEEN OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines. In short, Mr. Medrano is already popular and known to people.
• Third, Mr. Medrano is already a "public figure" by people when he joined "That's My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest" in Eat Bulaga!. So in short, Mr. Medrano is consider a notable.
• Fourth, Mr. Medrano plays on different acting skills on GMA and one of his major break on his career when he do his major role in Buena Familia as Pacoy Alvero on GMA Network, that caught the people's viewers attention. It's because of their pairing with Kylie Padilla as Celine Buena. His exposure catches the viewers attention, forming their love team as "Kenlie", aside of it's rival against Harry, character portrayed by Martin del Rosario. In spite of being a first timer appearance in an actual teleserye, the big impact of the team-up make the people's viewers appreciated, and because of this, Mr. Medrano makes a contribution and has a remarkable image on television that the people always remember of him through his character role.
• And lastly, as I mentioned before on my first message to you in the "Notability of the Article", that there is also no conflict of interest as I am of no relation may it be professional or familiar. the only point of the creation of this page is for the general's public knowledge of good design.
  

Through of these assessments and proofs, I hope that my draft(article) this time will be approved since I already resubmitted it for re-review.
Thank you so much for your great help and please help me and assist me on this particular matter, you can look my draft again and please give me some more comments and suggestions if ever what I need to change.
Wave26 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)