Jump to content

User talk:LaMona

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Streamizm (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 11 February 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive: 2015 October / 2015 November 2016 January

10 February 2016-Draft: Hubbell Water Heaters review of submission

Hi LaMona,

Your most recent response to Hubbell Water Heaters page is very confusing. According to Wikipedia's wp:corp "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." Looking further into different company's Wikipedia pages, Bradford White (which is an industry-related company) only has a press release for a reference, and their article was accepted. Countless other articles such as Minister for Water and Power, United Illuminating, Bruno Hoffman have also been accepted with no notable references.

On another note, according to wp:corp, notability is established through newspapers, books, and sources of that nature. Hubbell Water Heaters has several of these types of sources. The wp:corp page also indicates that "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." This has been noted and is understood, but with each submittal, multiple articles that were in the Connecticut Post, which is a statewide newspaper, were referenced and not written by the company. And throughout these articles, there has been in-depth coverage about Hubbell's water heaters, one being about the US Navy which is a global organization, and another about PEMEX, a petroleum company based in Mexico, which shows Hubbell's notability and worldwide coverage.

Please help me to better understand why submittals that follow Wikipedia's criteria are not being accepted. Thank you for your time Carrierc (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Carrierc, the policies are complex, and must be viewed as a whole. Multiple articles in a single source are considered a single statement for notability purposes. CT Post has a circulation of ~50K and the areas it covers are listed in the article. In addition, patents are expressly excluded from notability. The United Illuminating article as been tagged as not having sufficient sources, so you should not take that as an example. Plus, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That the company sells internationally does not make the sources international, and selling to the military is not itself a guarantee of notability. Notability is all about the attention the company has gained from independent, reliable sources that are widely paid attention to. Meanwhile, you have large sections of the article that are not referenced - i.e. big chunks of the history. Those have to either be sourced or removed. Unless the company gets much wider attention, it fails notability. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 February 2016 - Draft:Real_Poseidon_Ahmedabad review of submission by Sneha Satish Pai

Hi Mona, really appreciate you for taking the time to review my first article. As an Indian, I am proud to know that India now has its very own and first under-water restaurant which is also a purely vegetarian one (respecting the rich customs and traditions of Gujarat - the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi) and hence I thought this would be something worth writing an article about.

I have made additional improvements, and addressed your concern by adding more references from reliable sources. I am hoping to add more information as and when I get more strong reference links for the same. Request you to please take some time again to review my article and help me make this live since I am new to Wikipedia.

Following are the additional links that I have added as references:

1. http://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/india-gets-its-first-underwater-restaurant-in-ahmedabad-1272437 2. http://daily.bhaskar.com/news-ht/TOP-indias-first-under-water-restaurant-the-real-poseidon-in-ahmedabad-5237744-PHO.html 3. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/international/india/indias-first-underwater-restaurant-inaugurated-in-ahmedabad 4. http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food-wine/dine-under-water-at-this-unique-restaurant-in-ahmedabad/ 5. http://www.mid-day.com/articles/mumbai-diary-tuesday-dossier/16918176

Thanks in advance!

Warm Regards, Sneha Satish Pai (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Satish Pai, I'm sure that the restaurant is quite exciting. The problem is that Wikipedia is not about news but is about things that have shown themselves to have endured and had some history. Sometime in the future this restaurant may be notable, but having just opened there is little to say about it. Individual stores and restaurants must have some role in the culture or historical events to be notable. See the essay on Wikipedia:Businesses_with_a_single_location. You should wait a bit and keep an eye on reviews and stories, and possibly bring it back then. LaMona (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 February 2016 - DKICP review of submission by caonashi

Thank you for the feedback. I've edited it to be more encyclopedic, but I am unsure what you mean by it being "essay"-like. I have based the writing style on the two College of Pharmacy wikipedia pages linked in the Talkpage, also conveniently shown below.


As for the sources, did you compare them to the type used in the two College of Pharmacy wikipedia pages listed on the Talkpage? Furthermore, in the DKICP wikipedia page, I referenced the Library of Congress statements, national American associations of the field and well-respected peer-reviewed journals that are "what others have written about the school."

See the references: "APhA PharmFlix". Retrieved January 29, 2016. "APhA Pharm2Pharm". Retrieved January 29, 2016. Thrasher, Kim; O'Connor, Shanna K.; Joyner, Pamela U. (November 12, 2012). "Rural Health in Pharmacy Curricula". American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 76 (9) (180). Retrieved January 29, 2016. I am not sure what how those are not secondary/tertiary sources. It is stated in the wikiguides that primary sources can even be used, just not to establish notability. Again, I would like to request that you compare them to already-established college of pharmacy wikipedia pages, which I conveniently linked for you in the Talkpage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIC_College_of_Pharmacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skaggs_School_of_Pharmacy

Thank you for your help & time.


132.160.74.54 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LaMona (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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


I should have added that the last reviewer said "we were getting closer". You seem to be saying that we are still far away from being accepted. Does this show a difference of opinion by the reviewers? If so, it makes it very difficult to know what to do next! Can you please give explicit example of what is needed? Thanks Geoff

15:18:08, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Taylorcarson


Hello, I also have other sources that explain and reference the points I have said. I revised the page to make it sound not so much like a story. Please help, if I could source movies or books i have that, that would be great.

08:40:47, 3 January 2016 review of submission by Pianogac


First to thank you for the improvements which you have suggested. I have made some further changes and re-submitted the article. 'hope I have made the article more appropriate for Wikipedia. 'hope to have further reactions from yourself or another reviewer. Cheers Geoff Cox

23:35:38, 5 January 2016 review of submission by PalettePic


Hi Mona, thank you much for taking your time to review my article. I made additional improvements, and addressed your concerned by adjusting the line your question to make sure it reflected what you could verify with Google Translate.

Have a great 2016!

Thanks, Gabriel

Request on 04:22:17, 27 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 108.250.97.125


Hello, thank you for reviewing the article. I believe the article qualifies for notability under the following guidelines:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The college radio charts are indeed a national music chart.

Please reconsider. Thank you

108.250.97.125 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"College Radio Charts" is a blog, not an established chart. Here are the criteria for a chart:
  • "A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:
  • It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Mexico, are legitimate sources of charts.
  • It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources."
The college chart blog isn't a recognized source, AFAIK, but we can ask at the music project discussion board. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music. It seems to include everything played, so Kadooge is # 425 on the unweighted chart. Therefore, this isn't a chart in the sense of a top ten chart, this seems to be a chart of everything played, therefore all music appears on it.
The other thing is that the music is self-published. We generally do not consider self-published material (sound or text) to support notability. The criteria for musicians is: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."
And reliable sources must be at least regional but preferably national, and have paid staff and an editorial policy. Your sources are mostly indie and local, so not strong. For example, Chicagoland is "Chicagoland's Free Music Monthly Magazine". Chicago is big, but it's local, and Kadooge gets three sentences, not much of a review.
So, no, I don't think so. Maybe later when they've been picked up by a label and done a national tour. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting the Zoltan Demme article, here is an answer

Hi Dear LaMona! I am Norbert, a Hungarian. I worked in the Hungarian crew of one of the movies of Zoltan Demme (Prometheus) years ago. This Prometheus-shooting was an important part of my life, full with fond memories, so I was very sad when I saw that the Zoltan Demme Wikipedia Article was nominated to deletion. I am not a Wiki contributor, but maybe I am able to help with some information the decision making of the contributors, and I can give answers to the problems arised in your precise and careful comment.

Working hard during the day I had just limited time for research, but I have some initial results. Let me mention to you, talking about the biggest concern arised in your comment, that his books are rather not copyright deposits, manuscripts, or informally published releases, but real books (You can see the pictures of 20 items, if visiting this website that I found from year 2013: http://forimdb.webnode.hu/ [[1]] if visiting, please scroll down, and on the left side make a click on this: "Könyv/Zoltan Demme books"). Please, do not misunderstand me, I highly appreciate all your arguments and carefulness, but being a Hungarian for me it was probably little bit easier to search the .hu websites and to find something. The native language also helped me to identify the precise ISBN numbers of many LC numbered book (for instance: book Programme, where instead of the LC 56592831 the ISBN 9635500718 is correct, or, book Chords of Scales, where instead of LC 54373620 the ISBN 9635500726 is correct, etc.). Almost each of the books has correct ISBN, I will collect them, double-check them, and provide them for the decision makers very soon.

The basis of the other problems, as I think, that is the pre-Internet era. Most of these book are from the eighties of the past century; and who knows what happened with (not more than 2-3) involved publishing houses during the almost 30 years that passed, maybe they does not exist in our era. (Others survived, http://akkrt.hu/ [[2]], and I will continue when having time). Same thing with the 1980-1990 printed reviews of the books: researching via Internet the pre-Internet items easily runs to poor result. For instance, here, in the very local library, I found the full texts of 8 Hungarian review items about Zoltan Demme's books, while by Google none of these! In the Internet were nothing else, than, sometimes, the name of the author and the title of these reviews. (for instance, see the bottom item in this site http://vfek.vfmk.hu/00000115/sz_05.htm [[3]] and the 16th item in this site http://www.matarka.hu/cikk_list.php?fusz=27226 [[4]] I will collect them and I will provide the all to the decision makers).

The other thing is, that I am not wondering at all that these mostly philosophical books have poor presence in libraries. WorldCat lists only 74 and this is not too much, even if we know that most of the libraries of the past communist countries and Russia are still not fully digitalized, thus Russian and Hungarian books are underrepresented in WorldCat. But the Library of Congress has the larger half of his books (as I think, 2-3 books could reach the LC shelves even accidentally, but not 10). And oppositely the Internet sources, here not the "no publisher given" note is indicated, but the name of the publishing houses, each occasion. But besides his books, in Hungary this author is also known by his publications in popular periodicals, thus I made a short search on this path. ( https://www.antikvarium.hu/index.php?type=search&ksz=deme-zoltan&szid=159001&oldalcount=1&interfaceid=103 [[5]] , these are the first results.)

The other problem is the author himself. From the time of the Prometheus-shooting I know the he is an absolutely against-the-media person. This old man, close to his 70 years of age, as I know during his life consequently refused all the interview requests, all the media invitations and media appearances, saying: talk solely by the books, by the films, let them express everything, instead of myself, my colleagues, reporters, magazines, etc. He allows to release his products only 12 years by 12 years from his youth, he is against of any werkfilm, promotional material, etc. For sure, who thinks like this, will be present in Google search modest way. Despite of this, still there are lots of printed sources about his life and biography (for instance Balogh György: Deme Zoltán, Hungarológiai Értesítő 1987., Fried István: Deme Zoltán könyveiről. Irodalomtörténet 1985., etc. I will collect these too.) Besides, my starting search efforts resulted some Internet sources either (for instance http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00001/00358/pdf/itk_EPA00001_1990_02_275-277.pdf [[6]], and I plan to continue this search).

And last, a little problem, a misunderstanding. Not me added the References and sources to the article! They are there since almost 6 years, with no changes and no dispute, as I see (if you think, please check the history of contributions of the article for verification). Many eagle-eyed persons control the Wikipedia, the 6 years time is long, from this reason I think that these data might be correct - but I did not search the databases I can access, this is a later-to-do for me, at first I collect reliable additional sources. Being a very experienced contributor as I see in your Talk Page, if you would have any advice, any proposal, any suggestion relating to my search, please, let me know.

Thanks for your attention and reading this message dear LaMona. What you did, when searching, I feel that it is great, but I feel also that this matter still needs some more further investigation and search. Sincerely yours, Norbert.89.133.187.29 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: T35 Hosting draft

Was hoping to get some feedback regarding the T35 Hosting draft decline. I just spoke with some people on the support chat that gave me great feedback but trying to see if there was anything specific you noticed that I can fix and re-submit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelen1 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Amelen1, I'm glad you went to the chat area -- they can be very helpful. It looks like you added some more reliable sources. However, you don't say much about the company so it is hard to understand why it is notable. For example, why does this matter? "T35 Hosting was the hosting provider for Joseph Stack, implicated in the 2010 Austin suicide attack[7]" Was the company involved in the investigation? The article you site has much more to say than the one sentence in your WP page. You need to tell your readers why this is important, what the story is. Good luck! LaMona (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Draft

You raised questions about a fictional draft. You obviously are an educated Anglophone somewhere other than in the United States. Any American would have recognized an attack on a particular controversial American businessman and politician. I am sure that there are similar people in the United Kingdom and other English-speaking countries, as well as in various non-Anglophone European countries and in various non-Anglophone non-European countries (controversial people whose controversy is not always known outside the country.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born, raised and living in the USA, although I've also lived abroad. never heard of the dude. Looked him up, and results were pretty much random - no famous person jumped out at me. Nothing on NYT. So I'm still in the dark. Is it spelled correctly? LaMona (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't heard of Donald Trump? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you meant that you had never heard of the protagonist. The protagonist was fictional. However, the villain was a real person, a controversial businessman who is running for President. As such, that was an attack page against him. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. LaMona (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree. The issue with the protagonist is that he wasn't real. The issue with the antagonist is that he is a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:37, 28 January 2016 review of submission by Jasiunas


I would like to ask for re-review due to possible misunderstanding about author and the misunderstanding about notion of notability.

Hello LaMona, first of all I would like to thank you for you time and efforts reviewing this article. By this letter I would like to explain some possible misunderstandings and clarify some arguments. First of all, the username is not related to the person that this article represents. The name "Jasiunas" was selected so that it would be easier to remember due to the fact that this Wikipedia account was mainly created in order to create an article for Martynas Jasiunas. To prove that we are also trying to create an article about his father Zydrunas Jasiunas, which you can find in this account. I am not quite clear about the references and notability. According to Oxford dictionary notability is described as: "The fact or quality of being notable". Doesn't the articles about the persons awards are the information about his notability? Also doesn't the references about the person's notability (awards) are more relevant than the references about where he has been or studied? I deeply appreciate that you spent some of your time checking this article I am just not clear what do you consider notability because I believe that actions define person more than words.

Kind Regards,

User:Jasiunas, assuming that you will want to edit other articles on WP, you may wish to choose a username that reflects YOU and not the first article you are creating. As for notability, WP has extensive definitions of what it means by notability with details for different types of subjects, and also has a great deal of detail on what sources are required and accepted. You should read those because any article will be compared to those criteria. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martynas Jasiunas article review

I would like to point out that WP describes "Notability" as:

" "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile"

Martynas Jasiunas is very famous in Lithuania, due to the fact that he is very young and already Baltic, Lithaunia's, Estonia's, World and Europes prizewinner and champion. He has high degree of interest in Lithuania by coaches, clubs, fighters and so on due to his high perspectives. Just so that I would be clear what I supposed to do could we go through the editing points one more time? What exactly I need to do? Write more text about where he studies, lives and what he does on his free time and then find some references to these points? I am not quite clear why awards and wins (which by definition is a recognition of achievements) is not appropriate for notability?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasiunas (talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the full text of the policies. That is the general definition but how one shows notability is very carefully described in those. You can't keep arguing based on single sentences, and there is no use arguing with me because the policies are Wikipedia policies, not mine. LaMona (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Pearce Ltd. Article Review

LaMona, I wanted to thank you very much for taking the time to review the Laura Pearce Ltd. article that I submitted for review. I was disappointed to see that you had rejected the article, stating that "nothing points to notability in an encyclopedic sense". I respect your opinion, but I would have to disagree with you, based specifically off of the Wikipedia article concerning Notability. I have listed numerous references concerning the article topic, all of which can be considered reliable sources. For this reason, I do not understand how the article has not completely satisfied the "significant coverage" requirement under the General Notability guideline. I would love to continue these discussions and thank you very much for your time. -Cullen.graves (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the policies about wp:reliable sources, wp:corp and wp:gng? Let's look at your sources. #1 is a neighborhood news source saying that the shop is being opened. This is a fact, but does not support notability -- all shops open at some time. #2 is a tourist publication, not a source of independent news or analysis. Tourist publications do not cover their topics in a balanced way - e.g. if there's something wrong with the place or the store, they don't report that. They exist to promote. See WP:PROMO. #3 Is a local business journal promoting the business - two strikes against it because local publications have little weight for promoting notability, and any article that uses wp:PEACOCK language like "has designs on fine jewelry" is promotional in nature. #4 same as #2. #5 I can't get to this right now, but I'm sure it isn't a deep analysis of the pros and cons of this company's product, and again, the title shows that this is a promotional piece: look at these great places to shop!. #6 A local magazine, obviously a promotional article ("best shops" is neither factual nor neutral) #7 Her own site, not a reliable source #8 Can't get to this either, but first, it's probably not primarily about her company, as it isn't mentioned in the title, and second, T&C is again a travel-type magazine, not a place where analysis takes place. So, no, they aren't reliable sources in the sense that they are all promotional, and what we consider a reliable source is one that will report all sides of a story. Now, if any of the big publications (e.g. T&C) had done a long, in-depth story, including history, of the company it might be considered to support notability, but the information about this company appears in the promotional areas of these magazines. LaMona (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:44:20, 28 January 2016 review of submission by Diversified interests



McClafferty is definitely a widely-known regional political figure and I don't know too many Ohio General Assembly members (which are included) that have had or do have the amount of exposure the he has had and continues to have. I think representing almost 350,000 People is a much larger swatch than some Mayors that are included. Most importantly I think that the Wikipedia community should be proactive on up-and-coming profiles, especially politicians. Let's take the President for example. Prior to being elected President, Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator for two years. Prior to that he was a State Senator from Chicago and merely a community organizer less than a decade before that. Point is people rise quickly, and the Wikipedia community should be ahead of the curve.

Let me give you a quick hypothetical: Congressman Tim Ryan who represents a heaviliy Democratic constituency for which McClafferty is a part. Tim Ryan will be the Democratic nominee for Ohio Governor in 2018 and will be leaving Congress. McClafferty at 30 years old, in a congressional district made up significantly of Portage County and Summit County, Ohio (two counties where McClafferty has been a high profile public servant) could easily be the next Congressman from Ohio's 13th District. That gives him 20 years in Congress from 30-50 years old (the ideal age) to be elected anything from Governor to Vice President, or even President in theory.

I know Wikipedia focuses on what is and not what could be, but there has to be some leniency given to articles pertaining to local public officials; especially those serving as the youngest on a federal board. Why be reactionary when a politician runs for high office when we can begin documenting their moves, which carries significant historical value for the future, at an early age and early on in a political career.

In my opinion the sources are all solid: Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sharon (Pittsburgh) Harold, Akron Beacon Journal.

This article should at least be considered for a "stub" article. If it's challenged, then it's challenged.

07:29:16, 29 January 2016 review of submission by Meddy007


Dear LaMona,

I would like to inquire on the Diamond Trust Bank (Tanzania) Limited article. Please assist to elaborate which sections made you feel that the article seems to be more of an advertisement/promotion? Also, please let me know what i can do to alter it and make it look more neutral.

Hi, User:Meddy007 - I removed some of the promotional wording, but there is still: "fast-growing, medium-sized, banking institution" "acquired a much wider public profile" -- Non-promotional would be to say: on dateA was this size, on dateB was THIS SIZE. I realize that it is a bank, but listing of the current $$ assets isn't of interest to an encyclopedia. What would make a bank encyclopedic? What has it done that is not the same as every other bank on the planet? It doesn't matter if it's a big bank or a little bank -- it will have investors, assets, locations. None of these are particularly notable. What might be more interesting would be information on how it has supported the communities it went into, anything it did that was not simply "banking." LaMona (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:41, 29 January 2016 review of submission by Wilkos73


My resources are the boston globe - a rather large newspaper and the boston business journal. I am not sure why these rather large new sources do not qualify as significant sources.

Hi, User:Wilkos73 -- Boston Globe is itself notable, but 1) a single source is not sufficient for notability. The policy says "multiple significant sources" and that means at least 2, but preferably more. and 2) that article is about an aspect of the subject that is secondary (at best) to the notability of the company. Cybersquat battles are common, and this is irrelevant to the notability of the company for what it is, which is that it is an auction house. So although the policy says reliable sources, reliable sources about irrelevant topics do not apply to notability. LaMona (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:23, 29 January 2016 review of submission by Sfwikiman


Thanks for your review. I could use some additional help if possible. So the sites I used for reference have been found credible enough to have wiki pages of their own. A similar site; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequence_of_Sound - only cites it's own page with various mentions of their work used by other sites, similar to how EARMILK is used. Would it actually help taking out the mentions of the sites (even though they have wiki pages) that use EARMILK as a source for news?

Thanks again -Davd

Hi, User:Sfwikiman - We have a saying here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so just because a page exists doesn't mean it is 1) done 2) going to stay. Hundreds of pages are deleted every day for not meeting the general guidelines. In the case of that web site, there is a chance it would not survive a delete challenge, but may just not have come to anyone's attention yet. So work on meeting the policy guidelines, regardless of what else is in WP. LaMona (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:57:58, 29 January 2016 review of submission by 68.102.34.65



Hello, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Anna is not notable. Anna has recently evolved into a major player in the cosplay universe as well. She has made several lists of the most popular cosplayers around today. Cosplayers like Ginny McQueen have a Wikipedia page and Anna is far more notable. I will update the page with more links and info and try again.

You need to learn this: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's an argument that never wins here. LaMona (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does say the "Other Stuff Exists" argument can be valid. And in my case I believe it is so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsanders1991 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna has achieved international status. I think if you look up the definition of notable that qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsanders1991 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to sign your messages on talk pages with four tilde's. WP has a detailed definition of what it considers to be notable, which you will find at WP:N. There are special rules for articles about living persons: WP:BLP. If you wish to argue your point on WP, you need to do so in relation to the WP policies, not an outside definition. WP notability is based strongly on verifiability and reliable sources. It is a different criterion than one uses in general speech. LaMona (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:48:16, 30 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Esomers


Hi, I work at a library and we are wanting to host a feminism + Art edit-a-thon. There is a Vancouver meetup page but I wanted to add our own sub-page with information about our event. Is Wikipedia not the forum for this? Should we just provide a link to an external website with the event information? The pages I was hoping to link to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2016

I am new to this, can you tell?

Esomers (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Esomers - you can indeed add the page, you just don't need to send it to AfC, which is for actual encyclopedia articles. You need to get the page out of your sandbox by creating it with the name you want it to have. I would suggest contacting one of the users who created the Vancouver page (you can see who they are in the history) and ask for advice on creating a sub-page -- I'm not sure whether it makes more sense to create it as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/[sub to Vancouver]/ArtAndFeminism_2016 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2016[/sub to Vancouver] but maybe someone there has done this before. Then you simply type in the page name you want and you'll be told the page doesn't exist but you can create it. The easiest thing to do is to have copied your source page and paste it there. Let me know if this advice doesn't work ;-) LaMona (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:37, 30 January 2016 review of submission by Abbasvattoli



Sir I have made the suggested improvements to my article 'Amal College of Advanced Studies Nilambur'. Now please kindly review it and accept if eligible.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Birthday Networking (January 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
LaMona (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! LaMona, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:27, 31 January 2016 review of submission by Keepcalm&write



Hello, I requesting this be reviewed again because the basis of the sources aren't correctly being identified. I quote from the the UK Census records and I'm told they are a "user based site. If I had been citing my family tree on Ancestry I would agree, I also quote the ONLY place official RMS TITANIC documents are around at all only to the told the same thing, The offical records exist & do pn much snaller sites.

Hi, User:Keepcalm&write, The sites like "ancestry" are not considered to be reliable (see this) but of course can be used as background research to lead you on to more reliable information. If there is census information from a government, it is therefore best to cite it directly from the government source. The Titanic site even says that it is crowd-sourced ("Encyclopedia Titanica is built by its members..."). It may be your only source online for those documents but it isn't considered reliable. Census information and original documents are considered to be primary sources, which generally means that the article contains original research. Wikipedia articles must be based on secondary sources, so they are at least one step away from the primary sources. You need to base your article on mainly on secondary sources, although for some facts reliable primary sources can be used. But the article must be mainly taken from secondary sources. Given the time frame your best bet for sources would be books to see if he has been written about, although if you have access to newspapers of the time those are excellent sources. If, however, no one has written about this person in books, newspapers, or magazines, then he will not meet the criteria for notability that Wikipedia requires. For another Titanic victim, see Harry_Elkins_Widener. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the UK National Archives has documents relating to the Titanic: Kerley. That would be considered to be a reliable source. LaMona (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Germany's teacher of the year award (Deutscher Lehrerpreis) your comment

Hey Mona, concerning your comment "Given that this is a German award that is only really relevant in Germany, why is this being offered to @en wikipedia but not @de wikipedia? LaMona (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)": There already exists a fairly extensive German article about this award on the de Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutscher_Lehrerpreis I did not know how to link the English draft / version with the German version. Maybe you are able to do that? I think it is important to have an English version of this German encyclopedic article about this important award since English is the lingua franca that also non-Germans can speak and understand. Since it is a large award that is done to promote teaching not only in Germany but world-wide this topic is relevant in English as well

Ah, thanks, I see it now in the @de WP. It looks like the links can only be added after the article ceases being a draft. At that point the "Edit link" button will appear. I admit that I am still skeptical about having this in @en WP, except for the fact that everyone wants their article in @en WP. That makes sense for international awards or organizations, but not for something that is solely local. But that's me. LaMona (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:27:54, 1 February 2016 review of submission by Jegan2510



We have reference links as required, yet our post has been declined. Kindly guide me to submit our post.

VisualSim Architect software is been used in Avionics, Defense, Electronic engineering related companies and Universities.

Thanks, Jegan

User:Jegan2510 - the references must be linked in-line with the text, much like they would be in an academic paper with footnotes. See wp:cite for more information. You have a list of references, but I don't see any connection between the references and the text. If you still have questions, you can try the real time chat at Chat. LaMona (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 1, 2016. Draft:LeafyIsHere (Calvin)

Hi LaMona, the first and I assume main issue with my article regarding LeafyIsHere is COI but i am in no way working for or in direct contact with said person, i am simply someone familiar with his work and figured I would contribute to Wikipedia in what little way i could and allow people to learn about people they are looking for. Leafling Jr. 69 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have no connection with him, perhaps you can explain how you know his date of birth and where he lives. That information isn't in the sources you provide -- in fact, there is almost no information in the sources you provide. Again, it's odd that you would know those two things and not his last name. And if people are looking for him, they can find him easily on Youtube. I'm not buying your argument, I'm afraid. But in case you wish to go on, you must read the policies relating to reliable source and notability. When you do, you will realize that you have much work to do on the article. LaMona (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:32:43, 1 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by PivotPointEditor


Hello, thanks so much for your review of the proposed article, "Leo Passage." I gather from your note that we need more work on citing sources for more of the article. I take your meaning to be everything, every sentence and fact, needs to have a cited source. Am I correct? I apologize if this is a naïve question—this is my first Wikipedia submission. Also, is there anything else we need to clean up? This article was submitted and rejected twice a little over a year ago, lay dormant and then was handed over to me to revamp. Previous editors' remarks included "I think we're almost there," so I do want to make sure I approach everything on the list. Let me know your thoughts and, again, thanks for your help. PivotPointEditor (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PivotPointEditor (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PivotPointEditor. First, please note that I placed information on your talk page regarding a conflict of interest, as well as violation of the username policy. These are both quite serious issues that must be addressed. If not addressed, the related accounts may be blocked from editing, and the article might be deleted. So please see to that. Also note that if you do have a conflict of interest you will be barred from editing the article once it is no longer a draft. Second, no, you do not need a reference for each sentence, but you have entire paragraphs and strong statements that do not have references. This means that you are working with what you know rather than what you have found in sources (another sign of conflict of interest). The way to create a WP article is to find sources on a subject and then create an article based on those sources. If you start with what you know then there may not be sources for everything. Where no sources exist the content must be deleted from the WP article. All topics are judged on the support of sources. LaMona (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

19:02:06, 1 February 2016 review of submission by Treespin



Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. It is exactly this input from experienced editors which is so valuable.

  1. Re: unsuitability of references i.e. book catalogs, I have removed this.
  2. In order to illustrate the author's positive reviews over a period (87 years) I had intended to refer instead to a 1925 review in "The United Methodist" available via https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk However their system is down for upgrading to Pure, possibly until March. I may have to suspend my resubmission until then.
  3. There is a name clash with Ernest Moore (professor) via a redirect which I'm not sure how best to resolve.
  4. Thank you for link to The Teahouse.

Treespin (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Treespin, thanks for coming by. I moved the redirect "Bernard Moore" to "Bernard E. Moore" which is the name that fellow used. There shouldn't be conflict now, but eventually we should create a disambiguation page for all of the various Bernard Moore's. I'll look into that. As for the 1925 review, if you have the full citation you can reference it even though you don't have the link right now, and you can always add the link later. We don't require that all references be online, and in your case it may be that some of your best references are not digital. So feel free to reference books or newspapers or other sources that are only in hard copy. I'm also going to look at how WP handles pseudonyms - they may prefer to combine the real name and pseudonym on a single page. I'll get back to you on that. LaMona (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:19, 2 February 2016 review of submission by Treespin



Hi LaMona, thank you for your comments.

  1. May I ask you about a technical issue which is puzzling me? Clicking on my ref 5 (The World of Books) instantly returns an Apache hhtp 500 error in both Firefox and IE11. But click the browser URL box and press Enter (changing nothing) and it works. Opening the same URL from another app (e.g. WordPad) works. Bookmarking first and opening works. However a reader won't know/want to do this.
  2. I have included more references spanning 93 years to illustrate enduring popularity, is this now closer to acceptance?

Thank You. Treespin (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I used Firefox's built in Developer tools to examine the HTTP GET request headers. It's the Referrer: line that escholar is rejecting.
If I change this to en.tulip.org or just delete the line completely it works fine. Seems escholar is blacklisting requests from Wikipedia.
When you put cursor in URL bar and press Enter, it sees the referrer as itself (escholar) so it works. If you delete the Referrer: line it works.
GET /enwiki/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:15m925&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF HTTP/1.1
Host: www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Referer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bernard_Moore
Cookie: JSESSIONID=DCC311C9E925433B0C6E596B9DF81489; _ga=GA1.3.2089492655.1454346737; __utmmobile=0x3fd46d2ad4fda614
Connection: keep-alive
Treespin (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get through to that link at all (which makes sense, I'm coming in from the US), but from what I can tell that is a private system that requires a sign-on, and therefore it isn't a good link to use. That may be where you found the item, but others will not be able to get to it there. It may be best just to give a very full citation and let people look for it in whatever systems they have access to. That means that you need to include the place of publication and any other information that is needed to identify the precise publication. There are a number of journals with the title "United Methodist" published in different parts of the world. (See this) It would make sense for Manchester to reject links from Wikipedia since Wikipedia links are outside of their paywall.LaMona (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasiunas article review 2016.02.02

Dear Editor, first of all I would like to apologise for the first draft submitted after first “LaMona’s” review. I made changes, regarding your comments below, however, I had two windows open with the same article and perhaps that was the reason for unsuccessful save.

Nevertheless, I re-did the changes as I believe are appropriate.

1. As we discussed (referring to “LaMona” if she is the editor of this article) I am not the person of this article and it is not auto-biography. I took into account your suggestion of changing my login name, however. 2. I have changed some of the references in the text from the reference to result tables to the articles that Lithuania’s press write about the Martynas Jasiunas (how he won and that he won) in order to highlight the notability. The tables of results references are still added to the “Awards” paragraph. Few examples would be Bronze medal in Krakow or victory in Malaysia. 3. Furthermore added additional information concerning Martynas Jasiunas fighters career which is backed by articles of Lithuania’s press (Lithuania’s main newspapers (“Lietuvos zinios”, “Delfi”, “Lietuvos rytas”, “15min”) and by national television of Lithuania – “TV3”. 4. Removed the links that go to External links 5. Also new change – content table

Kind regards,

P.S. And my sincere apologies for my mistake of uploading the wrong article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasiunas (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Brockenbrough

Hi Mona, Thanks for your kind assistance in keeping the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Brockenbrough "clean." I appreciate your help and have offered to assist Martha in making any future edits. I sent her your comments from November. James JameswoodSK (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do, however, need a reference for any awards that are listed on the page. I will add that. LaMona (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Brockenbrough

Does the reminder at the top of the page stay there, even after the revisions? "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." JameswoodSK (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You can of course remove it, it's just another WP edit. However, I am going to watch the article. The fact that you repeated her edit exactly (including the same error) makes me wonder who is directing this particular show. LaMona (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Carolyn Pollack Jewelry

Hello Lamona,

I have removed the Awards category, however, I'd like to discuss keeping the third paragraph of History. It relates to CPJ and AWJ as they are both brands that feature handcrafted and eco-friendly jewelry, similar to Alex and Ani. Although Relios is the formal corporation, CPJ is the largest brand and producer of jewelry and is essentially "their brand" and used for Awards/Press. For example, the 250+ employees are considered employees of Relios AND Carolyn Pollack Jewelry simultaneously (as explained by CPJ/Relios customer service and CEO Bill Pollack). I reached out for clarity and their customer service explained that while "Relios" may have won the pollution award, it was through jewelry created through CPJ and AWJ which is why that award is generally attributed to CPJ. Their eco-friendly production and handcrafted process is notable both with the industry and the brand. Would you recommend maybe just rewording that paragraph to attribute that to CPJ more or is it still a no-go for Wikipedia? Shenlyism (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can only include it if you can show that it is on the same topic as the article. And that must be done using third-party sources that are independent of the subject of the article. That you are reaching out to customer service shows that 1) you are not relying on third-party sources (which you should be) and 2) you probably have more than a passing interest in the company, perhaps even a conflict of interest. If you are at all associated with the company, and especially if you are being paid to create this article, then you must declare that on the talk page for the company and on your user page. LaMona (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm formatting this response, but I should quickly explain that I am not associated with CPJ/Relios. The talk with customer service came when I was trying to find sources after being frustrated by being unable to find articles mentioning certain awards on their press page. I had contacted QVC for online resources (trying to find where past award winners were located) and then contacted CPJ for the same. I am not being paid and have found all my sources through Google or received reference help through the Wikipedia live chat. The conversation with their CS was only to ask if there was a living document online from a third party that cited certain awards. My only association with them was being given their company in a small metals class (I create small metal sculptures) from a teacher who had grabbed their name from a list (I have emailed my instructor to double check there is no COI). I didn't realize that contacting the company for the location of third-party references was not allowed.

Back to my argument for keeping it, the references do seem to apply to the topic of the article, Carolyn Pollack Jewelry, as they produced the jewelry that won the Eco award, their jewelry is handcrafted, and they are one of the top manufacturers in NM through Relios. If it's not allowed I'll remove it, but I guess I'm not seeing how they're not connected/relevant.

Edit: For further clarity, I'll explain the call.

Me: Hello, my name is *****, I'm calling to see if you are know of any sources online that list your past awards that you aren't associated with. CS: Hi, you can find our award information on our press page on our website. Me: Sorry, I can't link to your website. This is for a wiki article for *** class at ** university. CS: QVC should have the awards listed somewhere. Would you like me to transfer you to them? Me: I've already spoken to them and they said it might be better to see if you knew of a location on your side. CS: Actually, yes, they are listed on a QVC/CPJ joint printed brochure. This is for Wikipedia? Would you like us to send you the brochure? Me: Hm, I'm not sure if I can use it. Can you give me a minute to check(checks with Wiki live chat featuring chat with users like Scorpius). No, it looks like I can't. I'll just keep searching. CS: Sorry we couldn't help you. Is there anything else we can answer? Me: Actually, what is the connection between CPJ/Relios? Is Relios the parent corporation? Are they the same thing?

... It continues on there with their explanation of Relios/CPJ employees and the conversation was the same with QVC. It was a general informational call, it lasted less than 7 minutes, and I haven't contacted or received anything from them since. I also didn't add anything based solely on information I had received from them. The clarity helped but I did not add their comments or information to the article. After finishing my live chat where Scorpius suggested I find more references, I was able to find the additional references I added from third-party sources that I believed to be relevant to the article based on Wiki guidelines and either checked with chat or check with other Wikipedia articles using them to see if the articles were flagged. I wanted to add this because I saw the COI on my talk page.

New Edit: Just in case getting the name from my instructor (he has responded now saying he is not associated with CPJ/Relios) can count as COI, I'll explain that situation (and delete this after you've read this since it's taking up so much space on your page). I donated to Wiki this last donation cycle and was discussing it with my teacher and classmate in class. We discussed how articles are created, checked Wiki to see how, and then I decided I wanted to contribute after having donated. While working in class, my teacher then compiled a list for me and I picked Relios because the name was interesting and after looking at CPJ and seeing their craft and eco-friendliness, I believed them to be notable enough based on Wiki guidelines. I was unaware of "eco-friendly" jewelry which is why this has become an interesting project for me. I'm not receiving any grade for this so there's no COI there. I just happened to stumble upon them through my teacher and now I'm here. I wanted to add this edit because perception is key and stories can be easily misunderstood. I apologize for the confusion. Shenlyism (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to use independent, third-party references to support any connection between CPJ and Relios and the eco-friendly award. You can't just make that conclusion yourself, as that is considered WP:SYNTH. If you cannot find sources that make this connection (today) then you must remove the unverifiable content, although it can be added to the article any time in the future when suitable sources are found.LaMona (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:07, 3 February 2016 review of submission by Arsonal


LaMona, thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I am requesting a re-review of the article as I am well aware of the policy on primary sources. No part of the article analyzes or interprets information based on primary sources. I have taken care that they are used only to state the nature of the business. The article also does not use blogs or social media as you have indicated. Perhaps you can be more specific so that I can address your concerns. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Arsonal -- the first two references are press releases, which are not considered reliable sources. Four of your sources are the subject's web site. They CAN be used to state the nature of the business when no other sources are available, but having 1/3 of your sources be primary is not ok. It's not ok because notability is judged on what others have said about the subject, and using primary sources shows that others haven't said much. Look for independent secondary sources. Also note that interviews, while good sources for some information, are also considered primary and cannot support notability. LaMona (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:55, 3 February 2016 review of submission by Etter.ben


LaMona, thank you for your thoughtful review. I have a few issues on the subject of notability I'd like to raise with you, however. I have three levels of references in my article: 1st links to independent databases on the discography of Allen and his specific credits on pieces of music and records. 2. Links to publications about some of the most notable releases he has produced/mixed, to establish that these records themselves are "notable" in accordance to your guidelines. 3. References to articles specifically on Allen himself, one of which is an interview with analyses of Allen's techniques by the interviewer (Tape Op). The other two are analyses of Allen's techniques and philosophies, and while they do contain quotes from a corresponding interview, they are definitely a take on his work from a third party (Sound On Sound). The latter should definitely be regarded as secondary sources. It is in the nature of Allen's occupation as a record producer that he operates in the background; very few record producers have more than a handful of articles published about them in industry publications.

According to these guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)) notability should at least in part be derived from involvement and significant credits on notable pieces of music, as well as prestigious awards and certifications. Allen's Grammy award, widespread critical acclaim of his works in the international music publications and multiple gold and platinum certifications by RIAA are ample proof of his established role in the record industry.

In sum, I could understand your criticism if there weren't any secondary sources at all, however, I think I have shown that this is not the case. In conjunction with his industry awards and certifications, as well as the established notability of numerous works he has been instrumental in, should underscore the merit for his inclusion. This is especially true when I compare my draft to existing pages for notable record producers, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Marroquin and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tchad_Blake.

Can you speak to these arguments, so I can get a better idea of in what respects my draft is lacking?

As I said in my comment, the secondary sources that I saw were mostly name-checks. Note that Allmusic, while it can be used to support facts, does not show notability because it is not selective -- it includes all musicians. Interviews are not third-party sources, so they, too, do not support notability. You have the two SOS articles about him, but repeated articles in a single source are considered a single source for purposes of notability. I agree that it is very hard for "back room" folks (either in music or film) to achieve notability by WP's criteria. It's also hard not to engage in original research by attributing awards given to the musician to the producer. However, that isn't allowed. You can re-submit, but you should first remove any links to sources outside of WP that you have in the text -- those are not permitted. That will give you a change that makes a new review feasible. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vulcan Blazers deserves a second look

Thanks for taking the time to review the draft. I've removed your suggestions for cites and replaced them with sourced refs. I didn't know what to make of the section about the IRS and the tax exempt status, I don't see where it was contradicted?? If you could point that out it'd be appreciated. I did not stop the cites from the congressional record as these are the rantings of a congressman and who am I to tell him to shut up, besides, he laid out the timeline for the 1st 3 classes that was the core of the vulcan blazers. (Added cite.) This cite I didn't use, (http://www.firehouse.com/news/10510317/50th-anniversary-tru-fit-clothing-company-fire) it gave a bit of the background of J.Crockett (Fire Commissioner Stuart Nathan concluded his remarks from the podium by saying, "We must never forget them. We will never forget them." Several speakers gave personal accounts of their experiences at the scene of the fire. Included was James Crockett, who is the current president of the Board of Fire Commissioners and one of the first African American members of the Baltimore City Fire Department. He recalled that all of the city's off-duty members reported back to work on that fateful evening and that he and others dug through the rubble to rescue or recover those buried in the collapse. ...) he was covered in other cites so it was a brief mention that wasn't necessary. Given all the cites, the 3 firehouses renamed, the citys resolution for the VB's contribution over the years, the book by Chief Williams, the LODD's of long time blazers, together that paints a picture of an organization that says more than any single article. If I had access to a magazine database I'm sure that that last piece for notability will appear. I moved the long pieces that I had expected to be removed once it was approved to the talk, can you take a second look? Tnx Robco311 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction is that the section header says "Tax exemption denied" and the text says: "The Blazers applied for and was granted an exemption from the federal income tax requirement." Denied vs. granted. As for congressional record -- that is a primary source and you should not use it. Congress-critters can say whatever they want, even blatant lies, and it is faithfully reported in the CR. If you are quoting what the person said on the floor of congress, then that is a good source. But it's not a source of facts about the organization you are writing about. LaMona (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the earlier version where the entire case was laid out ...(The city fought back by seeking to tax the fraternal hall. -The city won, it was appealed, The feds (IRS) gave them exempt status.) in between there was 3 years of litigation, appeals and the final outcome was the feds giving them 501c3 exemption. I do believe the congressional record naming the members of the 3 classes is not contradictory, and the other cites don't lay it out so succinctly. It is a quote, do I need to put it in quotation also and repeat what he said? I see that as being redundant, and isn't the CR what was said on the floor of congress?!? Also, that's 3 cites out of 58, just what is the criterior you're basing this on?Robco311 (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer LaMona, 3rd Feb 2016 - Regarding my submission of article on the notable personality - Prof. S. A. R. Prasanna Venkatachariar.Chaturvedi

Dear LaMona,

Greetings. I got a decline message for my submission of an article in the subject line. The message says that all the facts needs citation. I have tried my best to retrieve various news articles (about 15) on this notable personality. Could you kindly help me what more would be needed so that I shall try to add the same?

Your time and review is very much appreciated. Thanking you in advance. Lakshmi

Hi, Lakshmi. First, remember that on talk pages you have to sign your messages using four tilde's -- there's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Most of the information in the article is not referenced, and then you've got one sentence with 6 references. You need to have a third-party, independent, verifiable reference for every fact in the article. So when you say where he was born - that needs a reference. Where he lectured, that needs a reference. The whole article has to be referenced. The other thing is that WP requires that articles be written with a neutral point of view -- somewhat scientific, in a way. So you cannot say: "His grasping and retention capacity of any topic were superb" "his mental age is immeasurable; as he is a limitless reservoir of wisdom" -- You must only say what is found in the references, and it must be purely factual in nature. Remember, too, that anyone else can edit the article, so if there are negative things that can be said about him, those will be added. WP articles are not written to praise but to inform. LaMona (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you LaMona. That was helpful. Will sign my talkpage messages henceforth.

1) Regarding references, I am not sure if I understand about how to provide a reference for a person's birth place. 2) Regarding his lectures, I have all the materials such as photos, videos, invitations etc regarding where he lectured, what he lectured and when. He has given more than 1000 lectures in multiple languages and hence kindly help me regarding how do I provide references to these as well. I tried my best by providing references to the news that was published in India's top news papers about his lectures. 3) I will remove the words of praises as I do understand now the neutral point of view (thanks for pointing out).

Kindly help. Thanks in advance, Lakshmi Sriramanujamissiontrust (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sriramanujamissiontrust - To provide a reference for a person's birth place, you need to have a magazine or newspaper article that says where he was born. If you do not have that, then you should remove the birth place from the article. (I should ask: how do you know where he was born if you have no source for that information?) you can always edit the article in the future should a source become available. The photos and videos of his lectures are considered primary sources so those should not be used to create the WP article. WP articles are entirely made up of secondary sources and what they say about the subject. The primary that sources that you have would probably be good for the creation of a published article in a news source, but not for WP, which bases its articles solely on what independent persons have said about the subject. LaMona (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:43:47, 4 February 2016 review of submission by Gggoodgggirl



Hi LaMona, Thank you so much for your review and feedback. I do understand most of it, and have taken some steps to address what you conveyed.

Regarding the Synthesis: I removed the Synthesis in 2 places. #1) I updated the cite for the "The Strange War of Sergeant Krenzer" with a more appropriate reference to the actual television episode. #2) I removed the cite for Martin Stone which talks about his being a "pioneer" in the TV industry. I think that is probably covered by the cites related to Americana Quiz and Johnny Jupiter. I was feeling like I needed to justify calling Stone a "pioneer" #3) I removed the cite about anthology dramas becoming popular in 1954. Again I was feeling like I needed to justify that fact.

For #2 and #3 above, I cannot replace with an alternate cite, because they are not statements about Coopersmith. But felt like they were important facts to share which help to explain how Coopersmith's career evolved. Please advise me on if I can leave those statements in with no citations.

Regarding the WikiLinks: I believe I have removed all that exceeded 2. If I missed any, please let me know.

Regarding the IMDB as a source: I have removed the IMDB cite from all locations. My question is if I need to identify a sources for of all Coopersmith's episodes in order to leave in the Filmography section and the following sentence: "Throughout the 1950's and early 1960's Coopersmith wrote episodes for many popular television series including "Justice", "Appointment with Adventure", "The Big Story", "Decoy", "Brenner", and "Combat!", as well as anthology dramas for "Goodyear Playhouse", "The Alcoa Hour", "Kraft Television Theater", and "Hallmark Hall of Fame"

I can probably address the sentence, similarly to how I addressed the introductory paragraph in the article. But the Filmography would be challenging to cite each episode one at a time. Please advise on this question.

Thank you again! Once I have your answers I will correct and submit again.

gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


      • UPDATE*** I decided to resubmit. I think I covered everything except for my few questions above. Looking forward to your response!

gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hello everyone! Welcome to my Wikipedia user page. I am a new Wikipedia user with one article published.. I think the article looks good. The list of "selected" episodes is rather long. With other prolific folks, like professors, we usually try to keep down the list of writings since those are generally available elsewhere, and lists don't make very interesting reading. He's covered by IMDB, IBDB, and the TV.COM (which has a typo that I'll try to remember to fix as soon as I finish this message), and you link to those so folks can follow up. Also, I should ask about the photo. It says that he gave permission, but there is an actual permission form that needs to be filled out -- because once it's on WP EVERYONE has permission to use it, not just WP. So if that's ok,then he needs to fill out the form - assuming that he is the copyright holder on the photo. You can see that here and also that a specific license must be used on the photo page. But go ahead and re-submit and I'll push the article out.
Oh, one more thing. If you are creating the article on behalf of Coopersmith, then you have a conflict of interest, which you must declare. Anyone with a conflict of interest can create and edit drafts, but cannot edit articles in main space. So if this is the case, then you will no longer be allowed to edit the article. You can, however, request edits by putting information on the article's talk page. LaMona (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:LaMona. Thank you so much for your recommendations and support. I am extremely happy that the article has been published, and understand that I have some tasks to tend to.
First, I believe I do need to declare COI, as I am Coopersmith's daughter. Having said that, I did not create the page on his behalf, but rather on my own. I truly felt that his significant contributions to the television industry were worthy of presence here on WP, and i conducted most of the research on my own. I am not paid by him, nor do I represent him or his work in any way, or receive any benefit from having created this page. But I do understand WP's position. So, please help me understand exactly how to declare COI. If you can provide me with specific steps that will help, as I am new here. I want to do the right thing. Also, if you can help me understand what I should do if someone inappropriately updates my article? What is my recourse if I lose editorial control?
Regarding the photo copyright. I have the form... but I am unclear what to do with it. Please help me understand how to tag the article page and what to do with the form. Jerome Coopersmith does own the photo and will fill out the form, but where does it need to be sent? What is done with it? Does the recipient of that form then take action to flag the page with the appropriate license code or do I have do that? Please let me know as I want to tend to this quickly!
I noticed that my article received a "Grade C" and read the definition of what that meant. I would like to understand what is leading to that grade? I don't feel that my article fits the description of "Grade C" in terms of writing quality or lack of information, so wondered if it was related to the some of the technical improvements that you outlined (wikilinks, length of filmography, etc), or is it something else?
Thank you in advance!
gggoodggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gggoodgggirl I will place the COI template (basically a standard bunch of info) on your talk page, and that will give you all of the links and directions. As a direct relative you definitely do have a COI, even though he is clearly notable. As you'll see in the pages on COI, even a minor connection can make it hard for us, as fallible humans, to be entirely objective. So you should not make significant edits to the article now that it is in main space, at least not without discussing it on the article's talk page (after you've made your COI known). As for C class - that's actually not bad -- much better than a C grade in school. Few articles make it to GA, and B class basically means the article is close to "done." Since you've still got long lists in the article, and are missing references for some of the details of the shows he worked on, C is fine. Here's the chart: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Assessment. You can see here that most articles come out of AfC at a lower level, and very very few come out as B class. The article assessments don't really make any difference - all articles are equal on WP, with the except of those that are GA (good articles), and therefore can be chosen to appear on the home page, thus becoming FA (featured articles). However, there are groups that keep track of the rating of articles in their topic area, and will upgrade (or downgrade) articles, and also try to make them better. The most like project for your article is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. As for the photo, you need to know who took it and who has the rights to it. I've never had to provide third-party rights, so you might ask at the help desk on Commons: here. LaMona (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:51:21, 4 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ShannonSDavis


I was using my sandbox to improve the stub article for Erastus Wells, but my article submission was denied because the subject already exists. I should just edit the original article instead?

ShannonSDavis (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what you should do. And articles already in WP do not go through a review process. However, other users may comment on your changes. Since the article already exists, out of respect to the users who have worked on it in the past, you should look at the talk page to see if there is any ongoing discussion. If your edits are major, you may want to add a note to the talk page about the edits you are about to make - this shows that you are willing to engage in discussion about the article. LaMona (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:59, 4 February 2016 review of submission by Superwritermom


Hi, User:Superwritermom - You need to ask a question. When you do, don't forget to sign your message using four tilde's at the end. That will append your user information to the message. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request 4 February 2016 review of submission "Georg Kraus"

Hi LaMona, thanks a lot for reviewing my article on Georg Kraus. You mentioned the "set of guidelines ... WP:NACADMIC." But I couldn't find anything on that link. Could you help me with this? Thanks a lot --Wynton1989 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wynton1989 - sorry! my typo. I never remember which of those has an "N" in front. It's just WP:ACADEMIC. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submission: Draft:1-800-PACK-RAT

You had identified that the 1-800-PACK-RAT draft ([here]) had too few reliable references and the reference list was shortened to about 8 total after review. Your feedback was that I need to include more reliable sources. I have since gone back and included 24 references including documented patents, court cases, and journalism articles. However, the article was denied again. After reviewing other active Wikipedia entries in the same space, I am finding it difficult to tell how this article differs. Any feedback would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.124.114 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's not the number of references, but the number of QUALITY references. Directory listings (Bloomberg, Deltasite) do not count toward notability -- because they generally are not selective and they don't say anything substantial about the company. Announcements of openings do not confer notability -- all businesses open. The listings in various franchising sites are more along the line of advertisements, and text is usually taken from the company's information. In any case, if it isn't analytic - such as a review - then it doesn't support notability. Patents and court cases are information, but do not count toward notability unless there's something especially noteworthy, such as a court case that is a game changer in some field. (You must read the criteria at WP:CORP, especially in the areas of Depth of coverage and Independence of sources.) Many articles about a company are just re-hashed press-releases (Restoration and remediation seems to fit that bill). Basically, WP is an encyclopedia, not a company directory, so there must be something encyclopedic about the company - something it has done that no other company has done. If that exists, the article should emphasize that. All of the "business as usual" stuff isn't relevant - e.g. who is the CEO, how many locations, startup funding. The fact may be that your company does not meet the criteria for entry into WP. And, yes, I know that there are many other companies with articles in WP that are no better -- just know that every day hundreds of articles are deleted for not meeting the notability criteria. It's always a work in progress. LaMona (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:01:11, 5 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Johnw28


in creation of one of the articles i noticed that many other musicians use the same website references/ citations are the pnes i have used but noticed that the page i am editing does not pass review but others with the same sites have. i am confused as to why Johnw28 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all pages go through review, but are culled afterward while editors are doing cleanup. A couple of hundred articles are deleted each day. One of the purposes of going through review is to get the article to the point where it won't be put up for deletion. You do not have any third-party sources that meet the criteria of wp:rs. However, the problem with your article is not simply the sources -- the person also has not achieve what is required by wp:NMUSIC. I hope you read the policies, because that is what matters. LaMona (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD of an article you approved

Hi, I just tagged Shannon Sedgwick Davis, which you approved from AfC. I tagged it under G11. The article itself is ina woeful state of NPOV issues, as well as poor sourcing overall. I am very surprised this was accepted.
The lead is:

Shannon Sedgwick Davis is an American attorney serving as the CEO of Bridgeway Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to ending and preventing mass atrocities around the world

with no refs, this is a big alarm bell.

As an attorney, activist, passionate advocate for social justice, Ms. Sedgwick Davis has guided Bridgeway Foundation in pioneering solutions in challenging and often remote environments.

. Again, no source here, so a really big peacock with no source.

Sedgwick Davis currently lives in San Antonio, Texas, with her husband and two sons.

Unsourced, in a BLP, a bad mix. The subject overall seems notable, but the article in its current form just isn't ready for the big time. Not to mention the sources themselves are quite poor, with some not even mentioning the persons name.

Thank you for understanding, --allthefoxes (Talk) 08:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

allthefoxes, I kind of understand, but at the same time, the decision must be made on notability, not entirely the state of the article. There is an entire New Yorker article about her, which puts her squarely in notable. The article can be improved. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but that is completely incorrect. Here is a flowchart which you can find on the AfC wikiproject page that shows the steps in revewing an article. Checking for NPOV issues is absolutely one of these steps [7] --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

found new sources

Draft:Bruce M. Davis was declined because of a bad source. Have re-sourced those parts of the article and resubmitted.Feoffer (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer - great job! I sent it on to the main space and will watch it for a while. Given that the murders were so sensational, and that you mention Scientology, there may be some reaction to the article in terms of appropriateness. To my reading, you have been very careful with your wording, but we'll see how others react. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:47:05, 7 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shaibelinsky


Hi, and thanks for taking he time to review my article about Zcast, it's one of my first articles so your feedback is very important to me :) I thought about writing this article since I just started using Zcast after I saw all the hype on the big publications I referenced in my draft, but as you said, it needs more notability.

What do you suggest I do? wait for more reviews and articles about this go live?

Thanks again,

Shai

Shaibelinsky (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shaibelinsky, thanks for stopping by. Yes, you have guessed the best answer - the app needs some time before it becomes clear if it is or is not notable, so you should give it that time. Generally, new product announcements are not notable because many (or even most) product launches garner some press, but so many of them are never heard of again. It has to become notable, it isn't born so. Keep an eye on the places where it may be reviewed, and try again later. LaMona (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:30:48, 8 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Australianblackbelt


Hi Mona thank you so much for the very help full explanation, I didn't realize title was not the tittle of the person who wrote the article, silly me! I will make sure to mention that the Spanish news papers are all national as well as some for overseas... I will limit the local English newspapers too, Also I will remove the publish works section. Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australianblackbelt, I'll be the first to admit that Wikipedia formatting is not intuitive -- if you have questions as you are editing, the chatroom is often able to give "instance answers" - at least within normal US daytime hours. LaMona (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:02, 8 February 2016 review of submission by Artsceneedit


Dear LaMona - many thanks for your feedback. I have edited the page and would greatly appreciate your comments before I resubmit. Many thanks. Artsceneedit (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I did a little more formatting (some details) and added links to other Wikipedia articles. You can resubmit now, but I think it could use some more info about her if you can find it. For example, is she related to Sir Charles Clore? Any idea when or where she was born? There were some articles you cite that I can't get to (paywalls), and I found numerous quotes (e.g. in NY Times) but those are not significant -- officers in an organization are often quoted. It would be nice to have more about her. But don't wait for that - resubmit and let's see how it goes. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:09, 8 February 2016 review of submission by Dot1978


Hello LaMona, thank you for the feedback on this article. I will revisit the references as suggested.I would appreciate your help and consideration with the following please:

Tobin's 'services to the digital economy' have been recognised by The Queen of England and the Commonwealth with an OBE, which is only awarded to people 'known nationally' in their area of expertise. Before an OBE can be awarded, the merit of nominee's achievements are considered by an independent Honours Committee, the Prime Minister and then The Queen. The honours nomination process is an equal opportunities process awarded only on the merit of the recipient's achievements, which is why anyone can make a nomination. Unfortunately the actual citations are not published, only the outcome of successful nominations. However, I think it is notable that in 2014 Tobin was one of less than 20 widely reported OBE recipients in The New Year's Honours List who were listed in various Press including The Telegraph.

He is also named on the Telecity Group wiki article as a key person.

I also noted that Tobin's public profile has similarities to other OBE holders listed in the dedicated to recipients, including business and philanthropic achievements as well as significant awards received (OBE/Ernst & Young etc) and I have referenced these in the article - though I appreciate these articles are also always under review.

Further citations already referenced in the business area of the article refer to Tobin's impact on the digital economy (driving an industry leading merger between rival global entities, and reported for his unusual and sometimes controversial management style). Perhaps this requires more emphasis?

Tobin's background was added to the article as a point of interest as this has also been reported in a variety of the Press citations/references listed.

Thank you for pointing out where further citations are required. Should I add these/adjust and then resubmit the article?

Many thanks again for you help and advice.

(Dot1978 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, you need to add references where indicated. If there are minor details that you cannot reference it is better to remove them, especially if they don't speak directly to notability. (Sometimes person life info isn't really necessary.) As for the OBE, few in the US (and many of us reviewers are American) know much about the OBE and might assume that it's equivalent to our presidential medal of honor which goes to 6-8 people a year and only after a long lifetime of achievement. So it does matter that some context is given. I would not consider the OBE to automatically confer notability. LaMona (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great thank you for your feedback LaMona, I will work on this further and resubmit for review when ready.

(Dot1978 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Piece of advice

Dear LaMona,

Thank you very much for reviewing my article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malaria_Eradication_Research_Agenda_%28malERA%29

I found this article, which has a very similar approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project

I was wondering if you could provide me a few tips on how to improve my article. Thank you

You are right that it is a similar approach in terms of style, although the content (an archive of Einstein's papers) is considerably different. Your article is about a research agenda, and rather than emphasize the papers it may be more useful to readers for you to emphasize the research. You could report on what the research found, indicating which papers the information is recorded in. But you can also re-submit for review if you have made changes. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: BuckleyGrayYeoman (January 28)

Hi, I reviewed my article since then but I had no feedback. Do you know how does it work in that case? would you be able to have a look at it again and let me know if you think it s now in line with Wikipedia's policy ? Thanks a lot for your help

It's in the queue for review. I try not to re-review back-to-back, so hopefully someone will pick it up soon. I'll keep an eye on it. LaMona (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectureZMJ (talk • contribs) 09:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dr Lal PathLabs

Hi LaMona! First of all, thank you for your tireless work reviewing AfC articles. It's much needed and much appreciated. I did have some questions about your decline for Draft:Dr Lal PathLabs. Myself and a few others on IRC have been working for some time now with SpeechlessWorld on getting it cleaned up and more presentable. I know it's far from perfect, but it does seem to me (relatively unexperienced as I am) that it might just survive a theoretical AfD. There's notability (barely, admittedly) and the text doesn't seem terribly WP:PROMO to me. You declined for promo reasons, would you be willing to share what you found with it that was unsuitable? Or do you feel that the article isn't salvageable? If not's it's OK, I'll do my best to explain to the user when they come back to IRC. I just was hoping for some clarification for myself and the user. Again, thank you for your time and your efforts. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chrisw80. Glad you asked. The boilerplate we're given for reviews often doesn't hit the mark. The problem is that it is merely a statement of the services of the company, so it reads like a company description that could be in a brochure or profile. Since WP is not a company directory, this isn't appropriate. The company needs to be in some way "encyclopedic", and I know that is hard to describe. There is nothing here that shows that this company is different from any other. The statement of amount of money earned is not relevant (unless WAY off the charts), since it is assumed that companies exist to earn money. Even being the first IPO in the area isn't all that notable, since an IPO is a normal part of business and someone has to be first. They do medical testing -- again, not unusual. So I just don't see this company as being anything but a nice business that seems to be doing well -- at least, that's what is shown in the article and the sources. To be in Wikipedia, IMO, the company needs to do more: to invent something that effects a change; to be a trend-setter; to have social value over time. That's what I look for in a company article. This one just doesn't have it. But I'm willing to continue this conversation because the whole wp:corp to me is poorly defined, and we are assailed at AfC with people seeking SEO. I would myself love to have a clearer set of criteria. LaMona (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MANY thanks for the extremely specific response! :) This is very educational for me and it's appreciated. I do completely understand about WP not being a company directory. The user had more varied material earlier, but we were trying to avoid too much marketing fluff. I'll look through what's been removed any see if any is suitable for re-inclusion provided it's not actually fluff. I'll agree that it's very possible that with marketing fluff removed, if we're left with just a "directory profile" that it might be a good indicator that it's not suitable. I do agree that a clearer set of criteria for WP:CORP would be useful. Even if this particular article gets declined, perhaps some productive discussion can be had regarding it. I would be happy to participate in any such discussion. Again, thank you! Chrisw80 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went ahead and made some sourced additions to the article. I'm curious if you would take another look (totally informally) and let me know what you think. I'm mostly doing this for my own personal edification. I really don't have any stake in this other than that I've put some time in it and want to learn from the experience. Mostly the changes are regarding some controversies surrounding the company (including some very recent stuff), and a little extra info about some awards received. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the new stuff. I must admit that it doesn't really change my assessment. Part of the problem is the context -- the context in India is so different from ours that it is very hard to find a single set of notability rules that cover both (not to mention rules regarding what is appropriate language!). Awards are often the key to notability, but I have no idea what that award means. I also don't entirely get the Zika story, in part because I have no idea what Rs 4500 means in the story - is it a bit high, by Indian standards? way high? Shkreli high? So I can only judge by the story as it is told, and it doesn't seem to be notable. It is plausible that if someone with journalism skills took over the article that the import of it all would be clear. Bottom line, for me, is: is this company a stand-out from all of the thousands of similar companies in the world? LaMona (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:38:27, 10 February 2016 review of submission by 69.181.128.250


You say it's not appropriate to have an article if the show hasn't aired yet, but I see examples of articles for upcoming shows and movies all the time. Why the discrepancy? Here's one example of an upcoming Netflix show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaked

wp:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fit here. LaMona (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Language

Thanks for your feedback on the Draft:KlowdTV article. My dad and I use KlowdTV to watch soccerr and I was interested in getting into creating Wiki articles (assignment for high school). Could you be a bit more specific on what kind of language in the piece you consider to be 'overly promotional?' All the information in here has been covered by publications; none of it comes from the brand itself.

I based my structure for the KlowdTV article on Sling TV, which reads very much like a promo piece for the brand. The 'History' section is seven paragraphs long. I have also come accross articles like Ducktv, which seems to be approved dispite only having one source. How is the approval process for Wikipedia articles kept consistent accross different articles? Again, I am a newbie just trying to complete a wikipedia page for a hs assignment. Thanks for your feedback

Hi. Don't forget that on talk pages you have to sign your articles with four tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work on Wikipedia because it is a work in progress and those articles you are looking at could change or even be deleted at any time. So it's best to concentrate on the policies. It reads like a simple description of the product, with nothing to indicate why it is encyclopedic. A mere list of product features is one of the things that is excluded by wp:corp, the policy for companies. Statements like "catering to fans of international soccer, hunting, equestrian sports", and the inclusion of prices are considered promotional. Non-promotional would be something like: "Sports programming picks up X equestrian shows. Hunting programs from Y are also shown." You also do not have strong references. You have at least one press release from the company (businesswire) which should be removed; the company is listed as one of 8 in the USnews report (not highly notable); ReelMockery appears to be a blog (not a reliable source); the "Fierce" group seems to be a very small number of folks, and I see no editorial statement. The Broadcast & Cable source is good, but multiple articles from a single source counts as only one source for notability. As this company has not made headlines or been a game-changer (yet) there seems to be little reason for it to have a WP article if promotion is not the primary goal. Some advice: you appear to be new to Wikipedia. Creating a new article is the hardest thing you can do here. Spend some time learning to edit by making edits to existing articles. Do participate in discussions on the talk pages of those articles. And by all means create a username for yourself because you cannot fully participate using just an IP address. LaMona (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, made my day!

Thank you LaMona I really appreciate you taking the time to get indepth with my draft for Fife Contemporary Art & Craft and all the care you took in getting it ready. Loolah (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:17:59, 11 February 2016 review of submission by ExtremeMusic123


We copied the layout of our competitor, Killer Tracks, when submitting this wiki page about our business. I'm wondering why their page (which also included notable artists and sales sites) was not rejected and ours was? Further, we included links to many sources talking about our company, none of the sources are written by us. Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, and Sound on Sound are not affiliated with us.

I'd love to get more specific notes on how I can get a page on our very established company approved.

ExtremeMusic123 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ExtremeMusic123. Let's look at the references. PRnewswire is a press release, and therefore cannot be used as a source (press releases, by definition, are promotional). The links to iTunes and Spotify are both primary sources but also promotional because they are sales sites. So you should delete those from the article. Some things are not supported by references (e.g. the long list of musicians in the second paragraph - any that are not verifiable must be removed). The first cite is the Extreme Music web site -- not an independent source and does not add to notability. If there is another source for the information it is referencing, it should be preferred. The SoS article is a good one, although it doesn't cover everything in the WP article. The Procite link has a problem -- it just takes me to the Procite home page. However, from what I can tell, that's where artists can create their own page, so it's not a third-party, independent source. The Variety article is a mere mention of Extreme being in the same building. The Hollywood Reporter is very brief, so not a substantial source. Another thing -- your username. Your username uses the name of the company, which violates our wp:Username policy. You can create a new username that represents you, a person, not a company, as users on WP are people. But that also brings up the question of conflict of interest - whether you are truly independent of the company. COI is complex, so I'll post the standard boilerplate about it on your talk page. If you do have a relationship with the company, that will point to instructions on how best to handle this and stay within our rules about not using WP to promote companies or products. Thanks for listening! LaMona (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:56:56, 11 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Streamizm


Dear contributor, I am new to Wiki editing, and I may need a bit of help. My point of interest is online video and I am eager to contribute. The company that I wrote my first draft, is a company that I've worked with personally and have more than decent information. I am confident it is a well-known, reputable brand and deserves a wiki page.

I am going to edit the page according to your recent suggestions. The sources are there, I may just need to rearrange them. How will that "conflict of interest" affect the page, could it be a block to its publishing?

Appreciate your assistance.

Streamizm (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Streamizm. Conflict of interest will not affect whether the draft is accepted - in fact, the draft space is the best place for COI editors to create an article. However, you must make your COI clear using the mechanisms described in the information I placed on your talk page, and once an article is in "main space" users with a COI need to limit themselves to only uncontroversial, factual edits (such as correcting a date). You can ask on the talk page of the article for other editors to make edits that you think are necessary. The reason for this is that un-involved editors are more likely to write content in a neutral tone. Do a good read of WP:CORP, the policies regarding corporate entries on WP. That should guide you on where to put the emphasis. WP is more concerned with innovation, trend-setting, and social impact than it is with earnings, mergers, and other aspects of "business as usual." LaMona (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LaMona, I read all the informative articles, made the suggestions you made regarding the article itself and the COI disclosure. Please let me know if there is something else needed.Streamizm (talk) 10.05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=704479282"