User talk:LaMona

Archive: 2015 October / 2015 November 2016 January

Caonashi -DKICP- 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. Very much appreciated. I've followed the instructions you've posted and indicated the COI. Again, thank you for your attentive consideration.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caonashi (talk • contribs) 10:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 

11 February 2016-James McNulty (Irish activist) approval

Hi Lamona,

Thanks for the approval of James McNulty (Irish activist) It is my very first submission. I have wrestled with it for about two weeks now - It is very rewarding to see it approved - I am wide open to any suggestions on how to improve it too. Thanks! Pajokie (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)pajokie

Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajokie (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Pajokie, there are quite a few articles around Irish independence - both the early 19th century, which you wrote about, and the later "troubles". You want your article to be integrated into that topical thread, so you should look for articles that could be linked to the one you created. If there are articles about particular events that McNulty was involved in, you can add a sentence explaining his involvement and link to your article. It'll probably make more sense when you get there, but think about WP as being a topical whole, not just individual articles, and you'll find lots of places that you can work on. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Very Helpful Thanks Lamona! Pajokie (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)pajokie

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)

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)

Hi LaMona,

I still can't comprehend why Bradford White, a company page that is in the same exact industry, has an article on Wikipedia. They have one reference-a press release. Can you please explain to me how that works?

Thanks,

Carrierc (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I just marked it as not meeting notability. Eventually it will be put in the queue for deletion. Some articles are created directly on WP and did not go through a review process. Our review processes have gotten better, so it's a matter of cleaning up the articles that are there. A couple of hundred articles are deleted each day. LaMona (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a great 2016!

Thanks, Gabriel

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

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

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

Re: Draft: Justin Gaethje

I believe the article is creation protected as it was created in the past when the subject had not been of sufficient notability, and supposedly still is not of notability despite being undefeated and on a 15-fight winning streak.

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

• Treespin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bernard Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

Treespin, it looks like this person did not write anything under his real name, so use of the pseudonym as the name of the article seems fine. (In case you were still wondering, which you might not have been.) LaMona (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

• Arsonal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MyAnimeList (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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

• Etter.ben (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ben H. Allen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Gggoodgggirl (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jerome Coopersmith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

• • • 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)

Hi, User:Gggoodgggirl. 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)

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)

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)

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

• ShannonSDavis (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Erastus Wells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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

• Superwritermom (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tanya Michaels (Author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Johnw28 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Nova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1] --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

• Shaibelinsky (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Zcast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

Hi LaMona, you were right! It was actually less time but I looked up for some articles and found some reviews (and interesting ones). Let me know if I should change anything else - Should I add an external link to their site? should I add their logo? I don't want to overcrowd the article. Thanks again for your time :) Shaibelinsky (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

• Australianblackbelt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Carmen Ibis Novoa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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

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)

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

• Artsceneedit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Melanie Clore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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

• Dot1978 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Tobin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 Wiki category 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))

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)

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))

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 69.181.128.250 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mack & Moxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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)

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

• ExtremeMusic123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Extreme Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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

• Streamizm (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cleeng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, looks good, and thanks for the clear COI declaration. I'll wait to see if someone else reviews it - I usually try to avoid reviewing the same article twice in a row -- better to get new eyes on it. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, thanks for the info. Is there a way to encourage other Wiki contributors to review or edit the draft article, besides "request edit"? LaMona (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Request on 23:28:58, 11 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Carrieruggieri

• Carrieruggieri (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you LaMona. I actually had the opposite impression - that wiki prefers heavily referenced articles. There is an issue with the statement..." developed by (reference 2000) and has been evolving ever since" -- the many references are different people with unique contributions or a period of 16 years, or are references that highlight significant changes. It seems to me to be important information. Could I make that a footnote and attach these references to the footnote?

Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Carrieruggieri, what Wikipedia wants is that every statement of fact can be verified in a reliable source.

If the references you have found have different and important points of view, then those points of view should be in the article, each with its reference. Readers of the article will not know those points of view unless you include them - you can't assume that readers will follow and read every reference. The references are there to verify that the information in the article is reliable, not to show how often the subject has been mentioned. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you LaMona, will you be the editor following this article, or are will there be different editors with each submission. Also, is it ok to submit portions of the draft for review, or is it better to submit the completed article. This will be a rather long one.Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

03:50:31, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Esomers

• Esomers (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2016/EmilyCarrLibrary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I created a sub-page to the Vancouver Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2016/EmilyCarrLibrary), which worked, but the declined submission warning is still showing at the top of the page. How can I get rid of this warning? Should I resubmit again, even though it's not intended for the main WP space? Thanks!

Hi, User:Esomers - the notice seems to be gone now, at least when I just looked at it. Great page. I added an asterisk in the sign-up list by your name so others can follow that example. Let me know if the submission warning appears for you. LaMona (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

08:03:51, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Igfa1983

• Igfa1983 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ventilative cooling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i am not sure that i understood your comment. I have checked the links and they are all ok. Natural ventilation is an existent article. Both ventilation with architecture. Apologies it is my first attempt to wikipedia and maybe something is missing.

User:Igfa1983 - Sorry! You are right. I saw a red-linked wikilink in the Ventilation article and thought that Natural ventilation didn't exist. It does. So now the question is: how is your article different (topicwise) from what is already in Natural ventilation? Your article says: "Ventilative cooling refers to the use of natural or mechanical ventilation strategies to cool indoor spaces." and Natural ventilation says: "Natural ventilation is the process of supplying air to and removing air from an indoor space without using mechanical systems." It seems like there is at least some overlap. We try to avoid this kind of overlap in articles. If you think there is a good division between the topics, but see some overlap, then you need to open a conversation on the talk page of the Natural ventilation post and see if you can get agreement with the editors there about a good separation of the topics. A reminder: on talk pages, you need to sign your posts using four tilde's in a row. Look at the bottom of the edit box and you'll see a reminder and a link you can click on (if typing four tilde's is just too much :-)). LaMona (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mandymlal

Hi LaMona, Can you assist me with the creation of my article that I have resubmitted to Articles for Creation. I am not sure if I am doing it right as I submitted it two weeks ago and it said that 337 submissions were waiting to be reviewed before mine which has since escalated to 448 submissions to review before mine. Can you advise if i am doing something wrong on my draft page New Media Vision. Please help me!

Mandy Mandymlall (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mandymlall, the numbers aren't submissions ahead of yours but submissions in total. I'll look for yours to see where it is. Different reviewers have types of articles they feel comfortable with, and ones they don't - for example, I avoid sports articles, but always look at ones that might be authors. So the right reviewer just hasn't hit on yours. Let me see if I can move it along, however. LaMona (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me LaMona. I will look forward to your assistance with this article. I have edited it and added other sources, hopefully it will pass all the guidelines required. Thank you in advance for all of your help with this. Mandy Mandymlall (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

15:44:57, 12 February 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb

• Norac Eeb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Threat Intelligence Platform (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review, I would like to seek some additional clarification about your comments. Specifically the comment that it lacks reliable sources. Gartner, and other sources are cited which are considered highly reputable and notable in the cybersecurity industry. How many reference sources should I aim for and which specific ones do you have a problem with? You mentioned blog posts, in this industry they are often considered authoritative. Please could you advise which need to be removed, if at all. Thanks!

Also a note was added that questioned that a "Threat Intelligence Platform" is a "neologism". It's an industry accepted term, as the cited reference support. Is this something I need to address?

Thanks! Norac Eeb (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Read wp:rs about reliable sources. Blog posts are not suitable as references (with a few unique exceptions). This article is clearly being offered to support Draft:ThreatConnect, which is overly promotional and by the same editor. LaMona (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Norac Eeb You have six independent references. Two use the term "threat intelligence platform", one uses "threat intelligence" and the other three are about a "Diamond model" and don't use the term you use. So it isn't clear that it is broadly accepted. It does seem to me that the concept of threat intelligence is not yet well-covered in Wikipedia, but you seem to be interested in the "Platform" aspect that would link directly to your product. Before there can be a platform, however, there has to be the general topic. (And note that right now Diamond model is an article about a business model, not the threat model that you've cited). So it looks like there is a lot of work to be done in the area of cyber security before an article on a single type of platform will fit in. Since you have an interest in this area, you should probably hook up with the Portal:Computer_security, which is coordinating this topic area, and see what you can contribute. Just adding in your own product is not contributing to the knowledge base that is the purpose of WP. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Hi, LaMona! I've just (unintentionally) done something rather rude: I've declined a submission that you were apparently ready to accept, Draft:Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy. I do apologise, I missed that one-line comment until after the tool had done its stuff. That was rude of me, and I'm sure you will feel free to reverse my action if you think fit.

However, the comments I made there about the history of the article and the possibility of this being yet another conflict-of-interest editor stand. I have to admit that I just have no idea why we take a firm stance against COI editing … and then allow it in draft space. It's my opinion that that text would have survived about ten minutes if the user had created it in mainspace, and I don't believe that it should be moved there in its present state. A better approach would probably be for unconnected editors to develop a brief section about the college in the University of Hawai'i at Hilo page (which has also had a fairly embattled history), and only consider splitting it off if it becomes disproportionately large in relation to the whole. Thoughts?

Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Hi, thanks for letting me know. I've worked with that editor a bit (oh, the original peacock was bright), and the article is pretty much parallel to ones for other pharmacy colleges. I agree about the whole COI thing, but if we disallowed it entirely WP would actually be very small and would have almost no articles for organizations, companies, or living people. This might not be a bad thing! - I admit that I am thoroughly fed up with fighting the SEO-seeking commercial folks at AfC. However, in this case I'll resurrect it and send it along to join its brethren. sigh LaMona (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Trio biennal

Hi, you rejected my draft. Please think it over. The exhibition has been shown in the most important museums of Rio de Janeiro, and many well known artists participated. Even if the bienal will not take place again, (I don't think so) - the article is worth being accepted. There are a lot of articles in newspapers. And the first reviewer, User:SwisterTwister only wanted more sources. These I've brought. --Robertsan (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Robertsan, you may be misunderstanding the role of notability in WP which is different from notability or importance "in real life." Please read WP:EVENT for the policies about articles for events. It says: "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." So a recent event that got great coverage may not be enduring. Also, a lot of your sources are announcements that the event will take place. That is covered on that same page as: "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." Many newspaper announcements are simply taken from press releases coming from the organization itself. They do not support notability, since newspapers routinely include announcements of local, upcoming events. Although SwisterTwister said you need more sources, sources are not judged by quantity but quality. So announcements of a future event are low in quality. Analyses, criticisms of the event during or after are higher in quality. I havne't the time to read through all of your sources, so you should make a selection of the best ones, and use those to show that the event has "enduring historical significance". LaMona (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your answer. For it is too soon, in your and User:SwisterTwisters opnion, because it is a bienal and happened once, I suggest. You call the sources announcements. But please see that there are many with the name of the authors as well, which are the "critics" you wanted. I will work on it. --Robertsan (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC) P. S. I added a note at the talk page of my draft.--Robertsan (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy has been accepted

Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

LockLizard review

Dear LaMona,

I appreciate very much your taking the time to evaluate my draft for publication and making the insightful and detailed comments. I am sure that your intention is to improve this article and have it accepted. I sincerely appreciate that.

However, it appeared to me that you missed the labels at the bottom of the article that state that this is a STUB article: "This article about a company of the UK is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." With the limited time I had, my goal is not to write a FULL article at this time but rather a STUB article that can be expanded in the future by another editor. I applied and stick to the following Wikipedia definition of a STUB article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub . I wanted to do just the MINIMUM for now.

Although your remarks are excellent and helpful (thank you for reading inside the references), I am not sure they should penalize the STUB article I submitted at this time. Therefore, I will be very grateful if you would reconsider your evaluation in the appropriate context I just explain and accept this article for publication. Of course, in the near future, when I have time, I will certainly use your excellent suggestions to expand this article into a FULL fledged article with all the details required.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. OrwellG1984 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

OrwellG1984, Hi. Articles can stay at AfC un-edited for at least six months, so you have plenty of time to fill it in. The problem with putting a "stub" in main space is that you either need to at least show notability, or risk speedy deletion. Once deleted, a record remains and it becomes harder to get an article added. For companies, an article with just product information is likely to get speedy deleted because of the tendency for people to want their company's name in WP for SEO purposes. So the folks working "speedy delete" are pretty hard on articles that look like advertisements or SEO-fodder. It really needs to go with in ironclad notability established. Wikipedia is a "long view" product so there shouldn't be any hurry in getting the article in. Take your time, it'll be there when you come back. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:03:45, 13 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Klidenengro

• Klidenengro (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Violet M Digby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona

Thank you for your helpful comments with reference to the proposed page about Violet M Digby which you referred back to me on 9 Feb. (And thank you for your help, if it was you, with the problems I was having with formatting the article.) I am about to resubmit the article for your consideration.

You mention the problem with references. Wikipedia clearly prefers secondary to primary source material for the good reason that primary materials may not easily be available to the reader. In the case of Violet M Digby, there is an archive of material which is available to public, and which has been used in the writing of the only book about her, and that book is now referenced throughout the article. I am still hesitant to reference every sentence to the book, but it can be done if you think it will help.

The statement that "Violet had spent quite a lot of money on her expeditions to Kashmir and was feeling the pinch” was included as a contribution to an understanding of her suicide. I have changed the tone to one less informal and I have given references to the book, and to her suicide note, which is photographically reproduced in the book.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was not acquainted with Violet Digby and the article is not written from personal knowledge. I have tried to avoid reference to primary material in the archive (which I have seen), referring now only to the material that is contained in the published book.

Please let me know if there is anything further I should be doing. This has been quite a learning curve for me! Thank you.

Klidenengro (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Klidenengro, thanks for getting in touch. The caution against using primary materials is not about availability, it's the question of original research. An encyclopedia is a compendium of existing knowledge that has been synthesized by reliable sources. These latter are considered reliable if published in a source that is known for fact-checking. Since anyone can edit WP, and most users are pseudonymous, we cannot check the bona fides of the persons contributing to the encyclopedia, to know if they are expert in the topic or not. So instead we rely on previously published material to provide that authoritativeness. I'll let another reviewer look at the article - I try not to review twice in a row, since at that point I already have an opinion and might not be neutral. I may do some additional formatting, however. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Pope.

Greetings. I am still working on this article. Thanks for your comment (Dec 2015). LoopZilla (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

13 February - Draft:Underground Elephant

Thanks for taking the time to review, but could you provide some more specific information on why this article was denied approval? I feel that saying the article could be a brochure is a charge that could be levied against a variety of company pages that are already included on Wikipedia (example). I tried to provide a third-party source for nearly every statement. Can you highlight which parts you feel are promotional instead of factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getgoti (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

22:47:32, 13 February 2016 review of submission by Team BLRC

• Team BLRC (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona, I would like you to re-review the article. I added two new references to address your concerns. Reference [2] is from a local newspaper from the town of Osoyoos in BC and reference [3] is a program from St. Catharines, Ontario. Both of these are local sources. Could you please identify criteria for a local source, specifically newspapers. According to Wikipedia, there are only two newspapers in Canada with national circulation: the National Post, founded in 1998 and The Globe and Mail, founded in 1844. It is a very narrow view to see only nationally-circulated newspapers as reliable. My original resource [1] is from the Vancouver Sun newspaper, and [2] is from the Burnaby Now newspaper. The newspapers are based in Vancouver and Burnaby, respectively.

Sincerely, Team BLRC

First, I hope that you check your talk page and respond to the issues relating to conflict of interest and the username policy. These are very important. Now, the policy on organizational notability has a section called "Audience" which reads: "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." You say that you have a Vancouver newspaper link, but what I retrieve is this which is a metadata record for an archive. If there are newspaper articles in there that you wish to use, you need to reference those directly. LaMona (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Request on 01:52:20, 14 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Belleminjuan

• Belleminjuan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SkillsCommons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am from the SkillsCommons team and would really like to have an entry about SkillsCommons. However, this has has been difficult experience. The first entry I submitted, was taken from skillscommons.org, About page. This is our team's suggestion. Wikipedia marked it for deletion and quickly deleted it.

I then wrote a new piece, citing skillscommons homepage and also our boss' presentation at an official venue, a professional and scholarly conference. However, the article is rejected again for lacking citation of reliable sources. Help please. I really need to get this done. SkillsCommons is a large repository of Open Educational Resources and is supported by Department of Labor. The MERLOT team from California State University is managing SkillsCommons. MERLOT is already an entry in Wikipedia. We truly believe that SKillsCommons would be a nice addition!

Can you please let me know what to do, to make the article accepted? Thank you! Minjuan

Belleminjuan (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. You should first read about conflict of interest. I will put additional information on your talk page. Next, you may not copy text from another site and put it on WP - that is a violation of copyright, and will get immediately deleted. To have an article in WP the topic of the article must have been the subject of multiple published sources, such as newspaper or journal articles. See wp:rs on reliable sources. If that criterion cannot be met then it may be possible to add SkillsCommons to the MERLOT article. It is often preferable to have subordinate organizations or projects together on the page with their superordinate bodies. The bottom line is that to be in WP the subject must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and if it does not, then it cannot have an article. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Homa Vafaie Farley article submission

I have read your comment on the talk page and there are also references from the UK and Iran. The references are not online but from magazines and newspapers. Do i need to submit a scanned copy of these? if so could you please tell me how.

RaniaD87 RaniaD87 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, RaniaD87. Sources do not need to be online. However, if they are not, do be sure to give a complete citation - name of the magazine or newspaper, place where it is published, date of publication, title of the article, and name of the writer. You will find a handy pull-down when you are in edit mode that have a form to fill out with all of that information. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

06:58:27, 14 February 2016 review of submission by Team BLRC

• Team BLRC (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, I added two additional references, including a citation from a national engineering magazine in Canada. My first reference is to an article from the Vancouver Sun which does not have a public http link. I originally included the link to the printed article in the City of Burnaby Archives.

Hello, Team BLRC. As I said before, you are in violation of the username policy and may NOT continue to edit using this name. Go change the name immediately, because you will be blocked from editing and the article may be deleted. This is serious and you must do it. If you have made changes to the article you can resubmit, but only after having made the name change. Please look on the talk page of your user account. Also note that anyone with a conflict of interest is not allowed to make further changes to the article once it exits draft space. Conflict of interest is also taken seriously here. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

15:21:52, 14 February 2016 review of submission by RaniaD87

• RaniaD87 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Homa Vafaie Farley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are references from Iran and the UK as well, There are just more in the UAE as that is where she lives.RaniaD87 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Pi Gamma Omicron

Hi, I'm a relatively experienced user, and have been helping User:BlackAmerican. I went in and significantly upgraded the references (putting them into cite format) as well as adding information, reflist and categories. Since your issues don't appear to be with notability, could you take another look given the upgrades that I've done?Naraht (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Naraht, thanks so much for the citation help! That seems to be the big stumbling block for many users. I've accepted the article, and I hope it can progress beyond stub class. But it's a good start. LaMona (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, @BlackAmerican: was in a situation like a lot of new users in that the citation templates are cryptic at best. As for progression, I'm not sure there *is* that much more data, I'm not sure the first few years of the Chicago Defender are archived. :(Naraht (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

StealthMachines article creation denies

Hi LaMona!

I saw that you just declined the article which I worked painstakingly hard to produce and properly cite :(. I noticed your reason for declining the article was a lack of reliable sources, but I was confused on this point as I felt the article had too many sources and was considering removing some of them. Among the sources listed were Maximumpc magazine with a readership of 750,000, Tek Syndicate with over 500,000 subscribers (youtube), and Jerma985 with 500,000 subscribers (youtube)... to name a few. I find this saddening that comparable pages like Digital_Storm have an article with sources from the same outlets, but this StealthMachines (which I feel is much more unique) does not.

If you take me under your wing and help me to get my first article published, I would really appreciate your time! Thanks!

-Argusg In regards to Draft:StealthMachines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Argusg, did you read my comments on the post? Your problem is not the number of sources but the quality of sources. You need to remove the sources that are not allowed - crowd-sourced, blogs, its own site, etc. Then we look at what is left and see if there are enough good sources for it to meet notability. There might be, it isn't clear yet. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

LaMona, Sorry! I just checked your comments. I had based the use of "its own site" as a source from comparable wikipedia articles I had also seen wherein they cited the entity's website in order to substantiate information. Does a fact which is self-evident upon further inquiry; such as the dimensions of a computer chassis being the smallest of that form factor in the world; stand a better chance at Wikipedia acceptance than attempting to substantiate such facts with the entity's own website? I felt it more appropriate to include the source in addition to the self-evident fact in this instance.

Tek Syndicate is very reputable in the gaming computer world! I'm not sure how they could be classified as crowd-sourced?

I'll get right on those changes and hope to hear from you soon in regards to my clarification questions. Thanks!

-Argusg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt if there's anything encyclopedic about the dimensions of the product, so that shouldn't be necessary at all. That's something that would go on a sales site or brochure, but doesn't add to notability. As for Tek Syndicate, I looked at it - there is no listing of editorial staff; reviews are listed as "posted by..." and when you click on those names you are taken to a (so far always blank) "forum profile" with a username, not a person's real name. If the review staff is not paid professional staff then the reviews cannot be used for notability because there is no way to know if it's all on the up and up. People may rely on it, but that doesn't make it reliable by WP's standards. LaMona (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ermis article draft denied after sources change?

Hi LaMona,

I did the requested changes that you asked for. I changed (in the main article and added some of them at the end) all sources and put in there third party sources such as: newspapers, the official webpages of the ProClubs that did take the players and make direct reference to them, even a link to the national broadcast (to watch it) and yet; another reviewer appears and declines it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enasaplos (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

First, do not remove the AfC banners that have been added. They are noted as "do not remove this line" and that is for a reason -- it helps reviewers know what advice has already been given. Second, yes, adding the sources does not mean that the article will be automatically accepted. Without the sources we cannot know if the organization meets general notability. All Wikipedia articles are based on sources, and the depth and quality of sources is a key factor in meeting notability. The sources you have are not strong - there are mentions of the team but I don't see anything in depth, nor anything from national newspapers or journals. All of your sources are sports magazines, which makes them narrow in scope. If the organization has been written up in mainstream media, that would help the cause. That said, as the other reviewer pointed out, a local sports organization for school-aged children will probably not meet notability unless it is quite unusual. The organization must also meet wp:corp, the criteria for corporations and organizations. That says: "1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization." LaMona (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

00:16:49, 17 February 2016 review of submission by DigitalBrandMakeover

• DigitalBrandMakeover (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Laurie Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona,

Thank you so much for your review. This is my first time to submit a Wikipedia article. I had a request from an author and friend to create a Wikipedia page for her. In doing this, I researched by looking at the page for C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling -- and then so as to look at something more comparable (as this is a niche author with a fanbase, but not a best seller) -- I looked at:

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

In reviewing Deb Baker, I tried to follow the format so as to make an article on wikipedia that would be reasonable.

There were two suggestions --

1. 1) As per your suggestion, I did remove the GoodReads citation. I thought it was a good one, but as it is deemed not credible, I was fine with that!
2. 2) Please provide a complete citation for the books listed (publisher, place of publication, date, ISBN). --- I took at look at C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling and Deb Baker and see no citations with ISBN numbers for their books. The only ISBN citations were for where the authors were mentioned in someone else's book publications. In the case of Laurie Moore, I do not have any book references.

I am hoping that the article will be worth submission to Wikipedia and I certainly believe that it is comparable to Deb Baker's article. Her books are also independently published -- through Barnes and Noble's CreateSpace program.

Hi. User:DigitalBrandMakeover. The reason we need the full citations is that it is part of how we evaluate notability. One of the big differences with the J.K. Rowling page (other than the fact that she's both rich and famous thanks to her writing) is that nearly all of the books on that page point to complete wikipedia pages for the individual books -- thus those books are covered in full detail. You need to look at a page for an author who is a bit less famous, like James Gleick. If you don't have book references, then I can't imagine where you got the information from. If you got it directly from Ms. Moore, then you have a problem. All information on WP needs to come from independent, third-party sources. If you need additional bibliographic information, you can use WorldCat or Amazon. You say you are a friend, and that unfortunately leaves you directly in the position of having a conflict of interest. I hope you'll consider that duly. As for the Deb Baker page, you should notice the box at the top which indicates that the article does not meet WP's criteria for sourcing, and therefore is at the first step on the route to being deleted. It doesn't matter what other articles you find in WP, the fact is that the article you are creating must meet the criteria. If the author is primarily self-published, then they do not meet the criteria. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, La Mona. I don't know the author personally, but I'm friends with her on Facebook. I didn't realize that Deb Baker's page was actually an example of what -not to do-, and now that you've pointed this out to me I fully understand. The list of books that I have were not from her directly, they are easily found on dozens of websites that sell her book including Amazon, Good Reads, and the WorldCat website that you mentioned (https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=laurie+moore&qt=results_page), etc. The ISBN #s and date of publishing are easy to source in that manner.

This being said -- according to your response -- as the author does appear to be self published (which I did not realize at the time that Five Star was a self publishing platform) -- she cannot have a Wikipedia page until she is actually published by a commercial publishing house. I considered that rules for musicians must be different as there are many musicians who are self published -- however, because they perform concerts and their published work is not what defines them, this must be different. Laurie does book signings, but that's not comparable to booking a venue wherein people are paying for a performance and building a following.

This was a fun experience and I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia in the future when I find topics and corrections that are more relevant to Wikipedia that fit in the guidelines. Thank you for also showing me the amazing community support that makes Wikipedia such a great resource! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalBrandMakeover (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Request on 01:08:10, 17 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Odubhain

• Odubhain (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anne Elizabeth (Author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the critique on the article about Anne Elizabeth. I think the interviews that she has done indicate notability for her as it demonstrates that she is well known in both the Romance field and the Graphic Novel/comics field. She also conducts other high profile activities (presentations and author-fan interaction sessions) at the two main conferences for Romance Writing: RWA and RT. In addition to that, she has a major presence at the main Comic Con event in San Diego, having a booth each year and sharing it with another notable author Majorie Liu.

I removed the interviewing references to major writers and comic figures. I left in her work as an interviewer for RT Booklovers Reviews and being a feature writer (along with a few citations to verify that).

I'm concerned that the citations I provided to her ebooks that are available on Amazon and at Barnes & Noble might be considered to be non-Wikipedia approved. Do I need to go to other reviews/citations like like Booklist and Kirkus

Is there anything else that needs to be done to get the article accepted? I plan to complete all ISBN references and any wordsmithing that may be required.

Thanks for the criticism.

--Odubhain (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Odubhain (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The main thing you need to do is to read the related policies: general notability, and authors and other creatives. You should also look at reliable sources. WP has its own definition of notability which isn't the same as we use in everyday life: in WP, notability is defined by what others say (or write) about the subject. So her doing interviews is not something someone else is saying about her, so, no, it doesn't lend to notability. You need to find sources about her, not by her. That's really all that counts. For authors we generally look for reviews of their books in reliable sources. The "bottom line" reviews are in places like Booklist and Kirkus - publications that exist mainly to review. The top line would be reviews in newspapers or magazines. Reviews on social media sites, like Amazon or Goodreads, are not allowed as sources since they have no editorial oversight (and can be heavily gamed, so they aren't trustworthy.) LaMona (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

For the books, you should not reference the books themselves -- that is, do not create a reference to the information for the book as it appears on Amazon or elsewhere. That IS the book, not something ABOUT the book. Do add references to reviews, however, which show that the book was noticed. Note that none of this guarantees that the article will be accepted. Adding the references gives reviewers the information they need to determine if the subject meets WP's notability criteria. Consider yourself to be making the case for notability. I have to warn you that authors who self-publish do not meet those criteria. In her case, there are some books that are not self-published, so there is a small chance that notability will be met. It is far from guaranteed, however. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

00:38:21, 18 February 2016 review of submission by KarmaTZangpo

• KarmaTZangpo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:UTS ePRESS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your review. In response I have removed the Press Release reference and the older books and journals. In my research I noted that the live University of Melbourne Press Wikipedia entry (below) have not used any external sources for their entry, while I have provided several. If you could please let me know what you think of the changes that would be great.

Thank you

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

Please see wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an answer about the Melbourne UP article. I have marked it as needing better citations. I will let other reviewers have a chance to respond to your article. I can say that the Trove reference will not be accepted as it is simply an email, and at best could be considered a kind of press release, which are not allowed as references. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

08:04:55, 18 February 2016 review of submission by Sangram12

• Sangram12 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:IEEEmadC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)