User talk:LaMona/Archives/2015/12

Conflict of Interest Inquiry

Good afternoon,

I received a message saying I may have a conflict of interest simply based on my username. I'm not sure if that means my submission is denied but to address the concerns, my username is simply bc I am a fan of the band/subject involved. I have never worked on Wikipedia before so I had no username. I chose my username bc it was available and related to the purpose of my user account creation. If my submission is declined based on this then what is the process for appeal? I'm not affiliated with the subject so I don't believe it's a conflict of interest.

Thank you.

First, you must sign your messages on talk pages with four tilde's -- there's a link to click on at the bottom of the edit box. Next, if you do not have a conflict of interest then there's no problem. However, it is best to avoid user names that appear to be representative of an organization or group. See the policy on promotional user names. If you need your username to be changed, you can apply at Wikipedia:Changing_username. However, if you have only made a few edits on WP, it may just be easier to create a new user name that is in line with the general policy. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:24:46, 1 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elenabolo

• Elenabolo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Workshop on Operator Theory and its Applications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona,

Following your recommendations, I added the references to the reliable outside sources (books and journals, protocols from the national and international science societies, references to the funding sources) and inserted internal wiki-link references. Also, I edited the text to make more emphasis on the relevance of the subject in the international context.

May I please ask you to review the revised version and let me know if it is ready for submission?

Thank you very much for your help!!

Elenabolo (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Elenabolo, go ahead and resubmit it. You've done a lot of work! LaMona (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing of Draft page for MadRat Games

Hi LaMona. Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't included the exact link for Manthan Award - have done it now. Thank you for bringing that to my notice. Also the INK fellow was for one of the founders (Halder) - yes, but it was for her work as Madrat founder and especially for Aksharit which is the company's flagship product.--Yoginipatil (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You should say exactly that in the article -- that one of the founders, Halder, was given an award.... etc. The statements in the article have to match what is in the source. Note, however, that the source has only one sentence, and you cannot draw other conclusions. It is best to be very direct. LaMona (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:55:44, 3 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kiaora1980

• Kiaora1980 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hernán Jiménez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! Thank you so much for your review -- I have corrected all the references so that the sources are linked in the text, as you requested. I hope it can now be approved?

Kiaora1980 (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kiaora1980 That was quick! - there is a bit more of cleanup you can do. First, you've got a lot of links that now are in the references area and follow the in-line references. Some of those are used as inline references, so they should be deleted. The remainder can be 1) deleted because not needed or 2) used as references or 3) added as external links. However, they all need to be removed from the "References" area. The other thing is that you have some "http" links out from the article to the web. If there is a person or organization that you cannot link to a WP article, you may have added an http link. Those are not allowed in WP. Again, you can simply delete them, or you may want to add them to a list of external links. Usually they are just deleted. Happy editing! Chat with you soon. LaMona (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:51:03, 4 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kiaora1980

• Kiaora1980 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hernán Jiménez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Done, and done, LaMona :) Thank you so much for your guidance! I have eliminated all unnecessary references and have deleted all external links. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do. Thanks!

Kiaora1980 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

06:39:50, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Mbattistella

• Mbattistella (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gregory V. Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, Thank you for your critical review of my entry on Gregory V. Jones - it was very helpful and I also appreciated the time you took to format according to convention. I've read through all your edits and comments on other pages and see that you are careful, committed, and *very* patient. I wonder if you would have time to review the updates I've made before re-submitting. Thank you for your time. Maureen.

Mbattistella (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gregory V. Jones has been accepted

Gregory V. Jones, 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) 15:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Rejection longform L van Dipten

Hi LaMona,

You reviewed my article by saying: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Long-form journalism instead"

I do believe longform and longform-journalism is not the same thing. Longform is a growing genre online and is not journalistic per se. I do blieve longform is simular to what Adorno called the essay, which can be a critical piece of work. As longform is growing in popularity online, I do believe it is important that wikipedia has a page about it. What can I do to get it online? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Longform

You have to show that it is different from longform journalism, which your article does not. The citations and much of the text are about journalistic uses. You need to eschew those examples and find ones that are not at all journalistic in nature. I'm not sure what that will be -- possibly academic essays? But you shouldn't quote journalism profs or journalism conferences. Also, "longform" is an adjective -- it desperately needs a noun. LaMona (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Dear LaMona, thank you very much for all of the time you spend and all of the input you give!! Your work is highly appreciated!! Elenabolo (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Etta Federn

Just a note of thanks, dear LaMona! Good to get more women's history on Wiki, I think. I'll keep working on the Etta Federn article and consider contributing additional entries.

One question: I'd love to add a photo, but I'm not finding any photos of Etta Federn online that are clearly in the public domain. Can I take a photo of a book cover with her picture, and crop it somewhat (so you can see that the photo is part of the book cover?) Or does that not fly? Do you have any other suggestions? (Also, I own a letter that has her signature -- if I took a photo of her signature, would that be appropriate for Wiki?) Many thanks to you. Gecko990 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a copy of a copyrighted photo is still copyrighted. Why don't you note on the talk page that you are looking for a rights-free photo, and see if anyone has one that they took themselves that they can offer. I don't see any reason why you couldn't take a photo of the signature that you have -- but I'll check the copyright pages to see if they say anything about that. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your expert advice! Much appreciated. (I fear that Etta Federn falls in a gray zone, in terms of her photographs. She died too long ago for anyone to have a photo they took of her, but not so long ago that existing photos are out of copyright! But we shall see....) Gecko990 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona. Hello again! How about the photo that appeared in this Barcelona newspaper (Mirador) in 1934? More than 70 years have passed since publication:

      http://www.estelnegre.org/documents/federn/federn.html

Many thanks to you, once again! Gecko990 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The rule (as I read it) is life of the author of the photograph, plus 70 years. Of course, we don't know who took the photos, or if the rights in the photos belong to the newspaper and not the person. i think the best thing to do is ask here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. Presumably the copyright experts hang around there and answer questions. In the US there are some exceptions in the copyright law relating to news reporting, but as the photos were published in Spain, it's much too complex for me. Let me know if you get a clear answer! LaMona (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll give the copyright folks a try and let you know if.... All my best!Gecko990 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of page: UK Climate Change and Migration Coalition

Hi there, thanks for your feedback. In line with your comments I have done the following. Deleted everything that could not be referenced using a source that was not connected to the organization in some way. Further I have deleted content that was about issues more broadly. The article is now almost entirely referenced using external reliable sources. I will not resubmit the article for review. Thanks. PaperGoldFish (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:05:50, 7 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LazarouMT

• LazarouMT (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:All About Trans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, thanks for looking at my submission. Could you give examples of the errors you mentioned?

LazarouMT (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, LazarouMT, thanks for stopping by. I did give you one example of a "name check" in my comment. The other issue is that you are using information from the "All About Trans" own site for many of your statements, like this. The organization's own site is not a reliable source of information about the organization because it is not independent or neutral. You need to limit the references independent sources to support the article (of which you have many, btw). The Wikipedia article needs to be about the organization and what it does. For this reason, lists of press events aren't really of interest (cf. "Many All About Trans volunteers have been on British radio discussing trans matters and their experiences. Examples include people speaking on BBC Radio Manchester [50],Radio Cardiff , BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire [51], and BBC Radio Cambridge[52] ") Those don't tell a reader about the organization, and both interviews and quotes by officers are specifically listed in the policies on corporations as not attesting to notability. So think of the article less as "showing how important the organization is" to more "telling people what it does." That's what people come to Wikipedia for. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

14:32:09, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Bingham28

• Bingham28 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GroceryAid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there LaMona, thank you for taking the time to look at my draft page.

Would you please give me some feedback on how I can fit the required guidelines? Here are some issues I face -

• The charity is a Non-public facing charity - therefore the charity is not featured in more mainstream media • There are 30 references including the Scottish charity register and Charity Commission for the UK • Looking at similar charities - for example the Retail trust - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_Trust - I am confused as to what deems reliable sources, independence and notability? • The charity is notable as it has existed for nearly 160 years, has helped thousands of people and is an important part of the grocery industry. • The charity is represented in all major supermarkets such as Tesco, Asda etc.. is a big part of their corporate social responsibility programmes and prominent in retail - the largest employer in the UK.

• Major suppliers to Grocery stores E.G Kraft, Coca Cola enterprises, Heineken also recognise and support GroceryAid

Please advise me of my next steps with this article.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Nathan B FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Save page" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!-->}}

Hi, User:Bingham28. Thanks for coming to chat. First, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, there are many articles that are not perfect (to say the least). For that reason, one of our common responses is that "other stuff exists" does not justify not adhering to policies. I've just marked that Retail Trust article for not having any third-party references. The next step is that it can be nominated for deletion. As for your organization, the way that Wikipedia defines notability does require third-party sources. With a quick search I found this, and this, which tells me that there is more to be found in mainstream sources. These are the ones that attest to the impact the organization has on society. Presumably you are in the UK so you should be able to find more. Finally, remember that on talk pages you have to sign your posts with four tilde's (which then adds your username). There's a link to that just below the edit box. LaMona (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again LaMona Thanks for your quick response. I have taken your feedback on board. I have added 3 mainstream sources to the article and removed 3 primary as per the feedback! Unfortunately the ones you mentioned were not about the said subject but thank you very much for helping me to research. If you are able to have another look and tell me if I'm heading in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.

Bingham28 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

20:51:31, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Tiffin71

• Tiffin71 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rural Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made some small edits right now and can continue to look for citations- some items I may only be able to find citations for in the publication itself- I understand that is not ideal, but is it permissible if that is the only option? There was a comment implying that the piece was taken from the Linkedin page- I had not seen the Linkedin text nor can I quite see where the plagiarism is supposed to have occurred- I have removed the word sprawling in any case Please respond with advice

First, remember that on talk pages you need to sign your messages by putting four tilde's at the end - that inserts your username after the message. There's a reminder that you can click on at the bottom of the edit box. Next, I don't think anyone said anything about plagiarism. The issue is that the article isn't factual, but instead tells a story, and the information in the article isn't verifiable. Encyclopedia articles must be factual in nature, and every fact must be sourced to a third-party source. So if you say "Rural Intelligence provided a boost of encouragement..." you have to prove that someone independent of the subject and reliable printed that statement, either in a newspaper article or a web site with editorial oversight. If there are no third-party sources for some information, then you cannot include that information in the article. All together the article must reach a standard level of notability. You do have 3 third-party sources, but they do not cover all of the information in the article. Basically, the article must be built from the sources you have, using only the information in those sources. You cannot use blog posts as sources, btw. LaMona (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:28:39, 8 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Michellemaffucci1

• Michellemaffucci1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brian W. Wright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, thanks for your message. I am curious about what to do in order to have my article accepted. This information is being taken from a resume and from an interview I personally have conducted. There is no direct weblink to this information.

Thanks, Michelle

Michellemaffucci1 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are no sources, like newspaper or journal articles, then your article cannot be accepted. WP requires that all information be verifiable in reliable sources. You cannot submit original research to Wikipedia. You will have to find a different venue to publish it. LaMona (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Aflatoxin B1 Submission declined on 7 December 2015 by LaMona (talk)

Hi LaMona, my submission on Aflatoxin B1 was declined by you and you gave the reason for this as being a duplicate submission and you asked me to feel free to add to the existing page. I will like to clarify that this article is a class project. I as the author of the article had gone ahead to add the information I submitted to wiki for review to the existing page on Aflatoxin B1. Could this be why you talk of my submission being a duplicate?570ma (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You should not submit a duplicate article to Articles for Creation. You can keep one in your own sandbox, but articles for creation review is for articles that are intended to go into wikipedia. I don't know what your class project is about, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about AfC. We don't review class projects. LaMona (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My class project was for me to add information to the existing wiki entry on Aflatoxin B1. So after adding to the existing entry, I saw the submit draft for review option which I clicked on. From what I understand, I was not supposed to submit my draft for review since I was adding to an existing entry. Is this correct?570ma (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. You only submit new articles to AfC. There is no review of additions to existing articles. Also, additions to existing articles is not usually done by copying the article to your sandbox, but instead making the edits in place. LaMona (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona thanks for the clarification. I will like to point out that I copied information from my 570ma sandbox to the existing Aflatoxin B1 article and not the other way round. My sandbox does not have information which is not mine. You may be getting this mixed up because I copied stuff from my sandbox and added to the existing page before submitting my sandbox for review.570ma (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:OpenRent page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

01:11:13, 9 December 2015 review of submission by SylvianeB

• SylvianeB (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Embassy of Switzerland in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning LaMona, thank you for the review. I'm not sure this is the right place to answer to your comment, as this is my first steps on WP and I am not entirely sure on what I am doing. Said so I would like to apologize for my first clumsy step and wasted your time. I, since, sourced the list of people, linked statements and added external sources. Could you please tell me what should I do now ? Thanks in advance for your help

Thanks for stopping by. It's very hard to begin at Wikipedia by creating a new article. Perhaps you should set this aside and get more experience with Wikipedia by editing some existing articles. You can either look in topics areas where you are interested, or you can visit the Wikipedia:Community_portal where there is a list of articles needing help. For your article, you should try some searches beginning "Embassy of..." and see how others have handled this. From my searches it looks like there are not articles for individual embassies. It is always a good idea to survey the area and create articles that fit into the existing WP picture. LaMona (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Yes Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 2k Your Comments: It's not numeric. All edits are not the same. I would pay more attention to participation in discussion rather than a number of edits. Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 1 Your Comments: One of intense interaction is enough to get anyone the experience needed. Again, it's not the number of the quality of the interaction. Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: C Your Comments: Admin status is over-rated. Not everyone wants to be an admin Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: 0 Your Comments: see above Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Your Comments: Don't remember The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: LaMona General Comments: Sadly, numbers and rules are such a "guy" thing. They replace judgment made on quality. WP really is based on quality of work, not on numbers. We should de-emphasize the numbers and give more flexibility to the humans who are the intelligence behind WP. I think if the Talk page technology were easier we'd have better discussions and it would be easier for newcomers to begin to engage.

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: don't remember Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Your Comments: I think it's best if people volunteer for this, not get volunteered Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: I vote, as a rule Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: A, B, C, D, E, F, L, M Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

15:20:57, 9 December 2015 review of submission by Thehel84

• Thehel84 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lilas Taha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to review the submission.

It says in your comment that there was only one book and two reviews. However, Lilas Taha has published two books, the second of which has more than two reviews. There is The National (UAE based as you mentioned), The Lady Magazine (UK-based), The Middle East Monitor (online news and cultural site), and as you mentioned the TX-based newspaper, as well as another online magazine called Elan. This indeed may still not meet the criteria of notability, but I just wanted to make sure that those were all represented.

Thank you.

Yes, you are right, I didn't look at the first one in depth. I'm afraid, though, this probably doesn't change things. Being an author is not enough to establish notability -- one has to be a notable author, which means being published by major publishers, getting reviewed in major journals, and making the best-seller list. (Quick reminder: on talk pages you must sign your posts with four tilde's -- there's a click-on link at the bottom of the edit page, although that often scrolls off the screen.) LaMona (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

15:42:15, 9 December 2015 review of submission by Sachamcd

• Sachamcd (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jeremy Searle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear La Mona,

This is a very notable politician in Montreal, Canada. He has been in politics for 4 decades and ALL of his colleagues have wikipedia pages about them. His colleagues are less notable than he is yet they have been accepted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Rotrand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Perez_%28politician%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Copeman

My original article was rejected because the references weren't notable enough. The sources I added now are from major Canadian newspapers and stations, which he appears in every other week, and I believe this alone should deem him to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. If this is not enough then I need concise instructions/advice on how to get his article accepted just like his colleagues have been.

Sachamcd (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)SachaMcd

Sachamcd Thanks for getting in touch. A couple of things about the articles you list. First, Wikipedia is a work in progress and any article may change or even be deleted at any time. Thus, we say wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping an article. Each article stands on its own merits. However, when you look at the articles you listed and yours, you see that they vary quite a bit. The Perez article has a great depth of information, the Copeland less, but all have more detail than you provide. For example, you have a single sentence about the museum with three sources - surely there is more to say about that issue and his involvement, based on what is in those articles. Maybe something like: "Searle represented museum members who opposed..." "The project was dropped due to ...." etc. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

thank you

I don't know if I am posting this in the right location, but I would like to thank you and the other Wikipedia reviewers for accepting my article, "Mountain Pleasure Horse." I understand that this article is graded as "start class" and I will continue to try to improve it over time. I have researched the topic extensively over a number of years and for this article, I have cited most, and perhaps all available credible resources. Formal documentation is truly limited and this article is the most complete compilation to date. Any specific instruction you can give me to improve it from this point is welcome and appreciated. I would like to add, regarding the use of jargon, that informal writing style included in this article is largely due to directly quoted statements made by various individuals. These quotes, unsophisticated as they are, are vital to accurate documentation of the Mountain Pleasure Horse.MountainPleasure (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for adding this to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a formal writing style is required, as this is an encyclopedia. I suggest you seek other outlets for the more colorful writing that you would like to do on this article. I know that it's a bit boring, but that's kind of what makes this Wikipedia and not a blog or some other web site. I hope you find lots more to write about. Even other horses! LaMona (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who tagged it as start; it may be bumped up to C-class soon. Also, if you have any free license pictures of these horses, please feel free to upload them. I added the only picture of a Mountain Pleasure Horse I could find on Commons, but it'd be great to have a full-body photo of one so people can see its conformation. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

03:36:55, 10 December 2015 review of submission by Davebevis

• Davebevis (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sir George Kenning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your prompt review of my Draft:Sir George Kenning article. Following the second "submission declined" on notability grounds, I now need to ask for your help to progress the article any further.

I feel that I have already made a compelling case for Sir George Kenning to be considered "noteable" in the Recognition sub-sections of the article, as follows:

• For someone to have a biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, they need to be a "man or woman who has shaped all aspects of the British past, from the earliest times to the end of the year 2000" (see Biography section of article).
• For someone to have a biography in the Dictionary of Business Biography, they have to be a "business leaders active in Britain in the period 1860–1980" (see Biography section of article).
• For someone to have a portrait in London's National Portrait Gallery they have to be an "historically important and famous British person" (see Portraits section of article).
• For a person to receive an honour such as a knighthood in the British monarch's New Year Honours List, they would need to have gained the respect and support of their local community for their exceptional public work (see Knighthood section of article).
• For a person to have an obituary in Britain's most-respected national newspaper, he/she has to be of national significance (see Obituaries section of article).

Have I not explained with sufficient clarity how the selection process for these various honours work?

OR

Are the citations that I have chosen inappropriate in some way?

Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Davebevis (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Davebevis, hello. Thanks for asking. The big problem is that the potentially notable facts are buried in a lot of irrelevant information. You should cut down the article to just that which makes him notable. The entire family history should be removed -- WP is not a genealogy database. The "homey" stories of his youth ('In 1891, George started helping out in his father's hardware shop') do not show notability. Local offices ('He served on Clay Cross Urban District Council for almost 30 years') do not support notability. The "recognitions" section talks about his awards, but doens't say why he was given them. Rather than say that he got a Times obit, perhaps you should say what they said about him. That could show notability. But the way it is, we have a story about a person's life, but not a strong encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Mark O'Leary

You commented that someone with admin status should delete it because the author isn't getting the message. I don't have admin status, and don't think that there is a speedy deletion criterion for it, so I did what any reviewer can do, and that is to tag it for Miscellany for Deletion. It is my understanding that this is considered an appropriate way to deal with drafts that are being tendentiously resubmitted. This will probably result in its deletion in slightly more than seven days. In the meantime, other reviewers who go to it randomly will see the MFD tag and will either ignore it or decline it, and may !vote for its deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Marc Nuttle

LaMona, I have added the sources that you requested to this page. I was able to find articles written specifically about the person and articles written by the person. I have re-submitted it for review. Would you please look it over and accept it if you think it is ready? Thanks, Jackson Jackson.lisle (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Jackson, unfortunately, works by him do not contribute to notability, and many of the other sources you've added are what we call "name-checks" -- that is, he is named or very briefly quoted. Those do not count toward notability. You can send it again for review, but you should remove all of the sources that are not explicitly about him. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

23:25:56, 10 December 2015 review of submission by Artlibrarian2

• Artlibrarian2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rich Thorne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing the page. Confused because sources are reliable, independent and high profile industry periodicals.

There are existing pages of people in this industry with far less citations (see: Jeff Olm, for instance). Jeff Olm was hired as an intern by Rich Thorne! Thanks for your time Artlibrarian2 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Artlibrarian2, hi. Did you notice the big box at the top of the Jeff Olm article? That's a first step toward deletion, and most likely that article will not survive. WP is always "in progress" and about 100 articles are deleted each day. That's why we say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for adding an article that does not meet the criteria. I removed a number of unreliable sources, such as IMDB. The remaining sources do not say much about him, at least the ones I viewed. Please point out sources that are substantially about him. And also provide links to online copies if you have them - it makes it easier to check - I had to go digging around in various magazine archives that you most likely had also visited. LaMona (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 01:28:35, 11 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Artlibrarian2

• Artlibrarian2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rich Thorne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi again LaMona, first of all thank you so much for reworking the Rich Thorne article into the proper format, much appreciated.

The Cinefex citations are multi-pages but not reproduced online. I found them at special library then ordered hardcopies. Is there a way or place for me to post the content of citations that need fact checking so they can be vetted? But by the way, so much of Thorne's press is pre-internet.

Thank you again for your help and your time.

Artlibrarian2 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Artlibrarian2 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but when we don't have online copies we assume good faith. So if you do have online links and can add them to the references, that would be great. However, you need to decide if those articles are "substantially about him" or just mentions. The difficulty here is that few film people beyond the star and the primary producers and directors get the kind of attention that would make them notable for WP. For this person, unless someone has written an article or a book that details what he invented, it's going to be hard to meet the criteria for notability. This is also true of other creative support personnel. It would be nice to have sources that go into some detail about what he developed. The lists of movies he worked on do not support notability, even though he is listed in the credits. (So are hundreds of others.) Some of us are just background ;-). LaMona (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Submission declined Manhattan Bridge Capital on 10 December 2015 by LaMona

Hello LaMona, My page has been declined for the fifth time. I have been getting the same feedback from other wikipedia editors I have contacted, saying that there's not enough coverage of the company in reliable third-party sources to establish that it meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. I believe it is attainable to get our company page published however maybe I have been approaching it wrong when doing the corrections. I have run out of ideas as to what I can change/add to get approval. Please let me know what you think and your suggestions. I appreciate for as much help as I can get. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhattan Bridge Capital (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Manhattan Bridge Capital, it is quite possible that you cannot get "your" company published. And note that your username is is violation of the wp:Username_policy and you are in violation of the conflict of interest policy because you have not announced your association with the company on your talk page or on the talk page of the article. WP is not available as a way to promote companies, and we have policies in place specifically to prevent this. If your company is not notable by our standards, it is not notable. Each time to request a review, you are taking the precious time of volunteers who are dedicated to created a free information resource. We are not happy to be used for promotional purposes. As there is no more for you to add to the article, you should accept that, and not send the article back for more review at this time. LaMona (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Anselmo submission

Hi, LaMona! I got your comment relating to my article, thank you very much for your help. I took your advice and changed some of the wording in my article to make it sound less promotional, and I also removed the faulty Times Square Chronicles reference. However, I did keep both references by OnStage and Freshman 15; when I clicked on their respective links, they took me to the proper pages. On the Freshman 15 website, Christopher is featured under the "Members" section, and is the leftmost person on the top row as of my writing this reply. (I learned he no longer serves as music director for the group, but he still performs with them; I reflected this in the article.)

Let me know if there are any other ways I can improve the article for inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you once again! --Adenburg (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

11:04:55, 12 December 2015 review of submission by Leo1701

• Leo1701 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Elizabeth Stampede Rodeo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, Thanks for reviewing our draft so quickly. I have reviewed Wikipedia's notability guidelines and have some questions before revising the draft.

Would it help to add the sanctioning organizations? Elizabeth Stampede Rodeo is sanctioned by two, both of which have entries in Wikipedia: PRCA and WPRA. These organizations do not publish lists of their sanctioned rodeos so I would not be able to cite any sources.

I may be able to find discussions of the Elizabeth Stampede Rodeo in local history books at the library but they are not published online.

Your comments on the 2nd draft said that I added only one citation. But I had added four: 3 numbered footnotes/inline citations (first draft had 1) and 4 general references which include newspaper articles (Elbert County News published by Colorado Community Newspapers), a regional rural news magazine article (The Fence Post), and 2 websites (Wrangler Network and the official page of the PRCA, Pro Rodeo Cowboy's Association). All these sources are completely separate from the Elizabeth Stampede Rodeo; the articles are available online and the Wikipedia entry includes links.

Thanks for your time Patricia Jackson aka leo1701

P.S. I created my Wikipedia account several years ago and have added a small amount of additional information to several articles and made a few corrections to others. Now that I am hoping to create a page, would it be a good idea to use my real name for the account?

Leo1701 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Patricia Jackson

Leo1701 Hi. Thanks for asking! A couple of things: no need to use your "real name". The purpose of the username is to build up a history of your work, regardless of who you are in real life. Second, you can use sources that are not online. Now, for the harder things: Adding sanctioning organizations may help some, but basically what makes a WP article is that the subject has been written about in multiple third-party, independent sources. The sanctioning organizations obviously are not "independent." Second, there really isn't any such thing as "general references" in WP. Any references that you have should be used to add content to the article, and should be inline citations. Only cited references contribute to notability. So you should try to incorporate those into the article, using what they say about the rodeo. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Enquiry

Hi LaMona. I have been having discussions with Sarah about an article she has been working on for four months getting bounced by the AFC process (here). I'm looking at the article and it looks fine to me and the subject is IMO notable. I am proposing to assist Sarah and just publish this article on a "IAR" basis, as I cannot see the rationale for turning away new editors and new articles. Can you explain why you think the article is not good enough, given that this article would not be deleted were it to take a more direct route to publication. My interest here is in encouraging a new editor when I cannot see why she is being bounced according to Wikipedia normal practices. Can you advise? Victuallers (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Victuallers. As I explained in my comment on the article, there just aren't any sources ABOUT him. There's a big different between BY and ABOUT. So take the Daily Star article - it quotes him talking about the award. We learn nothing about him in that article. Quotes are "BY" him. The article with Deneuve in the title says this: "The evening gala continued, with Ricardo Karam as master of ceremony,..." That's not about him, that's what we call a "name check." So is, in the "diaspora" article, this: "Television personality Ricardo Karam opened the conference." So is the "company news in Egypt: "The forum moderator Ricardo Karam, announced the launching of the national committee." None of these are articles about him. And we require SUBSTANTIAL information ABOUT the person. Multiple someones have to have taken him as the subject of an article and written about him. But that does not seem to have been the case, therefore he is not considered notable by WP policies. This article would not withstand a deletion discussion. LaMona (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

14:39:59, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Midolly

• Midolly (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Corkin Cherubini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, LaMona, Thanks for your comments. This is my first time writing an article, so please help me get it right. First, is the numbering method I have used in the body of the article for citations (or references) satisfactory? I see that you suggest that I retitle "Citations" as "References." Also, do you consider any of these references unreliable? If so, which ones? I have read that Wikipedia frowns on newsletters as references; however, the quotes from the Kennedy Library Newsletter are a matter of public record. Likewise, the book from which I took the Edelman article does have a reputable publisher. Other sources are news articles from reputable newspaper articles published between 1986 and 1996 and articles from educational publications. I will try to verify dates, etc., for the "Sixty Minutes" and "Good Morning America" segments. There are a couple of comments by those who opposed ending the "hard tracking" of students in the schools which reporters have included in their articles, but I do not think it wise to quote them from a legal standpoint--even though newspaper articles did. Also, should Dr. Cherubini's books be included in a bibliography, as you suggest, or in the section entitled "Further Reading"? Thanks for any help you can provide. MidollyMidolly (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Midolly. The quality of the references is fine; the issue is what is meant by the section you call "References" -- As I say in my comment: "Any "sources" need to be inline references in the article. The "Citations" section needs to be "References". The sources listed in "References" should either be incorporated into the article or added in a "further reading" section. However, each of those needs to be complete so that others can find the exact article." Since the article should be as complete as possible, if you have additional sources that say anything pertinent, you would normally incorporate those into the article itself. There can sometimes be a further reading section, but not generally for biographies of living persons - further reading is usually for difficult philosophical or scientific concepts. If you have sources you decide not to use, you should just keep them to yourself. As for opposition, that definitely should be included and could be in a separate section. There's no need to quote from them -- you can summarize the points made. As long as you have sources, there is no legal issue.LaMona (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Anil Gupta (philosopher)

Hi LaMona. Thanks for reviewing and accepting the article, and for doing it so quickly. I was hoping you could clarify the reason you offered for such substantial editing: "removed unnecessary explanations of his theories -- he has a chair, he is notable." I agree about notability, but the point of including text about his work wasn't to show notability but to offer some introductory insight into what his work and ideas are about (and his work and ideas are, ultimately, what makes him notable). Would it help if I trimmed the text, i.e., if I made it shorter and less detailed? It seems to me that having at least something on his work would be just the kind of thing readers would look for and that it would help with upgrading the article from the Start Class. E.g., start by adding to the article the introductory paragraphs of the sections on his work that I've had in the previous iteration of the article.

I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks, 44 DFW (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

44 DFW, thanks for asking! The rules about notability for WP are a bit counter-intuitive at times. Adding more about his work that is sourced to his work will not upgrade the article. In fact, you cannot use his work as a source of information for the article. See reliable sources, and original research. You can use the discussions of his work, which you have listed, as sources of information about his work. Taking a quick look at those, it seems that you can talk about where people agree and where they disagree with him. That usually makes for interesting reading. If you can create a narrative from those sources it can be in the article. Do look at articles for other philosophers [1] -- other than the obvious "stars" they tend to be rather short on explanation of the philosophical theories. Explanation goes into the articles about the philosophies themselves, not the articles on the philosophers. A good controversy, though, can go liven things up. LaMona (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, LaMona, that does clarify things considerably. What I think I might do—and I would love to hear your thoughts on this—would be to include some of the text on Gupta's work (nothing as elaborate as what I initially had) and cite reliable and reputable sources such as the relevant article on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, book reviews on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews and articles that are directly concerned with Gupta's work and supply expositions of it, such as, for example, this one. Do you think that would, at least in principle, be acceptable?

Thanks for your time and input, I appreciate it very much. 44 DFW (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

User:44 DFW, since philosophy isn't my area, I'd suggest that you hook up with the Philosophy project and chat with those folks. A project is usually trying to encourage some uniformity between articles, so they may have long ago discussed how much to cover on pages of individual philosophers, and someone there may be able to help you edit the article. Best of luck LaMona (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

23:36:30, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac

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

Can you tell to me what type of reference you would accept for a concert pianist? I am at a loss at the moment! Are you saying that only the absolute top rank classical pianists such as Daniel Barenboim are worthy of an entry in Wikipedia? Thanks Geoff

Geoff, basically, only musicians who have received substantial press (generally reviews or biographical articles) are included. That means that many will not warrant a WP article. It's the same for authors and artists and firemen and just about all of us. Unfortunately, you don't help her by using poor sources, like a photo of her taking a master class. There's no content in that. What you need are reviews of her work in well-respected newspapers or journals or other sources that would show that someone thought she was worth writing about. Youtube videos are not ABOUT her, they are her performing. Have you read through wp:music? If you have, you will see that awards count highly, so if she has won awards you should emphasize those. Note that you cannot use her own web site as a source of information.[2] Also, there's a lot that isn't clear. "Olga is a Samling musician" ? What's that? Don't assume that your reader knows this. Also, what does it mean to be "invited to work" at the Tchaikovsky Competition? What kind of work? Your reader could assume that she was taking tickets. Did she perform? What was her role? You have to show that she is notable as a musician. LaMona (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:52:58, 14 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Pianogac

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

LaMona

First many thanks for your detailed response - I am working on it! Just one thing - you write that "you cannot use her own website as a source of imformation.[4]

I see that but the reference I give is not for Olga's website but for the person who engaged her to perform the work.

It demonstrates that Olga is well thought of as a musician, particularly by the person who allowed the BBC (NB a respected sorce!) to film this is his own home. The man concerned is Bob Boas who has a long history of supporting classical musicians.

"Nadine .. she recruited concert pianist Olga Jegunova who in turn found soprano Kirstin Sharpin. A crew was already recording Olga for a concert courtesy of the BBC and could also record our piece. The owners of the lovely home and hosts for the charitable concert graciously allowed it to serve as our backdrop, and a wonderful editor was found – recommended by the BBC gang. All was in place and the result was magical!"

I will make more of this info more obvious in the article.

Pianogac (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Pianogac - unfortunately the person who engaged her is not an independent source. Plus, that is a personal web site, not one with editorial oversight. So you can use that link to show that she was hired to play, but you can't take any further information from it (like a description of her playing, such as "magical"). LaMona (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

08:13:55, 14 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac

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

I have just seen that you ask what is a Samling Artist? IN fact I wrote "Olga is a Samling Artist. This scheme nurtures the artistic development of exceptional young singers and piano accompanists at the start of their careers"

surely this does explain what a Samling Artist is?

Cheers

Geoff

References

Uh, no. "Scheme" is pretty vague. Looking at the site, it's an intensive training program of master classes and performances for young opera singers and accompaniests, run by the non-profit organization Samling. So it sounds like she took part in the program (it would be nice to at least have the year, and for how long, but that's not essential). You still have too many primary sources in the article -- her web site, (for the Belgian performance), Youtube videos of her interviewing people (those are not ABOUT her). You also cannot use references to link to the web sites of people you mention, like Schiff -- that's not ABOUT her. To be honest, she sounds to me like a young, up-and-coming performer, but WP is interested only when performers have already up and come, and not before. When she's a headliner, then a WP article will be appropriate. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

18:39:01, 14 December 2015 review of submission by 0x000fff

• 0x000fff (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Parallel Tree Contraction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

I revised the page to make the basic concepts sourced as well. Could you take a look? And if you still find any place insufficient, would you mind be specific and point it out? Thank you!

User:0x000fff, I think it's good enough for main space. Someone with more knowledge of the topic will need to comment on the analysis section -- generally WP articles report research and findings but don't provide analysis. I don't know if your analysis here falls into original research or not. Someone will probably comment on that at a future time. LaMona (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

ODNB

I noticed [3]. But a full article in DNB has been regarded in many AfD decisions as proof of notability, even without anything else--and in fact we have many bio articles based on it alone. The same is true for similarly selective national bibliographies of other countries. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:DGG, my main problem with the article is the extraneous stuff. I have to say that being one of 50K alone doesn't do it for me, but essentially the article wanders all over the place and fails to focus on what he is notable for. Unfortunately, there's no category for "poorly written article that never says much". What I'm finding is people focus on proving notability and forget that they also have to tell the reader what matters about the subject. So we get these long lists of: was quoted here and here and here and here.... which is devoid of content. Getting in WP has become a contest rather than a service to readers. I don't know how we can encourage more useful articles. LaMona (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

article content in general is a problem. We have rules we can enforce(about whether there should be an article (even if we follow them only very irregularly);we have rules about what should be in them, but no practical way of enforcing them, short of a RfC. And few of the best editors here are willing to fix other people's articles. Nobody seems to have realized 15 years ago that encyclopedias need revision. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

22:40:40, 14 December 2015 review of submission by Hyperclassic

• Hyperclassic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Americium-241 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have evidence for Draft:Americium-241 but I have trouble putting the refs in. If you could I would appreciate it if your could put them in for me if I give you the external pages. And also a lot of this information and existing refs are from other Wikipedia articles that I can also provide links to. λmericium ¤ 22:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Hyperclassic, paste the refs here and I will add them in. Let me know which goes with which name. 22:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)LaMona (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

For comfort and purrs

Thank you for showing admirable restraint when accused of something unpleasant and unwarranted by an editor who has not yet understood referencing.

Fiddle Faddle 23:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 00:10:07, 15 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Fowlerjlr

• Fowlerjlr (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Quanta Cloud Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, LaMona. Regarding the QCT page, I've added more language describing what the company does. The information in the article can be verified with the 17 references, at least 15 of which cite magazines articles and on-line news features written by credible, third-party journalists. These publications are all widely read within the data center industry. This should be ready for posting now, correct?

Fowlerjlr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)fowlerjlrFowlerjlr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Fowlerjlr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		For your thoughtful reviewing at AfC and your willingness to help new users with references! /wia🎄/tlk 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for pointing out the notability issue on the draft Hongchi Xiao. I am in the process of gathering more references. I appreciate you.

jdxzhu 04:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 00:47:20, 15 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Petpan089

• Petpan089 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yachtico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, thank you for taking time to review my submission. I added as many independend ressources as possible. I think the three largest newspapers in Florida are very good independend sources. Furthermore a smaller and younger similar company named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruzin is listed and has less reliable sources for citations. What do you want me to do get this article approved? I really appreciate your help! Thank you, Pete.

Petpan089 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Cruizin site is marked as not meeting the criterial for corporate entries. That is the first step toward deletion. WP is not a directory of companies; it is an encyclopedia. That a company exists is not enough to make it encyclopedic. Most companies do not meet the criteria for entry into WP. Big companies, ones that have had a long history that has had an affect on the course of history, those that have invented things.... that's what should be considered encyclopedic. You can't change the nature of the company, so there's nothing that you can do to get the article approved. LaMona (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 04:57:34, 15 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Musicguy12321

• Musicguy12321 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Snow Globe Music Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona!

I am trying to understand what of the Snow Globe article reads as a advertisement? I went into the chat room with other moderators and they helped me re-write the article, so I was disappointed to see it was still denied. Is it a specific sentence, or section that reads as an advertisement?

Thanks, Greg

Musicguy12321 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Greg, essentially, it is an advertisement. This is exactly the information you would put in a flier or an ad in a newspaper. If there is nothing to say other than the festival is happening and has the following entertainers, then it is an advertisement. What is encyclopedic about that? For an event to be encyclopedic it has to have at least a history, that history has to be notable (e.g. in the history of the world or the region), and there has to be something interesting to say. Thing "encyclopedia" -- information that serves the ages. Your festival probably has no place there. LaMona (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For keeping your cool and not being either angered or intimidated by an irate article proponent at AFC, and in general for being an even-tempered AFC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:08:36, 16 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Musicguy12321

• Musicguy12321 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Snow Globe Music Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ok thanks for that feedback. I will add in the previous years of the festival, to show its encyclopedia value. I definitely think that it has a place on wikipedia, especially given there is a similar festival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Music_Festival that is a similar festival. For the record, I don't work for this festival or have any affiliation with it, I just see it should be in wikipedia.

Musicguy12321 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:39:39, 16 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eric Musgrave

• Eric Musgrave (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Don McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, just to follow up on your responses on Nov 25 about my entry on businessman Don McCarthy. Is it possible you could send to me the feature with all the offending lines / facts /statements crossed out or highlighted so I can see what we are left with? I am sure this would not take too long as the piece is much truncated already from my original of several months ago. I continue to be confused by your argument that the facts are not being backed up. I have taken great care to ensure all citations are from reputable publications. Many thanks. Eric Musgrave (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Eric Musgrave (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, because my message was that no significant changes had been made from the last submission, but it was resubmitted. There are lots of areas that are already marked "citation needed" so you have what you need. The rest is up to you. LaMona (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

18:42:07, 16 December 2015 review of submission by Hodgey323

• Hodgey323 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Richard Spaven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

You have rejected and revised my draft for Richard Spaven. I appreciate you taking the time to add your comments. I am curious if there is anything else that you see as a problem. I added another reference for the line regarding his teacher. I would love to get this fixed up so it can be shared.

Many Thanks Hodgey323 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hodgey323, thanks for coming by. You need to do some reading of WP policies. A key one, of course, is WP:MUSICIAN which describes the criteria for notability for musicians. However it is also good to understand general notability, and the concept of reliable sources. What drives a WP article is independent secondary sources -- things that people have written about the subject of the article. As author of the article, it is up to you to take these sources and show the notability of the person you are writing about. With musicians, there are some particular criteria, such as major labels and charting, that help establish notability. LaMona (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:30:17, 10 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ivan Mato

• Ivan Mato (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:NEXTEV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my submission.

It says in your reply that the submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Currently I reference what I believe are reputable sources like Reuters, Bloomberg Business, Fortune, South China Morning Post, China Business News and Silicon Valley Business Journal. I feel that is a good spread of global news organisations and media. I feel that the articles content is also proof of the subjects' notability. Do you think that there's anything else that I need to do in terms of secondary sources?

The electric mobility industry is an area of enormous growth, and of interest for specialists and the general public, in particular in the context of a wider debate into climate change and pollution.

It is worth noting also that NEXT EV main competitors (some of them significantly smaller) have Wikipedia pages.

For instance TESLA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors ), Faraday Future (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Future), Venturi Automobiles ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Venturi_Automobiles ), LI-ON ( http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Li-ion_Motors ) and DENZA ( http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Denza ). There are currently 62 pages in the 'Electric vehicle manufacturers' category.

To have an article on NEXTEV I think would be a valuable addition to the enciclopedia as they are destined to be a major player in the industry.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this

Thank you again or taking the time to help.

Ivan Mato (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ivan Mato (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ivan Mato. You may know why the company is notable, but it doesn't come through in the article. The parts about funding generally do not support notability -- all companies secure funding. The "core team" is also not notable -- all companies have a core team. Leach seems to be notable, but he's notable himself, and the company does not inherit his notability as per WP wp:NOTINHERITED. Then there is one sentence about Formula E. Much of what you have to say is in the first paragraph, but that is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. Imagine that your reader knows nothing about cars and you have to show why what this company is doing matters. The other thing is that it's clear that this company is just starting out -- it has one model, and all of the articles are from 2015. That works against it -- many companies start, but many also fail. It might be better to wait until it at least has a second product that proves to be successful. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Thank you so much for your help on the development of the article. I've submitted a new version of the article for your consideration.

In terms of notability, NEXTEV has just announced the appointment of Padmasree Warrior as their U.S. CEO. She is the former Chief Technology & Strategy Officer (CTO) of Cisco Systems, and the former CTO of Motorola, Inc. As of 2014, she is listed as the 71st most powerful woman in the world by Forbes. Here's more about her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padmasree_Warrior?oldformat=true

Regarding your comment "This company has not yet delivered a product, if I understand correctly from what is here. That means that it is definitely too soon for a Wikipedia article." There are many articles on wikipedia about electric vehicle companies that have not yet delivered a project. Here's one for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Future?oldformat=true

If Faraday Future can have a page, NEXTEV should be able to, I believe. Would you think that's fair?

This is a nascent and important industry, and I understand the lack of a product is a concern, but there's evidence of investment, product development and very talented and senior teams behind the initiatives. And the press is all over it.

Let me know if this helps towards publishing. I'd love to see it up there with their competitors.

Ivan Mato (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dec 17 Submission of Whiteness Project

Hi LaMona,

My understanding of Whiteness Project's rejection was that it did not have notable references in the correct part of the post, so I added several articles and appearences from credible sources to the References section and moved what was there to Related Links. I am unclear on why the articles I added do not seem to count as credible sources as they include publications and TV news shows like CBS Morning Edition, New York Magazine and The Guardian. I'd appreciate some further explanation of what is missing here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Povdocs (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something wrong in the history of the article, but this shows the difference in the article between the first and second reviews [4]. There's only one reference added, as I read it. In any case, references must be linked to the statements they support through inline citations (see wp:cite for how to format those). The reviewer interface only lets us choose from a small number of reasons, so it's a good idea to do as you have done and ask for more specifics. I try to always add a comment, but it's easier to answer specific questions like this one. Thanks. Also, on talk pages, you have to sign your posts with four tildes. (Odd, I know) There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. That adds your signature to what you wrote. LaMona (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

21:40:07, 17 December 2015 review of submission by Judtrap

• Judtrap (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The TEAK Fellowship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my draft! I'm glad to say that I've already resolved the issue, since the NYTimes source (reliable, relevant and already used for the article) includes all the material that you found missing in those two other sources. (And you're right about TokyoGirl pointing it out already, I should have paid more attention.) So, if it's not too much trouble, could you check it out and approve the article? If you can't, I'll resubmit it, no problem.

Hi, User:Judtrap -- you have to resubmit or we don't get the reviewer options, so go ahead and do that. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Done! --Judtrap (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:06:32, 14 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Abajorek

• Abajorek (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Feierabend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona!

Thank you for your feedback. Since the last review, I nearly doubled the reference list with outside sources from reputable/peer reviewed journals of music education. Is there a specific area where I can focus to further clarify the notability of John Feierabend?

Thank you!

Abajorek (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead a resubmit. It still reads a bit like an outline rather than an encyclopedia article, but at the moment I can't think of a way to fix that. We don't usually give lists of steps, etc., but expect readers to go to the actual sources for those. LaMona (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Soft Mozart

Hi. Your MSD tag didn't create a discussion on the MFD page. Or maybe me declining it screwed things up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to correctly "suggest" the deletion of a draft. I've gotten various responses to questions about this. But at some point, we need to block certain drafts from coming back repeatedly without changes. I'm open to suggestions. LaMona (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree. That's how I realized it hadn't created a discussion page - when I went to add my delete vote. I attempted to correct it, but the instructions in the box were beyond my comprehension. After several attempts, I couldn't make it work, so I thought you might know how. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance RE: Roman Zadorov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roman_Zadorv

I am not that active in Wikipeida, and wouldn't like to waste your time or mine. Regarding the entry in reference, I believe that I can easily address the criticisms, which led to its removal, except for the question of notability. Therefore, I would like to know, whether there is a chance at all to overcome the objection relative to notability. Would be grateful for your help in this matter.

In my view, the case is notable for the following reasons:

1) It's ongoing coverage by media for 10 years (I cited only English media, there are many folds more articles in Hebrew media.

2) The level of public engagement that it generated. One way to estimate it is by Google search:

In Hebrew "רומן זדורוב" yields About 28,500 results (0.62 seconds)

In English "Roman Zadorov" yields About 1,760 results (0.60 seconds)

3) The case resulted in unprecedented confrontation between law professors and the courts, where law professors openly and publicly challenged integrity of the courts.

4) The case resulted in unprecedented confrontation between NGOs and the State Prosecution, where an NGO filed a criminal complaint against senior staff of the State Prosecution (obviously - would never be investigated). Senior law professors called for major reform in accountability of the State Prosecution in the wake of this case.

5) The case resulted in unprecedented confrontation, and claims of lack of integrity in the State Medical Forensic Institute, and calls for its reform as well.

IN SHORT: Even today, the various aspectes of this case are in the headlines on a daily basis, even when the case itself is no longer mentioned directly, only its derivatives - e.g. the Dr Forman, Dr Kugel Affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Zernik, For sure there are court cases that can and do have WP articles. By their nature, however, court cases are contentious so it is especially important to use a neutral point of view in describing these cases. Unfortunately, your article has many non-neutral statements, things like "...The labor dispute became a farce in its own sake..." In fact, even without such statements it is very clear what your point of view is. To create a WP article you need to be able to step back and be neutral. So a court case has two (at least) sides: describe each side as clearly as possible. Describe the actors in the case. Describe the controversies, pro and con. Mostly you need to provide other points of view, and avoid inflammatory language. LaMona (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Zernik, I should also say that you are going to need to integrate your references into the text, following the formatting given at wp:cite. So while you are re-working the article you might as well do both changes at the same time as you re-work the text. LaMona (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona

Hi LaMona:

Thanks for the quick response. The comments that you brought up here I can easily address. Thanks! It would take me a few days to make all the corrections.

QUESTIONS:

1) In order to do that, I guess I need to resubmit the DRAFT?

2) Could you please give me 2-3 days from the day I resubmit? I would also inform you here when I am done with all the corrections.

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Joe You have LOTS of time to make the edits. Drafts are only cleaned out after about 6 months, so take your time. You edit the Draft page that you have there, re-save, and then when you are done you re-submit to review. It should work like that as a process. LaMona (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona

Hi LaMona: Thanks again for the information. As stated, I am not a usual contributor, so I didn't know the process. How about Hebrew refs? Some of the key refs , e.g., by law professors attacking the courts, the prosecution, and the State Forensic Medicine Institute, as well as the column by Zadorov's pro bono attorney, who said that the judgment records were blown in the wind, are in Hebrew. I guess with Google Translate you could check them. Can I incorporate them? Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona

One more question: My speciality is inspection of court records. In this case it was particularly interesting, since it turned out hat there are no valid court records. My publication in Hebrew on this matter is what prompted the attorney's column about "blown in the wind". I have a special Scribd.com archive site, where I post the scans of court records, discovered upon inspection. Can I cite these as external links? Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Zernik, you can use non-English language materials, and you don't translate them -- readers can do that if they want. The problem with the court records are that they ARE the court case, they are not independent writings ABOUT the court case. You should read both wp:primary about using primary materials, and wp:or which talks about original research. What you would like to do is original research, but WP does not accept articles based on OR. WP relies entirely on secondary sources -- one of which could be a published article with the information you are discovering, if you manage to find a publisher for it. ;-) LaMona (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

16:25:45, 17 December 2015 review of submission by Niklasrudemo

• Niklasrudemo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tacton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I feel that the rejection of my proposed article was wrong and that it does fulfill the criteria (and yes, I did read them before writing the article).

"Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - Tacton for example has 7 mentions in the Swedish engineering weekly Ny Teknik, which is Sweden's premier technology publication with a print circulation of 158 000. I think both that Ny Teknik qualifies as a reliable and independent news source. I only included links to one of the articles in Ny Teknik, because I think that one mention should be enough. Similarly, it has several mentions in Dagens Nyheter (Sweden's largest general daily newspaper), Dagens Industri (Sweden's largest business daily) as well as Veckan Affärer (Sweden's argest business weekly). Moreover, it has several times been listed as one of Swedish "Gazelle companies", i.e. extremely fast growing companies. It didn't mention all of these articles, and instead just took some of the most important ones, but if this level of coverage doesn't qualify for notability, I don't know what would. Here are a few of them: http://www.va.se/nyheter/2010/01/08/nytt-regelverk-kring-arbetskraftsinvandring-har-forenklat/ http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/stockholmsforetag-har-storre-framtidstro/

User:Niklasrudemo Thanks for getting in touch. Your article unfortunately does not show notability, so that is what needs to change. To begin with, "mentions" are excluded as supporting wp:corp. Your second reference is a directory listing, and those are also not in support of notability. The third is not independent (it is a page from the parent company). The fourth is not very in depth. Looking at the first of the articles you list above, it seems to be a statement by the company, using terms like "We are a relatively small...". Valid references are independent of the company. The second article could support notability. Obviously, articles in English or in international sources should be included if they exist. Meanwhile, your article lists "references" twice and it isn't clear what the hard-coded references are meant to represent. You should fix that so it's clearer what you intend. And you do need multiple strong references to support notability. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Tacton Systems has been deemed notable enough to merit an entry in the Swedish version of wikipedia (it's a redirect to the https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Institute_of_Computer_Science where Tacton has a full paragraph, i.e. almost as much information as is in the proposed article). Niklasrudemo (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Updated Peter Shankman page

Thanks for your feedback on the Peter Shankman page. I have updated it significantly, and appreciate the feedback :)Jgreene1333 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:34:30, 19 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Barrlauren

• Barrlauren (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hossein Fateh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

As you can probably tell, this is my first submission and I thank you for your help :-)

As founding CEO of a successful NYSE-traded coumpany, Hossein Fateh is a noteworthy guy -- one who has worked hard and not pursued a lot of media opportunities. That said, George Washington University felt he was the perfect fit for graduation speaker for their business school in 2014!

Here's the video of the talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE7FaqNHSJ8

Here's the GW newsletter article about it:

http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/tag/hossein-fateh/

He was also featured on REIT.com's CEO spotlight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiEQW9zmq_w

Can you help me do a better job?

Many thanks, Lauren Barr Barrlauren (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Barrlauren (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Barrlauren, thanks for stopping by. While this person may be notable in the "real world" Wikipedia has its own special requirements for meeting notability. Please read wp:n and wp:rs. Those will explain that to be notable the person has to have had independent sources write about him, and that blogs and other informal media do not attest to notability. Videos of him are what we call wp:primary resources - they are him speaking, rather than someone speaking about him. You need to find newspaper and journal articles that are expressly about him. The business press would be a good place to look. LaMona (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sid De La Cruz

Hello LaMona

I do have 3rd party sources that does talk about the composer. Did you want me to delete all other sources that do not specifically talk about the composer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid De La Cruz (talk • contribs) 08:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:11:03, 20 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Taylorcarson

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

Help with references

Hello, I was wondering if it was possible to reference a book? And if so, how?

Taylorcarson (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can indeed reference a book. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books, but the bottom line is that a standard reference like you would see in a bibliography is fine. Here's a hint: if you look the book up at http://worldcat.org, when you get to the page for the book there's a click-on link on the top right that will produce a nicely formatted citation for you that you can use between the <ref></ref> tags. There are fancier ways to do it, but fast has its advantages! LaMona (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

08:25:37, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Sid De La Cruz

• Sid De La Cruz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sid De La Cruz Draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, The entry was declined for not having sources. I have included third party sources that prove the statements. I am not sure what else is needed. I have seen other wiki entries on different people, without any sources and yet the entry was posted. Please help me. Thank you and have a great day.

User:Sid De La Cruz, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you say that you have included third-party sources. All of your references list Cruz as the author, and none of the ones I clicked on took me to a third-party source about him. You cannot use youtube videos as references, by the way -- they are crowd-sourced and not considered reliable, and most of these are BY the subject, not ABOUT the subject. See reliable sources. The SJSU blurb is of the kind that people send in about themselves, and are not fully fact-checked. So you have no third-party sources in the article. I also should mention that if you ARE Sid De La Cruz, as your username implies, that WP greatly discourages autobiographies, since no one is really able to write neutrally about himself. You should read WP:USERNAME and wp:Autobiography before continuing. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

20:52:00, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Cyclopsga

• Cyclopsga (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ALCO Villager threewheeler bicycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why is this article not acceptable? Is Popular Mechanics not a solid reference? Are the photos on the other web pages I listed not acceptable? Are the comments from a former ALCO employee on one of the web pages not acceptable?Not to mention that I worked for ALCO and sold its bicycles; all the facts I have listed I know from personal experience. The company is no longer in business, so cannot be used as a source. Cyclopsga (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyclopsga (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyclopsga, thanks for stopping by for further clarification. Photos do not establish notability. Comments from former employees do not establish notability. Please read wp:n the policy on notability which is entirely based on third-party, independent but significant and reliable sources about the topic. But the main issue is that you apparently did not read the comment that I wrote on the draft page: "References must be in-line with the text. See wp:cite for formatting instructions." We cannot accept articles that do not have in-line references, and your article does not. Again, that is wp:cite for how to create inline citations. LaMona (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Leyla Turkkan review (and others)

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Yougo so far above and beyond at AfC - your reviews are thorough and detailed, and your guidance is specific and helpful. A million barnstars.JSFarman (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:56:28, 21 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Pay9891

• Pay9891 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sumchit Anand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, First thanks for contribution about my article.

As i have created this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumchit_Anand and you said to declining this submission, i have adding more reference sources which are available on google and other search engines.

This article has a lot of reference url more than other profiles which are already approved on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thapar_Group check this page is about a organization. and also check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karam_Chand_Thapar this is founder of this organization.

This only one, i have seen many profile like this. Now tell me, why my article is not meet with notability guidelines, as these both page only have external url.

Please help me out to approve this article Pay9891 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please Submit for Review

Hello, Can you please submit this Draft:Amedeo_Scognamiglio for review? I don't know how to do it.Susana Hodge (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i need your help

Hi, First thanks for contribution about my article.

03:25, 18 December 2015‎ LaMona (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,951 bytes) (+433)‎ . . (Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9))

As i have created this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumchit_Anand and you said to declining this submission, i have adding more reference sources which are available on google and other search engines.

This article has a lot of reference url more than other profiles which are already approved on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thapar_Group check this page is about a organization. and also check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karam_Chand_Thapar this is founder of this organization.

This only one, i have seen many profile like this. Now tell me, why my article is not meet with notability guidelines, as these both page only have external url.

Please help me out to approve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pay9891 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Pay9891, first, if you look at those two articles you should note that both have been tagged as not having sufficient sources. Articles tagged with that, if not improved, are eventually deleted, so you should not see them as examples to copy. Second, you should not remove the history of reviews at AfC because that history helps us when we re-review. My last comment is that your section "Other News" provides no information for the reader. If the person has been covered in articles, you should use the content of those articles to fill in information in your article. The reader is not expected to read the linked articles, but should get all information from the WP article. External articles that merely name him or have short quotes from him do not support notability, and should not be included. Including those is considered "ref-bombing" and is a detriment to the article. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

20:36:32, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Room40

• Room40 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David MacNaughton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's unclear why the draft article for David MacNaughton was rejected on notability grounds, when other less notable Canadian political strategists have been approved (e.g. David Herle, Paul Rhodes, etc. In fact, MacNaughton is more highly placed than many of the people noted here: [[wp:Category:Canadian_political_consultants.

I'd be pleased to discuss this further as I am in Canada and know many of the people in that category. Please advise.

User:Room40 Thanks for getting in touch. We have a general rule that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to add an article to WP. Also note that not all articles pass through AfC, and it looks like these were created directly in the main WP space. Both of those article look quite weak, and could be sent to a deletion discussion at any time. These are the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians, which is the closest I think we can get to a category for these people. You should also look at the link to "outcomes" that is listed there to give you even more of an idea of what is desired. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that this page should be created because others exist. In fact, rather the opposite, the merits of this person far eclipse the the others. I've reviewed the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians and were that to be applied none in the Category:Canadian_political_consultants|Canadian Political Consultants group would exist. I appreciate your feedback to date and wonder if you can provide greater clarity on how to reconcile what appears to be a different standard that's being applied. Many thanks. Room40 (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not spend any time trying to "reconcile different standard" -- that's just a waste of your time. As I explained, the articles you cited are on the deletion path. That they are now in WP does not mean that they have passed any standard, since anyone can add an article to WP, and anyone can suggest its deletion. Instead, work to make the article meet the WP requirements for living persons and notability. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

17:33:39, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Josiemlee

• Josiemlee (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Christopher W. Jamroz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Submission for Christopher W. Jamroz for article Hello LaMona, My submission for Christopher W. Jamroz for an article was declined recently. The reason cited includes making sure the article says what Chris is notable for. I would like to make the case that Chris is a well-known speaker for the topic of cash. Here are some supporting materials for that:

• Chris was featured in Al Jazeera TV discussing the use of cash in North America --- source: Oct. 13, 2013, "Real Money with Ali Velshi and Chris Jamroz," Al Jazeera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNA20PqqPOg
• Chris was quoted in The Wall Street Journal about cash --- source: Dec. 1, 2014, "Reports of the Death of Cash are Premature," The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/reports-of-the-death-of-cash-are-premature-1417480600
• Chris was invited to speak at the Secure Cash Transport Association, Sept. 23-25, 2015. Here is the link to the conference agenda with Chris's session http://scta.securetransportassociation.org/agenda/

Do you consider the above three sources "reliable"? Is this enough to make the case that Chris is a notable businessman especially as an expert on cash? Thanks for your guidance. Best, Josie

Hi, Josie, thanks for stopping by. To assert notability, WP requires sources that are ABOUT the person, not BY the person. So the youtube video and the fact that he is a speaker do not say anything about him that comes from a reliable source. You have shown that he is an actor in this area, but you do not have content for what others have said about him. That's what you need to look for. And as a reminder, on talk pages you need to sign your posts using four tilde's. There's a click-on link at the bottom right below the edit box that helps you remember and that adds your signature. LaMona (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

About the page you moved to 62 in Illinois

Could you, next time, delete the corresponding redirect/disambiguation page before moving the article to the namespace. I'm informing you of this because road names use STRICT NAMING FORMULAS!!! (OH, AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU'RE AN ADMINISTRATOR, COULD YOU PLEASE DELETE THIS FOR ME?) HeatIsCool (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The disambiguation page was already deleted, or I wouldn't have been able to accept the article. If there was something else needed, it wasn't obvious. I also do not understand why you want the 60/62 page deleted -- it correctly lists the two pages that cover that topic. But you've added the G6 to it, so it's just a short matter of time. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

23:46:19, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Cfolch~enwiki

• Cfolch~enwiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Larycia Hawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the feedback on this, my first wikipedia entry. I am very open to suggestions that'll help strengthen the submission. The controversy around Larycia Hawkins mirrors the Salaita/tenure revocation and subsequent lawsuit/settlement (UofI revoked his contract because of tweets he'd written regarding the Gaza War 2014).

I have made some additions to the article--chiefly in the form of adding more links to illustrate the "notoriety" of Hawkins (particularly regarding the hijab/Wheaton College controversy) and to show more of her intellectual production as a scholar of race and American politics.

Please let me know if there's more that I can do--I don't mind working on this back-and-forth a bit.

Did you see the links I put on the talk page? You should not be citing the college but other news outlets, and there are plenty that have had articles on the topic. Look at Draft_talk:Larycia_Hawkins. LaMona (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

01:13:59, 22 December 2015 review of submission by Valerie Ross

• Valerie Ross (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wallace A. Ross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona, Thank you for all your help and feedback... I've been trying really hard to figure out all the right ways to cite and give the right kinds of sources and references. I would like to re-submit my page again for review, but I am wondering if there is a limit to how many times one can re-submit a page? If so, please let me know, and if you would be kind enough to look over the page and all the changes I've made in an effort to prove my subject's notability with verifiable, objective sources, I would be very grateful to you. Many thanks, ValerieValerie Ross (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you have enough and I'll send it on to main space. Note, however, that you probably have a conflict of interest of the family kind which means that once the article is in the main WP space you are not allowed to edit it further. Please read about wp:coi:conflict of interest and what that means for you. LaMona (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Donald D. Baals

Why did you not accept my Donald D. Baals article? It is all true information. NASA is a trustworthy source. You probably didn't even check the source to determine if it is reliable or not. I suggest doing so and THEN decide if the article is good enough. And also look up DOnald D. Baals on the Internet and see how many sources YOU can find.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.226.18 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you not accept my Donald D. Baals article? It is all true information. NASA is a trustworthy source. You probably didn't even check the source to determine if it is reliable or not. I suggest doing so and THEN decide if the article is good enough. And also look up DOnald D. Baals on the Internet and see how many sources YOU can find.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.226.18 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(70.184.226.18) A number of things would really help this conversation. One would be for you to establish a username, which makes talk page discussion smoother and more likely to reach you. Second would be for you to sign your messages on talk pages -- that is done by typing four tilde's in a row (and there's a hint at the bottom right of the edit page). Next, would be for you to actually read the comments that reviewers have made to you. Two reviewers in a row have commented that you have re-submitted the article without making any changes. This is not acceptable and it greatly annoys the reviewers who are already struggling to keep up with the article that have been appropriately modified. A few more of these resubmits and you may find your article deleted because you are abusing the AfC process. The very last thing is that the article contains NO SOURCES. NONE. I agree that NASA is a trustworthy source, but it isn't a source on that article. No, actually the very last thing is for you to learn to be wp:civil. Failure in that area will result in blocking your account. LaMona (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello LaMona, it's me (who wrote the Donald D. Baals article). I would like to apologize for resubmitting my draft many times without changes. However, upon doing more research, I have found three more sources on Donald D. Baals, and I have resubmitted my draft. If you see my draft in the Pending AFC Submissions and want to immediately decline it, please check it first because I HAVE changed it. If my sources are still not reliable, please tell me what more I must do in order to have my article published. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.215.26 (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 01:35:52, 22 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Petra Kuraliova

• Petra Kuraliova (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Capital Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am trying to upload wikipedia page about one organization. As far as I am aware, company is already well known and mentioned on many third party sources. I have added some to references. Not all though. What am I doing wrong that company is still not notable for Wikipedia?

Can you please advise

Petra Kuraliova (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've added references where they were needed. You should resubmit for review. Not that "well-known and mentioned" are not criteria for notability for WP. See wp:corp to see what makes a company "encyclopedic." LaMona (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

13:08:35, 22 December 2015 review of submission by DFrancisIII

• DFrancisIII (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Canadian Property Stars Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

I feel that the Canadian Property Stars article provides more than adequate references to show the company's notability in Canada, particularly as they are featured on the news frequently. It was previously mentioned that the article "read more like an advertisement", however this has since been resolved. I have made revisions and have added additional references to the article as well to show notability, significance and community involvement.

Canadian Property Stars is a major property maintenance company in Canada, and they do get considerable media attention as well. The article merely informs the reader about who founded the company and when, where it operates, what services it provides and some information about its competitive orientation exemplified in its annual All-Star events and Hall of Fame.

I am in no way affiliated with the company or the owner, and so my intention is to keep the article as neutral as possible. I have used several other company article pages as a reference point.

Here are similar articles that provide no more information or relevant sources than the Canadian Property Stars page, and yet they have been approved and accepted:

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

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

I hope that you will reconsider the submission and I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you

Thanks for stopping by. Remember that on talk pages you have to sign your posts with four tilde's in a row. There's a click-on at the bottom of the edit box. Now, as to the article: "The article merely informs the reader about who founded the company and when, where it operates, what services it provides and some information about its competitive orientation exemplified in its annual All-Star events and Hall of Fame." That sounds like "business as usual" -- so what makes the company encyclopedic? All companies conduct business, so you need to ask yourself why this one should have a WP article, what makes it special? As for the other companies you name, we have a saying here WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- WP is always changing, and articles that exist at one moment may be updated or deleted at another. There is no use comparing your article to others to justify its existence - it has to meet the criteria for notability on its own. For that there need to be significant articles from reliable sources that are substantially about the company. You have three articles about the CEO (not about the company), some human-interest stories about charitable work (not about the business of the company), some photos of staff, and an article in which they deny wrong-doing. There's virtually nothing about the company and its business. If there are no sources that could supply that information, then the company does not meet the criteria, outlined at wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

15:48:03, 22 December 2015 review of submission by Hyperspec

• Hyperspec (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Headwall Photonics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have truncated the Headwall Photonics page entry to be very specific, addressing the products and markets only and steering clear of the technology, which I link to instead.

Thank you!

User:Hyperspec Great job, and I see you've re-submitted it. I should mention that based on your user name you may be editing with a conflict of interest. This doesn't affect the Draft process but does have consequences should be the article be promoted to mainspace. I will add an informative note on your user page - you should follow the instructions for managing a COI. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

18:58:46, 23 December 2015 review of submission by Helkins

• Helkins (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andreas Borgeas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know if my article fits the notability criteria. If not, which areas can I improve and edit? Helkins (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Helkins, you can re-submit for review if you have made changes. However, it does not appear to me that the person meets the criteria for a WP article, in particular WP:GNG, because most of the sources are not independent of the subject. See wp:rs for more info, but information from organizations he works for cannot be used to establish notability. That he took a local office does not automatically confer notability. You could also look at WP:ACADEMIC and see if he meets those criteria. To meet those you would need to show that his works have been frequently cited by other academics and/or that he has held high positions in his field. LaMona (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 05:08:20, 24 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bhavishacha

• Bhavishacha (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mic slayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey there as per your  review i will reedit the article and make sure it sticks to point and does avoid peacock tearms. and will be getting off all rapgenious.com references.  is there anything  more which i am missing to avoid deletation of this article ? 

Bhavishacha (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You will need more references, especially for un-referenced areas about his personal life. If you do not have sources to reference for those sections, you can drop the sections. They do not add to notability. Also, we'll need someone to do a copy edit for grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. LaMona (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, we need to decide what he will be called throughout the article. We generally use a person's last name in the article text. However, I note that you have his last name in lower case - "slayer" - not the normal name case, which would be "Slayer." It will be difficult to use the last name but in lower case -- could "Slayer" be used? LaMona (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Barbara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Best Global Business and Financial School page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

25 December 2015 review of submission by gast2011

Hi LaMona: I changed Draft:Stefan Gandler, following our proposals, making also clearer the actual university position (Tenured full time professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, permanent invited professor at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, category 2.) If you have any other commentaries, please let me know. Gast2011 (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain what "category 2" is? Generally, professors that have named chairs are automatically accepted, but others need more proof of notability. LaMona (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Most Mexican University Professors are not members of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (S.N.I.), only those who publish continously important scientific/academic contributions in internationally recognized journals and editorial houses are members (Gandler published his books in the two most important Mexican editorial houses for social sciences: FCE and Siglo XXI. The FCE- Fondo de Cultura Económica is the largest and most important academic editorial house in the Spanish-speaking world). For the higher categories (2 and 3), additionally is required to be the main adviser of finished PhD thesis and have contributed in a considerable way to the formation of the new generation of university professors. In total exist four categories of the members: candidate, 1, 2 and 3. Category 3 is the highest one. Categories 2 and 3 are very limited, especially in the humanities and the social sciences; for to give an example: at the Department for Social and Political Sciences of the Autonomous University of Querétaro Dr. Gandler is the only professor in the category 2 of the S.N.I.

Additionally, Gandler is the founder and chair of the research project "For a Critical theory from the Americas", which was recognized by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) as a project of "Ciencia básica", and got for this reason founds for three years from the "Fondo SEP-CONACYT", which are very difficult to get, and it was the first time that this highly prestigious support was given to a research project in social sciences and humanities at this University, which is the main University in the Mexican State of Querétro. Even in the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM, the most important university of Latin America, and one of the biggest in the world) exist in the humanities and social sciences only a very small number of this category of research projects, for example: in the Facultad de Filosofía y Letras of the UNAM exist only 3 of them.

Gandler's position at the UNAM is the following: he is officially recognized as PhD adviser in philosophy - most of the professors at the UNAM philosophy department are not. In Mexico, different also in that issue to the US, the position in an university in terms of labour contract is not automatically the same as the position in academic terms. Having a definitive full time contract does not mean automatically to have the right to advise postgraduate theses and to teach postgraduate courses. At the same time, the decision of the university to give to a professor the right to be PhD adviser and to teach postgraduate courses, does not automatically imply that the professor gets a definitive full time position in this university. A quote on Gandler's relevance in Latin American philosophy, written by the editor of the American Philosophical Association's Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy has been included in the article text.Gast2011 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gast2011, but now I'm a bit confused. If this fellow is such an important prof, why isn't there a @sp article for him? It seems that would be the logical place for people to look, not here, since he has no influence that I can see in the English-speaking world. I realize that @en WP has become kind of a catch-all, but that doesn't mean that entries here should mean no entry is created in a more appropriate WP. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point LaMona. In the German WP it exists since years, and in the Spanish WP it exist now too. Gast2011 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In the English WP it should exist now too (in addition to the German WP and Spanish WP, where it already exists):

• Gandler's main book was published in English this year and is now available at most relevant scientific libraries in the US.
• Book presentations are happening too, see for example the Marcuse-conference in Salisbury, MA in November 2015 (program, p. 29).
• At the same time, Gandler is now, for the second time, physically present in the US for a sabbatical year (now at Tulane University). Gast2011 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)