User talk:LaMona/Archives/2016/04

Request on 14:34:31, 31 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gilbride

• Gilbride (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rick Gorne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your review and I appreciate your input. There was another 'new' reference (reference numb er 20) which does discuss the person in detail which adds weight to the two other references I added and you commented on. I also ask that with all of the references put together does that provide a full picture?

Thank you for your time.

Gilbride (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The cite you added is not terribly strong - just a short article. If you have re-submitted we will see what another reviewer says. Did you see the analysis on the talk page? That gives you a good indication of the depth of the sources. LaMona (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

18:32:04, 1 April 2016 review of submission by Cybernavigator

• Cybernavigator (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Oz Pearlman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Onel5969,

I am a full-time professional mentalist with no side job. All of my income is generated from entertainment. Yet, I am not submitting any entry for myself because I do not consider myself big enough. Oz Pearlman, on the other hand, honestly is among the top performers on the planet. He is current the most famous mentalist in the United States of America because he just won 3rd Place on America's Got Talent. I am not receiving a penny to create his Wikipedia entry. I cited sources that prove he was on America's Got Talent and a number of other national TV shows. He travels the world in airplanes delivering world class, original art (sometimes for 5 figures per gig) and just won 3rd Place on AGT. He was even on national TV the same day I submitted the original entry. He's HUGE. Even without fame, this guy was honestly the real deal and far more skilled than a plethora of people who already have a Wikipeida entry. What revision(s) must I make to have the entry accepted? Is there any chance you can generously donate your time and talents to modify mistakes in the entry and submit it? Thank you for any help.

Hi, Cybernavigator. I don't think the article has "mistakes" per se. What you need to do is to read up on the policies that Wikipedia applies to assert notability. First, there is wp:rs which defines acceptable sources, and the concept of "third-party sources." This means that what matters on Wikipedia is what others say about him, and only that. Therefore, videos of him performing do not assert notability, because it is not what someone has said about him. Photographs do not say anything about him, so those aren't helpful. You need writings about him in reliable news sources. You have a few of those, but you have to actually remove any information that you cannot source to reliable sources. Also read wp:BLP which gives special rules for when you are writing about living persons. If you want help with the article, click on "Community portal" at the left, and then on "Peer editing help". That's the Teahouse, and folks who have volunteered to help hang out there. LaMona (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

08:21:42, 2 April 2016 review of submission by Dot1978

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

Hi LaMona,

I wonder if you could help me please. Since your review I made the discussed changes to this article by adding more context and citations where necessary (eg. ref [2]) and re-submitted for review. However the next editor/reviewer commented that only one change had been made and that it was a copyright violation (which I didn't realise as I had cited it with a reference) and ignored all other changes made. They then went back to a previous version and reviewed that instead and declined it.

Rather than lose the other changes and additions I had made after your advice and before their rejection, I have now gone back to the previous copy, changed the sentence that was said to be a copyright violation (ref [4]) and wish to resubmit for review again, but there is no option to do that now as being an older copy it says it has already been resubmitted.

I wondered if you might be able to help me by showing me how to resubmit the copy I have gone back to and made revisions to since the last editors comments please?

Many thanks for any help or advice you can give me.

(Dot1978 (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi, (User:Dot1978. You can't edit older versions, you have to work on the current one. This gets complicated when there are different edits that have been done, and it is a shame that the person who found the copyright violation reverted so many of your edits. What you'll need to do (and it's a horrid nuisance, sorry) is to open the article in two different windows. In one you'll have the current version, which is the one you can edit. In the other, you will need to have the latest version you had added references to (which I believe is this one), and then copy over from the latter to the former, then resubmit. Basically, you have to do that work all over again. That said, I agree with Onel that the article is not written in a neutral tone; in fact, it sounds very promotional, with statements like " Best known as the former ‘maverick" and "Michael Tobin was the key figure in leading the success of the UK and European data centre industry", and "which has been labelled a ‘radical’ management book". First, you cannot refer to him as Michael - we aren't on a first name basis in an encyclopedia, and you need to use "Tobin" when you refer to him, or "Michael Tobin" but there are many places where you have used "Michael" as if he's a pal. Next, you have to stick to the facts. Unless you have a reference that says that he was "the" key figure, etc., you cannot say that. And even if you have such a reference, it has to be a strong, neutral source, something like Financial Times, that wouldn't say that lightly. Wikipedia is just for facts, so "and father William - who Michael describes as a ‘bit of a villain", which is a homey bit of personal story, is not appropriate. Neutral, factual, perhaps even a bit dull, that's what goes into an encyclopedia. This means that your article needs more than adding sources - you need to re-write it in an encyclopedic style. As an example, for the book we usually give an actual bibliographic reference, like you see in library catalogs, following by references to any reviews. We don't praise the book, or even quote praises, although if it was on a bestseller list you can say that. But that's all. What you have to remember, also, is that a WP article is supposed to give all points of view, including anything negative. So for each bit of praise you mete out, you should also be looking for equal criticisms. So, for example, his book is held in only 139 libraries that are listed in WorldCat ([1]). That is out of about 70,000 libraries in that database. That's not a high number. If his book was reviewed in financial magazines, you can cite those. But if not, you can just list the book. The quotes that you have there MUST be removed because they come from an interview and it's what he says about his own book. That's not ok. When you do all of this, then it will be clear whether or not he meets WP's notability requirements. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, Thank you for your advice here. I had followed the style of other articles I had found of similar Wiki entries but appreciate these are always under review so may not have been right themselves. I'm keen to get this first on right so that I can do more in the future so I'll work on this again. Many thanks for your help again. (Dot1978 (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC))

23:17:23, 3 April 2016 review of submission by WikiAlexandra

• WikiAlexandra (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:TopSpeed.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I've removed the "Traffic" section as suggested.

Regarding sources though, it's fairly difficult to find references that go in depth about the subject (as opposed to the subject's content), when the subject itself is an online publisher website. In this case, the vast majority of references will usually point towards the subject's content, since that is what identifies the publisher and establishes its popularity. I've reviewed some of the other sites in Category:Automotive websites (such as Pistonheads, Autoblog) and, in most cases, the sources that actually talk about the subjects themselves are mostly just about them being acquired by another company.

I've also consulted with some of the previous reviewers as well as with editors in the live chat who mentioned that, in the case of a publisher website such as this, one option to improve the draft for approval would be to expand the "Content" section with examples and references about the content that makes the website reputable (in this case, I've expanded on the site's image renderings and its original studies). There are also a few sources that actually talk about the publisher, even though not in very much detail, such as this or this (for the latter, I've actually also found the offline newspaper version here, but I'm not sure how I can reference the exact issue and page, although the content is pretty much the same as with the online version).

Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks again! WikiAlexandra (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The criteria for web sites is at Wikipedia:Notability_(web). It states: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." or "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Those are the criteria. "Non-trivial" generally means that there needs to be an article that is expressly about the web site, not something that makes use of content from the web site. A paragraph in the Spike article is not much, and the Miami Herald is short and is about the business of the website, not what it is as a website. In general, being popular and/or making money are not considered notable, per se. Instead of the articles you mentioned, look at CarGurus - with articles in Boston Globe and Washington Post. Or TheCarConnection.com, with articles in SJ Mercury News and TechCrunch. Those are closer to the kinds of sources we look for. As for those other articles, I marked them as not meeting the criteria, so others may take a look at them with an eye to deletion. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

12:39:23, 04 April 2016 review of submission by Taichi-Kungfu

• Taichi-Kungfu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Liming Yue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I kindly ask you some suggestions about the removal of some sources. You write me to "You must not use blogs, informal sources, sources without editorial oversight, nor sources directly related to the subject of the article." Actually the task is not very easy. As far I see there is no blogs in my references. I used the Chen style Taijiquan China official Portal because is the most important governative information site of Taichi in China. Is it considered a blogs? If yes, it's very hard to find something with more authority about Martial Arts in China. Also very difficult to find something not directly related" with the subject of the article. The martial arts world is small... So to prove that for example he is a judge in Taijiquan competition in UK, I can only use as references the Uk Federation where he is actually the Judge, I think that it will never happen that New York times will publish such kind of news ;) So for me at the moment it's not clear what remove and what improve. Many of this site are famous for Martial Artists.. Or for example the Magazine Martial Arts Illustrated it's the most important Martial Arts magazine in UK. Is this considered with our without editorial oversight? Please consider that Martial Artists are a niche in the world.. It's not easy find press coverage that it would be normally used for an Actor a politician or something like this... And many of the sources are in Chinese, so very hard for us understand and find in the net.. I started this project on Wikipedia, and I already published GrandMaster Chen Zhenglei bio.. My dream would be to write a little bio for each of the 7-8 and 9 duan Grandmasters of Taichi in China. So I need to understand if it's just an impossible task (because none of them or very few of them will match the notable criteria of Wikipedia) Thank you in advance for any kind of suggestions about this.

First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down. Next, it is indeed difficult to add articles to English Wikipedia where English-language sources are limited. It is also the case that the kinds of policies that apply to this Wiki are based on certain standards that are hard to apply globally. However, those are the standards here. Please read wp:rs (and perhaps some pages linked from it) which describes the criteria for sources on this Wiki. In particular, sources should have an editorial policy and reviews should be written by professional reviewers or sports journalists, not by fans or others. As an example, the Malta Boxing News Blog does not appear to meet these criteria. It may be an important publication in Malta, but not by English Wikipedia standards. I don't believe that Listverse is a reliable source (there is no reason to believe that their "top ten" items are really "top"). We can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you doubt that. I don't know about Rednet - we are generally not open to uploaded videos (e.g. Youtube, etc.). The Institute of Chinese Medicine is a notice of an appearance. It can be used for facts, but does not confer notability. Same with the http://www.neidao.org/ and ditto the Evening Times article, which is mainly quotes by an acolyte, not a journalistic article. Martial arts illustrated is an interview, and interviews are the person talking about himself - ok for facts, but does not confer notability. I haven't looked at all of them, but you must read about reliable sources and make the decisions yourself. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

16:57:56, 5 April 2016 review of submission by Lilybones

• Lilybones (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Spottswoode Estate Vineyard & Winery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thank you for reading my draft and giving me good feedback. I've since gone thru the article and added citations where they are missing and removed any information that I couldn't locate where I had originally read it. Writing an article has been quite an experience! I am interested if you have any more feedback or thoughts on my revised draft before I resubmit it. Thank you again for your time! Lily Lilybones (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lilybones. Glad you stopped by. The referencing on the article is much better now, and, yes, writing an article is an education in itself. What I believe you will face now is the impression that this article is overly promotional - it reads like it could be a page or brochure for the company. In fact, WP is an encyclopedia, so there must be something encyclopedic about the topic. We also required a neutral point of view which means that any article that has only positive statements for a company is somewhat suspect. I'll see if there aren't any minor changes I can make to tone it down a bit. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you that would be wonderful! Lily Lilybones (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Kyler Pettis

Hello. This is about Kyler Pettis that is currently under review. The article has been declined thrice already. I've edited the sources. I got rid of the magazine sources - Backstage and TV Guide. Can you pls check the draft and get back to me? So I can work on making more changes. Thanks.

--Princessruby (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down. Next, the Kyler Pettis article - the problem is not yours, really. The person has had two TV parts in soaps and was in one short film. The only attention he has gotten is in minor publications, mainly soaps publications. (The Backstage link wasn't a problem because it was a magazine - it was a problem because it was just a directory listing, and such listings are routine, so they do not show notability. Anyone who acts gets one.) WP requires quite a bit more before a person is considered notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. This person seems to be just beginning his career, and WP articles are for those who have proven themselves and there are the third-party sources to prove it. The only non-soap source here is about his father. There just isn't enough here to warrant an article. If he becomes better known and more is written about him in the future then an article may be possible. LaMona (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the quick reply and good explanation. About the signature, was in a haste so forgot to sign. --Princessruby (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:25:01, 6 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wodaly

• Wodaly (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California Water Plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding the article "California Water Plan" and your rejection of it: yes, along with a number of secondary sources, we do reference some primary sources, because what the plan is cannot be understood without some referencing of it. The newspapers you suggest do a minimal job of covering the plan, which is probably because the three main volumes of the plan run roughly 3,500 pages and cover nearly all aspects of water in California. Such articles often are highly superficial in their coverage, often the main thrust being that the plan is being released. Also, you mention that all aspects of the plan must be covered. Frankly, that is an impossible task, particularly for a medium such as an article on Wikipedia. It would take a sizable book to pull off such an endeavor, and then whether the book had done so successfully would require a subjective conclusion. Further, there really is no such thing as viewpoints that "disagree with the plan." The five-year plan is so expansive and inclusive, it's far more the case that thousands of people may agree with certain specific recommendations and disagree with others. For example, the latest plan recommends 18 objectives and more than 300 actions related to those objectives. Each resource management strategy includes recommendations specific to that resource area, and there are at least 30 resource areas. The plan itself neither endorses nor proposes specific projects; it doesn't tell Californians or State of California agencies what they must do. It includes 10 hydrologic regional reports and two hydrologic overlay regional reports that range from 120 to 180 pages each, with history, hydrologic information, region-specific data, summary of projects, recommendations, and so forth. Now, if the article were to describe this, what secondary source could one find that would do so-- the LA Times or the Sacramento Bee? That is hardly the case. To effectively make this point, an educator would point a student to the plan itself. I ask that, with perhaps this better understanding of the plan, and noting that we do use secondary sources that comment on the plan and reference its content as well as its transformation over time, you reconsider your rejection of the article. If you still feel that we have not provided an article sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards, would you please point me to a Wikipedia article that "covers all aspects" of its topic. I have not yet found one, and I've read hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Thank you! ~William O'Daly

Wodaly (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I can send this to the reviewers' discussion page and see what people thing. BTW, the "all aspects" in WP means that you need to cover different points of view -- pros and cons. This is covered by the policy WP:NPOV, for "neutral point of view." It does not mean getting into all of the details. We assume that the details are available in the sources you cite, so the WP article is generally a round-up of the issues, and the references lead an interested reader to the full detail. In a case like this we don't rely on newspaper articles for the technical details, but as an indication that there was popular interest. But, I'll see what other reviewers think, and will get back to you. LaMona (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

14:50:22, 27 March 2016 review of submission by מדיאיין

• מדיאיין (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Madanes Insurance Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I think this article meets all the wikipedia guidelines and not written as an advertisement... please have a second look at it and if any of the many sources does not seem reliable since it is in Hebrew, a simple check will show its from a very reliable source. I checked this a few times before submitting it and also since I know this company is very huge in Israel. Thank you. מדיאיין (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Being big is not the same as being notable. The policies for corporate notability begin with: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Just being a company, even a big company, is not encyclopedic. A Wikipedia article that could just as well be a brochure from the company's PR department is in essence a form of promotion. "is the largest independent insurance agency in the State of Israel." " insured all the members of the Israel Bar Association with coverage for Professional Liability Insurance." Where is the social significance? Has the company made the news? Not the financial news, but the news? Is there any criticism of the company? Are there alternative points of view? LaMona (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, yes Madanes has made the news and is incharge of the new "area" of insurance for doctors and insurance agencies. I placed all the sources for that. מדיאיין (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, You can check the hebrew version and see. It is the biggest one and been all over the news and media is Israel as well as covrage international. מדיאיין (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Updates to article about Gene Van Dyke

Thanks for your comments. Edits in the works. I do take issue with your comment "that he was a boy scout is irrelevant" He is an Eagle Scout. That achievement is often mentioned in other wiki articles: read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rowe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Aaron,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Weekley - the list goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMWalden (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

15:30:53, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands

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

Hello again and thank you for your help. We have worked extensively on the page and have put all the clickable references in-line as you suggested. Could you have a look again at the Denis Parsons page we created and see if it might be ready and good enough for submission and approval again? Thanks you! Sjukmidlands (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Before resubmitting, you need to do the following to avoid another rejection: 1) all information in the article must be cited to third-party sources, and every statement of fact in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in reliable sources. I have marked some areas where you do not show where you found the information. Those references must meet criteria for reliable sources. For example, the "who's who in art" is probably not a reliable source because the information is provided by the artists themselves, and therefore is not a third-party source of information. ("WHO'S WHO IN ART is compiled from information personally provided by the individuals in the book.") 2) you have listings following the references that do not belong there. I don't know if those are supposed to be references or what, but you need to use them or remove them 3) the references need to be actual citations, like one would do in an academic article. If you don't provide the full reference, you must at least use the actual title of the reference, not a descriptive title, which is what you have now, nor the name of the site. I did a few for you. LaMona (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for your feedback and for your help! I'm learning from this, thank you. I'll let Pam know about the Whos Who in Art reference and we'll probably remove it. The references left at the bottom are ones which have no web presence, therefore nothing to link to. I do understand that it is permissable to include these physical as opposed to web references but maybe I'm doing it incorrectly? The places where you requre citation, for instance, Denis Parsons work for Bridgemans and later set up his own studio - I'm not sure what we can add here, as Bridgemans does not exist as a business now, it closed several years ago, yet what is stated is factually correct but there is nothing I can think of which might prove it now... I think I need to understand citations better to know what to look for to include there. Thanks again though for your contiuning help. Sjukmidlands (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You can't leave those references there, so we need to find a use for them. It is ok to have references that are not online. the main thing for those is that you need your citation to be complete enough that another person could find the same document. So for something like this: "1994 Architects' Journal 27th April - Article on Denis Parsons" you need the title of the article, the author's name, and the page numbers. If Architect's Journal has an ISSN that should be included, because there can be more than one journal with the same name. There are instructions at wp:cite. So, do those sources support some information in the article? If so, add them in the appropriate places as references. If not, they could go under a heading such as "Further reading", but further reading does not support notability. As for "factually correct but there is nothing I can think of which might prove it..." you have to be getting your information from somewhere. If your information is coming from what someone remembers, then you cannot use that. All information has to have its origin in reliable third-party sources. It is better to leave information out of the article than to have unverifiable information there. We cannot rely on what is in someone's head, but mainly we cannot verify it and all information must be verifiable. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. We appreciate your input and we've reworked the page putting references in-line and re-worded the text. Could you have another look at the page and see if it might be ready for submission again please? Thank you! Sjukmidlands (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, great, you cleared up the formatting problems. Resubmit and I'll keep an eye on it. Articles are given to us randomly so someone else may get it. Eventually you may want to create a section for the images that you have linked to, including those in the article. Consider that your article is never "done" and you can (and should) work on it in the future if more information comes to light. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much once again. Your help has been invaluable in getting the page ready. I've resubmitted it. I do intend to create a section for the images, indeed Pamela Marshall is very keen to get a gallery of images of Denis Parsons work on the page. And we shall keep adding to the content as we get more or updated information. But lastly thank you very, very much, once again. Sjukmidlands (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, just to let you know that the page has been declined again, as it was declined because he's not considered important enough! Can't believe that. It was stated that there's no sculptures by Denis Parsons in museums! He was a architectural sculpture so his work is on great buildings but not in museums obviously! Would it be possible for you to take a look again and see if you consider it worthy of inclusion? Thanks very much in advance, Steve Sjukmidlands (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a chat - will let you know. LaMona (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sorting it out, we see that it is now live! I have added a few more images and soon will create a gallery. Pam Marshall wants to say a big thank you for your help towards preserving Denis Parsons' legacy for posterity. Sjukmidlands (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

13:34:11, 9 April 2016 review of submission by Philip b taylor

• Philip b taylor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Sanctuary at Storrington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added several more references. In particular, I have added citations to 2 well-regarded history books: Ronald Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon", and Sheila Rowbotham's "Edward Carpenter" (the definitive biography). I have added extra details of community residents such as the pagan Dion Byngham and expanded on Edward Carpenter's influence and connections with the community.

Great work, and it looks like it was quickly accepted. A good next step is to see if there are articles already in WP that could link to this one. Much of the discovery on WP is from links within articles. You may need to add content to related articles to make the links, but only do so if that content truly enhances the existing article. Now, I hope you can find other articles to add to or improve, since you've become an "experienced" editor. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sophie Villy

Thanks for the bracketing + punctuation tips (within the code). Hopefully things look better now + stand a chance of publication. Dmacfady (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

smckinnon /Caribana/ KInron Community Event Planning Services Inc.

Lamona,

I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.

Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.

You should take these comments to the page linked in the message I left you. We can discuss it there so that the noticeboard is aware of the discussion. LaMona (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What Every Science Student Should Know

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from What Every Science Student Should Know, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I believe the article satisfies WP:BKCRIT #1 or WP:GNG, at least, due to this article and this one about the book. WP:BKCRYSTAL is a potential concern, but the book has a publishing date set, which is a big part of that. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! clpo13_(talk) 00:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As per What Every Science Student Should Know, I do not see how this can meet wp:NBOOKS. The only reviews are from Oakland Press, from Oakland County, Michigan (seems to be the home of one of the students); Yonhap News Agency, of South Korea; and the Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, which is a student paper. The AMA Wire article is not about the book but is about the students themselves. What do you see as meeting GNG? LaMona (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

15:17:13, 8 April 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb

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

Hi LaMona,

I had a couple of questions about your rejection comments about this article:

1) You state that the terms "Threat Intelligence Platform" is an neologism. On the contrary, given the cyber security challenges facing many private and public sector organizations, many organizations are seeking to adopt a proactive approach to cyber threat management. Rather than just preventing and blocking attacks as they occur, the move towards actively seeking out threats (using threat intelligence) and adopting security policies to mitigate them, before they happen, is moving beyond an emerging technology (enabled by threat intelligence platforms). At the recent RSA security convention, threat intelligence is now a ubiquitous term, and is made possible by the platform described in this article. See here: https://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/agenda/sessions/1562/threat-intelligence-is-dead-long-live-threat and here: https://www.rsaconference.com/writable/presentations/file_upload/spo2-t09-separating-signal-from-noise-taking-threat-intelligence-to-the-next-level.pdf and here: https://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16/agenda/sessions/2740/application-and-threat-intelligence-driving and much more.

Please would you reconsider the term as anything but a neologism?

2) You mentioned that the use of blogs as references is not allowed. However, the reference material in this article does not point to blogs but authoritative articles and papers, by Gartner, etc. The blogs are only listed as additional reading, not reference material to anything cited in the body copy.

Look forward to your thoughts and comments, Thanks Norac Eeb (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Norac Eeb. There is no question that "threat intelligence" is a common term, but to show that "threat intelligence platform" is not a neologism you must provide sufficient sources that would demonstrate that this is a widely used phrase. Instead, you have only two independent sources using the term, and your sources show that it is a newly coined phrase. DarkReading refers to startups in this area and says: "These "threat intelligence platforms" promise to provide a single funnel for channeling and analyzing the growing firehose of threat data ..." That they give the term in quotes and speak of the products with the future tense emphasizes its newness. Then you've got the Gartner report, which is unfortunately a ~$200 publication so we cannot assume wide-spread access. When I search on "threat intelligence platform" as a phrase I get a small number of products being advertised but not much general chatter, so this is a buzzword for a new kind of product, mainly used by the companies promoting these products. But the main thing is that many of the top cites I retrieve are from Threatconnect, whose article you have also created. This appears to be a rather obvious case of product promotion, something that is not allowed on WP. I will add the information about editing with a conflict of interest to your talk page. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I did some work on the article for Threatconnect. It is now much less promotional. What you should add are interesting cases that have been solved or at least revealed to some extent. I would also be good to say more about the crowd-sourcing model, which is what is both unique but also socially responsible. I couldn't find more about the free option, but that, too, should be in the article. As a hint, what matters to the company (getting funding, expanding staff, etc.) is not what makes it notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia looks for impact -- business impact but also social impact. Inventing a new way to do things is one way that a company is notable. Providing information on some of the big name hacks is another way. Basically, think about what a person researching security who knows nothing about the company would find interesting. Most readers will not be investors nor buyers of the company's products because those people have other sources of information, like business journals. Wikipedia is for everyone else. LaMona (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a frustrating process, I don't get notifications when you add your comments to this thread. So I was left to wonder who was editing and why? See my later talk post. Thanks for taking the time to try and clean things up, however, I am still trying to refine this piece before gaining additional feedback.

Norac Eeb (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

20:18:31, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb

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

Hi - I am currently attempting to refine and edit this piece. I noticed you made additions. This isn't in review or public mode. Could you kindly wait until I submit for review again?

Norac Eeb (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Norac Eeb - you should make all changes to the one copy of the article, not start a second one. All articles are open to editing by anyone. It is sometimes less efficient to work this way, but that's how Wikipedia works. You shouldn't replace the original article with a new one because the record-keeping of changes will be lost, including comments made by reviewers. LaMona (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't started a second article? I've been editing the original one!!!!

Norac Eeb (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misundertood your statement about "review or public mode". Carry on! LaMona (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Romeo Mancini

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for taking your time reviewing my wikipedia script abiut the artist Romeo Mancini. I thought I had sorted out the problem related to the tone, as you mentioned, since in the last rejections the problem I had been told was just about the notes. I replied by text to the other guy that work on it, trying to explain that I do not have so many things to quote more that I haven't done yet. The artist, has only one book dedicated to him, and I have got the info all from that.ù I have already tried to explain this and I have resubmitted the script, but than the didn't reply to me and someone else working on it just read the comments left on the page, without getting to know what I have answered or explained. Could you please answer me and approve the script since I quoted the book where I got all the info from? Thank you very much best regards, --Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Anna Lisa33 The article still has problems. It is overly long, and many of the paragraphs are not referenced, so it isn't clear where the information comes from. You have notes (e.g. #13) that state facts that are not referenced. There are also problems of language that make the article unclear. For example, the statement: "Here Mancini was presented with two ceramic high reliefs..." I believe that what you want to say is that his work was represented by two...etc. "Presented with" means someone gave him something. Note that English Wikipedia has a very different style from Italian Wikipedia, and different policies. It is hard to move an article from one to the other. It requires quite a lot of adjustment. LaMona (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Gene Van Dyke

You left the following comment: "only include information that speaks to his notability". Unfortunately, that's a bit of a laugh. We appear to encourage editors on a large scale to categorize biographical articles only according to the subject's birthplace, even though in countless instances their birthplace has zero to do with their notability. Whenever I've brought this up in the past, I'm usually greeted with strawman arguments which are reasonable in and of themselves on the surface but carefully sidestep the issue of undue weight. I would think that if we're "striving to achieve consistency", that this includes philosophical consistency and not just consistency in the context of appearances' sake to the untrained eye. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - there's a subtlety here that is hard to explain in a short message to an editor. There's relevant and there's irrelevant, and it's somewhat subjective. We get a lot of homey anecdotes when people write about their favorite uncle or are trying to please their boss or professor. Those articles wander around and don't get to the point of what makes the person notable. "Focus on what matters" would be an even less helpful comment, although that's what I'd like to say. Date of birth is a key element of identification (that's why it's on your medical chart); place speaks to a concept of culture, but it often doesn't really matter in terms of facts. Oddly, if I read an article and it has neither of these, I feel that I know less about the person even if the article has a interesting information. Then there's the subtlety of what is and isn't "encyclopedic" that I run into a lot on articles for companies. Getting funding and having products are the norm for companies; when do these become of interest to Wikipedia? I honestly don't know, and I'm pretty sure I couldn't explain it to someone whose only contact with Wikipedia is writing an article for their company (which is what we get a lot of at AfC). I do try to explain, but it's hard. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Matthias Tanzmann

You rejected the draft with the note: "Most of your sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards"

1. Id like to ask which sources do suit the notability guidelines if the New York Times, discogs.com(working similar as an encyclopedia) or Ibizavoice are not consistent enough. Please provide an information why you doubt in those sources.

2. Even some of other sources may not meet all the guidelines, they still show the relevance of Matthias Tanzmann and can be deleted seperatly.Which sources would you quote as not reliable?

3.Generally one lists only a sample of key works. I have researched articles of similar artists and have found several amounts of stated works. How many key works are usefull for a article ?

4. I carefully read the thumb rules of "Wikipedia:Notability (music)" and I am sure that this artist deserves to be mentioned on english wikipedia, as well as in the german version. I'd like to ask you herewith to help me as a young contributor to improve wikipedia with this article.

Thank you for your time already, sorry for my bad english and all the best. 2A02:810A:13C0:31AC:3835:6CB7:ADD0:1C7B (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Read wp:rs for the criteria that English Wikipedia uses for reliable sources. Any source with user-supplied information (Discogs, Wikipedia, blogs, etc.) are not considered reliable. (The Discogs decision is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_201#Discogs.) Sources that are essentially "fan" sites may or may not be notable, and those sources are judged based on the reputation of the writer and the reputation of the source for accuracy. Sources that do not meet the guidelines should not be used, and if you use them then others can remove the content sourced by them as unreliable. For notability, you must have sources that are independent of the subject. Bios on sites that feature his music (e.g. lastFm) are not independent. Reviews should be by professional reviewers, not fans. For biographies, information taken from interviews does not contribute to notability because that is the person speaking about himself, and those are generally not fact-checked. The reason to provide a sample of works is that Wikipedia is not a CV, it is an encyclopedia, and long lists are both boring and not terribly informative (especially because people tend not to read them). Those lists belong on the artist's own web site. Lists of works, especially unreferenced lists, do not contribute to notability. Think of how to make those lists useful to the reader, perhaps with links to reviews, or point to a single place where the user can be confident of finding an up to date list (remember, this article will get out of date very quickly). LaMona (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

16:28:16, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Raymond Trencavel

• Raymond Trencavel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bastir! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona!

For "Bastir!"...

For the word "labeling" ... The management of the movement "Bastir!" called "Steering Committee", "labeled" candidates in French municipal elections and the departmental elections: the "Steering Committee" said "ok! you are officially candidates of the movement ".

If there are faults present / past, you can correct them, no problem.

Thank you!

"to label" / "labelliser" = officially give a (political) label, is very used in French... Not in english ?

Raymond Trencavel (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Raymond. No, we don't use that in English, and in the USA I don't think there's a similar action. Candidates here choose their own party for elections. I think maybe "designates" or "accepts" will work, but I'll see if I can find something similar in another article. If you find other good articles on French elections in English WP let me know, ok? Also, please go through and fix the tense where you can, since it's your article and everyone here is volunteering their time. LaMona (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona.

"Officially Designates" seems to be the right translation (I think?). Yes, candidates choose to join the movement" Bastir! ", But the Steering Committee decides only if they can provide in the name of this movement. Thanks for eventually pass a little bit of your time to correct my eventually forgoted tense errors (sorry for my english, it's not my natural language).

Good week-end.

Raymond Trencavel (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Swan 48

La Mona

Thanks for your review on my draft Swan 48 article. This is an article about a well known industrial product which like many other Swan boats such as Swan 36 and Swan 65 (see my articles here in Wikipedia) are famous for their international racing success. Their stories are intertwined with each other forming the foundations for the Swan brand and the success of their manufacturer Nautor Oy (Nautor's Swan). The notability of this industrial product is it's racing success and the draft article contains relevant verifiable information about the most famous racing results of Swan 48. Even though thie draft article is very brief, it's an important piece of sailing history which should be regarded as notable encylopedic information. There is a lot more information available about Swan 48 but I am afraid all notable and historically important fact based information is already there.

Sami

Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 06:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sami P. Lehtonen - My only comment was that you have to explain in the first sentence or so that this is a boat, for people who are not familiar with the terms sloop or yawl, which are specialist terms. LaMona (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I will elaborate the meaning of those specialist terms, however there are separate articles available for most of those terms which is why I've used Wikilinks to explain them in more detail.

Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

09:43:08, 17 April 2016 review of submission by 89.211.176.117

• 89.211.176.117 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kim C Sturgess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I still need clarification of exactly why my article has been rejected. I noticed the example below for another academic - this accepted by wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hudson_%28Shakespeare_scholar%29

the article on Kim C Sturgess has more supporting evidence than the one for Hudson.

First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Now, academics are judged based on the criteria at WP:ACADEMICS. Please read the criteria there. Basically one must a) hold a named chair or other high position or b) have made significant advances in their field or c) received specific honors in their field. Thus, sailing around the world is irrelevant for notability in this case, and the person does not meet other criteria. Or, if the person DOES meet any of the other criteria, you have not included that in the article. Hudson probably does not meet these criteria either, so expect that his article at some point will be reviewed and either updated or deleted. I have tagged it now as such. LaMona (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Review of Bumper Cars

Thank you for your review of Bumper Cars and the edits you made. The previous reviewer advised that the back cover of the book was an adequate source but I have removed the quote from the back of the book anyway. I have included the 2 online resources that you reference. Many thanks. Doinggreatthings (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No, actually, the previous reviewer did not say that the back cover quote was ok; the previous reviewer noted that there was no reference for the quote, and therefore did not know that it was from the back cover. Promotional blurbs are never considered reliable sources. You will need to find reliable sources for this book, as at the moment it does not have enough to meet notability. LaMona (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the page on Poet Roy Bentley

I appreciate your help with the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roy_G_Bentley that I have been working on. I have made the changes you suggested and I appreciate your insight, especially how I had tended to add my interpretation to his poetry - that is now deleted. I hope now the case is well enough made for this excellent poet, who speaks out for the plight of the poor in the USA. I hope that my changes are adequate to publish this page now, as I was also able to add an additional outside 3rd party review of his work, as per your suggestion. Brad Brock Baran (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Brad Brock Baran

Brad Brock Baran - showing notability for poets is difficult because there isn't a lot of mainstream attention on poets. I did some more editing on the article so that it more resembles the WP style, but you need to make sure that all of your references are clear to reviewers by having a full citation: title (of the thing you are citing, not a made-up description), author (if there is one), name of journal or web site, and date. "Web site of the NEA" is not the title of the page (and, btw, that link fails so it needs to be replaced). You still have too many primary sources and not enough secondary sources. His own statement on the NEA site is not a secondary source. His own writings are definitely not secondary sources. Please read about sources. LaMona (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) review of submission by Bucinskas

First thanks for the comments and help with my first wikipedia submission - Draft: TrackDuck. I've made some slight adjustments to the article and would like to move to the next step. Let me know if anything else needs to be changed. Bucinskas (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed a minor statement in the lead which was not supported: "actively contributes to its growth". You cannot make that "interpretation" unless it says so directly in one of the referenced articles. Your article is fine without it. Stick closely to what the references say. It will be difficult for reviewers since this is English WP and the product and references are nearly all from outside of this environment. EN WP makes its decisions based on the reliability and strength of sources, and few here will be familiar with the press outside of English-speaking countries. I personally cannot help you further, but wish you luck. LaMona (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

10:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Review of submission, requested by Kreen89

Hi LaMona, thanks for taking the time to review my draft for Ematic Solutions wiki page, very much appreciated. I have revised the draft based on comments from User:SwisterTwister, and have added in more in-depth third-party sources, particularly articles published in the US and in Indonesia. Please help to review my re-submitted draft and I await your comments. Cheers! --Kreen89 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 03:09:56, 20 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lilbronco1

• Lilbronco1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:KRID-LD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

KRID-LD is an translator station

Lilbronco1 03:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Lilbronco1. Unfortunately that means that it does not automatically qualify as notable for Wikipedia. It could be notable if there were further information about it, such as news articles about it or something of that nature. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Ten Million Club page

References all mention 'De Club van Tien Miljoen' (The Ten Million Club), among them the three main national newspapers of The Netherlands. The page is not an orphan, as the Population Research Institute is referring to it.--86.90.197.78 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You must put the references in-line using <ref></ref> tags. Mentions of the club, and quotes from officers of the club, in articles about population are considered minor references, and do not contribute to notability. You will need some articles that are substantially about the club. I see the editorial about the ads for the club. In your article you do not mention that there are concerns about the club, but you must include that. Wikipedia requires that all points of view be covered in an article. The section in the article called "Overpopulation as a global problem" needs to be more about the club or it should be removed. I don't know what your point is about it being an orphan - I don't see anything on the page regarding that, but many new articles begin as orphans and that can be corrected later. It is a not a reason to accept or reject an article; only notability is considered. The Sophie van Os reference links to a jpg - I assume you meant to link instead to a text? LaMona (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

15:48:20, 4 April 2016 review of submission by Keithdevereux

• Keithdevereux (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scar for Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona

Thank you for your review of the entry for Scar For Life. As requested I have been through all of the citations, have checked them against the criteria set and have removed or amended them where possible. I have also updated them to the 'cite web' format, which is certainly an improvement and makes everything much more consistent. One of the sources you commented on was 'Blabbermouth', and I have checked with the relevant message board and it certainly seems that opinion is mixed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Blabbermouth.net) but on the whole it is considered reliable and I have certainly found a lot of Heavy Metal Wikipedia entries have used it. I have removed or replaced sources that are deemed unreliable (Metal-Archives was one that you mentioned) and removed entries to Blogs. The only exception to this was quoting 'Songs for The Deaf, which as mentioned is an actual radio station that uses Blogger as it's host (as I mentioned it is not uncommon for quite large and reputable Portuguese and Brazilian companies to use free blogging sites as their host). When checking each citation I have reviewed the 'editorial' section of the site the reference is used from to determine that the sites are not being run as a blog and that there is overall editorial control (much like Blabbermouth). I have also removed entries that I know were made by 'guest writers' (one was actually mine, for Metal Rules, though I was working closely with the Editor when producing it), though I have left in entries by freelance writers (Marcos Garcia and Miguel Blardony are two examples of Portuguese writers who specialise in writing about heavy metal and are used by a lot of sites outside the country).

I have tried to locate independent sources and where I can have avoided using the band's website for source material (the entry for Sigur Rós for example quotes from their website quite heavily). I also appreciate your comment about using interview material and can confirm that this has only been used to reference what the individual was intending and I have not used this as a source for other conclusions. However, one of the difficulties I have found in producing this entry is that although Scar For Life enjoy a good reputation in Portugal, they are still not well known outside the country and so to find entries from newspapers or other sources is difficult. The band is able to work with quite well-known musicians (in heavy metal) but this does not make the international press as much as it should (which is a shame as it would make my entry much easier). Even the big Portuguese metal bands, like Moonspell, don't seem to get much recognition outside of Portugal.

There are some excellent Portuguese heavy metal bands and I was hoping that this entry would be the first of many, so I certainly appreciate your input and your intent of making this entry the best it can be.

Best regards

Keith

Keithdevereux (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Keithdevereux. It is best not to look to current articles as representative of quality - many articles in Wikipedia do not meet the quality criteria, and about 200 articles a day are deleted for this reason. Because anyone can add or edit Wikipedia articles at any time, the current state is always temporary. You say: "although Scar For Life enjoy a good reputation in Portugal, they are still not well known outside the country and so to find entries from newspapers or other sources is difficult..." If they are not well-known outside of Portugal then they probably do not meet the criteria for @en Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote bands or to bring them to the attention of a larger audience. In fact, it is the opposite. Wikipedia is a survey of what is already notable - consider it a non-activist response to its environment. If the sources do not exist, then the article must wait until they do. LaMona (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear LaMona

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. You raise an interesting point with your comment 'If they are not well-known outside of Portugal then they probably do not meet the criteria for @en Wikipedia'. English Wikipedia. I tend to think of Wikipedia as a global encyclopaedia so it is true that from an English-speaking perspective perhaps this entry is an unusual place to post it. However, promotion of the band is not the aim, I believe Scar For Life is an entry that is worthy of English-speaking Twitter since they interact with many other entries and fit in nicely in the heavy metal 'family tree'. For example, Daniel Cardoso (the band's first drummer) is now in the British heavy metal band Anathema and they have worked with musicians from a variety of internationally known bands (TEN, Whitesnake, Black Sabbath, to name a few. I first came across Scar For Life at Vagos Open Air (certainly an English Wikipedia entry that I will be happy to work on when I have a moment) and I certainly found them notable. It was disappointing that I could not find much about the band in English when I was preparing my report for Metal Rules so I decided to do something about that. Definitely a 'non-activist' response.

Still, thank you for your response, much to ponder.

Best regards

Keith

Keithdevereux (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear LaMone

I hope that this message finds you well?

I have taken some time away from the SFL Wiki entry and have come back to review it with fresh eyes. As a result I have amended the text, removed some of the more problematic references, ensured that the current references are as reliable as I can and I hope that you will find it improved. I did go to the Wikimetal programme, but it doesn't seem to be very busy. Tahnk you for your nice comment on the Scar FOr Life entry on WT:Metal.

I hope that the entry will be considered favourably.

Best wishes,

Keith Keithdevereux (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Kinder Institute for Urban Research rejection

Please re-review. Considerable changes have been made, even though your response indicates I haven't made any changes. Ryanholeywell (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ryanholeywell, if you did make changes you may have forgotten to save them, as the comparison of the draft you submitted against the draft that was last declined shows. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

LaMona, Ok ... the last editor told me to resubmit it (without changes) and she'd reconsider it ... then you rejected it.

Every single editor who's rejected this entry has had wildly different, and in most cases, contradictory guidance on how to get this thing approved. Any idea what to do? I feel this organization is being singled out, given the huge number of minor, unknown think tanks that have their own pages and are able to do so with literally no external citations. Ryanholeywell (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

LaMona, Case in point: Morrison Institute, Romanian Academic Society, University of Belgrade Faculty of Economics, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

I don't understand why the page I am creating is being held to different standards than virtually every think tank in the world. Can you provide guidance on what needs to be done to get this page listed? And if I follow your guidance, what I can do to prevent another editor from rejecting it anyway?

First, here on talk pages you have to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. I apologize that the messages coming to you differ - we're trying to fix that. Often reviewers see more than one problem, but the list we are given to choose from only allows us to note one of them. Therefore different reviewers will emphasize different problems, but to you it looks like we are changing our minds. Instead, we'd like to tell you all of the problems up front, and hopefully this change will be made to our software so we can do that and cause less confusion. Next, I have no way of seeing that the last editor gave you that instruction because it wasn't added to the page. I'll contact that person and suggest a better way to do this. Next, no one is singling out your page - reviewers don't know enough about the institute to do so. We are trying to follow the rules for WP pages regardless of the topic of the article. That articles exist in WP does not mean that the meet the criteria - they may have been added directly, and have not been reviewed or noticed. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted for not meeting the criteria. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ryanholeywell - I looked at all of the comments on the page for Kinder, the talk page, your talk page, and the page for the most recent reviewer, and did not see anything referring to re-submitting without changes. In fact, the comments on the Kinder page are skeptical that the institute should have a stand-alone article. Could you show me where you got the advice to re-submit? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

LaMonal: Maybe I misunderstood, but this is what I was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiae/Archive_11

Regardless, can you make crystal clear to me what, exactly needs to be seen for this page to get approved?

I have gotten conflicting advice, so I'm hoping you may clarify. Specifically:

1) At one point, I had more information on this page about the organization itself. Then I was told it was better to have articles about its actual work products, and not the organization itself. Once I did that, I was told I needed articles about the organization itself, not its work. So which is it? I can produce either, so please let me know what you want. I just have to know what is preferred.

2) At one point, I was told that Institutes/think tanks -- especially those within universities -- don't get their own pages. But I couldn't find that as a formal policy anywhere in Wikipedia, and there were many, many entries for think tanks. Is it Wikipedia policy or not Wikipedia policy to prohibit think tanks from having pages? I don't think that's the policy. However, if I am wrong, please let me know. If it's Wikipedia policy to prohibit thank tanks from having their own pages, I'll stop this project and avoid wasting my time as well as that of other editors.

3) I was told my citation sources weren't objective, but I believe all but one of them are media sources, which Wikipedia says is one of the most objective sources one can have. Are my media sources considered objective or not? If not, what are the more objective types of sources I should be using?

4) I was told I need to indicate at least regional notability for my organization. I feel I've done that my extensively citing the largest media outlet the region (Houston Chronicle), which discusses 1) the organization itself 2) its personnel and 3) its work. Also, three national media sources (Politico, Next City, New York Times) discuss the organization or its research. In fact, many of these sources specifically address the question of the impact/importance of the organization's work. Does this meet the notability requirement? If these extensive citations of the Kinder Institute's work in regional, state, and national media are NOT indicative of notability, can you please articulate what would constitute evidence of notability?

In short, I am trying to find out what, exactly, needs to be presented in order to be accepted. I have racked my brain trying to figure it out the answer to the question. The organization is extremely notable at the regional level. I am confident that anything you need to see prove this exists. I just have to know what you want to see.

Thanks for your time and helping to address my questions. Ryanholeywell (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ryanholeywell I do have sympathy for your plight. - Here's the problem with trying to create an article for such an institute - The rules for notability state: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And then it says: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For most topics we would require that there be multiple independent resources that are writing about the institute itself. The institute you are writing about produces data, and many of the articles are using data from the institute, but do not say anything about the institute. That's your first problem. The second is that the institute appears to only gather data about Houston, and although Houston is a big city, it is a specific locale. I would say that a first move would be to improve the sourcing on the Rice University page. The only link there for Kinder is to its own web page. I would link to the first cite you have in the Kinder page, and change the statement there to drop the quote but instead say something like: "conducts the Houston Area Survey, which has covered topics like transport [cite], education [cite], urban planning [cite] and attitudes [cite re: gays]." You can even add another sentence if you wish to say more. At that point you will have provided more coverage than the institute has today, and you can decide whether you wish to continue to pursue a separate article. But there is no reason not to include more information in the Rice U article in any case. Another thing that you can do is to integrate the data from the Kinder institute into suitable articles, such as the article on Houston. If your goal is to make more use of the Kinder Inst data, or to help people be more aware of it, remember that fewer people will go to Wikipedia searching for "kinder institute" than will search on "houston" or "transportation", etc. The section on transportation in the Houston article is marked as being out of date - you may have the information to update it, and can cite the Kinder data. The Kinder data is appropriate for WP where WP touches on related topics. As for the other articles on institutes, there are a lot of sub-standard pages on Wikipedia, but that's not a good reason to add more. Many of the ones you pointed to have been tagged as being sub-standard. Some date from early days of Wikipedia when there were no policies on what makes a good article (one is from 2007, which is very early days). There is a whole activity on Wikipedia of finding and either fixing or deleting substandard articles. It takes a lot of work, which is why we prefer not to add more. But it does mean that the content of WP is not even in quality, which I know is confusing. LaMona (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

17:38:46, 21 April 2016 review of submission by Markadley

• Markadley (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Drugs Wheel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona,

Sorry to be pain here but I'm rather stuck with submitting the Drugs Wheel page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Drugs_Wheel). I've now split the references so that external links are separated from the five sources that directly reference and name the Drugs Wheel. Regarding the licensing, I can remove the images if necessary but it is my understanding that (from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Copyright_rules):

Some examples of licensing statuses commonly found on the Internet, but forbidden on Commons, include: Creative Commons Non-Commercial Only (-NC) licenses

The following well-known licenses are preferred for materials on Commons: Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike licenses

It would appear that the Non-Commercial licence only applies to those licences that ONLY are non-commercial...?

For now though, shall I just remove the images as I'm keen to get the page online if at all possible.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. As for the licenses, I'm not an expert, but I am assuming that NC, in any combination, is out because it limits the use in a way that WP can't support. That is how I read the discussions that I can see. However, you can ask and get a definitive answer about your particular images at [[2]]. As for the article, you should resubmit (I haven't time to get into it in detail at the moment). I note that the name may mean to change to "Drugs Wheel" because it generally isn't useful to have things fall under "The", but that can be done when the article is accepted, or even afterward. (It's a simple move.) LaMona (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

From ChopSticksChan

Hi LaMona,

I notice I am unable to edit entries and AfC submissions using the Edit tab. This seems to have happened just fourdays ago --- before that, there appeared an "edit" tab at the top right side of my screen, to make edits easy. Now it is gone! Instead, I only see an "Edit source" tab, which I can use to make edits but is much more cumbersome and difficult than using the easy editor "Edit" tab feature.

Have you ever encountered this problem when editing? If so, any advice/suggestions on what to do?

Cheers, ChopSticksChan (talk)

ChopSticksChanTo change this you need to change your profile. Got to your profile at the upper right; from there click on editing; and at the end of the group "Editing" there is a pulldown for which editing mode you want to be the default. You want "Always give me source editor." LaMona (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jason Miyares

On March 7, you rejected the draft for Jason Miyares due to notability. But per WP:POLITICIAN all members of state and provincial legislatures are notable. So that subject is notable, even though he only took office this year. So therefore I intend to move it out of the draft namespace into the main namespace, and then clean up all the other errors you pointed out in the article. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problems were fixed so it's okay now. Thanks for doing the needed work. LaMona (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:No_Fault_Found

I have amended the article to add more citations. I already had one citation of an industry publication and one peer reviewed journal article. I have added a further 3 peer reviewed journal articles that discuss this topic. I trust this is sufficient reliable sources. JPelham (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

JPelham - it looks good, but there is a redirect from NFF to Failure analysis that I can't get around. I'll ping an admin. LaMona (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

LaMona - I think i've managed to remove the redirect JPelham (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

JPelham, that remove the redirect code, but the article is still there. I can't delete it, so it'll have to wait for someone with admin privileges. LaMona (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

LaMona - It looks like someone has deleted it now. JPelham (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

JPelham, great. Now there is the question of the article title. We generally only upper-case proper nouns, so this should be "No fault found" unless there is a special reason why it cannot be. It should also be that in the failure analysis article. I will do those two changes - they can always be changed back. LaMona (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

LaMona great that this is now an article. In my view it should be capitalised as it frequently appears in academic papers and reports as the acronym NFF.JPelham (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You can make an acronym from something that isn't capitalized. In any case, WP has its own style rules, and we should follow them. Note that the failure analysis article lacks references - you could start that process by adding ones for NFF. LaMona (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

08:42:07, 27 April 2016 review of submission by Michael at BKL

• Michael at BKL (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BKL (Berg Kaprow Lewis) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

LaMona, I could use some guidance on how I can improve the referencing on my article? Any guidance that you can give would be appreciated. I also noted that our article (albeit an old version) appears on Speedydeletion. I can't see anything on the DRAFT page which suggests that it will be deleted but I just want to make sure.

Michael at BKL, WP guidelines require multiple references in reliable sources that are substantially about the subject of the article. Notices of "business as usual" (mergers, name changes, new products) do not indicate notability. Trade publications do not figure highly in determining notability because we look for companies that have had a broad social or scientific impact. The guidelines for companies says: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Nothing in your article speaks to that. What you show here is that the company exists. Even within that, much of the content is unsourced. WP articles are created from sources, and only sourced material can be used. Editors will remove unsourced material when found in an article. At least one of the awards is one where you nominate yourself - we generally don't take those seriously. It is very probable that this company does not meet the notability requirements for companies. If you believe it does then you need to show otherwise.

Another thing, you are editing with conflict of interest and you need to make a declaration of that on the talk page of the article. You will not be allowed to edit the article in the main article space because of the COI. It is not YOUR article. All articles on WP can be created and edited by anyone, and no one controls the content. It is a collaborative process. I also note that when I search on the company name I find sources that you have not included, such as Berg Kaprow Lewis fined for audit breaches. You cannot create a one-sided article that only shows the company in a positive light. That violates the policy of neutral point of view.

The article was scheduled for deletion because draft articles are deleted if not edited for 6 months. You got the 5 month warning. Any change to the article will start the clock ticking again. LaMona (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

11:33:51, 21 April 2016 review of submission by Louisa Leontiades

• Louisa Leontiades (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Meg John Barker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona.

Thanks for your help so far. After a period with other priorities, I have recently made a lot of changes and updates to the draft text. You can see them on the web at the moment.

I'm still convinced Barker in fact passes the WP:ACADEMICS standard. I have added several references evidencing this, e.g. the references to them in Clarke et al (2010), Weeks (2011) and Burr (2015), which are all academic level publications.

On Google Scholar the "Meg Barker" search produces more than 11,000 entries; they have a "verified entry", and under that heading are cited 1492 times. This seems to be well in line with many others who have a wikipedia entry based on their academic credentials, in social sciences and psychology in particular. E.g. Allan Schore, Jerome Kagan, Philip Bromberg or Lisa Diamond.

Do you think this is all right? Shall I resubmit it, or do you have some other advice for me? Many thanks?

Louisa Leontiades (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Louisa Leontiades, I made some changes, removing references to her own works. To my mind, Barker passes Academic on their writings. What is weak is the position at Open University, which isn't as scholarly as one would like. I think it's worth resubmitting. I'll make a note on the page about Barker's H-index, which is high. LaMona (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Sahibzada_Muhammad_Ishaq_Zaffar

hello dear you have rejected my article on 27th march i have improved it a bit please look again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sahibzada_Muhammad_Ishaq_Zaffar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Amer zaffar01 - OK, you did good edits, and I sent it on to main wiki space. However, given the similarity in names, I must tell you that if you are related to the subject of the article, you must abide by the policies for conflict of interest. The main things are that you must declare your COI on the talk page of the article, so that other editors are aware of it, and you must refrain from making anything more than very minor corrections to the article now that it is in the Wikipedia. You can request that edits be done by others, however. All of this is explained on the page about WP:COI. Thank you, and I hope you find other articles to work on - there are about 5 million here and many of them need further editing. LaMona (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)