Jump to content

User talk:LaMona: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AuthorKJ (talk | contribs)
161 edits
No edit summary
Line 751: Line 751:


:[[User:Historiarvm Arizonensis]], if you blank the page (basically highlight and delete all of the content) this is identified as a deletion request from the page creator, and the page should then be deleted by an administrator. I haven't actually done this myself so I don't know how long it takes, but if nothing else the blank page is doing no harm. I suspect, however, that deletions are taken care of fairly swiftly. [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona#top|talk]]) 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
:[[User:Historiarvm Arizonensis]], if you blank the page (basically highlight and delete all of the content) this is identified as a deletion request from the page creator, and the page should then be deleted by an administrator. I haven't actually done this myself so I don't know how long it takes, but if nothing else the blank page is doing no harm. I suspect, however, that deletions are taken care of fairly swiftly. [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona#top|talk]]) 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

==Richard S. Darling==

La Mona, is the section on the officers of the FAIR Foundation OK or should I delete it with just a brief mention of who they are? Thanks!
[[User:AuthorKJ|AuthorKJ]] ([[User talk:AuthorKJ|talk]]) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

[[User:AuthorKJ|AuthorKJ]] ([[User talk:AuthorKJ|talk]]) 02:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:54, 15 July 2016


Regarding rejecting of draft for music artist: Nigel Good

Hey LaMona,

Thanks for your comments on my proposed Nigel Good article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nigel_Good

I have replaced the words you describe as promotional in nature. Added a link to support the fact that Nigel's 2013 single 'This is You/Always Running/The Balance' was actually his first single picked up by several international acts.

Regarding references for charting. I am aware of this problem and contacted my colleagues at Silk Music (the owners). I asked if they could provide any direct links for these charts. They replied that only thing they had were screenshots of the Itunes and Beatport charts from back in 2013/2014. I have them on my desktop. I have yet to find out how to find these older charts on the internet. I can send you the screenshots? Or maybe you know how to retrieve such charts?

Please let me know what I can to help in the process of having this article approved?

Btw I am the official manager for Nigel Good's digital platforms Spotify & Apple Music Connect. He is aware that an article on him is in the proces.

Kind Regards, MariusEJ Silk Music Spotify Director // Nigel Good Spotify / Apple Music Connect Manager

Well, User:MariusEJ, since you've let me know that you are his official manager, I need to let you know that you have what we call a conflict of interest here on Wikipedia. You can continue to work on the article, but you must abide by our policies for editing with a COI. I will put the information on your talk page, but you need to also know that you are only allowed to edit the page while it is in draft. ONce it goes into the main space you can only request edits on the talk page. This is all because we do not allow promotion of people or products on WP, and folks with a COI, even when they try hard, have at least an unconscious bias. Please follow the directions that you'll find soon on your talk page, and you'll be fine.
You need to replace ALL of the promotional language. I gave you a few examples so you would know what I mean, but the entire article reads like a press release. You must stick strictly to the facts. This is an encyclopedia. Your entry will be alongside those for Einstein and Kierkegaard. Think about that.
Now, as for the charts: I'm not sure that itunes charts are being accepted. Itunes and Amazon and other sales sites change chart positions minute by minute. A published source would be much better.
Last, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~.

LaMona (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:15, 22 April 2016 review of submission by PascaldeLacaze


Dear LaMona, thanks for your review and good tipps. I edited and shortened the article and deleted some of the OEM partners. Note that Graebert's notability is given by the fact that Graebert pioneered several CAD technologies (see also awards).

We are resubmitting the article now.

Kindly, PascaldeLacaze

17:35:04, 19 June 2016 review of submission by 203.106.156.98


I ask you to explain, instead you go to the mentioned sites to remove the added information and references. Then posting a idiotic template that is a consequence of you removing the references. Incompetent scumbag! You are only worth fucking yourself and eat your own shit! Damn you all, especially you and the first reviewer! This proves my point of what I said below.

The wikipedia reviewer(s)who posted the "templates" for "Furious Slaughter', Fist of Fury', Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan, and 'Insomnia Lover) is/are incompetent prejudicial idiots! Rejecting article submissions for movies base on individual whims and fancies. Why? The "template" was not posted for these articles until being informed about the inconsistencies in accepting or declining a submission. These are only on the surface. There more of these type of articles. Idiot! One of the "template" posted is the consequence of the idiot reviewer removing two or three of the citation sources.

07:25:43, 20 June 2016 review of submission by 1.9.100.170


Check out these movie articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie..._In_Your_Face , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards

07:34:26, 20 June 2016 review of submission by 1.9.100.170


Check out these movie articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie..._In_Your_Face , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards.

01:30:23, 29 June 2016 review of submission by TracieBurns


Re: Lloyd Jeffress Memorial Resolution. Unbelievably, UT has pulled this document down after 15 years online. It was there as recently as two weeks ago! I have sent a note to the Faculty Council to get them to repost, especially as this deletion could well effect other WP pages we know nothing about. I'll chase it down, and get back to you tomorrow, if possible. There is another version on the American Psychological Association's PsychNet, but it's a pay access rather than open access, so I would prefer UT solve its problem so that you can get to the PDF - which I have, but which is no longer anywhere else online except in Google searches. I'll be back in touch as soon as I know something.

Other than this citation problem, do my other fixes resolve your issues?

Thank you for a quick response. TracieBurns (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns[reply]

Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can link to it here. I haven't time right now to look at the rest, so resubmit and let's see what other reviewers think. LaMona (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:16, 29 June 2016 review of submission by 206.214.54.68



Please identify the portions of the article that you deem unsupported so I can remove them and submit that is acceptable 206.214.54.68 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:rs - sources must be independent of the subject of the article, not that subject's own web page. LaMona (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:08:29, 29 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Hedybaker


I need to take down Provost Hai-Lung Dai's wiki entry. He is no longer in this role and I don't want it on wikipedia as is. How do you delete an entry? Thanks. Hedy

Hedybaker (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you blank the page, it will eventually be deleted. If that doesn't work, come back and I'll give you option #2. Give it a few days to be deleted, though. LaMona (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:50, 29 June 2016 review of submission by TracieBurns


Re: Lloyd Jeffress. UT is migrating their web platform (predictably), so that is why the Memorial Resolution for Lloyd Jeffress link went dead. I imagine that's going to happen quite a bit for UT over the next 6 months. The PDF is up, but I don't know how to cite it because you can't link directly to it. You link to a page of Memorial Resolutions, then go down to the Jeffress PDF.

Here is the site: https://wikis.utexas.edu/display/facultycouncil/Memorial+Resolutions, but then you have to scroll down to jeffress.pdf.

So, the good news is that the Memorial Resolution exists online, but the bad news is this new double-click access. How should I handle this?

Thank you, TracieBurns (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns[reply]

didn't see this right away. The Internet Archive version should be stable - they don't change URLs. LaMona (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Zuto

Hi LaMona - I noticed you have rejected the draft for the page Zuto. With the additional award entries and PRNewsWire content now removed from the page, would you consider this draft fit for re-submission? Keen to work with you to get this page live! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DConnor17 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You have this interesting tendency to write adverts for companies. I'm not keen on letting this through, and it seems others feel the same way. WP is not to be used for advertising. It cheapens the encyclopedia and makes a mockery of the honest work that has been done here. Don't count on me. LaMona (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:38, 29 June 2016 review of submission by 86.132.14.205


This is not a request for a re-review just a clarification, take on board the points re guidance and reviews and considering redrafting,but would the convention for Wiki be to include references to reviews of his books etc within the article?

17:55:55, 29 June 2016 review of submission by 86.132.14.205


This is not a request for a re-review just a point of clarification- take on board your point about notability and I’m considering re-drafting. But is the convention for Wiki to include references to reviews of the book within the article, and would that mean expanding the article to include discussion of why a particular reviewer/journal/ academic thinks the work is important maybe ? Or do I just need a link to show that it has been reviewed by a range of prominent journals in the field, in the way that external links to book show the books actually exists?

Sorry, if I’ve posted this twice trying to get used to the system ! ☺ 86.132.14.205 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about posting twice ;-). Generally, references are cited when the book is mention in the text, or in a list in a bibliography, but not both. That does NOT mean expanding the article to include the discussion of why the reviewer said what he/she did, unless you have ANOTHER source that addresses that. You do not get to do any explaining - that is left to the published sources. The reviews show that reliable sources thought the book was worth their time to review. Reviews do not have to be positive; in fact, you should not eschew reviews that are less than flattering, in the interests of honesty. LaMona (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:11:50, 30 June 2016 review of submission by Angusparker

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear LaMona:

First, let me thank you for taking the time to review the Draft: Island_Conservation. It is much appreciated. I recognize that I have a COI as I am on the all volunteer board of the organization being described. But on the other hand, there are few people with wikipedia savvy able to write a detailed article on this important organization that is at the forefront of its field. Hence, the draft and request for review.

Your comment was "Good article, but must focus entirely on the organization, not on the general island problems. All references must be about the organization, not general problems. This means reducing the article in size. An article on the problems of island conservation is also plausible." So if I take out Section 2 and 4 would that be sufficient? I imagine that the 44 references with news articles, scientific journals and press releases from US Government Agencies, UN Agencies and major Conservation NGOs are adequate?

Thank you for your help.

Best, Angus

PS I will also commit to making no further edits to the page once it is accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:338D:3978:4494:79A1:63F7 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angus. From my quick reading, it's only the section starting "Island focus" that drifts off, but you know the article best so edit with that in mind. Meanwhile, the article Island ecology could possibly get a link to your organization once the article goes live - interlinking is what helps people find related articles. And if you have anything to add to that article, PLEASE DO! LaMona (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I'll chop that bit off and add some of the content to the Island Ecology page down the road. If I resubmit it tomorrow would you be able to review it again? Cheers Angus Angus Parker (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may not come to me - we get articles in some kind of random rotation. I will try to remember to look for it, though. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will need to get the redirect removed to Island ecology as well so that Island Conservation with a big C goes to the right content. Best, Angus Angus Parker (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitted the article having removed the "excess" island stuff and added an additional reference from CBS News. Hopefully you will get a chance to review it again. Thanks. Remember the redirect has to be removed from [Island ecology] and the tile of the page is [Island_Conservation] with a big C. Thanks for all your help. Best, AngusAngus Parker (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added some more good references Angus Parker (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:05, 30 June 2016 review of submission by 203.59.96.162


The data supplied is for an Australian public figure who already has a wikipedia page for one of their projects and has directed a number of projects. His IMDB page is here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1622138/ I have even provied references to his twitter and facebook accounts.

IMDb, Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources by WP's definition. The latter two are his own writings, thus not ABOUT him but BY him, and are informal communications. IMDb, like Wikipedia itself, is open to editing by anyone, and therefore is not a reliable source. See wp:rs for a definition of reliable sources. Generally that means published sources like newspapers and journals. LaMona (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection for DRAFT: Emily Zapotocny

Hello, I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing (aren't we all), and I'm confused on what is missing from my contribution? I've compared it to other similar pages, and I just can't seem to figure out if I don't have enough sources or what is wrong? Help please, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezapotocny (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, your username is "Ezapotocny" which appears very close to the name of the person whose page you are attempting to create. You may have chosen the name by mistake - the username is supposed to represent you, and you can edit any Wikipedia pages you would like, so you should not create a username that is the same as a page you are creating. The other option is that you ARE the person and you are creating an autobiography -- the latter is greatly discouraged, to the point of being a violation of Wikipedia policy. If so, you should cease editing.
To change your username to something that represents you, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing_username, in particular see the fourth point under "Alternatives to consider."
That covered, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and its policies. Begin by reading wp:rs which is a page about reliable sources. Also read wp:n and wp:Notability (people). To be in Wikipedia there has to be a certain level of proof of notability, which you will see described on those page. It isn't a matter of the number of references but the quality of references. You cannot use Wikipedia or IMDb as references - you need newspaper or magazine articles that are substantially about the person (e.g. feature articles). LaMona (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:03, 1 July 2016 review of submission by Tukombo



In the BBC link (reference), the BBC cites "local media report" with a reference to Malawi24. Other re-knowned publications like News24 have cited Malawi24 for articles'; and if the BBC or News24 are not credible enough, Facebook has verified the page. May need to look more into Western 'credible' reference materials, but the fear is this explains why Wikipedia has more entries from the global north than global south; a trend that is often seen throughout western platforms. e.g. twitter would verify even a councilor in the UK but you have twitter handles for presidents in different African countries not verified. Man cant change this norm, coz man dont care about all that. Did my part. You can put the entry for speedy deletion. Others will have to create their own entry

>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-35231594?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=56952b8520000086ab5a4bb0%26Malawi%27s%20celebrated%20woman%20freedom%20fighter%20dies%2616.49&ns_fee=0#post_56952b8520000086ab5a4bb0

User:Tukombo - It is absolutely true that @en Wikipedia's policies favor the Western North. I personally think that dividing WP by language, rather than by region, may not have been the best idea, but I can't change that. Twitter never verifies anyone, nor does Facebook. Mentions and cites also don't support notability. That's true for everyone. The policies say that you must have sources that are ABOUT the subject of the article. If you have access to local media (newspapers, magazines) that carry articles about the station, those are what will support notability. From what little I can find, Malawi24 has done some important breaking stories, and you need just a few sources that actually say that. You most likely will not find what you need in Western sources, but the sources can be from any reliable publication. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:10:13, 1 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jkaczmarczyk


I'm asking after this draft article that was rejected: Severl points were made, probably because of boilerplate. I'm not clear what's the most important concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marcelo_Lehninger I can easily add section headers and I will if that's the primary issue. I didn't because I've observed that other brief articles on individuals don't either. The rejection as given suggests I've used ambiguous sources. I used legitimate news sources except for two awards. I sourced the organization that awarded them. I can replace them with news coverage of the award, but I thought the actual organization rated higher in legitimacy. The suggestion that Marcelo isn't notable enough has merit. But the two previous music directors of the Grand Rapids Symphony have articles in Wikipedia, and for both, their tenure with the Grand Rapids Symphony was the pinnacle of their careers. I think the precedent speaks for itself. What's more, Wikipedia also has articles for Grand Rapids Symphony's principal pops conductor, Robert Bernhardt, and even for its associate conductor, John Varineau. Thanks in advance for your time and trouble.

Jkaczmarczyk (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added section headers and noted where references are needed. All information in an article must be verifiable in reliable sources. Nothing speaks for itself. It isn't a question (yet, anyway) of notability but that information cannot come out of thin air, it all has to be WP:VERIFIABLE. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:37:04, 2 July 2016 review of submission by TracieBurns


I just saw you had provided an Internet Archive link. Thank you very much. I never got an email on this to know you had replied, and I didn't know that you would reply to a section that wasn't the most recent, so I lost a couple of days there. At any rate, the fix on the briefly AWOL Memorial Resolution is made, and the article is resubmitted. I will watch this space and the others, as well as the article itself for additional notices. TracieBurns (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns[reply]

Regarding rejecting the article on Ghaus Ansari

dear LaMona,

I am somewhat disappointed by your rejecting my article without any real reason. I am a seasoned contributor to Wikipedia and have usually added more value to many of its articles. By rejecting this article, you are taking out the "Wikiness" of Wikipedia by not allowing others to contribute to it. I did everything the previous reviewer requested. Now your request is that I write about a "famous person" before having this article approved and I don't accept that. How can I be sure that if I make the changes requested that the next editor won't reject it again?

Please let me know concretely how I can improve this article (as a bare minimum) to get it approved and then asking others to improve it. While the person I am writing about is indeed my father, I believe he very much deserves a place on Wikipedia (considering some of the less notable garbage articles that I have otherwise found about people whom I don't believe have pretty much faked their popularity!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansari (talk • contribs) 11:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sansari, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, precise reasons were given - you must provide sources that are about the person, not by the person. If your sources are not by the person, then your references are poorly done because they all show Ansari as the author. Note that because you are writing about a relative, you have what we call a conflict of interest which must be declared on the talk page of the article. This declaration is both required, it also helps reviewers help you get the article into good shape. Yes, the next editor may reject it again. This is an iterative process, but you cannot expect us to accept articles that do not meet WP standards. You claim to be a seasoned editor, but you placed this comment at the top of this talk page (they belong at the bottom) and you failed to sign it properly. You appear to have less than 50 total edits. I'm afraid that it takes quite a while to be seasoned, so please be patient and accept that you have yet quite a bit to learn. We all go through this at the beginning, and I realize that WP rules can be quite confusing. The editors here are trying to help, so do not blame or attack them; we are all volunteers, doing this because we care about the quality of Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rejection of "Liebe, Tod & Teufel"

Hello LaMona, I am not very pleased at the rejection of my article, "Liebe, Tod & Teufel". The reason provided was that the website I provided was unreliable. However, this did not stop the creation of the German article with the same source. Please clarify, thank you. Lcard9 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lcard9, the article was denied because it had only one reference, and that reference 1) does not supply verification for all of the information in the article and 2) is a crowd-sourced site, which @en Wikipedia does not allow. It must be possible to WP:VERIFY all of the information supplied in a WP article. (Note that there are seven references attached to the @de article, so it is not the case that the sources are the same. Perhaps you forgot them on the draft here?) Also, not all Wikipedias have the same criteria for notability or for reliable sources. If you wish to add articles to @en WP, you will need to follow the policies here. You should become familiar with WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:N (notability). LaMona (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the clarification. I shall fix this asap. Lcard9 (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:31, 3 July 2016 review of submission by Hmm2015


Dear LaMona, thank you for taking the time to look through the article for pianist Cornelia Herrmann. I apologise for having included the link to a sale website! I have tried to provided citation where you asked for them. The inclusion of 'famous people' is not to make her famous - it is simply a list of the teachers she has studied with. All biographies of performing artists include names of teachers. After all, this is an important piece of information about this artist. If there is anything else I should improve I would be grateful for your support. Thank you! Christoph Hmm2015 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hmm2015 - you have more than the list of teachers - you have the list of orchestras, the list of conductors, the list of venues... lots of lists, and many of them are not verifiable in the references. These lists do not help with notability, and they don't make for very interesting reading. A person's life and work is not a series of lists, hopefully, and you need to show the reader why this person matters. After reading this article, I know very little about the person. What you need is a feature article about her, or some in-depth reviews. The references that are announcements of performances do not support notability, nor does the link to her agent's site (I assume that is what Matthew Sprizzo is.) Also, I just looked at this and you have copied from this (or another provided press release) the entire first two paragraphs, which is a violation of copyright. You must change that because any articles that violate copyright, even drafts, can be summarily deleted in order to protect WP from harm. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anahid Ajemian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Knight of Malta and Order of St. James (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:31:34, 3 July 2016 review of submission by Tukombo


Hi, Thanks for your response LaMona. Would this article that appeared in The Daily Times of Malawi, the oldest publisher/newspaper in Malawi count as reliable and valid evidence/reference material? I have added it on the reference list of course. http://timesmediamw.com/malawi24-starts-publishing-literature/

Yes, User:Tukombo, that's the kind of reference that we are looking for. Although I was hoping that there would be ones about its more ground-breaking news stories, so keep looking. And the links that you have from BBC, etc., might be used to say that Western media picks up Malawi24 news articles. (That's a bit of a stretch of the policies on wp:SYNTH, but it might fly.) Although I just tried the BBC link and it didn't work for me, although it did a few days ago - could you see if it works for you? LaMona (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:43:34, 3 July 2016 Regarding rejecting draft of Malayalam magazine Grihalakshmi

Dear LaMona

Earlier, on 21st June, you had rejected the entry, link of which is provided:

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

There, you had stated that the first two links had the the headlines edited. This has been rectified, and the excess link has been removed. If you could look into the page and see if it has been set as per the required standards, it would be very helpful.

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.wwd (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sachin.wwd. You have re-submitted it, so that's all you need to do now. However, I think it would be a good idea to look for more references, ones that are more about the magazine and not just the one event. There may not be articles - it is hard to find articles that are really about magazines since other magazines wouldn't want to write about a rival. Look in any newspaper indexes you can find, maybe those would have something. It would make the article stronger to have a few references that are about the role and impact of the magazine. LaMona (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona Thank you for your response. I have a lot of references, since this a magazine that has been in publication for more than 37 years. But the trouble is that the references that we have are in Malayalam (regional). Will it be helpful if I submit these news paper clippings as references? Kindly guide me through the same.

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.wwd (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin.wwd, you can indeed use non-English sources to support the article. Obviously, this being English Wikipedia, English sources are preferred where they exist, and there need to be at least some supporting sources in English, but your Malayalam sources are welcome if they are needed to verify specific facts in the article. LaMona (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuta San Leonardo

Dear LaMona,

Thank you for your edits and for approving my article. I have just one question regarding your edit removing the fact that the wine produced by this estate is one of Italy's leading wines in its category. I thought this would be of significance and provided some solid references to back it up. I also based this structure on an article on Tenuta San Guido which has a similar wine and notability.

Thanks again and look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Crionnacht123 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crionnacht123, the concept of a "leading wine" is not factual. If there were a reference saying "was selected in top 10 wines by X expert" you could say "X selected it as a top 10 wine". Otherwise it is simply promotional. In any case, it probably would not fit into the lead unless that same information were covered in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the body. I would change the wording in the Tenuta San Guido but I do not have access to the works that are cited. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, thank you for your quick reply and explanation. I understand your point although it seems more succinct to just phrase it that way rather than mentioning specific ratings and journalists. I appreciate it is slightly vague but it is not "promotional", as it is a statement of fact given that it is consistently rated as such. However, I will reconsider and perhaps go into more detail on the wines. By the way, the works cited in the Tenuta San Guido article are simply journalistic works referring to the wine's prominence in this category of wine, so there is no difference here.

Crionnacht123 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP is not a place for promotion or advertising, it really shouldn't matter what other articles say. Nor should it matter that ones' product is lauded. An encyclopedia is about social and historical importance. The policies on WP:CORP say: "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." LaMona (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:39, 4 July 2016 review of submission by Hmm2015


Dear LaMona, again thank you for looking at my article. Whilst I completely agree with you - (that lists don't make for a very interesting read!), it is these lists that do describe the process of development of an artist, in this case a pianist. May I ask you to look at some articles of musicians like Christopher Hinterhuber (a very similar article to the one I wrote with very few references to back up statements!), or Janine Jansen (even more lists!) or Till Fellner (again, similar but very few references to back up claims!). For somebody who does not know this person (but must have some musical knowledge or interest - otherwise he/she would not look for more information about a musician!) it is in fact extremely interesting to read about the teachers this pianist has studied with and to read about the concert halls she has performed in or the orchestras she has performed with. To some people it might be meaningless lists - to others it might be highly relevant or interesting information! I myself have been in the classical music profession for the last 25 years and do find these fact very interesting and relevant! After all, the accomplishments of a performer are very much reflected by the venues he/she has performed in or the partners he/she has performed with. Even the most well known artists in the realm of classical music have articles in WP that read a bit like lists - just look up Anna Netrebko as an example. I think that a pianist like Cornelia Herrmann should have an article on WP - she has won a major piano competition, over the last 20 years she has performed all over the world in important concert halls and with major orchestras/conductors and she has recorded a number of successful CDs. She has furthermore initiated a music festival that has received a substantial amount of press in Austria. Yes, I have more or less copied the first couple of paragraphs - as they were taken from her website in the first place. I realise that this does not comply with copyright and will change that. In fact, I will rewrite the complete article - most importantly I will make it more compact and then re-submit. Maybe I wrote it too much like a biography for a concert program and tried to squeeze in as much information as possible. However, I also wanted to show you (or the potential reader) enough 'evidence' of her accomplishments as a pianist. best regards, Hmm2015 (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of article on Michael Morrow

In response to your comments, I've removed unnecessary detail of Morrow's youth, added more precise references at points where they appeared to be missing, and have stuck to the bare facts, as you have suggested. I trust that the article is now more acceptable. Charlesgannon (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:03, 4 July 2016 review of submission by Tukombo


Yes, the BBC link is still working. Thanks for the heads up and suggestions. So much appreciated.

Your article on Kathleen Dean Moore

Dear LaMona, Today I submitted a draft of an article about Kathleen Dean Moore. A friend of mine who knows Ms. Moore asked me to help her create a Wikipedia page for Ms. Moore. My draft was declined because "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Kathleen Dean Moore, which is also waiting to be reviewed." I looked at your article and the text is indeed very similar to mine. I wonder if perhaps Ms. Moore also gave you information to post for her?

My draft also had the comment "The existing submission is very poorly formatted. I suggest that the current editor either request that the existing draft be deleted to make way for this draft, or that the editor of this draft move it in place of the current draft."

I have spent a lot of time formatting my draft, and I'd like to ask you if you are willing to delete your draft so that mine may move forward. I believe it would be the most efficient way to get the page about Ms. Moore accepted. Are you willing to consider this suggestion?

Thank you, 

 Jg0590 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jg0590 - The draft is not mine - I was the reviewer on a draft. Unfortunately, the user who created that draft does not have a username, so they cannot easily be contacted. Look in the history and you will see their IP address. You can try to contact them, but IP addresses are not stable so it isn't clear that you will reach the person. I'll post this on the reviewer site and see if anyone knows what we should do. LaMona (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just looked at the messy one, and it looks like it was a copy and paste of yours, only it copied the displayed version to the source. In other words, it's a bad copy of your article. I don't know who did it, but that's what it looks like. So it's even more mysterious. LaMona (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help LaMona. Jg0590 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. I turns out the person who wrote the messy draft is the friend I referred to in my first message to you. She tried to write the page for Ms. Moore but didn't know what she was doing and it came out not formatted. Then she asked me to do it, but she didn't mention that she had already created a draft. When I found out the draft was hers I asked her to delete it. She was happy to delete it but didn't know how and asked for my help. I looked up how to delete (I'm a newbie too) and thought that if we did it from her computer the request would have the same IP address. Obviously it didn't. So how do we proceed? The author of the messy draft and I both want it deleted, how can we make that happen?

Thank you for your help! Jg0590 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jg0590, I'll tag it as a delete as requested by the creator. Let me know if that doesn't work. (It may take a day or two.) LaMona (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It already has a deletion request on it, so it should get deleted before long. An admin has to do it. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry I didn't leave you a message about that. This morning I figured out the way for me to request deletion. I appreciate your time and attention! Jg0590 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rejected Draft: PopGun Presents

Thank you for reviewing the entry Popgun Presents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PopGun_Presents), LaMona! I have made all of your suggested edits, including making more use of the New York Times article on the subject's venue Elsewhere. I have removed sources that did not directly mention the subject. I have also added additional notable sources.

One thing I would ask you to reconsider is the removal of certain details regarding the company's formation. The occurrences that motivated the partnership are discussed in detail in source #6 and #1.

There was a "citation needed" that I've replaced with markers from two existing sources.

Thanks again for your time!

(MrFarenheitsMom (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, MrFarenheitsMom. The motivations for the partnership were not referenced, and also did not follow a formal, neutral tone. Saying things like "Frustrated with...." and "had been looking to occupy time" are statements about someone's state of mind, something we don't generally go into here because it isn't verifiable. You could say "In an interview they said that...." but in fact interviews are primary sources, not secondary, and so are discouraged. And no one else can know someone's state of mind. That's why it is encyclopedic to stick to the facts, and leave the more emotional bits to journalistic treatments. LaMona (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:12, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Billquinn ky


Hi LaMona - I am NOT requesting a re-review, but asking for advice.

I was focused on notability, and trying to catch the early history of a young band out of Lexington KY. But I am struggling. With respect to notability criteria #7 "Has become one of ... the most prominent of the local scene of a city"

In order to show this, it was required to use the local record store, and local radio charts - these are both 100% independent, and long standing references. The CD central, and WRFL rankings are now clarified as being local to Lexington, KY - but support the claim of prominence.

Likewise several of the local / Lexington blogs represent we added to show more independence - but I understand these can not be verified.

I would like to add more links to known nation distributors, such as iTunes, spotify, etc. So I will be working on that.

Let me know what you think :-)

User:Billquinn ky, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. The problem wth iTunes and Spotify is that they are sales or promotion sites, and we do not allow either sales or promotion here on WP. You can link to those in an External links section, and it might be ok to say that they achieved X on a chart, but those are not independent sources because they have an interest in selling or promoting since that's how they make their money. #7 is not just that the group is popular (and charting needs to be national), but that they have become the iconic example of a unique, local musical genre. This generally applies to traditional music (e.g. Zydeco, traditional blue-grass), not to "nouveau" forms. I have to say that for a musician to meet notability they are going to have to be a "star", not just a local favorite. Consider your guy "up and coming" and when he "up and comes" then he will be notable. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:44, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Kennyung6


Please please LaMona, Could you kindly just help me fast track the creation of this article by specifically pointing out the external links - references to remove, move and replace as you suggested the last time you reviewed the Article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clement_Dzidonu


Thanks. Your Help is greatly appreciated.

User:Kennyung6, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, there is no fast track, and I gave you the information you need - which is to use the articles you have as external sources to add solid information to the draft. Creating an article is a lot of work, there's no question about that. You'll just have to do it. LaMona (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:26:34, 7 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Littlekaira123



Littlekaira123 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona -

Thank you for your comments on [1]

To address your notability concern - I have added a number of citations from independent sources in the popular press (Wall Street Journal in India and the US, the New York Times etc). Also, please note that in terms of notability, Dr. Genicot is one of the pre-eminent Belgian economists today. Additionally, as a woman, she is considered one of the stars in the field of economics and especially development economics. She is highly respected in the field as evidenced by the honorific committees and associations (all invitation only) that she is part of.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Little Kaira Littlekaira123 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Little Kaira[reply]

Littlekaira123 - that's good, but there's a disconnect between the text and some of the references. The reference to Bread did not mention her, and the reference to IZA was to Bread. I've fixed both of those. There isn't a question of her being notable, but the article can't be incorrect. I'll see if other references need to be fixed. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Littlekaira123 - I expanded references and made minor changes. Please resubmit. LaMona (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding draft Bhadrakali Mishra

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your review of the article written by me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhadrakali_Mishra)

While I will continue to build upon the article by adding relevant references as well as new referenced content, I had two quick questions:

1. Do I need to add references to "Summary" part of the article, even though the text summarized there is from the duly referenced text in the main content?

2. In my original draft, I have included references, to the texts mentioned, from a number of published journals, books and newspapers, both national and global publications (about 40 references in total). I will continue to add here.

Your thoughts and comments most appreciated.

Thanks

Himalayanbullet (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Himalayanbullet. If everything in the summary at the top of the article is covered in the article with references then you do not need to add references there. You have a fairly long summary, so you should check this. If necessary, add references to the summary if there are points that aren't obviously made in the article. LaMona (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LaMona. I will re-check that and make corrections. Once done, I will re-submit for review. Himalayanbullet (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:27:23, 7 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Eperless


Thank you for your valuable help, LaMona. I have addressed the awards references and included the publication and date onwhich it was published or url of the awarding body and the award. I have also provided a reference for Fuller's Company's structure.

Could you please explain why some of the live links are showing up in red. I don't know what that means. I have tried to use the exact wording of the Wikipedia Article when referring back to it.

Thank you. Eperless (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Eperless (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eperless. You have redlinks because you are not using EXACTLY the same as the WP article. So you have "Old Town Hall, Stamford, CT" and the actual article is Old Town Hall (Stamford, Connecticut) - in another you have a comma within the square brackets that is not in the heading. The best thing is to copy the actual article title directly off of the article page. LaMona (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:15:16, 8 July 2016 review of submission by Eperless


Thank you very much for your help, LaMona. I believe that all changes you asked for have been made. Eperless (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:23:00, 8 July 2016 review of submission by 193.188.156.131


Dear LaMona, I wrote to Robert McClenon on 31 May to ask why the draft of this page had been rejected when it was a direct translation of the German, French and Portuguese language entries, which have been in place for several months now. We are keen to have the English version published as this is one of the organization's official languages. On 1 June, Robert McClenon stated that he was willing to accept the draft if I resubmitted it. I did so, but it has now been rejected again. Could you please help me to resolve this? Many thanks! Ruth Brown, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs193.188.156.131 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wiki has its own rules for what is and isn't acceptable. We require that all facts in the article be verifiable. I don't know what your conversation was with RC, and there is nothing on his talk page about this that I can see for June 1. His message on the draft is that it needs more references, which is also my message - you must have references for all of the information on the page here at @en wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and the guidance. Robert McClenon wrote his comments at the Teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_491) - it's the first item on this page. He said: I'm willing to accept if the originator resubmits, based on the same article being present in other Wikipedias. I don't defend it if there is an AFD, but it looks like the sort of article for which AFD is unlikely. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC). This is why I resubmitted as I'd been told it would be accepted this time. Thanks again for your help.193.188.156.131 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said HE would accept, not that anyone else would. So you can ask him to accept it, but his response was only about his own view. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:18, 8 July 2016 review of submission by ARC-MC-RF



Hi LaMona

Thank you for your review. We do want to re-submit the application and wanted your thoughts so we get it right. Your notes were in regarding the references on the published articles. We are unsure what areas you required references for, if you can list what needs to be fixed this would really be helpful. Would you require any scanned hard copies of articles as they are not all available online.

Theses are my contact details in case you need to contact me directly

rahila@arc-mc.com


Thanks

Rahila

User:ARC-MC-RF - Do need to look at wp:Refbegin which is referencing for beginners. You do not have any references - you have placed http URLs in the text and that is not how references are done. You also need to format the article using WP's formatting. That is described at wp:SMOS. Essentially, your article is not yet in any way a WP article in terms of how it is presented, so you need to fix that before a review of the content can be done.
I would also ask you to look at WP:COI, our policies for what we call "conflict of interest" - that is, creating articles on topics of which you may have a personal interest. I intuit this from your username. We discourage COI editing, although it is allowed on a temporary basis for a draft. Once the draft goes to main space, however, anyone who is directly involved with the topic of the article is asked not to do any direct edits, but instead to request edits on the talk page. WP is not like Facebook or other services where you create "your" page - it is an encyclopedia of information that is of general interest. Creating a page for the purposes of promotion can result in the page being deleted and the user account being blocked. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:03, 8 July 2016 review of submission by 185.5.63.200


Re-edited

Thank you for the review! I have added better references where you have told me they were not working. Do I have to start a talk page or just wait for the re-review now? Best, --185.5.63.200 (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you've re-submitted it for review, that's all you need to do. LaMona (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:34, 8 July 2016 review of submission by HattieWalker



Hello LaMona,

I have a question about references. I am using articles from Highbeam --an online paid research tool. The URL's provided direct the user to the Highbeam site and not directly to the article. Should I still provide the URL?

Also, thank you for your earlier feedback. It was very useful.HattieWalker (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Hattie WalkerHattieWalker (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HattieWalker. It is ok to include the Highbeam URL as long as you also provide the full reference so that folks without highbeam access can identify and find the source (and you've done that!). An extra service to your readers would be to see if you can locate open sources for the same articles, but in many cases they do not exist. You can put that on your "to do on a rainy day" list. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club

Dear LaMona,

I resubmitted a Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club article. After waiting a month for its review the article was rejected for the following reason:

"Submission declined on 8 July 2016 by Tseung Kwan O (talk). Making an article about something you're affiliated with is a huge COI. Also, using sock accounts is prohibited, I've already reported your account."

Upon your advice on 04:02:04, 21 February 2016 I created a new user name Round4figure and I added a COI declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Round4figure "User:Round4figure From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I once edited under the name Team BLRC but I am no longer doing so."

Could you please advise me on what options I have?

Thank you, Round4figure

Round4figure (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round4figure, your editing is still assumed a conflict of interest since you are most likely affiliated with the rowing club. That doesn't change what you do here on the draft, but will make a strong difference when the article goes into main space. At that point, you will not longer be welcome to edit the article directly but will need to request edits on the talk page so that others can make them in a neutral, non-involved way. You also need to declare your COI on at least the talk page of the article. I'll put the COI information on your talk page, and following the links there you will see what to do.
To my mind, COI isn't the big issue with the BLRC article; the issue is notability. Our policies for organizations says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I'm not sure if the sports-reference site is considered a reliable-enough source to pass, because it appears to be an amateur interest site, but at this point you have better sources than many other rowing clubs. That said, sports is not my area of expertise, and rowing even further from it. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona,

Thank you for your response. Firstly, I want to reflect on your statement that "I'm not sure if the sports-reference site is considered a reliable-enough source to pass, because it appears to be an amateur interest site." When you say "an amateur interest site", do you mean that the site is not credible (trustworthy) or it appears amateurish?

This is what the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Reference) says about that site:

$ citation start

Sports Reference, LLC is a company which operates several sports-related websites including Baseball Reference, Pro Football Reference, Basketball Reference, and Hockey Reference. The site also includes sections on college football, college basketball and the Olympics. The sites attempt a comprehensive approach to sports data.

$ citation end

And this is what the site says specifically about the Olympics data (http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/about/sources.html):

$ citation start

The data used to create the web site that you are accessing is the product of years of work by a group of dedicated Olympic historians and statisticians. The group that has compiled the database refers to itself as MADmen — MAD being an acronym for several of the members of the group, but also signifies their commitment to the project in another sense. The group consists of Hilary Evans (GBR), David Foster (GBR), Martin Frank (GER), Arild Gjerde (NOR), Jeroen Heijmans (NED), Martin Kellner, Bill Mallon (USA), Wolf Reinhardt, Ralf Regnitter (GER), Paul Tchir, Magne Teigen (NOR), and Christian Tugnoli, with some assistance from Herman De Wael (BEL) and Ove Karlsson (SWE). All of them are members of the International Society of Olympic Historians (ISOH), with Mallon a past-President, and have been working on compiling databases of complete Olympic results and a database of all Olympians for many years.

In the late 1990s, they found each other via e-mail and discovered that they were independently working on the same, or at least very similar, projects. Since about 1998, they have worked together, and the database used to create the web site you see now is probably the product of about 60 man-years of work.

Since 1998, the method of their work has been for each of them to work on various aspects of the database and then send the work out for editing to all of the others. In this way, they believe they have compiled the most complete and most accurate database of Olympic athletes yet known.

$ citation end

To the best of my knowledge, the site is considered accurate and a reliable source for all the Olympic sports.

On your second statement "To my mind, COI isn't the big issue with the BLRC article; the issue is notability." I reviewed Wikipedia's criteria for sport organization notability, which I have listed for reference.

$ citation start

Organizations and games notability

Teams This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Olympic and Paralympic Games Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games.

$ citation end

$ citation start

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." ... Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published.

No inherent notability No company or organization is considered inherently notable. ... When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics[1][note 1], economies, history, literature, science, or education [2].

Primary criteria

... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. ... A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

Depth of coverage

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.

Audience

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability [3]. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary[4].

Independence of sources

A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.

Non-commercial organizations

Nationally well-known local organizations: ... Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.

Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements[5], prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.

$ citation end

When assessing the notability of a subject, a Wikipedia editor must consider it in its context. The subject in the article draft satisfies the following notability criteria for a sport organization (sport club).

[3][4] at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary: 

The article uses three level of scope in its reference, all of which are general circulation newspapers: 1. local: Burnaby Now, 2. regional (provincial): Vancouver Sun, 2. international: Magazine Life

[4] had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics[note 1], economies, history: 

Below I have evidence of BLRC's effect on rowing sport history in Canada
- In 1973, Rowing Canada Aviron (RCA) established the first national training centre at Burnaby Lake.
- The Canadian national rowing team transitioned from a club to a composite crew development program ... Burnaby Lake was the center of this transition.
- setting up a provincial association to get a more equitable distribution of funds forthcoming from the province. After the Olympics, the British Columbia Rowing Association (BCRA) was founded in 1969.

[5] major achievements: 

A major achievement of the BLRC was that it 
- "helped produce many world-class rowers": it has a history of 16 Olympians that won 15 (6G, 4S, 5B) olympic medals in rowing, and many more participating in the national rowing team.

[note 1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_of_athletics The Athletics is a collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking.

Thank you, Round4figure

Round4figure (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use links rather than copying large amounts of text into my talk page, also because those texts are not formatted correctly with the cut-and-paste function. I am quite aware of what the policies say, and, if not, I can read them on the policy pages. What I mean is that sports-reference does not list an editorial board nor editorial policies. It appears to have been done by a group of enthusiasts. The WP article on it is minimal and does not have sufficient citations (its own site, a short article saying it was purchased, and another that is a directory entry - nothing substantial about it). That article probably does not meet notability criteria, but even if it did, the fact of there being an article on WP does not mean that the site is a suitable reference. Many sites that we do not allow as references (IMDb, Discogs, etc.) have WP articles. The criteria for articles vs. references are not the same. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona, after your comments about the references used in the article, and specifically about the use of amateur interest site, I found the following:

The Wikipedia's own template about sports reference uses all the examples to the Sports-Reference.com website. Also a quick search revealed that Wikipedia contains a few hundred articles that have one or more references to the Sports Reference LLC website.

For example, the articles with reference to Sports Reference LLC website include: 

1 of 2 references List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners
55 of 56 references List of 1908 Summer Olympics medal winners
18 of 19 references List of 1948 Summer Olympics medal winners
1 of 2 references List of 1996 Summer Olympics medal winners
1 of 19 references List of 2000 Summer Olympics medal winners
1 of 31 references List of 2004 Summer Olympics medal winners

Lastly, recently published books about Olympics that reference Sports-Reference.com include: 

- Success and Failure of Countries at the Olympic Games by Danyel Reiche, 2016
- London, Europe and the Olympic Games: European Perspectives edited by Thierry Terret, 2015
- The Olympic Games Effect: How Sports Marketing Builds Strong Brands by John A. Davis, 2012
- Igniting the Flame: America's First Olympic Team by Jim Reisler, 2012

Thank you, Round4figure Round4figure (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanny's Rejection

La Mona, I'm not certain why my article was rejected again. I have utilized references from The Arizona Republic, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times and established that the chain was the subsidiary of a notable wikipedia articled company, Hart Schaffner and Marx and that it's former flagship store has been recognized by the federal government as a historic place. I've also observed an article on a similar HSM-owned sister store known as Raleigh's whose approved article does not contain the scope of references that mine does. I would just perhaps like to know what this article possesses that mine does not. I really just want my article published. Thank you very much.

Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the message I left for you? It said: "Mentions do not support notability (NYT & LAT). The guidelines for companies says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The key word there is SIGNIFICANT, not just mentions." That's pretty clear, I think. The Arizona Republic is presumably statewide, but notability requires multiple sources that support notability, and you have perhaps one. (Multiple articles in a single source are considered a single source, not multiple sources.) LaMona (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've started searching for additional sources; however I must ask: why does the United States' National Register of Historic Places not qualify as a source that supports notability? Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historiarvm Arizonensis It does support notability, but it is not sufficient for notability. There are few sources or conditions that support notability on their own (one being a Nobel prize, but usually someone at that level has had quite a bit written about them). By the way, there are few absolutes in Wikipedia, so all of this is an interpretation of the policies. The point at Articles for Creation is to get an article on solid enough footing that when it goes into the main Wikipedia space it is clearly notable. If notability is not solid, the article may be proposed for deletion. All of that is 1) discouraging to the editor who created the article and 2) more work in general for the community. So the point here is not to block articles but to improve them, and at the same time hold articles to some semblance of a quality standard that supports Wikipedia's reputation for providing reliable information. If you want to get an idea of what the deletion process looks like, have a look at some the about week-old entries at WP:AFD. You probably don't want to go through that. LaMona (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rejection of article Ambedkar_Students'_Association

Hi, I found that you rejected my proposal for the article Draft:Ambedkar_Students'_Association I would like to get your kind advice on how to improve the article and make it available. I have put proper references in the page and also given reliable sources. The information that I provided doesnt include any of MY point of views. Kindly help! - Roughbook (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Roughbook, as I said in my comments, you need more source and more text. There is quite a bit more in the few articles you cite that is not in the WP article. What you have here would be at best considered a stub, and it would be best to raise it to the level of an actual article if you wish to avoid having it deleted. So you need to find more sources and write more about the organization. All we know now is that it exists, which is not encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:31, 12 July 2016 review of submission by 86.145.3.159



Thank you for explaining your reasoning. However, I thought the issue was notability not whether the reviews were positive or not. Personally I don't think either of those reviews were panning this novel. I included the reviews in order to illustrate notability. Pegasus, the US publisher of the book quoted from the NY Times review as follows: And now we have Byron Easy, the young hero of Jude Cook’s first novel. Byron is a poet of the self-published and permanently wine-stained variety. Cook can clearly write. . . . [He] has written something new. This is certainly bold, a proud flourish of anti-wisdom." They obviously found it positive enough to use as their lead review.

As for the Independent review, after the paragraph you quote, the conclusion is very positive: "And yet, Byron’s voice is so convincingly realised – at once eloquent and pathetic, generous and self-serving – that you feel compelled to keep him company for the duration. Towards the end Cook shrewdly varies the tone, offering some tender observations on family life. The result is not an easy read, but it is a rich and rewarding one." I'm not sure anyone could leave this review thinking the book wasn't worth reading.

But regardless of these quibbles over how we are reading the reviews, surely the breadth of the coverage for Cook's novel & his music career as part of the historic Britpop movement mark him out as notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry alongside other novelists with far fewer available references, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Blackmore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_Valmorbida

The problem is not whether the reviews are positive or not, it is that you picked certain statements to quote from those reviews. If you didn't quote from them, there would be no problem. But if you quote from them, your quotes cannot be selective to provide an unbalanced view. In fact, quoting is often dangerous ground. The main thing is that an article must abide by a neutral point of view and cannot be promotional in nature. If found to be promotional, the article can be speedily deleted. I am trying to advise you about ways to remove the promotional nature so as to avoid that. As for the other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- we aren't looking at those articles, we are looking at this one. You also have some formatting problems: 1) your headings are not formatted as per WP:SMOS (the manual of style) 2) you cannot use http links within the text (e.g. links to Byron Easy and Pegasus) 3) you link to Amazon but WP does not favor links to sales sites, as that is promotional (the information at Amazon is rarely considered reliable).
I would also advise you to create a username for yourself. It is very hard to engage with Wikipedia with only an IP address. This also assumes that you are here to engage in editing and making the encyclopedia better, and will make corrections and additions to many articles as we do here. LaMona (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of AfC draft A.T.M. Wilson

On 28 June 2016, you rejected this version of A.T.M. Wilson, giving lack of notability as a reason. I am very concerned that you have made such a glaring mistake, considering the number of AfC submissions that you are reviewing. The purpose of reviewing articles at WP:AFC is to differentiate between articles that are likely to be deleted and those that are not. In the case of A.T.M. Wilson, he was notable by multiple criteria, and you should be familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, where he passes criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, at least. One of those alone would be sufficient to pass the bar for notability. It's a great help to the encyclopedia that you're doing so much work at AfC, and I don't want to discourage you, but it would be a shame if you end up rejecting notable subjects when they could become perfectly reasonable articles. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Running Tours

LaMona, have a question about your feedback for the Memphis Running Tours Wikipedia submission. You ask for reliable sources independent of the subject. Are editorial articles - stories that were not paid for but were written by reporters - in Washington Post (Nancy Trejos), Memphis Daily News, Runner's World (Ted Spiker), Run ABC Scotland, choose901.com, iLoveMemphis.com. Australian writer Rob McFarland's article (robmcfarland.org) was picked up by Traveler.com.au (these two I totally forgot to include in all submissions of MRT as a notable biz in Memphis - I will add them). Are these and other news outlets not considered reliable sources independent of the topic?

Are the links working or do you have any professional insight that you can share because as the page explains, these types of sources qualify as reliable and independent of the topic.

Also, Memphis Running Tours is notable in that it's the first "fitness-based" tourism business to be established in Memphis. Several articles make note of this, and the company was featured just this past Sunday on a running radio show because it's one of the first of its kind in Memphis.

I would really appreciate more feedback from you as I feel we are meeting the requirements you are citing. Thank you very much.

First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, did you read what I wrote in the comment? : "6 of 10 references are from the company web site; 2 are about a different company. Of the two remaining, one does not mention the company. So you only have one reference. You will need more to meet notability." So I am only looking at the references you supplied at the time I read the article. Those were not sufficient for notability. If you have other articles that meet wp:rs (reliable sources) then you should use them. In particular, you should limit your use of the company's own web site. Note that local-only publications (choose901, ilovememphis) are less strong that ones that are at least regional, and the best are national. Sites that are the writings of a single individual (robmcf) are considered not reliable unless the person is quite famous already. Remember that mentions of the Memphis company in articles about other topics (e.g. the scotland co.) do not support notability. The articles must be primary about the subject of the wikipedia article. Something being the "first of its kind in Memphis" has no effect on notability in Wikipedia - what matters is having the sources that show that publications of strong reputation have found it a worthy subject.
You should also read the policies in WP:CORP which govern articles about companies. Among other things, that says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." It is difficult for local companies to meet the notability standards. And again, being mentioned in media in other localities does not guarantee notability. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Jelinek

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been directly copied from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/nyregion/donald-jelinek-lawyer-for-attica-prisoners-dies-at-82.html?_r=0, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa - Unfortunately, your modification removed the previous versions so I cannot see what was removed. I tried very hard to reword the NYT Obit, but may have missed a bit, and I would like to try again. Perhaps you could contact people before removing things? That would allow us a chance to right any wrongs in the article. Is there a way that you could restore at least the earlier versions so I can fix what you think was wrong? LaMona (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but we have too many potential copyright violations to assess every day to do it the way you suggest. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can check the paraphrasing that I did. If you wish to review the copyvio report it is visible here. — Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless Articles

La Mona, I've determined that my articles for creation Arizona Club and Draft:Hanny's simply do not fit Wikipedia's standards of notability and I would like them submitted for deletion but I am not sure how to go about doing this. Thanks.

Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Historiarvm Arizonensis, if you blank the page (basically highlight and delete all of the content) this is identified as a deletion request from the page creator, and the page should then be deleted by an administrator. I haven't actually done this myself so I don't know how long it takes, but if nothing else the blank page is doing no harm. I suspect, however, that deletions are taken care of fairly swiftly. LaMona (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Darling

La Mona, is the section on the officers of the FAIR Foundation OK or should I delete it with just a brief mention of who they are? Thanks! AuthorKJ (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorKJ (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Draft:Garance_Genicot/wiki_ph_id_0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=729864431"