User talk:LaMona/2015Nov/

21:34:41, 4 November 2015 review of submission by Kamishiro
I've made some changes & additions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Sinnicks - not sure at this point whether it's a help or a hindrance. LOL Would appreciate further input, regardless. T.I.A.

01:42:52, 11 November 2015 review of submission by Dshargrett
Hello,

Thank you for your feedback. I have updated references to include Vanity Fair, Drum! magazine and Jazz Times, all very-well established references.

19:42:18, 15 November 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor
Thanks - I would be glad to work on a short "400th Anniversary" section of the Two Row Wampum article. I'll go to the talk page for that article, to discuss the possibilities...

Draft WP Page for Rexnord
Thank you for your feedback. I kindly ask that you not suggest my article to be deleted. I'm very new to Wikipedia, and fully disclose I am an employee of Rexnord Corporation. I'm trying to bring the references up to WP standards but would really appreciate suggestions on how to improve the page. I understand simply being a company is not enough to publish an article. You might understand that being new to Wikipedia with no prior experience is intimidating, and much of the direction and feedback I've received is not explained in a manner that I fully understand. I am sincerely trying to follow the direction I have received. I'm not trying to flood the article with unreliable sources. Would you be able to identify which sources do not support notability, and which ones do? I have been scouring Google news for independent and national news sources. I've also seen dozens of pages with substantially less reliable sources that have been published, including companies. I have been working on this article for months. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Emily.white89 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Emily.white89 Note that a draft remains for 6 months after it was last edited before deletion. However, repeatedly bringing a draft to AfC for review without fixing the stated problems ends up just annoying the reviewers because of the time it takes, so you should not resubmit unless you have made significant changes. OK, the article stuff: If a company is not notable, no amount of work on the article is going to make it so. Basically, there are no strong sources in your article, that I can see, but a whole lot of weak ones. Is the company notable? The only way to know is to remove every source that is not primarily and significantly about the company. That includes every source that names the company in a single sentence or short paragraph.Here's an example: http://www.gurufocus.com/news/371288/water-water-but-not-everywhere. First, there is just a short mention of Rexnord in the article. That's not good enough, that article should go. Second, "gurufocus.com" is not a known or highly valued source. So that reference should be removed, along with any information it supports (which probably isn't much because it doesn't say much.) Any source that just names Rexnord but does not give in depth information that you have incorporated into the article should be removed. When you remove all of those, then we can see what's left and whether the company meets notability guidelines. I'm on the road so I don't have much time or I could go through and delete the ones I think are inappropriate. However, you should know them well and should be able to do the deletion with less effort.  Yes, the company wants to be on WP. But that isn't a valid motivation from the point of view of Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants information about topics that are encyclopedic and notable. Consider that you may have taken on a job that had unfounded expectations -- many companies think that they can have a Wikipedia article if someone writes it for them. What they don't know is that Wikipedia has policies that govern its content, and so such an article may not be possible. In the future, you may want to include wording in your agreement that you will "attempt" an article, but because of WP policies, you cannot guarantee. I found this video from a company that creates WP articles to be very honest about that. In fact, in the future you might want to analyze whether the company is likely to meet wp:corp before making an agreement. You could even have them watch that video. LaMona (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Kathryn Barger Page
What other sources would be acceptable if you are not looking for news sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersc11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Andersc11 - First, on talk pages you need to sign your posts with four tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Next, there's no problem with news sources - they are fine. Do read reliable sources. You will see that her own pages and pages of related persons are not considered independent and neutral. So you have only one reliable source, the LA Times, and it doesn't say much about her. Your article needs to be created from third-party reliable sources. That means that first you find sources, pretending that you know nothing about the subject, and then you build the article from the information in those sources. You should have no information in the article that cannot be verified in the sources you cite. LaMona (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the sources to only news articles and one government website. I am fairly certain all information on the page is pulled from these articles. Draft: Kathryn Barger Andersc11 (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Andersc11


 * Thanks for remembering to sign your post here! As to the sources, I removed some that were not considered reliable -- the "meet the staff" which is not independent, and the Google search -- searches aren't citable. What you have now is one LA Times artlcle and some articles from the San Marino paper and a local radio station. As I said in my first comment, local politicians are not immediately considered notable -- there has to be some thing special about them. They also have to have had an impact beyond their local area. The San Marino newspaper articles can provide information (and they do), but they do not support notability of the subject. The LA Times article is more support for notability. Unfortunately, one article isn't enough for the person to be considered notable. LaMona (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What if I included other Los Angeles Times articles featuring her for notability and not necessarily content addition? Andersc11 (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Andersc11


 * I'm not sure what you mean about notability but not content. If the article doesn't say anything about her that you can include in the WP article, it's not clear how you would cite it. Maybe you can link here to some of the articles you mean? LaMona (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I pulled some other articles that are pertinent to her notability (she's frequenting major newspapers) and put them in the article Andersc11 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Andersc11


 * Yes, but none of these have any significant information about her. That she is mentioned in a single sentence in newspaper articles is not sufficient for notability. There have to be articles that are about her, not that she is briefly quoted or named in an article about something else. I'm sorry but I just don't think that she meets notability at this point. She may very well later in her career, and at that time a WP article would be appropriate.LaMona (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:46:00, 25 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eric Musgrave
Hi LaMona, With reference to the latest rejection of my entry on Don McCarthy, his notability was acknowledged months ago by a previous editor. Mr McCarthy is one of the most successful and significant UK retailers of the past 25-30 years. Your opinion may be coloured by the fact that, unlike several of his peers, he has not courted publicity and so is not so well known to the general public, but among the fashion retail sector he is very highly regarded and admired. He is still very active in the sector, which makes his inclusion in Wikipedia all the more appropriate. All previous requests from your editors for clarification and editing have been met, so I hope you can reconsider your decision, which is, as I say, contrary to what was confirmed to me several months ago. I look forward to hearing from you.Eric Musgrave (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Eric Musgrave (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Eric MusgraveL Decisions in WP about notability are based on the sources that are (or can be) added to the article to show that notability. So the statement by one reviewer, "IT is likely that the gentleman passes WP:BIO" is not an acknowledgement of his notability, nor is it a promise that we will accept this article. Until someone has done the research, it isn't clear if one meets the WP requirements. The reviewer was probably saying that it appears that this is worth continuing to work on. But the sources have to be there. Two of us now, however, have highlighted the mixture of information about the person and the companies. Information about the companies can be used to verify statements in the article, but only sources about the person can support an article about the person. For the person, though, you do not have strong sources. There is quite a bit of text about him in the biography and early career for which you have no sources. Facts cannot appear out of thin air; they have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere has to be a reliable source. A Bloomberg profile is just a directory-type listing, and therefore is not considered a source that supports notability. Articles like "Chinese buyer offers £450m for House of Fraser" have mentions of the person, but are not about the person. It would be better to drop both these cites and the information they are citing. Your task, as editor, is not to show how important the person is, but to show that others have found the person worthy of significant published attention. LaMona (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:08:14, 25 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eric Musgrave
Eric Musgrave (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:25:48, 25 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eric Musgrave
Hi LaMona. Further to my earlier note today, I should stress as a response to the point that the references are about Mr McCarthy's companies rather than him specifically, in his career he has mainly been a major shareholder, chief executive officer and/or executive chairman of his companies. Therefore, whatever the company has done has been down directly to Mr McCarthy. Throughout his career he has shied away from personal publicity and this now seems to be a main reason why Wikipedia is not posting my article. I look forward to your response. Best wishes. Eric Musgrave (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Eric Musgrave (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See my answer to your previous questin -- I have tried to answer it there. Let me know if it still isn't clear. LaMona (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

20:49:45, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog
Hi LaMona well it was not a matter of promoting a product, but other albums that won this award are on WP too. So why this exception, while added so much references ? I thought it was about the relevance of the album ..but I suppose that is clearly not accepted here. As you could see in the talk to Flat Out I am the producer of the album and I liked to merge it into the wiki pages of the artists. I suppose the tv url didn't help either ? than I give up ... Please note I appreciate all volunteering for WP ofcourse. It is just a pity you decline this honoustly

20:56:38, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog
I understood what you said and I wanted to use this page to cite in another article but I cannot cite this album if the page does not exist. Anyway I sense you are getting very upset, using cap locks, so I give up. Sorry to bother you

Rejection of post by Surfjk
I really don't understand this. The post that I submitted and you declined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WalletHub) has plenty of sourcing that shows why it is notable. Why, if that entry isn't notable, are these considered to be notable?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HelloWallet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motley_Fool - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NerdWallet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doordash

Can you please tell me that because the feedback I am getting from editors and from seeing what is and is not posted seems very contradictory and somewhat arbitrary!Surfjk (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You've gotten two replies to your article that you have not acted on. One is that too much of the article is about a trademark dispute that is not notable. That information, if included at all, could be single sentence. The other is that you say that NYT, etc. say things about the company, but you don't say WHAT they say. This is to be an article about what is notable about the company so you must say why they find the company worth writing about.
 * As for the other pages, I won't look at them all, but if you look at HelloWallet you see that the articles cited are ABOUT hellowallet. In your case, the WaPo article has a single graphic from WalletHub and doesn't say anything else about it. The NYT article is about taxes and includes a half dozen sentences about wallethub. Another NYT article refers to a WalletHub survey, but doesn't say anything more about it. There's a significant difference between the coverage. The articles actually ABOUT WalletHub are in lesser-known publications. That said, it is possible that if you remove the less valuable articles and most of the trademark dispute information it will be possible to see better whether the sourcing shows notability as per wp:corp. Note that wp:corp has a list of the types of corporate news that do not support notability, and it would be best NOT to include any of those in the article. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I really thought that I had made sufficient corrections to the previous editors' feedback, especially after looking at other similar entries that have been approved (which I would consider to be relevant as examples). I see your point regarding the NYT article, but the WaPo article seems like another story. The whole article is based on an infographic made by the company, and it's more than just one graphic in the article. There are numerous images accompanied by the writer's commentary on different statistics from the company's infographic. WaPo covered another report by the company in the same manner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/04/03/are-the-people-in-your-state-good-with-money/. These are articles specifically about research done by the company that are written by a reputable news outlet and filed under news on their website. How does that not qualify? Please let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks so much in advance!Surfjk (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You must have articles that are ABOUT the company. You do not have those. No amount of editing of the article is going to change that. Yes, some journalists have made use of the company's research -- that is the product that the company provides. But those articles are NOT ABOUT THE COMPANY. They cite WalletHub, but they do not talk ABOUT WalletHub. It's like a movie where the hero drives a Ford in it is not about the Ford - it's about whatever the movie is about. These journalists use WH data, but they write their own stories about topics other than WH. So now I have to ask: why are you so bent on getting this company into WP? Are you connected with it? Otherwise, just move on to something else. There are a lot of articles on WP that need work. LaMona (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not affiliated, I would just like to add an article that has not been posted before and i like to see things through. I honestly don't even know if I will continue using Wikipedia after all of this though. Policies seem too inconsistently enforced, as evidenced by the already posted entries that you said you would not look at. But I'd like to give it at least one more shot. Your analogy makes sense to me for passing mentions, but what happens when the movie is ABOUT Ford cars? Just because that movie might have some action or drama or touch on broader themes wouldn't change the fact that it's about Ford cars. Along those lines, would these be examples of sources that would be acceptable? http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/sc-cons-0430-started-20150427-column.html and http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/plano/headlines/20140610-here-are-reasons-why-plano-makes-one-list-for-best-cities-for-families.ece and http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/22/cost-of-smoking/22144969/Surfjk (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The hardest thing you can do on WP is to create a new article. There are lots of edits that you can make on existing articles that take very little time and might even get some thanks. Unfortunately, many people begin on WP by trying to create an article, not knowing how hard it is and how much time it takes to do the research and write the article. I have one article that I edited extensively that took me four months of research. We probably should put a warning label on the articles for creation page: "WARNING! Creating a Wikipedia article can suck up weeks if not months of your life. Think twice!" That said, the one promising article that you sent is one I can't get to (Chic Tribune) because they require signing up. The other two are like I said before -- they are Fords in a movie, not a movie about Fords. That doesn't mean that WH's product isn't good -- it just means that it so far has failed to be written about. That could change at any time, if you want to come back to it. Another option is to look for articles in WP where the HW data could contribute, and add it in. When you think about it, how many people are going to come to WP looking up Hellowallet? They'd have to already know it exists. But if its data appears in articles of interest about cities (for example) then it is being useful. Unless, of course, your interest is SEO instead of WP. LaMona (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I have already spent a lot of time writing this entry and trying to adjust it to the vagaries of reviewers who seem more inclined to throw their weight around and lob accusations at contributors than to encourage contribution and provide constructive feedback. From my perspective, it seems like the real bias is from the reviewer's perspective, because there's little rhyme or reason regarding which posts get approved and which do not. Or there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what the company's "product" is, combined with a surface-deep review. You say that WalletHub's product has not been written about, but it's pretty clear that research reports are one of of the company's main products, and a quick Google search reveals significant news coverage of these reports. The coverage is not about the subject matter of WalletHub's reports generally, but rather what WalletHub's reports reveal about those subjects in particular. If that wasn't the case, I don't see why so many news outlets would include the company's name in the titles of their articles (see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=intitle:wallethub&hl=en&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV2tjUsazJAhXL4SYKHX5AA8EQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=866). That said, I'll take another stab at adjusting based on your feedback, but if that is not sufficient for you I guess we can escalate to mediation. Surfjk (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Surfjk If you want more opinions, you can post at the Articles for Creation help desk. You can also post at the TeaHouse. There is no mediation process that I am aware of for AfC. You seem to disagree with the policies for notability and how they are being applied. Either of those places (or both if you wish) could lead to helpful discussions in that area. LaMona (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Review of Gill Fielding Draft
Dear LaMona. Thank you for your review. As suggested, I am no longer referring to Gill by first name and I have removed all references that link to any of Gill's business pages. The only one I have retained is the one linked to the BBC radio interviews hosted on her website. These audio recordings are the only source I can find for the radio interviews but if you think I should remove it I will. I have resubmitted for approval. Thanks again. Neilho (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Neilho. I'll take a look at it when I have a chance, and we'll see how it fares with the next reviewer. I'll let you know if I have specific suggestions. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona. I am sorry that you feel that I have not made significant changes to the article. I had responded to all of your specific points and to those of further reviewers. I honestly believed we were nearly there with the tone. I hope the notability issue has been resolved and this is predominately just a tone issue now. I feel that when someone is famous for who they are rather than what they do it is easy to cross the line between factual statements and personal promotion. This is the first 'person' article I've written from scratch and I feel that it would be a shame to delete an article about a notable person when I have clearly done my utmost to gather as much information as possible and work with every reviewer on their specific issues. Do you feel this is really not salvageable? By the way, I actually missed the reviewer who mentioned reference number 18, and will address that point now. Neilho (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the difference between the previous review and the one I reviewed: . As you can see, only a few small bits changed. But all of the reviewers have pointed to rather serious problems that would require quite a bit of re-write. You have whole paragraphs that have no sources so it isn't clear where you got that information from. See the paragraph beginning "ielding was born in West Ham in 1957..." You say things like "was inspired by money" -- where does that come from? Can you prove that? If you can't prove it, you can't include it in the article. "realised she was financially free" - not found in the article you cite. You have been writing a story that is not in the sources you cite. You can't make statements about her feelings or realizations if those aren't directly in sources. You say "Fielding has appeared on numerous TV and radio programmes" -- that's not in any of your sources. You can't say things that you cannot verify in a third-party, independent source. You should start with the sources you have and write an article based on what is in those sources. Otherwise, you are making things up. LaMona (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona Thank you for taking the time to explain in depth your reasons for refusal. I hope you will agree that I have now made some substantial changes. I have reverse engineered the piece and taken out anything that is not referenced and adjusted the text to more accurately match the references where necessary. I haven't resubmitted yet as I wanted to check two issues: 1. I really can't locate the names of Gill's parents anywhere in my research (though I must have found them somewhere). Do you think I even need to remove the unreferenced names or can they stay? 2. Gill's first book is unreferenced but it is available on Amazon. I thought a link to Amazon would be promotional sop should I just leave it unreferenced (as people can simply search for it to prove it exists) or remove it completely? I would really appreciate it if you could let me know if you think this is likely to be approved - or at least saved from deletion. Thanks again. Neil Neilho (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Mary McPartlan page
Hello, thank you for looking over this draft page and giving me your feedback, it's much appreciated. I take from what you written that the issue is that notability has not been established by the sources provided, and you have recommended finding more sources such as reviews and stories with significant information. I will try and do this, but I have a few questions (I don't mean to be argumentative with any of these, I'm just not very experienced!); -You mentioned that the BBC and Irish Times sources are not strong, can you elaborate on why? I thought they were good because I saw them as reviews by a neutral third-party source. -When you said 'Articles that mention the person but don't provide much information are generally to be avoided unless they support a specific fact (NUI Galway)', Is what you mean here that the NUI source should be avoided because it doesn't provide much info other than I saw the NUI Galway source as supporting the specific fact that she lectures and runs the performance programme at NUI.

I was mainly motivated to make the page when I noticed she didn't have one but her trad/Irish folk music contemporaries did (e.g. the people I linked to on the page). I had a look at the notability guidelines and was mainly just thinking of number 1. I've had another look and I'll have another go, this time with 1, and possibly 4 if I can find coverage, 7 (lots of reporting from Galway media/she's often referred to as 'renowned Irish singer' Irish as generic meaning), 8 (would meteor award nomination count? it's like the national music awards for Ireland. She was nominated in 2005 for folk, she's listed on the page) maybe 10 (she's on this comp album, if that helps at all?)

One problem I've had is that there seems to be deeper coverage in archived print that I need to pay to access. This includes Irish Times, and a few other newspapers/mags, e.g. here lists a feature coverage with here that I can't see.

Thanks, sorry for the long message! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossiesto101 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ossiesto101. You mis-understood -- I said that the BBC and the Irish Times are medium sources since neither says a great deal about her (which isn't unusual for reviews). It is difficult to support notability for musicians (and other artists) who are mainly known within one cultural area, like a single country. You should look at the specific requirements for musicans and see if that helps you. Those two reviews take you pretty far, but you should emphasize recordings, and the record labels she has recorded on. In order to give the full bibliographic reference for the albums, you can make a section called "Recordings" and list them with the dates, the labels, and any identifiers that exist. (I'm a librarian, so I'm seriously into full citations ;-) but it also makes it easier to verify the information). Since she teaches, try to capture as many of her academic writings or activities that you can. I share your pain/frustration with not having access to archival news. I don't know where you are located but you can often get copies of individual articles through your local library. If that fails, you can put out a call on the reference desk asking for someone who does have access. I'll also look around at the sources I have, but being in the US it's not likely -- a UK volunteer might be more helpful. LaMona (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some links:


 * The Irish Times: The Arts: Coming out from the backstage shadows - Mary McPartlan is used to the entertainment world, with a record as a theatre producer and director. Now she is taking to the limelight as a singer. Siobhan Long reports. Irish Times (Dublin, Ireland), February 10, 2004, 4pp
 * (not a strong RS)

That's great thank you, I'll keep trying! Also I just noticed a bunch of off grammatical errors in the post I made above, sorry if that was confusing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossiesto101 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

20:14:16, 27 November 2015 review of submission by Cjmcgown
Just looking to get a little more feedback on SPECIFICALLY why the submission was rejected. I understand that everything stated must be verifiable through reputable sources, but much of the narrative about the history of the company is know only to company founders and was never reported on in fact-checking publications. What was written was done in an attempt at complete neutrality, with a simple stating of the facts.

I see that in several other similar articles that recount history, there aren't always references. For example, in the article about George Washington it states:

"Born into the provincial gentry of Colonial Virginia, his family were wealthy planters who owned tobacco plantations and slaves which he inherited. He owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime, but his views on slavery evolved."

None of these passages are referenced.

In any case, just looking for a little more direction. Are there issues with the types of sites referenced? WIth the content itself? Thanks!


 * Hi, User:Cjmcgown. First, see wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is a work in progress with quite a bit of work yet to be done. That you can find articles with flaws does not mean that we intend to add more flaws to the mix. Note that in the article on GWashington that you cite, the are special rules for the "lede" -- the opening section. The lede is a summary of the article, and statements do not need to be referenced as long as they are referenced in the body of the article. (Also note that the GW article is not typical, being especially long and of a much-studied person, so it's not a good one to look at for guidance in your case.) Second, if there is information that is only known to people involved in the activity, that information cannot be included in the Wikipedia article. Everything in the article must be wp:verifiable. LaMona (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Submission: Churchill Retirement Living
Hi LaMona - thank you for taking the time to review the article I submitted. It looks like I need to work on the tone and the sources and to pare down the content. Separately, the pointers in the text are very helpful in understanding the specific areas to improve. I'll look to improve and resubmit - thanks Fbell74 (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've revised the article and worked on the sources so that now everything included is supported. I saw what you meant by the sources not backing up the text in some instances. I've addressed this so hopefully it's not an issue now. I also removed the section on the facilities that are available to tenants, as this seemed to be the most likely culprit in terms of making the article seem promotional. To me the rest of the article reads as neutral, but if this isn't the case perhaps you can highlight the relevant areas. When you have a moment, would you mind casting your eye over the article (Draft:Churchill Retirement Living) and seeing what you think? Fbell74 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi LaMona - I noticed that you edited the draft article following my revisions. Do you think it is acceptable now? Fbell74 (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you still need to improve the references, at least in my opinion. The editing that I did didn't take care of that. LaMona (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I thought with the revisions I made, that I had supported all of the information in the article with reliable sources, but perhaps I missed out on some. Can you clarify, which parts I need to add to?


 * Those that I've used have included a few national UK newspapers, several local/regional newspapers, a couple of local government publications and a few industry publications as well. Separately, there is another article about a similar organisation in the same field (McCarthy & Stone). The latter are a bigger company, but in terms of sources, that article uses some of the same (Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Construction News) as my draft article, which presumably means these are acceptable. However, there are far fewer overall. Obviously, I'm looking at it from my perspective, but it seems that the Draft:Churchill Retirement Living article is well sourced in comparison? Fbell74 (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can resubmit for review if you feel you have done what is needed. I may not have seen your most recent edits. LaMona (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I'll give it a go and hope for the best. Thanks for the reply Fbell74 (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:23:35, 29 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tnelms
Hi LaMona, I've read through the article creation and evaluation pages, but I'm mostly new to Wikipedia, so apologies for my ignorance. I thought I would try to work through the anthropology pages on Wikipedia, and was surprised not to find a page for Bill Maurer, among others. In any case, I was confused by your comments on reliable sources w/r/t the Bill_Maurer_(anthropologist) page: 1) The sources where Maurer is quoted are situating him in an academic literature, which establishes his contributions to the field. Why wouldn't those be considered reliable? 2) For explanations of academic work, why wouldn't one cite the author's own work -- not to establish notability, but to describe his findings and contributions.

I've trimmed the research section of the piece, removed references to Maurer's contributions to the popular press, excised the citations from UC Irvine, and inserted references to major grants Maurer has received. Please do take a second pass at the page, if you are able. I would appreciate the help.

Tnelms (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tnelms, yes, I realize it is a bit confusing. WP articles are to be entirely based on external sources -- independent of the subject of the article. For academics, their own writings are given in a bibliography, not as references -- references must be about the subject, not by the subject. Mixing in the "by" sources causes confusion. The main purpose of the policies is to make sure that any information in the article comes from a source that has received editorial oversight. If WP article writers draw their own conclusions, then no editorial oversight has been exercised. As for quotes in journalistic sources, those are not a good source of notability; journalists aren't often very discerning on who they quote, and thousands of folks get quoted. So it's nice, but not notable. More important for an academic is being cited by other academics, which we can see by looking up the person's work in things like Google scholar. -- Thanks for listening! The article looks great now. Resubmit and I'll hop over and send it out to main space. You can, of course, continue to work on it. You should also search WP to see if there are articles that should link to this one. LaMona (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * LaMona, thanks very much for this -- your explanation is super helpful. I appreciate the support.

Thank for accepting page: Jee Hyun Kim
Hi LaMona, Thank you for accepting my article on Jee Hyun Kim. I am very new to Wikipedia and would love some guidance on how to improve this article from its current C class status. What is your advice for how to move forward from here? Thank you so much, I really appreciate the feedback! Izbukvic (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Izbukvic, C Class is not bad at all, and it was only a guess on my part. The article can stay at that class for any length of time, and some never move from that. However, if you wish to have your page considered for evaluation, you should probably do so through the appropriate project, which I presume would be WikiProject_Medicine. See WikiProject_Medicine for information on how to tag the article as part of the project, and how to evaluate its importance. Becoming part of the Medicine project might give you a good community to work with. For most projects, you become part of it just by showing an interest and participating. Happy WP-ing! LaMona (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, thank you very much! I will definitely follow that up. All the best, Izbukvic (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: Nehemia Azaz
Thanks for your time reviewing our page, and for accepting!

Tomi raz (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of draft:House_of_Spyra
Hallo LaMona,

You refused the historic article using "arguments" like: "homosexual cannibalistic Heruli" not adhering to a "neutral point of view".

I'm asking You how can You in a "neutral" way describe a homosexual militant hierarchy of the ancient Heruli also found in modern times in many military organisations and to an extended amount in prisons???

Recent excavations from France and Germany further confirm their cannibalistic traditions - what is a "neutral" description for a cannibal???

Somehow the term "cannibalism" was accepted here Lusatian culture, but was omitted here [[Heruli] where only "human sacrifice" was used.

The other tribe - Vandals - were commonly known for vandalism - so there seems be no reason to further describe them.

The "neutral" German synoym for a Nazi Germany concentration camp is "education centre" and the current Polish "neutral" synonym for a stalinistic concentration camp is "health care facility" - but the truth can't be hidden nor falsified - even by Wikipedia.

This is not meant to be an article about ancient barbarian German tribes - so they were described very shortly, just to show the situation and circumstances of settlement of the direct ancestors of the House of Spyra the White Serbs and White Croats - closely tied to agriculture.

Yes there is much in the article that is already covered elewhere - but the portions used are directly tied to House of Spyra - which is omitted elsewhere. When You study the history of House of Spyra You will find enough reasons why both German and soviet occupants of their domains are trying to extinguish all remaining informations.

Why should there be any text or illustrations removed - they are all related to House of Spyra directly! The many relations to Piast dynasty, Arpad dynasty, House of Odrowąż, House of Vasa and others were just scratched.

Please by more specific and honest - why denying publication.

By the way: there are still so many fascist and soviet propaganda publications approved and published - why??? Just one related example may be Schlesier, where the term Silesian is NOT applied to indigenous Silesians but to German invaders and settlers instead and where not Silesian but German history and folklore is presented. In a similar way the history of many Slavic cities and settlements Kopnik, Miśnia, Drezno, Lipsk e.t.c. is falsified. In most cases their history related to House of Dervan, Union of Samo, House of Coloditi (ancestors of Piast dynasty), Poland and Bohemia is falsified or simply omitted. Stalinistic censors of articles in Polish language are acting rapidly, when it comes to facts about stalinistic crimes often just in seconds - often leading to discrepancies between article versions in different languages.

Doug Weller writes:

Nonsense about "Aryan astronomic observatories" - I can't find any source mentioning these. The IP's edits seem to be mainly aimed at promotiont Perun and related material. See[2] for an example. I've been patient with this editor but it's wearing thin. Doug Weller (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller should submit his arrogant nonsense to Rudolf Kippenhahn - but please:

DO NOT KILL !!! THIS OLD GENIUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.4.161 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a warning about behavior. One of the policies at Wikipedia is wp:civil -- that we do not call each other names, do not accuse each other of being "fascist", etc. Uncivil behavior can lead to you being banned from editing. If you wish to ask others to weigh in on your draft, you can post your questions to the Articles for Creation Help Desk. LaMona (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mathematics Day
Dear LMona, I changed my article according to you wishes, but cannot post it for reviewing, please see my changes in the article you have, Mathdaybfmint


 * User:KHEname - First, remember to sign your posts to talk pages by ending them with four tilde's -- there's a note at the bottom of the editing box that you can click on. You only made a change to one sentence in the article, so it is not ready for a new review. The article needs to explain what the Math Day and BF-MINT are about other than just saying "enrichment" -- you need to describe the programs. Also, you cannot just point to documentation like: "documentation in [22],[23]. In[24] " -- references support the article but do not substitute for text. You'll need to do considerable re-writing of the article before posting it again for review. LaMona (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)