User talk:LaMona/Archive 2

13:09:42, 29 June 2015 review of submission by JRCALHOUN
JRCALHOUN (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona,

I just received notice that my article on Jim McWilliams was declined because he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I went back and read the guidelines on Notability of People, and I think he meets this standard:

3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

McWilliams played a significant role in creating Charlotte Moorman's body of work, which is the subject of the book Topless Cellist cited in my article.

I would really appreciate your help in improving the article. There are several other books and periodical articles I could cite, if that would help. I appreciate your assistance!

Thanks!

JRCALHOUN (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * JRCALHOUN, thanks for getting in touch. If McWilliams was a co-creator then you need sources that show that. The sources I saw mentioned him, but did not put him in a major creator role. The book Topless Cellist doesn't allow "look inside" on Amazon so I can't see either the table of contents nor the index to see the extent of the treatment of McWilliams. I found the Village Voice Article from 1971 and '72 (and stopped there), and I don't even see McWilliams' name in it. Those sources, since they are not about him, should not be in the article because the article needs to be about HIM not HER. So perhaps you can point out the cite or cites that have significant treatment of him (which would save me time). You should also reduce down the section on her to only include information about their collaboration that can be verified. Hope this helps. LaMona (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:55:59, 29 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by JRCALHOUN
JRCALHOUN (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, Thanks for your response - very helpful clarification. I also just saw your comments in my sandbox. Sorry I missed the the first time, I am new to WP. Yes, Charlotte Moorman is much better known than McWilliams. You mentioned that it might help to see digital copies of the articles you couldn't see -- I can get you scans of all everythingI cited as well as the index for the Topless Cellist book and the pages on McWilliams in the Kaufman book. Maybe that will help make my case. How should I get those to you? Thanks again! I appreciate the work you (and others) do to make sure the articles on WP are well referenced. I will keep working on this one. JRCalhoun


 * JRCALHOUN, while it would help me to see the sources, what is needed is that the notability of McWilliams is obvious to anyone reading WP. So the first thing is to edit the article so that it is only information about him, with a mention of Moorman (not the other way around). In particular, it has to say what HIS contribution was to the art and music, and that information must come from the sources. Since there were sources for the statements about him in the Moorman book, those can be brought over to WP. He has to be independently notable, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. That means that having worked with someone notable does not make you notable -- you have to be notable on your own. Try working on it from that point of view. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

17:00:17, 29 June 2015 review of submission by JRCALHOUN
JRCALHOUN (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, Thanks for your latest message. I will rework the article as you suggested. Once I've finished it, I assume it will have to go to the back of the line for review - is that correct? Thanks again!

JRCALHOUN (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * JRCALHOUN - yes, once it is ready you click again on the "send for review" link and it goes back into the queue. I'll try to keep an eye out for it, but at this point it would be good to get eyes other than mine on it. LaMona (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Monk Turner - Question about editing & resubmitting
Hi, LaMona.

Thanks for your feedback on my first Wiki article, Draft:Monk Turner. I understand your reasoning & would appreciate a little more advice. I'd read all the information regarding sources and assumed it was mainly self-published or the source's personal blogs that were out-of-bounds. That said, if I were to pare the article back to a stub that included just the L.A. Record & Free Music Archive sources, would those be considered reliable/verifiable?

Cheers. --Emily Lawless (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Emily Lawless -

Thanks for getting in touch.

It will be easier for reviewers to understand the notability of the article if only significant sources are included. For example, the sentence

"In 2013 Monk Turner & Fascinoma’s composition “It’s Your Birthday!”[8][9][10] won the WFMU and Free Music Archive’s competition[11] to create a copyright-free version of the ubiquitous “Happy Birthday to You”,[12] “overthrow[ing] the most popular song in the world”.[2]"

needs only one reference, whatever seems to be the most authoritative one. Adding more references than are needed, especially ones that are not of high quality, is considered "ref spam" and tends to make the editor of the article look "pushy." A single good source for each fact is all that is needed.

In terms of reliable sources, there are some sources that are certainly out-of-bounds, but many that are not considered "authoritative." For example, Frostclick is "FrostClick.com is blog/directory of all cool and legal things you can download with the FrostWire application or just straight up with your browser." This means that it is just an amalgam of stuff based on a piece of software -- there's no selection on quality, no "editorial" policy applied. Any blog is just someone's opinions, so generally blogs are not considered "RS" - reliable sources. What you need is a source that can be considered 1) neutral (not related to the subject of the article) and 2) demonstrably factually correct. Newspapers, magazines, reference books... that kind of thing. LA Record and Slate try to adhere to journalistic standards, so they are generally RS. Free Music Archive reliability may depend on the exact content, but it does have some curation standards, so you can argue that it is RS.

Note that if the artist has not been covered significantly in reliable sources, an article may not be appropriate for WP at this time. If this article were to be challenged in the main space, I'm not sure it would survive a deletion recommendation. If you'd like I can try an edit and you could see what it would look like. It could always be reversed. LaMona (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, LaMona.

Thanks for all the clarifications. Good to know what constitutes "ref spam". I was just trying to be economical with the prose but exhaustive with the sources provided; a first-timer has to learn eventually. To that end, I'd like to accept your offer to edit a new version. It would be great to see how a brief but reliably sourced article reads.

Your help's very appreciated. If you need any additional info about the subject or sources, let me know.

Best,

--Emily Lawless (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Emily, I did a lot of editing today, and will stop here. You still have a couple of potential problems. One is that you don't have any really mainstream sources about him. So this may be WP:TOOSOON for a WP article for him. Then again, it is very hard for musicians working primarily on the web to get that kind of attention. The other thing is that he may be considered WP:BLP1E -- someone who is known for a single thing that isn't of lasting significance. Of course, if his birthday son takes off and is used by millions, there's no question of his notability. I would say that his main claims are that he uses CC for his music, and the Happy Birthday song. Let's see if another editor approves it for main space, but I fear that it may not survive a deletion challenge in its current embodiment. Good luck! LaMona (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hugely helpful! Thanks for gearing the focus of the article and paring back the refs. We'll see how it goes - really appreciate your input. Definitely has me thinking about the options for artists whose work is primarily (and increasingly) discussed and distributed online. Will be interesting to see how Wikipedia evolves as/if fewer mainstream print publications employ critics (something that's definitely happening in my main field, theatre). Cheers again & take care. Emily Lawless (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Gail and Marguerite appreciate your editing help on wiki for Gail Bell for which we have added citations.Any further suggestions?

Wizard30 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC) 


 * Wizard30, you will need references for the information in the "Life" section. Also, if the Gail of Gail and Marguerite is Gail Bell, then you should read WP:COI to understand about conflict of interest policies. LaMona (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Review feedback - reference formatting requirements
Hello LaMona, just to let you know that your review and comment was mentioned here. Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

17:48:02, 10 July 2015 review of submission by Rayneet
Hi, I have made many changes to my first submission.

Hi deMona,

Thank you very much for your editing and suggestions. I appreciate the detailed explanation of what the problems are. I have worked hard on making the citations more accessible but you would still need a library card. I don’t know of any other way of getting them to you except by direct email. Is it possible for you to pass the editing on to a Wiki editor in the Toronto area who has Toronto Public Library access?

Regarding the notability, I agree that this pianist is not “notable” like perhaps Angela Hewitt, Louis Lortie, Glenn Gould and other Canadians who are known world-wide. However, I feel that Lawrence Pitchko is still worth noting in an encyclopedia. As I’ve listed in the article, he’s won scholarships, he has been given Canada Council grants, invited to study in England with respected pedagogues, played in the world-famous Wigmore Hall in London and subsequently reviewed in London newspapers. In Belgium it was the same. How is that not notable?

And, in Canada, he played with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and played throughout the 1980s in the Lawrence Centre for the Arts, a major venue at the centre of Toronto, with reviews the following day in the one of two national newspapers. Who reviews a pianist who is not notable? Some of those performances were recorded for cross-country radio broadcast and he has recordings held at the Toronto Public Library.

Many people play the piano and play it well, but few of us get to play for a packed hall, be featured on the radio or get our performances recorded for the public. And even the talented ones who start off with scholarships when they are young, don’t pursue music as a career. It’s interesting for local classical music-lovers to be able to follow a person who has chosen music as a life-long career. Pitchko most certainly has and he deserves to be recognized for his talent and his many years of providing musical entertainment for the public.

So, I have some comments and questions. I will go through the article line by line.

• Margaret Miller Brown has a Wiki article about her but doesn’t show that way in the article

•Sheila Henig has a google article but parenthesis remain around her name

•re ARCT there is no way that I can verify this. No newspaper publishes recipients’ names and the Conservatory does not have online directory. I do have a newspaper clipping mentioning his getting it at 15 but it is not sourced or dated. What to do?

•His entering the University of Toronto is also not possible to verify except by a programme bulletin that shows his concert programme for second year. I left it at “entered university.”

•Why is Andre Kostelanetz in red when there is a Wiki article about him?

•The Palm Springs programme exists in hard copy. I contacted The Desert Sun that published the ad for the concert and the Palm Springs Library but to no avail - no reply.

•Many of the Paris and Antwerp newspapers do not seem to be accessible online as yet. I only have hard copy.

•Harbourfront Centre does not seem to link to the Wiki article about it either.

Unfortunately, all this took place prior to the internet age. I have volumes of hard copy programmes with biographical notes but I don’t think these can be used as references.

Well, I certainly hope that the changes and additions I have made will qualify this as a notable subject.

Many thanks for your work. Wikipedia is certainly a worthwhile effort.

Rayneet (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Rayneet, I did some editing for style, removed the citation links that wouldn't work (the ones from the library) and accepted the article. It is OK to cite hard-copy sources, although it's good to have a fairly complete citation so that others can find the item independently. Your citations meet that criteria. The reason your wikilinks to Harbourfront and others didn't work is that you included the ending punctuation in the link. When I moved the period outside of the brackets the connection was made. I hope your article is well-received. You clearly worked very hard on it, and hopefully will become a regular here at Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you again for all of your help.

MartyFisk (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 

06:56:57, 13 July 2015 review of submission by Waihani
Waihani (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, thanks for your guidance, I have included more reliable sources and hope it can pass now. Do you have any more comments before I re-submit?

waihani (Waihani (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC))


 * Waihani, I'm glad you asked. Now what you need to do is reduce the article to only those facts for which you have a reliable source. This means that you either need to find a source for the section about her early life, or cut that down to what you can reference. The same is true for the statements about the Miss Lebanon contest, which aren't really relevant to her cooking career and could be dropped. Any statement like "In 2014 Bethany was heralded by star chef Yotam Ottolenghi as the “new champion of Middle Eastern food.” absolutely MUST have a reference, or you need to remove it. Also, the article must not appear to be promotional, so language like " is renown for" "is passionate about" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The last thing is my personal preference, which is to make the article less "list-y". First, the media list should be removed, and any relevant articles used to add content to the article, and then be used as references. The lists like TV appearances could be a sentence like "She has appeared on TV shows such as..." but again it should be referenced. I'm happy to make another pass on the article myself once you've done this. LaMona (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sol Rezza article for deletion
The article references have been improved and those that were misleading have been replaced or fixed. Sol Rezza is an underground artist but with a mayor relevance in the radio art genre and experimental music genre. The article is being edited today to includeas much valid references as possible. Thanks for your insight. Panz4_Troup%C3%A9 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Planview
I noticed the concerns about coordinated editing that you raised at Articles for deletion/Planview. I'm pretty sure that if you raised the issue at WP:COIN, it would get traction there. Brianhe (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brianhe. I haven't engaged with WP's "management areas" before other than AfD and AfC, and admit to being reluctant to wade into that. I'll try this one, and if it's not too horrible of an experience, may make use of this area in the future. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting there; there are some regulars like me at the noticeboard but we really need more input from others like you to catch stuff like this. — Brianhe (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of publicised titan arum blooms in cultivation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley. 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) 08:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Sibley Williams has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Sibley Williams. Thanks! The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Sibley Williams has been accepted
 John Sibley Williams, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Fiddle  Faddle  20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=John_Sibley_Williams help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Draft page for John Biggins
LaMona--I wasn't able to find the other version of the page (the one with author). Can you possibly delete that one or provide me a link? The one that you thought was correct is the right one. Beowulf (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Aha! I didn't look closely enough - it's not yours, but it is another John Biggins article in draft: Draft:John_Biggins_(author). It looks like they are referring to the same person. If so, we'll need to contact the editors there and negotiate a consolidation. LaMona (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I checked the talk page for the Draft:John_Biggins_(author) page and it looks like it has not been edited in 6 months and will be deleted. That should solve the problem. I'll go back to your page and see if there is other work to do. LaMona (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What's the status on this page now? Beowulf (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We can ignore the "duplicate" page since it will get deleted due to the age of the draft. Your draft needs more references, and especially references that would provide notability for the author. These would be newspaper or journal articles about the author and/or his books. They need to be from un-related sources, that is, not from a publisher or sales site. As it stands, your author does not appear to be notable, so you need more proof. LaMona (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Berkeley Observer
Hi LaMona--

I'm not sure where to go from here or how to properly source this article since the information comes directly from the horses mouth...me. Do I need to have another Wikimedia editor write this for me? The Berkeley Observer is, in fact, a legitimate news outlet. However, no other outlets have written about it--even if they did, I would still be the source of the info.

There are other similar outlets with Wikipedia pages containing less information on their Wiki page than what The Berkeley Observer has:

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

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

Can you tell me what you suggest I do? Any help is appreciated.

Thanks, Nikki Gaskins

BTW, this is my first attempt at a Wikipedia page. Obviously, it's not going so well :-(

Nikki Gaskins (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

- First, Nikki, I must say that your WP page was absolutely perfectly "formed" -- much better than many first attempts, so give yourself credit for that. Next, that you can find pages on WP that seem to be the same or lesser to yours doesn't mean that those pages are acceptable; any page can be subjected to a delete proposal at any time. The Moultrie page does have third-party references, although they are weak. It might not survive a delete challenge. The Albany Herald page is a stub. A stub is a special kind of page, one where someone has created a nearly blank page and intends to come back and fill it in later, or hopes that someone else will find it and complete it. If a stub is not filled in after a while, it appears on a list and may be challenged or summarily deleted. (If you want to see what the deletion process looks like, look at wp:afd and scroll down to a link for a single day's deletion activity.) The stub is expected to be pretty much blank at the start, but not forever.

Many people see WP as a way to promote their business or activity. In fact, WP is not for promotion. (Your article is promotional in tone, and even if you find sources it would need to be greatly edited to remove all promotional language.) WP is an encyclopedia. To keep it honest, everything in it has to meet certain criteria. Many subjects do not meet those criteria. The main criteria for a local newspaper, I believe, would be Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and that requires verifiable evidence. That means that someone reliable and unrelated to the newspaper has to have found it to be of interest and has written about it. I don't find any exceptions for local news outlets. However, having a separate article is not the only solution. Using Notability_(organizations_and_companies) you might find that you can add information about the newspaper to a page for the region it serves, or for a parent company (if there is one). Even these entries, however, require third-party neutral references, but the information is not likely to be deleted if those are missing. On that page you should include only a paragraph with a few facts, no promotion. You can always add the paper to the list List_of_newspapers_in_South_Carolina, and that does not require sources, just a link to the paper. LaMona (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Goldy Baroa Thank you for your comment. Your advice is very clear and I understand your opinion. Thank you for your kind advise in improving my article. The Company is noteworthy for WP for two reasons : The company is the first Credit Bureau of the Philippines. The company's share of building the credit awareness is massive not to mention its effect in credit and background investigation. I added some sources on the works of the company. Thank you again for your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldybaroa (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Page for Nicolas Michaelsen
Hi LaMona, I just saw your message about COI, however I could not find a link to that document in the post. Would you mind sharing it with me again?

Best, Pesanteur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesanteur (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pesanteur, you can find the information at wp:coi. As the page says: "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict." Note that while there is some stigma to COI editing on WP, those who are upfront about it and follow the guidelines are appreciated. Remember, also, that on talk pages you have to sign your messages by adding four (4) tilde's to the end of the message. There is a reminder at the bottom of the edit box, but it often scrolls off screen for me, so you may not have noticed it. LaMona (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Judy Wood
Hi, I wanted to let you know that the reason I didn't include any information on her book ("Where Did the Towers Go?") was that I couldn't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. Best, Everymorning   talk  15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Everymorning, you can still say that she wrote it, and there is proof of that.You can add the web site for the book to the external links. There is as much evidence of this publication as her academic publications, no? The big problem with the book is that it is self-published, so that detracts from her credentials, and the only reviews are in "fringe" sources. But it seems odd not to at least include the book in her list of publications. Include the ISBN and it becomes linkable. LaMona (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD== Thanks for the hlelp with the veery clear explanation.  DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Abelardo
Hello, I'm Carlos Vicioso, I recently submitted my article about my father, Abelardo Vicioso, a Dominican writer, and already placed all the reliable references required (34 references), but still no answer. Is it still in process? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvic65 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your article does not appear in the list of draft articles. Did you re-submit it? If so, please reply to me the URL and I will try to find it. Also, on talk pages you have to sign your messages with four consecutive tilde's. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box that you can just lick on. Note that since you are writing about a relative, you should read carefully through Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest policy. The advice there will help you avoid going against policies for writing and editing in areas where you are not just a neutral observer. LaMona (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:57:32, 13 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg
Hi LaMona,

First of all, thank you for your review and your comment.

I asked for help from Sulfurboy, too, as he was also a reviewer to the Drug2Gene draft after resubmission following your initial decline.

I would like ask for some more advice and explanations on what is lacking to prove subject's (Drug2Gene database) notability and what makes the references not verifiable and not able to prove notability?

You have commented that except for the sole article on this subject, there is only one more mention that is by one of the same authors as that article, and some promotional listings found through a Google search, but no third-party neutral sources for this topic are available. However, 5 references were included in the article, 1 on the Drug2Gene database, and 4 other publications entirely independent on the subject, non of them having the same author as the authors of the Drug2Gene publication.

Is the problem that the referencing does not adequately support the statements in the article, or that references are not enough in number to prove notability, or that they are not discussing Drug2Gene importance and usability? Three of the cited sources find Drug2Gene important enough to mention it as available public drug-target database, along with DrugBank, ChEMBL, TTD, MATADOR, KEGG Drug, etc., one of them (Glaab et al) is commenting its usefulness: "Drug2Gene [29], the currently most comprehensive meta-database, may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries".

Could you please advice me how should be improved in the Drug2Gene draft so it could become worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Thank you very much in advance!

Latimeria bg (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Latimeria bg (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Latimeria bg, in the draft article, there is a journal article about the database, then some journal articles about the general topic of data visualization in the field in question that mention the database. Mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. You need more sources that are about the database itself, or that have significant coverage of the database (more than a mention or a single paragraph). LaMona (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:58:05, 14 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg
Hi LaMona, thanks a lot for your reply. I understand.

I have added two more citations in the resubmitted version on Aug 11. However, they also seem not to be enough.

So, we need more articles on the database itself, as well as independent resources referencing/mentioning Drug2Gene and discussing its usability with a deeper coverage, or at least one of them, right?

Thanks again!

Latimeria bg (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Latimeria bg (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Latimeria bg, that's right. You need to show that others have considered it important enough to write about it. The articles don't have to be solely about the database, but they need to have more than a short mention of it - perhaps a review of databases and the relative advantages of each? (Don't know if your field does that kind of thing.) If it hasn't gotten that attention yet, you may need to wait until it does. If you wait, it is a good idea to create a copy of the article on your own computer because old drafts can get deleted. LaMona (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

23:33:06, 16 August 2015 review of submission by Roma247
Hello LaMona, I'm not sure how this talk thing works so I hope I've got this right.

Thanks for your comments on my article. You're right, the tone needed some work. Ironically, I was just representing in my own words the actual source material, but nevertheless, it did need to be toned down. I edited it for this and I think I removed anything that sounds too much like peacock language. Let me know if I missed anything.

I hear you about the primary sources, but in this case, since I'm not making any conclusions, I'm only using that as a way of citing my facts (dates, places, etc.) hopefully that shouldn't be a problem? Roma247 (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Roma247 (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was able to easily find two books that at least mention him, and that may provide information for the article:


 * 
 * 
 * This tells me that there are secondary sources for information about him, and secondary sources are preferred over primary sources (like you have now). So I would advise adding in secondary sources where you can find them -- probably from book sources.
 * P.S. I find the talk page thing confusing as well. LaMona (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the advice...I was able to find several more references above and beyond those you pointed out and even found some new facts to improve the article. Now resubmitted.Roma247 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

16:41:11, 18 August 2015 review of submission by Nick Saturday
Hi LaMona,

thanks for your explanations and suggestions. I tried to do what you told me. I hope I managed to show the external resources and that I edited everything properly. Please tell me if the text (and sources) are fine now or if I still need to correct something.

Nick Saturday (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick Saturday (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Nick Saturday Thanks for getting in touch. You still have many sources that are not considered reliable. It is actually better to remove those than to just add more sources. Sources that are not reliables are: Wikipedia (you still have a reference to a WP article); blogs; fan sites; Facebook, Youtube, and other social sites that are not governed by an editorial policy; any site that sells his material or that promotes him in some way. I am not familiar with Polish gaming sources, and for gaming it is difficult in general to find references in the mainstream press (newspapers, etc.). I cannot advise you as to particular sources that would be considered reliable, but using the list I have given you try to reduce the number of un-reliable sources, which will detract from the perceived value of the page. Do read the suggestions for reliable sources at wp:rs. p.s. I may do some editing for style on the article, if that's ok with you. LaMona (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, thanks for another set of ideas. I'll try to do my best. Unfortunately with games, it's virtually impossible to omit promo as here sellers and producers and publishers are often closely linked. Przybyłek & his publishers often give access to his books in electronic version, hence many pages about him, have direct connections to shops... which also sell his game... Any mainstream magazines are actually gamers magazines which also advertise & sell games... I've got the same problem with omitting Facebook & Youtube. The Facebook page is not about Przybyłek, but about his creation, Gamedecverse... More than half of his writing is related to that. And the game as well... His Youtube Channel is the way he takes part in public discussions. If I omit that, then I'm nor reliable? Blogs I present belong to literature and game aficionados... They are highly specialised and very often quite critical. The two sites about gamedecverse are not fan sites but are managed by Przybyłek. Should I remove them? Is that advertising? When it's a source of info about the author and his publications, convents, etc.? I do understand that I need to edit my sources, but most of those are best you can find.

Nick Saturday (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nick. To be sure I'm not leading you astray, I suggest you pop over to the Wikipedia video games project: WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. That describes some reliable sources in the video games arena. Most are English-language sources, but you can also ask on the talk pages for that project about the sources you have. Let me know if you do and I'll follow the discussion -- it'll be a good education for me, as well. As for his Youtube channel and his Facebook page, those can go in the external sources section of the article. That's where you put sources that are relevant but aren't usable as references. (I'm so glad you keep coming back! And I want to work with you to get this article into shape for main space.) LaMona (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft of Graydon Hoare
Hello LaMona,

Thanks for your comments on the article! I followed your advice and added links/references to interviews involving the subject before resubmitting. I am not sure why those modifications are not appearing since you mentioned you could not see any changes. Please let me know how I should proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.154.86 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the history tab of the article, there are no edits there after mine. Are you sure that you are saving your changes? LaMona (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the diff I see between the initial rejection and the changes I made thereafter: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AGraydon_Hoare&type=revision&diff=676230101&oldid=676000384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.154.86 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, now I see it. Perhaps I did the wrong diff. However, the article is still only two sentences, and you don't have any "reliable sources", that is, sources that are about the subject of the article, not by him. Although you can glean info from interviews, they don't establish notability. The programming languages themselves are notable, but it is quite possible that the individuals who wrote them are not independently notable. (Tip: sign your messages on talk pages by putting four tildes at the end. See the hint at the bottom of the edit box.) LaMona (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk back
Subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mara_Ahmed

Hi LaMona. Thank you for your suggestions on how to include more references in the body of the article and on how to use specific links that talk about the work being referenced. Changes have been made accordingly. There are now a large number of references in the article which link to a large number of well-known sources such as PBS (WXXI), The Hindu, City Newspaper, etc. Please let me know if the article can be formatted any better. Thank you once again for all your help. Artfiend1 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Thank you for making changes which integrate references much better into the article's text. You help is much appreciated (and was much needed). Pls let me know if the article needs anything else. This is the first article I've edited for Wikipedia and your suggestions are most welcome. Look forward to hearing from you. Artfiend1 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Artfiend1 - You're welcome. However, I didn't actually finish because I ran out of "awake time" last night, so if you could see if there is any more of that kind of editing that you can do, it might soon make sense to re-submit. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Wonderful to hear from you. You edited most of the text - once again thank you so much. I looked at her Art section and her Writing section. The Art section is short and straightforward with the correct references it seems. Her Writing section is organized based on the topics she writes and speaks about i.e. Pakistan, diversity, etc. Each of those topics are cross-referenced with things that she's written or presented. Is that ok? I see that you also looked at her articles and fixed the formatting. Pls let me know what you see as missing and I will be happy to fix. Thanks! Artfiend1 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Finished correcting the formatting of all the references based on your corrections. Should the article be resubmitted? Pls let me know your thoughts. Thanks so much. Artfiend1 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Artfiend1 - yes, resubmit! LaMona (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

thx LaMona. Just resubmitted! Artfiend1 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, thank you so much for all your help with the article. You are obviously a brilliant editor but also an extremely generous contributor to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for being so supportive and accessible. Artfiend1 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona-- Thank you for your feedback on the Anchor Graphics article I'm writing. I added more outside references. I do appreciate your comments so please let me know if this is ready, or closer to being ready. Thanks again-- Marilyn Propp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proppjones (talk • contribs) 03:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Proppjones - I wish it were possible to get a PDF of the demo3 issue because I think there is good stuff in there but the fancy formatting makes it impossible to read. I think that there is much more to be said about Anchor, but a WP article is never really finished. I'm going to let someone else give it final approval since I've been editing it. If it doesn't make it through then we need to dig more into Demo and see what we can pull out. LaMona (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona-- I DO have the DEMO article as a pdf-- How can I attach it so you can have it? Thank you-- Marilyn Propp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proppjones (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Proppjones There isn't a way to attach it here, and it is undoubtedly copyrighted so it can't be uploaded. Do look through it for more content for your article. It seemed to me that there was quite a bit in there. LaMona (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

08:03:51, 22 August 2015 review of submission by Theorignal JD
Hi, first of all thank you for reviewing this article. I have added new references many from reliable TV interviews with the subject on National News station and TV talk Shows. Also additional references from the print media. Are these now sufficient - perhaps you can advise now or should I just resubmit

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucane/programmes/2014/0222/506035-marian-finucane-saturday-22-february-2014/?clipid=1424195#1424195

http://www.tv3.ie/ireland_am_video.php?locID=1.65.74&video=76440

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2014/0218/20528192-researchers-at-trinity-college-develop-online-videos-on-brain-health/ Hello Brain

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20659401%3A0%3A%3A

The Lancet Neurology|date=March 2015|volume=14|issue=3|page=251}}

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/buff-up-your-brain-power-1.1954869?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Flife-and-style%2Fhealth-family%2Fbuff-up-your-brain-power-1.1954869

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/282964.php|website=Medical News Today

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/the-week-in-politics/2015/0412/#page=2

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1387505.ece

My apologies I didnt know that IMBD doesn't count - do I need to remove those references?

Theorignal JD (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Theorignal JD It is best to remove the IMDB references -- the article looks more "serious" without them. I'll take another look at the article today. LaMona (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Re- submit Dafna Lemish page - by Lihi NT
Hi LaMona,

I've made some changes in Dafna Lemish page, according to your suggestions: I've added several links containing information on her Public engagement and voluntarism,an announcement in the college newspaper regarding revciving an award, another artical she wrote for a convetion she has participate, and a video - an interview about her research on children and media. Also, i've eddited the References - it looks much better now :).

I realy hope you'll confirm the artical now. It's very important to me, and i think this page is truly reliable and accurate; as most of the information has been given to me by Dafna Lemish herself.

I hope to hear good news. Have a good week

LihiLihi NT (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Lihi NT Unfortunately, that you got your accurate information from Lemish herself is a problem. All information in Wikipedia needs to be sourced to third-party, neutral sources. Please read reliable sources. You still have large portions of the article that do not have suitable references, probably because the information came from her. The information that you got from her and that you cannot cite to a published source should be removed from the article. Information that comes directly from the subject of the article is considered original research: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." For the article to be accepted into Wikipedia main space it must use information only from published resources. However, I am convinced that there are suitable published resources (although the article will not have some of the personal information about the subject) and that the subject probably meets the guidelines for academics (another page you should read). LaMona (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Article on Jason Smart
Per footnote 22, it does directly mention Smart, here is the quote, "27 апреля руководители партии Ф. Кулов и Алиев Э.Т.приняли директора Евразийского отдела Международного Республиканского Института/США/ Стефена Никса (Stefen B. Nix,Esq. Director Eurasia Division IRI) и директора Международного Республиканского Института в Бишкеке Джейсона Смарта (Jason Smart Resident Country, Director IRI)." It is towards the bottom of the page. I verified that nearly all (though you are right about the Cruz quotes), directly mention him in English or Russian.

62.80.166.138 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that "mentions" are generally not sufficient for sources to be considered adequate. In other words, if the person's name appears in the text but the content is not primarily about the person, the source is too minor. An article primarily using minor sources does not prove the notability of the subject. It is better to have only a few major sources (ones truly about the subject) than to have many minor ones. If there are no major sources, then the subject's notability is not proven, and the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's all about sources and notability. You should edit the article with that in mind. Adding more minor sources is actually a detriment to the article, so concentrate on the major ones, and take your content, where you can, from those. LaMona (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I will take another stab at it. I thought that reference was good, as it talked about his meeting and advice to the Kyrgyz political leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.166.138 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Tring-Albania
Hello,

I removed much of the content of the article Tring Albania and changed many of the sentences. Please can You review it once again, and maybe suggest me what else should I removeor change so the article can be acceptable for Wikipedia? Many of the references are in albanian. Some of them are statistics written by government agencies.

We would like to have an article similar to Digit-alb and Sky.com

Thanks in advance!

Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Andjelo Dragovic I looked again at the article today. Unfortunately, you still do not have many sources that are ABOUT the TV network - and the ones that are either by the network or by affiliates do not support wp:notability. Also, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as references - you can link to them in the text of your article as internal links (that show up blue, and are text surrounded by two sets of square brackets), but you can't use them as references. What you need to do is find newspaper or magazine articles, or business journal articles, about the network. If you can find some in English, that is a plus, but they do not have to be in English. LaMona (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, Tring TV now is only a part of Tring. Of course, the name "Tring" would be more suitable for the page, but since Tring is registered on Wikipedia as a city in England, I can't use it. That's why I thought to use the name Tring-Albania. I also removed again some of the texts in the Article Draft:Tring-Albania Please can You take a look again the article?Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Andjelo Dragovic, you have a number of inline links in the text and in the lists. These are not allowed in WP - you can either turn those into references (if they support the content of the text) or you can use them as external links. (See the change I just made by looking in the History tab.) As far as references, you still have only a small number of references and they don't say much about the network. Surely there are business magazine or newspaper articles that describe the company and give an analysis of it. That's what you need to find. LaMona (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello LaMona, many thanks for the responses. I removed all the inline links from the article. The reference to the institutemedia.org, links to an article that talks about the Development of the Digital Media in Albania. This article writes about Tring in many pages, but specifically in page 16 it writes about Tring customers, about 290,000. This is not a small number compared with the size of Albania. Maybe this article could be published but have the "This article does not cite any references or sources." notification? There are many articles in WP about different companies that do not have the size, notability, reliability of references. Tring-Albania is now so short and full of references. Can You please suggest an further improvements? Again, many thanks. Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Andjelo Dragovic, I reduced the article to the referenced information. There may be more information in the articles that you could add that would make the article richer. However, I think at this point that it is 1) not promotional 2) fully sourced. You should send it again for review. LaMona (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks LaMona, i really appreciate your help. I am going to submit it for review now. Please if you have time, Accept the Subnission and publish the Article. Please...Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, I added a referenze to an book in English, Telecommunications Companies of Albania, I cant se the content of the book, but can see from the description that it contains content about Tring. So, Please LaMona can You accept the article Draft:Tring-Albania ? Andjelo Dragovic (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:45:51, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Csinacola
Hello LaMona, Can you offer more detailed guidance on this article? You suggest it needs further reliable sources. Earlier versions went into greater detail, with sources, but those versions were rejected for lack of third-party verification/adjudication, and perhaps, although previous reviewer didn't state as much, because the theories advanced are controversial. I can restore those references and add additional ones, but it would help to know what specific points of the profile are being challenged. Any help is appreciated. Csinacola (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Csinacola (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Csinacola, let me see what I can figure out. The field (ophthalmology) is not one I am familiar with, so I'll need to dig around. What will probably solidify his notability will be the awards, so if you can find the text of any of the awards he has gotten that talk about his accomplishments that will help out a lot. An award like "2005-2012 Best Doctors in America" needs a citation because there are lots of organizations and journals that give those out, and not all are considered reliable. I'll check earlier versions of the article to see if there are any references that need to be kept. LaMona (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Boy afd
Hi LaMona, sorry if i got a bit carried away in the above discussion.

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 


 * Coolabahapple No problem. A lively exchange of views is what it's all about, and all was civil. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Link - don't transclude
In your comment on draft:Northern Border Regional Commission you wrote. This caused the entire text of to be dragged into the page. This in turn caused someone else to tag the page for deletion as "copy and paste job nothing to do with Northern Border Regional Commission" and me to delete it. To refer to a template rather than using it, use tl thus: ping. But in this case it should have been a link anyway thus: "(see wp:cite for how to &hellip;". Apologies if you knew all this already. Why did you not look at the page after applying your comment? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it was a typo, since [ and { are unfortunately on the same key. I'll be more careful. 15:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Peter Sklar
Thank you, LaMona, for the further input you commented on my draft, Draft:Peter_Sklar. I responded to your comment on the page, but I'm not sure if that lets you know I responded or not, so I'm writing you here as well (please excuse if this is a double message).

Based on your specific recommendations, I have shortened my two largest sections (including omitting the part about Mr. Sklar's cousin), eliminated over a third of my citations, retaining only those most relevant to Mr. Sklar's career, (and using 2 citations for one statement only where the statement makes multiple references that can't be found in the same source), and made several additional requested edits as well. I hope the current draft is now acceptable. I would appreciate your feedback if you are able to give it- thank you! WriterFly (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Latimeria bg (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

13:53:11, 31 August 2015 review of submission by HaileFrance
Hi LaMona, thank you for your review.

The links that I posted all make reference to the radio programme Kalypso Kollege. One refers to its time slot on the radio station on which it is aired, one refers to a show produced by the Kalypso Kollege which is one of the activities of the show, and two are by writers who refer to the programme. Is it that the articles must be exclusively about the Kalypso Kollege from start to finish?

HaileFrance (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * HaileFrance, the references need at least have substantial information ABOUT the radio program. Mostly what you have are what we call "name checks" -- the name appears, but no further information is given. Program listings are not sufficient - they just verify that the show exists. In two of the references, the show is not even mentioned (#s 5 and 6). You need to find something like a review of the show, or a write-up about its importance in a newspaper or magazine. LaMona (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LaMona. Is there a deadline for me to provide the references? I dont want my article to be deleted, but it could take a week or two for me to complete the research. HaileFrance (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * HaileFrance, don't worry, you have plenty of time. Just don't request another review until you've made the edits. LaMona (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:06:03, 4 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Csinacola
Hi LaMona, Not sure this posted properly, so forgive the repeat in that case!: In response to your questions: “Are you being paid to create this article? Do you have a conflict of interest (as per wp:coi)?” I am employed by a firm that has done professional writing for Dr. Rosenthal relating to an array of projects. As part of this work we did prepare this Wikipedia entry highlighting his career as an eye surgeon, including his development of theories regarding dry-eye disease. Dr. Rosenthal has reviewed and approved all drafts. I am willing to post to my user page whatever necessary and appropriate disclosures are required to make this clear. There was, in any case, no effort to deceive or misrepresent the work. I have reviewed the guidelines regarding conflict of interest, and appreciate the distinction between appearance and intent with regard to COI. In composing the entry, I have made every effort to present the information in as factual a manner as possible, offering citations and sources wherever possible. I believe the information regarding Dr. Rosenthal’s career and theories is notable and of public interest, can be properly sourced, and is of interest to ophthalmologists and the general reader. I take no position regarding the validity of his theories, and have no interest in their acceptance or rejection. CSinacola Csinacola (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Csinacola (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Csinacola, thank you. Please create a user page for yourself (just click on the red link that appears with your name) and follow the instructions and examples at wp:coi for creating a declaration of your paid editing on your page. This makes it possible for all Wikipedia editors to see and understand your position. For each article that you are paid to edit, you should place a link on your user page. The important thing is to be transparent. LaMona (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:27:20, 4 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nrsmoll
My page "ischemic cardiomyopathy" was rejected and instead the reviewer mentioned improving the generic page "cardiomyopathy". Ischemic cardiomyopathy is a distinct page, and I have added a link from the page "cardiomyopathy". Could I have the page "ischemic cardiomyopathy" reviewed for inclusion again?

Nrsmoll (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nrsmoll, your link will cycle back to Cardiomyopathy because Ischemic cardiomyopathy redirects to that page. This was obviously a decision made in the past. You should probably check with WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_Medicine for further information. You can also begin a discussion on the talk page for Cardio... to discuss with others whether isc-card should now become a separate page or whether it would be preferable to add the information to the existing page. It is always a good idea to make much use of talk pages in subject areas where there is quite a bit of coverage. LaMona (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)