User talk:LaMona/Archive 3

15:00:30, 5 September 2015 review of submission by 109.144.245.149
109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, Thanks for your effort in reviewing my article “Organizational Anatomy”. I am completely new to Wikipedia which makes me a bit frustrating about certain terms and conditions. I am kindly asking for your help and expert advice, please. As per your suggestion, the article should be written in more neutral or encyclopaedic manner. Can you point out or show me a sample on how it should be changed, and I will take care of changes in appropriate manner. Thank you in advance, Olkonol 109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:09:39, 2 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Latimeria bg
Hello, LaMona, thank you once again for the prompt reply. Last weeks I had limited access to internet, and I was not able to respond earlier.

You say that when others discuss the database, it should be reviewed in a comparison to other similar DBs. One of the citations included as reference (Glaab et.al.) in the Drug2Gene Articles for creation draft says: "Drug2Gene [29], the currently most comprehensive meta-database, may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries. Other repositories have a more specific scope, e.g. PDBbind [30] focuses exclusively on binding affinity data from protein–ligand complexes in the PDB...". It is a kind of comparison, rating Drug2Gene as "the currently most comprehensive meta-database" and commenting on its usability as well: "may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries". In the re-submitted version from August 11, I have extended this citation with direct quotation of the text of the reference, though not quoting the comprehensiveness comparative evaluation, but the usability comment only ("By providing a single access point to numerous publicly available, as well as predicted compound-target interactions, Drug2Gene may provide a first point of reference for most types of queries[2] relevant to identifying either known chemical compounds targeting a given gene or gene product, or known targets of a given drug.").

Is the problem that the referred discussion on the database advantages are not quoted or discussed in the text of the draft article (do I need to include quotations or at least rephrase of the sentences discussing the current resource)? Or is it that this in this reference the evaluation/review is not deep enough, but is again too short? Or if it is ok, is the problem that it is not enough to have only one such reference evaluating the resource usability, comprehensiveness, significance, etc.?

If a new publication on Drug2Gene becomes available, would it be enough in addition to the current references to cope with the notability criteria and make Drug2Gene worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia? Or more citations with deeper coverage would still be required?

Thank you very much again (and also for the advice for saving a copy in case of a longer waiting)!

I really appreciate your help!!

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


 * Latimeria bg, sorry, I'm not sure if I answered this - I seem to have lost track. There need to be articles about the software that are written by people who are not directly involved with the software, and those articles need to have more than mentions. So the quote above, Glaab, is a single mention in a single sentence in an article about the general subject. There will need to be more substantial writings about the software by neutral third parties. This is what you called "not deep enough" and that is a very accurate way to saying it. And one reference is also not enough. So you need multiple references, all of which discuss the software in some depth. You may find some guidance at Notability_(software), although I find that particular policy to be less helpful than some. LaMona (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

15:00:50, 5 September 2015 review of submission by 109.144.245.149
109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear LaMona, Thanks for your effort in reviewing my article “Organizational Anatomy”. I am completely new to Wikipedia which makes me a bit frustrating about certain terms and conditions. I am kindly asking for your help and expert advice, please. As per your suggestion, the article should be written in more neutral or encyclopaedic manner. Can you point out or show me a sample on how it should be changed, and I will take care of changes in appropriate manner. Thank you in advance, Olkonol 109.144.245.149 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * First, if you are going to edit Wikipedia, please create a user name for yourself. With an IP address only it is hard to communicate with you. Second, I'm not at all sure that your article is appropriate for WP - it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. The topics in it are covered elsewhere. You might want to begin by reviewing articles in the area of Anatomy and seeing if there is a place there for you to add your content. It isn't always that case that a new article is needed, but sometimes a new section is needed in existing articles. The important thing is that your information fit with information already in WP; it's rare to have to start anew on a topic that is already generally covered. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a page that gives some information about deciding whether a separate page is need: Notability LaMona (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

23:31:17, 4 September 2015 review of submission by Parkywiki
Parkywiki (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the draft article on Michael Proctor (botanist). Having looked at it again I do agree that I was not as precise as I should have been regarding the citation of sources. Although all the key factual information was present within the twenty or so references I originally included, they were not as clear or accessible as they should have been, plus I did make a couple of errors. So, following your review, I have revisited the citations and enhanced or repeated them within the text at the appropriate points to support each factual statement. Perhaps you would take another look and let me know if this revision seems acceptable to you and if it is suitable for re-submission. If not, I would welcome further feedback on where citations still need enhancement. Many thanks. Parkywiki (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Parkywiki, I moved the page to Michael Proctor (botanist) and made some style changes. There are still too many primary sources referenced. When you say, for example, that he contributed to the 5-volume work, it is preferred to cite a secondary source that verifies that, not the 5-volumes themselves. Or you can include those volumes in his bibliography. But they should not be references. References are for secondary sources that are ABOUT the subject, and should not include his own writings unless needed to support some particular fact that cannot be found anywhere else. This will reduce the number of references, but that is a good thing -- a few correct references are better than many inappropriate ones. Also, do look at wp:academic for the criteria that are used for academics. These are the facts that matter, and they include: honorary appointments (chairs, etc.), prestigious awards, demonstrated contribution to ones discipline. I think this person achieves that. LaMona (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making those tweaks. As you suggested, I will move a few of the primary sources out into the bibliography before resubmitting. I appreciate all the hard work you're doing - your recent contrib list is huge. (I also found both your blog posts for April made interesting, too). Regards Parkywiki (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

19:38:32, 8 September 2015 review of submission by 174.88.122.239
Thanks for your feedback Lamona.

On the question of why was Thomas Rutherford notable it was nothing to do with his descendants (as a previous editor surmised), it was the fact that 'he was the first' ___ (fill in the blank), 'citizen of Owen Sound.'  He traveled to that remote wilderness, almost two hundred years ago, and remained there for his first winter entirely alone. The municipal government (Grey County) acknowledges this fact in their official history of 1931 (referenced). Additionally, the community of Owen Sound acknowledged the fact by inviting his grand-daughter, Margaret, to a founding ceremony in 1967. If that isn't notable then I accept your definition, and the decline.

I would have liked to update the Owen Sound wiki article to link to his page but I'm assuming that I can do the same and link to an external reference as well.

Is it possible to maintain the draft page, at least for now ? I spent a fair amount of time collecting the references and need to save them elsewhere.

Thanks.

Jock.

174.88.122.239 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jock, first, if you intend to continue to edit Wikipedia, you should create a username for yourself because it is harder to communicate with you without one. Next, you have quite a bit of time to work on the article -- generally, articles can stay around for many months without changes before they get deleted. So take your time and be diligent. The last thing is about "notability" - Wikipedia has rules for what makes a person notable, and your article has to meet these rules. wp:notability (people). One of the problems of working in historical areas is that there is often not a great deal of evidence that one can use. However, the key thing is that the references must support the notability, regardless of how notable a person may seem. To give an example, your first reference, from ourroots.ca, doesn't seem to even mention the subject of the article. References MUST be about the subject of the article and must support the facts. The second reference is the web site of an individual (http://www.electriccanadian.com/). If you look at the guidelines for reliable sources you will see that individual web sites are rarely considered reliable sources. The best sources are published in well-known publications, like newspapers, magazines or books that have a reputation for fact-checking. The third reference, the list of plaques, also seems to be the site of an individual. The Paul White book does mention him, but it's in a chapter about someone else. This means that so far we haven't found much verifiable information to support notability. The commemorative photo is interesting, but doesn't yield much information. -- Can you see where I am going with this? Because WP requires verifiable sources, and because non-published sources are not accepted as such, your support for the page is unfortunately weak. Admittedly, it is hard to find acceptable sources for local historical figures, but the rules still apply. If you can find more published sources (old newspapers, or more book sources) you should substitute those for the personal web sites that you are using today. Do read carefully the section on reliable sources and on notability for people. These can guide you in your research. And, last but not least, thanks for editing Wikipedia and I hope you become a regular contributor. LaMona (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

15:01:13, 8 September 2015 review of submission by Lmxspice
Hi - I would love a little help on understanding the reason for denial, and what I can do to improve the content. The first reviewer asked for more independent references, and I believe that the article has more than enough. This page is modeled after several pages of similar companies, including competitors. The reason that this article is relevant outside of the business context is that the mortgage industry is on the cusp of change - the B2B movement (manual, paper-based business -> electronic connectivity) and Mortgage Builder (and other mortgage software companies) are making this happen.

Happy to work further on this - let me know what you need. Thanks

Lmxspice (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Lmxspice, have you read through wp:corp to see the criteria used to establish notability for companies? Note that if other companies have articles on WP it does not mean that they are correct - all articles are considered to be "in progress," and articles that don't meet the WP standards can be deleted at any time. For your particular article, articles about normal business practice (acquisitions, mergers, changes in personnel) do not attest to notability -- these are the things that all businesses do as a matter of course. Winning awards can lead to notability, although they need to be known and significant awards. In your example, the "2010 Top Providers" is a very long list - being one of many doesn't count for a great deal. In terms of references, it is best if not all of the references come from narrow segment journals. After looking at wp:corp try to think: what makes this company interesting and important compared to others? And realize that not all companies can be considered notable by WP guidelines. LaMona (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

11:08:26, 16 September 2015 review of submission by 72.240.137.150
72.240.137.150 (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I copied the format for other Victor McLaglen entries. It's one of the few titles in his long resume that isn't represented on Wiki, so I would have thought it was a significant title. After all, he is a Academy Award Best Actor winner, so his career and all the movies he made would seem worth a citation. Any suggestions you might have would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Request on 18:21:33, 18 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Metalepsis
Hello,

Is there a way to pass a draft on to someone else who may have more interest/ability with it? I've put way too much time into writing the one I did on Eric Schaller only to get it rejected twice. I'm frustrated and don't want to continue, but I do think it's something that merits a Wikipedia page (since I went looking for the info and was surprised it wasn't there). But I think I've done what I can do and at this point am just annoyed.

Metalepsis (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Metalepsis, there isn't a way to select your reviewer. Most criteria for review are un-related to the subject of the article and instead have to do with style and policy guidelines. If you read the guidelines for academics you will see that the criteria have to do with stature in the discipline, and awards (including named chairs). Those for authors are less precisely defined, but again there are policies that can guide you. If your subject does not meet these criteria, then you will have difficulty getting the article accepted. If, however, you can demonstrate that your subject meets these criteria, you will succeed. There are many variables, but that's the main story. Basically, it is important to understand how WP defines itself and its content. LaMona (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

16:09:02, 18 September 2015 review of submission by GeekPhotog
Hi -- I've substantially reworked the article based on your feedback. Thanks. I've eliminated all cites from the vendor and moved them to external links, and replaced with industry publication cites. I've also added more references, including from some larger publications, and the EISA innovation award the camera received. I reworded the text to make it more neutral. I'm struggling with the need to both point out the noteworthy features of the camera (I own a lot of cameras, and this one is definitely ground-breaking and has been reported as being such in reviews, etc.) while not being promotional. I looked at a number of other camera pages (like the Nikon D4 page) to model from, and have tried to hew to their approach and style. Thanks!--GeekPhotog (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC) GeekPhotog (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like a very good job. I did a few minor edits that help the presentation. I definitely think you should re-submit! LaMona

(talk) 17:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the editing help as well. I have re-submitted the article.--GeekPhotog (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

18:41:38, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Bucketcrank
Hi LaMona,

Thanks for reviewing my draft on Fred Millett. I will look for more sources and start to edit down the article. It would be really helpful if you could tell me if there are any particular areas you feel are weak.

Many thanks. Bucketcrank (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Bucketcrank, any paragraph that doesn't have references is an obvious target for more work. Although the personal history details feel essential, if they can't be referenced they unfortunately they need to be removed. A good source of such information is obituaries (unfortunate, but often very useful!). You have gotten the information in those paragraphs from somewhere, so you should quote it. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

08:24:04, 28 September 2015 review of submission by Hotdiggetyyy
Apologies, this was my first effort at adding to Wikipedia. Just a quick query on your rejection of the page I created for 'Plants and the Human Brain'. I've checked the criteria on notability as per the notification, and the three references I've provided to independent book reviews in academic journals seem to satisfy criterion 1 for notability (two or more... non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself). Could you clarify why this doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, as I was planning on doing some editing work on a number of related pages and creating a page on 'ecological roles of phytochemicals' etc. This book seems to be a central recent resource on the topic.


 * You can cite a book in another article without it having a Wikipedia article of its own. In fact, most sources cited in articles do not themselves have articles. Articles for individual books are generally limited to books that have had a great impact - either literary or scientific. This usually takes some time, and this book is barely a year old. The book reviews are in niche journals so more evidence is needed. If you look it up on Google Scholar, it has only been cited 6 times. It MAY become a classic in its field, but it isn't yet. However, feel free to cite it in other articles where it lends information to the topic. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 10:08:51, 30 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dushaduma
Dear LaMona,

thank you very much for reviewing the draft page on Prof Adam Scaife. I am just trying to understand what to do next.

You say that reliable sources that do not cite Scaife's own work are needed so I went to the wp.academics page you recommended and looked up reliable sources. It says that peer reviewed scientific articles are allowed :- all of the references to Scaife's work here are in peer reviewed journals so I presume these are OK? there are also many other academics on WP with similar peer reviewed references on their pages. Would you like more non scientific links to sources? the web is full of them including many from this year so I can add more if necessary.

Could you please also explain what you mean by honorifics? do you mean the letters after Scaife's name at the start of the article? again there are plenty of examples of these on existing WP academics pages but I am happy to remove if they are not allowed?

Thank you for your efforts - much appreciated

Dushaduma (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dushaduma (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Dushaduma, first, the honorifics: The page needs to be named "Adam Scaife", not "Professor Adam..." This needs to be done with a move, which I can attempt if you wish. Then, the first line is fine once the word "Professor" is removed from the beginning. That's all that needs to be done, I believe. As for the reliable sources, peer-reviewed sources ABOUT the person are considered reliable; sources BY the person are not "third-party" sources. You can create a short bibliography of his key works as a separate section, but shouldn't cite them as references. The links to the awards should be links to a page or something like a press release stating that he was given the award, not to the awards themselves. The links to the awards themselves, that do not name him, do not show that he did receive the award. The key concept here is wp:verifiability - that it must be possible to verify the information in the article. If someone were to contest information in the article, the sources should show that what is in the article can be verified.


 * Let me give you an example of why his own works cannot be used. You say: "He leads a team of scientists carrying out pioneering research into long range weather forecasting. In 2014 he published a key breakthrough, demonstrating skillful predictions of European and North American Winter Climate months in advance." With a cite to the article. However, the article you cite does not verify that it was "a key breakthrough" nor that it demonstrated "skillful predictions". To say those things, you need a third-party source that makes those conclusions. The question to ask is: How do we know this? In addition, it is considered un-encyclopedic to use superlatives like "pioneering research" unless that is a judgment that can be factually attributed to a reliable source. LaMona (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

22:00:57, 30 September 2015 review of submission by Contributor50
I have added references to my original submission and feel everything stated in the article is now covered by third party material. The majority of the article is covered by the general reference to the Music Business Worldwide article and added inline citations cover specifics not mentioned in that article. All artists and writers are covered by either the MBW article or the Kobalt Music roster pages which are now also referenced.

Apologies for not having enough references before. Please let me know if I need to add more and if possible specific areas that you feel are not covered.

Thanks


 * Contributor50 Thanks for getting in touch. These are details that are hard to describe in a short comment! You still have sections of the article that do not have any references. Imagine that every fact in the article has to be verifiable through a reference. If you say that the person was born somewhere and studied at a certain university, then worked for a company, each of those facts has to have come from somewhere. You need to cite the source of those facts. There are now a few bits of text in the references area that are not connected to the text of the article. Those also need to be fixed. You should read through the requirements for reliable sources - using information from the person's employer's web site is generally not considered sufficient to establish notability. If the criteria for notability are not met, the article may not be accepted, or may be deleted when it is no longer a draft. LaMona (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Mark Gray
I have added the references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Gray_(photographer)TikriTab (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * TikriTab, ok, that was important, but probably doesn't give the result you would desire, because now that there are links it is possible to see that the person has not actually won any major awards, but has been an "honorable mention" in many, and most of those are not major awards.The guidelines that must be met are those at wp:creative for people in the creative arts. This photographer probably does not meet those guidelines since he has not won a major award, has not had significant shows, and there do not seem to be critical works about his photography. However, if you can find more information that shows that he meets those guidelines, then you should include those in the article. LaMona (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

09:33:44, 7 October 2015 review of submission by Ninskip
Ninskip (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Hi LaMona,

Thanks for your comments. I must admit I am struggling here. What I'm trying to do is have TransRe included as I feel the company is on a par with several other reinsurers that already have pages. In fact TransRe are mentioned on the "reinsurance" wiki page and have been around for a while now. You may be aware that in the USA around 50% of the work force in reinsurance will retire in the next 10 years, so I think it's important to the industry to have a wealth of knowledge on the web other than what TransRe host themsleves on their website.

The problem is with an (re)insurance company is most articles are about financial transactions, mergers, large deals, etc hence the percieved "advertising" picture you got. I have not found any "bad deal" press or articles.

If I was to research the Company more and provide more history would that help?

thanks,

Neil.


 * Ninskip, look at the article for Reinsurance Group of America and you will see that it has the same problem -- which may lead to it being eventually deleted. Then look at the article for Lloyd's of London and you can see the difference. Just being a company is not enough. You can expand the article on reinsurance, and you can add a link to TransRe in the external links area. But you should not use WP to boost the visibility of a company. LaMona (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on draft page for Nilo Hovey
LaMona,

Thanks so much for looking at this entry. I appreciate your comments and have made the recommended changes. :-) Tung (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
thanks again!

Tung (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC) 

23:59:17, 9 October 2015 review of submission by Econohammer
Thanks very much for the review, LaMona. I have updated the citations that match the requirements found in wp:rs. However, for the Board service and Awards section, the only public documentation of McCormick's service is on the Institution's website itself, which tautologically is associated with McCormick. So, for example, consider the California Academy of Sciences. McCormick is listed as a board member on this page and no where else. How do I assert this position without referring to the Cal Academy site? Any guidance would be much appreciated! Econohammer (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Econohammer The way that Wikipedia's policies on notability work, if there are no third-party sources for information a first-party source can be used. However, that source has much less weight. You must have some strong third-party sources for most of the information, otherwise, the person does not meet the notability guidelines. I looked for sources myself, and didn't find any, but I didn't look hard. Unfortunately, you have mainly sources that aren't independent of the subject. You need to cast far and wide to convert as many of your references as possible to independent sources. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, LaMona. I think I need some additional guidance. Currently, I have the following sources, categorized by type: I don't have good supporting sources for the Board Service, aside from the public sites of the institutions for which McCormick serves. If this does not meet the source standards, I can remove this section and resubmit. Does that make sense? I am trying to keep in as much content as possible. Econohammer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Three peer-reviewed publications (e.g., Journal of Appl. Ecol.)
 * Two articles or case studies in academic publications (e.g., Harvard Business Review)
 * Congressional testimony from McCormick
 * A few Wikipedia pages and various news articles.
 * A public audit from PricewaterhouseCoopers
 * Econohammer The articles that you cite are articles about TNC, not ABOUT McCormick. Although he is mentioned in them, you are still low on articles that are primarily about him, not TNC. There's no doubt that TNC is notable. You have to show that McCormick is notable on his own. The public audit is entirely about TNC. By concluding that this shows McCormick's capability as a manager, you are engaging in original research -- that is, you are using primary sources to support your article. I know that it's frustrating, but notability on WP is defined to mean that reliable sources (newspapers, journals) have found the person worthy throughTHEIR original research, and you then cite those reliable sources. By engaging in original research, you are essentially asking us to believe your interpretation of the primary sources. It is actually better to include LESS information in the article and to emphasize sources that meet WP's criteria, than to include much information in the article that relies on primary sources. Every WP article is always "in progress" and as more reliable sources appear you can add more information to the article. LaMona (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood. It is clear from the (third-party) sources that McCormick is a major part of the storyline of TNC. Consider, for example, the Harvard Business Review case study, where McCormick is the central focus of the organization's trajectory. The other sources that talk mostly about TNC's performance during his tenure were for independent corroboration, rather than subjective value judgements on my behalf. I will pull more from the sources and external links. To be clear, I wasn't trying to conclude that McCormick was responsible for TNC's trajectory (the peer-reviewed pubs do that) but rather triangulate the sources with other, unrelated sources. My confusion about bios on Wikipedia, more generally, is how people are linked to the projects or organizations for which they are part. The bio on Ryan Panchadsaram is weak on his contributions to the (very impressive) organizations he serves. There is rarely citations that disassociate the leader from the org that is being led during their tenure. I will attempt this difficult feat of separating McCormick from his work, even though it was his work that made him notable. (I'm not complaining, this is fun. Thanks LaMona!) Econohammer (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstract: Almost immediately upon being appointed CEO of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Steve McCormick undertakes a radical reorganization of this global institution...

LaMona, I have adjusted the article to be more centered on McCormick, rather than just the performance of the institutions he led during his tenure. Any opinion on the edits would be really helpful. I have attempted to extract statements directly from verified third-party sources. I am up to 28 sources (with about 20 that meet the requirements, with the rest as supporting context)! Econohammer (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of draft page of Autostrad
Hi, I believe the references at the draft are reliable.. If you need more, unfortunately the rest are in Arabic. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Makeandtoss, It is ok to include references not in English if that is what is needed to establish notability. What I see here are short articles (some are only one paragraph) about a tour, a battle of the bands, etc. I don't see any reviews of their music, nothing about whether they've been on any music sales charts. Have you looked carefully at wp:Notability_(music)? Generally, more information is needed about the musicianship. Note that the other criteria are: charting; winning major awards; releasing albums on major labels; etc. Criteria you may be able to leverage are #s 7 and 10, if the band represents a musical style that has particular cultural significance. Those latter will still need verifiable sources, but perhaps your Arabic sources could provide that. LaMona (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * LaMona I added more references, could you kindly check if they are enough and reliable? They do represent a musical style that has particular cultural significance --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * retroactively added the refcatcher, so the ArabAmericaNews.com cite will stop falling to the bottom of the talkpage. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So what happens now? --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss I made some edits - I think there is a bit more you can say about the band, especially about the difficulties of performing in the political climate (as long as this is found in the references). I believe there is also something about a tour to London? If so, add that in, and then ask for another review. LaMona (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Uhm, is that necessary? Because it takes more than a week.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the only way, unfortunately. Try to be patient. LaMona (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss, it turns out that the article "Autostrad" is blocked from creation, so an administrator needs to approve it. From the history it looks like there were attempts to create it in the past that did not go through Creation, and the article had problems. This means that it will be looked at carefully. I do advise adding information you have about their albums or singles being on charts, and information about tours that you have in the references. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * LaMona I know, but I have read that if the article is accepted from the draft then the block will be automatically disabled. In Jordan there are no music charts, but as far as I have read in musician notability 'Participated or won in a major musical contest' which is the soundclash I have written about, I will add the London tour now... Thank you very much for your help. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss In fact, to accept the article the create block will need to be overcome by an admin. I'm not an admin so I can't do it. LaMona (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have two other similar drafts I am working on, would you care to check the references and let me know if you have any comments? Draft:Akher Zapheer Draft:El Morabba3 --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ron_Schnell, comment about superquotes
Hi LaMona, have replied to you over there. I'm struggling with the syntax to make those long quotes more usefully-formatted, but have not quite figured said syntax out yet. I've deleted the superquotes for now. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Sophia Sider
Hi can you please re-review draft again Draft:Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Sophia Sider most of the sources are reliable.Hikeripte (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hikeripte You've sent it back for review, so if I don't get to it, someone else will. There's a certain randomness in the process. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

07:59:12, 12 October 2015 review of submission by AMWanjohi
To LaMona, I appreciate your comments. I believe Kenya Projects Organization is a noble grassroot driven organization open to noble cause for humanity and worth a space with WIKIPEDIA. Kindly let me know which areas of the article you would recommend for improvement to meet your policy provisions.

Thanks Anthony


 * , Anthony, your article was deleted because it seems to have copied its content from the web page of the organization. That is considered copyright infringement, and deletion happens rapidly to protect Wikipedia. You can recreate the page, but you must not use the organization's web page as the content. Wikipedia requires that all content be sourced to neutral, third-party sources (like newspapers and magazines) and that none of it be directly copied from a potentially copyrighted source. Notablity on Wikipedia is governed by wp:N, and reliable sources that can be cited are defined in wp:rs. Also note that it is generally discouraged for pages to be created or edited by persons who are directly involved with the subject of the article. See conflict of interest for an explanation of the reasons for this. That does not mean that you cannot create the page, but you must be very careful to follow all of the Wikipedia policies while doing so, including neutral point of view. I hope that you will use your expertise to improve Wikipedia coverage of your area, but I am afraid that it takes some time to get accustomed to how Wikipedia works. You might want to get experience editing articles before undertaking creating a new one, which is admittedly rather difficult. LaMona (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Silverman
Thanks for your feedback on my article about Stanley Silverman - I have now backed up facts with references. Please check. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devushkao (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:30:36, 12 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by AMWanjohi
AMWanjohi (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello LaMona, Thank you LaMona for your objectivity in the feedback. I understand the 'why' of quick deletion before copyright issues arise. I should however be quick to note that Kenya Projects Organization works are founded on Creative Commons Attribution License. We shall still be back with the article: "Kenya Projects Organization". LaMona - as a third party source - consider writing about "Kenya Projects Organization!"

Thanks Anthony


 * AMWanjohi, it's great to hear that you use CC! Check the wp:copyright pages to see if your license is appropriate, and also Donating_copyrighted_materials for the procedures to donate your materials to WP. If you re-create the article, you might want to include information about your license on the talk page. However, the writing style on Wikipedia will probably require you to re-write your materials with a different audience in mind, so copyright may not be a problem. That resolves the copyright issue, but you also need to adhere to the policies on notability and reliable sources and conflict of interest, as I mentioned before. LaMona (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

05:16:38, 16 October 2015 review of submission by Wordsprite
LaMona, could you please tell me which of my references for my article, "Psychoterratic Illnesses" you consider to be unreliable and why? Also, I saw a note that said I need to use WP style citations: is this also a reason my article was rejected?Wordsprite (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:40:37, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by GroundScope
Hello LaMona

Thank you for reviewing my submission - can you specify what parts of this are unsubstantiated. I have all the references in the article that are available. Kind regards Therese

GroundScope (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * GroundScope, if there is information for which you do not have references, then that information cannot be included in the article. (E.g. the entire history section). Also, you have inline http links and those are not allowed. Within the text you link only to Wiki pages; links that go outside Wikipedia are either in references or in the External links section. Also note that your name violates the username policy. You should change it. (You need to request a name change from an admin.) See wp:orgname. LaMona (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:15:34, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordsprite
<! Here is my question, I have two different messages and I'm confused: Are my references not reliable OR is the problem (why my article was rejected) one of citation? Check these out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wordsprite   &     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Psychoterratic_Illnesses     Please click on both and tell me which one is correct and whether the problem is unreliable references or if it’s citation problems. >Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wordsprite I super-cased the cite numbers in the text so they would stand out as references in the text. Your references, other than the books, do not provide enough information for them to be easily identified and found. I was able to find HealthEarth after some searching but not the article cited; there should be a direct link to the source cited. A primary principle is verifiability, so you need to provide all of the information needed for a person reading WP to go to the source and see for themselves. I also didnt' find source #4. BTW, the Healthearth web site is not considered a reliable source because it is the personal page of the four people who run it. You can add links to the cited sources, such as . LaMona (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:17:20, 16 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordsprite
This is your message to me that I am responding to because I did not see any "Reply" button on the page where I read the message. I'm repeating your message for clarity, so we are both talking about the same thing. I don't know any other way to do this. Wordsprite (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wordsprite I super-cased the cite numbers in the text so they would stand out as references in the text. Your references, other than the books, do not provide enough information for them to be easily identified and found. I was able to find HealthEarth after some searching but not the article cited; there should be a direct link to the source cited. A primary principle is verifiability, so you need to provide all of the information needed for a person reading WP to go to the source and see for themselves. I also didnt' find source #4. BTW, the Healthearth web site is not considered a reliable source because it is the personal page of the four people who run it. You can add links to the cited sources, such as [1]. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question: In order for me to see what you're referring to I need to know how to get to the page where you did all the stuff you said you did in the above message. How would I do that?


 * It's on my talk page. Click on "talk" after my name here: LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions: If I get to the page where I can see all the stuff you helped me with, that you refer to in your message, what do I do then? Do I have to go to another page? If so, what page and how would I get there. Right now, on this page that I am typing on, this is what I am seeing at the top: "User page" "Talk" "Read" "Edit Source" "New Section" "View history" a red heart, a blue star, and a "Search" box. Can I get to the page I need to get to in order to see what you did by typing something in the "Search" barwill the "Search" bar help me find my Draft or whatever other page I may need to find?


 * To see what changes have been made (although many are obvious just looking at the article) go to the "View history" tab, click in the circles to the left of the latest and the previous one, and then click on the button "Compare versions." This will show you what has changed. All versions of all WP articles are kept. However, all that I changed was that I made the numbers of the references in the text superscript so they would look different from other numbers in the text. Another option would be to put them in parentheses. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions: What is "super-cased the cite numbers" ? In your original message to me (not the above copied and pasted one for reference), there was a tiny blue symbol where the [1] is in this copied and pasted version above. This is the line I'm talking about from your message: You can add links to the cited sources, such as [1]. What does that mean?


 * Did you click on it? It's a link. You should see that it's a link by its color. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions: Now, I need to be able to figure out what to do next, specifically, what do I click on to do whatever it is I need to do next, from this page that I am typing on. Once I leave this page, I will not be able to get back to this message (or your message) or my Draft (what do I click on to find that?). If I had not copied and pasted your message into a separate word document and then copied and pasted it into this one, I would not have known how to refer to the parts of your message to me that I need help with.

Wiki has a very complex, difficult, and confusing format for me to use. I don't know computer code. I don't know a lot of the abbreviated language that's used or the computer phraseology that's used in Wiki's explanation of things. I need straightforward directions. For instance, what does this mean: ... Wiki's instructions, pages, and formatting is filled with strings of symbols like this and as I said, I don't understand computer code. Seeing these things along with complex instructions on how to do anything on Wiki, only detracts from my being able to discern what exactly it is that Wiki is asking for or instructing me in.


 * You'll have to learn about Wikipedia, and there is plenty to help you. You can start by clicking the link in the left side bar that says "About Wikipedia." LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Having said all of that, I need to talk to a live person, by phone, while I am on my computer so that when I click on something that brings me to someplace I can't get back from or that proves to be off the track from what I need, I can explain it: what I am seeing, what the choices are on the screen, so I can figure out Wiki's website and be able to use it.


 * That's not likely to happen here. You could take your questions to the Community portal (link also in the left side bar), and ask for individual help, but Wikipedia assumes that you at least know how to click on links and read web pages. If you need basic computer training, you may want to look for computer training in your local community - perhaps an adult school or a public library. Some communities actually hold beginning Wikipedia editing sessions in public places, like libraries. That's the kind of place where you might get the help you need. All of us here are "virtual". LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help me. If possible, is there just a straightforward email (that is separate from Wiki) where I can contact you, free from computer code and providing just the simple "Send" and "Reply" buttons so we can communicate. If not, and if you get this message (I'm unsure I'm doing the right things here so I don't know where this is going to end up), but if you do get this, when you Reply to me, please include very clear, very straightforward instructions for how I can Reply back to you. Please do not include computer code in the instructions or any symbols (like the little blue symbol in your last message to me, that I referred to earlier) because if I don't understand everything in the message, I won't be able to respond.


 * The little blue symbols are links. If you put your mouse pointer over it, it shows you what it links to. However, it won't show when you copy the text to a Word document. You have to view the links on the Wiki page; don't copy the text elsewhere. I can't get any more basic than that. Clicking on links is a basic skill that you need to have if you will edit Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your patience and understanding. Please know that I am not blaming you for the fact that the Wiki website for public use is so complicated and complex. I just need some real, plain-speak answers. I want to edit my Draft (if I can find it and if I can figure out how to do that) because it is important to me to get it accepted. But I am so lost - it's like trying to find your way home from a foreign country when you've never traveled before, don't know the systems involved with doing that, don't know where to find the information because the way to look it up is filled with rules and an assumed knowledge of how the system operates, and when you do ask the right questions to connect to the answer you need the answer contains information that's in another language you don't speak so you try to look up those words but can't because there is no English To (fill in the blank with a foreign language) book. And that is where I am. Wiki is a foreign country with little or no translations of the things you need to know and be able to understand in order to figure something out. Help me get home. WordspriteLaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wordsprite (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

LaMona (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Manuel Antonio Vidal Pego
Hi, Thanks for reviewing my article. What changes are needed to make the article notable? Is this a problem with the lack of notability of the subject itself (so I shouldn't bother to make changes to it) or just a matter of presentation? Also, could you explain what you mean by this "you cannot use WP articles as references, although you can link to them within the text using wp:wikilinks"? Thanks.Fraenir (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Fraenir, it isn't the article that needs to be notable - it's the TOPIC of the article that needs to be notable. Notability is defined at wp:N - click on that and go to the page. A topic (or person) either is or isn't notable, and if they are not notable by Wikipedia's criteria, then the article cannot be accepted. For Wikilinks: click here wp:wikilinks and you will see how they are done. The wp:Community portal provides many resources to help new editors learn about Wikipedia. You should check that out. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand that it's the subject that needs to be notable. I was asking if the article is failing to pass notability due to an inherent lack of notability of the person in question, or due to the way that I've written about the subject. Are you saying that the person isn't notable? The person in question appears, from my perspective, to fulfill "Significant coverage" (book and articles that mention the topic), "Reliable" (includes articles published by major news organizations), "Sources" (multiple sources), "Independent of the subject" (didn't use anything from the person)? If it fails "Presumed", can you explain why the person fails in this case? Can you explain in more detail to me why the person in question fails to be notable? Also, I still don't understannd this comment "you cannot use WP articles as references, although you can link to them within the text using wp:wikilinks" - I checked that page, but I don't understand what I did incorrectly there with regards to my article. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what happened. Sorry. It was the mixing of Template:Harvard_citation_documentation with non-templated references that threw me off. (It's advised to use the same form for all citations on an article, not to mix them. This is something you can fix up later.) I've added sections so it isn't one huge text. I'm a bit nervous because this is a report of criminal behavior for a living person, but let's see how others react when it is in main space. Go ahead and re-submit. LaMona (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I copied some of the citation methods from different Wikipedia articles, so that's probably why my citation methods are mixed. I'll try to fix them later. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Draft Page for Walter D. Mooney
Hi LaMona! Thanks very much for your comments on how to improve this article entry. I have removed the references that don't mention him. My reason for putting them in was because I thought I had to have as many references in there as possible, even for the facts that aren't specifically about him. These facts seem necessary in order to describe the work that he has done. I'm just wondering now do I have enough references and is there anything else that needs to be done to it in order for it to be accepted. I've also removed the peacock language, as instructed. Thanks again! Megantfay (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Megantfay, your references still do not reflect the basic rules for referencing, which is that information in the article must come from third-party, neutral sources. When you say that "One of the problems associated with the earthquake was the fact that Haiti had no seismograph stations installed, making it impossible to accurately estimate the intensity of the ground motions" and then you cite Mooney's own paper, you are engaging in original research, not reporting what others have said about him. Basically, you are writing the article that, if it were published elsewhere, would be appropriate as a citation in WP. What you are doing is creating his story, and what WP needs is verification that his story has been written. You should concentrate on the facts that support wp:academics and leave everything else out of the article. LaMona (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback LaMona. I've removed a lot of the content as well as the references that don't mention him. I think it (hopefully) meets the reference requirements now! Megantfay (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)