User talk:LaMona/Archives/2015/11

16:25:35, 5 November 2015 review of submission by Kamishiro
Some more corrections, additions of links & references. BTW, my last question seems to have been invaded by someone else's submission.


 * yes, it was. The talk page "technology" is a bit awkward and doesn't always seem to work right. Honestly, I don't fully understand it but should spend some time wrapping my head around it. Note that I also did edits on your draft, which means that I will now let someone else review it since I'm no longer entirely neutral. It really still doesn't meet the criteria, but someone may let it through. That means, though, that you may have a deletion challenge in main space. The problem is that the media and the awards are all local, and he's mainly self-published. But we've already discussed that. I do hope you join the music group here -- there's much that needs to be done and I suspect they think about modern music venues as you do. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Review of Bridges Ventures
Hi LaMona (I dont know what is happening with these sections/topics, it wont let me make a new one)

Many thanks for your help, but I dont understand why my page is being rejected. I have almost 30 citations including highly respectable sources, such as the UK Cabinet Office, the Financial Times, the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, the BVCA, Cathy Clark, Jed Emerson, Ben Thornley's The 'Impact Investor: Lessons in Leadership and Strategy for Collaborative Capitalism' - a widely praised book, and more. I do not understand how this is not enough?

- Doughty Hanson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughty_Hanson_%26_Co) has five citations.

- Izurium Capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izurium_Capital) have six citations, including their own listing on CrunchBase, and one literal press release.

- Diversity Global (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Global) has only one! And this is their own website!

Actually, there are a full 51 private equity firms for just the UK listed on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Private_equity_firms_of_the_United_Kingdom) (every single one of which was written by themselves I assure you, even if they haven't listed it as so, as I have, to adhere to your regulations on transparency, for which I believe I am being penalised), many of which are smaller, and more financially focused then Bridges Ventures is. We are an impact investor working with charities and social enterprises. This is far more notable than most of these other listings. We are also an educational service provider, another aspect i need to include in this post.

Additionally, these Wikipedia pages also reference Bridges Ventures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I just dont understand the (rather unfair) reasoning behind the rejection of my post on the grounds of a lack of citations?

Best Aung2015

Aung2015 (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Aung2015, as the marketing director for the company whose WP page you are creating, your view is not neutral. What you have produced is in essence a marketing profile of the company that reads like a press release and that cites articles that all read like press releases. WP is an encyclopedia, it is not a directory of companies nor does it exist to promote your company. Although reliable sources must be used, just being a reliable source is not sufficient -- the information must be more than a report of "business as usual." (And as for those other companies who you probably see as competitors, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - which is never a valid argument.) What makes this company encyclopedic? That some WP pages say that a person sits on the board does not make this article necessary (and note that the Peter Englander page is marked as not meeting WP criteria which means it may come up for deletion). It would be great if you saw WP as something other than a possible promotion for your company; if you would entertain the spirit of WP as a free, open exchange of information. I don't see that in your work. But do not come to those of us who are dedicated to WP to fight for your promotional view. You are the one who is out of step. I hope you also realize that once your article goes into main space you are not allowed to edit it due to your COI. If you do continue to edit it, your account will be blocked. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LaMona. I will rework the post. The 'Other Stuff Exists' point is just frustrating as these articles, whether up for deletion now or not, got through the initial WP approval process, which makes the whole process seem pretty arbitrary.

Aung2015 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Aung2015 Note that not all articles go through AfC, and it looks like these did not. One can create articles directly in main space, but they are more likely to be deleted because they don't get the advantage of the help given at AfC. (I know it doesn't always seem like help.) There are folks who patrol the lists of new articles and try to catch them, but instead they often end up being clean-up later. All of this is a great drain on the time of volunteers, so the AfC process should weed out articles that don't meet the criteria in the policies. Personally, I'd make it even harder to get articles into main space because I spend countless hours on the cleanup. It is also true that you will get different answers from different editors in AfC, but the main thing is to read the policies they point out so that you understand what WP is about, its style, and its criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 04:13:35, 6 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dotcope
Hello LaMona,

The sources I used are, by large, highly regarded LGBT sources such as Lambda Literary.org which is a secondary source and a third party source publications, Award cermony announcements made by the award's website itself--which must be reliable as that cannot have come from Propps herself and is beyond her control, LGBTQ newspapers, Review sites, and booksellers as well as online literary magazines etc. I have read many a wikipedia articles citing the very same sources. I made sure to use the same sources so I am sure you can understand my frustration at this point. If the sources I used have been used before, and are in use on pages on accepted and published articles why are they no longer being accepted in this case? Also, if they are no longer being used what could replace them as those sources, which have been used repeatedly and I will be happy to give examples of wiki pages using those sources. Because I do not understand how those sources can be accepted for some articles but not for this one.

Thank you Dotcope (talk)DotDotcope (talk)

Dotcope (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dotcope, did you read the comment I left you? Here's what I said: "You cannot use social sites (Goodreads), sales sites (Amazon, BookStrand), promotional sites, blogs, or informal web sites (ones without an editorial policy). It is also best not to fill the article with a mere list of titles - that's not very interesting reading. What books you list need to have full citations: publisher, place, date, and ISBN. Self-published works do not confer notability." This is a standard reliable source definition, and it shouldn't be surprising. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that holds water (read it, please). You must remove social sites (ones that allow anyone to edit, and WP is included in that) and sales sites from the article, and you need to format the book bibliography as a real bibliography. This: Citing_sources refers to citations but is also a good guide for bibliographies. The reason for this is that WP provides verifiable information, and one cannot verify the existence of a book from a mere title -- more than one book can have the same title. Newspapers, review sites that are considered reliable -- those are all good. If there are questionable sources, we can take them to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where people can help us decide what is reliable. I know that the AfC review templates are far from ideal, but it's what we have to work with when doing reviews. I try to leave comments that are more specific since I know that the templates often aren't terribly helpful. LaMona (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To give you an idea of what criteria might be used regarding publications, here's the reviewer info from BDSM book review: "
 * Reviewers are not employed by BDSMBookReviews.
 * Reviewers will edit their own reviews, plus a BDSMBookReviews Editor will give them a second glance prior to the website release.
 * So that is a site without editorial oversight, since there is no editing of the content. That's what will be looked at when we take questions to the noticeboard. I don't know how strict folks will be, but the wp:rs policy says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Obviously, if no one is editing the reviews, no fact-checking is going on. Therefore, that site is like a blog, not like a newspaper. It's a community resource, but not a reliable information resource, at least as I read it. Reliable is not related to popular -- things can be very popular and either reliable or un-reliable. It's a different measure. LaMona (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

14:53:31, 6 November 2015 review of submission by 2601:197:C001:22AD:B0B6:4B7E:BAFD:41CD
I appriciate your time and efforts. I'm wondering which sources are not reliable. Would you kindly let me know your thoughts when you can?


 * Number 1 is his employer's site - not independent. (He may have even written it himself, but it would never say anything negative about him. Not neutral). #2 doesn't resolve - probably was a search. #3 You can't use searches as references - you need to reference specific resources. #s 4, 5, 6 are not about him, but are instances of his work. You cannot use instances of his work, you need resources that are about him. Instances of his work are considered original research (read that). #7 you do not cite Wikipedia entries, you use wp:wikilinks instead. That link back there will show you how. And as for #s 8 & 9, although this is interesting, it's a "minor character" (per #9) and not going to contribute much to notability. LaMona (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

20:17:34, 6 November 2015 review of submission by SriniVin
Hello LaMona,

Thank you for your review. Regarding corporate notability, Avaamo has been covered in Fortune, TheAtlantic, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, EconomicTimes, TechInAsia, and on NPR's Marketplace program. Hence I believe we meet the corporate notability requirement. I updated the draft with new references, and all the references are verifiable and independent of Avaamo. Other companies of similar profile include CoTap and Lua, and their Wikipedia pages have been accepted with similar references.

I hope this provides all the necessary information. If you agree, I'll resubmit the page for editorial review.

Thanks, SriniVin (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * SriniVin, it's not just being "covered" -- it's what the coverage is. So in the articles about emoji, an Avaamo officer is quoted. This is exactly what is NOT considered notable (see the list at wp:corp that includes: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources"). Raising seed money is not notable in itself -- all companies raise money to get started. Now, one article does say "The seed round is one of the largest in the world. " but you haven't included that in the WP article. The VentureBeat articles is BY someone at Avaamo, not about Avaamo, and is therefore not an independent source. And there's not much to gain by saying "has been featured in" -- that doesn't matter, what matters is what they said about the company. "Featured in" doesn't tell me anything about the company. So it isn't just a matter of gathering sources, you have to actually write the article based on what those sources say, and say enough so that a reader of the WP article understands why the company has a WP article. Readers themselves don't care about sources, they want information. LaMona (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

21:20:49, 6 November 2015 review of submission by Aagreeny4
Hi, I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by citing secondary sources. Can you please tell me exactly what you mean by that?

Do you mean create a list of my secondary sources or find sources that prove the reliability of the secondary sources that I already have or did yo mean something completely different? Thank you for helping Aagreeny4 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Aagreeny4 I didn't mention secondary sources so I'm not sure what the question is, but you really must read Referencing_for_beginners, and also reliable sources. You shouldn't be using sources like community college newsletters; you should stick to major media. And I was the one who said to drop all of the marathon stuff -- unless he's one of the famous winners, which it doesnt seem that he is. A primary source would be his own statements in interviews, testimonies before congress, writings and speaking engagements. Those cannot be used. What matters in WP is what others have said about him (which is well explained in referencing for beginners). Those are secondary sources. Primary sources are not allowed. Also, sources that are not independent of him (his school, his buddies, the people who invited him to speak) are not allowed because they are not independent and neutral. You also have a lot of information in here that isn't sourced to any secondary sources, like the whole first part of the personal life section, who he's married to and his children. I suspect that you are not independent of the subject of the article because you know things that you haven't found in sources (and based on your username). For that, you should read: conflict of interest which explains why it is best not to write about people you are close to. It is hard to step back and look at them as if they were a stranger that you had researched. But that is the point of view that WP requires. LaMona (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am confused by what yo are telling me. I was told by username Bearcat last week the difference between primary and secondary sources, and that I can use both as long as I have enough of the notable primary sources, then I can use the secondary sources for additional information. This is completely different from what you are telling me. I would like to understand why there is the difference. Maybe you can talk to Bearcat and understand this difference that i am being told.

Also you did state about the secondary sources in the initial decline. This is copied exactly what you said-   Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. Aagreeny4 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you must have me confused with someone else because I can see the full history of the article and the most recent post is the only one I have made to it. I can see Bearcat's response to you on your talk page and he tells you the opposite of what you say above, and says it quite clearly. What Bearcat tells you there is great advice, and you should follow it. I can't help if you don't understand clear instructions. But you really should be reading the policies. The policies are here on WP for you to read so you don't need to rely on second-hand information from reviewers. I reiterate: wp:n, wp:blp, wp:rs, as well as the ones listed now on your talk page in the reviewer boxes. LaMona (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Marijagerakaroska Your submission at Articles for creation: European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (July 6)
Dear reviewer,

We are trying to create a new article in Wikipedia about the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). This is the European Federation of the National Societies of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine; the aim of the Federation is to connect the National Societies in Europe and to create a platform for all European specialists in this field, thus representing IFCC (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine) in Europe. In the submitted draft we described the Federations, its scope and organization and the mission and activities as well. Our draft has not been accepted (twice) because submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Unfortunately, it is really very difficult to find references about this topic different from the ones reported in our draft. The source of the references could be the Federation website or websites of the Organizations EFLM is collaborating with; it is hard to find printed material from a third part. I’m wondering if you could be so kind and help us to overcome the problem of the references making thus our article suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

I thank you in advance Best regards Francesca Tosato Chair of EFLM Promotion Working Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.121.11 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is unfortunately no way to make an article acceptable other than it meeting the criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not for promotion of people or organizations but is an encyclopedia of those that are already notable, as evidenced by published materials from third parties. If your organization does not meet these criteria, it may in the future; you could submit the article at that later time. Also note that it is not acceptable to create or edit articles in the main (non-draft) space where you are directly associated with the subject of the article. It is allowed in draft space, but once the article is accepted you may no longer edit it directly. See conflict of interest guidelines. Even in the draft space you should place a notice on the talk page of the article declaring your conflict of interest, as well as on your user page. LaMona (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:59:14, 9 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Civil War Historian
WP:CITEBUNDLE appears to allow for multiple citations to be bundled together in the manner applied to this rejected submission. One of the reasons given is in WP:CITEBUNDLE is to reduce the clutter of having several citations in a single paragraph, so I thought his was permissible? Thanks! Civil War Historian (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Civil War Historian (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct, it is allowed with the type of citation format you are using. So re-submit and I will approve. LaMona (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

oh no!11!!
Beware the inline style monster!


 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/World_of_Wikipedia_by_Jon_Robson.png

And watch out for that librarian village, too. :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Bud Harner Draft
LaMona, Bud Harner's page is NOT an autobiography- hence the username change. Please see the following link for the explanation as I'm not going to repeat the entire conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions Allegators (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to repeat the whole thing, but you need to place notices where they will be found. You can reply on the draft page (just select edit). You could also place something on your user talk page. In fact, you do not appear to have a user page and it is always good to have one. However, do not delete entries from that page because we need the documentation trail to be able to understand how the article has evolved. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What notices? That I changed usernames? What else do I need to include on my user page once created?

Allegators (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to put a mention on the talk page of the draft. Your own user page could say that you have also edited as User:BudHarner but that you made the name change for clarify on such and such a date. Your user page is for you to give information about yourself (if you wish - nothing is required) but it looks better if your user page exists rather than being a red-link. LaMona (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see- thanks for the recommendations. Is there anything else you suggest I edit/add before I resubmit Bud Harner's article?

Allegators (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Allegators Unfortunately you do not have a strong case for notability. Notability requires reliable third-party sources. I'm not sure how allmusic is regarded -- are they a directory, or do they actually do independent reviewing? Do they ever give bad reviews? Hopefully others have a better idea. But in any case, most of your links are to a single source, so it would be ideal to find a greater variety of sources to support notability. Also, (again unfortunately) the link to Chapman management doens't mention him, so that cant be used. Interviews and the bio on Verve are not considered independent, so the information they support does not support notability. You need to think more about what attention he has received from the world at large, and look for reviews of his work in other places. "Independent" means someone he does not work for, and who isn't promoting him. (Again, I'm not sure about allmusic, but will look for discussions of it on the reliable sources noticeboard.) LaMona (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Allegators Found this about allmusic:[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#allmusic.com]. And there are other discussions that come to the same conclusion. It can be used to source info about recordings, but does not establish notability. So you can use it linked to the recordings in your article, but it will not count as a source that confers notability -- mainly since they cover ALL music (as their name says) so there is no selection process that would make the entries notable. LaMona (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I updated the Chapman Management link where it mentions Bud Harner as an employee- although that really isn't a source of his notability. Regarding my use of Allmusic as a source- Allmusic lists recording credits and awards a particular recording has received. This also includes Billboard chart information (several of the tracks Bud played on and produced were in the top 10 and several hit #1; not to mention the Gold and Platinum records he played on and produced. The Gold and Platinum recordings are cited from RIAA's website (Recording Industry Association of America- http://www.riaa.com/index.php). I'm still not fully understanding why Allmusic is not a source of notability as the majority of Bud Harner's notability is in recordings he either played on or produced. I suppose I can cite the chart topping recordings via Billboard's website archives. Although their chart archives do not list the credits of each recording- only Allmusic does.

Allegators (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Marianna Yarovskaya
Hi LaMona

You have accepted Marianna Yarovskaya page today but page is not there, can you please check.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamothers (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Iamothers, It was deleted by User:Ymblanter. From what I can tell, it had been deleted before as you can see here: Articles_for_deletion/Marianna_Yarovskaya. In my experience, previously deleted articles can be re-created as good articles. Having been previously deleted does not mean an article by that name can never be recreated. However, I was not part of the previous delete process and do not know what transpired. You may wish to contact Ymblanter on their talk page for more information. LaMona (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:23:39, 10 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elenabolo
Hello! The article I'm helping to create was rejected three times already... I tried adding sources & references, but nothing seems to work. This article is dedicated to the pretty old, well respected, annual international conference in mathematics (IWOTA): it was started in 1981, and is still very active, getting on average 200-300 scientists and engineers to participate every year. IWOTA is supported by National Science Foundation as well as by many international organizations such as London Mathematical Society, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, etc. By all standards, it deserves a page in encyclopedia.

Since it is my first project, I looked up some similar pages in wikipedia (dedicated to other academic conferences) -- they do not look much different from IWOTA's, and most do not have ANY references at all... Here are some of them:

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workshop_on_Balto-Slavic_Accentology

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

May I please ask you to tell me exactly what is lacking on IWOTA's page? Why the references to its proceedings (published by a very reputable Springer/Birkhäuser) and to the NSF funding awards pages are not sufficient?

Would the photographs from different IWOTA meetings be a good addition? (many renowned scientists were presenting talks there)

Thank you very much for your help!

Elenabolo (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Elenabolo, WP requires that EVERY fact in the article be supported by what we call secondary sources. You have many statements in the article that are not so supported. For example, the sentence that begins "Gohberg was one of the few operator theorists..." is not sourced, and because it is a statement of fact it must be. Note also that the transactions and proceedings of the conference are not evidence of notability, but writings ABOUT the conference by neutral third parties are. Notability comes from having been written about by independent sources. This is difficult for conferences because they are not often written about, but these are the basic rules for notability. Read the description at reliable sources. That other articles exist that you think do not meet the WP policies is not a viable argument -- WP is constantly being edited, and each day about 100 articles are deleted for not meeting the notability guidelines. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your feedback re my Katherine Timpf article
Thanks for your feedback. I've removed all citations of the Hillsdale Collegian from the article. One problem is that I would love to use some details from the Collegian articles relating to Katherine's "Early Life." Should I not do that? I've also removed all but one citation of Red Alert Politics. That citation is in the "Awards and honors" section and says she was on the Red Alert Politics "30 under 30" list. Is that appropriate? Thanks again Joekollege (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Joekollege - The question about Red Alert is: is it a reliable source, as per wp:rs? In general I'd say no, and that "award" does nothing to show notability for her compared to other information in the article. With that deleted, she's just as notable as before. #19-#21 - you cannot use WP as a reference. It is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it. #1 and #2 are statements by her, therefore primary sources, whereas secondary sources are preferred. Being briefly quoted does not confer notability (#11-#15) - those aren't ABOUT her. You shouldn't need to dig deep into unreliable sources for your information if your subject is notable. I don't see any articles here that are expressly about her although she is mentioned in the ones you use. You need to find third-party articles about her - reviews of her shows, that kind of thing. If those don't exist, then she isn't (yet) notable, and the article should wait until those sources do exist. LaMona (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:25:23, 11 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Amyers82191
Hi there,

I received your message for the Direct Capital page I am trying to get approved. I noticed some of the references were already changed (ex: honorable mention in one of the awards sections). I want to get this approved, but at this point I really am struggling to see what still needs to be changed. Can you please be more specific in guiding me in the right direction? I've taken a lot of effort to find appropriate, non-bias sources over the many edits I've made so that this can be complete. Thank you,

Alex

Amyers82191 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Amyers82191 We can start by determining why you are so desperate to get this approved. If a company is not notable, it should not be in Wikipedia. When it comes to entertainment figures, their supporters tend to be fans. When it comes to companies, the supporter is often related somehow to the company - an employee, a founder, or a paid editor. This article looks quite promotional to me, and this is the only article that you have edited on WP. We encourage people to join us here at WP to create a world-class encyclopedia, and that means being committed to our goals. Promoting a company is not included in those goals. Can you state your relationship with the company, and why you feel so strongly about it having a WP article? That said, not every company meets the requirements for notability -- WP is not a company directory, nor is it a place to promote entities. If you have not yet done so, please look at the conflict of interest policies. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

07:54:28, 12 November 2015 review of submission by E W Musgrave
Morning! I was surprised to get your note about the biography of Don McCarthy not qualifying to appear on Wikipedia. His appropriateness had been confirmed by another editor some months ago. He is one of the most significant figures in UK fashion retailing. Additionally, I am still perplexed by the comments that some of the references are not appropriate and accurate. These have been checked by at least two professional business journalists, who find them correct and proper. I should point out that as Don McCarthy has held positions such as executive chairman, chief executive officer, major shareholder etc, the action of the company was directed by him, hence the need to state what the company achieved. I look forward to hearing your response as I would like to see this entry appearing on Wikipedia. E W Musgrave 07:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read carefully all of the comments you have received. The problem is that there are unsourced statements of fact in your article, many of which have to noted with a mark. All statements of fact, especially those about living persons, must be sourced to reliable, third-party sources otherwise they will be deleted. It is especially inappropriate to say un-verifiable things about a living person. The problem is not with the notability of the subject of the article, but with the article as written. Also note that being a chairman, etc., is not itself a reason to have a WP article. Again, please read carefully the rules for notability, which require third-party sources regardless of the real life achievements of the subject. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Stub tags
Please take care not to add stub to an article which already has a specific stub tag, as you did in this edit. It just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. Pam D  16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I caught one and removed it, so I'll check first. New to new article patrol, still learning. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:25:46, 12 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elenabolo
Thank you so much for your explanations! I think I understand now how to improve my draft. Thank you for your time -- your work is very appreciated.

Elenabolo (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Bitsbox and RS
I was just having a look at WP:AFC and came across Draft:Bitsbox. Thanks for your work generally at AFC, but I'm just wondering about the review you gave the creator of this draft.


 * many sources (e.g. the first 3) are not considered reliable

Some of the sources seem pretty unreliable, but source two—this TechCrunch article—seems pretty reliable. It's written by an experienced writer for a website that has editorial oversight and whose work has been republished/syndicated to more mainstream journalism outlets. Just wondering on what basis you consider it to not be reliable. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to look at the draft I was seeing here. There were blogs and personal sites. And, amazingly, the creator seems to have figured it out -- the article now looks much better. LaMona (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

18:25:06, 15 November 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor
Thanks for reviewing my article on the Two Row Treaty Renewal Journey and pointing out its narrow focus on the event of the journey itself. I have revised the article to put the event and the treaty in historical context and to add some of the ongoing impacts of the renewal campaign, including applications of the treaty in Congressional testimony against use of racist mascots, in the campaign against fracking in NY, and in support of other environmental and human rights causes. I believe the new version will give a more encyclopedic view of the treaty's renewal, and would respectfully request another review.

Also, I would like to revise the title slightly, to become "River Journey to Renew the Two Row Wampum Treaty." I've tried to do that while I had the article in Edit mode, but didn't see a way to change the title there.


 * I'd advise you to begin by adding any new information you have to the article on the Two Row Wampum Treaty. An existing article is always the place to start. Your article is still primarily about a single event. If you have enough material for a separate article on the efforts to renew the treaty, then treaty renewal could potentially be an article of its own. But the canoe trip is unlikely to be encyclopedic itself, while efforts to renew the treaty could be. (p.s. article name changes can be done at the time of acceptance, or as a "move" function.) LaMona (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely at that article, I would imagine that a section headed "400th Anniversary Celebration" would make sense. It should be only a paragraph or two -- I'm thinking something like the opening paragraph of the Atlantic article -- basically saying that it was celebrated with a 13-day trip along the river, stopping for celebrations like (name one or two), and culminating at a meeting at the UN. Then I think you may have content that could be added to the section on Interpretation. If you wish, we can begin to sketch this out on the talk page of the article Talk:Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty.That is the usual place to discuss changes to an existing article. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

09:08:10, 16 November 2015 review of submission by Kino domino2015
Dear La Mona,

Could you please review once again an article abot Andrey Bystritsky, I added links to the reliable sources and media. Moreover an article about this person already ewxists on Russian Wikipedia. When this article would be accepted to show for the public?

Best Regards,

Nikolay


 * Hi, Nikolay. thanks for your effort. However, you still have a lot of unreferenced statements in the article. So it's not just having links, but having links for every statement of fact that shows that you built the entire article from reliable third-party sources. Note that every WP has their own rules, and even their own interests, so the fact that the person has an article in another WP doesn't mean that they meet the criteria for WP@en. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:18:28, 19 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Purpledamaris
Hi LaMona!

Thanks for your feedback on my article! However, I need some help from you because I'm a newbie here and would like to hear your thoughts.

1. Regarding notability, I will search more references talking about the online app. Other Wikipedia editors mentioned that I can reference reviews as long as they are not written by individuals but written in professional sites with editorial oversight. Would you have any other suggestions of references that I can use for this? I thought my previous references were all right, but you have removed 2/3 of them so now I am not sure which ones are ok.

2. Regarding user downloads, I noticed that other Wikipedia pages talking about apps like Instagram or UC Browser had sections talking about the number of users and downloads. That is why I also included this in my article. Maybe I can include these again but under a different heading such as "Popularity" or "Users"?

Hope to hear from you soon!

Michelle

Purpledamaris (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by, Purpledamaris. In terms of reviews, you must use sources unrelated to the company. You may not use blogs, personal sites, or crowd-sourced sites. Ideally you should find articles in newspapers and magazines that are regularly published and even found on newsstands - the better known the better. Beyond that, make sure that if you cite a web site that it has an actual editorial board and staff (cf. Techcrunch). As for the information about number of users and downloads, that is relevant if your software is notable, but you cannot use that to establish notability. Prove notability first, then that information becomes secondary. However, in your article, that was just about all you were saying about the software. It's a bit hard to compare your article to the one on Instagram, but note that in that article there is a lot that is said about the software, and the user stats are only a minor portion of it. In addition, those stats should come from reliable, independent sources. You need to find much more to say about the software, and you can possibly get that from reviews. Also, keep in mind that not every company nor every product can have an article on WP -- only those that have been proven notable by the fact that they have been written about by a good number of reliable sources, and that those sources had a significant amount to say about them. If you don't find enough sources now, you can always create the article in the future when more appear. You can keep this article around for about 6 months, after which it may get deleted during a clean-up of old submissions. Come back if you have other questions. LaMona (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)