User talk:Onel5969/Archive 7

Archive 7: June 2014

Regarding Richard Wray's biography
Hello. Thank you for the prompt feedback on the article. Much appreciated. We've been having a lot of trouble meeting the guidelines for sources lately. The thing about it is, as renowned as Richard Wray was, he was still essentially a LOCAL figure of Houston art. Houston isn't a New York Times sort of location; when it comes to art, they have the Houston Press, the Houston Chronicle, and a handful of art institutions. Not only are the the 12 listed references the best ones available, but they're the ONLY ones available. We've spent hours scouring the web for other sources, but these are the only ones around. This is what we have to work with, and I feel that, for a local figure, these are reliable sources. This Wikipedia article lends itself to the people of Houston; we're not trying to make Mr. Wray a worldwide celebrity. Having said that, those from Houston who wish to read the article to learn more about Mr. Wray will find most of these references noteworthy, as they are essential to localized coverage. In all practicality, there is not much else to be done. What do you suggest? PS: There are only two sources from his website: a resume and biography, the latter of which having not even been written by him. The one from cnx.org is actually an interview conducted by Sarah Reynolds, who wrote the book "Houston Reflections: Art in the City." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.59.136 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yeah, that's a hard one.  Sometimes, when someone is a local "star", that still doesn't qualify them for notability per wp standards.  I will say this, of the 8 or so articles I looked at today which didn't meet the notability requirements, this article was the closest.  I think if you could come up with one or two sources, perhaps from the art sections of the newspapers in the other cities he gave shows, that would help.  Or a reference or two regarding him in a national paper.  The notability guidelines for creative folk are:


 * 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * 3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4.The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.


 * His Texas artist of the year might help. The link in the article isn't about the year he won, he only appears on the list at the end.  On the whole, I don't think you're far away.  Perhaps there are non-online sources you could reference?  Books on art?  Art of the southwest?  etc.... If you can slightly improve the links, resubmit and leave me a message, and I'll look at it again.  Onel5969 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Richard Wray's biography
Hello. Thanks for pushing us to find more sources. We actually managed to find some of the noteworthy sources you're interested in. Please see reference numbers 4, 11, and 15. The 4th one is an extensive list of Wray's work on the official website for the National Gallery of Art. That's a .gov site, so it's definitely credible. The 11th one is an actual book written by Jim and Wade Wilson; this is a formidable citation of Wray's Texas Artist of the Year award. The 15th one is from an actual printed magazine (the Texas Monthly) from 1977 that covered Wray's exhibit at a museum (here's the page: http://books.google.com/books?id=KioEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=dick+wray+texas+monthly&source=bl&ots=9BAWgNzjN2&sig=rLiLCLLFBfa2grIPB3mOH2-9K3k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aduQU-uVHIa0yAS1_4KgDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dick%20wray%20texas%20monthly&f=false). I used a quote from that article that was more negative toward Wray's work and placed it in the critical reception section; this should increase the objectiveness of the critical reception section.

This is the best we could find. We appreciate your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.59.136 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, those should do it. Resubmit it, and I'll approve it.Onel5969 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Richard Wray's biography
It has been resubmitted. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.59.136 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There you go. Nice job! Onel5969 (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi!
Hello!

You recently declined my article for submission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jhiatus3/sandbox Jhiatus3 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Can you help me improve it with more specifics? I've submitted this twice and it seems to meet at least two of the criteria for notability for bands. I just want to learn how I can make this article better so it can be accepted. But I'm so confused on what more I can do that I have not already done, having followed the guidelines carefully. I must be missing something that I'm not privy to. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you Jhiatus3 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC) jhiatus3


 * Hi  You have quite a few citations on the page, but none are from really notable sources.  The closest you come to that is the Phoenix New Times, which at best is a fringe source.  Believe me, I wanted to accept the article, living in the valley myself, but couldn't.  I went through each of the 12 guidelines, which you can find HERE, and did not see them fulfilling any of them.  Which two do you think they satisfy?  I will say that it was close.  If you could come up with another independent, reliable source, that would push them over the top (you're not holding back a Rolling Stone article are you?).


 * On another note, if we can get them past the notability issue, the article still needs a very thorough copy editing. The structure seems fine.  I hope this helps, and I'll help you as much as I am able to get you through this process. Onel5969 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and your willingness to help me get this article into shape! I have no doubt that eventually it will become passable. I'll gather together more press and run it passed you when I do before I resubmit. I'll also run past those two criteria of notability I feel the group meets once I can gather a bit more supporting material. I should be in contact in the next two weeks to follow with you. Thanks again! Jhiatus3 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick question for you. Here are the two notability criteria I feel meet those outlined in The Band Notability Guidelines: HERE. 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

This band as been the subject of multiple stories and reviews by sources completely independent of the band (i.e. not self-published). Some notable sources include: Phoenix New Times, Minneapolis City Pages, Sputnikmusic, San Antonio Weekly, and El Paso Times.

2. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 5]

This band has been covered in France's New Noise Magazine three times, and one of those times was a feature on their European tour. http://www.noisemag.net/ This is a notable source in France, comparable to Alternative Press Magazine here in the US. Wikipedia France has an entry for New Noise Magazine, so it must meet some kind of notability criteria.

3. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

The band has released two albums on Fake Four Inc. This Label has been around for more that five years and has a roster of including major independent performers who themselves all have Wikipedia entries, thus proving their notability.

Is this at all helpful? Am I closer to having this article accepted? Thanks for any advice or insight!! Jhiatus3 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I'm no longer involved with this wiki project, but will definitely continue to give you input.  Regarding your notes in #1, both the Phoenix New Times and San Antonio source are recognized outside their local spheres of influence, but are still at best fringe sources.  The other 3, aren't even that.  On #2, I'd have to take a look at those sources, and what the national tour means.  Regarding #3, the indie label doesn't seem to have any notable groups on it.  Having said that, they have quite a few with their own Wikipedia articles.  Why don't you submit the article again, and see if it's approved this time.  Onel5969 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. I noticed something interesting. on this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botzy you will find one of the former members of Moodie Black. Two things concern me about this article that has been accepted. 1. Botzy has no notable sourced media, at least as far as you an I have been understanding "notability" and the few he does have Moodie Black has as well and then some. 2. I notice that he is listed as being on a the indie label Fake Four. This is not true. He is not signed to any lable, especially not Fake Four. How did that one get past reviwers? how is s that even possible?

any insight or advice? Jhiatus3 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast versus Main cast
Hi Onel5969! I noticed that you reverted my change of "Cast" to "Main cast" in Sea Devils with reference to WP:FILMCAST. However, there is nothing there that says that the chapter heading must be "Cast" and nothing else. My purpose on changing "Cast" to "Main cast" (which I do regularly) is to show that the cast consists of more actors and characters than those listed. This is especially true for older films, where only the main actors tended to get a credit - and for many newer films the Wikipedia cast list always only shows the main cast (otherwise it would be a mile long). So, any reason why "Main cast" shouldn't be used? Cheers! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Thomas! And thank you for the edit on this piece (I'm currently working on an overhaul of EVERY RKO film, so appreciate any help).  While their is nothing that says that the section "must" be called "Cast", it clearly says that the section should be called by that name.  Having said that, I understand your point (my wife was an actress who had several minor roles and would never qualify to be included in the Cast list here on wp).  However, in my meager attempt to try and make wp more encyclopedic, when we can be more standardized (without sacrificing creativity), I think we should be.  Two of those areas are structure and titling.  For example, wp has decided that section titles should follow sentence capitalization, and so we do.  On the city project, we decided there should be a certain order to the sections (even though I disagree with the order), in the US I went through the top 100 cities and put them all in the same order.  I won't revert your change, but hope you see the value of making them all the same.  And since the vast majority of film sections are called "Cast", I would stick with that.  Onel5969 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy
Thank you,
 * Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy
 * 1) Please see Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy.
 * 2) I had no strong objections to your helpful specific suggestions, so I just went ahead and voluntarily implemented all of them directly into the article.
 * 3) Hopefully this is now to your satisfaction, and the NPOV tag can be removed at this point in time.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Wiki as reference for UTEP for El Paso, Texas page
Thanks it has been corrected. However I noticed your attempt at removal of this one item removed multiple valid entries. I hope there is a more efficient way, seems like using a shotgun to kill a fly inside a house - it works but there is a lot of damage to what should be kept.

Thanks again I'm learning the rules as I go.

BanditRider22 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BanditRider22 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Fractured Atlas draft
Hi,

Thanks for reviewing the draft page on Fractured Atlas. I've made the changes to the citation format you requested (hopefully I got it right!) I'm not sure what to do about the Wall Street Journal articles, since they're obviously reputable, but I agree it's a concern that they're behind a paywall. (You can trick the WSJ website into thinking you've arrived through a Google search, in which case they show the whole article, but that's ethically questionable.) Also, the one unconfirmed citation that points to the Fractured Atlas blog is tricky since there wasn't any independent press on this event. That's why I phrased the claim as being about Fractured Atlas's announcement (i.e. the blog post itself) rather than anything more substantive. I hope that works.

Thanks, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthehutt (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Approved the article.  Also provided the correct format for the first citation.  You can look at that and see the difference between how you have them formatted, and the way I do it.  There are other ways to do it as well, but this seems to be the most accepted.  One thing you left out is the date you accessed the references.  That's important, in case of "link rot" (when a link goes bad).  Another thing I do, but most editors don't, because it is time consuming, is to provide an archive link to the web source, that way it never goes away.  But as I said, that's just me.  Nice article.  Don't worry about the one link to the blog, citations are only if there is information that may be contested, and doubtful anyone would contest that.  The WSJ article isn't a big issue either, since you cite the date and author of the article, someone can go and look it up ... no different than if you were citing a book.  Onel5969 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Onel
Thanks for each correction that you did. I read all the corrections and is OK. But, as you said "Sin Razones" wants to say in Spanish "Sin Razones" ("Without Reasons"), expresa que no existen razones para poner a prueba su amor". And you wrote something different. Thank you very much for all, greetings from Colombia.

&mdash; Luis Nuñez (talk) 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Kieran O'Reilly Page
Hello,

Thank you so much for reviewing my new article on Kieran_O’Reilly_(Performer). I would like to ask you a few questions, if you don't mind:


 * The page was given a "Start" class rating. Would you be able to give me some tips on how I could improve it? I've de-orphaned it. I can add more categories to it but is there anything else I can do to improve the rating?
 * When someone types Kieran O'Reilly into Wikipedia's search bar, another Kieran O'Reilly (a bishop) pops up. I guess I need to create a disambiguation page but the article on Disambiguation pages is a little heavy and lengthy. Could you point me the appropriate section of this page (or another page?) to help me do what's right in this situation?

Many thanks for this and sorry to bother you.

Supadog (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're not bothering me. Questions are always welcome.  I saw you de-orphaned it, so that's good.  I'm the one who graded it start class, and it's currently borderline C class, and a different editor might see it that way.  I tend to be conservative when dealing with another group's subject matter (in this case, it would fall into the music projects I put on the talk page).  Hopefully in the next couple of weeks, someone from one of those groups will take a look at it and review my classification.  If you click on the links on the talk page for "quality scale", it will show you what people look for when classifying articles.


 * Don't get uptight over its classification, it is what it is sometimes. Based on the amount of information available, this article is in about as good shape as it can be.  Over the next couple of days, I'll do a copy edit on it, to tighten it and bring it into wp guidelines (for example, 'Absence' should really be Absence).  As more information, citable, becomes available, add it.  That's the best way to improve the article.  Another way is to add images to the article.  But they have to be free to use (like your own photo of Kieran).


 * Look at other articles about musicians, especially those which are not as well known, look at what they are rated, and they can give you ideas. And regarding the Disambiguation issue, to be honest, I haven't done one myself yet, but let me take a look and see if I can figure it out.  Onel5969 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips and for creating the disambiguation page. Much appreciated. Supadog (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

E.C. "Teddy Blue" Abbott
Hello One15969: You twice reverted inclusion of E.C. "Teddy Blue" Abbott from Lincoln, Nebraska. Your rationale: he's insufficiently notable because he lacks his own Wikipedia article. I beg to differ, on several bases: Would you please point out the exact paragraph in Wikipedia's guidelines that documents the requirment that someone have an article written about them in order to be included on a "List of notable people" list?
 * 1) He's a member of the Montana Cowboy Hall of Fame (District 6), he wrote a book that's been reprinted multiple times and illustrated, and he's been written about quite a bit as well as featured onscreen (e.g., in Buffalo Girls (1995 film), and
 * 2) Multiple lists of "notable people" in Wikipedia include people who don't have entire Wikipedia articles written about them.

Thanks, Froid (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I listed the rationale on the article's talk page. It's not that he doesn't have his own article (although that's a quick and easy way to affirm notability - but I couldn't write all that in the edit summary), but that he doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:PEOPLE.  Which is the standard for inclusion on a notable people list for a city.  I did a quick search and found no information regarding him.  However, I must have mistyped his name.  A further search shows that he has been written about (even has a PBS article) extensively, and I have since revised my view that he is not notable. Please disregard the post I made on the talk page... in fact, I will add a comment there as well. Onel5969 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was a process... but I finally got it done, the disambiguation page, I mean. Happy editing!Onel5969 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Finn Partners Help
New to Wikipedia, need help understanding requested changes. In May editor suggested citations were not reliable sources and that there were too many of them. I edited draft, removing some sources and ensured remaining cited sources were industry publications. New feedback says to include more sources. Can I confirm my sources are acceptable before adding more? Remf29 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for taking the time to try to learn.  The citations you use are fine to provide support to the content in the article, but unfortunately they do not do anything to prove the notability of the article's subject.  Not every successful business or person is notable, per wiki standards.  There would have to be significant coverage in non-trade papers, by independent persons.  In other words, has this firm every had an article done by the WS Journal?  Newsday?  Any major publication?  There's nothing wrong with the article, it's structure and writing are fine, it's just simply that this company might not be notable enough.  I've been there, had an article I wrote been declined... I've also had an article that I wrote and was published been the subject of a request for deletion, for lack of notability.  However, in that last instance, the subject of the article barely squeaked by.  Bottom line is, if you can't find some mainstream publication articles on this company, you might be better served by choosing a different subject to write about.  I hope this helps, and don't let it get you down, keep editing! Onel5969 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Onel5969 - this is very helpful. Will work on notability and continue editing. I feel like it is a company that deserves to be in wikipedia, but the very nature of its business means that most mainstream publications aren't going to write about it. I've seen other public relations companies in wikipedia; perhaps what I need to do is put in more description about its clients and work. Do you think that would help? Again, any advice is appreciated. Thank you for your time. Remf29 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Lawyer.com Submission
Hi there,

I see that you reviewed the entry for Lawyer.com and was denied. I was wondering what suggestions you had for me to improve it. I see that you mentioned references need to be improved, and I did list Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Forbes.

Can you please make some more suggestions for me in order to get the listing approved? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. And those three would be good citations, and with them would probably qualify the article as notable, unfortunately all 3 of them are not about lawyer.com, but mail.com.  If you could come up with similar citations for lawyer.com, that would help to prove the notability.  Onel5969 (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to go ahead and continue working on the page, including some new citations. I'm excited at the prospect of helping out Wiki users learn more about Lawyer.com, as I've noticed a few different pages on the site mention us. Would it be helpful to link to these pages as well? Any other feedback you have would be much appreciated; I plan on adding a "History" and "Features" section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiana of Capua and Adelaide of Riedenburg
Please vote on Articles for deletion/Cristiana of Capua and Adelaide of Riedenburg.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Passport
Hi,

in this edit, your comment and the result of the edit seem to contradict each other...

Richard 08:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I did that.  Thankfully, it's been corrected. Onel5969 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't know it, I won't even begin to guess ;) Richard 14:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation to Onel5969
Thank you for your specific and detailed response. Also thank you for explaining how to communicate with you. I fear, though, that that method is not self-evident.

I will now stop the exercise of creating this Wikipedia entry. You have convinced me that, by Wikipedia rules, Thos. Kent Miller is not notable and cannot be made to appear notable. However, I disagree for this reason: Miller is notable because he is the first and only author to bring back Rider Haggard's important character Allan Quatermain (in two novels: 2005, 2013) in a literary fashion (as opposed to through the medium of comic novels). That makes him most notable in my book.

Please remove my entry whenever convenient for you.

Best, doyleelmocollins Doyleelmocollins (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Reason for refused article
Hello. May I learn why my article is refused? So I can fix the problems before I re submit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelik83 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd need to know what article you're talking about. Onel5969 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OneI5969, when someone neglects to say, you can generally find it in their user contributions. saves a step. Every back and forth exchange increases the odds the person will never return. The article is Draft:The Blue Man (Film 2014). Myself, I think it would do well to have a US review, not just a listing at a festival where is was essentially only an honoorable mention.   DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Blue Man related article
Hello, Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/middleeast/05grave.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

But it was already in my references. It is listed number 1 in references list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelik83 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's still not the name of the article.Onel5969 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Name of the article.
The name of the article is "Uncovering Iraq's Horrors in Desert Graves" which explains about The Blue Man mass grave. If you want I can change the sentence on my draft. Instead of "based on the article", I can use "related to the article". How is that sound? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucelik83 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The name of the article is The Blue Man (Film 2014).  And I had to spend over half an hour finding it.  That's the first problem, you're unsure what the name of your own article is.  Second problem is, that when it was declined, it listed the reason.  The film is not notable per WP:NOTFILM. There is not a SINGLE citation which speaks to the film's notability.  The best citation, from the New York Times, does not even mention the film.  No offense, but I won't be answering any more of your questions.  Onel5969 (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lovin' the Ladies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Marsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROF
I accepted Werner Gruner under provision 6 of WP:PROF; all that needs to be shown for notability is reliable evidence of that position, ehich is mentioned in the first paragraph.  DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The FP's FA nom
Hey! I was wondering if you and would be willing to cast a vote on the nomination, since you both left a lot of comments. It's pretty much stalled at this point.

Also, since that will probably bring Erik here, are you guys still wanting to make a discussion involving MOS:ELLIPSIS?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely stop by there and vote for it. Will do that later, since I will want to leave some details.  Regarding the ellipsis thing... I completely see Erik's point.  That would be a discussion on the MOS page, however, and at some point I'll bring it up on the talk page there.  Onel5969 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! And that was actually what I meant, opening the discussion over there. And one more time, just for the sake of it, thank you for all your help. If you ever need help with an article you're working on, I gotcha.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Question on Paul Hayes Tucker Submission Declined
In the rejection of Paul Hayes Tucker submission you listed one of the reasons being he did not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. However, as an academic with published works listed as well as a large exhibition record, I am unsure of how to remedy this. As far as additional citations listing him, will providing additional source material addressing him satisfy the requirement?

Eidsey (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Eidsey


 * Hi. Although he is a professor, his notability would stem from his curation activities, so WP:PROF would not apply (although he would not qualify under that, either), he'd fall under the broader WP:BIO criteria. The key criteria for Tucker would be: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Citation 1 merely mentions him in passing (although it is a very good citation to back up the fact in that sentence); As I said in my brief note, vimeo is not a reliable source, ever.  The rest of the citations are from regional sources for the most part, and seem to be of the same type of citation as #1.  Several are by the source himself, and therefore neither independent, nor reliable, same with alumni/corporate bios (which would include bios done for art showings).  The best reference you have is the NYT Brenson article.  That's really good, if you came up with more like that from other sources, it would show his notability.  If he is world renowned, you would think he'd have stuff in papers from Washington DC, LA, Chicago, London, etc.  The best thing would be if you could replace the faculty bio cite (7) with citations from reliable, independent sources.


 * You also state opinions as fact throughout the article, in other words, you say things without backing them up with citations, even if they are about someone else in the article, such as "... Robert L. Herbert, a pioneer in developing ...", "...Carlton J. H. Hayes, a distinguished history professor ...", "It was there where he first received the inspiration ..."


 * In addition, the formatting of the article is pretty screwed up. The pictures are not showing, the section headers aren't properly done, you can find out more about how to correct those issues at MOS:IMAGES and MOS:LAYOUT.


 * Finally, the article also has a slight NPOV issue. Avoid using phrases like, "the world’s foremost authority", "has the unique distinction", "Devoted husband..." and "Inviting to a wide cross-section of audiences".  Temper those types of statements simply by saying "one of the world's...", "has the distinction...", "Married to...", and simply dropping that lead in sentence, which is an opinion, not a fact.  Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Laporte Wikipedia
Hi Onel5969, Thanks for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia article you edited. Can you help me edit it in a way that would make it more "credible" for Wikipedia. In you comments you stated that it reads like a local CPA firm. I edited this article to be similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGladrey which is of similar size and notability to LaPorte. What is it about McGladrey that made it work for Wikipedia and how can I edit Laporte so that it is worthy to live in the Wikipedia space?

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-edit-king (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. And it's great that you have an example to follow (that's how I started to create articles as well).  First, lose the section on the directors.  That's a glamor thing for them, and completely irrelevant to the article itself, unless the directors are folks like Al Gore, Dick Cheney, etc... (very notable).  Most of the milestones are not relevant: 1946, 1973, 2003, 2004 (the first one), the first 2007, 2010 and the first 2011 are the only ones which belong on the list.  The recognition and legal structure sections are fine.  Delete the services provided, that clearly reads like an advert for the agency, as do the staff and international capabilities section (the former reads like a promo to hiring, the latter, again like an advert)


 * Overall, the format needs work. the heading "LaPorte", needs to be deleted, the paragraph is a nice lead section, although it needs to have things like "advanced degrees" and other information which seems to promote the agency, rather than simply inform the reader.  Use the McGladrey article as a reference, they are a far larger (6500 vs 160 employees, 75 cities vs 4) firm, and that article does not toot their horn anywhere near this article.  You can read MOS:LAYOUT to show you the proper layout for an article.


 * The other issue with the article, is one of notability. The references cited, while providing the basis for the facts in the article, don't really show the firm's notability.  Not a single citation seems to show how this firm satisfies WP:ORGSIG.  Just because a firm exists, and is a nice place to work, does not make it rise to the level of notability.  Not a single citation from an independent reliable source discusses the firm and how they have had a demonstrable effect on society.  McGladrey, as an example, is borderline in this area as well, but the BusinessWeek citation and their Team McGladrey push them over the edge. I hope this helps.  Onel5969 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Versus You
Hi, I have the inline citations attached and for the Wikipedia: notability (music) criteria, Versus You hit 5 of them: 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. See the references list of the article, rtl.lu and eldoradio.lu etc. 2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The singles "The Hotel Room" and "Be Better Than Me" were in the luxembourg national charts, look also at the references. 5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Bomber Music, Long Beach Records, Fond of Life records and Flix Records are noteable Indie-labels with a huge amount of artists, here are links to the label websites where you can check this: 1.bombermusic artists 2.longbeachrecords artists 3.fondoflife, just click on the Bands button 4.flix-records bands. 7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Versus You is definitely one of the most popular luxembourgish bands and for sure the most significant Punk band from Luxembourg. What the references also tell. And last but not least 11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Versus You were already a few times in the heavy rotation of the national charts. I hope that the issues that my article has had, can be fixed with this arguments.
 * Thanks in advance, with friendly greetings --Irukandji85 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! Well, they only have to meet one of the criteria. Not sure they meet #1, other than the rtl and eldo sources, the rest do not rise them to the level of notability (facebook should NEVER be used as a reference, same for youtube, vimeo, imdb... any sight which has no editorial oversight).  rtl and eldo are fringe sources, at best. However, their chart appearance would definitely qualify them under #2.  They would also seem to qualify under #5.  While they may meet #7 and #11, the inline citations don't indicate it.  I'm going to approve it, solely on the basis of #5, since that is clearly cited and stated in the article.  However, their chart performance has no inline citation, you should fix that.  Thanks for your efforts on this article.  Onel5969 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Jane Buchan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jane_Buchan

Thank you for commenting on the draft for this entry. I was suggested to reference more journals by the previous editor, and did so in this update. You stated that "Interviews and press releases are neither independent nor reliable sources. The citations listed do not rise to the level of notability," and understand what you mean. Should I only reference the journals? What would be your next move if you wanted to get this post? Should I shorten the article to the bare bone basics on this one? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sososorry (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! You can use interviews definitely to support facts in the article, and to a certain extent, press releases as well, but neither can be used regarding NOTABILITY.  There are some things which can rarely, if ever, be used as a citation (e.g. youtube, vimeo, imdb, facebook, most blogs), in general, if a reference site is has not editorial control over it, it is unreliable.  It also helps if the citations are in the proper format (see WP:CIT).  I edited one of the section headings to also give you the proper format for those as well.


 * Any fact you have in the article (like her husband winning the hammer throw) should have a citation, and they should be as independent and reliable as possible. Include in the article only those things which are citable, or won't be contested.  What I mean by this, is her marriage most likely won't be contested, so you do not need a cite for that, but his winning the medal does need a citation.  Send me a message and I'll take a look at it when you resubmit it, and help you get it to the point where it will be accepted. Onel5969 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Firebase
Hi there, thanks for reviewing the article I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Firebase). Can you elaborate on it's non-neutralness? I tried to be only factual and non-opinionated in the writing, but it's my fist attempt at an article and would really appreciate some advice on what else I can do to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termed (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! The text is written to advertise, not to explain why it's notable. For example, "lists of services" denotes why you would choose this company, not what this company is about.  To be honest, sometimes it's difficult to put your finger on advertising versus simply reporting.  As an example, take the verbiage regarding Firepad.  You have, "Firepad is an open source collaborative real-time editor. It is customizable, supporting both rich-text as well as source code editing. Released under the MIT License, Firepad is used by the Atlassian Stash Realtime Editor and Koding, among others. Firepad uses the Firebase Realtime Database to power it's collaborative features."  That goes beyond mere reporting the facts, and is written as an enticement, a more neutral description might be, "Firepad is an open source collaborative real-time editor. Released under the MIT License, Firepad is used by several editors, including the Atlassian Stash Realtime Editor and Koding."  The deletion of the two sentences removes the marketing language.  I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, it's super helpful. I've updated the article. - Termed — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Revised edits to Bobby Bones (broadcaster)
Hi - regarding the proposed page on Bobby Bones (broadcaster). I want to clean up any issues with my citations. After reviewing the guidelines, I see that I can ref to the same article with a different set of tags and will do that. Is there something else I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khachapuri (talk • contribs) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry previous message was supposed to be draft. I will add more citations for facts. I wanted to clarify what was needed for references to be properly formatted; e.g. is it because of reference to same material multiple times without proper citation? Or something wrong with the form I've used for citations? User:khachapuri — Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! All of your references are what is know as "naked links", simply using an https link.  If you go to WP:CIT, it gives you templates, where you can put the link, author, publisher, date accessed, etc.  That's what I was referring to.  Hope this answers your question.  Onel5969 (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Very helpful and much appreciated. Two questions: (1) I have updated links in the Early Life section using the citation template.  Can you check it and let me know if this is how I should proceed through the rest of the article? (2) Can you be more specific about which facts need citations?  Khachapuri


 * OK, I've added facts (with citations) and updated link information where I thought appropriate (news articles, v. links to imdb) When and how do I learn if the page is going live? thanks!Khachapuri
 * Hi! Much better.  All I would ask of you is that you format what are now raw links in the citations with the proper format.  3, 7, 13 are examples of correctly.  Once you do that, let me know and I'll accept the article.  Interesting subject btw... learned a bit. Also, one other thing, when you put a comment on a user's talk page, it automatically informs them, so there's no need to "ping" me.  I ping you, since it's not your talk page, to let you know I've responded. Onel5969 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm there on the citations. Thanks for the information, much appreciated. Please let me know if the article is accepted or if I need take make any further changes. Glad you found the subject interesting. Thanks for the tip on pings. Khachapuri — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good job, I'm going to approve it, but right now there's a redirect page which an admin has to delete before I can (which I've requested). As soon as that happens, I'll approve it.  There are still a couple of citations which need formatting, e.g. #28.  Onel5969 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the redirect. I think I've fixed all of the citations now, so the page should be clean. Very cool of you to be doing this much work on everyone's behalf. Khachapuri — Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that the article is up, much appreciated. Is it appropriate and therefore possible to have the reditrect from the Bobby Bones musician page redirect to the Bobby Bones (broadcaster) page instead of the Bobby Bones Show? Khachapuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.121.49 (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Versus You
Hi Onel5969,

Now they have nominated my article for speedy deletion again, because of copyright issues but it isn't a direct copy. From somewhere I have to get informations or should I write a Fairytale and I also cannot invent a new language. Ok some parts can be similar but I don't now how to say that differently. Slowly I loose the patience to work on this wiki because everything i do, isn't good enough for anybody. That's the third or fourth time that my article maybe gets deleted. I was so happy that you now created my article finally and now it seems like that all the efforts were a waste of time. Maybe you can do something, I am at my wit's end.

Thanks in advance, with friendly greetings --Irukandji85 (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is one of the reasons that wp requires multiple independent reliable sources, so editors don't have to rely on a single source to get their information together. This is also my bad, since I should have caught it in the approval process.  It's obvious that many sentences are simply "cut and paste", which is a huge no-no on wp.  No, you can't simply make up information out of thin air, but you have to take the information available to you, and write about it in your own words.  For example, "Long-time friends, both musicians had played in a couple of bands together and it didn't take Eric, who had a bag of songs written already, a long time to convince Giordano to join his new band on bass guitar."  Might become "Having known each other for several years, Rosenfeld and Bruno decided to form their own band in 2005." But even that second sentence might be too close to the original, even better would be to simply state the fact that can be derived from the original article: "Rosenfeld and Bruno decided to form their own band in 2005." In order for the article not to be deleted, you'll have to go through the entire thing and make sure it's not even close to what is written in the article.  Go to [] to see how to fix this issue at this point.  You might also try contacting Ronhjones to see if he has any suggestions. Sorry you feel frustrated, but wp is very picky (and rightly so) about copyright violations, either cut and paste from other written sources, or images used without permission.Onel5969 (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Have to see what can be done. --Irukandji85 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The FP GA status
Hi One; i'm currently copy-editing The FP and I've skimmed the article's GA Review, in which you said, "Don't think it's ready for Good status yet, don't know how to resolve the image issue. But it's not far away." The article bears a tag but a second review doesn't appear to have occurred yet. Did the article pass GA? Has the GA tag been added prematurely? I also don't think the prose meets the GA criterion of being "well-written"; I found the plot section quite difficult to interpret and I don't think the lead section summarises the article sufficiently. Please correct me if I'm wrong; if you agree that it shouldn't be in the GA category I'll remove it from there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, Legobot added the tag on 15th April in this diff. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on the article's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not responding. I answered on the FP talk page.  One of the reasons I wanted someone else to do the c/e on it, was that I've been looking at this article so long, I wanted another editor's opinion.  I was glad you chose to do the c/e.  As you can see, Corvoe has submitted it for FA status, where the few folks who have responded have done so favorably.  I added my thoughts there.  Take it easy! Onel5969 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hiya, thanks for replying here; I was just about to tell you the GA status is now confirmed (thanks). I'm currently on the 'Writing' section, which has a better standard of prose than the earlier sections, which might have skewed my opinion slightly. I must admit I can be a picky b***h when it comes to prose, especially where it comes to FA-level editing. Anyway I'm about done for today; I'm getting tired. :-) Thanks again for responding; it's appreciated. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cameo Classics draft sources
I am a little confused as I added 3 sources to the article. Two books and a review website but you only refer to two sources. Can you please tell me what is incorrect with the two book sources?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyastone Estate (talk • contribs) 11:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! When I reviewed the article (which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ACameo_Classics&diff=614184606&oldid=612891275), there were 3 references.  One is to a website which has a simple blurb about the band.  The second states, "Savage, 2001, page 296–297"  What is that?  A book, a magazine?  I see you've now corrected the citation, but that was what I was speaking about. Onel5969 (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Gabriel P. Weisberg
Thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I have reworked the entry and trust I have corrected it to your satisfaction ... if not, please let me know what else needs to be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriel_P._Weisberg

Howard L. Rehs (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Revised edits to Bobby Bones (broadcaster)
Sorry previous message was supposed to be draft. I will add more citations for facts. I wanted to clarify what was needed for references to be properly formatted; e.g. is it because of reference to same material multiple times without proper citation? Or something wrong with the form I've used for citations? User:khachapuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.121.49 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

CloudSwitch new article comments.
> Comment: The first two citations, and the fourth are about a single > event, the third and seventh are not about the article's subject at > all. The fifth is good for verifying the award, but simply lists the > company. The sixth is a link to another wikipage, and not a valid > source at all. Onel5969

Okay, I need some help here.

> Comment: The first two citations, and the fourth are about a single > event It's true that the the first, second, and fourth citations are about a single event. Each of them documents a different statement in the article's text. What would be the right way to handle this?

> the third and seventh are not about the article's subject at all. The third citation documents what I see as a crucial point, which is that the same team of developers of the original product continue to work on the product after they were acquired by Verizon.

The seventh citation was relevant at the time I accessed it, but the content has since moved. I will correct the link.

> The fifth is good for verifying the award, but simply lists the > company. This refers to the official award web page, which lists CloudSwitch as the 2007 winner. What could be a better source than that?

> The sixth is a link to another wikipage, and not a valid > source at all. Okay. In this case, my bad citation may be evidence that my statement in the wikipage is actually not true. Another wikipage makes an undocumented assertion. This assertion can be found in some marketing materials from Terremark about some sort of recognition from HP Labs. However, searching the HP Labs website for "CloudSwitch" comes up empty. There is probably some kernel of over-hyped truth here, where someone from HP Labs mentioned CloudSwitch in some context. I should remove not only the citation, but the assertion itself, unless the author of the other wikipage can back this up.

I would appreciate any help here.

Israel Gale


 * Hi. Since this is unsigned (with a wikiuser name), and I can't find the article, it's difficult for me to respond to your questions, except in a general way.  The article was most likely declined as not notable, based on my comments.  While all the sources you list are good citations to prove the underlying facts of the article, but they do not provide any sense of the notability of the subject.Onel5969 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Complications at the FP FAC
Due to an extensive (and in my opinion, excellent) copy-edit by a GOCE member, I want to check in with everyone who voted on the FAC. I'm sure you're doing other things right now, but whenever you find the time, would you be willing to look through the article again and either confirm your vote or withdraw it with comment? If not, that's perfectly okay. Thank you again for all the help!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)