User talk:LaMona/Archives/2016/05

User talk:LaMona/Archive Header/header=Archive for %(monthname)s %(year)d

Thanks for revising the page i created it looks a lot better now, can you advise when does a draft get approved and cease to be a draft?--Chriswright68 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chriswright68. I meant to comment after editing but got distracted by something else. I think the article is in good shape although I have two questions: 1) is "pubco" a usable shorthand? I ask because I googled it and didn't find it used that way, but there is at least one significant company called Pubco which is unrelated to pubs (construction materials) 2) does the article adhere to WP:NPOV? Statements like "pubco's were also represented by a weak trade body (BBPA)[12], members rules were ignored" sound biased to me. I can send it to main space with a note to check the point of view, but it would be better if you could temper the wording a bit. Could you say that in a more neutral way? For example - "the trade body BBPA did not have the desired effect"; "the pubco's produced 6 drafts, but none satisfied the goals of the ..." etc. LaMona (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks again, the use of pubco or pubco's is very widespread in the UK sector that covers the pubs trade, it is of course shorthand for the more formal 'pub company' but thought I'd covered that well in opening para of the draft? Re comment on bias, bit tricky this as the lack of company code by BBPA members is a fact as is no sanctions by the same org for failure to follow rules, all in all would indicate a weak organisation hard to come to any other conclusion. The 6 drafts were actual operating versions not drafts they kept amending them in line with their membership demands again mostly supporting the weakness point. The effect was to do the bare minimum to satisfy govt and clearly they undershot that in the end for the large pubco's but I wasn't sure it would be something that would help the readership in going into the dark corners of trade body policy.--Chriswright68 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but you can't call it a "weak trade body" unless you find those words in a third-party reference, and even then you should say "X called it a 'weak trade body'." "Weak" is a judgment that you must not make in a WP article that adheres to NPOV, but you can attribute it to others. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are many references to BBPA in that context throughout Hansards and govt select committees but not sure it adds anything on reflection so changes have been made. Hope you can send it to the mainspace now. Chriswright68 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can send it to the mainspace now or do i need to do anything else? Thanks in advance. Chriswright68 (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chriswright68 If you re-submitted it to AfC then a reviewer will pick it up. I try not to review articles twice in a row, with occasional exceptions. I did however think more about "pubco", and since WP uses formal language I think that should be expanded as "pub company" throughout. But that's a minor point and can be done later. LaMona (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona. I added a sentence each to the sections on the two main consumer products that notes the existence of product reviews and cites to the major ones. I hope you find that an adequate response to your request for product reviews. I didn't attempt to summarize any as I can't see how it could not come across across as promotional. For the products themselves, I tried to just be descriptive. I don't think I expressed any subjective points of view e.g. "comfortable", "highly accurate", "inexpensive." Looking at the article for Fitbit, a close competitor, I see that the article includes more technical specs per product. I didn't do that because the consumer products aren't as popular at Fitbit and I didn't want to violate WP:UNDUE, but I can add more information per product if you think it's needed.BC1278 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• Buddroyce (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Play Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I'm requesting a re-review of this draft as it has been revised from the feedback I have previously received (mostly stripped of irrelevant stuff). I also found additional references from major publications which this was previously lacking as the lawsuit that was filed against the company by electronic superstar deadmau5 finally went through.

PS. Thanks again for the feedback. It really helps me be a better contributor to Wikipedia.

Buddroyce (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Buddroyce - yes, editing at Wikipedia is indeed a learning experience. I'm glad you've gotten into the spirit. To get another review, you need to click on the blue "Resubmit" button. It then goes into the queue and will be picked up by a reviewer. I usually try not to be the reviewer back-go-back since someone else may have better ideas or be more familiar with the subject than I am. I did some editing for wording and style on the article, but don't think I changed the meaning of anything. There is still the hurdle that the information about the lawsuit is more than that about the label itself, so if you can find more to say about the label (through reliable sources, of course), you can add those in, even after re-submitting. LaMona (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona

Thank you for accepting my draft page for Henley & Partners Ltd, and moving it into the article space. Please can you assist me in editing the title of the page, to remove the "Ltd", so the title simply reads "Henley & Partners"? Your assistance is greatly appreciated!

Mara.ispas (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mara.ispas, Done. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Khalaf Smoqi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yazda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Khalaf Smoqi (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Hi LaMona,First, thank you for reviewing my draft for the informative comment. I've updated the draft, I've included in-line citation, I removed the unreliable references from the main reference list. I organized the reference list by making "Additional References" list. If possible, Can you please consider a re-review, Thank you in advance.[reply]

Khalaf Smoqi, I see that you have queued it again for review. I try to let other reviewers take it rather than review twice in a row. LaMona (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lx3h (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charged Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks LaMona, I do agree with your comment "There has to be more to say", but I based my draft on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Auto_Association, which has been approved and it is about electric vehicle association, so I used it as template. I do want to say more, but I fear I get rejected if I say too much to start with. I thought offering what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Auto_Association does will at least get the article published first, then more details can be added later.

Lx3h (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lx3h, not all articles in WP have been "approved" - many are created directly and are looked at later. That article does not meet the requirements and may be deleted if noticed. Do not base your article on what you see in WP, but on the policies. Otherwise, your article may be deleted later, when you are not looked at it, and the information will be lost. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dmulan123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Suiteness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

LaMona,

Thank you for taking out time to review this submission and leaving constructive feedback that I could work on. I have added more citations from external sources as you had suggested. I hope the changes make a stronger case for the article!

Dmulan123 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Dmulan123[reply]

• Lx3h (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charged Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks La Mona, I have added even more details and references from media and press such as Forbes and InsideEVs, as well as official government page such as Hong Kong Trade Development Council. Future events to hold include FIA Formula E. Hope this meets both the notability and 'more details' requirement.

Lx3h (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions Almost 400 new articles were created
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 (check out our next event Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hello, LaMona. :)

I'm cleaning up some old copyright issues and came upon Draft:RNLB Charles Burton, where you did some much appreciated investigation into the issue. Given the note you left, though, ("We've determined that the original text is under a GNU license, which allows re-use but requires attribution. I've advised the editor to re-word the text since attribution for a whole text probably doesn't work.") I did want to offer you some input on the way incorporating licensed content can be done and on the licenses that we can accept.

While many decry it as a bad habit, we can actually copy en masse from compatibly licensed sources so long as we offer attribution as described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism - we have attribution templates that serve to attribute entire articles. Reasons some have objected to the practice include the inability to determine, as the content grows, which parts came from the source, once it is intermingled with original material, and concerns that copying content from other sources is not quite the right way to go about things when we could (and arguably) should write it ourselves. I myself am agnostic on the practice. I've done it before, but haven't done it in a long time.

That said, due to some peculiarities with our own licensing history, we are no longer able to accept text content that is licensed under GNU license unless it is also licensed under another license that is compatible with CC-By-SA 3.0. There's a list of major licenses that are (and some that aren't) at WP:COMPLIC. So even though whole-article attribution can be used, in this case it could not.

The deadline is well past, so I am deleting this draft, but I much appreciated your efforts there and just wanted to offer you more information. Working on drafts is a critical workflow, and I thank you for the time you're putting into it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jhasmanysp (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Biblioworks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am wondering what exactly needs editing on our page... My understanding is the citations?

Hello, Jhasmanysp. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, I left you this specific message: "To support the article you must use third-party, independent sources, not the group's web site or related organizations. Do not reference the home pages of organizations you mention -- all references must be substantially about the subject of the article, Biblioworks. Do not use social media as references. And stick with a formal writing style, as is required in an encyclopedia." The template has links to the rules for reliable sources. You must read those carefully, and then make the necessary changes. The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. Those sources must be referenced in-line with the text they support. No un-referenced material is allowed. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 66.130.101.221 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pub St-Paul Restaurant, Bar and Music Venue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona,

The Pub St-Paul is an authentic venue in the Old Port of Montreal since 1992. Although there mentions in various blogs and magazines (some of which were submitted in my initial request), it doesn't have any mentions in papers or official news outlets. What I did find was this: http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do;jsessionid=0001sLQb6TRnzeah4BXVHrKG4-1:11VIIVT17Q?lang=eng&prtl=1&sbPrtl=&estblmntNo=234567157475&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=1921&app=sold&searchNav=F

Let me know if that passes as a good source and whether it's enough sources to publish the article.

Thanks! Konstantin

66.130.101.221 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin - unfortunately, if the venue is not covered in papers or other published materials, then it does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. No one would doubt that the venue exists, but there must be evidence that it has been substantially written about by independent sources. That really means "written about", not listed in a directory of businesses. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jzsj (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Regis College Center for Service Learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added 14 third-party references. Please see footnotes 1,2,4,5,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,21,24,26. Thank you.Jzsj (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj - there are 3rd party sources and 3rd party sources. Source must be not only 3rd party, but reliable and substantial. Adding a bunch of mentions does not support notability. Also, adding sources is not enough - you must remove the primary sources as those are not permitted (with some exceptions, but it is best to avoid them). Please read both WP:RS and WP:N to understand what is required in the quality of sources. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you'll find that many of these are independent sources, as desired by Wikipedia. How many such sources do you require? It seems like a presidential award would count, and place this among he more notable such organizations. Do you find none of these sources to be reliable? I see all your contributions are on very notable persons. Where do social service organizations in the Third World stand in your estimate of encyclopedic value? Thanks for sharing. Jzsj (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, I believe that I have already said this: it is not a question of QUANTITY but of QUALITY. You need quality sources. Every source that is to the Regis site is a primary source and must be replaced with a third-party source. Third-party sources with mere mentions (we call them "name checks") of a person or subject are not good sources. In WP:N it says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Read that page again. LaMona (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what Wiki says there, again and again, and I don't see why you question whether these are third-party sources. They independently verify what the Center says about itself. I can remove some of the references – I agree it's not a matter of quantity – but then Wiki requires support for statements, which I see imposed mainly on statements that seem excessive or questionable. Unlike famous persons, service centers like this don't have complete books written on them: one goes to a compact summary like Wikipedia for that. If this center with the praise it's received cannot qualify as notable, then how many can?... Should we place very rigid criteria for inclusion of these very significant works centered at schools, which may be as significant for society as the existence of the school.Jzsj (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, institutes and centers are covered in the articles about the larger institution. To have a stand-alone article they must meet the rules for general notability, which requires independent sourcing. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Parts_of_schools_and_school-related_organizations. There's no use arguing with me about this -- I have no power to change policy, and what I tell you is only advice. My goal is to get your article to a point where others will not want to delete it because it doesn't meet the criteria. I also try to make the article a "good" article, one that reads well and provides the readers with understandable content. I'm not a gatekeeper. Some other AfC'r may pass your article on. You can always resubmit if you have made significant changes. LaMona (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, I think you should take note of Lamona's suggestion. The quality of references in the articles on Jesuit-related subejcts that you are pumping out is very low. As well as this, the notability of the places you are writing about is suspect. The two articles of yours that I AFD'd last week were deleted. I just found two more that I have nominated for deletion. In all of these articles, the issue is that you created articles on non-notable subjects using very low quality references. I think it would be very helpful to both the wiki and to your article survival rate if you were to carefully read and undertsand the reliable sources explanation contained at WP:RS, as well as the rules on general notability at WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop "pumping out" these articles (working up to 14 hours a day on them) but I do believe that some would find the few independent references sufficient and the topics worthy of note. Also, such articles would clutter the main article page of most universities (see Ateneo de Manila complaint that I took to heart). I believe we omit significant accomplishments of great note when we rule out these articles, which can counter-balance the systemic bad news which seems to be the preference of our media.Jzsj (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona - thanks for taking the time to review this article. I noticed that you had removed the company's annual report as one of the sources. The most likely reason for this, I imagine, was that it is produced by the company, which is itself the subject of the article. Notwithstanding, would it matter that annual reports are audited by third parties and companies have a legal requirement to ensure these annual reports are true and accurate, that this would make them acceptable as sources? Fbell74 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fbell74, Hi. A business's own report (audits are third-party but not independent of the company, since they are paid for and managed by the company) may be used to support some minor facts, like location of the headquarters, but should only be used if no other sources are available; and primary sources can only be used to fill in those minor details once the notability is established with secondary sources. What matters in Wikipedia is what others have said about the company, not what the company can say about itself. If no one else has considered that an important piece of information to put in a source about the company, then it's as if that information did not exist. The other thing is that the internal view of the company is not often encyclopedic. The actual money figures for a company are not what make it notable here -- after all, companies make money as a matter of course. The policy on notability for corporations begins: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Wikipedia is not a company directory, so you have to think: what makes this company encyclopedic? Has it had a social or historical impact? Have journalists written about it as a game-changer? Has it done something long-lasting? What is it about this company that is not just "business as usual"? That's what you need to put into an article on a company. LaMona (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Sometimes it feels like a bit of a grey area as to what is considered reliable and what isn't. I felt sure that an annual report would be acceptable even though it is a document that has been produced by the company itself. After all, an organisation has to stand by the accuracy of the information it contains and there can be serious repercussions if it is seen to be unreliable. Thank you for the comprehensive response in answer to my query. It was kind of you to clarify. It's back to the drawing board, I guess.Fbell74 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yoshitech (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Senri Oe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for reviewing Senri Oe. I understand it was declined due to lack of notability. I'll look for better, more in detail articles from his previous career as a pop star. One question, you mentioned Charting, but what is it? Thanks.

Yoshitech (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yoshitech. You can use non-English sources if needed, although adding a lot of Japanese language sources wouldn't be terribly helpful to most English Wikipedia readers. "Charting" means that the musician's works have been on an official "Top X" chart. In the US that is usually Billboard (magazine). However, since I know that it is difficult for jazz musicians to have "hits" in the pop sense, if Oe did have hits as a pop star in Japan and you can find sources for that, those would be good to show his notability. You don't need many -- just a few top hits, if they exist. LaMona (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thehappyreader (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Orlebar Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I just wanted to ask how to included references and also keep the submission brief? I have lots of references but they're about the company in general and I'm not sure how to include them all when they're not linked to a sentence. Can I include numerous references to prove notability without the post being very long?

Any help would be appreciated!

)

User:Thehappyreader - The reason to use references is that you are using information from them in the article. If you are not, then the reference doesn't have a place. Everyone focuses on references (I think the templates we have at Articles for Creation are in part to blame) but the real focus should be on content - the article has to have something to say about the subject. The WP notability policies for companies say: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Just being a company is not encyclopedic. It's easy to show that a company is a company and that it exists, and that is what would be fine for a directory of companies, but this is an encyclopedia, so just being a company is not enough. LaMona (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lovelacepullinger (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Thomas Charles Willis Pullinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,As a newbie I am grateful for any help. I realise that reviewers must be very busy but could you point out to me some (or all, if you have time) of the items that you think need referenced. The level of referencing already seems comparable to what I would normally expect to provide in, for example, an article for an academic journal.Thanks Lovelacepullinger (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovelacepullinger - the answer is: everything. Here on WP, all information must come from third-party sources, and no statements of fact can go unreferenced. for example, the first paragraph in early life has a number of facts but gives the reader no way to verify them. Clearly you got that information from somewhere, so you need to say where. If, however, the information was not in published sources, then you cannot include it in the WP article. LaMona (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, Thank you for taking time to review my second draft. When I was preparing for the first draft, I referred to Wikipedia's Institute of Risk Management, IRM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Risk_Management) for idea on how I can present Asia Risk Management Institute. I noted that IRM does not have any reliable sources, except providing an external link to IRM website. With no reliable sources, the submission of my first draft on ARIMI was rejected. Hence, for the second draft, I included sources as required - I redrafted it with reference to how Professional Risk Managers' International Association (PRMIA) did theirs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Risk_Managers%27_International_Association), which have many sources drawn from PRMIA's. However, this time the rejection reason is: "my sources should be third-party, independent of the subject of the article. Press releases cannot be used." Regarding the press release about the MOU between National University of Singapore and ARIMI, I shall delete that as a source since it cannot be used. However, please allow me to provide some background to the other sources: 1. There are 2 mainstream news and write-up from Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH). SPH is the provider of Singapore's mainstream news in 4 languages: English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil. 2. ARIMI had a partnership with National University of Singapore extension (NUS) for almost 10 years: NUS is consistently ranked as one of Asia's top universities and is one of the three largest public and autonomous universities in Singapore. 3. ARIMI has also been partnering with The Institutes (formerly known as AICPCU, http://www.aicpcu.org) and is The Institutes' approved on-site testing center in Singapore since 2004 4. Articles with ARIMI's expert advices and views are reflected in The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and Islamic Finance News. 5. An article by ARIMI that was published by Asia Insurance Review, the premier and comprehensive professional regional magazine that is well read in the insurance industry in Asia. (http://www.asiainsurancereview.com) In view of the above, kindly advise which sources are seen as unreliable in your opinion, so that I know how to move forward to improve my draft? Warm regards, StarsHn (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StarsHn, the only arguments that have weight at WP are arguments made using notability policies. So please read WP:N and WP:CORP carefully and make your decisions based on the content in those. Only your #1 argument above is covered by the policies, which is that those are third-party independent sources about the subject of the WP article. However, neither of those is substantially about the company - they both only have mentions, and mentions do not support notability. Many of your sources are from the institute itself; those aren't any good because they are BY the subject not ABOUT the subject. Some, such as https://www.theinstitutes.org/, don't even mention the subject - those cannot be used. You need sources that are substantially about the subject of the article. LaMona (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Miskonius (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Active@ KillDisk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. I disagree. On many of the pages i have referenced it is stated that KillDisk is being recommended for use as a data security measure. So it's not only being used, it is also being recommended. However I do agree that I could drop a certain amount of links for better clarity. 2. I have only referenced the standards that are not present on Wikipedia. This only goes to explaining software capabilities. The references in my article can be used for creation of future 3. The article is about the software and not about the company. Lsoft has in its portfolio at least 15 different types of software. Now, if Wikipedia editors agree I might create another page about LSoft Technologies, but at this point article is about KillDisk and not about LSoft technologies

Rather than referencing the standards, since they are not about the software, you can put them in a section called External links. That is for anything that is relevant but cannot be a reference. Then, as for the "recommended" links -- what you link to are organizations that are using the software, e.g. customer sites. Those are not what we call "secondary sources". (See wp:rs for advice about usable sources.) Note that the articles you link to often say very little about the product, but also list it among other similar products that can be used. That doesn't support notability by Wikipedia's guidelines. What would be better would be to find and cite independent reviews or articles about the product. I was rather quickly able to find PCWorld, but it will take more hunting to find others. If there isn't enough about this particular software to meet notability guidelines, then you might look at wp:corp to see if the company might meet guidelines for corporate notability. LaMona (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standards are about the software, actually if there are no standards there is no software. Take a look at this screenshot from KillDisk UI you will see that user has to choose which standard he wants to use while deletion has being performed. Standards are an essential part of the software and every data deletion software has to mention which standards it supports. As for software notability there are so many sources that I can further add that would make your head dizzy. For example we know that NASA used KillDisk from 2002 and stopped around 2010 when they switched to physical device destruction. Since the news is old I didnt see the value of adding them in the article. Bear in mind that when it comes to data security no company really wants to advertise which data deletion software they use, especially when it comes to defense contractors. I can find you at least 2-3 more KillDisk reviews from reputable sites, but the problem is that the reviews are not reputable and they basically dont say much about KillDisk. For example this teat that was being conducted on Edith Cowan University is worth as 20 of those so called reviews. For example this guy reviewed only the Demo version and gave it 3 stars because the demo has limitations, this one as well. Its not about us not getting the reviews that we think we deserve its about misinformation. Those people could have contacted us to get they keys for the Pro or Ultimate versions. My point is, that although sites are reputable the reviews arent. Of course, anyone can add those reviews later in the article if he wants. But the reason why I put so many links towards Universities and gov agencies is because I genuinely believe that when I say "it is being used and recommended by a number of Universities and government agencies" I really have something to back it up. This is why I put reputable Universities and government agencies who actually use the software and know what is it all about. Regardless of them being our clients as you can see our product is mentioned only in passing or with clear instructions (for their employees) on how to use it. But like I said I do agree that so many links might be just too much. So lets say 2 for Universities and 2 for gov agencies would be enough? When it comes to company itself, this is not a company that works on self-promotion, I dont think that there are enough reputable independent sources that speak solely about LSoft to make it notable. LSoft's products are notable in their own niche. So maybe creating one more page about LSoft Technologies and mentioning its reputable software might be enough? Of course this is another topic, I might have to create a talk page and consult with everybody prior to starting anything.

Miskonius (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius, the entire definition of notability on WP depends on sources, and the sources must be third-party, independent, and with a reputation for fact checking. There's really nothing else to base an article on. Using "recommended" for the organizations that are using it is a misnomer. They are customers, and they offer it to their students or employees. You can say "used" but unless the article says "recommends" you can't say that. For example, here's what the Illinois article says (and this is all that it says) "But they can also fully wipe a drive using KillDisk, or put new drives into empty computer shells." FSU talks about recommended procedures (not recommended software) and lists Killdisk after saying "Software applications to accomplish this task include:". McGill says: "ICS has tested two hard drive eraser programs that are free for download. Active@ KillDisk and Darik's Boot and Nuke (DBAN) are designed to erase all data (files, folders, etc.) located on the hard drives of Windows computers." These are hardly recommendations. It would be as if everyone using Windows is de facto recommending it - and we know that is not the case. Also, you cannot determine that a review in a reputable site isn't itself reputable. In other words, you cannot exclude it because you do not like the review. That is exactly why we discourage one to edit information about their own company or product. You either have to be able to be neutral, or you should ask for someone neutral to create the article. (See how to do that in Help, to the left.) The NASA information is fine if the sources are good (I didn't look at them), so I see no reason to exclude it. The bottom line: you must adhere to the policies that have been established. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona Like I said it is not about we/I liking or disliking the review. The reviews listed are very superficial at best. How could anyone's review of a book for example be relevant if he read only 5 pages out of 300 of them? The test that I showed you from Edith Cowan University (scroll down and see recommendations) isnt exactly positive about KillDisk since it lacks, in their opinion, one standard. We might disagree on our part about that particular issue, but the test is solid for the most part. I will remove the links where KillDisk isnt specifically recommended, but does that mean that basically all links from gov and edu sites should be removed? Also do we agree on the importance of listing the supported standards? Edit: I know that we are getting into realm of playing with words, but doesn't "recommended procedure" and the list KillDisk a recommendation itself? Deleting data on devices with KillDisk requires procedure, it doesn't happen just with a push of a button.

Also: "Active@ KillDisk and Darik's Boot and Nuke (DBAN) are designed to erase all data (files, folders, etc.) located on the hard drives of Windows computers." These are hardly recommendations. It would be as if everyone using Windows is de facto recommending it - and we know that is not the case. But how are they not recommendations if they are listed on their sites as clealry stating to their employees (or anyone else), what to use if they want to delete data?

Miskonius (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the standards supported is fine, it's the question of using them as references. References must directly about the subject of the article. If the standards do not actually name Killdisk then they should be named in the text but not used as references. If you wish to give links to the standards then you list them in a section called "External sources" and the links are not given as references but as HTTP links. I looked to see if there were WP pages for those standards but didn't find any. If there are some that I missed, then a wikilink is the preferred method. I won't comment on the rest because I have already said what I would say. LaMona (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMonaVery well I will do as you asked. I was thinking about making a Reception paragraph where I would mention Kill Disk reviews, as well as notable gov agencies (NASA, etc), and mention universities that solely recommend KillDisk, is that OK?

PS

Please mention my name when replying I havent received any notifications about your previous reply.

Miskonius (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona can you please check the draft now. I have edited everything that you have requested apart from adding images. I was informed that this will be done later when the draft receives an approval.

Regards, Miskonius (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius I read through the TeaHouse discussion and you did get good advice. However, in this version you have quoted positive reviews. If you do not want to include less than positive reviews, you must remove this section as it is promotional. Also, we generally discourage use of praise copied from reviews because, like those "Best picture of 2016!" blurbs on movie ads, you don't know what else the person said. In the first review, you diminish the criticism by saying that features were missing from the demo version, but that is not in the article, so you cannot say that. I found at least one other review that said that the free version was less useful than other free programs. ([1]) I think that if you send this back for review, it will be rejected for advertising. My guess is that if you drop the "reception" section, but link some of those articles to information in the article about features, this will pass. LaMona (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona the first review is based on the demo (free version), is says so in the headline. KillDisk has Demo (a free version) and a pro (paid) version. That particular review was put for the sake of balance (so its not all positive), at it doesnt worth much in my opinion since the man clearly bases his opinion about the whole software just by reviewing a demo. In the article Fisher says Cons:

   - Some options only work in the professional version
   - Supports only one wipe method

...which are all limitations of the demo version. KillDisk is not a free software per se. Yes, it does have a Demo version which is free but with significant limitations. Maybe the mistake is using the "reviews" that are based only on the demo... Miskonius (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Miskonius, I am saying that the mistake is using reviews at all. The article should describe the software, not try to sell it. The sales pitch will get it deleted. Try as I said and link the descriptions of the software in those various journals to the parts of the article where you describe what the software does. A lot of that is unreferenced, and this would add references at the same time that it would remove promotional material. LaMona (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LaMona I have been searching other maintenance software on Wikipedia and software in general and all of them have Reception section, for example CCleaner . If such format is applicable and acceptable for Wikipedia could the same format be applied for KillDisk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskonius (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius, as long as it is fair and non-promotional, sure. I think the CCleaner one is getting close to promotion,, but doesn't quite step over that line. Remember, though, that anyone in the future can edit the article and can add other reviews, perhaps ones you are not happy with. A more neutral method is to create an "Awards" section (if the software has won awards) because those are factual and verifiable. LaMona (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona I have absolutely nor problem with that,a s long as the edits are based on facts. So, can I use from CCleaner: "CCleaner is mentioned on different software directories, like Softonic, etc" or "CCleaner has been reviewed by Chip.de, etc". If i find any awards (I think I remember one award)I will create Awards section? Miskonius (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius, that sentence with "mentioned on" is not particularly strong. "Mentioned" doesn't mean "listed on". You might say that the software is downloadable from various sites online such as... and name two or three. Or you can say that it is included on software download sites. Then it is best to name some of the biggies, like CNET and PCworld. That should suffice. That shows that it's a mainstream program, since that's what those sites carry. LaMona (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona sorry I should have been more clear. When using "Mentioned" I was thinking of adding that test from Edith Cowan University

Miskonius Mentions are not going to further your article. Mentions do not support notability. LaMona (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona OK help me out here how should I add that particular test, without being slapped that the article is promotional or being not conclusive enough (aka there are other software tested/mentioned)? KillDisk performed the best there with one other software. Btw this is the also the article that I also get from the Scholar tag (second from the top of search) that you left in my article. Miskonius (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miskonius - just state the facts as plainly as possible - software was rated n out of n. LaMona (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona I have edited the article, can you please review it before I submit it. I have removed the Reception section and havent included Awards. KillDisk got awards (if we mean the same thing), from Software Informer and Download 3K. Although the are not un-notable they are not really notable as well, so I decided to skip the Awards section. If down the line someone wants to create Awards/Reception section i will not object or if you think they are notable enough I can add them. Please also check my reference to Edith Cowan University which performed the testing, does it seem promotional? Miskonius (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius - I made some wording edits. You should go ahead and resubmit. LaMona (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona most of the edits are OK, but I am having a problem with this sentence Overview section: "...The medium is entirely overwritten with a series of \x00 values..." This is not entirely correct, it could be applied only for a free version but not for KillDisk as whole. If you look at the Erasing/wiping Standards you will see that One Pass Zeroes is just one of the methods KillDisk uses. For example Gutmann Method is a lot more complex than a simple set of zeroes. Basically there are three main methods: zeroes, ones, Random (random sets of ones and zeroes). I suggest that we change the sentence to : The medium is entirely overwritten with a various sets of ones and zeroes. Also since the freee version of KillDisk is mentioned in many reviews, should I add an additional column in the Erasing/wiping Standards for the free version and note its limitations? I have added Btrfs and XFS file systems that I apparently missed when creating an article.

Miskonius (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius Wikipedia articles are editable, so you should make whatever edits you want. LaMona (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona I have finished editing the article. Please review it one more time before i submit it. Miskonius (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC) LaMona can you please take a look at the wiki table within the article, after I have added the forth column the table the rest of the columns lost their borders. Thanks! Miskonius (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miskonius - it looks fine on my screen. LaMona (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona Yes it appears that some extension or a plugin is causing these problems with my Firefox. I just spoke with some fine people at wiki chat and saw what was the issue. Thank you for your time and everything you did for the article! Should I submit the article? Is it strong enough to get approval?

Miskonius (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to thank you for reviewing this article I created. I did not think it would pass directly. I'm not a new editor to be honest with you, but this is the first time I have created an article about a company. It seems more challenging than I anticipated. There are other educational software companies that meet Wikipedia requirements such as Edmark, Humongous Entertainment and The Learning Company. The real difficulty is finding the most relevant information about the company's history. Do you know of a better way to list the software products? At the very least, the company's first ever game "Alphabet Express" should have it's own paragraph. If there are particular pieces of information that should be added to or removed from the article, please let me know. Any help you can offer is much appreciated. Deltasim (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deltasim, the main thing is that you list company "milestones" but don't say anything about why its products matter. So you say: "School Zone's first software product was "Alphabet Express" designed for Ages 3 to 6 " but you dont' say what the software is about, what it teaches. So in the end the article sounds like a company profile, which is not encyclopedic. The policy for companies says: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The USA today article says: kids can "generate moving kaleidoscopic pictures using blend sounds, They can create animations with rhyming families that spin, twist and move to funky music." It would also be good to show if these products are based on known learning standards. LaMona (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisbbacon (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mandy Boylett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review. I wonder if I could ask you for some help.

In making this submission I tried to follow examples from similar notable people e.g. politicians with a business and media elements to their lives. Hence why for Mandy Boylett I included some of her other business interests and past activities. She is most notable for the political song / brexit anthem that was created this year, and I can easily make the main focus of the submission just that item. I note the singer of the Remain Anthem, Gruff Rhys, has their own wiki!! Mandy Boylett's Brexit Campaign Anthem is also now quoted and accepted on several other Wiki pages, which I assumes helps with demonstrating Boylett's notability.

If I deleted Boylett's business interests section would that make the article stronger and would you then approve it?

Or should I do something else as well?

Thank you Crisbbacon (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Crisbbacon Crisbbacon (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisbbacon (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisbbacon, I think that your problem is that being known for a single novelty item, the Brexit song, tends to fall under wp:BLP1E -- which is a person known for a single thing or event. It's also somewhat of a trivial thing, even though it is getting attention. (Attention and popularity are not among the criteria for notability on WP.) The press attention is about the video, not her, and there isn't much about her in the articles, except to say that she wrote the song. She's not really a politician, unless coming in third means something different in the UK, but we don't usually consider losers to be actual politicians, just "also rans". She's a business person, but probably isn't notable within those criteria. If she were notable for something stronger, then having other "peripheral" bits of info would be fine. The Brexit song would probably be one of those peripheral bits. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cap603 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Benjamin's Field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

LaMona,

Just a point of clarification about my trilogy, Benjamin's Field. You stated in your comment that the books don't have ISBNs. That isn't correct. They do and always have.

Book One, Rescue: ISBN 9781505391572 Book Two, Acent: ISBN 9781507613252 Book Three, Emancipation: ISBN 9781507613245

Also, you observed they are 'self-published,' as though that means the works are less worthy. Is that Wikipedia's policy?

J.J. Knights

Cap603 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cap603 Ok, we have a couple of things to talk about here. First, yes, self-published materials have less notability because they have not been given the imprimatur of a publishing house or peer review (for academic materials). We generally do not considered self-published materials or authors of those materials to be notable, with exceptions for those that are notable for other reasons. (See:Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Self-publication) But the other thing is that you said "my trilogy." This means that you are writing about your own works, which is problematic, and here on Wikipedia that is considered a conflict of interest. I will address this on your own talk page. LaMona (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamreinman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brodsky Synagogue Odessa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your help. What do you think about the current version? Does it need additional citations? Thank you.Adamreinman (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamreinman - Great! that was just what was needed. I sent it on through. LaMona (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Potguru (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Consensus that marijuana = cannabis has never been achieved.

If we follow standard protocol on wikipedia we need to notice that: mescaline and peyote have different articles (mescaline is a drug found in peyote) heroin and opium have different articles (heroin is a drug derived from opium)

And therefore we need to do the same for marijuana and cannabis.(marijuana is a drug found in cannabis)

--Potguru (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion on the talk page for Cannabis (drug) and for other pages that use that term (quite a bit of talk discussion at Cannabis dispensaries in the United States), I would open a dialog with the editors there to get an idea of what the "consensus" is. The article states: "Cannabis, also known as marijuana among other names", the article is "Cannabis (drug)", and Marijuana redirects to Cannabis (drug), so a decision was made in the past to use this terminology. It also looks like the current article may intend to cover what you are calling Marijuana, although with different sections so you may have information to add to that article. There is already a separate article for cannabis the plant. Rather than starting up an article without addressing what is already there, it would be best to clarify this with the interested parties. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that advice. We are trying to, and have been trying to, achieve concensus. As you can see in my Colorado centric article about marijuana dispensaries there is plenty of good reason to believe the word marijuana is preferable to the generic term cannabis in many instances, particularly when the scope is regional. (see the opposite argument below). --Potguru (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person Potguru is on a mission now changing Cannabis articles to Marijuana articles without consensus and despite the request of other editors to stop. The latest three are here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_Indiana&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_Tennessee&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_Tennessee&action=history.

Can we get an admin block so they can be stopped from making a mess? Lipsquid (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_in_West_Virginia&action=history Lipsquid (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lipsquid is very upset with me because I correctly moved an article incorrectly titled "cannabis in Kansas" to the correct name space "marijuana in Kansas" with this note:

May 2016 Marijuana Vs Cannabis use of terminology dispute I just made several important edits based upon the actual sources quoted. While some people from outside Kansas might want to use the term Cannabis instead of the more appropriate term Marijuana, this is not the place for that debate. If you look at any of the references cited in this article they all choose to use the word marijuana instead of the word cannabis. The reason for this is that cannabis is not regulated in Kansas, instead what is regulated is a portion of the cannabis plant called Marijuana. While I was mid edit another editor came in reverted several important edits]. If there are no objections, after a while, I will revert the edits to their proper term "marijuana".

And like his edit before I would contend this talk page is not the place for such a debate. --Potguru (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And while the discussion is still taking place, you continue to change article names from Cannabis in xx t Marijuana in xx. Lipsquid (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two levels of issue here. One is international (a general article about marijuana) and the other is regional (a state article about what is regulated within that state). I do not beleive your complaints on this talk page are not the most appropriate way to accomplish your stated goal of getting me banned. --Potguru (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potguru My only goal is to have a good encyclopedia, I have no POV one way or the other on the topic as long as the articles are consistent. I have asked you politely twice now to stop and gain consensus first, if that doesn't work, I am not sure what to do other than ask for a topic ban. Lipsquid (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your stated goal is to get me banned because you are mad that I am changing the incorrectly used word "cannabis" on state level article where all the sources CLEARLY point to the word "marijuana". If you want to make this a great encyclopedia then help me correct the text in the body of articles to actually reflect the cited source, not some fantasy avbout what we want the source to say. And please, one more time, take this petty conversation off LaMona's talk page as none of this is any of LaMona's concern. --Potguru (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were the last reviewer for this draft. I was not the draft's creator, but I did try to clean it up a bit, and also added a few extra refs. Please take another look if you have a chance. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92 , thanks, I published it. It could use more work, but he's notable by wp:ACADEMICS so it can continue to be worked on in main wiki space. LaMona (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dmulan123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Suiteness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, I have made edits per your suggestion and added additional credible third party sources. I see you have made further edits as well - thank you for that! Was wondering why you didn't accept the article? Dmulan123 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Dmulan123[reply]

User:Dmulan123, when you resubmit it does back into the review pool -- most likely someone else will get it. LaMona (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, thank you for taking the time to review my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kurt_Kotrschal. I read on the criteria that you cited as not being met and think I understand. I then looked up more third party information on Kotrschal and there are many interviews with him, comments on his work and references to research by him in trustworthy sources, but essentially all in German. There is also a German wikipedia article on him. Kotrschal is well-known in Austria (and less so Germany) as a popular science figure and I think this would justify an English wikipedia article. I would appreciate some guidance on what to do (e.g. how to add references). Here would be some examples for references that I found: book by Kotrschal; criticism on a comment he published in daily paper; interview with him in another daily paper; TV interview and CV by German public broadcasting; a selection of articles about him in the biggest Austrian tabloid. Thank you for your consideration. --Biophil23 (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Biophil23. You can use non-English sources, although they must meet the reliable source criteria in English-language Wikipedia. That means that they must be published sources (even digital) with an editorial policy or peer review and a reasonable expectation of fact-checking. The sources must be ABOUT the subject, not BY the subject, and cannot be crowd-sourced, so links to Amazon or Amazon reviews, etc., are not relevant here. Interviews and videos of the person speaking are not considered third-party sources because that is the person talking about themself, not an independent view of the subject. Biographies that are linked to the person's work (e.g. bios on the University site) are not independent, and are often supplied by the subject himself. You should also read carefully WP:ACADEMICS to see the criteria that is used specifically for academics. There are some factors that support notability in the absence of other sources, such as holding a named chair or receiving important awards (a Nobel prize is a good one!). This person falls somewhere between WP:AUTHOR AND WP:ACADEMIC, but either can be met. LaMona (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona and thank you for your reply, this was useful as I intend to write some other articles on Austrian scientists and science facilities soon and should get a better understanding of the rules that come with this. I read the sources you recommended for learning more about the notability criteria and it made me realise that the notability will be more from Kotrschal's significance as a popular science figure than as an academic. I edited the draft accordingly by changing the introduction and elaborating on his media appearances. I also changed some sources (I find it surprising that CVs on university websites are not accepted as trustworthy sources; yes, the academics portrayed will provide them in most cases, but a reputable university should be trusted to ensure a certainy quality in the information it publishes and thereby endorses - but anyway, I found other articles about Kotrschal citing his biography that are certainly independent sources, e.g. national media; in addition, I also referred to the feature he had in Die Presse and ignored other Presse reports, as one could see him as a Presse insider). Note that the sources I added are from different media in Austria and Germany, but all with wide reach in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, no local papers. Do you consider this sufficient evidence for notability?--Biophil23 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Biophil23. You are still rather low on notability. The media appearances are BY him not ABOUT him. Also, calling a section "Trivia" looks trivial. You can't use searches as references, and the list of articles he wrote is again BY him not ABOUT. The point is not just to prove notability, but to write an article about what he has done that makes him notable. So if there are newspaper articles about him, you use the content of those to tell the story in the article. If, instead, there are not significant articles about him, then he does not meet notability at this time. LaMona (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona. Thank you for reviewing the article again. I re-named the trivia section into "Media". I consider this section the one that also provides evidence for notability. Please note that I added references 9, 10, 11 and 12 specifically to underline this point; they are all articles in decent media from Austria and Germany ABOUT Kurt Kotrschal and his work, NOT BY him. I gave reference 8 separately, this one links to a feature BY him, but the point of the sententce where I set ref. 8 is exactly to inform that he is also known as an author from this feature, which I think justifies using the results page of a search to provide evidence that indeed, he did write a feature and not just an individual article. [[--Biophil23 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)]][reply]

Hi LaMona. In response to your last points, I made some changes to the article and summarised them along with my view on the notability issue in the above paragraph. I would appreciate it if you could approve of the draft now or comment on my statement above if you have other issues with the draft. Thank you. --Biophil23 (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for review my article Dingtone and offer me kind advice. I am a green hand on WIKI and i will follow the helpful tips to make my article neutral and reliable.Thanks a lot:） Ellen Cooper (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• M.Nishant (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Housejoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thank you for your valuable feedback. I have made the required changes to the content as well as added some references to the article. Kindly have a look. M.Nishant (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, M.Nishant. It is better, but remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Companies must be encyclopedic in nature to have an entry that meets the criteria. The main policy, wp:corp says: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." So it is those that have had an impact on history, society, or education that are a good fit here. I don't see that in the company in this article. Sorry. You can, however, resubmit to get the opinion of a different reviewer. LaMona (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ex-paparazzi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BE OPEN Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, User:Ex-paparazzi - You didn't ask a question, but I can provide some advice. This is the second article you have created here, and you need to adjust your expectations of Wikipedia so that you can write in the appropriate style. Wikipedia does not allow promotion or advertising - it is an encyclopedia and provides facts about significant people, places, events, and other topics. Articles must be written in a neutral, factual tone. ALL INFORMATION in the articles must be sourced to third-party, independent sources, like newspaper or magazines, but not promotional sources. Any information that is not sourced may be removed by other editors. I will do some editing on the Natalia Valevskaya (fashion designer) article so you can see what I mean. LaMona (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:LaMona! Thank you so much for your help. Yes, I am very aware of the Wikipedia rules but am a bit confused. Does this mean that the whole article must be comprised of citations from other sources? I cannot write any of my own text whatsoever? I would be very thankful if you could edit the article I am trying to submit. The Natalia Valevskaya (fashion designer) article was made many years ago, I really had almost no sources of information except for their corporate web site. Here, on the other hand, I have a lot of sources but it still doesn't seem enough. Maybe you could put "citation needed" marks wherever you think is necessary? That would really help me see what to look for in the future. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex-paparazzi (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ex-paparazzi, yes, the whole article must be taken from other sources, although you must take the information that is those and put it into your own words. Information that you know from your own experience cannot be included unless you can source it. If you have no sources other than the corporate web site, then the subject does not meet the criteria for a WP article. For the BE OPEN article, I would greatly reduce the section on the awards, much of which is not sourced. Then, you have to make sure that what you say in the article is actually in the sources. The best way to create an article is to first gather the sources and what they say, then write the article from that. If you write the article from what you know, you may not have sources for everything. As an example, the 1st paragraph of Inside the Experiment has a reference to Schnabel, but that reference does not include the information in the first part of the paragraph, only the reference to Schnabel. It's not a matter of just putting references on each paragraph -- every fact in the article must be verifiable in the references that are provided. I can mark a few areas, but I would have to read every reference in order to edit the article -- that's a lot to ask. I'd rather you take a pass at it first. I'll mark a few spots as examples. LaMona (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, you also must use less promotional language. WP is an encyclopedia and its articles are made up of facts. You need to state things factually. This means that you cannot say " for a spectacular initiation period." Spectacular is not neutral. Also statements like "the journey of discovery" and " a totally new approach" are marketing-speak. As long as phrases like this are in the article you will have difficulty getting it accepted. I edited some paragraphs for neutral language. LaMona (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

On my sand box page, I responded to one reviewer's comment, by removing the section of question. Then you stated this does not answer his question, which to me it seems it does, could you be a little bit more clear on this?

Thanks,

Akhilbhargava (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Akhilbhargava, we're looking at: "The protein has been identified from primates up to the common fruit fly. To the current date, there has been no protein expression found past insects." The problems I have are with the "up to" and "past". First, one doesn't usually go from a more complex organism "up" a much more simple one. It would probably be best to say something like: "has been found in organisms from fruit flies to primates. No protein expression has been found in organisms simpler than insects." I don't know if "simpler" is the right term here, but perhaps you do. There are other awkward phrasings in the document. I will see what I can do for those,at least where it doesn't change the meaning. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TeddyRome (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Roberto Wirth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI! I added as many references as I could and I hope they will substantiate the article, but how do I save the changes without posting it? I wanted someone to review it before publishing it, but if I click the save button it is automatically published. Anyway, I will try once again and, as per Wikipedia's rules .. I'll be bold and keep trying! Thanks for your help! TeddyRome (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)TeddyRome[reply]

Hi, TeddyRome - I'm not sure of your distinction between "saving" and "publishing" -- basically, all changes on Wikipedia are visible, so that may be what you wish did not happen ;-). However, your article is not submitted to the review until you click on the "resubmit" button. There are a number of formatting issues (we have a style manual that needs to be followed). I'll fix some of the more glaring ones, and that will make the article look better. Then you can resubmit. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it now looks great. Resubmit and I will look for it to move it to the main Wiki. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LaMona thank you for your help! Before resubmitting it I have added another reference next to the first school he attended and added the links to John Cabot University and Gallaudet. It really looks nice to me. I hope it will be approved! have a nice day! TeddyRome (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)TeddyRomeTeddyRome (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• GB-Ferrari (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gran Premio Nuvolari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, I tried my best to bring the article into form. Please let me know, if I could do anything more. Would be great if you could assist. Regards GB-Ferrari (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GB-Ferrari, I added some more references and sent it on. It still needs some more references for the history area, but hopefully others will work on it now that it is public. LaMona (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Thanks for your feedback about reviews etc. The issue is that the movie only had 4 days of run-time in the US (and it won't have any more, as it won't have a general release), in Slovenia it' still running, in Croatia it stopped due to the complicated political issue and in Serbia it just started it's run.

The press clipping for US: http://www.thewrap.com/docu-fiction-movie-confuses-tribeca-film-festival-audience-and-thats-the-point/ http://blogs.artinfo.com/outtakes/2016/04/24/tribeca-parting-thoughts/ http://moveablefest.com/moveable_fest/2016/04/ziga-virc-houston-we-have-problem.html http://www.full-stop.net/2016/04/22/interviews/michael-schapira/ziga-virc/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-at-the-2016-tribeca-film-festival-and-beyond/ https://tribecafilm.com/stories/interview-houston-we-have-a-problem-documentary-ziga-virc-tribeca-film-festival http://dailyfreepress.com/2016/04/22/tribeca-film-festival-15-film-review/ http://www.metro.us/entertainment/12-films-to-see-at-the-tribeca-film-festival/zsJpdm---fCdXwmoVJgpQA/ http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/festivals/tribeca/2016/tribeca-2016-viewpoints https://viewofthearts.com/2016/05/02/houston-we-have-a-problem-review/

I've got a lot of press for Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, which I gladly provide. All the relevant big media have had a say, the professional, really hardcore film critics will probably not review it, as they see it as too commercial, all the relevant regional festivals will be either in the fall or next year... The articles are all in the regional languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.211.195 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should add what reviews you have, like those above. Don't just list them - use them to provide content. And if you can find any sources about it being blocked, those would be important. The thing is, on Wikipedia sources are everything. If the movie is obscure, hasn't been seen much, nor has been reviewed much, then it doesn't pass notability. (See WP:GNG). However, if you can show that there is controversy that is being discussed, that may provide the notability, and it would explain the lack of viewing. LaMona (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mporter1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GB Energy Supply (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

There appear to be valid Wikipedia entries for a number of other similar challenger energy companies, such as -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovo_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Utility

Hence, I'm unsure why GB Energy Supply are regarded as 'not encyclopedic', as they are very similar. Additional sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/think-you-got-the-cheapest-energy-deal-through-a-comparison-site-think-again-a6756356.html http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/lancashire-energy-firm-eyes-100m-mark-1-7902212

Thanks.

Mporter, whether or not those are similar, your article must meet the criteria in WP:CORP for notability. Your article is spare and has only three sources. Note how much more content there is in those other articles. The GB company is called "fledgling" in late 2015 so it may be too soon for the company to meet WP's notability criteria. If so, the article can be updated when there are more sources and more content. But remember that the point of WP is to impart information for readers. Just adding sources is not enough. You have to explain to the reader what matters about the company. Anything important in the sources must be brought into the article for the reader. LaMona (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 87.224.29.5 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Asante Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia continues to decline sources for Asante Capital yet the very same sources are used on competitors page (Rede Partners, Campbell Lutyens, etc). Why is it acceptable for them to do so but not for Asante Capital? Seems a bit biased.

87.224.29.5 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with "competitors" -- you haven't put the references inline with the text. See wp:Refbegin, and if that doesn't make sense to you, ask for help at the TeaHouse. Basically, you have article formatting problems that have to be resolved. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• PaintbrushArt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ralph Garafola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI LaMona, I see the change you made on background section. I do not know how to code this or websites. What I did was something that I could see and copy. I do not understand how to do the footnotes. Can you please show me the formatting so i can copy it.

Thank you PaintbrushArt PaintbrushArt (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaintbrushArt, when you are in edit mode, at the top of the edit box there is a row with things you can click on, like Bold or Special characters. Click on "cite" and a new row will appear with a pull-down for templates. Click on that, select the template you want, and fill in the boxes. You don't have to fill in all of the boxes, just the ones for which you have information. It's ok to just have a URL and a title. Someone else may come along and fill in more information after you. Do this with your cursor at the place where you want the reference to go, and it will be placed there when you click on "Insert". If this still doesn't work for you, ask for help at the Teahouse. LaMona (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to rename my draft Huang Jing to Huang Jing (artist) because a same name article already exists... how can I do it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsheng (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, so you should now find it at Draft:Huang Jing (artist). LaMona (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful review. I will attempt to make the suggested changes. Klossoke (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)klossoke.[reply]

• Jeanettenj11 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrew Miltenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I resubmitted my page with your suggestions and edits to ensure the article was neutral in tone. I was wondering if you would be able to review it again? Many thanks! Jeanette

When it is resubmitted, usually a different reviewer gets it. But someone will review it. Also, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. LaMona (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona, Thank you for reviewing my article on 'predictive engineering analytics'. I am a new user, so thanks for explaining me that references are absolutely necessary. I have added now references to the different sections. Can you let me know if this is sufficient? Thank you! BartVanLierde (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BartVanLierde. I see that you have added some references. However, there are still sections that are entirely unreferenced (and the article is overly long). Surely the information comes from somewhere, and that is what you must show. Everything in WP must be verifiable - so it must be possible for a reader to see where you got your information from. In terms of the length, look at WP:ESSAY and see if that doesn't help you understand how to edit the article. It is also possible that some of what you have is already covered in other articles - if that is the case, you should not repeat it here, but refer to those articles. Your article should be integrating with other articles on the same general topic, so think of your topic in the context what already exists. LaMona (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, I have added all references now. Everything in the text has at least one reference that users can use for verifying the information. I also made the text a bit more compact as to your recommendation. For some content I could indeed refer to other wikipedia-pages. However, I also had to frame them in the context of my subject. As this concerns an industry approach to design and development of products, it de facto combines multiple elements, which makes the page lengthy anyway. I cannot leave parts out... Thank you for helping me making this page better! I hope you like it and it can go online! Kind regards BartVanLierde (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:LaMona! I don't know if you saw my message... Forgot to 'mention' you. So maybe you overlooked it. Are my edits ok, and can the article move to publication? Thanks BartVanLierde (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BartVanLierde, Hi. It's in the review queue, so someone will pick it up. I did see that you added references, so that is good. I usually don't review two times in a row on the same article because it's good to get other eyes on it. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:LaMona! Ok, I see. Thank you! BartVanLierde (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:LaMona! Is there a way I can see if someone is doing the verification? How does this work? Does this happen in a sort of chronological order? Or do I just need to wait until someone finds this sufficiently interesting to verify? Thanks! BartVanLierde (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat random, and it often takes a while. Right now we are backed up, so it is taking longer than usual. LaMona (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mona, thank you much for taking your time to review my article. I has made an additional improvements, and addressed your concerned by adjusting the topic and some of the content.However, I am unsure on how to link it to another article " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_student" section as per requested. How do I address this issue?

Nle043 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nle043, to link to another Wikipedia article, you put the name of the Wikipedia article in square brackets. You do it from some text that names the article. So if you want to say that "There are many international students." you would write "There are many [[International student|international students]]." The simple explanation is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking -- there's a more detailed one, but I just looked at it and it would frighten most people away. The manual of style page, and only the first few sections, should be all that you need. It also helps explain when to link, and how to not "overlink". If you have trouble figuring it out, the volunteers at the TeaHouse are very good at explaining this. LaMona (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Abjorck42 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marika Takeuchi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thank you for reviewing my article submission. I was hoping I can ask you a few questions about your review. I'm a little bit surprised that she is not found to be notable enough, considering the facts that 1. She has written a song for an major record label Universal Music Japan's artist 2. Her music is featured in Japanese TV shows and Australian TV commercial 3. Her latest album is produced by the multiple Grammy-winning producer Will Ackerman, and featuring the Grammy-winning cellist Eugene Friesen 4. The album is currently ranked at No. 3 on a national radio chart (Zone Music Reporter), although this this is not notated on the draft 5. A short film that she wrote music for got a coverage on The Huffington Post 6. Her music is currently used as a theme song for a weather forecast show on Tokyo Metropolitan Television

I have seen a few artists who has similar or fewer notable career highlights than her on Wikipedia. Would you be so kind to give me advice regarding how I can improve the article and show her notability properly?

Thank you so much for your time.

Hi, User:Abjorck42. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. That's different from the actual article pages. Next, it isn't whether she is or isn't notable, but whether there are sources to support notability. That means that there need to be sources that are about her, not by her, and preferably the sources would be substantially about her, not just a sentence that says that she provided the music. The HuffPost coverage is of sort of medium weight, since that's a blog and not very formal in terms of content. If she has charted, then you need to put that in the draft. If you read WP:MUSIC you will see that charting is one of the main criteria. Have there been feature articles about her? There is of course the difficulty that this is English wikipedia and ideally there would be sources that show that she has notability in the English-speaking world, although sources in other languages are accepted. LaMona (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and advice. I will fix the article and add references accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abjorck42 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little bit of information with a third source. I hope that's enough, right? --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, you need to show that there are substantial sources about the person. Listings in directories can support facts, but do not show notability since most directories are inclusive. The same is true of the book you cite because it is intended to be an inclusive filmography. So you have supported facts, but you have not shown that this person has received significant attention, which would mean newspaper or magazine articles about him. It is hard with screenwriters because their work is mostly behind the scenes and they don't get much attention, but you need at least some sources that are substantially about him. We don't consider having ones name mentioned on one page of a book to support notability. LaMona (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found one award nomination. Is that enough? George Ho (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, Nominations are pretty low on the notability scale. It's great that someone was nominated, but wins for major awards are what support notability. It is possible that this person's career is taking off, and that soon there will be more evidence to support notability. If you cannot complete the draft today, it remains here for at least 6 months after the last edit. You will be notified when there is one month to go, and even any small edit will give you another six months. So you can continue looking for sources without any real deadline. LaMona (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mahantesh Angadi15/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahantesh Angadi15, the footnotes must be in-line with the text they support. See footnote #1 which was done as an example. If this doesn't help, ask for help at the TeaHouse. LaMona (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help with the Jessica Lynn Wiki page. I really appreciate the chance to continue to work on it and am hopeful that with your advice, it will pass muster. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIS0130 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JIS0130. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. It's odd, but that's how it is. Next, you have a problem because of the photo that you include. No content can be on Wikipedia unless there are no copyright or licensing restrictions - that is, everything must be in the public domain. This photo is not, so it will have to be deleted. You can use a non-professional photo that you or someone has taken themselves and that the person who took the photo is willing to release without restrictions. You are still talking about her tv "specials" without support (the Yorktown article is two sentences and purely promotional, so that one is not a reliable source). Wikipedia cannot be used for promotion (see WP:PROMO) - it is an encyclopedia of information. You cannot say things like: "Following Lynn's 2014 PBS special and its success" - "success" in this case is not a definable fact. You cannot say "she was invited to return to the network with a 2015 program" and cite something that says nothing about an invitation. You CAN say: "She did another program in 2015." That is a fact. You cannot say "At sixteen, Lynn penned a song about Alzheimer's disease, entitled "Your Favorite Stranger," which aided in her becoming a published ASCAP writer in the same year." without citing a source that gives that exact information. Ideally, one begins a WP article with a set of reliable sources that talk about the subject, and builds the article from those sources. If instead one is writing about a subject they know themselves, there is a tendency to write the article and then look for sources to support it. That is backward. You should gather your sources and see what information you have, and re-write the article from those sources. LaMona (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mahantesh Angadi15/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Please help me in footnote coding.Mahantesh Angadi15 (talk)[reply]

You must click on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and ask there. LaMona (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lemona thank you so much for your feedback for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gadget_Flow / I have a question, I tried to copy the reference structure of one of their competitors Fancy -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy and I noticed that they also used references from alexa and other similar sources, is that still okay to use? Can you please elaborate on which sources are produced from the company?

User:188.4.113.173, statistics and directory sources do not support notability because they include all available companies. Articles in which an officer of the company is quoted or named do not support notability. See WP:CORP for notability standards for companies. LaMona (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]