User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Comments on Draft:EnviroVent

Hi,

I have taken your comments on board and I have updated the EnviroVent page with additional citations and content.

I appreciate your thoughts on the changes I have made so that I can further develop my skills on Wikipedia.

Kind regards,

Adam

Adam Slinger (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My comments pertained to coverage about it in general. I don't think there's enough. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Greg Miller

Thank you for your help with the Greg Miller draft article. I am confused though. I feel like I keep reading conflicting information on the help pages. I don't understand the whole cite thing. At first I did not have enough so I looked at other Wiki bio pages so I could see what others did and then I thought I did that. I am thoroughly confused. Would it be possible for you to pick one specific thing from the draft Greg Miller page and point it out as an example for me to follow? I don't understand what to do. I am sorry about this! It is all very confusing. I appreciate any help that you can give me! Spngbobsfo (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:IRS and WP:IS are good guidelines for learning about what Wikipedia wants in the form of references. Most facts and statements must be backed by appropriate sources. Where did you take all of that information? Show us. Also, external links shouldn't be placed in-line. Try to keep language as encyclopaedic as possible, "Miller Group of Companies places great emphasis on the well-being of its employees and the local community." is unacceptable, for instance. Hope this helps. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Isefjorden

I recently went back and completed the draft. It now has several paragraphs.

I'm aware that no article refers to the event as "Battle of the Isefjorden". However, a few do refer to it as "The Battle in Isefjorden".

Also, I believe that since this was one of only three events in which the Danish Military outright fought with the Germans in WWII (the other two being the initial invasion of Denmark in 1940 and a skirmish in Greenland), it deserves its own proper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:D83E:46CF:F553:D737 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. I'll see what the people at the relevant WikiProject say. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Also: I just added another source (in Danish, granted) that confirms most everything in the articles by the Danish Naval History Website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, the more the better! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Maison Margiela

Can you be more specific re: reliable sources for Maison Margiela? I have used mainstream, trusted news sources (NY Times, Vogue, Newsweek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6100:7D0:AC6A:3CC3:C464:C2A1 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

More references. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

PermID

Hi,

There was a comment about a paragraph taken from a link on the page I created, i'm absolutely happy to change it if I need to, could you explain what I need to do?

Sorry this is the first page I have created i'm afraid!

Appreciate your guidance!

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc1927 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please word that paragraph yourself if possible, otherwise quote a portion with the proper attribution. Also provide more references. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oplink

Hi:

For "Oplink Communications" page, can you remove the linkrot refimprove part? I added citation information yesterday. Please let me know if anything can be improved.

Regards,

Gukevin (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, simply because the issues haven't been addressed properly. Please read over the banners' information carefully, i.e. understand you need to fully cite sources, including as many input fields as possible (authors, dates, publication, title, etc.) and provide more reliable, independent sources (oplink press releases are definitely not reliable nor independent, hence the banner). Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Gukevin (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I replaced all Oplink press releases with source from bloomberg and NASDAQ.

Great, thanks for that. The company passes general notability, hence my acceptance. It will hopefully be improved as time goes by by other editors, so don't worry excessively about it. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Erwan Le Corre

As advised by you, I have extensively trimmed the article for submission to Wikipedia.Yachefman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

AFC: InfoBeans

Hi,

As suggested by you, I trimmed the content to bring in neutral point of view. Please review.

Thanks, VirtualAvi (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Why Declined?

Hello, We are TEDx, an organization promoting our youth making a difference around the world. Why did you reject one of our leaders Timothy Lann? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEDxFellows (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• He simply fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Feel free to resubmit in the future, once he fulfills WP:GNG. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nerenberg

Hi,

You recently commented on a page I created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karl_Nerenberg, saying there isn't very much information "About" Karl. Looking at the article I see it goes into quite some details about everything he has done in his life. So I may just misunderstand. Can you elaborate at all on what you mean by "about", perhaps telling me which aspect "about" his life you think would improve the article.

Thanks you very much for your comment.

Chris King

If you had read the guideline links provided, this would be clear enough for you. The references you provided do not constitute extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources. I went further and looked for information myself, and found little is written ABOUT him, and not BY him, therefore it will be tough for him to pass WP:GNG, which is our most basic means of determining inclusion into the encyclopaedia. Hope this helps, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Software-Defined_Enterprise

Thank you very much for contacting me, as you can tell this is my first submission. The purpose of this being phrased as a functional definition, specifically that to qualify as an SDE generation service the SDE it generates must be in open standard format, is that it may *hopefully* mitigate the likelihood of the first to market generating SDEs using proprietary standards. This could be risky as it SDEs are very quick and inexpensive to design and later transform due to changing competition dynamics, which may put non-SDEs at risk.

The functional definition approach would make many SAAS, IAAS, PAAS etc. experts see that such a service can be created relatively easily and therefore prevent the proliferation of a proprietary SDE formats.

So: I do get it that submissions must not be original research – which this is not – but is there a way to leverage the influence of Wikipedia being in the top 3 search results to mitigate the likelihood of a few companies eventually having control over the enterprise information systems of many other companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.65 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't follow. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent Comment on John J. Campion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Joseph_Campion

Hi FoCuSandLeArN,

Thank you for reviewing this page. I'm new to all of this so I appreciate your feedback. When you say you cannot find substantial coverage on him, how are you searching for coverage? I spent hours and hours collecting online articles and videos about him and include all the resources I found. Do you feel this is not enough and what do you suggest? Thanks again! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Joseph_Campion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.12.98 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For a general overview of what we're looking regarding coverage, see WP:GNG. We require extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources about the subject. These I could not find. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Do the links I included like Bloomberg, ABC News, USA Today, not work? Those are reputable and about the subject. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsocial6 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course they work! Please use citations when possible. For indications see WP:REFB. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I will make sure to add more citations where applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsocial6 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stormy_Atmosphere

Dear FoCuSandLeArN
What exactly did you mean by Chart history?
I know that the band was few times on a radio (2 or 3 different local radio stations),
also their first album "Colorblind" was rated 48 from 100 best world Progressive albums of 2009, but I guess I mentioned that in the article already... Is that good enough?
Thanks in advance,
Silverray123 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BAND has more information as to what we're looking for. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got a signed document from Tbilisi JAM!Fest 2015, that invites the band to participate in the festival were at this april.
The problem is that it's a MS Word file. What should I do with that if I'd like to add it to my article? Thanks
Silverray123 (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Trestle

Hello, Thank you for reviewing my recent page "Work at the Trestle." You asked whether it would make more sense to focus the page on TT Vernon Smith, rather than the sculpture. We definitely considered this approach, but wanted the page to serve as a resource for people visiting the sculpture in Wolfville. We figured more people would search based on the sculpture than on TT Vernon himself. Do you feel it would be better represented the other way around? Thanks, Nicole Quinn (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Nicole

Hello there! Thanks for your prompt response. I understand your dilemma, and fortunately there's a solution for that. On Wikipedia, we usually focus on the artist first, then their work, unless the work definitely overshadows the author, which I'm not sure happens in this case. If your concern is about search results, we can simply place a redirect under the sculpture's name that actually links to the artist's article, or even its relevant subsection. Hope this helps, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. However, the decision is not whether to focus primarily on artist vs. art, but rather subject vs. art piece. TT Vernon Smith is the subject of the sculpture, not the artist. The artist (Ruth Abernethy) does not currently have a wikipedia page (although she should...). Personally, I feel like the focus here could go either way. TT Vernon Smith is certainly of historical significance to Eastern Canada, so warrants a titled page; however, the sculpture is also highly relevant as a landmark and historical tribute. I'm open to either based on the preference of the Wikipedia editors... please advise. Thanks, NicoleNicole Quinn (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant, I just read the article too quickly to notice the sculpture's dedicatee. Ruth's notability would have to be assessed concomitantly with Vernon Smith's. The sculpture itself doesn't seem to have garnered significant enough coverage to procure an article, or otherwise be notable for its artistic merit. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. OK, I'd like to change the name of the entry to "T.T. Vernon Smith" and have the sculpture be a section within, as you originally suggested. However, I cannot figure out how to change the title of the page. Should I simply delete the old entry and create a new one? Thanks, Nicole Nicole Quinn (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I figured it out. Thanks!Nicole Quinn (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Just an explanatory comment at the top should be enough for future reviewers to see what they should do. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Levi Suydam

Thank you very much, FoCuSandLeArN! I sent more thank yous from the history page, but here's more just in case. Cheers Pangurban22 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries! I found his story quite curious! Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Philippe Sollie

Dear sir,

Even I did my best, I am disappointed to see that my article has been declined again. Philippe Sollie is an inventor who has been offering new solutions in wound care e.g. wound healing without silver which is known to have multiple side-effects. Indeed he is involved in private industry but I am not planning to mention his companies or his products in my article. Therefore I believe he deserves a record in Wikipedia. Among all his publications, his patents he is a well-known entrepreneur in BeNeLux countries. If this is the problem that the references I add to his biography are mostly in local language Dutch or French, I will try to enter the article in Wikipedia within these secions. Would this help? I would appreciate your help and ideas. Best Regards

Gfrederic(talk)

Unfortunately, believing he deserves an article is not enough. If he fails WP:GNG he simply will not be accepted. PLease review the guideline. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hare Krishna Temple of Understanding

Hi FoCuSandLeArN

You left a comment on my draft article, Draft:Hare Krishna Temple of Understanding advising that it needs to be edited extensively for language and neutrality. Is it possible if you could mention a part of the article that does not abide by this? This will just give me a better idea what to improve on regards to language and neutrality throughout the entire article.

Thanks, will appreciate your help.

AarthiKalan (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In general terms, all unreferenced information could potentially be deleted. Most of the information found in the article seems unreferenced, therefore should be either trimmed or offer proper attribution. As for the language, stuff like "The celebration of Krishna’s birthday is an important festival", or "Maya is the illusive energy which makes Vaishnavas forget who God is, what their identity is and what their relationship with God is", should definitely be addressed. The whole article seems to be written from the point of view of Srila Prabhupada's followers. Try to offer a neutral description of the building rather than an one-sided exposé on religious views. Hope this helps, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Vincent

I was trying to make a page about Vincent Emanuele and you commented that he doesn't meet the requirements. I believe he does:

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

Vincent Emanuele has been played a major role in maintaining and creating one of the only antiwar veterans organizations in the world: Iraq Veterans Against the War. His war experiences and experiences as an activist have been captured in several books and his life after the war has been captured in a feature lengthy documentary, plus he's been interviewed by media outlets around the world about his experiences overseas. And he testified to US Congress about war crimes in Iraq, one of only nine veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who've testified to US Congress about such issues.

After looking through some of the pages on here, I find it very hard to believe that Vincent Emanuele doesn't fit the criteria.

Let me know what I can do to improve the page or to convince you otherwise! Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Leary South Boo (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and where are those notable reviews? I can't seem to find them. He simply does not seem to garner extensive coverage outside of his own writings. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft article feedback

Hello, Thanks for your comment on my draft article "Vista Group International". I've begun tidying up my references and adding links to other articles so that this article is no longer a complete 'orphan'. I have read through the article on writing with a neutral tone, but if you could give an example from my article of writing that appears biased it would be very helpful! That way I can have a bit more direction with my editing. Also, having received your feedback and implementing it, I wonder what the next step is in terms of having my article made public? Is there anything further I can do apart from continue to make editing improvements? Thanks, Joselyn Tan (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The two parts that caught my attention now are "VES made its first overseas sales in Argentina and Fiji, at which point its software was adapted to handle multiple languages and accommodate the complex tax laws and film regulations of other countries. This flexibility allowed VES to expand rapidly into the diverse cinema markets of Central and North America, Europe, and Asia" and "staffed by people who are still key shareholders and staff in VES today"; both are unreferenced and have non-neutral terms. As for the other question, just await another review. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Crowdsaving

Hi,

thanks for taking a look at my article on crowdsaving. Your comment was that there was no indication that it was a widely used term. Totally understandable as that's how new terms come into being. Is there a metric for when such a term can be considered as widely used? Using google keywords I found at least 70 people per month were searching for this exact term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.138.218 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has this page to explain what it considers valid. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to your question on Irene Dellon draft article

Justael2: Irene Dellon article:

Irene is considered notable as a woman receiving the highest award in male scouting. She is also considered notable as being the first head of the math department at the new Saddle Brook High School in NJ from which she inspired sufficient students to have a street named for her in that town. Justael2 (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think either of those makes her suitable for inclusion. For more information see WP:GNG. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Silvio Wolf

Hello,

thank you very much for your comment! I see, may I ask you which sections work well and if sources that already there are ok?

Best,

GVndl (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Most sections are highly lacking in regards to references, not to mention the need to provide extensive coverage from independent and reliable sources. As for content, I'd severely trim the exhibitions, articles and timeline subsections. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Robert Morris-Nunn

Many thanks for your comments. I will address the neutral language issue. Your concerns about the Works section are not cleared up by reading the link you suggested. Could you be more specific about how you would like this cleaned up? All these works are significant to some degree in understanding Morris-Nunn's work. I have used the entry for Norman Foster as a guide. I will look forward to hearing from you.Orbitzoll (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It is too long. At the moment it resembles a CV, which is undesired as per WP:NOT. I would trim all works and publications to contain only the ones which are discussed in independent sources. Most sources you've provided in that regard are very minor and local mentions, not extensive coverage. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Lee

When you say "clean up" the article on Lee Hedges, please advise specifically what I need to clean up. I was a newspaper writer/editor for 40-plus years; I don't mind making changes, but I need specifics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36B4:C4F0:493:A300:4EDB:4D9F (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In few words: too many quotes; no attributions nor proper referencing; and non-neutral language. Aim for Norm Chow quality, for example. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Shantha Kumar Arjunan

You mentioned that this article does not pass notability criteria? He has represented India in Nehru cup.. Has played for some of the best football clubs in India. Has achieved the coaching licenses... The references given are all prominent news papers of India..

What else is required???

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganmah5 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

He then passes WP:NFOOTY. You should await a review. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

re: Ambre McLean

thank you for your question. Yes, Ambre McLean's song reached #38 on the FMQB AC top 200 chart - I have added this to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthwoodMusic (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not a reliable chart listing. See WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CHART. I don't think she passes WP:GNG either. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding Pictures

Hello! Could you please help me add pictures to the page I am currently working on? I do not know how to properly format them. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEDxFellows (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this regarding Timothy? He won't be accepted for an article on Wikipedia, failing general notability. As for images, see WP:IMAGE. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter

Hi FoCuSandLeArN,

I think that I just inadvertently sent you part of a response to your comments.

To recap, I thought that I had removed all inline references and made them either sources or footnotes. I also thought that I had exhaustively sourced/footnoted all information in the article. And, I have read the WP:RS and WP:IRS, WP:CITE and WP:REFB sections and also looked at many other articles to see how they are organized and referenced. I think that I have reached the limitations of my understanding, and really need you or someone else to walk me through the issues remaining with my article.

Is this possible? To work together in a more direct manner?

Thanks for your input,

Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annmarieholcomb (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing your submission shortly. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In-article external links removed from draft Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences

As requested, I have removed all in-article external links (except those listed under the heading "External links") from the draft of "Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences."

Srpalm (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Stormy Atmosphere band article

Dear FoCuSandLeArN
As far as I've checked, the band Stormy Atmosphere does meet criteria of the WP:BAND mentioned in the par. 1,4,5, since they participated in a tour across Europe with a famous musician (Mike Terrana), and in two festivals (Progstage Fest 2012 and Tbilisi Jam!Fest 2015), have two albums, and been also reviewed by the "Fireworks" magazine.
First album "Colorblind" was released by a Russian label "MALS", and I've heard that the second album is about to be released by another label, but the band hasn't approved it yet, so I didn't put it in the article.
Please notify me as soon as possible, because I haven't heard from you yet and meanwhile as the article is still waiting for approvement, more articles added for review before it... Thanks a lot Silverray123 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Will tidy up ASA{

Thank you so much for your response. I put it in the queue but didn't expect a response so quickly - will tidy it up asap : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisenFall (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Karl

Hi - On a page I submitted for review you say "there is not much written ABOUT him". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karl_Nerenberg I was just wondering if you could elaborate on that statement a bit and let me know what you mean? Do you mean there need to be more citations from outside sources, or more content written about him. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks very much.

Chrisking1977 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I mean: we need more independent citations about him. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Beth

Hello, noticed the comment you left on the draftpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beth_S._Benedict I have changed the section "achievments" to "awards" to help address your concern. I've also added a few things to the page. Beth Benedict conducts a great deal of work with groups, students, and parents of deaf children in understand the best practices (and current research) on education of the deaf. Djgriffin7 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but she might not fulfill Wikipedia's own notability guidelines even so. See WP:PROF for more details. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy Redeemer Catholic parish, Belize City

You ask what this article is about. Admittedly it covers a long and varied history but I'm not sure what I should do to make clearer what is being discussed. A parish is a group of people united as "church" in a particular locale. In the first line of the article I state that the article will tell about the history of this people over time. I divide the article into early history ("Foundations") and "Twentieth Century." I explain that (in a country with a remarkable history but very few historians) an order of Catholic priests (Jesuits) are one of the few extant chroniclers of this history. I believe the history is worth preserving, and welcome your suggestions on how the article might be made more user-friendly.jzsj 15:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that! I'd say the most immediate change you could make is provide a general overview of the article in its lead section. Further, if you could provide some more references, that would be great; things like "became the first multipurpose auditorium" need special emphasis, otherwise we can't include them. Happy editing! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tips for I'lam Center draft

Thanks for the help FoCuSandLeArN I appreciate that. Can you tell me what you mean by independent sourcing? I have third-party websites referenced in there already - do I need to avoid using the organisation's own website, even if it's only for background info? Thanks!J jordan90 (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IRS and WP:IS for tips on what sources we want in there. Using the organization's own website is OK for uncontroversial statements, such as when it was founded, but the article almost exclusively relies on it. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Factum Arte

Dear FoCuSandLeArN

Thanks for your comment. Could you suggest how I make the language more neutral?

Also any more suggestions on how to improve the page would be very welcome

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.99.5 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC) }

WP:NPOV should be a good start language wise; controverial statements such as "It was considered one of the greatest altarpieces of the 15th Century Bolognese School" need to be especially referenced. As for the article itself, try to remove redlinks, and introduce full citations whenever possible, including author names, dates, pages, etc. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow Up on Draft:The Comics Alternative

Hello,

I'm following up on a response on a draft of a Wikipedia page that FoCuSandLeArN reviewed. This is the page for The Comics Alternative, and I have addressed issues that FoCuSandLeArN had raised. I am wondering when this draft will be reconsidered.

Thank you,

Dave Kepesh kepesh22@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkepesh (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We currently have a severe review backlog, so we'll try to tackle it as soon as we can. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow up on Draft: T.T Vernon Smith (formerly Draft: Work at the Trestle)

Hi there, I'm following up on comments made on my entry (T.T Vernon Smith) on May 19. The comments have since been addressed and I've also improved the page by adding several references. How do I ensure that the page will be (or is being) re-reviewed? Thanks, Nicole Nicole Quinn (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We currently have a severe review backlog, so we'll try to tackle it as soon as we can. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

en. Wikipedia Kurt Heinrich Meyer

I greatly appreciate it that my article on my father Kurt Heinrich Meyer has been accepted by English Wikipedia In the grading system supplied to me, may I assume that only the rows with labeled FA (blue) , GA(green) and GA(blue) which have an additional star or other symbol do apply to my article ? Please let me know.

thank you 107.15.43.14 (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Horst Meyer Dept of Physics, Duke U.

You mean good article status? You can find out more about that here. You can improve the article and apply for a review, that's up to you. I'm not entirely familiar with the criteria, but in any case you can get in touch with the people over there with questions you might have. Best of luck, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Stormy Atmosphere band article

Dear FoCuSandLeArN
After you had asked me questions, I left you few messages on your talk page, but didn't get any response.
Meanwhile my article keeps on waiting for approval, and I think that other articles get before him for some reason
because I had less than a 1000 articles before mine two weeks ago and now it's more than 1100 (!)
My article has been declined a lot, I walked a very long journey so far and made a lot of studies on the way,
therefore - please inform me what's happening...
Thanks in advance,
Silverray123 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I just asked you if they appeared in any charts, for example Billboard or its Israeli counterpart; I believe the answer is no. The Tbilisi reference doesn't matter. The band is simply non-notable at this moment in time, and no matter how many minor sources you provide, it won't be accepted. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear FoCuSandLeArN
Please don't get me wrong, but as far as I've checked, being in a chart is not the only notability criteria for a band.
For instance, I believe if a band is signed up in a label from another country is enough for notability, right?
Please check the [metalscraprecords.com] website, a cd section - Stormy Atmosphere are already signed there, and the album "Pent Letters" will be out soon under the label promotion. Moreover, why do my sources considered minor? I mean, bands less huge then Metallica do deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia, and Stormy Atmosphere has enough proofs of existence and proofs of performances hand-to-hand with famous artists (Mike Terrana, Pain of Salvation, Andromeda, The Flower Kings), and have an album where a famous singer participates (Tom Englund). So why is the band not notable?
Again, don't get me wrong, it's just that I am having this conversation again and again with many Wiki moderators, and finally they do agree that Stormy Atmosphere deserves being mentioned, but then the article goes to another moderator and I got to explain everything from the beginning...

Thank you for your time and concideration,
Silverray123 (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Never did I imply that was the only criterion; as far as I'm concerned the band does not meet any of the criteria, though, hence all of the submission's previous declines. Having signed with a label is no use if the records they produced are not notable in themselves. Neither does playing with artists that have articles automatically make a band notable by association. It all comes down to extensive coverage; if the band is mentioned extensively in independent and reliable sources, it sure merits inclusion into Wikipedia. I have thus far seen no proof of said coverage, nor compliance with any of the other criteria on WP:MUSIC. Lots of notable bands have an article on Wikipedia; we have a set of rules the bands must comply with for them to be considered notable, and oftentimes these rules are different to what people perceive as notable in the real world. However, we must abide by those rules, otherwise we wouldn't be an encyclopaedia, but rather a permissible music website. The article has been declined multiple times, so I advise you either consider desisting, or ask for further guidance in the appropriate WikiProject, as we seem not to be clear enough for you. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear FoCuSandLeArN
First of all, thank you for your explanation, but... After the article had been declined, it was modified with a help of a few Wikipedia moderators
It's not that I have just been clicking "resubmit" thoughtlessly, I worked hard on it and discussed and double-checked with Wiki moderators before clicking a button... it's a fifth or a sixth version of the article *after* the last declining.
Besides, I believe that "Fireworks" magazine is independent enough, and they did write about the band in 2009
(the reference to the magazine is in the article: Baldrian, Nicky (8 October 2009). "The music is out there". Fireworks (37): 88.)

Silverray123 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sabina Sakoh

Dear FoCuSand,

Much obliged. Your doubts are justified.

Yet, to clarify: Before re-submitting I made the following alterations (minor) - Added two more references (from German national papers "Frankfurter Rundschau" + "Die Welt") - supplemented all quoted article titles with an English translation AND (major) - SHIFTED THE FOCUS of Sakoh's significance from "being a contemp. female artist" to "the one whose painting (i.e. of a harlequin) has become, perchance and due to the media, a symbol of our former minister of foreign affairs term in office and thus became inseparable of his public image and the German administration 2009-13". (Just furthered the according paragraph a bit more in this manner.)

Thanks again, and kind regards AntonioRusconi (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nolan

Hello, I have added some additional references to Draft:William Edward Nolan, Jr. as per your suggestion. 14:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow up on Draft comment on Irene Dellon Article

Justael2: Irene Dellon article:

Irene is considered notable as a woman receiving the highest award in male scouting. She is also considered notable as being the first head of the math department at the new Saddle Brook High School in NJ from which she inspired sufficient students to have a street named for her in that town. Justael2 (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think either of those makes her suitable for inclusion. For more information see WP:GNG. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. We are sorry you are not of the opinion Irene Samuels Dellon is important enough to include in Wikipedia. Irene Dellon accomplished what few women ever have, for children and Boy Scouts in particular, having taught math and human values to a generation of children in a rural area, and inspiring them to strive for personal greatness. This was at a male-dominated time in history. Surely all who were recipients of Irene Dellon’s devotion to education and willingness to help all she came into contact with felt she should be remembered in history. We thought Wikipedia was more about recording accurate information and letting the future judge the historical importance; for example someone who records one record and appears in one movie gets to have a Wikipedia page! Will you be the reviewer to make the final judgment regarding the disposition of the Irene Dellon article? If so, please reconsider posting Irene Dellon in Wikipedia.Justael2 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We have a set of criteria for assessing whether a person is notable according to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't think she fulfills any of these, hence my comments. Please await another reviewal. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Institute for Molecular Bioscience page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Grenetta McKinstry

You mentioned there were not enough citations. Be more specific. More citations can be added. I have read Wikipedia with far fewer citations than the Draft: Grenetta McKinstry. Be more specific!! Where are additional citations needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Define "citations. Email me your detailed comments. I will make the necessary corrections.Grenetta mckinstry (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you misundertsood me. She has been cited (academically) very few times, not enough for her to pass WP:PROF. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

How many is not enough?????? I know for a fact that McKinstry's article in Phytopathology alone has been cited over 22 times, the last I checked, not to mention the number of times the article has been read (> 1000). Phytopathology is a "peer reviewed" journal. The other articles in other journals have also, been cited many times as well. Did you realize that Grenetta McKinstry has been married twice, and her publications are under Grenetta McKinstry Harris, or Grenetta McKinstry Hicks, Hicks, G. M., Harris, G. M. Also, how are you determining "cited?" Are you even qualified to determine scientific citations? McKinstry's scientific accomplishments are all over the Internet in articles based on her scientific work in microbiology. Books are being sold over the Internet with her work in them. Define "enough." Put a number to it. I know scientists that are in Wikipedia that have way less citations than McKinstry has. A "number" please!!!!!!!!! It's only fair to provide a number. Not just say, not "enough." What does that mean????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenetta mckinstry (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please calm yourself. All those questions are answered at WP:PROF. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, incorrect. I have read the page you mention. The page you reference follows scientists who selected career paths in universities and related institutions. McKinstry took a career path in Industry, just like Louis Pasteur. Louis Pasteur is in Wikipedia. McKinstry achieved in industry as high as comparable scientists in academia. In the article, it shows that McKinstry was given 44 selected "credible" awards, honors, citations. How do you think she got them, as a token? No. She earned them through hard work and based on her scientific contribution. She was elected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, New York Academy of Science, Sigma XI (Ohio State University & Abbott Laboratories), Abbott Laboratories Presidential Award. She has also, been on TV ( Atlanta, GA, 1988) as an up and coming Black scientist, when she worked at PEER Consultants PC, Oak Ridge, TN. There is a video tape of the interview. By the way, I am calm. I don't think McKinstry should be misrepresented and judged by someone who is obviously biased towards scientists with a university career path.

Again, be specific. "How many citations is enough?" You don't know do you. You read a page and threw it at the article just to be negative and make a bogus comment. What are you afraid of? How will it affect you if the article passes?

I am so hoping, the individual who does the final article review will do a better and "fairer" job of critiquing the article than you have done. In my opinion, the article deserves to pass!!!!!

@Grenetta mckinstry: Because if so, that's exactly why you think it should pass, because you assume that you're notable. If you are Grenetta mckinstry, then please read WP:AUTO, which strongly discourages the creation of autobiographies. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Grenetta mckinstry, FoCuSandLeArN is a very knowledgeable and experienced reviewer. Please do not take this personally. His advice to you is sound. The subject needs to pass the inclusion criteria in one of two ways. Either you must demonstrate significant in-depth coverage of her, published in reliable, independent sources. Or, in the absence that, she would need to meet the criteria for scientists and professors. For that she would require having won a major prize or 100s of citations and/or significant library holdings (over 1000). The New York Academy of Sciences has 25,000 members, who become members by paying a membership subscription. Who's Who and similar publications are not considered to be independent of the subject. Listings there do not attest to notability for Wikipedia's purposes. I suggest you spend your time looking for books or magazine and newspaper articles devoted specifically to her or her work. Voceditenore (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

All of you need to calm down and be objective. It is obvious you two are supporting your friend, FoCuSandLeArN, as a reviewer. The point I hope to make here is that just because he has reviewed a few articles does not mean he's correct on this one, perfect and can't get it wrong. The other point is that none of you are scientists. How can you critique a science article as to its importance in its field. Lastly, none of you seem to have read the article in detail, objectively, and paid attention to the references. All three of you are being defensive in support of your turf as reviewers. Let the reviewer, FoCuSandLeArN, defend his own work. Or does he need you in order to be successful? The old saying applies here, "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." The reviewer, FoCuSandLeArN, can be critiqued just like the article he's critiquing. Don't attack me, or the article "Grenetta McKinstry," because I don't agree with either of you. I have an opinion just like you. Neither of you are better than I am. We are all human beings, right? And, I will always fight for my right to express my opinion and I will not be intimidated otherwise! whether it's by one person or three. By the way, it's my understanding, all three of you are "volunteers." You don't get paid for your intimidation or for what you do. So, I guess you feel free to trash articles at will. The article, "Grenetta McKinstry," in my opinion is qualified to pass. I am a scientist in the field in question, you're not! Again, I ask the question, "What are all three of you afraid of if it does pass????" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenetta mckinstry (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Grenetta mckinstry: You've assumed we all aren't scientists, which might not actually be true. Nevertheless, we are all a lot more experienced in Wikipedia knowledge, and in particular the review process of new articles than you are. Frankly this submission doesn't show they're notable enough, you have 35 sources, but lots of them aren't reliable, per WP:RS. The tone also isn't neutral, as required by WP:NPOV- it reads like a resume/CV of achievements. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, appears an admin has deleted it as unambiguous advertising, which is exactly the reason why it shouldn't have been accepted. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem! I was extremely disappointed with Wikipedia and it's review process. I thought Wikipedia was a more sophisticated venue than it turned out to be. The reviewers seem to be too groupie and not knowledgeable or objective enough. If someone is not in your group, the article gets unjustifiably trashed. Bad, bad. If I had known the lack of quality of Wikipedia submission, I would never, ever have submitted the article in the first place. Wikipedia review sucks!!!!!! So don't worry. I am very relieved its over. Yeh! I don't want the article to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. Thank you, thank you, thank you for deleting it. I made a mistake to submit it to Wikipedia in the first place. The article qualified, Wikipedia didn't qualify. I am somewhat concerned, however, that you had the article for a week, especially since you were the "wrong" venue for the information.

After deletion, Wikipedia is no longer allowed to use any of the submitted information, "at all". Don't cheat. I have a copy of what was submitted. I will know if Wikipedia uses it. The information is now "proprietary." If you use any of it, there may be consequences. Lastly, the whole process with Wikipedia was too complicate for nothing. The process was not at all computer friendly. It was a maze of computer jibber jabber. A bunch of computer people overly impressed with themselves. None of them scientists. Once involved in the process, I just didn't know how to say "let me out of this!" Wikipedia was definitely not a good match for the article, at all.

I did not like the lack of respect and customer service I received from you. I will not be using your service again, especially after knowing the people behind the scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenetta mckinstry (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you feel so negatively of your experience here, because contrary to what you believe, all editors do want to help, and do what is best for the encyclopedia. I hope that some day you might wish to contribute again.

On a different note, the phrase "If you use any of it, there may be consequences" appears to be an implied legal threat, which is not permitted per WP:NLT. I would strongly advise clarifying or redacting this claim of possible legal action. You cannot claim "propietary" to the rights of this text, as when you put it on Wikipedia, you release it for public use under the Commons license. However, as the text has now been deleted, it can only be viewed by admins. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't steal my information or respond further. No need to sugar coat your bad behavior. Your lack of sincerity falls on deaf ears. I'm glad the article is deleted. I don't like your group and your behind the scenes unethical activities, and in my opinion, it borders on discrimination. Knowing me and my need to be ethical and proper, there will be no future submissions of any kind "from me" to Wikipedia, nor will I be contributing financially to your organization in the future. I don't like your policies or practices. I am surprised you lasted this long. Again, let this be the last response about this matter. No more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenetta mckinstry (talk • contribs) 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

13:50:38, 5 June 2015 review of submission by Donkepesh

• Donkepesh (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Comics Alternative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made the requested adjusts on The Comics Alternative entry, especially as it applies to citations and authoritative sources. I have read over the changes, and the entry is very similar to other, comparable entries on Wikipedia. Please contact me about the changes and let me know the status of the entry submission.

D. Kepesh

Donkepesh (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello, have a nice day. Her original name is Samantha Anne Cojuangco Lopez, From Philippine Entertainment Portal or PEP. Thank you and God bless. Systemupdate101 (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Query- looking for assistance with identification of non-neutral language on my Robert Shaw Oliver page

Hello!! Thank you for taking your time to take a look at my submission for a wiki page. I ask your assistance in identifying non-neutral language. I am having a hard time seeing how my verbiage is not neutral and I would not want to change the context of Gen. Oliver's speech if the non-neutral language is in his speech at Antietam. I appreciate your suggestion, and want to comply if I can get some help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherwikifan (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for getting back to me. Quotes are fine, I'm just having trouble (given the lack of quotation marks) distinguishing text from quotes. You could also try segmenting content into further sections, not focusing so much on his speech, which for brevity (and content) reasons will have to be extensively trimmed. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)