User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2013/July

EatOut Article: More Context

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my article on EatOut. Can you tell me specifically which areas/sections of the article need more context?

The article is a bit confusing and needs more focus. Is the article about an app or a company that created an app? What is a "booking service"? What can people do with this app? The "Yummy Blog", is it part of the app or something else offered by the founder of this service? What is "EatOut Kenya"? the company that created the app or the app itself. If you'd like to include Taste Events Ltd. in the article you should probably make the article about the larger company rather than a specfic app.--RadioFan (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Downsize Fitness: Help with Neutrality

Hey, I have been scanning over my article again and am looking for anything that has a promotional tone. You said you noticed some things I was hoping you could point them out, or let me know what the issues are. Is the article allowed to reference goals of the firm? Also I put the "press section" in external links. Is that appropriate? Thanks very much for the help!

IntelCapital

A user whose only edits are to AfC is not one who is intending to become part of the community. As far as the links in the article ... well, at some point soon it will be accepted (in which case it will be cleaned up) or rejected and deleted. If that's how they think they can promote their business, more fool them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It was rejected, and I notice that they haven't edited in ... 5 days since then. Nor have they edited anything else since then. What, exactly, would a block accomplish at this point? Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Protect Wikipedia for one. Uphold username policy. This editor is implying that they represent this company. I've reported many of these over the years as I new page patrol and I've never had something so blatant rejected. What does ignoring it accomplish?--RadioFan (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Acronym overkill

Re: WP:Acronym overkill, when I saw the link addition, I thought it was going to be a duplicate of WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! but I'm glad to see it isn't! ;) Just thought that might amuse. –Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty funny. The essay is my measured reaction to reviewing articles with so much acronym abuse. It's pretty obvious, especially in some parts of the world, that tacking an acronym on the article is seen as magically providing notability .--RadioFan (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Farms and Farmers (FnF)

You wrote: The claim that this organization is "commonly referred as FnF" is not supported by the references. Reference 1, which is an article in the Times of India (leading national newspaper in India), clearly mentions "...In February 2011, they founded an NGO, 'Farms n Farmers (FnF)', which does everything..." Even Reference 4 states "...I present to you Farms n Farmers (FnF) – a nimble...." These are just a few of the multiple times the acronym FnF has been used in the references. Please consider the submission.

Some references (Times of India, iit) mention the acronym but they do so to allow its use throughout the rest of the article in a shorter form. This is a very common practice in news writing. You are free to refer to it as FnF in the article for the same purpose.

Some references dont refer to the acronym at all (the government of India). However, the claim that the organization is widely known as FnF is not supported. This isn't an acronym like NATO or laser. Each reference refers to it at least initially by the full name which indicates to me that this is what it is commonly known as.

Either way the name proposed in the article is unacceptable. Parenthesis are to be used for disambiguation which is not necessary here since there is no other conflicting article by that name. Either the name will be "Farms and Farmers" or "FnF" and it's pretty clear that the full name is the more appropriate here per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Please also look over Wikipedia:Acronym overkill for a more detailed description of how excessive acronyms can harm an article.--RadioFan (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Financial Intelligence Unit Network (FIU.NET)

Dear RadioFan, Thank you for reviewing my very first submission. I've added the the citations you sugested. Please be so kind to further review and advise me. Very much appreciated. Djulant64 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than create a new article, I'd suggest you merge what you've created into the existing financial intelligence. Anyone can edit there and there is no need for the formal review process.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

HogMaw (band)

Dear RadioFan,

Thank you for reviewing my submission, "HogMaw (band)". I appreciate your feedback.

I'm hoping you'll consider that, in the world of progressive bluegrass, the subject of the HogMaw article appears to meet the Wikipedia requirement for Notability.

HogMaw meets criteria #12, a band that "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio...network" by its frequent appearances in Folk Alley, which has 105,000 subscribers nationwide and thousands of listeners on NPR. The article references the Folk Alley appearance, but does not overhype Folk Alley's significance (which might seem like hyperbole or promotion).

By playing on the main stage of the Philadelphia Folk Festival as the result of a competition, HogMaw joins a select group of musical acts, including Bob Dylan, Levon Helm, and countless names, established and emerging. This fact qualifies HogMaw as notable under criteria #9, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." While fans of other kinds of music may not have heard of the Philadelphia Folk Festival, the festival's longevity (mentioned in the article) and size (mentioned in the article), cumulatively evidences the significance of the band.

Finally, Progressive Bluegrass is significant enough to have its own entry. A review of the article for Progressive Bluegrass shows that band Railroad Earth has no more apparent prominence or press coverage than HogMaw, yet has its own entry. In fact, HogMaw has more press and citations.

This review has been helpful for me, and I will continue to try to improve the article based on your suggestions. For example, DelFest is cited by the Progressive Bluegrass article and has its own article. One of the references for the HogMaw article mentions that the band has also played DelFest, further evidencing its significance in the progressive bluegrass community. I will make the change and add to the article to reflect this performance.

I'm also confused about the referencing. I took pains to reference every fact in the article, and all are verifiable. All but one is independent, and to the extent that the HogMaw article references the band's statement (the fact of Dom Flemons' involvement in the band's latest album), the claim is not one of opinion, but of verifiable fact demonstrated in the YouTube video from an independent source. Such techniques are best practices in journalism and law, and I'm trying to figure out why Wikipedia wouldn't find it acceptable. Please clarify.

Thanks again for your feedback. I hope with your help I can get the article where it needs to be to be included on Wikipedia. Jdubbleu (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC) jdubbleu

A couple of things here. 1) My talk page isn't the place to make your case. Improve the article to make these things readily apparent instead. 2) I'm not seeing any of what you claim above supported by the references in the article. The references used there do not establish notability for this musical group. They appear to be mostly blogs or other self published sources The only reasonably reliable source is the blog produced by the York Dispatch copy editor, that at least appears to have some editorial oversight. Your biggest problem here seems to be with reliable sources, please look over Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. 3) The quality of other articles really doesn't matter at all here, issues with those should be addressed there. The goal isn't to create articles whose quality is of the lowest common dominator, but to create the best article as possible.--RadioFan (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

IMACD

Dear RadioFan, In the second version of the article I changed its contents according to your first comments. Indeed, I went to check immediately the wiktionary principles and could not see how to fit this article there. So I rewrote it. It is no longer a "dictionary" entry but deals with misconceptions by many specialised engineers on the importance of these services and the outstanding and very disquieting issue of recycling the huge amounts of waste generated by these services. Finally, and maybe I should explain this somewhere in the article - the business of IMACD is a huge industry world-wide and is thus notable in that respect and is completely absent from wikipedia. Would you care to re-read the final submission?

Your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GradSave

Hi RadioFan, I had helped Lroma006 with the GradSave draft and had hoped we had resolved the spam issues; yet that's still why you declined it. Any advice on what still needs to be improved in that regard? Huon (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The article reads like a glossy brochure for the company. It's not written from a nuetral point of view, rather a promotional one. I'm surprised an editor with your experience isn't seeing that.--RadioFan (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's as factual as it gets. Where do I need to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lroma006 (talk • contribs) 22:54, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

That's rather vague. I've tried to describe their operations in as bland a tone as possible. Could you point out a specific example of what you consider a promotional point of view? At worst there's a few "allows" and "enables" that could be reworded, but if that's not what you mean, then I'm indeed not seeing it. Huon (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a single sentence or section that can be changed to solve the issue here. The problem is the overall tone of the article. It feels like it's trying to sell the service to the reader. Its unencyclopedic. Reviewer APerson241 agreed as well.

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for the help with the Richard Green article.

Igs cu (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Belated reply

Re this: If your ego is that badly bruised by a UAA report being rejected, soak it in cold water or give it a rest for a while. (And think ... do you really want this exchange being dredged up if you ever request adminship? It would cost you votes, believe me). Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope your ego isn't that badly brused that a non-admin questioned your decision. Your response indicates that you see adminship as something that everyone must strive for. You might be surprised to learn that this isn't always the case. Read my user page. I dont want adminship. I much more hope Intel doesn't have an issue with your decision to retain a user which could easily be seen as speaking for the company.--RadioFan (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving it to the notifications system instead of contacting me personally when you opened the AN/I thread, as is required. Were you hoping to have some supportive comments there before I learned the thread existed? I am beginning to think you have reasons other than those stated as to why you don't want to be an admin.

In any case, no, my ego isn't bruised (although it being the end of a long hot holiday weekend doesn't help, I assure you). I just get the feeling you don't understand how things work at UAA these days ... I don't recognize your name as a frequent reporter (whereas I've been reviewing reports there now for oh, about six years). So ...

• We decided a long time ago that anyone whose only edits were to AFC would not be warned or blocked over a COI username violation. How else is AfC supposed to work? We tell people to use it as a way to avoid being blocked, don't explain the username policy to them when they create the account, and then ... we block them even here for a rule they don't know about? How user-friendly is that? Especially given that most such accounts will never edit outside of their AfC submission.
• Do you know for sure that this user is "impersonating" a major corporation's subsidiary? Usually account names like that originate from the business itself. They actually think it's better to self-identify that way online. And I really doubt that anyone could see them as potentially speaking for the company, not when we use <no index> tags on the AfC pages, not when Intel Capital's own website comes up at the top of the Google hits for it, with our mention of that unit in the middle of the Intel article midway through the next page, and that AfC page not coming up at all (and I looked many pages deep)?
• To address your complaint about never having had a UAA report rejected (and really, don't you want to reconsider that now?) you seem to have forgotten that that's how the system works. Users report, we admins review and take action if we deem it necessary (You might want to review this; I didn't get to be among the top 20 blocking admins by declining UAA reports. Some people have gotten on my case for blocking people they think I shouldn't have. Maybe you'd like to go have coffee with them). I used to do newpage patrol myself, and nominated a lot of articles for speedy deletion or AfD. Most of them got deleted. Not all. I didn't take it personally when they weren't (as some of our current newpage patrollers are known to). It's a learning experience. You can ask for another admin's opinion if you want. But your answer showed a decided ignorance of current username policy and practice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I dont recall claiming that I've never had a UAA rejected. I've had plenty rejected but I've never had one that I feel is such a blatant violation of policy. Looked at the UAA discussion, some agree with me, some agree with you. You should take this discussion for what it is, a discussion, a way to make Wikipedia and you as an admin better. Note that I'm not flying off the handle demanding your privileges be removed (like so many others in UAA), I'm asking for other's viewpoint. Yours isn't the only point of view here, mine isn't either.--RadioFan (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: See first comment supporting my decision at UAA. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pharming Group N.V.

Hi RadioFan,

Thanks for reviewing my article, I appreciate your input.

However I'm slightly confused as to the comments made, could you clarify for me? maybe narrow down exactly what I should change?

Thanks in advance

Sembleton (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The submitted article reads like a list of bulleted FAQs about the company rather than an encyclopedic entry. Spend a bit more time describing the company, its history and make it clear how it meets WP:CORP and resubmit.--RadioFan (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation - Michael Silberling

Hi there RadioFan,

Thanks for reviewing my piece on Michael Silberling (declined as references don't adequately evidence the subject's notability). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Silberling

Any guidance you could give me on which of the references are insufficient and/or if there are any statements that are still in need of references would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks very much,

MPCaspell (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of James Bates (sportscaster) for deletion

A nomination is taking place as to whether James Bates should be deleted or not. The discussion is held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bates (sportscaster) and everyone is welcome to join in on the discussion. However do not remove the AfD notice on top. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MadeYourReadThis. You have new messages at Rohijarohija's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delta Dental of New Jersey

Thank you for your review of, and feedback on the article I submitted. I'd like to provide some insight that will hopefully support the argument to leave the article as-is. If you do not agree, please let me know. The article was previously deleted by an editor because there were elements that appeared to read like advertising. The editor provided specific examples, which I promptly fixed (phrases like "24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.")You can view the talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesx12345/archive2#Delta_Dental_of_New_Jersey

The remaining information is all factual, and backed by third-party sources, as mandated. The article you cited (http://www.deltadentalnj.com/company/facts.html)is a fact sheet from the Delta Dental of New Jersey website, which is owned and operated by Delta Dental of New Jersey, who has approved this submission. Facts cannot be changed, however I can certainly break them up or rearrange them. Thanks for your time on this Sgwwiki (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the duplication report between the article submitted and the FAQ on the company website. There are still too many phrases copied word for word from this website. Some like based in parsippany new jersey are innocent enough and can be ignored but others like delta dental of new jersey offers a full line of managed care approved fee for service ppo and hmo type programs are simply cut and paste. Taking langugage from the company's website also contributes to the overall promotional tone of the article, another issue which must be addressed before the article can be accepted. We want readers to learn something about the company and better understand why its notable, not feel like they are being marketed to.--RadioFan (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That was tremendously helpful, thank you. I'll give it another shot. Sgwwiki (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Paraparaumu Beach Golf Club

Thank you for your review of the article for Paraparaumu Beach Golf Club. I am a first time user and had spent considerable time collating the information and learning the various aspects of putting an article together. I understand that the article has been blanked due to potential copyright violations and wiki policy and may be deleted. The concern was that it had been lifted off the Paraparaumu Beach website. I am the General Manager of the club and had written that copy for the website which I referenced to, hence I used it for this article. Is there a way that this can be viewed as acceptable by Wikipedia and or I can verify that it is my work and the Club allows its use? If not am I able to get access to the copy again and modify it as considerable time was put into constructing tables, forming lists and adding photos as well as linking etc. Appreciate any consideration and advice.

Thanks and Regards

Bunkersb (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately since that text appears on the clubs website, it cannot be copied to Wikipedia without legal authorization from the Club. There is a process to provide that authorization but frankly it's rather involved (as most legal things are). and I find that its usually easier just to rewrite it using the material as a reference.

However, there is a bigger issue here. As General Manager of the club, you have a conflict of interest and probably shouldn't be editing the article at all. I've left some information on your talk page on this. If this subject is notable, the article will be created by someone else without a conflict of interest.--RadioFan (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Silberling

Hi RadioFan,

Thanks for reviewing my piece on Michael Silberling (feedback was that references don't adequately evidence the subject's notability).

Any guidance you could give me on which of the statements need further/other references to evidence notability would be much appreciated.

Thanks very much,

MPCaspell (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MadeYourReadThis. You have new messages at Lisa Butler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi RadioFan. Thank you so much for your review of the following article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lisa_Butler_%28makeup_artist%29. Your comments have been very useful. What do you suggest in terms of validating Lisa Butler's portfolio? I'm afraid the only real evidence of her work is the work itself (the images that appear in magazines for which she receives a credit). I included Vfiles because they are a company that works specifically to archive such things (editorial shoots, advertisements, credit lists, publishing information, etc.) I guess this is a semantic question, but is there a better way that I can explain the use of images as a reference? While Lisa Butler is not widely (or prominently) acknowledged by magazines (outside of the normal credit list), her work is incredibly visible.

I think she is there in terms of notability for this reason. Her contributions to the fashion world have been enormous and widespread, but this can really only be expressed in images at this time. I'm having some trouble reconciling that.

Any advice would be wonderful. Its a bit difficult to prove notability for a makeup artist no matter how deserving.

--Charlotte

University of Saskatchewan Students' Union

Sure, it's a mess, but it could be a target for mergers of even messier stubs. Will you reconsider your prod, or send it to AfD? Bearian (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't the state of the article, it's the notability of the subject. It's not notable.--RadioFan (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let it go. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

You added your opinion to an earlier deletion nomination of this article. Decision was delete, in August 2011. The article was recreated in 2013. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bells (band) (2nd nomination). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance

The article Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Username Aviation_Geek appears to have been created by Angel MedFlight in order to self publicize and garnish inbound link while violating Wikipedia guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hi, as you approved this through WP:AfC I thought you should be alerted in case you want to comment. Rankersbo (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Deprod'd, take it to AFD if you like but the promotional tone has been cleaned up. I wouldn't be so quick to assume the username is promotional. It's plausible that this is an aviation enthusiast who relied to heavily on press releases and other primary sources, this has been addressed.--RadioFan (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me who PRODed it, that was done by an unknown IP based user. I just felt that you might want to be aware. I think the principle is judge the article, not the editor anyway. Thanks for your efforts. Rankersbo (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your review of my article about Nik Kershaw's "Dancing Girls" sing

Hi Radio Fan,

Thanks for your comments on my article - to be fair, I created that piece of text simply by adapting it from an existing Wikipedia article on one of Kershaw's other single, so it is perhaps no more promotional than what is already on Wikipedia (inasmuch as it is possible to be promotional about a 28 year old single). However, I have taken your advice and removed the offending word from the description.

However, perhaps you can advise me further on the remainder of your comments. One of the other reviewers suggested that the article should contain more reviews, so that it is not simply a list of tracks and chart placing - fair comment. On the basis that it is impossible to add reviews without quoting them, I have done just that, only to be told that I should remove the quotes. Similarly, although I accept that they could be paraphrased, I felt that Kershaw's 1984 comments on the song were worth quoting, for their insight into the subject matter. Or is it the bit about the chicken? Metabelis (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Charles_Edmund_Beard

Hello

I just submitted the article on Charles Edmund Beard former CEO of Braniff Airways. You declined the article stating that the subject already exists on Wikipedia. It does not exist as a separate subject. I have written articles on other Braniff Presidents such as Harding Lawrence, and repaired articles on Ed Acker and Paul Revere Braniff as well as the Braniff International Airways article. You stated that I could address this subject at Braniff International Airways. I wrote the majority of that and this person is worthy of his own subject page just as Harding Lawrence, Ed Acker and Paul Revere Branff. I also have an article I am preparing on Paul's brother and co founder of Braniff, Thomas Elmer Braniff.

I think this was declined very quickly. Apparently there was nothing wrong with my article other than you feel that it is already on Wikipedia. I must respectfully disagree and ask that you please approve this article. This gentlemen is certainly worthy of his own subject article separate from the Braniff International Airways article.

THanks mmb777e Mmb777e (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This article duplicates, copied directly from in some cases, too much of the article on the airline. Notability is not inherited. If an article can be written which meets WP:BIO, that's great, but as it stands the article is too much a copy of the article on the airline, which we already have.--RadioFan (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

review question

Hi RadioFan! I was wondering, when reviewing submissions, how do you edit the reason for it? for example, instead of a dropdown reason you put Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Braniff International Airways instead.

Is there a tool for this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Kadzi (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is part of the standard set of tools reviewers use. Check out the reviewing instructions, and dont forget to sign your posts.--RadioFan (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NC Hunter

Hi. I submitted a page on N. C. Hunter, which was rejected for lack of references. I was wondering what kind of references I could add to get the page ready for resubmittal. A lot of the info I have on N. C. Hunter comes from his IMDB page at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0402976/ and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0402976/otherworks. They document several of the plays he wrote and the famous actors that appeared in them. There is also some additional info, which I didn't include, about how his plays have been produced for TV intermittently over the years.

The reason he's in the news recently is that one of his plays has just been revived off-Broadway in NY. I included the Wall Street Journal's review of that production, but could include the New York Times's and New York Post's review if that would help.

Additionally, he's mentioned in various books I found via Google Books, including in Noel Coward's diary (http://books.google.com/books?id=Pwx7sZo5wvIC&pg=PA520&dq=n.c.+hunter+noel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XifiUeD0E5St4AO65YCQBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=n.c.%20hunter%20noel&f=false), and in a book about Kenneth Tynan (http://books.google.com/books?id=3U0q-DTHHDgC&lpg=PA206&dq=kenneth%20tynan%20n.%20c.%20hunter&pg=PA206#v=onepage&q=kenneth%20tynan%20n.%20c.%20hunter&f=false). I could include those in a new section about his critical reputation.

What do you think?

Mdavidlevy (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a great reference. It's user submitted, not unlike Wikipedia. Reviews of the production are great but they are about the production, not this person. Notability isn't inherited from the production. To demonstrate notability here you need to find, and use to create the article, references which cover Hunter in depth, not just mention him in passing.--RadioFan (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentions in books are not enough. Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Are these books about him? Are chapters in these books about him? Or is his name mentioned once or twice in passing in a section about another person or subject? Something to consider before relying on mentions in various books to demonstrate notability.--RadioFan (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Babelverse

Hello, can you please explain what about the Babelverse article is too "addy" and how it can be improved? I read other startup articles to see how they were written.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berard (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

First off other articles are of no concern here, the focus must be on this article. The goal is to create a good article here, not aim for the lowest common denominator. I and each of the other editors that reviewed the article felt like it was trying to sell us something, not inform us about the company. If you are having difficulty seeing that, writing it over from scratch might be the best approach.--RadioFan (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nils O Myklestad

Hi -

I just submitted the biographical page for Prof Myklestad (1909-1972) and included a portrait photograph reference and signature image reference in the infobox as 'place holders' but did not upload the images. I need to check the provenance before uploading, so thanks for pointing out that error. I have removed the references in infobox.

I will reread the Wikipedia information on notability before resubmitting the page. He was a tenured faculty member at a number of major US universities, he published several important, peer-reviewed technical articles and was issued five United States Patents during his career. I will locate and reference the patent information and other secondary sources to document his contribution. Is that the type of information that would be helpful?

I've made edits to some Wikipedia technical pages, but this is my first attempt to create a new entry. Thanks for suggesting the changes necessary to make it viable.

Kllwiki (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately tenure is not enough to demonstrate notability for academics. The guideliens are stricter. Please read WP:PROF.--RadioFan (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mo Sabri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phil Roe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thomso(festival)

HI, My recent article for creation has been rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thomso_(festival) but a similar page of our institute's technical fest has been accepted with less content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognizance_(festival) Can you please review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apsdehal (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Other articles dont really matter here. Our goal isn't to aim for the lowest common denominator here, it's to create good articles that will inform people. Please follow the guidance from reviewers in the AFC. The festival article you mention will be addressed as some point.--RadioFan (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Article about Hannes Thor Smárason

Hello!

Oops! The other day I intended to update and expand the "Hannes Smárason" page but accidently created a new page ("Hannes Thor Smárason"). Is there a way I can quickly enter the text of my new page into the original page? Or is it possible for the earlier page to be deleted?

Thanks! Goattender (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That page now redirects to the article you intended to update. Have at it.--RadioFan (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your help.Goattender (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gallery Server Pro

I have a question about notability regarding the rejected article for Gallery Server Pro. This software fits into the category described in Comparison of photo gallery software and the article was modeled after many of the entries it references. Either the standards for notability have changed or my article can be improved to better prove its notability. Can you clarify which is the case and would it help if the article mention the following? (1) Has 250,000 downloads (most of are through the verifiable Microsoft WAG distribution channel and has a 4/5 rating) (2) Has an active forum with over 2,000 members (3) Availability of a DotNetNuke module version that is highly rated (4.89/5 among 19 reviews) (4) Has more than 100 inbound links (link:galleryserverpro.com) (5) Is top 5 Google search result for generic terms such as 'photo web gallery' and 'video web gallery'. Thanks for your feedback.

The submission was judged on its merits, we really dont take into account other articles nor are there any rules such as download counts or forum participation that grants notability. The standards for notability lie only in significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. The references provide in this AFC submission, 3 are primary ones (from the website promoting the software itself), 1 is from Microsoft (similarly promoting the software), sueetie mentions it only in passing and is focused on a topic other than this software. Of the references, only the code project appears to be an independent source reviewing the software in any depth. --RadioFan (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. Perhaps I could improve the Sueetie reference since there are actually 22 articles discussing Gallery Server Pro at length, so it is more notable than being "mentioned only in passing". Would that help? I understand and agree this article should be judged on its merits, but you might appreciate me feeling a bit confused when several other apps in this space are clearly less notable. (Comparison of photo gallery software) I can understand if you say notability standards have become more strict, but if not it appears that standards differ by reviewer, which as you might imagine feels frustrating. Thanks again for your help. Rdmartin (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Different people interpret things differently, thats natural. You can counteract that by ensuring that your article has solid references to 3rd party reliable sources where the subject of the article is the primary subject of that source. Plugging the title into Google and looking for the most impressive hits isn't enough. Reviewers are going to read your article and the references (at least they should) If those references dont help demonstrate why the subject is notable, the article should be rejected.--RadioFan (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Artist Rajasekharan

Dear sir. I am writing this for your comment:You seem to be basing the claim of notability here around awards and recognitions received by this person (who's name isn't really all that clear, is it a one word name? Does his name include Artist? Please clarify). However I, and I'm sure many other English wikipedia reviewers, am familiar only with the Guinness World Record mentioned. The others are of unclear notability. If that is how you'd like to demonstrate notability for this person, wiki links to articles on these awards will help reviewers gauge the notability of this person.

In this, The name does not include 'Artist'. The name is "Rajasekharan" and "Artist" is the profession. Guinness World Records is familiar all over the World. The others Limca, Unique, Miracle etc are familiar in India. They are also World Records. Kindly do the necessary arrangements for the Articles for creation/Artist Rajasekharan. Thanks a lot With regards Rajasekharan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajasekharan Parameswaran (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Guinness World record does little to establish notability. The other items are not familiar to English speakers so you are going to have to help reviewers understand why you feel they convey notability to this artist. Please see my suggestions on the rejection notice on how you can accomplish this, specifically: linking to existing WIkipedia articles on the awards where notability has already been established.--RadioFan (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/SecureTeam Java Decompiler

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. Looking at other similar topics I found no clear evidence for notability, in fact some of the articles don't contain any citations at all. I wonder how come the citations I've added aren't sufficient when there are clearly other similar entries that haven't gone through this process. I did notice that these entries were marked as 'stubs', perhaps stub articles aren't required to stand by notability guidelines? is there anyway I can decide to convert my article to a stub and publish it, while I'm still looking for proper citations to change its status from stub to notable?

I'd appreciate your help on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edror (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Brigid Harrington

Thank you for your input on the page. I spent a considerable amount of time correcting it based on your comment. I believe it now has significant coverage with many reliable secondary sources that clearly demonstrate notability. The article still has links that identify projects the subject is involved in. I did this to show a vast variety of work throughout different fields of entertainment.

Comparing the subject with her peers in the industry already included in the encyclopedia, I believe this now shows adequate evidence of the subject's notability.

Thanks again for all your help.

Mywiki2664 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The time and effort you put in is appreciated. It's not easy writing your first article, we've all been there. If you are ready to have it reevaluated, go ahead and resubmit and someone will re-review it. Might be me, might be someone else.--RadioFan (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Aplos Software

Thanks for your help in reviewing our page. It is my first article from scratch, so I am still learning. I added a few more citations and another stat to demonstrate its size and am about to resubmit. From my understanding, notability is primariy justified by extensive coverage in multiple third-party references, so I feel that is covered better now. The citations used include extensive coverage of Aplos, not passing mentions, and are multiple examples of established third-party sources (Accounting Today, CPA Practice Advisor, AccountingSoftwareWorld/K2 Enterprises, About.com). In comparing similar companies within the industry of similar size, history and references Cougar Mountain Software KashFlow Kashoo Sage 50 Accounting I believe the Aplos page shows comprable if not better references and notability. Thanks again for reviewing and if you review again let me know if you have any other specific changes I can work on.

CaliAggie (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Kennelly

Dear Radio Fan: Thanks for your time and I understand your views on objectivity. The problem with this subject is that there is not a lot written anywhere about the man or his companies and there is nothing whatsoever that smacks of criticism or a different point of view on him. I have read your views in general and note that you lean towards being exclusionist. That is all very fine but in this instance you are excluding someone who has created badly needed and high paying employment during a recession and at a time when the banks have nothing to give decent people as they broke the country in giving billions to high flying developers. While Jerry Kennelly is thought unworthy of inclusion hundreds of footballers and sportspeople of pretty ordinary skills are included, though they have never put a dinner on the table to a single household.

I am not an employee, friend or one who receives any benefit from the subject of the article but I have said hello to him once in a bar and I am fortunate to see at first hand the employment he gives. If the article were to be allowed stand then other people may well be able to improve it over time, as new information becomes available. At the moment I am sorry to say that I cannot find differing points of view which don't exist. Since the last refusal I have tried to find another perspective but was quite unable to do so. So here we go again and I hope you will look more kindly on the article. Kind regards. KemiahKemiah (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble you are having finding sources is an indication that this person probably doesn't meet notability guidelines. It sounds like he does wonderful work that is worthy of coverage somewhere but it doesn't appear that the coverage has come. It's admirable that you'd like to reward him with a biographical wikipedia article but unfortunately that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia isn't the place for that coverage to begin. The coverage has to come in 3rd party reliable sources first, then the WIkipedia article can be created. --RadioFan (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NuData Security

As reviewing admin, I think this at least somewhat informative, and not entirely promotional, so speedy deletion declined. It is encouraged for people with COI to write using AfC The problem is that it does not really show notability, and I have so advised the author. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I understand your reasoning here. I've also left concerns on the author's talk page about his apparent COI. Looks to be a marketing person for the company creating the article. It's going to be very difficult for them to write neutrally which is probably what is holding them back from showing notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wwo-logo-bldg-2010-cmyk-h1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Wwo-logo-bldg-2010-cmyk-h1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WRUF-FM logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:WRUF-FM logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ascents of James

With respect, those sources are fine - I checked them myself. Would you please go ahead and do whatever is needed to create this article - I've unsalted it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I've removed my decline. --RadioFan (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, hope I didn't come across as rude - I guess it's a trite phrase. I'm just going to do a page move I guess. Hope that's ok! Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not rude at all. We are both on the same wavelength here.--RadioFan (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amari

Hi RadioFan,

Many thanks for taking the time to review my article submission! I understand your concerns about the validity of the source for the Chains section. As I am still new at this, I am trying to ensure the source is not promotional accoridng to the guidelines. In this instance, it's a little bit of a grey area finding a website listing the Amari group's properties, which does not fall under the promotional category. For example, would Tripadvisor or Agoda are about as credible a source as you could find, yet at first thought I would consider them to be promotional. However, on the other hand, Why would Agoda for instance be selling a chain of hotels that aren't legit? Look forward to hearing from you so I can better understand how to go about obtaining an appropriate source! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchhh (talk • contribs) 10:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are there not any 3rd party sources such as an industry magazine or a national newspaper that cover the opening of any of these properties? The question isn't the accuracy of the information but the notability of it. If the only source that cares enough to mention these properties is the company itself, that raises questions about the notability of the chain as a whole.--RadioFan (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Radiofan,

I am looking into this at the moment, but some of these hotels have been open so long, finding an online news source will be very difficult. What about using an Internet Yellow Pages?

Failing that, is my only other option to remove this section?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchhh (talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your merger proposal

Hey RadioFan! I am here to tell you that your proposal to merge the articles Satish Dhawan Space Centre First Launch Pad, Satish Dhawan Space Centre Second Launch Pad and Satish Dhawan Space Centre Third Launch Pad into Satish Dhawan Space Centre has been rejected as per consensus and the discussion closed by me. Vote count - 0 Support, 2 Oppose and 0 Neutral. The discussion has been archived. You can take a look at it here. Feel free to leave me a message.

I know that you are aware of the closure but this is a customary message of mine to all the users whose unsuccessful merger proposal have been closed by me. Have a nice day. Regards. - Jayadevp13 02:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont you think you are over communicating a tad bit here? We've discussed this at length.--RadioFan (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I do it for every discussion which has been closed by me. I did it not just for you. You can take a look here or here. I am able to find only these two at the present moment. According to me, it is my responsibility to tell about it to the users. Sorry if you had a problem with this message. Regards. - Jayadevp13 15:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PRince(cartoon_character)

Thanks for your review. You have declined on the notability issue. I have included lot of media references across India. Even Former Indian President Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, has appealed to the cartoonists to create cartoon characters like PRince. The copy of his speech in his site is also given as reference. Even Wall Street Journal carried the cartoon with courtesy to the cartoonist. I have given the screen shot also. Can you please reconsider and guide me further. Varsha 02:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsha1990 (talk • contribs)

Corsica stub

I have probably broken all the procedures in relation to the AFC process, apologies for that. Will keep away from that thing (AFC and its protocols) in the future, there was a personal off wiki reason for moving ahead on this particular stub, - keep up the good work - cheers sats 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I note that you are not an admin - and as Account of Corsica now exists, your suggestion as to how to put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/An_Account_of_Corsica:_The_Journal_of_a_Tour_to_that_Island to sleep? sats 03:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies...

My apologies, it was only one of the most important books of the 18th century and a precursor to what has been described as the most important biography ever written. I was responding to a request that at least a 'stub' be created for others to then add their weight to the material. Your response not only disappoints me from the pov of the content it appalls me that you could respond to someone who has been here less than 48 hours and who is filled with enthusiasm in such a dry 'you know better' manner. May I respectfully suggest you address the points I raise and not as though the response came from a committee of computers....

Thanks - Calamity Hill (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your passion, what is being asked for here is not that great. If the book is "the most important biography ever written" certainly there are sources you can build this article on other than the book itself and a fan page. Doesn't an important book warrant more than a stub? If reviewers were to allow it through in its current state, it is likely to be deleted. Put a little more time into it, write an article that makes the importance of the book clear and the article can be accepted. Also please take a look at Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself for more information on why "at least a stub" is not sufficient.--RadioFan (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thousand Hours (musician)

Dear RadioFan,

Thanks for taking the time to review our submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thousand_Hours_%28musician%29 Since your review, to my knowledge my employee Becca Lautier has made the changes you requested to meet notability and verifiability guidelines.

FYI I am an internationally successful multi-million selling hit songwriter, composer and producer, whose songs have been hits for artists such as Curtis Stigers, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Martin Sexton, European Pop Idol, UK girl-group Eternal and UK indie band Laura and the Tears. My songs and compositions also appear in films such as the Warner Bros. picture Practical Magic starring Sandra Bullock, as well as HBO, Fox, Sony, Warner Bros., CBS, TLC and DirecTV network and cable television shows. More info on my songs and compositions can be found at: standupsound.com.

I am executive producer and co-writer for Thousand Hours (Paul Mansford), because Paul is super-talented and I am a big believer in his artistry.

Everything in this article is true and has verifiable sources to the extent possible, and represents what is currently available for Thousand Hours.

Because Thousand Hours is a developing, independent artist and performer, he may not at this point meet the traditional 'notability' guidelines requested.

However, please understand that we are doing all we can to make this work for you and Wikipedia, and would appreciate your support.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Best Wayne

Wayne Cohen Stand Up Sound wayne@standupsongs.com US tel:+1 917 842 0759 UK mob: 0779 068 3835 Skype: waynecohen www.standupsound.com www.thousandhoursmusic.com

Thousandhoursmusic (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You, and your employee, have a pretty clear conflict of interest here and should avoid editing this article. While you are welcome to edit elsewhere, it's going to be difficult for you to write about subjects to which you are so closely connected, in a neutral way. Also your username is of concern. Wikipedia policy does not allow for accounts whose name indicates editing on behalf of an organization, which is pretty clear here as well. I've left further information on these concerns on your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Pneumatic line thrower

Back in May 2011 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the note. It's still 100% original research, let's see what others have to say in an AFD. Probably best to merge elsewhere.--RadioFan (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Delaware Community Foundation

Hello RadioFan,

Today, my page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Delaware_Community_Foundation_(2)) was declined for a second time.

I noticed that you mentioned my username on "Wikipedia:Usernames for administrative attention" (it says "reporting Delawarecf"--am I being "reported" for something?)

Additionally, your comments suggest that the Delaware Community Foundation does not meet your requirements for notability, yet your notability page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP) clearly mentions charitable organizations as an example of a notable subject for a wikipedia article.

I'm afraid that I do not understand what the problem is or if you have even reported me, which sounds like an extremely negative action to take (although of course, if report means something different in this case...).

I would appreciate any suggestions you have on editing the page I am working on

Thank you,

Delawarecf

Delawarecf (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've left some additional information about your userid on your talk page. The concern is that your userid indicates that you are editing on behalf of this organization. While you are welcome to edit for yourself, editing on behalf of a coproration, group, etc. is not permitted. Please review that information.--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

AFC Icephobicity

Hello, RadioFan,

Could you please provide a bit more specific comments on why the article "Icephobicity" was declined? The comments says:

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

However, the submission DOES summarize the secondary reliable sources (see references), DOES NOT contain opinions or original research and writes about the topic from a neutral point of view. Could you please provide more specifics on which parts of the article read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article? That would help a lot. I wrote and edited in the past articles for various encyclopedias and handbooks (e.g., Springer's Encyclopedia of Nanotechnology) and in my opinion this submission is in an encyclopedic manner. However, I am new in Wikipedia and may misunderstand standards here. So, if you could please provide more comments to me, that would be of great help.

I talked yesterday to APerson and he/she suggested to create sections within the article, which I did (following more or less the "Hydrophobicity" and "Lipophobicity" template).

Thank you, Duchifat

3 different reviewers had the same reaction to the article, it reads more like an essay and lacks the encyclopedic tone required here. WP:TONE may be helpful here.--RadioFan (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

frankly, I considered the current version acceptable, and accepted it DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

afc usage

Hi RadioFan -- Thank you for reviewing many of my articles submitted through AFC. And thank you for your note of encouragement to my Talk page just now. To let you know, though, I am restricted from creating articles in mainspace for a year, however, by an arbcom ruling. Brief version, my view: this had to do with long-running harassment against me by a couple editors. One editor and I were banned from interactions, which is simply wonderful, but confusion generated over a long time about the notability of NRHP articles helped convince arbcom to come to the ruling about my creating articles, despite the fact the articles are obviously valid, wikipedia-notable, etc. I accept the arbcom ruling because it ended the worst of horrible long-running contention. Anyhow, I cannot just start articles in mainspace, and I have been helped by other editors through a user category and also through the AFC process. If my submitting articles through the AFC process seems burdensome, then I could stop that, but there has been some welcoming of my articles in AFC, too, in discussion at AFC's Talk page and in other notes. Anyhow, thanks again for your reviewing of many of my articles. I have come to appreciate what you and other AFC editors do, all the time, as a great service for wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Cheers, --doncram 16:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. Please continue submitting these articles, they are not burdensome at all. NRHP are arguably inherently notable. I'm finding the articles you create to be reasonably referenced and well constructed. If you ever choose to appeal that ruling and need a good word from another editor, let me know.--RadioFan (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Denied

Hello, you have just denied a request for a new Wikipedia page. Please can you explain how a page displaying information about one particular published book is allowed, such as one from JK Rowling as an example - which also appears to be an advertisement as you put, and another is disallowed for the same purpose, content and reasoning. If WB create an article about a new film, do you disallow it on the basis you think it's an advertisement?

Also, you stated the article wasn't neutral. Please explain? Where on the article is either a positive or negative view taken?

Finally I thought you should know there are spelling errors on your profile. This doesn't give me much confidence in your levels of judgement. Please can you refer this onto someone else for review. Thank you.

Pnholt (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I normally am eager to help new editors with questions. I'm not so eager to help you. Can you guess why?--RadioFan (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't do false internet posturing isn't it your job to just answer the questions. I followed the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnholt (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You are new to wikipedia so I'm assuming you aren't familiar with the fact that everyone here is a volunteer, this is not our "job". We contribute here because we want to make Wikipedia better. If you disagree with the review and believe that another reviewer will accept the article as is and immediately move it in to the main article space, you may submit it for review again.--RadioFan (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Could you please be a bit more specific about your reason for denial. As it stands it's too vague. I can then try to improve it. Pnholt (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

username policy

Our policy is explicit that. "N at Appcelerator" is considered an acceptable username. See WP:ISU for other examples. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. COI caution still applies here I assume.--RadioFan (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

COI caution of course, but the place for people with COI to edit is AfC & article talk pages. They should not be discouraged from doing so. They should be discouraged from mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless its spam of course.--RadioFan (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We do not know it is spam until it has been written. We do not know it will remain spam unless there has been a chance to improve it. The entire purpose of AfC is to keep probable spam out of mainspace until we have a chance to sort it out. But it is our responsibility to sort it out. I look at it from both ends. At one end is the material which can never be acceptable because the subject itself is unacceptable for an article, like primary schools--these people need to be advised that an article is impossible, and why. At the other is material on notable subjects that should be included in the encyclopedia but that will need some revision. Here our responsibility is to get it revised and accepted; occasionally, where the rewriting is trivial or requires such detailed knowledge of formatting that it is easier to do it than to teach it, to rewrite it ourselves , but more usually by providing sufficient information to the user that they will be able to do so. The AfC templates are rarely suitable for conveying it., though there will be occasions where what is basically needed is so obvious that they will do. The most difficult situation is something on a subject we need badly but where the submitted material is radically unacceptable because of copyvio or undisguised advertisement (in practice, they tend to go together). Ideally, we should upon seeing such a case write the article, but in practice none of us has the time to do that except when it is the sort of article we would write normally within our own interests. Almost always, our responsibility is to make sure the editor is aware enough that they do not repeat it. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

N guidelines

At several places, you commented "The references provided do not demonstrate the nobility of this organization because the organization is not the primary subject of those references" There is no such requirement. It just has to be discussed substantially. I think that's probably what you mean to say. (Back when I joined, there were people arguing at AfD that it did have to be the primary subject; I don't think anyone's said that, or at least said that successfully, at AfD for years now. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Paris Las Vegas interior.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Paris Las Vegas interior.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Paris las vegas boulevard interior.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paris las vegas boulevard interior.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:BellagioChineseNewYearDragon.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BellagioChineseNewYearDragon.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Caeserstrevi.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Caeserstrevi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Spirit Rover

My edit might not have been ideal, but saying that the Spirit is a Rover is just poor english, even if as you rightly say it then confirms the years active. Is a skeleton still a person? It wouldn't make sense to say "The Titanic is a ship, active between 1911 and 1912." would it!? It needs rewording. The voyager probe still IS, as it is still alive, transmitting, you could even make an argument that once it is dead it still is as it will still be fulfilling some of it's functions, but the Spirit rover as far as I know died, and even if the article makes it clear in the ned that is has gone, starting the article in a way that suggests it is still an active mission, or it is still going, is misleading and reads badly.

The article currently reads Spirit, MER-A (Mars Exploration Rover – A), is a robotic rover on Mars, active from 2004 to 2010. I see no issue with the construction of that sentence. It makes it clear to the reader what the subject of the article is, why it is notable, and its current status.

Phrasing that includes was a robotic rover on Mars implies the robot is no longer on Mars. This is not as clear and actually plays into a common misconception about unmanned spacecraft (read on).

Your comparison to a skeleton doesn't apply very well here. A person and a skeleton are 2 different things representing 2 very different phases (active and not active). Similarly we have two words for active and inactive ships (in the case of Titanic at least), ship vs. shipwreck. There is no similar differentiating word for an inactive robot, it's still just a robot wether active or inactive. Your comparison to the voyager probe also doesn't hold well in my mind. Once inactive the voyager probe will no longer fulfill any of its functions short of simply being there in deep space. This isn't really much different that being there on Mars for Spirit.

Something to also consider here is the common misconception the public has with these rovers and often spacecraft in general. They dont understand what happens to them at mission's end. Many think they are somehow brought back to Earth and put on display in museums. If just for this reason, it's important that the article make it clear that the robot is still there and that it is no longer active.--RadioFan (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ko-Jo Cue

Hello RadioFan, can you help me out with references for the Ko-Jo Cue article so it wont be denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreetsGh (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could but I'm not familiar enough with Ghana's press to be much help finding any local sources and all the other sources I'm finding dont look to meet WP:RS. You might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa for help.--RadioFan (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Shoe Fest

In March you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.--RadioFan (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

citation format

You rejected an AfC (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zaga Christ saying "Rather than using numbers in parenthesis, use citation templates for your inline citations and resubmit your article.". That is not correct. Any clear form of citation is acceptable at WP as explained at the guideline WP:Citing sources. (The AfC does need improvement; I will re-review it.) DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

While it is technically acceptable, it is not as readable, especially with the unique sources you are drawing from here. Citation templates allong with the reflist tag are easier for readers to follow to your references. They provide a consistent style that will make key information in your references (such as titles) clearer to readers who aren't as familiar with MLA or Harvard referencing conventions. The goal here is to create a good article that is accesible.--RadioFan (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your review of "The European GNSS Service Centre (GSC)"

Dear RadioFan, You recently rejected my proposed entry The European GNSS Service Centre (GSC). I am working on improving it to get it published but I'm not sure of having quite got the meaning of all of your feedback:

• You said "GNSS redirects to the article on satellite navigation for a reason" so I modified my article and it now refers to "Satellite Navigation." However I'd like to remark that "GNSS" is a current term in the industry. For example, if you run a "GNSS" search in Amazon you'll get 281 books with the term in the title. Another example is that one of the most known publications on Satellite Navigation is called Inside GNSS.
• You said "there isn't anything, other than who funded and launched it, that differentiates it from any other satellite navigation (e.g. GPS)." Galileo's orbital planes are different, navigation messages are different, Galileo has 3 frequencies whereas GPS has 2, etc. There are many differences although the systems remain inter-operational. However, it's not yet clear to me how this is relevant for this article which relates only to this Centre that was established in Spain following European Union's regulations ("bills" in US Federal Government jargon) that supports people interested in GNSS (or satellite navigation) and that will act as interface to the Galileo System.

My goal here is to build a good, useful article. I will much appreciate if you could elaborate a bit in your feedback. Many thanks in advance for your time! Oivs1976 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that an article specific to this center is warranted. I'm wondering if it doesn't make sense for you to improve satellite navigation with whatever information on GNSS is unique and worth noting. It's odd to have an article so specific to a single ground station when there isn't another article on GNSS or information in the satellite navigation article specific to GNSS.--RadioFan (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

DVLP (Producer)

Hello RadioFan,

Appreciate your work on Wikipedia.

You denied my article for the music producer DVLP stating that his notability isn't inherited. I beg to differ, considering the work he does is substantial to the importance of the artists he produces for. Without him (and others like him), artists wouldn't have the music to make their pop hits that reach gold and platinum status. In my opinion having gold and platinum records should warrant enough notability to deserve a Wikipedia page because that's part of recorded history, not just for the artists but for the producers. Also, a lot of his peers like the Djs Craze and Infamous have Wikipedia pages and they belong to a special place in history for whoever followed late-nineties DJ competitions that eventually birthed their careers and of others like A-Trak. I added some new sources, like the RIAA and Billboard pages. Please reconsider your decision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.255.26 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Individual subjects, especially in biographies, must be demonstrated to be notable on their own merits, not those associated with them. Think of it this way, there are many many wikipedia articles on bands where the individual artists dont have articles because while the band easily meets notability guidelines, the individual musicians do not. The idea that notability should be inherited comes up often, usually in a discussion on deleting an article. If this producer is as key to the success to the artists he's worked with as you've indicated above, there should be sufficient verifiable reliable 3rd party sources which backup the claim. If that's the case, the article will easily meet notability guidelines. Keep looking. Sources where this producer is the subject of the article and cover him in depth are best for demonstrating notability. There are a lot of producers out there and they are particularly keen on promoting themselves which makes locating reliable sources a challenge. You've got to help separate DLVP from the others--RadioFan (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Resist Article Denied!

Hello RadioFan, I recently submitted an article to be accepted called Resist and you denied it on the bases that the sources were not reliable. I have had a lot of problems with my sources, first I used the Boston Globe articles but they rejected them because there were pay walls. Then I used smaller new sources that were freely available but they said they were not reliable enough. This time I used 3 Historical scholarly books, the New York Book Review, the Harvard Crimson and well known philanthropic websites and still it was rejected ( by you) for unreliable sources. What are some examples of sources that are reliable? Can we not use books because the full text is not not online? I have New York Times articles but they also have a pay wall and so would be the same as the Boston Globe ones. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saify111 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, books without full text online are fine as references. Articles blocked by pay walls are going to raise concerns about verifiability as a number of other editors have expressed. In the end this is all probably moot though. As Director of Communications, you should really avoid editing this article as you have a clear conflict of interest. It's difficult to create a neutral article when you are so close to the organization. If you feel strongly that the organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, ask for help from another editor in creating the article.--RadioFan (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

CooperVision - Article Submission

Hello RadioFan,

I have a question about the declined submission of this article.

I am actually trying to write and create content not just for The Cooper Companies (as a group) but also for CooperVision and CooperSurgical (both divisions).

Is there any way I can do this? I have just noticed that a search for 'coopervision' directs to The Cooper Companies and I am not sure if I can change this in any way.

Thank you for letting me know, that would be great help.

Best regards,

Lukas

Absolutely and it probably makes sense to do it that way as the divisions probably wont meet notability guideliens. You can create sections within the larger article on the company covering those divisions.--RadioFan (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Question and clarification regarding your submission feedback

RadioFan:

Thank you for reviewing the Prelert submission at [[1]].

The sparseness of the submission is because we have cut content based on other reviewer’s feedback. This is our third attempt, so I am wondering if you can provide some clarification on what we can do to get the page created.

Prelert is a notable company in a growing predictive analytics industry. One thing that we edited out of our original submission is that it has OEM relationships with Computer Associates (CA) and a partnership with Splunk. Third-party news organizations are writing about the company and these relationships (see reference links below). Because of the nature of these relationships, Prelert cannot cite CA or Splunk customers directly by name, nor do they have permission to cite their own customers by name. So all we have to reference are these publications.

If we add these in to the citations, will this satisfy your concern or is there other information you believe is required for page creation?

MSPToday CA to Boost Performance with Machine Learning Bloomberg Prelert and CA Technologies Form OEM Relationship ZDNet Prelert Anomaly Detective for Splunk is on the case Virtualization Practice Prelert Automates Detection of Anomalies in Splunk Data BusinessCloud9 Detecting Anomalies Datanami Prelert Introduces Anomaly Detective for Splunk

Thank you, Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianS88 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't make it clear how this company is notable. It lets the reader know that it exists, it received venture capitol and not much else. Also the language in the article sounds more promotional than encyclopedic. Are you working from a press release from the company? Do you work for the company?--RadioFan (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to improve tone in AASOC Article

Hey RadioFan,

First off thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I wish that it met your criteria on the first pass but I'm now trying to rewrite it to improve the tone. I've made a few improvements to it but I was wondering if there were any other areas it could improve. Is there anything specifically about it that I should remove or change?

The article is [[2]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyee7 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you have a specific question? If not it sounds like you are asking for the article to be reviewed again. Resubmit it and someone will review it, maybe me, maybe someone else.--RadioFan (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Notable and Indpendent Sources

Hello RadioFan, I have been working on an article on an artist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lana_Z_Caplan You reviewed it and asked me to add more independent sources. I am not sure what would be more independent or notable than articles about her in Boston Globe and The Boston Herald and The Experimental Television Center's History Project, which only includes biographies of notable film and video makers of our time. Please advise as to what I should adapt or include. The Boston Globe and Herald require subscriptions to read their articles online, which I have so I have read them and included information about this artist from there. She had shown her films in festivals around the world, been invited to museums around the world for exhibitions and she teaches at one of the best universities for art in the country. I am not sure what else to include. Thank you for your help, Anagram1001 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Anagram1001

I've noted the same issue that 2 other reviewers have over your 4 submission attempts. You are close, but not quite there. Please also understand that notability isn't a light switch. Adding a reference to a Boston Globe article mentioning this artist doesn't instantly move the needle from not-notable to notable. Significant coverage in multiple sources will move that needle. The Boston Globe article is a good start, but its brief. The Experimental Television Center's History Project is of unclear reliability. It appears to be a very small project which itself has't received sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of WBSC (AM) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WBSC (AM) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBSC (AM) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I am One of Many (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I've contributed my thoughts on the AFD and it will soon be closed as a keep.--RadioFan (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your actions, among others, are being discussed at User talk:Drmies. Please see what is currently the bottom section (having to do with this AfD). LadyofShalott 03:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Middleburg AVA listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Middleburg AVA. Since you had some involvement with the Middleburg AVA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

good job making that into an article. (and fixing the other redirect). I apologize--I should just have asked you about them DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I've never really understood the RFD process. More often than not, fixing the problem is far less trouble than discussing it.--RadioFan (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neal Morgan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Callahan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Murphy Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory

Reference; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Rocks,_Australian_Antarctic_Territory The feature is notable and significant due to its historic connection to Surveying and Mapping in the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). During the 1978/79 summer season, three widely-spaced Transit Doppler satellite fixes, of which this was the north-eastern most, were observed along the Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land. This was the first time that the then state-of-the-art precise Doppler satellite fix technology had been applied for mapping purposes in this part of the AAT. This technology has since been replaced by GPS.

The subject feature completely satisfies the "Guidelines for the Naming of Geographical Feature" as set by the Australian Antarctic Names and Medal Committee. Otherwise, it would NOT have been approved by the Committee for inclusion in the Australian Antarctic Gazetteer. Names approved by the various national Antarctic names committees have automatically been included, by agreement, in the SCAR Composite Gazetteer which covers the whole of Antartica.

The feature MCCALLIE ROCKS, which is located some 9 kilometres to the south-west of the subject feature, was named at the same time as the subject feature over 30 years ago and has very recently been approved for inclusion in Wikipedia (as a stub). In terms of its description, this feature is identical to the subject feature (i.e. pair of ice-free rocks lying off the coastline of Antarctica). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCallie_Rocks,_Australian_Antarctic_Territory.

The feature MURPHY ROCKS, referred to in the REFERENCES section of the subject feature, is located in Marie Byrd Land and forms part of the unclaimed section of Antarctica, has been included by the US Geological Survey (USGS) in its gazetteer, and consequently in the SCAR Composite Gazetteer, and also in Wikipedia. This is despite the feature having very little, if anything, to suggest its notability.

I hope that the above satisfactorily answers the points you have raised.

Bmurphy99 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you are leaving this information here. Are you referring to the Murphy Rocks article? I dont see any concerns left on that article other than the fact that no other articles refer to it.--RadioFan (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Rajasekharan

Dear RadioFan. I am new here. I tried Articles for creation/Rajasekharan. As per your advice, I had added the references and other requirements for notability. Will you please rewrite my submission in a more encyclopedic format.... Thanking you. With Regards RajasekharanRajasekharan Parameswaran (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this artist and wouldn't be the best to rewrite the article. Keep up with the improvements you are making. When you are ready to have them reviewed, submit it again. dont get discouraged when it is declined. We've all had to deal with this when we were new to Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Blac Haze article for creation

Hey RadioFan, On my recently submitted article for Blac Haze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Blac_Haze_(2)) You declined it stating that "claims such as "considered to be one of the best rappers to have ever come out of Fort Lauderdale by fellow rappers" is not supported by the references given." but I can quote from the source given - "(Mike West says that of all the local rappers, he holds Haze in highest regard: "Lyrically, he's the only one who can really give me a run for my money.") Mike West is a rapper himself, from Fort Lauderdale. Should I just reword the sentence and say that just Mike West thought so? Dre (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote you mention is nowhere in the citation for that sentence or any other citation.--RadioFan (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is an image of the citation http://tinypic.com/r/2janew6/5 i've circled the quotation, I don't understand what you mean unless I've done the citation wrong Dre (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The image you've shared here says that he "holds Haze in the highest regards", not 'one of the best rappers to have ever come out of Fort Lauderdale'", the difference is substantial.--RadioFan (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Thanks RadioFan, I'll make changes and resubmit! Dre (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking for help to improve my article

Dear RadioFan,

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise my article on Carles and Sofia piano duo. I am new using Wikipedia so I will appreciate your help as I am planning to publish some more entries after this. In order to make my best attempt on this firs article, I have been assist by other senior wikipedians, and I’ve taken my time to study in-dept other biographies in Wikipedia from other music artists both famous and not, and I took them as a model regarding their style , redaction techniques and structure.

I tried my best and I have to confess I am a bit lost now and I don’t really know how to make the appropriate changes. For that reason I would really appreciate if you could help me improve the article so that it could be approved.

First of all the banner said the article didn’t seem to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Could you please be so kind to specify what sentences of paragraphs present tonality problems so that I could try to fix them?

I have also tried to maintain a neutral point of view by not making direct judgments and justifying every statement with a reliable reference. Could you please also help me identify which sentences should be reviewed to make the article from a totally neutral point of view?

The sources I’ve used are mainly secondary and most of them are from media. Maybe you could also clarify which sources aren’t considered appropriate in terms of being independent, reliable, published.

And finally there is also an alert regarding the use of “peacock” terms. I want to clarify that any opinionated or “flattery” adjective I might have included I put it after finding an external reliable source where it was said. It will also help me a lot if you could help me with this point.

I what to thank you very much in advance for taking the time to revise my submission and for giving me guidance to make a very good article.

Kind regards, Littleparrot

Try stepping back and reading the article again. Does it sound like an article in an encyclopedia or does it sound more like a press release from this artist's management? We are going for the former here and the latter is unacceptable. The peacock terms were a problem. It's a bit better now but still needs work. Spectacular claims like "one of the best piano duos in the world." require spectacular references. References to a single newspaper article and television appearance in their home country aren't enough to back up such a spectacular claim.

Instead you should consider using this as a quote. Catalonia's La Vanguardia called them "one of the best piano duos in the world". It makes it clear that someone in the media is discussing them in these terms without overstating it.

You seem to be having trouble writing in a neutral tone. Stepping back and thinking of the purpose of the article may help. It's not to promote but to inform. This artist probably can meet notability guidelines but the article still reads like a press release sent by their booking agent rather than a encyclopedic one. Tone down the promotional language and your article will be on its way to acceptance.--RadioFan (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear RadioFan, Thank you very much for your prompt response. I will go through the article again and see if I can make it sound more informative. Regarding the peacock terms I totally understand what you mean. However, as I told you earlier, I have been studying other biographies on Wikipedia from different artists and have found several sentences which are quite “spectacular”, as you said, that don’t even have references to support them. That is why I thought that the references I gave should be enough to justify the statements I made.

I can give you some examples of this:

• Katia y Marielle Labeque

Spanish version: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katia_y_Marielle_Lab%C3%A8que First statement: “Las hermanas francesas Katia (nacida en Bayona el 11 de marzo de 1950) y Marielle (nacida en Bayona el 6 de marzo de 1952), son uno de los más prestigiosos dúos de piano contemporáneos, reconocidas artísticamente con el nombre de Hermanas Labèque.” NO REFERENCES English version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katia_and_Marielle_Lab%C3%A8que “The French sisters Labèque, Katia (born 11 March 1950) and Marielle (born 6 March 1952), form an internationally known piano duo. NO REFERENCES.

• Maurizio Pollini

Pollini is especially noted for his performances of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Schoenberg, Webern and for championing modern composers such as Pierre Boulez, Luigi Nono, Karlheinz Stockhausen,Giacomo Manzoni, Salvatore Sciarrino and Bruno Maderna. Important modern works have been composed for Pollini, notably Nono's …sofferte onde serene…, Manzoni's Masse: omaggio a Edgard Varèse and Sciarrino's Fifth Sonata. No references.

• Greg Anderson (Pianist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Anderson_(pianist) Anderson performs as a solo artist around the world. He is known for his exciting thematic programming which runs the gamut from standard piano solo repertoire to his own compositions and arrangements. No references.

• Vronsky & Babin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vronsky_%26_Babin First statement: Vronsky & Babin were regarded by many as one of the foremost duo-piano teams of the twentieth century. It’s the very first statement and there are no references at all.

• RICHARD ANS JOHN CONTIGUGLIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_and_John_Contiguglia FIRST STATEMENT: Richard and John Contiguglia (born 13 April 1937)[1] are American classical duo pianists with a worldwide reputation, who consistently attract superlatives from critics. Again no references For the rest of the article, all the sources are their own website. No one journal, no one critic... nothing...

I would be so grateful to know what does make these cases different from the ones in my article and why where they accepted. Please understand that my only intention is to have a better understanding of wikipedia’s rules and policies and learn what is acceptable and what is not.

Thank you very much for your help Kind regards, Little parrot

You've identified some problems with other articles that need to be improved. Our goal isn't to aim for the lowest common denominator, but to create a good article. Existence of other articles with similar problems, shouldn't keep you from solving those problems in your article.--RadioFan (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Radio Fan,

Again thank you very much for your response. I totally agree with what you said that the existence of other articles with similar problems, shouldn't keep me from solving those problems in my article. As I said, I will follow all your useful pieces of advice and will revise and rewrite the parts that need to be reviewed.

I just want to make it clear again that my only purpose pointing this examples of other articles was just to have a better understanding of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Now I feel I’ve learnt a bit more about how to make quality Wikipedia articles and will keep working to improve my skills.

Thanks for all your help, Kind and warm regards, LittleParrot