User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2016/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Can you be more specific on what I need to change in order to make this acceptable. Im not a technical person and this has taken quite a few goes to get right. not sure what the conflict of interest is. Many thanks M Niven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UK_Shaolin_Temple10:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.92.137 (talk)

I dont think you *should* be making any edits to this article. You appear to have a conflict of interest with this subject, and should avoid editing it.--RadioFan (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

14:14:59, 31 December 2015 review of submission by Cflaws000


Good morning! Thank you for your notes. Please give me examples on how to improve the tone of this piece. I actually have an outside individual working on it for me that is not related to the organization so we can avoid any promotional tone. Promotional tone hasn't been referenced in any earlier revisions, just our sources. Please give me some additional ideas on how to improve so I can forward this to the outside individual working on the article.

As I mentioned in my last rejection of this article, you appear to have a conflict of interest with this subject, and should avoid editing it. If it's notable, someone else will create this article. As an employee, especially a high ranking one, at this company, you should not be creating articles which promote the company's products.--RadioFan (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

22:41:09, 1 January 2016 review of submission by Nachopesca

I added 12 references of independent 3rd parties in regards his notability, including 4 of the UN as well as book links to publications, over 18 pages of references if you google his name and a TED talk... all verifiable. I think that is more than a little improvement. There are many people in Wikipedia with less than that. But then whatever you decide is what goes... doesn't matte what we (the non editors) think.

and none of those references are about the subject of the article. This does little to establish notability here. The article reads like a resume/CV and I'm not seeing much that addresses the guidelines of WP:BIO--RadioFan (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

03:41:41, 2 January 2016 review of submission by Marisaadams


Hello RadioFan,

I would love any feedback you might have in this. The entry here is based after several others that are in the same content area and are current entires. Currently, there are no references from the company itself; instead, the references come from places such as Forbes, news sites, research sites, etc. J have made changes requested by the first two reviewers.

Thank you for your help, Marisa

My recommendation would be to stop editing this article. You clearly have a conflict of interest as an author for the company. I've left some more information about this conflict on your talk page.

04:39:05, 2 January 2016 review of submission by Donnie Park


Hi, I have hopefully answered your questions, I wish I can do more to it but am feeling no longer appreciated and burnt out as well as feeling that I've should had quit a long time ago. I'm only creating these to fulfill my list then retire.

n.b. there are no notability guidelines for such sport because hardly anybody else but myself is doing them. Donnie Park (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I asked the question I asked. Reviewers (me or someone else) are ultimately going to ask themselves "how is this person notable?" You've spent time submitting this because you think this person to be notable but it's not clear to the reviewer how they are notable. I'd like to apply a long standing guideline to help determine notability but I dont know which one to use because I'm not understanding who this person's contribution to their field is. A clearer claim to notability in the article would help here.--RadioFan (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 08:56:47, 2 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Holyinn43



Holyinn43 (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Thnaks for your prompt comments on the text(which I enjoyed writing and linkning to Wiki which incidently high ighted to me the holes in Wikipedia. For now I want to improve the text. The comments are stereotyped can you give me a for exapmle in just the first paragraph. Thnaks.Holyinn43 (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style, particularly the page on writing a lead section will be a big help to you here.--RadioFan (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:template:Nandi Award for Best Director

Hi, you recently rejected the Draft Template in subject. You stated that i had not looked in to the previous reviewers review. The previous review spoke about

  • 1. Incorrect implementation of include and and noinclude deployment
  • 2. Missing documentation.


I have looked into both of them. The include implementation is correct and the documentation is apt (its a template for an award tracing its history of awardees) Could you point me in the right direction If I am missing something.

Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That was not reflected in improvement in the article. I'd suggest you take another look and significantly improve the article before resubmitting.--RadioFan (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

14:05:57, 2 January 2016 review of submission by Forthgone


Thanks RadioFan for eyeballing this revision. I'm baffled though. I've tried to use a neutral tone. The citations reference newspaper articles and secondary as well as primary sources. Do you have a moment to advise me with, perhaps, one specific representative error? Thanks very much. Forthgone (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The article reads like a resume/C.V. but never makes any tangible claim of notability. How does this person meet WP:CREATIVE? --RadioFan (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

review of submission for Pat Larter page

Hi RadioFan I'm not really sure why you don't think my article meets the notability guidelines.. You left a comment saying that " Its not clear how this person might meet wikipedias notability guidelines for creative professionals. Please review these 4 items and improve the article based on them." I looked up the 4 guidelines as you said and will explain-though I think it is pretty obvious as I state the reasons in the article:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. She is the most important mail artist in Australia. Her collection of mail art (now held in the research library of the AGNSW) is the most comprehensive one accumulated in Australia. Her work is held in Major art collections. If that does not denote importance I don't know what does. Her work is cited by peers. Pictures of her are featured in her husband Richard Larter's paintings and is frequently described as his muse. His paintings are also held in many museums and in books their relation ship is a frequent topic discussed. The boundaries between their individual practices often overlap.They also collaborated.

2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. As quoted in my article: She was "one of the leading figures in the movement known as 'international mail art'". She is credited with coining the term "femail art" that was taken up by other mail artists around the world. Femail Art’, her "feminist answer to mail art" was taken on by female mail artists world wide including Anna Banana who used the term "in the title concept of VILE magazine vol. 6, no 3 So she invented a new concept!

3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Her mail art held in the AGNSW is the collective body of work as well as her paintings. See my references for multiple independent periodical articles and reviews.

4.The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. b c and d all covered in the article. b)See the list of significant exhibitions that are listed in solo and group shows listed in the article and also again c) see references for articles showing significant critical attention d)Her collection of mail art (now held in the research library of the AGNSW) is the most comprehensive one accumulated in Australia. Her work is held in Major art collections.

Also I would like to note that the article on her husband Richard Larter which is already live on Wikipedia is nowhere near as informative as mine nor does it have as many references. Pat Larter is the subject of many of his paintings and they often collaborated- their relationship was an important part of both their art practices.

Please advise why you think my article does not meet the criteria in more detail and how I can fix it I just want to get the page online. Thanks.

Daniellehakim (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You make good points and I've accepted the article into the main article space but please be very careful editing it. You have a close connection with this artist, especially as writer of exhibition texts. Please review the COI information I've left on your user talk page and be careful not to overstep.--RadioFan (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Is a neighborhood notable if it is already listed as a place in Pennsylvania on Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_Pennsylvania:_M

I would like to create an article about Merion Golf Manor in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. It is the neighborhood in which the Merion Golf club exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merion_Golf_Club

I see that is listed as a place, but I don't know what type of place it is. I guess it is an unincorporated place within Ardmore and Lower Merion and Haverford townships. Are such small places considered notable by Wikipedia standards and if so I could use some help in finding references for it? I would like to know what the standard is for including it in the list of places in Pennsylvania. It currently exists there without a link to another article.

Danielhwilson (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Neighborhoods rarely rise to the level of notability. The Merion Golf Club is notable because of its place as a National Historic Landmarks. The neighborhood does not inherit this notability however. The township where the neighborhood lies are better places for this material. And no, the neighborhood being included in a list does not assure notability here. There is no automatic assumption of notability for neighborhoods per WP:GEOLAND, they must meet general notability guidelines like any other subject.--RadioFan (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

19:55:37, 1 January 2016 review of submission by TheScottDL


Wondering what other "reliable" sources are required to validate an article for inclusion? I've referenced Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, Tampa Bay Times, among others. One team in the FBA is also a member of the ABA and is an affiliate of a well-known professional club in Israel. TheScottDL (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder the same thing. I wonder if there are resources out there that can demonstrate the notabiity of the team. What you've provided focuses on the teams or individual games and isn't in much depth, just run of the mill reporting on a minor league sporting event. A reliable source which wrote about the league itself, in depth, would help establish notability.--RadioFan (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think you read some of the references. Major newspapers have covered the league, including the league commissioner (a former NBA player). If this is not enough then you may half to take a look at the other dozen or so minor leagues in North America. TheScottDL (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect, any wikipedia articles on other minor leagues are not relevant to discussion of this article. It must stand on it's own merits. I'm just not seeing it in the references you've provided. Other editors may feel differently. You are welcome to resubmit if you like.--RadioFan (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I referred to "other minor leagues" because I have done extensive work on most of the North American minor leagues. The references provided relate to the league, its affiliation with pro leagues overseas, and basketball people involved with the league. Maybe a "basketball editor" should be assigned to these projects. TheScottDL (talk)

15:59:03, 3 January 2016 review of submission by Clipfunu


Hi there, I think there is a misunderstanding here..all the websites I have listed are very well known in Israel and used as reliable sources. Aslo, Eyal has a hebrew article which you can see here. Please review thins and give it a second look since I do believe its a misunderstading.. thanks! Clipfunu (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Mentions in reliable sources are great but that is only part of demonstrating notability. As mentioned in comments, I'm not seeing a claim of notability which meets WP:CREATIVE. How is this person notable?--RadioFan (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi RadioFan, Eyal is a big personallity in israel, he was in charge of many tv/radio shows in Israel and some even were sold and keep ruuning, also he holds a creative professional. Let's say that if anyone in israe wants to get an animation show or anything, eyal is the person to contact. Clipfunu (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Reviewers are going to be using WP:CREATIVE as their guide in determining notability. You've suggested this person is important in his field. References that make that clear (not just report on projects he's worked on but clearly identify him as important to art of animation) will help here. Well known awards will help establish notability, unfortunately nominations do not. Please also reduce the inline links in the article. Links to relavant articles can be useful to readers but you dont need to link to each simple concepts such as "teenage", "television", "late night show", also linking to articles which are out of context from their usage in this article can be confusion, for example "heart"--RadioFan (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

smw

I appreciate you removing the AFD and believe it or not i also appreciate the AFD, that article had not caught my attention really, but now i will put some work in it for both sources and content.  MPJ-US  22:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a more mature approach than the other commenter in the AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

02:42:43, 4 January 2016 review of submission by Aimankyuichi




hi, i am new to writing for wikipedia and recently submitted an article on the current 2015-2016 season of South Korea's Volleyball League (V-League) for review and it wasn't accepted and the reason given was

"A couple of bullet points and a lot of blank tables, with zero references this article is not ready to be accepted into the main article space."

1) I do not understand what you meant by a couple of bullet points. Is it not acceptable to have bullet points in the article? I put the points in bullets because I thought it would be easier for the readers to understand.

2) Yes there is a lot of blank tables because the season is still ongoing so the result is still not available. I intend to update the tables as the season goes on. For FIVB World League and World Grand Prix for example, they has not even started, but as schedule has been released by FIVB, there is a page for the 2016 World League and World Grand Prix with all the matches table left blank too.

3) Regarding the zero reference, because there wasn't an English article explaining the format and all other details regarding the V-League (as all the articles are in Korean), I simply thought I can just put external links to cover them. But as this was one of the reason given for the article to be rejected, I will insert the reference accordingly.

I hope you can help me understand what I need to do to fix this problem and have the article accepted. Thank you ^.^

I was describing the article as submitted. There is not enough content for this article to be accepted in its current state. The article cannot be accepted without references to reliable 3rd party sources. While English sources would preferred, others will be okay as long as they meet wikipedia's standards for reliability.--RadioFan (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

03:16:49, 4 January 2016 review of submission by Aeglivemcc


It is still not clear how this might be notable. The article tells us it exists but makes no claim of notability. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Find sources: "Showbox SoDo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library.

I don't understand what you mean by claim of notability? Please clarify the problem and how I can resolve it. Thanks.

It is still not clear how this might be notable. Not every business is going to meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. These may help you better show notability here:

Hope that helps --RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

03:42:52, 4 January 2016 review of submission by Katychubb


Hi, in answer to your query about reliable sources - there are multiple documents, certificates, press releases, photographs and documents to confirm this but all from a time before these things were documented on the internet. Maybe I can scan them somewhere? I'll see if I can find anything else online. Katychubb (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

10:31:09, 4 January 2016 review of submission by Aimankyuichi




hi, i am new to writing for wikipedia and recently submitted an article on the current 2015-2016 season of South Korea's Volleyball League (KOVO V-League) for review and it wasn't accepted and the reason given was

"A couple of bullet points and a lot of blank tables, with zero references this article is not ready to be accepted into the main article space."

So, I made some changes

Changes made: 1) Bullet points into paragraphs 2) I've included the appropriate references (hope it is enough) 3) I changed the title page to include the title sponsor of the tournament as specified in KOVO official page. 4) Regarding the blank tables though, because the season is still ongoing so the result is still not available. I intend to update the tables as the season goes on. For 2016 FIVB World League and World Grand Prix for example, they has not even started, but as schedule has been released by FIVB, there is a page for the 2016 World League and World Grand Prix with all the matches table blank too. So, based on that, I've included the schedule of matches and left the unplayed matches blank for future updates.

I hope that these changes are appropriate and sufficient. If there is any other matters that I should change I hope you can bring them to my attention so I can make the appropriate changes/ammendments. Thank you ^.^Aimankyuichi (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You have used a single source as a reference here. Are there no other reliable sources writing about this subject?--RadioFan (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

4 January 2016 Draft:Fire on the Limestone Plains Submission declined on by RadioFan

Hey RadioFan Comment: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research such as this. RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't quite understand, I thought this article was a history of Fire on the Limestone Plains as opposed to original research?

I just went thru Wikipedia requirements re Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The references are all reliable sources as i understand the Wikipedia requirements. The are a number of hyperlinks to Newspaper articles these include the Canberra Times and Queanbeyan Age both these have a long history in Australia and have been digitised by the National Library of Australia (part of the TROVE project). On this should I also added a reference to each hyperlink?

I have made a number of references to A.C.T. Bushfire Council Annual Report, this is a A.C.T. (Australian Capital Territory) Statutory Body that must submit Annual Reports which are available to the Public, most now due to the history are now archived in the A.C.T. Archives (This is a section of the ACT Government)

The Bush Fire Control Organisation files are again a Government Organisation , these files are all paper records and yet to be digitised the files are archived in the A.C.T. Archives, they are available to the Public.

The NAA A361, DSG16/528 Bush Fire Association file is a digitised paper file held by the National Archives of Australia. again available to the public.

The're a number of books referenced e.g. "Canberra, History of the legends relating to the Federal Capital Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia by John Gale" this book in particlar is often cited in regard to the History of the ACT, it is also held in a number of Australian library's including the National Library of Australia

thanks Grumpy fire (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I look a bite deeper the references you've used to create this article, they are better than first appearances. The Wikipedia:Embedded citations you've used makes it difficult to see this. Please take a look at WP:CIT and convert those to reference tags that make it clearer where your references are coming from. For instance:

[http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/31689415 Queanbeyan-Canberra Advocate]

is not as clear as: <ref name="Queanbeyan-Canberra Advocate">{{cite news|title=Brush Fires|url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/31689415|publisher=Queanbeyan-Canberra Advocate|date=1926-01-26}}</ref> The above ref tag enables all your references to show up as footnotes like this[1]:

  1. ^ "Brush Fires". Queanbeyan-Canberra Advocate. 1926-01-26.


Also, please help me understand more about http://www.firebreak.com.au/. This appears to be self-published and/or user generated with no editorial oversight. If that is the case then it would not be considered a reliable source by wikipedia standards.--RadioFan (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey RadioFan thanks for your reply, yeah got the general idea re references.

Re FIREBREAK is my website which has been going since 1994, it is hosted by the ACT Government and as such its content has to comply with its Guidelines, a member of the ACT Emergency Services Agency (Rick McRae)over sights the content; it is an online Archive of Bush Fire Info/ ACT history/Photographs. In February 1997 the National Library of Australia included FIREBREAK in the PANDORA (Preserving and Accessing Networked DOcumentary Resources of Australia) Project. The site includes a number of Research Papers e.g. Dr. Malcolm Gill's Research Letters, It also has a lot of history regarding the ACT and Bushfires. The history is referenced back to appropriate sources e.g. The following summaries are from A.C.T. Bush Fire Council Annual Reports & Fire reports are from the original ACT Bush Fire Council Annual Reports. Again not sure if this makes it a reliable source?

Grumpy fire (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What kind of editorial control is there over FIREBREAK? Does the ACT Government review or approve content there or do you edit and post content at your discretion. This is sounding like a self published source and does not meet WP:V as a result.--RadioFan (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey RadioFan, understood, there is very little review as such, so no dramas if it does not meet WP:V. One question can I still reference documents of the FIREBREAK website if they are from a reliable source e.g. ACT Bush Fire Council Annual Report Extracts? The reason is there are a number of documents (Old Fire Reports) that have been digitised from old Government paper files and I would like to reference them. Thanks for your assistance Grumpy fire (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 03:31:37, 5 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jsilvia24


Jsilvia24 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the article i just posted was written in a very non-promotional nature. I am simply trying to inform people searching on Wikipedia of the company and products. What should I do to get this accepted? I tried really had to make this non-promotional.

Thanks, Josh

As marketing manager it's your job to inform people about your company's products. With this conflict of interest, you should avoid editing this article. Your best option is to request another editor create the article , if an editor (it only takes one) agrees that the topic meets notability guidelines, it will get created by someone without COI.--RadioFan (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mission

Template:Mission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Earwig talk 23:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Southwest University, U.S has been accepted

Southwest University, U.S, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:LOG-NET, Inc.

Hello RadioFan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:LOG-NET, Inc., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: For a draft, it's not completely unsalvageable. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Not all drafts are salvageable and are destined to be little more than cruft. This is a good example of that. The article is spam created by the company's CEO.--RadioFan (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)--RadioFan (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
What I mean to say is that deleting a draft for G11 is a bit BITEy. Have him read the COI guidelines, and if he wants to fix it up, let him. (If you disagree with me, feel free to MFD it.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for creation: PeerJ Computer Science

Thank you for your recent review. You stated that it still wasn't clear how the references satisfied the academic journal notability test. Could you reconsider with the following in mind....Under Notes and Examples of the academic guidelines it says the most typical way to satisfy the criteria is to be indexed in that field's major indexing service(s). For Computer Science, this is DBLP, which PeerJ Computer Science is included in (in addition OCLC). PeerJ CS articles are also being reported in mainstream media (e.g. EconomicTimes and WIRED. Additionally, it is a another journal of the publisher PeerJ, which is well-known; has an Impact Factor; etc.


Note that the journal will not be eligible for an Impact Factor (example 2 of the notability notes) until 2018, but that is not a reason for rejection as many journals are added before the Impact Factor is achieved.

Thanks!

Woodleymode (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be too soon for an article on this subject. I see what you are saying about the publisher having additional journals which have been around long enough for impact factor or h-index calculations, but notability is not inherited. OCLC really tells us nothing about notability here, it means a OCLC member library somewhere has at least 1 issue of the periodical in their holdings. The references provided dont do much to help meet notability requirements for this publication. While they mention PeerJ Computer Science, they are not about PeerJ Computer Science. Notability is demonstrated through focused, in depth coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Though the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines for a dedicated article, you could improve the PeerJ article by adding a brief section specific to Computer Science.--RadioFan (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, hear ya about possibly being too soon*. Problem is the parent PeerJ article is about the biology journal, which started as the original and only journal. That page has an Impact Factor listed for the bio journal, its ISSN, etc. It's morphed into a "catch-all" for the PeerJ organisation's different journals as well as company info, when perhaps it is time to split into journal and organisation components. Ideally there could be the company article page and then separate articles for each journal.
  • Note though that DBLP is THE index for Computer Science journals and only start indexing respected journals (notability criteria).
Woodleymode (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

23:45:17, 8 January 2016 review of submission by Kentunderstand


Hey RadioFan, Thanks for reviewing my submission today. You left a comment stating that four reviewers have declined the article for being too much like an advertisement, but I'm a bit confused as to how to improve it. SwisterTwister felt i needed to improve the notability (done - added articles from TechCrunch and The Guardian), and Onel5969 has declined it three times for being too advertisy - and I've modified the article substantially since then. Earlier today, I was given assistance by an editor in the IRC, and thought I had cleared up pretty much any promotional aspects of the article. Can you give me a better push so I can stop wasting your time and contribute better to wiki?

Thanks, Kentunderstand (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Services section in particular feels like it was written for a company brochure, as does the client section.--RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Appi Kogen Ski Resort

Hello. Thank you for reviewing my draft (Draft:Appi Kogen Ski Resort submission by Inazo1862). As per requested, I reduced the number of references at the second submission, but another reviewer (SwisterTwister) requested more references so I am a bit confused. Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Best,

This can seem a bit confusing at first but please understand that notability isn't determined by the number of sources but the quality of them. My concern was specific to multiple references for mundane information. We dont need 2,3,4 or more references in each sentence, especially if those sources are less than reliable or are primary sources. SwisterTwister is a very good reviewer who will help you create an article that wont get deleted. Swister's concerns are valid here as well. Better references are still needed here.--RadioFan (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

21:03:40, 9 January 2016 review of submission by Jon.opus


RadioFan, Thanks for taking the time to review this draft. I hear your point about Bob Phillips being a primary source. He certainly is for some of the content in the book. Walt Warkentin was the founder of Hume lake not Philips. Can you confirm that Bob would be a secondary source for events prior to his first involvement at Hume in 1958?

Both are too closely connected to help establish notability. Is there coverage in a magazine or newspaper that focuses on the camp?--RadioFan (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:59:17, 10 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tirutirutiru


Dear RadioFan, Thanks a lot for reviewing the page on R Nandakumar. R Nandakumar has been a Senior Fellow at Teen Murti Bhawan<http://www.nehrumemorial.nic.in/en/fellowships.html</ref>. The senior fellowship is granted by Nehru Memorial Museum only to those who have made significant contribution in their respective fields. To quote, "Scholars of eminence who have made a significant contribution to the knowledge in their respective fields". He was the first recipient of the Kesari Memorial Award Instituted by the Department of Culture, Government of Kerala in the year 2007, conferred in recognition of his contribution to the study of art and culture. These two are prestigious awards, asserting the notability of R Nandakumar. His works are also quoted by eminent scholars from across the world. R Nandakumar is an academician and there are not much online references available. I have been working on this page and I am unsure how to improve this. Request you to kindly advice how to go forward.

Regards

Tirutirutiru (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

03:15:20, 11 January 2016 review of submission by Djenkins bburg


The comments by the reviewer have been addressed. The picture of the bear cub and reference to Montana Field Guide were removed as requested by the reviewer. I wonder if there could be come confusion due to my changing the name of the page. I wanted to add some qualification to the original title "Hickory Flats" to distinguish the area from other areas named Hickory Flats. After consulting online help, the name was changed from "Hickory Flats" to "Hickory Flats (Conservation Area)". This was the name of the page submitted for review. However the reviewer replied to a page entitled "Draft:Hickory Flats", the original name of the page. Please look at "Draft:Hickory Flats (Conservation Area)" for the corrected page.

06:22:45, 11 January 2016 review of submission by MelitaFernandes



Hi how to get the article created by another edited?

06:26:04, 11 January 2016 review of submission by MelitaFernandes



Thanks for reviewing my article. Can you please help me understand which references are not per the guidelines. Also, how can i request another editor to request to rewrite this article where the current article can serve as a draft for reference. Thanks

Draft:CouponDunia

Doesn't your review of the CouponDunia draft violate the Harassment guidelines which take precedence over any COI guidelines. This is clearly noted on the COI page itself. Please pay attention to the rules. As an editor who is clearly aware of such guidelines, you should not knowingly break such rules for small thrills of identifying a possible COI. Be more mature.

In fact, attempted outings are grounds for an immediate block of your account. Dear Friendly Editor, can you please guide me towards how I report you for this violation? Here is the quote for your reference

"Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block."

Fire on the Limestone Plains

Hi, The Fire on the Limestone Plains AfC submission you approved and moved into article space was cobbled together from material taken from other websites without permission. It was also full of images uploaded under clearly false CC claims - none had links to a source, and Googling the ACT Emergency Services Agency would have led you to this copyright statement. The maps were actually taken from http://www.firebreak.com.au/, along with much of the article's text. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:29:20, 11 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 2A02:C7D:B913:5D00:219:E3FF:FE01:FF91


Is there anybody out there who would be willing to help me complete the article I have submitted to Wikipedia on John Burgess record producer have lots of facts and these are verified and referenced, but I am obviously not quite getting it right. Someone who is experienced could probably get this article in to shape in no time at all. Thanks Laura


2A02:C7D:B913:5D00:219:E3FF:FE01:FF91 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

17:43:01, 11 January 2016 review of submission by Mangoandapple


Thank you for your comments, we have made changes on the text including references from Routledge, a notable and independent book publisher to highlight the person's notability. Also included are news articles mentioning the person.

Articles for creation: International Project Management Association (January 9)

Honestly... I don't know what to answer you right now. If I look at all the comment I actually received and the exchange, I am going in circle. I am still puzzled that the text exist in Wikipedia in other languages and it is referenced in Wikipedia English itself within other article... just that it is missing an article for itself. So unless you have real good advice, I will leave it for now. If it's missing in wikipedia, so be it. Unless I have a revelation in the next weeks. If you don't hear from me, go and delete. Cznal (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm really not understanding your question here.--RadioFan (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

18:44:54, 11 January 2016 review of submission by Clipfunu


Hello again, I deleted a few links and would love for you to review. As per what you last wrote, the fact he was nominated is huge enough and also most of the links and references IN place are from a very well known and reliable sources in Israel and you are welcome to even read the wiki articles they have. Please review. Thank you Clipfunu (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please resubmit, someone, maybe me, maybe not, will re-review.--RadioFan (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I am doing it right now. Clipfunu (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

16:11:10, 12 January 2016 review of submission by Szucsl


Hi RadioFan, many thanks for your review and comment. I agree with you, as I also think so many references is excessive and unnecessary. However I'm really confused now because earlier I was requested to include more and more references to prove significant coverage about the subject. As it's about a newly launched TV channel in CZ, there is no other independent reliable source yet than articles published in the press. Just a few of these articles is certainly enough to reference the info contained in each paragraph. Still, I was required to reference additional sources. Please advise how to proceed.

Thanks, Best regards, szucsl Szucsl (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability isn't demonstrated through the number of references but the quality of the references you provide. While the guidance you are receiving from multiple reviewers may seem conflicting, it's actually that you've got too many references which cover the subject in too little detail to be useful in helping meet notability guidelines, make sense?--RadioFan (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Thanks, this is useful explanation and I completely agree with this approach. I used this aboundance of sources just because earlier I was required by the other reviewers to use more (in-line!) references. However, all the press articles referenced are talking directly about the topic only and not just as a mention but in detail. Every single fact contained in my draft article can be also found in the referenced sources. As to my understanding, this is what constitutes the notability. That's why it was not clear to me how to proceed then. I will reduce the number of the references, but will not be able to add different ones. However i believe that every statement is referenced in the sources provided. I really do not see which detail is not covered by the references. Will go through it one by one again though to make sure. Szucsl (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

21:12:32, 12 January 2016 review of submission by Thablaqkgoat


Hey, I was just wondering if I could get a more exact reasoning for my article being declined? I've got more sources than a number of pages on here and as I can tell, the page is laid out properly. I did however remove the videography section as it's only references were the music videos on YouTube. Could I possibly get some more information on why it was declined? Please and thank you.

Maybe it's because I'm not much of a fan of punk music but the reliability of the sources you've references is unclear for purposes of demonstrating notability. Any reference that tells us that the band exists (such as directory entries like that in absolutepunk.net or discogs) doesn't help, the bar to being listed there is pretty low, everybody is in there. Anything self published, like the band interview or from their label, while a good source for individual facts, doesn't demonstrate notability.
There are a lot of web magazines out there and while some meet wikipedias criteria for reliability, it's not clear how sources like idioteq, indieminded, AltPress, PunkNews etc. stack up. Perhaps someone more familiar with punk music can chime in. In the meantime if you found articles in sources more reviewers are familiar with such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, that would help.
In the end, this article must meet WP:NMUSIC before being accepted. You've been aiming at criteria 1. Evidence of appearing on a national chart, a national concert tour, or major award would work. --RadioFan (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well Alternative Press is a physical magazine with digital articles as well, though the others are just digital news sites. However, I have multiple references for national tours done with other notable bands posted within those sites. Other than directory listings, which I really only intended to use for verification of album releases, the rest of the sources are independent of the artist entirely and are used on other pages here on Wikipedia. This group shows up on multiple unaffiliated websites and are even referenced on a couple pages here on Wikipedia, which I would think not only proves their existence but shows notability. Their genres of music don't lend to them appearing on charts or gaining major awards, however. But they have definitely toured extensively. Do you think maybe I should use the live help chat as well to get some more opinions? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thablaqkgoat (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WRNJ logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WRNJ logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

05:43:48, 18 January 2016 review of submission by DrSchlagger



Changes made for a more neutral tone, more citations added.

DrSchlagger (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

06:40:12, 18 January 2016 review of submission by DrSchlagger


I have sought the help form the IRC support channel, re read the guidelines and made changes. What specifically do you object to.? 

More specifically how many things have to change till this gets accepted?  I'm not going to drop this. These people provide a valuable service to North Texas (and the rest of the US), and lots of us have been helped by them.

Re: Xodus Magazine

Hello RadioFan,

The past editor went over the Conflict of interest, and agreed that in the section "Declaring an interest", that so as long as it is stated on "user page".

We went through and posted this information on my "user page" in accordance to the COI rules.

As for the red links for the staff page, I am unsure what to do since some are not listed on Wikipedia. Should they just have any links removed?

Before I re-submit, it would also be nice to clean up any language that may be considered promotional. Do you have any specific areas? The editors in the IRC page have poured over this with me for hours and felt it no longer sounded promotional.

Since the magazine is no longer in print or existence, there is no need for it to sound in any way promotional.

Thank you in advance,

Nicholas Reedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasReedy (talk • contribs) 01:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Afc: Christopher Yao

Hi RadioFan, I strongly disagree on your decision to say that the Afc: Christopher Yao contains non-notable awards. When assessing notability, writers must compare context: a teenager cannot be compared to someone who has much longer to accomplish what he/she has in their respective field. Christopher Yao has received the Nickelodeon HALO Effect Award, President's Environmental Youth Award (highest civilian honor for youth given to Americans), and the Prudential Spirit of Community Award, just to name a few. These are international/national recognition that are certainly notable. How do I know? They all have Wikipedia articles themselves! The article may not be necessarily well-written, but this is certainly a notable person with notable achievements--when compared to any age group. Thus, the article should stay, but could use some improvement by the Wikipedia community and those who can contribute more. Perhaps once it is an official page, people will take notice and slowly people will contribute to it. Thanks for your re-consideration in advance. Nonprofitguru (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonprofitguru (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

07:20:18, 23 January 2016 review of submission by 104.129.204.115


Perhaps this is now a problem of the subjective nature of "notability"...? The first power plant to break the 60% thermal efficiency barrier is extremely noteworthy to anyone in power engineering, operations or maintenance. The proposed article offers a short explanation of how Inland Empire Energy Center did accomplish this. It also provides a reference for anyone who sees this incredibly large landmark in Inland Empire and is curious what the tall towers and steam plume are doing there.

If you navigate to any of the power plant pages listed on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Natural_gas-fired_power_stations_in_California article you'll see far less noteworthy generation facilities and several have far fewer references. None of those plants have the truly unique technologies that IEEC has. Fuel moisturization and steam cooling will probably never be seen again in another plant in the world. Their maintenance costs are simply too high for the gain. This makes IEEC truly unique in the field of power engineering. The technologies used in this plant are often referred to in college level engineering coursework as a reference to the optimum possible thermal efficiency of a system.

Above all I'd ask you to bear in mind how much a person goes through to write one of these articles. Wikipedia's formatting must first be learned. This is a daunting task in itself! Then references gathered and then unplagiarized data must be generated, formatted and link to references. It is extremely disheartening to put in that effort and then have a reviewer reject it with no suggestions as to how to salvage all that time and effort.

Power plant engineering may not be sexy or get the click-thru that articles such as Cumshot may get but this power plant specifically is of interest to anyone who deals with the term thermal efficiency.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this and thank you in advance for any suggestions you can offer as to how this article can be made to appear more noteworthy.

Crime in Stereo

Hello, just letting you know Crime in Stereo which you nominated to be deleted by PROD was restored at WP:REFUND at the request of another editor. If you feel it still does not meet notability, could you send it to AfD. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request

I think I improved the draft article in the best way I could.I am talking about Draft:3rd Saturn Awards.

You can do better than this. You've not made the improvements the last reviewer suggested. The article isn't going to be accepted if you dont take this guidance into account.--RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already imoroved these draft articles (Draft:3rd Saturn Awards and Draft:5th Saturn Awards).The Only sources that I COULD find were these sources that I found. Why don't you appreciate my work? The only thing that I asked you is these two drafts to bevome articles for Wikipedia.

06:16:47, 25 January 2016 review of submission by Shahvr


Hi Sir, As JNTU kakinada is a university while UCEK Kakinada JNTU is one college which is affilated to JNTU kakinada university. So for a college new wiki page is required. We can't merge all details into JNTU kakinada wiki page.

The article must meet notability guidelines which seems to be a struggle. There is not much content in the college article so including this in the parent article on the university makes sense. It doesn't have to be this way forever. Should the college meet notability guidelines in the future, it could be broken out into its own article later.--RadioFan (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

10:02:46, 25 January 2016 review of submission by 68.228.253.215


Greetings as an activist and writer and I am surprised that you are declining Bars4Justice based on reliable sources. I dont think you can convince Americans that an ad revenue focused news outlet seeking ratings with sensationalized stories is as reliable as https://uanews.arizona.edu/calendar/63611-bars4justice-film-screening or The most prestigious African American Film Festival in the USA http://www.paff.org/films/bars4justice not to mention the film features Academy Award Winner Common I know you guys are trying to keep Wiki clean from non important listings but I feel this film is quite important considering the police involved shootings plaguing the US. Please accept this entry.

You sound like you may have a conflict of interest here making it difficult to write a neutral article on the subject. You've hit on a couple of items in your passion for this subject that wikipedia is not. It's not here to advocate, not matter how important the subject. You might have better luck getting this article created with assistance from an editor who is not quite so close to the subject. See WP:REQUEST for help.--RadioFan (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

11:45:20, 25 January 2016 review of submission by DrSchlagger


If the Rest of the Saturn Awards are notable, then why aren't the 3rd saturn awards.??????? [1]

Either the Saturn Awards as a group are notable or they are not. It does not make sense of an encyclopedia to list the recipients from some years and not other and wave a vague argument about notability to inhibit completeness. DrSchlagger (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added some other sources.

It probably is notable but that's not been demonstrated in this draft. All articles must meet [{WP:GNG|notability guidelines]] with sufficient references to reliable 3rd party sources. Yes there are other articles, but they should not have been accepted in their current state, we'll deal with them separately. We must focus on getting your article ready to be accepted and ignore WP:OTHERSTUFF--RadioFan (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

10:27:15, 26 January 2016 review of submission by CANVAS


Hello. About the page for the book Blueprint for Revolution, first of all it meets criteria 1 and 4 on the notability guidelines, as many independent sources have been included, and there have been universities which have discussed the book for study. In that regard, I really don't understand why the page has been rejected. Additionally, As far as the title goes, the longer title is the full title, but the shorter one is more common. If you would like me to change that, I will. Is there any other reason why this page has been deleted, or would that be it?

10:27:15, 26 January 2016 review of submission by CANVAS


Hello. About the page for the book Blueprint for Revolution, first of all it meets criteria 1 and 4 on the notability guidelines, as many independent sources have been included, and there have been universities which have discussed the book for study. In that regard, I really don't understand why the page has been rejected. Additionally, As far as the title goes, the longer title is the full title, but the shorter one is more common. If you would like me to change that, I will. Is there any other reason why this page has been deleted, or would that be it?

04:50:34, 26 January 2016 review of submission by Jon.opus

Thank you again for taking the time to review Draft:Hume_Lake_Christian_Camps. I see that you indicated the added sources we're not significantly reliable. I thought three of the new sources were quite good. Can you comment on the following sources?

  1. http://www.finehomesandliving.com/Hume-Lake-Christian-Camp-Bringing-Families-Together
  2. http://hedua.com/blog/hume-lake-christian-camps
  3. http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/article/10938941/blackbaud-gives-a-financial-edge-for-non-profit-accounting
It's not clear how these meet reliable sources guidelines. Not only the reliability of the source itself (is it published? Is there editorial oversight, etc.) must be considered but also the context in which these references are used. The FINE magazine article is a good one, appears to be a reliable source with proper editorial control and covers the subject in a focused yet neutral manner. This reads like a journalist wrote it, not someone seeking to promote the camp or its mission. The CPA magazine is an interesting reference but that article focuses on the the organizations use of a particular accounting software and may well be an ad for that software company, it does little to demonstrate the notability of the camp. The Home Education Association link is a blog of unclear editorial control, is promotional in tone (very much different than the Fine Magazine article), and was largely contributed to by a camp employee.
Also the citation overkill is making this difficult to read. 4 citations are not necessary for 5 very high level descriptions of activities at the camp which are pretty much like every other camp.
Overall it is still not clear how this subject might meet notability guidelines. 10 editors reviewed this subject and felt that it wasn't notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. You've got to make it clear how this camp rises above the many organized camps, even the subset of organized religious oriented camps.

adding these comments to the draft so that other reviewers may consider them as well.--RadioFan (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

08:46:38, 26 January 2016 review of submission by Shahvr


I have removed all primary sources as per suggestion and included other proper resources about institute. I don't not agree with merging UCEK JNTUK with JNTU K.. The prime reason is JNTU K is a university which has more than 250 engineering colleges. UCEK JNTUK is one of them. Yes, UCEK JNTUK is a constitute college but as mentioned it is autonomous college. It handles exam and courses according to institute not university. Even ranking in India happens based on college individually also.

Example is given as below.


I have removed all primary sources and other authenticate resources.

The article in its current state does not demonstrate the autonomous college you describe above. Reviewers aren't just evaluating the subject mater for notability, we are evaluating the article. Each article is judged for inclusion based on its own merits of the subject and the article itself. other articles are not justification for inclusion for this article though you should review the articles you've linked above for examples of the minimum amount of detail that needs to be in this article to be considered for inclusion. The references section is 1/3 of the article. Use the information there to create an article that makes it clear that this subject is notable, then resubmit.--RadioFan (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KAGE-FM logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KAGE-FM logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poshter Girl (2016)

It took a while for me to get to addressing issues, but the film's production has lots of independent coverage and definitely meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). I ask that you revisit Poshter Girl and consider changing to a keep. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a closed discussion (which was rightly resulted in a keep) and cannot be modified.--RadioFan (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Award
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2016/January&oldid=1139549463"