User talk:Onel5969/Archive 7

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

@

WP:BIO

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

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

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

MOS:LAYOUT

.

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

Re: Laporte Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

MOS:LAYOUT

to show you the proper layout for an article.

The other issue with the article, is one of notability. The references cited, while providing the basis for the facts in the article, don't really show the firm's notability. Not a single citation seems to show how this firm satisfies

WP:ORGSIG. Just because a firm exists, and is a nice place to work, does not make it rise to the level of notability. Not a single citation from an independent reliable source discusses the firm and how they have had a demonstrable effect on society. McGladrey, as an example, is borderline in this area as well, but the BusinessWeek citation and their Team McGladrey push them over the edge. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk

) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks in advance, with friendly greetings --Irukandji85 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Irukandji85: Hi! Well, they only have to meet one of the criteria. Not sure they meet #1, other than the rtl and eldo sources, the rest do not rise them to the level of notability (facebook should NEVER be used as a reference, same for youtube, vimeo, imdb... any sight which has no editorial oversight). rtl and eldo are fringe sources, at best. However, their chart appearance would definitely qualify them under #2. They would also seem to qualify under #5. While they may meet #7 and #11, the inline citations don't indicate it. I'm going to approve it, solely on the basis of #5, since that is clearly cited and stated in the article. However, their chart performance has no inline citation, you should fix that. Thanks for your efforts on this article. Onel5969 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Jane Buchan

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

Thank you for commenting on the draft for this entry. I was suggested to reference more journals by the previous editor, and did so in this update. You stated that "Interviews and press releases are neither independent nor reliable sources. The citations listed do not rise to the level of notability," and understand what you mean. Should I only reference the journals? What would be your next move if you wanted to get this post? Should I shorten the article to the bare bone basics on this one? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sososorry (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:CIT

). I edited one of the section headings to also give you the proper format for those as well.

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

Draft:Firebase

Hi there, thanks for reviewing the article I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Firebase). Can you elaborate on it's non-neutralness? I tried to be only factual and non-opinionated in the writing, but it's my fist attempt at an article and would really appreciate some advice on what else I can do to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termed (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The text is written to advertise, not to explain why it's notable. For example, "lists of services" denotes why you would choose this company, not what this company is about. To be honest, sometimes it's difficult to put your finger on advertising versus simply reporting. As an example, take the verbiage regarding Firepad. You have, "Firepad is an open source collaborative real-time editor. It is customizable, supporting both rich-text as well as source code editing. Released under the MIT License, Firepad is used by the Atlassian Stash Realtime Editor and Koding, among others. Firepad uses the Firebase Realtime Database to power it's collaborative features." That goes beyond mere reporting the facts, and is written as an enticement, a more neutral description might be, "Firepad is an open source collaborative real-time editor. Released under the MIT License, Firepad is used by several editors, including the Atlassian Stash Realtime Editor and Koding." The deletion of the two sentences removes the marketing language. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's super helpful. I've updated the article. - Termed — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Revised edits to Bobby Bones (broadcaster)

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

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

@

WP:CIT, it gives you templates, where you can put the link, author, publisher, date accessed, etc. That's what I was referring to. Hope this answers your question. Onel5969 (talk

) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969:Thanks! Very helpful and much appreciated. Two questions: (1) I have updated links in the Early Life section using the citation template. Can you check it and let me know if this is how I should proceed through the rest of the article? (2) Can you be more specific about which facts need citations? Khachapuri

@Onel5969:OK, I've added facts (with citations) and updated link information where I thought appropriate (news articles, v. links to imdb) When and how do I learn if the page is going live? thanks!Khachapuri

@Khachapuri: Hi! Much better. All I would ask of you is that you format what are now raw links in the citations with the proper format. 3, 7, 13 are examples of correctly. Once you do that, let me know and I'll accept the article. Interesting subject btw... learned a bit. Also, one other thing, when you put a comment on a user's talk page, it automatically informs them, so there's no need to "ping" me. I ping you, since it's not your talk page, to let you know I've responded. Onel5969 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Versus You

Hi Onel5969,

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

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

@Irukandji85: This is one of the reasons that wp requires multiple independent reliable sources, so editors don't have to rely on a single source to get their information together. This is also my bad, since I should have caught it in the approval process. It's obvious that many sentences are simply "cut and paste", which is a huge no-no on wp. No, you can't simply make up information out of thin air, but you have to take the information available to you, and write about it in your own words. For example, "Long-time friends, both musicians had played in a couple of bands together and it didn't take Eric, who had a bag of songs written already, a long time to convince Giordano to join his new band on bass guitar." Might become "Having known each other for several years, Rosenfeld and Bruno decided to form their own band in 2005." But even that second sentence might be too close to the original, even better would be to simply state the fact that can be derived from the original article: "Rosenfeld and Bruno decided to form their own band in 2005." In order for the article not to be deleted, you'll have to go through the entire thing and make sure it's not even close to what is written in the article. Go to [[1]] to see how to fix this issue at this point. You might also try contacting Ronhjones to see if he has any suggestions. Sorry you feel frustrated, but wp is very picky (and rightly so) about copyright violations, either cut and paste from other written sources, or images used without permission.Onel5969 (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

The FP GA status

Hi One; i'm currently copy-editing

BTW,

Baffle gab1978 (talk

) 10:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments on

Baffle gab1978 (talk

) 20:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@

Baffle gab1978: Sorry about not responding. I answered on the FP talk page. One of the reasons I wanted someone else to do the c/e on it, was that I've been looking at this article so long, I wanted another editor's opinion. I was glad you chose to do the c/e. As you can see, Corvoe has submitted it for FA status, where the few folks who have responded have done so favorably. I added my thoughts there. Take it easy! Onel5969 (talk

) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for replying here; I was just about to tell you the GA status is now confirmed (thanks). I'm currently on the 'Writing' section, which has a better standard of prose than the earlier sections, which might have skewed my opinion slightly. I must admit I can be a picky b***h when it comes to prose, especially where it comes to FA-level editing. Anyway I'm about done for today; I'm getting tired. :-) Thanks again for responding; it's appreciated. Cheers,

Baffle gab1978 (talk

) 23:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Draft:Gabriel P. Weisberg

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

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

Revised edits to Bobby Bones (broadcaster)

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

CloudSwitch new article comments.

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

Okay, I need some help here.

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

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

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

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

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

I would appreciate any help here.

Israel Gale

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

GOCE July 2014 newsletter

Complications at the FP FAC

Due to an extensive (and in my opinion, excellent) copy-edit by a