User:LaMona/2015Oct/

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page for R Nandakumar[edit]

Dear LaMona, Thanks a lot. As per your suggestion have re-organised the sections, moving works of him in the general category Bibliography. He is notability is assured by the fact that he was conferred with the Kesari Memorial Award Instituted by the Department of Culture, Government of Kerala in the year 2007, and awareded prestigious Senior Nehru Fellowship Government of India in the year 2012. Request you to provide any more suggestions to improve this page. Regards Tirutirutiru (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Tirutirutiru, you still have extra sources, and it would be good to remove those. You should remove the entire section about him being cited by others. Those are not about him. I did find at least one article by him ("A Note on Edge Guards in Art Galleries") still. Rather than list groups of references (e.g. 1-7) you should be using those references to fill in information about him. With those references, you say that "he is an independent scholar" but none of those references actually say that, although they are evidence of it. But being evidence of it makes them primary sources, and then that part of the article is original research. You should be writing the article using what has been said about him by others (reliable others, of course), not drawing conclusions yourself from sources. Since he has major awards, you don't need to prove that he is a scholar, but you should then be writing an article that gives the reader an appreciation of the person, within the WP rules for citations. LaMona (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Page for Magnatag Visible Systems[edit]

Thanks for the feedback LaMona. I appreciate it!

mrp04730

Rejection of Draft Page for James O'Connell[edit]

Hi LaMona, I just saw your detailed message. Thanks so much! I will make the changes accordingly. Best, Jimaning

Comment on draft page for Augustus Martin[edit]

Hi LaMona Thanks for your feedback, that was really helpful. I have changed the references for the Augustus Martin page and added dates, authors and company. I hope this time it passes

Please let me know anything else I need to do

A puppy for you![edit]

Golden Retriever puppy

Thanks, LaMona! This is helpful. I've deleted the two Frick references that aren't just links to taped lectures, and edited out the over-exuberant sentence. I'll be very grateful for any other advice you can offer.

(I noticed you already have kittens and thought you might like a broader menagerie!)

Request on 08:55:25, 7 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smartartone100[edit]


Smartartone100

09:15:42, 28 October 2015 review of submission by 41.242.137.2[edit]


Hi La Mona, hello from Ghana. Does that mean I have to erase all the wikipedia/you tube references? (as well as adding third party ones?)

15:35:16, 29 October 2015 review of submission by 71.227.168.23[edit]


Hi. I am Martha Brockenbrough, the subject of the potential page. My creation, National Grammar Day, has a page. I am cited by Wikipedia in several articles as a source.

My most recent YA novel was a finalist for one of the largest prizes in all of literature.

Why is this not notable? Do you have a bias against children's literature? Are you aware that it is the most robust segment in publishing?

Further, I have spoken as an expert at national conferences for writers, educators, and librarians. I have been interviewed by The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and more. My writing has been in The New York Times and other publications. Perhaps someone should add those references as well. I can, if you'd like. It's all factual, though this sort of information seems of less interest to the kids on Wikipedia trying to look me up for their book reports.

Men in my field with fewer books and/or less critical acclaim have them. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Beaudoin; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Emerson; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Berk

I have questions for you. You identify as a librarian. What sort of librarian? Where? Can you please prove your credentials? Which pages have you approved--not just created? What is the ratio of men to women in pages you have approved and declined?

The continued pushback screams of sexism. I'd love to give you the opportunity to prove otherwise.

71.227.168.23 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

First, read wp:autobiography. You should not be creating a WP page for yourself. Note that I am a librarian and very much in support of reading, so accusing me of biases is quite inappropriate, and what you say above violates one of the main tenets of Wikipedia, which is assume good faith. Your accusations here could result in your account being blocked. We take this good faith assumption very seriously. The criteria for Wikipedia articles are spelled out in a series of policy statements. The primary ones for you (after you find someone with a neutral point of view to create a page for you) reliable sources and general notability. That you write for journals or have been interviewed does not confer notability. Notability is determined by what others have said about you. So you need to find book reviews or articles about the subject that show that the subject of the WP article has achieved a certain amount of attention from reliable sources. Reliable sources must be independent of the subject, therefore no self-sites, not the person's own writings. Note that articles about National Grammar Day are not articles about you; they are articles about National Grammar Day. Your article has been rejected 8 times by 6 different editors. Clearly you are frustrated. However, rather than lash out, you might begin to understand that there is indeed a problem with your article meeting WP criteria. I actually think that if the article focused more on the YA writing, dropped the unsourced info (where "citation needed" is written), and followed WP policies on autobiographies, then it could well pass. It would be good, however, to find book reviews in YA sources, Kirkus, Booklist, PW, etc. to back up the claims. The awards should be separated out into their own section to emphasize them. LaMona (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, talking about killing the goose that lays the golden egg, some time back I had actually done research for you and added a half dozen good references on the talk page that you could use. You haven't used them. As the reviewer who took the time to help you with your research, your accusations above now look even more unwarranted. You are not doing yourself any favors here. Use those references, and the article might pass. Sheesh! LaMona (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


70.89.120.57 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is Martha Brockenbrough again. I did not create the page. I did add to it. I understand the policy, and only did this out of exasperation. The policy is also beside the point of an encyclopedia. Factuality should be the goal, and original sources with independent verification are defensible in academic situations. The original author could have added those links you provided. Thank you for those, sincerely.

This page has been rejected many times by people who are not experts in the field, most of whom appear to be men; determining credentials and potential blind spots is difficult with Wikipedia's editor profile pages.

I am glad you hear my frustration on this topic, but do not think the issue of bias has been addressed, and it's certainly one that is getting negative media attention for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter to me if I'm banned for not being sufficiently "nice," or for failing to assume sufficient good intentions; at this point I'm making my judgment on facts and not assumptions.

The central fact: Men in my field with less critical acclaim and/or fewer books have Wikipedia pages that are similarly sourced. I do not.

Also, I am compelled to question the logic that the articles are about National Grammar Day and not me. National Grammar Day is my work as much as a football game is the work of a professional athlete. Feats on the field would be part of an athlete's page. 70.89.120.57 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There still need to be good sources about the subject of the article. I will add in the references that I found, since no other editor has done so. Also, there is a male bias on Wikipedia in general (cf. the heavy emphasis on sports and porn). But there are many men who are very good about championing women on these pages. You may have been unfortunate that the person who created the page was not more skilled, but you also need to be less critical of those who are trying to make sure that the quality of WP remains high. LaMona (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Martha Brockenbrough again:

I appreciate the continued dialogue and the acknowledgement that Wikipedia has a male bias. I believe this is why some similarly accomplished men in my field have pages and I do not, despite comparable levels of attribution. Part might be due to inexperience on the part of the page creator--but it hasn't generally been the attribution that's been challenged, but the notability of my work. This is a vital distinction to keep in mind.

I disagree that challenging these decisions and their underlying causes is problematic. I will never be less critical of a power structure with a known bias because I might get banned or will be viewed as ungrateful. That said, I appreciate your willingness to be an editor. Critical discussion is part of the package.

Along these lines: Wikipedia has anonymous editors. Why? And I know this is not your decision, but it's something editors should worry about. What purpose does anonymity serve? Yes, people can drill down for information about some editors, but it is fundamentally lopsided to have one standard of accountability for articles and less accountability and transparency for the editors and authors. It would also show more dramatically the gender imbalance of the editorial network, both of contributors and reviewers.

At any rate, what I offer here, instead of an adorable baby animal picture, is sincere gratitude for your work and expertise, and your forbearance for no-holds-barred discussion. To me that is the spirit of learning, libraries, and Wikipedia.

20:30:37, 29 October 2015 review of submission by Simonbean101[edit]


Hi! Martha Brockenbrough is a famous author, she's published by Scholastic (and other major publishing houses), and she has been nominated for well-respected national book awards. I've updated her article to reflect this. I will continue to add more information, but I believe the public has a right to learn more about her. She was a guest speaker on PBS with Nancy Pearl, and so I looked her up to learn more... and saw she doesn't have an article. So I've been working to help update this!

User:Simonbean101 (Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tilde's (there's a link at the bottom of the edit box).) For the article, I added links to reviews of the books. It would be good to have a few more articles about the author, but I wasn't able to find any. (I checked the indexes of the Nancy Pearl books, but Brockenbrough didn't appear there.) You can see that the general notability guidelines emphasize independent, third-party sources. Also see wp:rs about reliable sources. Decisions on keeping articles are not based on how famous the person is, but on the availability of sources that are evidence of that fame. That way, we aren't deciding ourselves who is or isn't famous, but have a set of criteria that we can use. LaMona (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

30 October 2015 review of submission by Simonbean101[edit]


Hi again, it's me in support of a Martha Brockenbrough page. How is being nominated for a Kirkus Award not evidence of being noteworthy? By DEFINITITION it makes her noteworthy. That plus being a published author with a major publishing house. This seems incredibly biased against her for some reason, as it's uterly subjective on your part. I subjectively feel she IS worthy of an article, so why doesn't that trump your opposition since I have national awards to offer as proof? https://www.kirkusreviews.com/prize/2015/finalists/young-readers/

Why is Martha not worthy, but Sharon Maeda is? Isn't that equally subjective? Here she is with Nancy Pearl: http://www.seattlechannel.org/BookLust?videoid=x56548

Thanks again for your help.

Simonbean101 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LaMona/2015Oct/&oldid=1223391684"