User talk:Jodi.a.schneider/Archives/2016

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

Regarding your comment on Draft:David Klenerman[edit]

Thanks for your review and your comment. I would like to highlight a point here. Most of the peer-reviewed journal articles that were cited there are not written by David Klenerman. Those are mostly review/highlight/perspective articles where his work have been highlighted (by other researchers). Hence, I think they should be included in article reference only and not in separate "Publication"/"Bibliography" section.

Uvarun2009 (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, that's fine @Uvarun2009:. My immediate remaining concern (without reviewing the article, which obviously I have not done) would be WP:OR regarding "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Someone will be along to review Draft:David Klenerman, likely before a week or two is out, to give further feedback. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:22, 11 December 2015 review of submission by JTCasimir[edit]



I am not currently requesting a re-review. I would, however, appreciate some more detailed help as to how to make the article better.

I was notified that the first paragraph was sounding too peacocky, so I did my best to make it more neutral. If there are other specific items that I can work on, I'd be happy to make changes.

I feel that I have done my best to write in a way that was interesting while still being absolutely factual.

Looking forward to your help,

John

Hi John @JTCasimir:, about Draft:Superprestigio of the Americas, I apologize to be so slow! I'd suggest finding some better references in general sources. (For instance http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/1227656.htm is giving me a 404 and would need to be updated); the other 5 sources are very specific to the sport. I'm far from an expert in this field; I think you'd get better advice by asking for editors or advice on a talk page at WikiProject Motorcycle racing. Does that make sense? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Jodi @Jodi.a.schneider:,

More mainstream references will not exist for this topic. As much as it pains me, the "Stick and Ball" media doesn't care about motorcycle racing, and motorcycles and motorcyclists only make it to mainstream media when there is a death or crime involved. The sources for this are always going to be very specific to the sport. The sources are not, however, directly connected to the event or promotors and are in fact, independently written.

The 404 reference was deleted (it was probably the worst puff piece of all of the references anyway, but it appeared in Money/CNN so it lended some (false) credibility).

I have checked with three well-known editors in the motorcycle enthusiast press industry (namely Brian Catterson, Nick Ienatsch, and Paul Seredynski--Cycle World, Motorcyclist, Cycle News, Sport Rider, Edmunds, and MSN Autos among their positions) and each of them have had no major edits to the Wikipedia article.

Thank you for reviewing the article, and I'm looking forward to having it approved for publication.

John

JTCasimir (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, @JTCasimir: Did you ask at WikiProject Motorcycle racing? Wikipedians (rather than journalists) will be really helpful in this case. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 December[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annals of Library and Information Studies has been accepted[edit]

Annals of Library and Information Studies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

LaMona (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Van Robichaux[edit]

Can you help me? I'm getting slaughtered here. None of my citations seem to be good enough. Sonicfan1997 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonicfan1997: I've looked at Draft:Van Robichaux and edited where possible; I think it's a good start but I haven't been able to find many sources that do more than mention Van Robichaux (e.g. "screenwriters are..."). I've added a few details where there *was* significant coverage; but these are rather limited and for a screenwriter I think more is needed before the article gets moved out of the draft space. I'd suggest continuing to work on it (and note that it should get edits every 6 months to avoid deletion; there's more information under Wikipedia:Drafts. If you find more sources or want more suggestions, feel free to ask me again! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Thank you so much Sonicfan1997 (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Oussama_Belhcen[edit]

Hi Jodi.a.schneider. I've done some edits on the draft Draft:Oussama_Belhcen and wonder if you have time to take a look at it. -- Othmanebenjelloun (talk) thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Othmanebenjelloun:, sorry seems like I missed this. Do you still need help with something? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2015[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Percy Dalton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Devonport and Maritime. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on Draft: Pandorabots[edit]

Thanks for your comment! I'm searching for and trying to add more sources that seem to be mostly or exclusively about the company. Does this type of piece meet the criteria? http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/ask-me-anything-having-a-forced-conversation-with-an-artificial-intelligence/Content?oid=2827569

Many of the books included devote entire chapters to Pandorabots (that is noted in most cases, but may be non-obvious from the citations). Should articles that only devote a paragraph to the company (but still serve as a source for an assertion in the article) be removed due to potential confusion on subject matter, or simply supplemented with further sources?

Please don't hesitate to let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article while review is pending. Thanks again. Botxpert (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Botxpert: yes, that seems to have mainly coverage of Pandorabots. I'd suggest that you first delete all references that are NOT specifically about Pandorabots: it is confusing at this point to have assertions about anything else, or those sources. Delete all content of ANY sort that is not specifically about Pandorabots. Regarding the books: Specify chapters and chapter titles if that will help clarify. Try to make the reviewer's job easier. And feel free to ping me when you have a *substantial* revision that incorporates these sorts of changes if you'd like me to take a look then. Hope that helps a little bit and thanks for persisting! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jodi.a.schneider, this article is very well readable and understood. Are you bought by the German geobernment? The title has now been changed since the article is person related. KHEname January 20, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.99.85 (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still see Draft:Pandorabots so I don't know what you mean by "The title has now been changed since the article is person related." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help Jodi.a.schneider. I think with your direct edits the article might finally make it through! But, wanted to circle back while re-review is still pending to check if there are any other areas for improvement...? Botxpert (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in this comment on Draft:Pandorabots Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 January[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Emergence of the American University has been accepted[edit]

The Emergence of the American University, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

/wiae /tlk 13:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Hetherington[edit]

Thank you for your suggestion. I will look through it again later today. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:20, 26 January 2016 review of submission by Chinafashionguide[edit]


I am writing concerning the review of my draft "Helen Lee (Chinese fashion designer)". I have deleted the WWD reference, however The Forbes and Vogue articles are used to support the fact that Chinese consumers are opening up to local designer brands, not Helen Lee specifically (this is what the content of the articles is). If you still don't find them relevant, I can delete them, but I find them quite informational.

@Chinafashionguide: The main problem at this point is to show very clearly that Helen Lee is notable per WP:Creative. From that perspective, the Forbes and Vogue articles are distracting. Does that make sense? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Hetherington[edit]

I have deleted a number of references - at least twelve I think and some wording. My aim has been to prove notability not least by showing that he is in demand from solo to orchestral work etc. I hope I have gone far enough. Thank you Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Hetherington[edit]

Jodi

I have now deleted quite a few more. I'm worried now about verification for some concerts. I don't suppose it's possible to have a 'further verification' section at the end where additional listings etc could go. That would be beneficial for this type of subject. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Balquhidder2013: I've taken a look through. You'll see I made a number of edits to delete parts. It is getting better but it still reads like a laundry list. The goal of the article is not to document every concert or even city/country where he has performed. So far there are mainly event listings with a few reviews; which of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles are clearly met? It is hard to tell based on the current draft at Draft:Feargus_Hetherington. Have you looked at example articles, for instance at Candida Thompson or Daniel Hope (violinist) or Marta Canales? Or the entire category: Category:Classical violinists by nationality? It's fine if the article is short, and better if it is shorter rather than over-detailed. Let me know if you need further suggestions. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Byron Arnold Collection has been accepted[edit]

Byron Arnold Collection, 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!

SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Hetherington[edit]

Many thanks. I see what I can do. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Draft Hetherington[edit]

Jodi

I've looked at the biogs you mentioned. Unfortunately the careers they followed are very different to the one in question. I've also noticed that these and other musicians' biogs do not have points verified which I thought was essential.

I've made many changes and I would be grateful if you would let me know what you think. As for a citation for the Roxburgh Quartet, would their current website listing of previous concerts but not players's names be of any use? http://www.roxburghquartet.com/concerts. I've added a different link but I'm not sure which is best or if any is acceptable. I'm still trying to track down dates for a couple of other quotes - I've mislaid the newspaper cuttings from which they were taken - that or they didn't have the date.

I would be grateful for further comment. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{Ping|Balquhidder2013} maybe there are other classical musicians with a similar career who have articles? It's not that it's unimportant to cite and make verifiable certain information: it's rather that if there is too much detail it can be hard to see the article's core. Again, look to the criteria: there are 12 points at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Musicians are expected to meet one of these criteria in order to justify creating a biographical article about them. Can you tell me WHICH of those 12 points is met? The main point of the article, at this point, should be to show which criterion is met. Anything extra should probably be deleted. I will make a note to take another look again soon, to see if I can give more directed feedback! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Hetherington[edit]

Thank you again. I have from the beginning tried to prove notability on the basis of diversity in his career. No criteria matches perfectly but surely that doesn't disprove notability? Very few suit classical music. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Hetherington[edit]

Jodi

I have looked again at the criteria. I consider he meets 1, 6, 7 (for St Andrews & Glasgow) and 12. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that 1 is the best criteria for it. I'm not able to find sufficient verification for the others. With 7 the only radio programme I can still track down is the one given (Classics Unwrapped). There have been many over the years with Radio Scotland as well as OHIO local radio, Polish, BBC Ulster, and BBC3 - but dates and programmes are impossible to track down. I mentioned these in an early draft but I was told a citation was needed!

By the way The Herald review is very important. The Herald is Scotland's main broadsheet and the one which reviews all major classical concerts, The Scotsman comes next. After that probably The Courier. Others don't review classical music or are mainly tabloids.

I would be grateful if you would let me know what you think of it now. If I delete much more then I'm not really describing the subject in a fair way.

Many thanks for your help. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Award verification[edit]

Jodi

I've just seen your comment. Unfortunately this was the only evidence Creative Scotland could produce. A kind helper in the Teahouse fixed them up for me. The Musicians Benevolent Fund state that they never issue evidence of Funding etc and The Caird Trust confirmed two payments but they only post online awards for the past ten years. So that was as far as I could go.

I had earlier named some world class teachers he studied with but without online verification I had to delete them. He studied with Liz Layton who is now in Australia, James Buswell, Joseph Swensen etc - all very impressive but ...

I'll watch out for more comments. In the meantime, many thanks. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, note that it's not necessary for this to be comprehensive. I'll be looking further later tonight.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you. Thanks. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jodi.a.schneider. I notice that you updated Draft:Feargus Hetherington to remove the citations which supported the "Creative Scotland" awards, without any justification. I have reverted that edit to put the references back, since it is not at all clear why you removed them. Your comment said "rm 2 Excel sheets (maybe there's another version of this info?)" - am I to infer that you think there is some problem with this simply because they are spreadsheets? If so, then I beg to differ: the {{cite web}} template specifically provides support for Excel spreadsheets. Or was there some other difficulty with them? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That revert is fine @Gronk Oz:. I think that people generally don't want to be sent to documents to download (just as we limit the number/size of videos that we link to). Personally I don't see why this information is so important about the subject that it should be included: personally my inclination would be to delete the cited statements if they are not citable to something other than a download. Of course, other judgements on this (like yours) are fine. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that, Jodi.a.schneider. I agree that the information is marginal in the first place - generally I am in favour of listing awards because they convey an independent assessment of the subject's importance in their field, but in this case they were quite minor grants.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Hetherington[edit]

Jodi

Thanks again for comments. Re CDs: these sold very well for niche market titles. Unfortunately the Record company folded when financial support was withdrawn. See http://www.naturalstudiorecords.com/ . Should I re-instate this link? Two at least on this list are famous classical guitarists - Alan Neave is very well known http://www.classicalmusiciansscotland.com/artists/allan-neave/ and Matthew McAllister (Feargus's Maelasta duo partner) http://www.matthewmcallister.com/bio/ is involved in guitar festivals worldwide. I'm happy to remove the Accordion links.

The Scotsman Sherlock Violin Review. Back to this. "The mellow, earthy tones of the instrument were well suited to the quicksilver preludio from JS Bach's Partita in E major … The telepathic, dance-like interaction between the two musicians … This close attunement was particularly apparent in the duo's exquisite arrangement of Ronald Stevenson's A'e Gowden Lyric, after Hugh MacDiarmid's poem, with a nod to Burns along the way". It's not very often that the performance itself gets much coverage. Reviewers often just dwell on the repertoire.

The Edinburgh Spotlight review is an a very substantial review. This online magazine is highly respected and used, especially at the Edinburgh Festivals time. The Courier one on the Bruch Concerto also is.

I am aware that there have been many substantial reviews over the years but they are no longer online (if they ever were). I think it's just a few years since newspapers began placing reviews online here. I've got hold of numerous early cuttings but they are mainly undated.

I will look later at your comments again but I don't think there's much I can do. Many thanks again. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi. I've looked again at the Scotsman Maelasta review. There's a fair bit in it: The mellow, earthy tones of the instrument were well suited to the quicksilver preludio from JS Bach's Partita in E major … The telepathic, dance-like interaction between the two musicians … This close attunement was particularly apparent in the duo's exquisite arrangement of Ronald Stevenson's A'e Gowden Lyric, after Hugh MacDiarmid's poem, with a nod to Burns along the way. Perhaps I should leave it? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Balquhidder2013: You would just need full citations: Nothing has to be online. Some libraries have digitized newspapers that can be searched in private databases (that are on the web but not publicly available); Local libraries would have microform of the major papers. I agree that there's *some* coverage in these reviews, and I think it *just* passes the bar of notability (based on what's here). At a gestalt level the article reads like it was written and then sourced -- depending on significant personal knowledge. It's nothing that a rewrite by an experienced editor couldn't solve. In a sense, the article feels unbalanced. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music: on their Talk page you could post a message asking for help editing the article and further feedback from experienced Wikipedia editors who care about and frequently edit about classical music.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi. And again thanks. I hadn't thought of libraries. That will take some time as our local library is out of action because of major redevelopments. Perhaps I could visit the Edinburgh Music Library but not for some days or weeks. If it is rejected is it still saved? I could watch out for future reviews. In the meantime I've left a message on the Classical Music site.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Balquhidder2013: There's no rush and no deadline. "Rejected" from AfC just means that whoever is reviewing doesn't think that the article is ready for the Mainspace yet. As long as the Draft article is edited once every 6 months, the default is for it to stay indefinitely. So don't panic! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi. Great. Thanks. That's a relief. Have a good day. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Hetherington: revision[edit]

Jodi

I've made a number of changes and deletions. As my optician asks "better or worse?" Thanks Balquhidder2013 (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Balquhidder2013:, the changes on Draft:Feargus Hetherington seem to be going in the right direction. Check other articles for how they handle reviews, I'm not sure what's best to do (and it's a bit hard to read, e.g. the solo and duo section, at present. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi. Thanks. Shall do.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

I hope they are in season with you. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Jodi. I'm sorry to bother you again but there are some issues that I find perplexing. You rightly suggested that I look through biog entries for other contemporary violinists and I did so. I was also told along the way somewhere that not everything needs to be verifiable. However. I've had since the beginning of my efforts with the Hetherington biog had bits and pieces deleted over and over again because I couldn't verify them. Now, looking through biogs of other violinists it is usual to mention the name of teachers and the links to those teachers inevitably do not mention the subjects name. My first attempt at this led to deletion when Hetherington was not named on the wiki page (or web page) of the teachers in question. It's not just here but virtually every concert programme biog will indicate who the performer studied with. It seems to be one of these important factors. Other deletions were names of countries abroad where he performed and radios or programmes on which he appeared. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Campbell#cite_ref-4 This person studied where he did. Even since it was uploaded bits have been deleted, e.g. and interesting interview with him. There is a much duller interview on the site just mentioned. Is there anything I can do about these issues? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, @Balquhidder2013:. The best thing you can do for the Feargus Hetherington article is to stop editing it for awhile. Other editors are trying to improve the article. I see that your edits so far have only been to this article and to talk pages (if similar to mine, also related to this one article). Why not edit some other, existing articles? Everything going on here is normal, run-of-the-mill editing, and you shouldn't take it personally. Of course, other articles could be better referenced as well! (The Caroline Campbell article looks well-referenced on the whole: are you pointing out that they're using liner notes as a reference? Or something else? I removed one section that was referenced just to two websites closely associated with her. That page has similar issues with marginal notability in my opinion.) PS - It's important to distinguish: Wikipedia articles are NOT blog entries. They're encyclopedia articles. Maybe that's some of the confusion? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP said "biog entries" not "blog entries ". (Difficult to spot the difference in a san serif font.) - David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David Biddulph and apologies, Balquhidder2013 for my misreading! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Jodi

I twice tried to reply but each time my reply didn't register on your site. Here's another attempt at it.

Thanks Jodi. I suppose I shouldn't pester you. My point about Caroline Campbell was really in relation to her teachers at The Cleveland Institute of Music and naming places - not the article overall. My main point is that it should be permitted to name prominent teachers as most wiki-listed violinists have done. Why can't Hetherington's teachers at the Cleveland Institute of Music be named? Or those in Scotland? And elsewhere? Where you studied and who you studied with can establish the 'credibility' of performers (I believe - otherwise why is it the norm on programme notes to name former teachers?). My article originally referred to high profile violinists/teachers but these were deleted a few times over and I was accused of name-dropping at one point. I can't see how there can be one rule for one and another for others. Yes, the Teahouse has been very helpful and I understood from there that not everything needed to be verified. Unfortunately I didn't receive any reply to my Classical Music Forum request (which you suggested). See this listed violinist which, I am sure, had I used as a model, I would have got no-where: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_%C3%85strand. As an encyclopedia article (and a Wikipedia article in particular) I feel strongly that it should reflect the career and achievements of the subject. My article at present doesn't do that and in my view I have let the subject down. The pasted notice about notability on the article is very disconcerting and demeaning to the subject. As more reviews come along I hope to resolve that issue. Is it possible to have this removed? (I'm aware that you didn't post it). Yes, I intend editing some others (once I've recovered from this one) but I have a couple of quotes which I removed at the last minute and which I can now verify to insert first. I'm sorry to bother you. You have been extremely helpful. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Balquhidder2013:. Wikipedia is a work in process, so try not to get frustrated. If a newspaper article (or similar) lists a person as a student of so-and-so, it is reasonable to include it in the article. I agree that the it is difficult to use other articles as a source. Regarding Christina Åstrand: This sentence is very well-sourced: "She began to play the violin when she was four at Aarhus Folk Music School where she was first taught for two years by Tove Detreköy and thereafter for a further two years by her husband Bela Detrekov who specialized in Hungarian music." If you look at the reference about 1 sentence later, it goes to a Danish encyclopedia. Translated (with Google), we see the teachers mentioned: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kvinfo.dk%2Fside%2F170%2Fbio%2F1673%2F
It helps to have some detachment from the subject! Are you interested in other Scottish musicians? Other violinists? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nuala Moore has been accepted[edit]

Nuala Moore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

Onel5969 TT me 18:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Your submission at Articles for creation: David A. Kronick has been accepted[edit]

David A. Kronick, 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!

SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naomi C. Broering (March 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Jodi.a.schneider, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charity Folks (March 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment they left was:
Still questionable for the applicable notability, add any further amount of available in-depth sources overall.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Draft:Keith Aoki concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Keith Aoki, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish violinists etc[edit]

Dear Jodi

I've just returned from holiday to see a message highlighted - dated 10th April - as far as I can make out. You ask if I'm interested in other Scottish musicians. I am indeed. Since submitting Feargus Hetherington I have been much more successful with a couple of others - Opera Bohemia and Joseph Swensen (not Scottish but important here). I have also edited a couple of composers, Gareth Williams and Eddie McGuire which I hope to do some more work on. Have you someone in mind? I thought of cellist Robert Irvine but I haven't researched him yet. It is good to hear from you.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Your draft article, Draft:Keith Aoki[edit]

Hello, Jodi.a.schneider. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Keith Aoki".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hobson v. Hansen[edit]

I was hoping you could clarify your comment on the Draft:Hobson v. Hansen. You said,"It is worth naming references. There are examples in the history/diff, e.g. ref name=hurwitz:285-6". I wasn't able to follow you. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitchumch: sorry to be using too much slang there. I mean, for example, <ref name=hurwitz>Emanuel Hurwitz, “''Hobson v. Hansen'' Summary,” in ''Criticism, Conflict, and Change: Readings in American Education'' (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1970).</ref>{{rp|271}} By "name" I mean, the name inside the ref tags: <ref name=hurwitz></ref>. One effect is that in the bibliography, that item gets a list (abcd....) which links back to the uses inline. For more editing tips related to this, see Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Using_the_same_footnote_multiple_times and Help:Footnotes#WP:REFNAME. Hope that helps!Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure I understand you, you're advocating for using the above citation format on other references throughout the article? Mitchumch (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch: Yes, to show where the same reference is being used multiple times. This makes it much easier to review an article and is much nicer for readers as well.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Draft:Thomas Morrissey (athlete)[edit]

NoelPRoy (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)== Re: Draft:Thomas Morrissey (athlete) ==[reply]

Thanks for your three comments. I've made what modifications I could. On your comments:

1. Thanks for the URL. I changed the two newspaper references so that they point to public sources.

2. At the time, race results were published by 1/5 seconds, probably reflecting the precision of the timing instruments of the day. Today, times for distance races are rounded up to the full second, which is what sports-reference.com has done. Derderian appears to have rounded to the nearest second (downward). Any of these can be defended. I've changed the time to reflect what was originally reported.

3. All the Ancestry references are from public sources, but not online. I've replaced the ancestry reference with detailed citation information from the archival sites, but kept the ancestry URL's for those who have access. Alternatively, the URLs can be deleted.

NoelPRoy (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)NoelPRoy[reply]

@NoelPRoy: Super, thanks for your work on this page! :) I appreciate the explanation about race results: I learned something! And it's great to have fuller references for the older public sources, thanks for that! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Power-to-X[edit]

Many thanks for your two comments on Draft:Power-to-X. I added two more references as a result. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you for your help, Jodi! As you probably guessed, this is my first Wikipedia entry--I really appreciate your edits, and I have addressed them. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do on my entry on Danny Gregory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danny_Gregory Suzan Colon (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Colon (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hislerin Bildirimi (June 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:
All information must be verifiable in third-party, reliable sources - you have unsourced material here. We generally do not name individuals unless their names have appeared in publications (for reasons of privacy).
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
LaMona (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dora Chatterjee (June 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:
Because people do not inherit notability from their families, the family information here does not add to the notability of the person. You need to make the article about her and what she did, not about her family or the hospital.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
LaMona (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naomi C. Broering (July 8)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:
More content is required in the article. The only substantial information included in the submission right now is the honors and awards, publications.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tseung Kwan O (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Transgender American Veterans Association has been accepted[edit]

Transgender American Veterans Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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!

MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},(unless this is on my own talk page) otherwise I may not see your reply) 07:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dora Chatterjee (July 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
As the previous reviewer has stated, there is not inherent or inherited notability. You need to show that the subject of this article is notable.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 18:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charity Folks (July 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
None of these references have significant coverage of the subject involved.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 18:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: July 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keith Aoki has been accepted[edit]

Keith Aoki, 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!

SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: September 2016[edit]



Headlines



Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: October 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

New Page Review needs your help[edit]

Hi Jodi.a.schneider/Archives,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Jodi.a.schneider. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jodi.a.schneider/Archives/2016&oldid=1089616249"