User talk:NewYorkActuary/AfC 2017
The general advice is that in all, this draft is nowhere's close to being acceptable for publication. We followed the example of several other articles of marimba artists and tried to to at best follwing the instructions of first article. It will be helpfull to incicate some examples of lines which need to be improved. Thanks
Marika Hansen (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Marika Hansen: My apologies for the delay in response. I see that you have been making some effort towards improving the quality of your draft, but there is still much more that must be done. At a very basic level, you have not been using in-line citations to document any of the information in the biography. Instead, you seem to expect that, if a reader wants to learn the basis for any particular claim made in your article, they must take on the task of searching through all of the links that you provide at the end of the article. This is not a proper way to provide that documentation. Instead, I strongly urge you to become familiar with the guidance offered in WP:Referencing for beginners. As for following the example of "several other articles of marimba artists", do you mean Wikipedia articles? If so, it will be helpful if you would indicate which Wikipedia articles you had been looking at. Doing so will make it possible to provide a more detailed response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind advice. I also do understand now the policy of adding reference sources and in-line citations to document further the article. i will continue to improve. To start i folloxed some wiki articles of other marimbists such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_Bacanu but do understand now how to continue. Further communication and advice will be great. sincerely yours, Marika Hansen Marika Hansen (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Archer1401 (talk · contribs)
Archer1401 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm responding to the comments on the Shannon Burke page. There was one part of the comments where it said, "The draft's creator is encouraged to reconsider their decision to not follow the advice provided on this draft's Talk page." I think, maybe, I didn't understand what was wanted, or maybe I didn't see the talk page, because I was trying to follow all the advice. Can you repost the advice that was given? Like I said, I seemed to have misunderstood.
- Hello, Archer. Thanks for following up on this. Most pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Talk page", which can be accessed by clicking the tab at the very top of the page. The comments that I left for you on the 17th are still on your draft's Talk page, where they can be seen simply by clicking that link at the top of the page. If you have any questions about those comments, feel free to ask them on that same page (I'll keep that page on my watchlist, so I'll receive an automatic notification that you've asked a question). NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Pinging @Archer1401: NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Assistance with Draft:Goji Food Solutions article
[edit]Hi NewYorkActuary,
Following up on your answer to my request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=758443190 You said you wanted to add some feedback to the article's talk page and how it can be improved. Sorry for bothering you again but I am a little bit hanging on the because the Help Desk seems to have me forgotten again :-(
Thanks in advance!
Visrajmathan 0614 (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Visrajmathan 0614: My apologies for forgetting about my promise. Immediately after posting this, I'll head over to your draft. I should have comments posted there in a few minutes. Again, please accept my apologies. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Cédric_Herrou
[edit]Hello: Publication dates have been added for all references in Draft:Cédric_Herrou. Thank you! 198.58.172.228 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS this NYT Editorial is compelling vis-a-vis notability.198.58.172.228 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:198.58.172.228. The editorial certainly corroborates the notion that Herrou has received international recognition. But I'm more impressed by the most recent news article -- Herrou is facing sentencing and he goes out and does it again? Wow!
- I'll be publishing your draft later this evening. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Re his release, charges are still pending on the second arrest. I do believe that the French authorities are in a bit of a pickle, in terms of his popularity. If you Google "herrou garde a vue" you will get the French result for the recent arrest. There are many! He's a real cause-celebre, no pun intended.198.58.172.228 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion of notability on Credible article talk page
[edit]Thanks NewYorkActuary for your insights on notability on the Credible draft article via the talk page[1]. I have responded to your comments. 162.245.21.61 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
03:20:06, 5 February 2017 review of submission by Archer1401
[edit]- Archer1401 (talk · contribs)
This is a reply to NewYorkActuary. I'm not even sure if this is the place to do it, or if NewYorkActuary will see this, but I'll give it a try. In the comments on January 20th on the Shannon Burke page I had some uncertainty about some of the critique. I understand and can remedy the IMDB reference and the family information, but I'm still confused by the sentence: "The draft's creator is encouraged to reconsider their decision to not follow the advice provided on this draft's Talk page." I didn't know what advice you were talking about. Are you referring to the comment about improving the notability citations? And is this connected to the sentence, "Regarding notability, the "Critical reception" section consists solely of a collection of in-article external links." Is that the problem you're referring to? Should there be text, as well? Or is there some other problem I'm missing. Sorry to bother you, and sorry for the delay in responding, but I seem not to understand what's wanted. Any further clarification or an example of what is needed would be invaluable. Thanks. User:Archer1401
- @Archer1401: Hello again, Archer. My response is the same as the one I gave you about two weeks ago (and which still appears higher up on this Talk page). To reiterate, most pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Talk page", which can be accessed by clicking the tab at the very top of the page. The comments that I left for you on the 17th are still on your draft's Talk page, where they can be seen simply by clicking that link at the top of the page. If you have any questions about those comments, feel free to ask them on that same page (I'll keep that page on my watchlist, so I'll receive an automatic notification that you've asked a question). NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- @NewYorkActuary: Ok, ok. I'm really sorry. I seem to have stumbled across what I've been missing all along. I thought I hit the talk page about twenty times, but I seem to have not been on the correct page. Now I am and I see the very specific and very helpful advice that you left. Sorry for the trouble. I will try to implement these changes. User:Archer1401
Question fromTalk:Sausalitoarchitect
[edit]Please be patient, I am still learning, Sausalitoarchitect (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC) How do I resubmit the Violeta Autumn page? I am still working it and may have hit resubmit too early.
- Response provided at AfC Help Desk on February 6, 2017. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
02:27:40, 10 February 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3
[edit]
The Reference is not a dead link get this article in now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Posting copied to the Articles for Creation Help Desk for February 10, 2017 NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
02:55:23, 10 February 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3
[edit]
Can You Put the MAC Standings now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, IP from Wichita. If portions of your draft need to be filled in, you would be the person in the best position to do so. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
00:19:09, 11 February 2017 review of submission by Arsenal966
[edit]- Arsenal966 (talk · contribs)
Can i know how to edit to make it success?
- @Arsenal966: Hello, Arsenal. Thank you for asking about improving your draft. There are two main problems that I see with the draft in its current form. First, much of the material is not encyclopedic. There are details that are too trivial to be mentioned and there are passages that don't have the neutral tone that is expected in an article here. But the bigger problem is the lack of substantive sourcing. Wikipedia articles rely on the existence of reliable, independent sources that have written about the subject and that have done so in depth. Right now, the only real source that you have (other than a listing) is a press-release type of biography that appears on a web site hosted by the company that produced a television show in which the subject appeared. You really need to find sources that are independent of both the subject and her employers. So far, you haven't done that.
- To get an idea of what a properly-sourced and neutrally-written article will look like, you can read some of the better-quality articles that we already have on Singaporeans, such as Feng Tianwei, Ho Yuen Hoe and Xiaxue. These articles will give you an idea as to the broad range of sources that can be found in well-researched articles. They will also illustrate how the material can be presented with a neutral tone of voice.
- I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Party of Communists USA
[edit]There are 6 outside, independent and verifiable sources on the Party of Communists USA wiki draft.
The sources include an international news agency, Sputnik News, among other references.
There are no references to the Party of Communists USA. All 6 references are outside sources.
Can you please inform me how this page is not being approved?
Dragunsky1922Dragunsky1922 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- response given at AfC Help Desk, February 24. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Have you checked the article recently? It is very long now, packed full of information. I think you might have checked it last night, because it is more-or-less an entirely new Wikipedia article at this point in time.
Dragunsky1922 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- additional response given at AfC Help Desk, February 24. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
03:13:29, 1 March 2017 review of submission by 68.102.39.189
[edit]
There is not a dead link I replaced it with a new ref. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it continues to be a dead link. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Oleg Vladimirovich Krasilnikov
[edit]Thanks for the feedback and advice. I will keep working on article. Liliya Yu (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
21:50:49, 7 March 2017 review of submission by 68.102.39.189
[edit]
All the information is factual and nowhere reader is recommended to subscribe or not subscribe the scheme (in direct or indirect words), what makes it appear like an "advertisement"? Instead of out rightly rejecting the article, can you suggest some modifications that will make sure that it does not read like an "advertisement". I welcome your suggestion regarding -"the focus of the article needs to be much more about the system's role in the overall Bangladeshi investment sector". However in my opinion the mentioned suggestion can and should form a sub-section of the article rather than the central focus. Also, once this article is up on wikipedia, Bangladesh Economy Scholars can make the required additions which I alone may not be able to and need not do. Please post your comments. Effort will be made to include your constructive inputs, if no constructive suggestions are available, I plan to re-submit the same article. -Ysp2015(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @YSp2015: My apologies for the delay in response. As to your concerns, Wikipedia tends to use the word "advertising" in a broader sense that you seem to understand it. My concern with the draft is that its main section looks like little more than an extension of the web site that advertises the certificates. I don't doubt the accuracy of your restatement of the eligibility conditions and the projected yields to maturity, but I question whether an article that is largely devoted to those details truly belongs in an encyclopedia. I expect that you disagree and, if so, I encourage you to re-submit the draft and get the opinion of another reviewer. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging again. @Ysp2015: NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
There's Already one page Conference USA Football the draft version has to go. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Please Suggest
[edit]Draft:Snehalaya Gwalior Children's Charity
The two sections of my draft have been removed stating that it has verbatim copied from page 76 of http://soulsteer1.blogspot.co.uk/. Please let me know, Is there any way I can add the removed section or any 3rd party reference is needed for the magazine?Is it possible to submit the present draft as final for review or should I make any more changes?
``````````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvseshwary (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Kvseshwary: Thank you for following up on this. The reason I removed those sections is because you copied the text from the sources. Doing this created a copyright violation and the material had to be removed. So, no, it is not possible to add it back. The information can be added back, but only if it is rewritten in such a way that its wording is very different than the wording used in the original. But even if you do so, you will still be facing the problem of relying on material produced by the organization itself. There's nothing wrong about doing that, but you cannot then say that you're using reliable independent sources for your article. And that is going to be a problem when reviewers start asking whether this organization has enough "notability" to merit an article. As for your final question -- yes, you can resubmit in its current form, but the next reviewer is going to be asking the same types of questions that were asked by the reviewer who already declined your submission. In particular, you haven't really made clear whether this article is going to be about the UK-based charity or the India-based school. And whichever choice you make, the reviewers are going to be asking whether the organization or school has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources. I think you are still going to have some work to do in satisfying the next reviewer. And finally, you really do need to do something about the ridiculously large number of references that you added to the final section of the draft (that's what the reviewer meant when he wrote about WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. A little background, John Miller is my grandfather. My family has written a biography and collected writings about him over the years, of course this has all been in boxes in the back of a closet. This collection is my sources. I've made the changes you suggested. You inserted where?, I assume you were looking for a citation not a location. I have the original or a copy of all my references but not the published works and articles. I've done some searching not come up with anything yet, so I think those sections need to be deleted until I can find the sources. I'm having some copyright problems with the image, mostly because of my ignorance but I think I'm working through that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molason (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Molason: I've just stepped in from outside and I haven't taken a look at your draft yet. I'll do so later today. But for now, you're right -- my "where" tag was intended to ask for a citation. As for images, you'll probably be able to include at least one. A good place to ask for help is WP:Copyright questions. I'll leave some comments on your draft after I've had a chance to look at it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I was able to add some citations Molason (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Molason: I was over at the draft a few minutes ago, but I saw that you were still actively editing and I didn't want to interfere with that. I do see a few things that I can do there, so let me know when there'll be a few minutes free. For now, two points. First, I think you misunderstood my note about reference tags and punctuation. The reference tags go AFTER -- not before -- the periods or commas. Second, there really does need to be a section heading that separates the career narrative from the list of publications. If you didn't like the word "Bibliography", that's fine. Perhaps "Works" or "Writings" would be better. (I'm assuming that all of the articles in the list were written by your grandfather, and are not about him. If I'm mistaken, we'll need to re-arrange the listing.) But regardless of the name, our standard article layout does call for that listing to appear in a separate section. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm through for today. I'll fix the citation re: puncuation. I'll also put the bibliograph back, I thought it was an empty section, didnt realize it was acting as a heading. I have a database reference for his thesis, is that useful and i'm trying to use the citation template, I didnt see a database tag. and thankyou for your help, I'm having fun with thisMolason (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
01:24:23, 22 March 2017 review of submission by 185.10.224.66
[edit]
Please help me what to do ???
Thank you for reviewing my proposed article on Natalie Duddington.
I am puzzled that you expect the article to conform to WP:NACADEMIC criteria: she was by no means an academic, never teaching at any institution. Yet the occasional papers that she published are remembered and cited to this day (see note 12) by academics. I checked just one article of hers in Google scholar and found more than a dozen citations,[1] most of them from the current century -- how about that for an article dating from exactly a hundred years ago!
Duddington was a translator, a thoroughly neglected species throughout much of the 20th century. Reviews of translated books frequently omitted to mention the translator's name; even publishers tended to think of them as convenient hacks. So there are few reviews or assessments of her work -- I quote a major one by a leading academic (note 9). Excluding her from Wiki merely perpetuates this injustice.
Duddington translated 28 books (that I have identified so far). Not a bad score, considering that in addition she collaborated with Garnett on at least that many. Working alone, she made her own choice of books to translate and had to persuade publishers to accept them. And they are remembered. On Google scholar, I counted 480 hits for her name.
For me, this "is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."
Thanks for your attention, gpeterw (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Gpeterw: My apologies for the delay in response. As with many other Wikipedians, I look to WP:NACADEMIC for persons whose work can be described as "scholarly". But I certainly do not intend you to be limited to that set of criteria. If you believe that WP:NCREATIVE is more appropriate, then feel free to fashion an argument that looks to the criteria set forth there. But either way, I'm not seeing any demonstration of notability. Instead, I'm seeing a draft that largely asserts notability on the basis of the subject's relationship with Constance Garnett, along with a few papers on philosophy. To me, these do not demonstrate notability. But, I see that you disagree and, perhaps, so too will the next reviewer who looks at your draft. I encourage you to re-submit your draft and find out what the next reviewer thinks. If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Many thanks for your suggestion. I suspect you mistook the list of Duddington's own translations as her collaborative work with Garnett. I'll try to make this clearer and re-submit. Cheers gpeterw (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Draft page vs main page
[edit]Hi, thanks for moving my page to draft space. I am just curious whether now that it is in draft space, it is still searchable on Wiki or on google? and in order to submit for review, i must first improve it using the guidelines u sent right? to be honest, i have read those guidelines before i created the page. but now that someone has commented that it is too promotional, i am not entirely sure which specific areas can be improved on. are you able to help me by giving me some constructive feedback pls? thanks much!
- @Adsiah: My apologies for the delay in response. Regarding your first question, the draft is searchable within the Wikipedia search box, but might or might not be searchable on Google (I suppose one could simply try it and see -- I checked on Bing and didn't see it listed on the first page of results). As for the content of the draft itself, I think it quite likely that a reviewer will find it "promotional" or consider it to be "advertising". The problem that I see is that the draft provides little that wouldn't be provided by the company itself on its web site or as part of its social-media marketing strategy. The products portion reads like a miniature brochure and all of the financing detail is unencyclopedic (because all companies must secure their financing through one means or another, and there is rarely any encyclopedic interest in knowing which particular source was used by the company). And so, my basic observation is that the draft needs to be augmented with material derived from in-depth coverage that has been granted the company by reliable independent sources. If such in-depth sources do not exist, it might be difficult to justify having the article on Wikipedia. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi NewYorkActuary, thank you so much for the detailed advice. The thing is, this is a deep technology company, so the technology forms the main content of what they are. Without that, it's difficult to provide any reader a clear understanding of what they do. I will think about how to resolve that. As for the funding and info abt the founders, i added in only bec it is a startup so i thought that gives some background. Are u able to advise what u do mean by "material derived from in-depth coverage that has been granted the company by reliable independent sources"? The references I provided are independent third-party sources - info i found from news articles. Or are you referring to something else that i need to include? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsiah (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- User:Adsiah: I don't question the third-party nature of the sources (though I could quibble with their "independence" when more than one of them essentially repeats the same company announcement). And there's nothing wrong with fleshing out the article with reliably-sourced announcements. The problem starts when one tries to assert notability on the basis of those announcements. For a convincing demonstration of notability, the article needs to show that the subject has received coverage that is "substantial" or "in-depth". These terms are not well-defined, but are typically understood (here on Wikipedia) as being sources that go well beyond a routine announcement. For example, one of your cites (one of the ones from techinasia.com) simply reports that the company secured some financing from a particular source, then gives a two-sentence description of the company, and ends up with a quote from one of the company's officers. This source most certainly would NOT be considered "substantial" or "in-depth". At the other end of the spectrum, an entire book about the company definitely would meet these definitions. Of course, there's a lot of ground in between and not everyone will agree on whether a particular source is on the "in-depth" or the "routine" side of the line. But from a quick look at your sources, I didn't see any that were providing anything other than routine coverage. And that's what you need to find -- reliable independent coverage of the company that goes well beyond routine business announcements. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
18:43:47, 15 April 2017 review of submission by Rdev5
[edit]
Hi,
This draft has been resubmitted for review a little while ago but there still hasn't been a response on it yet. Any chance I could get someone to review it?
Thanks!
- @Rdev5: As of right now, there are about 350 submissions in the queue ahead of yours. It will probably be another two weeks or so until someone gets around to taking another look at your draft. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Matthew Whitaker
[edit]It's published by USA Today. Why does it matter who wrote it first? Sorry, but this is a distinction without a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilwyg (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Response given at Draft talk:Matthew Whitaker. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
08:57:24, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Edward.stocker123
[edit]
Hi There,
Thanks for recently reviewing my Elizabeth Grant submission! You stated you were declining for now but would accept when the citations needed were addressed. Could you please briefly give a little more detail into what I need to change on the article?
Many Thanks, Ed
- Hello, Ed. Thanks for following up on this. By "addressing the citation-needed tags", I meant that the tagged statements should either be sourced or removed. There are three such statements in your draft, all identified by the super-scripted "citation needed" notices that appear at the end of each statement. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
05:07:29, 9 May 2017 review of submission by 124.177.160.111
[edit]
I spoke to the Subject about this and he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia anyway, as most judges/jurists are not listed for obvious reasons. Can you please remove this draft?
- The easiest way to remove a draft is for the author to request its deletion by placing the {{db-author}} template at the top of the draft. Under normal circumstances, the "tagged" draft will be deleted within a few hours. However, there might be a problem in this particular case -- the "db-author" tag is used only when a draft has been written by a single author. In your case, the draft has been written by various IP addresses and the administrator who responds to the deletion request might or might not believe that all of those IP addresses represent the same person. I suppose there's no harm in making the request but, if it fails, your next step would be to request deletion via a "nomination" (for which see WP:MFD). The third approach is to simply do nothing -- drafts that have not been worked on in more than six months become eligible for deletion, and that deletion can be requested even by people who were not the sole authors of the draft. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear NewYorkActuary, I have just submitted the article for review.Thanks for your reply.Waiting for the review. Kind Regards, Lawrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choclawrence (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Response given in Comments section of Draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Article Review For Draft:Kobi Arad
[edit]Dear NewYorkActuary
My name is Lawrence Elango. I need your help regarding an article I'm currently editing, entitled 'Kobi Arad.' I live in Cameroon, and ran into Kobi's music as a jazz and modern music lover.
It seems the article has been sock-puppet-ed in the past, and has been hunted ever since by various administrators. I would need your help in supporting this case amidst the past- biased community.
I have drafted a new, brief version, which is not commercial. The new draft's references have been claimed by the reviewer yesterday to be non-objective. At the moment, the reviewer, Chris (two-year editor) is criticizing the article, while Anachronist, a senior editor, is supporting the article.
I have taken into consideration the reviewer's remarks regarding the references' reliability, and removed sources which are community articles.
Instead here are the the main reliable sources:
- Ynet.com - Full feature article (Israel's largest Newspaper, used google translate). - allmusic.com - discography + review - NYU Library - Proof of Publishing - World Catalogue - Proof of Publishing - Forward Magazine - (One of the largest Jewish News Source) - Times of Israel (Jewish news prominent source) - Chabad of North Brooklyn - Independent Blog Post by one of the world's largest organizations. - Global Music Award - Proof of winning silver medal
Considering the changes in references' reliability, please intervene, and assist in considering my revision favorably, The draft page is here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kobi_Arad
Thank you,
Lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choclawrence (talk • contribs) 12:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Response given in Comments section of Draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Article Review For Draft:Kobi Arad
[edit]NewYorkActuary: Thank you for linking article with musicbrainz (assuming its you?!).
I have addressed the issues you have raised regarding CD notability, publication, and verifiability - by expanding the career section - as well as bringing in additional references from discogs.com and external sources. Here is the updated one: [[1]] Thank you,
Lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choclawrence (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment left on Draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Russian ceramics
[edit]Hello, Transhumanist. I'm writing to you because you are the only participant listed at WP:WikiProject Ceramics. Over at Articles for Creation, I've been looking at a draft for a Russian painter of ceramics, Draft:Larisa Ivanovna Grigoryeva (1920 - 1997). Although not asserted in the draft itself, the draft's creator has asserted notability on the basis of a large number of works that are held by the Hermitage Museum, for which the evidence is here. This is not the website for the Hermitage (it's for a government cataloging site), but I clicked through of a few of the examples and I'm satisfied that these works are indeed held by the Hermitage. But they apparently have never been exhibited by that museum.
And that leads to my question -- does the mere fact that the Hermitage accepted a donation of a person's work of art render that person "notable" under WP:NARTIST? By rough analogy, I wouldn't consider an American author to be notable simply because some of their books were held by the Library of Congress. Nor would I consider a British author to be notable merely on the basis of seeing some of their books in the British Library. And so, I'm left to wonder whether the same conclusion applies here.
I recognize that your interest in ceramics might not extend to Russian ceramics. But if it does, I would greatly appreciate any insights that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- NewYorkActuary, she is featured in 250 Years of Lomonosov Porcelain Manufacture St. Petersburg: 1744-1994. That states she was a porcelain painter and worked there 1945-1987. Forty-two years is enough time to become well-established as a master, so the likelihood is high that her works have been displayed prominently somewhere. According to the guideline WP:ARTIST, an artist is notable if "the person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." So, what you need are news sources that identify her work on display in an exhibition. One significant exhibition would do. Another option is to see an antiques or museum piece dealer -- they might know where to look the individual pieces up, to see where they are currently. I checked the Met's collection, and it came up with nil. Checking the collections of every museum would be tedious and time-consuming. Art dealers may know of a shortcut. By the way, if the article passes notability, it would also be interesting to find out if any of her pieces have been auctioned off, and for how much. The Transhumanist 04:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Aemilianus van Heel
[edit]Thank you for your feedback on my rejected draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aemilianus_van_Heel --- I have added more sources, including a (rough) translation of the chinese news article (and fixed the broken link). Hope it's OK now. Brienanni (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Brienanni: Hello again, Brienanni. I've placed your submission "under review" and will work on it later today. In the meantime, I noticed that your translation of the words on the monument place the year of van Heel's murder as "1933". Is that correct? If not, feel free to correct it (and ignore the instruction in the blue box at the top of the draft that cautions against making edits -- that box is there just to let other reviewers know that I'm working on it). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
that was a typo, I have fixed the date (it's 1938, not 1933) --- thanks for noting it Brienanni (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thank you again for your help with this article; following your suggestions, I have now removed the external links, added a link to local photography of the monument, added a reference on the general topic of Dutch missionaries in China, and removed details from the bio that were not in the linked news item from China Christian Daily. Please let me know if more is needed. Brienanni (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Jerome Adams
[edit]Hello, NewYorkActuary! You declined the submission of Draft:Jerome Adams on 18 November 2016 for WP:NN. I would recommend that Draft:Jerome Adams be re-evaluated and fast-tracked to become an article because Mr. Adams was just nominated to become the next Surgeon General of the United States. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 20:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Classicwiki: If he's actually appointed to the position, then you've got an open-and-shut case for notability. In the meantime, you might want to correct some minor stylistic matters. First, per MOS:SURNAME, Adams should be identified in the article as "Adams", not as "Dr. Adams" or "Mr. Adams". Second, the section headings should be in "sentence case", meaning that only the first word is capitalised unless a later word would be capitalised for some other reason. And third, the "Personal life" section needs to be either sourced or removed. And let's wish Adams the best of luck with his appointment. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- it was moved by an i.[p., but I endorse the move. I think the nomination is quite sufficient, but in any case there have now been extensive media discussions, as is likely with any Presidential senior appointment. There will I expect be a good deal to add. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Creating page for Draft:Brenda J. Sell
[edit]Trying, for the second time, to create a WIKI for person of interest, Brenda J. Sell.
The timeline was deleted for being plagiarized. It is an updated timeline to include recent accolades... how on earth do you write a timeline in "your own voice?" Its like, 3 words, for crying out loud. If I put someone in touch with this lady, will you allow the timeline to stay on the page? She personally charged me with creating this Wikipedia, and wants the timeline in place, and it is infuriating to think that I have to literally re-word every single line ON A TIMELINE, which is, quite literally, posted in multiple places, by her permission...
Mastercourington (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)mastercourington
- @Mastercourington: Thank you for following up on this. I see that you've already converted the timeline into prose. Not only does this avoid the copyright issue, it also gives the draft a better over-all appearance. Good luck with the rest of the submission process. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Timmins (surname) article
[edit]Hi NYA, many thanks for your advice on the Timmins surname article, which has been actioned. I am following up on your comment of a technical edit regarding reclassifying the article. Being a newbie this is currently beyond my knowledge, could you please help. Thanks Tony. Tonytea51 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Tonytea51: When I saw that a third editor had gone ahead with the merge, I went ahead and did the technical edits (plus some copy edits). So, there's nothing more that needs to be done. Congratulations on the publication. I hope you'll stick around to work on some more articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: Hello! Thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback on the draft of "Alpha FX". Would you be able to take a look at the wikipedia page of 'Global Reach Partners', another corporate foreign exchange provider? I feel the content is a lot less notable than Alpha FX and yet they have a Wikipedia page, so I must have missed something. If I know what Global Reach Partners have done right, I should be able to achieve the same for Alpha FX, as this is a much larger force in the UK foreign exchange space than Global Reach in terms of growth and plc status. Many thanks Harveyjakes (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Jake
- @Harveyjakes: Thanks for following up on this. I've taken a look at that other article and agree that it, too, has not demonstrated encyclopedic notability. But that doesn't mean that an article on your company should be accepted for publication. Wikipedia has more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. That other articles seems to me to be one of the very many that should not exist. Later today I will nominate it for deletion.
On a different matter, I've moved your posting from the top of this Talk page to the bottom (which is where it should have been posted). I also added a descriptive heading for it (a standard practice when starting a new conversation on a Talk page). These two things are done automatically when you click the "New section" tab that appears at the top of every person's Talk page.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Notability and sources
[edit]Hello NewYorkActuary. Are Youtube videos allowed to be in a external link part of an article? (If I am violating a copyright by having it please tell me so I can change it)I assume not, but I want to check. :) Also, if it is possible, could you briefly look over my article Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph and give me your opinion. Thank you, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Anish Mariathasan: Hello, Anish. My apologies for the delay in response. Regarding YouTube videos, there's a variety of opinion about them. Two concerns are often cited. First, videos at that site get removed at a rate that is faster than we expect to see at other web sites. So, some Wikipedians are not comfortable using the videos as sources, because those sources might not exist in a few months. But here, you are using the video in the External Links section, so long-term sourcing is not an issue. The second concern, and by far the larger one, is that many videos on YouTube have been uploaded in violation of copyright law. Although YouTube often does remove copyright infringements from their site, they can do so only if they are aware of the infringement. And sometimes it takes a long time for them to find out, assuming that they ever do find out. And so, it falls to us here at Wikipedia to police ourselves about linking to copyright violations. But in your case, you are linking to a video produced by a certain entity that has uploaded it to its own YouTube channel. I see no copyright violation here. I've already gone to your draft and removed the strike-through that appeared on that video's link.
Regarding the draft itself, I think you might have some difficulty demonstrating that Joseph has achieved encyclopedic notability. You've presented a good number of sources, but many of them appear to have been published in the immediate aftermath of his death. And although I didn't check to see, I suspect that most of them were personal tributes from people who knew Joseph. If so, there's a question as to whether these sources are reliably independent of the subject. If you haven't already done so, you might want to take a close look at WP:NACADEMIC to see the criteria that we use to assess the notability of academics. If you think Joseph meets one or more of those criteria, then your efforts should be directed to finding sources that specifically support each criterion.
I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much NewYorkActuary, your response is very helpful. Regarding the notability issue, Joseph meets criteria 5 -7. For requirement 5, Joseph was a Professor at Colombo University (the first link in External links takes you to this source from the official Colombo University website), which is regarded as one of the leading universities in Sri Lanka. Is this enough to prove Joseph is notable?
Thank you again,
Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again, Anish. No, I don't think that link will be enough to demonstrate notability. Criterion 5 does not confer notability on all university professors; nor does it do so for any professor who taught at a notable university. Instead, it confers notability only for those that hold positions that are especially noteworthy. I also don't see how Criteria 6 and 7 have been met, either. I think your best chance of demonstrating notability is going to be Criterion 1, but you'll need to make this demonstration without recourse to statements by people who personally knew Joseph. I'm not sure how you can do this, but I think it's going to take sources that don't yet appear in your draft. You might try asking the good folks at the WP:PHYSICS WikiProject if they can point you to anything useful. I wish you good luck with it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks NewYorkActuary for the help. In that YouTube link in the bottom of the article, it states how Joseph was a Professor of the department of mathematics and so does citation 11.
The CUFSAA created a newsletter specially for him (reference 19) and they ae going to create a book on him as shown in the newsletter. Also, the official Colombo University science say "He was a person that did a great service for the university. Professor Valentine is a well-known professor sometime back in University of Colombo and his students are the people now running the administration as staff members", and would this combined with everything else not demonstrate notability in the academic field as well as the teaching field?
Thank you for the help,
Heptanitrocubane (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Your feedback was quite welcome; though very disheartening if your views are shared by all reviewers.
When most students hear about a topic that they are unfamiliar with, be it in mathematics or another subject entirely, they will usually search for a plain english explenation of that topic. Wikipedia is an excellent resource for this and it tends to be the first port of call for most students (or hobbyist scholars). While, to many people, an abstract topic such as this would be uninteresting, to someone looking for it it would be of immense use (as to how many people would seek it, that is rather chicken and egg, only if people are aware something exists will they seek it). One could use a "glazed eyes" argument for the exclusion of any topic, indeed, why not also apply such reasoning to classical literature (which no-one but literary professors read) and philosophy (which no-one but philosophers are interested in)?
I am hoping to put together a series of 5 connected articles; Bar Induction, Spreads, The Fan Theorem (a landmark result in intuitionistic mathematics), The Uniform Continuity Theorem (a landmark result in intuitionistic analysis) and Choice Sequences (a topic that already possesses a page, but one that is grossly misinformed). The reason for doing this is that intuitionistic mathematics is very well published in journals and texts, but it has not been rendered in a publically accessible format to date. This is my aim, to present a snapshot of the key topics in this fieldn in a way accessible to someone who is interested, nothing more and nothing less. While there are few "real world" applications to this subject (the only published one being the use of bar induction (when reletivised to a certain spread) in picking stocks) I believe it is worth including, the same could be argued for any literary or philosophical topic with no "real world" applications, of which Wikipedia has no shortage! In essence, the context of the article is it's place in intuitionistic mathematics.
Thank you very much for directing me to the citation standards, I shall emulate them to the best of my ability without directing users to documents that even I would shudder to read! I do intend to continue to refine this article till it is included; regardless of how long it takes.
J.f.appleby (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @J.f.appleby: Hello, J.f. My apologies for the delay in response.
When I speak of the "real world" aspects of a mathematics topic, I don't necessarily mean (for example) that it is used by an engineer to build a bridge. What I really mean is something more general. Such as -- what is the real-world history of the topic? When was it developed? Who developed it? Did it have antecedents? Was it intended to address some perceived weakness or gap in the then-current state of mathematics? And what impact did it have on the world of mathematics or the world in general? Has it influenced any further developments, whether inside or outside of its specific field? An article that consists essentially of definitions and basic results doesn't answer any of those questions. I recognize I could have communicated these concerns more clearly than I did in my initial response and I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify my concerns.
Articles aimed at the general reader definitely can be written. The "Foundations of Mathematics" article over at the on-line version of the Encyclopedia Britannica does a reasonably good job of it. As does our own article on Intuitionism. In both cases, a general reader who has no interest in the topic probably won't read the article at all. But a general reader who does "take the plunge" is given a fair chance at walking away from the experience understanding something about the topic. And that's the problem I continue to see with your draft -- general readers are not going to learn anything from it, nor are they being given any reason to even try.
A friendly word of advice -- the next time you discuss this with a reviewer, you probably don't want to emphasize that the article will be helpful to mathematics students. An experienced reviewer might simply point you to the Mathematics section of Wikibooks], along with the general admonition that Wikipedia is not a text book.
I hope this discussion is helpful to you. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi I seen you made changes to Jason Innocent. I add information to his talk page. Thank you.
Tice89 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Crecy article
[edit]Hi, I've resubmitted Draft:Nicolas de Crécy for review. Thanks for your response! Arboryama (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ralph Prator article
[edit]Hello. I've resubmitted Draft:Ralph Prator for review. Thank you for your response. Ungathering (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
01:30:56, 31 October 2017 review of submission by Ackee123
[edit]
Hi, I have added more information with citations from reliable secondary sources. I was only wanting to start a stub and thought I wasn't to make it very long. There is also an LA Review of Books piece coming out about her work in December, should I leave it until then? Feeling a little demoralized after going into the live chat, the editor there seemed to have an issue with the book review that is used to cite her work as being recognized as experimental and oppositional. Not sure what to say there without discussing whether they have read this author's work or not.. I was just trying to get some help, no worries if you reject it again, will go back and look for more sources. It's late here, will chekc back another day Thanks for having looked at it when you did as wasn't expecting that so fast. Ackee123 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Catalan Racism
[edit]I saw your MFD (and note) on Draft:Catalan Racism. Generally (at least what I do) is mark an MFD'd page as "under review" until the discussion concludes. That way it's not just sitting in the review pile. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi,NewYorkActuary.
[edit]Hello,I'm Omega68537.I gave up all hope for my article Draft:Xu Geyang after I read your advice.I think it's impossible to be accepted and it may be deleted because the problem of notability.I also think my article is a case of WP:TOOSOON.So what should I do?I've used all useful information I can find.But it will be too late to resubmit my article when the problem you said can be solved(Probably many years later).So what should I do now?Should I give up for my article?This article is my first article.I'm new in Wikipedi a.I've tried my best in the article.--Omega68537(talk)07:50,19 November 2017(UHC) Omega68537 07:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- NOTE: Response given at AfC Help Desk (under the section for November 17 postings). NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Courtesy link for any tps'ers. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Thank you for replying to my request a few minutes ago. I believe my reviewer had actually left additional comments that I did not see until just now as I am still getting used to the layouts and procedures here. Thanks for the assistance! Ajdeluca4 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Ajdeluca4 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Draft:M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage
[edit]FYI, I used ReFill on Draft:M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses: Thanks for doing that. I also went back and did a more complete filling-in of the details that ReFill didn't pick up. At this point, only the lack of an introduction stops this draft from appearing like a Manual-compliant article. I've released the draft back into the pool, so it can be accepted by any other reviewer. But I won't be the one to do it, for reasons I'll be happy to explain.
My expectation was that the draft's creator would remain engaged with the draft. With this in mind, I intended to drop a note on the contributor's Talk page (after accepting the draft), in which I alerted them to the very real possibility that their sources would not survive serious scrutiny. None of the web sites appear to be accepted as authoritative within the field of military history. And for the two that explicitly identify the person running the web site, neither person appears to be a recognized authority, either (i.e., no evidence of any publications other than their own web sites). My intention was to advise the contributor that anyone who looked closely at those sources would likely nominate the article for deletion and that, without upgrading the quality of the sourcing, the nomination would likely succeed. But ... the contributor hasn't maintained contact and I have no reason to believe that the sourcing would be improved after acceptance. That leaves me with the difficult decision of whether to accept a draft that, in its current form, would likely be deleted if anyone took the time to examine the sources. And I can't bring myself to do that.
I certainly don't object to the draft being accepted by anyone else and I won't be the one who will nominate it for deletion if it does get accepted. But I just can't bring myself to be the one who accepts it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, unfortunately, people often don't maintain contact after even a hint of "This won't be accepted". :-( -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Garghh, this is the guy who made the article... I didn't mean to let it go, I was just extremely busy during the week and was planning to fix things this weekend! >< I've logged on several times to wikipedia to browse the citation rules, but I didn't actually touch the article itself... which is why I guess it seems that I wasn't on. I'm so sorry! I've added the main introductory paragraph, and I'll look around to see if I can find any other credible resources, but they are rare considering the vehicle is relatively unknown. Some of the sites, like the afvdb database, were used by other tank articles, so I'm a bit confused on whether or not the source would work or not. Does it work? I promise to keep working on it, though! Gargh, I'm so sorry to bother you, but advice on sources would be helpful (or a link to wherever it is on Wikipedia). Thanks! Again, I'm so sorry!! Currently looking up information in online books. I hope that's more useful... Lil'Latios (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Lil'Latios: Hello, Latios. Good to hear from you again. And congratulations on finding the Osprey source. As you already know, I've accepted the draft for publication and, with the new source, I'm hopeful of its chances of surviving a deletion nomination. A few minor points:
- I didn't see why you identified the new source as having been published by Bloomsbury. The book itself, as well as its listing at the Library of Congress, state that it was published by Osprey. If there's a mistake here somewhere, please let me know. (And by the way, you really need to remember to use those <ref></ref> brackets for the footnotes.)
- I expanded the lede a bit. I too have a bit of a problem writing ledes here, because all of my real-world writing experience leads me to treat them as introductions to the main text. But here on Wikipedia, they are supposed to function as "executive summaries" of the article. Hence, I added some additional material. I also changed the first sentence, because I couldn't see how the gun could have been "designed for" a war that didn't start until years after the gun went into production.
- As for finding better sources to replace the "aficionado" sites, I recall that at least one of your sources did cite some references. So, if you can somehow get those sources (maybe via an Inter-Library loan, if that kind of thing is available to you), you will be able to "cut out the middleman" and source directly from the same reference that the aficionado used. Also, you might try asking for assistance from the good folks over at WP:WikiProject Military History. This is one of Wikipedia's better-run projects and you might find that some of the people there have those references sitting on their shelves at home. And even if they don't, it won't hurt to introduce yourself to them if you intend on working on more articles in that field.
- I hope all of this is helpful. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NewYorkActuary: Thanks! I thought the publisher was Bloomsbury, but I guess I must have misread (and ref notes, definitely remembering those. And practicing those as well!) I'll be looking up other book sources as well as seeing if I can get help from the WikiProject Military History people to see if its possible to replace those "aficando" links. I didn't like them either, but when I started, those loose sources was all I had to go off of, but now, yea, definitely seeing if I can fix those. Sorry for needing so much help... Thank you! Lil'Latios (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you + feedback request
[edit]Thank you so much for feedback on my submission of the Bugcrowd draft. Your explanation was certainly helpful and I do appreciate your time.
Do you have any suggestions for a rough number of "notable" or noteworthy sources should be included in a post to make it qualify as Notable? I'm planning to work on tracking stuff down later today and I'm wondering if there's a sweetspot or number that is a good goal to have in mind.
Really do appreciate your help. This is my first page and I'm planning to contribute more in the future, I just want to make sure I get things right :) BlueAnt (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @BlueAnt: Hello again, BlueAnt. Thanks for asking about this. There is no set number of sources that will cause a topic to be considered "notable". Instead, the better question is whether the topic itself is of encyclopedic interest and, if so, whether the "story" of that topic can be supported with reliable sources. Your draft currently devotes about half of its text to describing the funding it received. But all companies get their funding from one source or another and there is rarely anything encyclopedic about the particular sources. We can say the same thing about your draft's list of clients. A plumber working in the Los Angeles area might have many notable people as its customers, but that doesn't mean that the plumbing company gets an article on Wikipedia. And similarly for a description of your company's services -- all companies provide products and services and this, in itself, does not confer encyclopedic notability.
So, what to do? If you haven't done so already, take a look at WP:NCORP, which sets out our thinking on the notability of companies and organizations. You might also take a look at some of our better articles in the field of computer security -- such as Fortinet or Anonymous (group). As just an illustration of one of my points here, the article on Fortinet does discuss the company's funding, but it does so with just two sentences in an article that is much larger than your draft. And note also that it doesn't devote itself to a mere description of the company and its services -- it also gives reliably-sourced detail about the impact that this company has had in the real world. No one would mistake the Fortinet article as being an extension of the company's web site or its social-media campaign. On the other hand, someone might well mistake your draft for those things.
This is why I've suggested that you might want to start small and see how much of your material can find a home in the article on bug bounty programs. Over time, your company might do things that make it easier to demonstrate notability, at which point it would become easier to justify having a separate article for the company.
I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)