User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 3

Archiving some chat, starting from August 2018. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Atherton

Hello! First, that you-know-who editor has to be the subject, or their relative. They simply have too strong of an interest. Second, I took out all the homeless material as I think it amounts to peripheral info on someone who is not very notable. If you reply, please do so at the Atherton Talk page. I just wanted to give you a heads up here, with a bit more detail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ‎NPOV on Neera Tanden.The discussion is about the topic Neera Tanden. Thank you.

Single Purpose Account flagging

Could you explain your reasoning for this revert in light of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account#2? Both of those accounts have only edited CAP or Neera Tanden Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan Williams: WP:BITE, they are new. As the template says, "Please remember that a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account; in itself, this is an argument to the person, considered to be rather weak. Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead." HouseOfChange (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you miss that I tagged Bewildered_Oregonian as well? They are both SPAs. Jonathan Williams (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

COI noted on an article I've been expanding and your help

Hi. Today suddenly there was a red icon so I found the page where I am potentially COI for one of the articles I have been trying to grow. I can tell you it's not COI and that it's just a topic I know, but I don't know how to get anyone to believe me. I want to thank you for acknowledging that the topic is a notable person. (More so than is noted there as of yet.) And for helping the article along. Please know that I'm so frustrated. I believe in Wikipedia so I want to contribute. I'd tried in the past but the User Interface is daunting. How can a person get started if we are penalized for our first work? I read and I try. I look at other articles and I follow their example. I started adding bit by bit to see how it went. But now there's a guy knocking everything added there. For example, someone asked for a citation for a Sharon Stone film she was a producer on so I added a citation to the film's IMDb page -- and it was rejected by that guy. Yet Sharon Stone's page cites IMDb 3 times. And other pages have relevant headings so I added some -- but same guy struck them down. He also insists on listing her religion, which is not done to every person and I believe isn't legal to do. I'd like to add some of the good she has done for the world via her restaurant success but he or someone removed that, although other articles mention relevant philanthropy. In fact, I wasn't going to say Jewish as a reason for her philanthropy because I was sure that was puffery, and yet this guy insists on saying she is Jewish where it isn't at all relevant. One editor put incorrect facts and listed her restaurants wrong. Today I fixed that, if this guy doesn't undo my work. How do I expand this article and learn when I don't have a mentor to help and no one to turn to and when edits are mysteries lacking clear language to explain and teach and make me or the other guy cited as COI better? But back to the topic. It's noted as seeming like a resume. The subject is called a restaurateur in professional magazines and was the designer of the restaurants listed, but there is no bragging or mention of the design elements. There's only a few words that she designed them. How is that promotion? The professional restaurant publications and major restaurant critics rave about her work. If I or anyone was trying to promote her, wouldn't we have quoted those things? Articles mention acclaim of film stars and producers and that's accepted. This article never tried to do that but it's marked. I just don't see how and I don't understand why this is so under the microscope. Sorry for rambling. I ask you to please be a voice of reason and look at the edits. And I wish I knew how to do my signature here. 4 tildes here? I've put them, but just in case, I am User:LAcontrib LAcontrib (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@LAcontrib: Don't be disheartened. I suggest you spend a little time looking for articles about other designers and businesspeople, so that you have more idea of what an encyclopedia article should sound like. I got yelled at myself when I was new because I kept trying to make articles about people sound lively and interesting. I was sure I was right and the others were wrong until somebody pointed me to WP:TONE. Your raw material for an article may be human interest pieces and flattering press releases but you need to translate the facts they contain into a formal-sounding summary of important facts about the person's life. Try editing articles in other areas -- pick out an interesting fact from tomorrow's newspaper and add it to the relevant article. This will give you wider experience, make others less suspicious of your motivation, and also improve Wikipedia. Wishing you well. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

How can we move forward?

Hi HouseOfChange. I was very pleased with your comments in response to your ELN query [1] [2]. I'd like to ignore your subsequent comments and find a way to move forward collaboratively. I'll not be editing the article further for two weeks, and am willing to work within 1RR afterwards. What do you suggest to help us work together? --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we will get along better if you drop your aggressive rudeness on the talk page and in edit summaries?[3][4][5][6]

I would also like to hear your own explanation of why in 2015 Jimbo urged you to step back from editing the article about Al Seckel, also your explanation of why you decided to ignore that request.

Finally, it would be great if you showed signs of trying to create an informative Wikipedia article about Al Seckel, rather than focusing like a laser on removing material that might support his notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that response very helpful, but will try to respond in the hopes that we'll make progress.

aggressive rudeness I disagree with your assessment. Maybe you can explain what specifically you find problematic?

I've no idea why Jimbo stepped in, so ignored it.

that might support his notability What does that even mean? I've asked for sources. When none are offered, I don't see how there can be any notability problems to address. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "none are offered": The statement that Seckel gave talks at TED and Davos, which you twice removed from the article, was amply supported by RS. The TED talk template which you removed is standard on many WP:GA including for example Steven Pinker and Al Gore. (Maybe that is why it's a TEMPLATE.) You removed it citing no policy or reason other than your personal belief it was "almost a spamlink." The only EL you were willing to spare was a link to Seckel with Jeffrey Epstein. The association of Seckel with Feynman was of longstanding, but RS-supported information about that you removed from the biography. The meeting with Epstein was much less important to Seckel's life, but of course Epstein gets his own boldface subtopic in the biography and is part of the EL.

If you want to improve relations with me or anyone else, act like a civil NPOV collaborator on pages where we co-edit. That's a better way to "make progress" than to invite my feedback and then deny you ever did anything that I could complain about. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue with the link has been addressed by multiple independent experienced editors at the ELN discussion. Bring it up there if you've changed your mind.

You're bringing up content topics which I don't believe I've ever addressed. I'm not going to dig into them here and now.

Disagreeing with you is not denial. I asked for an explanation. If you're not going to give one, then how are we to proceed on the matter?

You didn't explain what "that might support his notability" means. You seem to be saying you want to give the topic more WP:PROMINENCE, and that WP:NOTABILITY might be involved. I asked for sources to determine if either applied. In my experience, that's what civil editors do when addressing POV issues. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz:, I appreciate your lecture on WP:CIVIL and I am sure @Ammarpad: also enjoyed the one you gave him. It is a worthy followup to your assertion there was nothing rude about talk page responses like "Says who?" and an edit-summary claim that I'm a sneaky edit-warrior. Let's both work on AGF and WP:CIVIL at Al Seckel. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's both work on AGF and WP:CIVIL at Al Seckel That I agree with. I'm glad we've found some common ground in all this. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

VS Ramachandran

Your work on the VS Ramachandran entry has made it a better, more complete account of Ramachandran's contributions.Neurorel (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Neurorel. I appreciate your civility and will try to show more of the same. It will be great if we can collaborate on improving the encyclopedia article for Ramachandran and similar others that turn up when we are looking for RS with good information. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul Atherton

Thanks for the "Thank You" on my most recent edits on the article about Paul Atherton. As you know I'm concerned about putting much work (and I've done tons already) into the article until we can verify notability, but the article is seemingly starting to look like something that should be acceptable to Wiki-editors after your most recent edits and I was wondering if you'd advise putting it forward to AFD to get confirmation of its notability at this stage?

Also, there is a citation error, I beleive you made, on reference 21, that I've tried to correct but failed. It's unclear exactly what's gone wrong (if you do correct it, can you please tell me what the problem was)?

And finally, where should I put the entry about Atherton's work Our London Lives, does it come under Career or Personal? I would say, whilst it was filmed professionally, it was clearly a record of his life, so would put under personal but would be grateful of advice? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Before trying a fourth AfD for this article, I suggest improving it as much as possible. That means adding relevant content backed up by reliable sources and removing content that is trivial and/or not supported by RS. The Cardiff University interview is clearly based on what Atherton told them about himself, but it is close enough to being RS that I am using it as a reference for the "first" claim about the Coca Cola billboard. London Lives if included is part of his work as a filmmaker. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer

Hello again. In July 2018, you kindly stated on my talk page: "So please continue to notify me on my talk page of articles about JBP and her activities, I will be glad to try again with her article when there's a chance of success." I have some new findings that may help:

Aside from needing to be written better (less promotional), contributors stated that there need be more press that was not local news and evidence of notability. These new awards, articles and literature mentions might help:

AWARDS: New Award: Best Original Music Video, 2018 (Love the Bodies We’re In) Utah Music Awards http://www.theutahmusicawards.com/?page_id=1000

Other awards. -Best pop video (A Loaded Gun) The Indie Gathering, http://theindiegathering.com/2017.html

             -Award of Recognition, Made of Gold, Documentary, 2016 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7073589/awards?ref_=nm_awd

PRESS: Authority Magazine, Sept 2018 To be notable on Wikipedia, one of the options/criteria is to have sung an original song on a notable TV show. This publication states: …“I was even able to perform my music live with Gretchen [Bonaduce] on their Vh1 show [Breaking Bonaduce]… which opened the door to licensing my original music to many other television shows and films. https://medium.com/authority-magazine/i-would-like-to-start-a-movement-where-more-people-enjoy-creating-music-simply-for-joy-with-b27587c1eb55?sk=aa75c0b80a6a6f98a3b6efd23cc135ee

Dublin Life (international news): https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/jaclynbradley-palmer-musicvideo-dublin-ireland-16993676

Guitar Girl: https://guitargirlmag.com/interviews/interview-jaclyn-bradley-palmer-helping-others-is-the-best-gig-of-all/

West Side Story News, Aug 2018 Recognizes the singer as an international artist. http://www.westsidestorynewspaper.com/exclusive-interview-los-angeles-based-pop-music-and-tv-icon-makes-strides-nationally-and-internationally/

Meaww, (June 2018) is a major entertainment news source and speaks about Jaclyn as only American on The Voice of Holland and also about her music video premiering at The Chinese Theater in Hollywood, CA. https://meaww.com/the-voice-contestant-to-walk-the-red-carpet

BOOKS: Jaclyn Bradley Palmer was acknowledged in New York Times Best-Selling book INDIANAPOLIS by Lynn Vincent. It mentioned her dedication and “hard work in keeping the legacies alive” of those who have perished, in reference to her documentary, page 544.

https://www.amazon.com/Indianapolis-Disaster-Fifty-Year-Exonerate-Innocent/dp/1501135945 Jaclyn was written about in Gretchen Bonaduce’s new memoir, “Surviving Agent Orange: and other things I learned from getting thrown under the Partridge Family Bus.” Gretchen mentions that Jaclyn was her assistant during the taping of the VH1 show, pages 144, 155, 192. https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Agent-Orange-Learned-Partridge/dp/194557285X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1537872544&sr=1-1&keywords=surviving+agent+orange

Hopefully this, along with the previous citations --and that face that she conducted the largest music therapy study in history to bring live music into the operating room-- can help in creating a proper page for this person. Side note, Gretchen Bonaduce could use a page also, now that she is a published author and has starred in TV shows. Thank you for your help and expertise! You are more well versed than I. A kitten for YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:60A2:9E00:69F1:8FAC:F419:AC3D (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I can't work on this now, but I am interested and look forward to looking at the items you mention. Just to remind you, the basic test for notability is significant (in-depth) coverage by independent sources. Other criteria can substitute for this, in specific categories of notability, but that is (my paraphrase of) the basic requirement. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability for films, BFI: I can't edit mainspace from this VPN, sorry

@4meter4: I am working in China this month, using a VPN that lets me see en.wiki but not edit except on my talk page. Most notable films meet WP:GNG. Some films that never got substantial coverage in independent media may still be notable, that is why WP:NFO exists. WP:NFO sets a high bar in each of its categories, because only films that fail GNG get tested by them. For example, criterion 3 a film that won "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Similarly in criterion 4 the benchmark for being "selected" is set high: the US National Film Registry selects only 25 each year. (It selects films based on quality or importance, not popularity.) BFI is a prestigious group that tries to collect all the best new films every year. I intend no disrespect to the BFI when I say that the hundreds of thousands of films they have selected and archived did not instantly become Wikipedia-notable on their selection. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will leave a note about your response at the AFD.4meter4 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: Could you also please post my request to @Itsallnewtome: to take a look at the annual selections for the US National Film Archive. The fact that the public is invited to propose films does not mean that the collection reflects a public vote. Dixon-Wanamaker Expedition to Crow Agency (1908), The Girl Without a Soul (1917), and Something Good - Negro Kiss (1898) -- all of these among the 25 chosen in 2018 -- reflect curatorial choice not commercial success. This has been pointed out many times to Itsallnewtome, who continues to assert that the US National Archive bases its choices on public popularity. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: @HouseOfChange: If the National Film Resgistry (NFR) weren't basing their decision on public influence, then clearly there would be no public nomination system. Again if you find me a National Film Archive (not a collection in a Library) that draws it's selection from a Public Nomination, there would be at least one other, if you can't, you have to accept my argument, that the term "National Film Archive" should not be used as a notability guide. The other films collected in 2018 in the NFR included Cinderella, Broke Back Mountain, Jurassic Park and in the previous year Die Hard & Dumbo. Equally find me a National Film Archive that selects films at 25 per year or less. Otherwise the guidline should read accepted into the National Film Registry. As it stands though, it reads accepted into a National Film Archive which of course The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus was. I cannot find anythimg remotely like the kind of films The Ballet of Change series are, a different type of film, screened in an unusual way and including archive material not usually on view to the public in the list of films at the NFR. The selection criteria for the National Registry is no different to that of the BFI though "Aesthetically, Historical or Culturally important". So the selection criteria is identical for both institutions. This then comes down to an issue on numbers, and unless someone knows, I am unaware of how many films per year the BFI took in the same period as the NFR, for all we know at this stage, it could be less? My issue, is, and always has been the use of the term "seleceted into the National Film Archive" citing an example that cannot be replicated is not logical, so unless a similar institution to be the NFR can be found in a National Film Archive anywhere in the world, it cannot be used as an example but become the default or accept any film taken into a NFA is notable Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: @Itsallnewtome: The 750 films in the US National Archive are considered Wikipedia-notable, per policy. This does not require that each of the 50,000 feature films, 100,000 nonfiction films, and innumerable TV episodes in the BFI archive ought to have its own article. It makes no sense to claim that WP:NFO #4 confers notability on so many items. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: @HouseOfChange: Again, I reiterate, the National Film Registry is just a "list", it is not an "archive", as I've evidenced on the AFD. It is a list of films held in other archives or other locations. It is emphatically NOT an archive in itself. Which has been my argument the whole time. Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: @Itsallnewtome: The point of the policy is that the films on the archive's list were chosen by a very selective process. It didn't concern the people who wrote the policy whether items on the list were stored in a vault, or uploaded to the cloud, or displayed on a library shelf, etc. etc. That is a trivial matter unrelated to whether the items on some list become notable by being added to that list, or don't. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with your interpretation HouseOfChange, so there's no need to ping me. Your position is consistent with policy as it is currently written and I concur with your opinions at the AFD. I do, however, sympathize with Itsallnewtome and believe the policy is more strict than it should be by providing an example that is not reproducible anywhere else. I personally would welcome a different example or at least multiple examples at that policy so we can more fairly assess cases like these. But that is a discussion to be had at the village pump or at the talk page of WP:NFILM and not at an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Suhai Aziz Talpur

Greetings. Further to your initiating a dialogue, I looked up your User Page. In it, you say that the article on Suhai Aziz Talpur "AfDed in May 2018 but resurrected in November when she became media hero." Having being involved in that May 2018 AfD (FWIW, I suggested that the article be Kept), I don't recall the page was ever deleted and, thus, in need of a "resurrection." Have I missed something? -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed its deletion review yesterday, but it closed so quickly you may not have seen it. It had been deleted in May after its second nomination; I see that you participated in the first AfD in March, whose result was Keep. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't a record of nominations and their results typically posted up on the Talk page of the article? I do not see it up there. I'll look into this some more. -The Gnome (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, that is strange. I was able to find the deletion review only because it was on my recent watchlist, and then from there I found the AfDs. Maybe some admin can fix it? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it. Nothing to it. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(no indent) I tried also to add the deletion review. It doesn't look right but at least the link is up there. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:HouseOfChange/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:HouseOfChange/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: This is a misunderstanding due to my inexperience. I drafted the article Robert Seyfarth (scientist) in my Sandbox, where I am also working on other projects. I tried to submit the article as a draft, but got confused because that seems to submit my entire sandbox as the draft of an article. So instead I just put the draft in mainspace myself, figuring it would get reviewed, which it did. So that article exists in mainspace because I put it there. Sorry if I wasted your time on this. 20:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Johan Eberhard Carlberg) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Johan Eberhard Carlberg.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

A useful article. When you translate from another language Wikipedia you need to provide attribution on the talk page to the original authors. I have done it in this instance but you should do it for any other articles you translate.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Cwmhiraeth: I did not know that. I will do that if I create more articles that start from translation. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi

Regarding the IP you mentioned, I think that the best plan is to semiprotect any articles they are disrupting. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Would you recommend taking the same approach for talk pages?2600:1003:B845:8E36:BCD2:3C4E:40CF:6363 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements for the article. Your ideas, for example, have resulted in other editors making improvements to the article, which made it more accurate and informative. HouseOfChange (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing those. While improvements have been made, I still feel we should call a spade a spade and clearly mention Everquote's core business is lead generation for insurance companies and agent's regardless of what their PR and marketing departments want to disguise it as. My comments and questions about blocking IPs are mostly directed at @EdJohnston: since he seems to feel I should continue to be treated like a vandal after my block expired just because I choose not to create an account and have a dynamic IP address. 2600:1003:B84A:BEA:2554:2B44:15C5:641F (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ed that people who don't try to follow Wikipedia policy should not edit articles, even if they might have useful comments for Talk pages. This isn't treating you like a vandal, so please do not take it personally. The article now makes it clear, based on a reliable source, that EverQuote's revenue comes from insurance providers, not insurance seekers. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

When have I not followed policy since being blocked for edit warring and then being allowed to edit again? Why do you defend Everquote's deception (their name alone is deceptive) rather than clearly stating what they do? To me, the article is mostly backed by promotional material and if it cannot be further expanded and improved from less biased sources, it should probably be sent to AFD. 73.148.104.157 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:POV and WP:AGF. The Everquote talk page is the place to discuss Everquote, but I don't consider it deceptive for companies to advertise a service they in fact offer. I am amazed that anybody who reads a daily newspaper has enough moral indignation left over to be furious about one particular company, of MANY in business, whose business includes lead generation. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I hardly see using a plainly worded and accurate description of Everquote's lead generation service as being at conflict with NPOV. The fact that the sources you choose do not do that calls their reliability into question. AGF applies to Wikipedia editors, not the subjects of articles. If anything, it is others who have failed to assume good faith in me. I am not furious with anyone. My only moral indignation is over Wikipedia being used to deceptively promote a company which is at odds with WP:NOT. 2600:1003:B848:95BF:D0E:E3B2:53B9:E272 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The article already contains a clear statement about EverQuote's business, sourced to RS. You want an even stronger emphasis on its lead generation activity, but RS do not support your wish on that. This discussion does not belong on my talk page, so please take it back to the EverQuote talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Wilczek

Hi HouseOfChange! I hope you're having a great weekend so far! I saw that you pinged me asking for advice with responding to the series of comments left on an article's talk page. It looks like someone has since removed the entire discussion citing WP:NOTFORUM in the edit summary. I just wanted to message you and make sure that you didn't still need help with anything else? Let me know if you do, and I'll be more than happy to do so. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cogo Labs

Hi HouseOfChange,
I noticed you made some edits for EverQuote. Out of interest, I have created a draft for Cogo Labs, which incubated EverQuote: Draft:Cogo Labs. I was wondering if you may be able to expand or edit the draft for more information and better quality, prior to submission. It seemed ideal to contact you since you have made edits to EverQuote.
Best, Blue.painting

Hi Blue.painting, your draft is a good start but not ready for submission yet. To show notability, Cogo Labs needs detailed independent coverage in WP:RS. Sources like this blog and this press release can provide substantiating facts, but to show notability you need more actual news stories such as the BBJ article. This VentureFizz article is interesting, but the fact that VF is promoting CL as having a "premium page" undermines the idea that it is an independent source whose appraisal would be neutral. If you have links to news articles in independent media, they could underpin a successful article. Cogo Labs sounds interesting to me, but for Wikipedia you need to demonstrate that it is interesting to a wider group of people. I am glad to help if you can link me to good sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfChange, thank you very much for your message. I will proceed to try my best and integrate the sources you mentioned into Draft:Cogo Labs, and to follow the WP guidelines you referenced. After some more progress, if it's alright I'll contact you again. Best, Blue.painting (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Woodrow Bones at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Helen Woodrow Bones

Hello! Your submission of Helen Woodrow Bones at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SoWhy 10:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)