This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
The contents of the Lotus Gemology page were merged into Richard W. Hughes on 25 July 2023 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
I believe I have addressed the "close paraphrasing" issue and in terms of the notability issue I have attempted to reference every possible statement with outside references. Lotus Gemology is one of the world's top colored gemstone labs and as such, is just as notable as other labs like SSEF and Asian Institute of Gemological Sciences that have Wikipedia pages. I believe if you compare the depth of educational material available at LotusGemology.com to that of these other two organizations you will see it exceeds both of them.Rubydick (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts to improve the article, and also for disclosing your relationship on your user page. Regarding notability, Wikipedia's Notability guideline mainly boils down to the subject having been covered by independent published sources, rather than being the publisher of sources themselves. For example, this piece by IGT does include coverage of Lotus Gemology (though since it's an interview it might not fully count as independent). More sources like this would help establish notability.
Another issue to note is Wikipedia's guideline on Conflict of interest. Among the advice there, it's strongly recommended that articles be created through the Articles for Creation process, where another editor reviews the draft before it's published. Since the article's already been created, there's no explicit rule saying it can't stay, but you can still opt-in to the AfC process by moving the page (using the "Move" link at the top) to the "Draft" namespace, and placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. (Note that it can take quite some time—up to a few months—for drafts to be reviewed.) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul_012 Thank you Paul. I have added more external references to back up the notability case, including the one you suggested. I think I've clearly made the case now. Again, many thanks for your help and suggestions. Rubydick (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
