User talk:Denlah

Welcome!

Hello, Denlah, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Your contributions are very much appreciated. I would like to point out to you a few pages you might find helpful:

Also, since many of your contributions involve copyediting, I thought you might find this page fun. Thank you for contributing to the site; I hope you enjoy yourself! Greengreengreen red 07:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Mommy, I'm scared.

(Sorry, couldn't resist even though I am neither a squirrel nor a poorly written article.) 76.102.49.177 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? But you smell like a squirrel! Your comment made me smile. May I ask what led you to my User page? Denlah (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be, if I really smelled like a squirrel my dog would try to chase me up a tree. I saw your edit while monitoring this page. Yes, your every move is being watched. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denlah, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Denlah! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Denlah: Thanks for creating the article Bluegrass Underground. The acoustics must be something else! It's great so see an article with proper references.

I am trying to gather interest for a Wikiproject about bluegrass music I've started organizing some tasks at User:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. If you are interested in working together with other editors to create and improve bluegrass articles, please leave a message on this talk page: User talk:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. Thanks again for the Bluegrass Underground page. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Cumberland Caverns

You had requested a review for your work and the current classification of the article. I am by no means an 'expert' but by my understanding of the criteria I've bumped the classification up to a "C". I know I am a fan of feedback so the following is my reasoning and some notes on potential fixes to help it move further up the ratings.

The structure is reasonably defined and overall well written with only minor errors (please get rid of the weasel word "perhaps" near the end of the first paragraph of History... it either did or didn't.) The content is overall presented in an appropriate and understandable way. Overall, I'd consider this a reasonably good article that could stand a bit of fleshing out and cleanup.

On to the part I'm assuming you're more interested in, suggestions for improvement. These are only suggestions and I reserve the right to be wrong! To start with, this article automatically failed "B" class because it doesn't pass criteria 1. There's a lot of claims and statements made that I'm sure someone who's been there wouldn't question. I would. I didn't add the "citation needed" flags because I'm just reviewing and they do tend to make a page look messy. But my biggest advice is to cite facts, numbers, opinions, etc. Look at it from the perspective of a skeptical individual who's never been there. If it's not cited then it's just someone's random claim.

Further I would suggest expanding the introduction to Geology. I know it can be tricky, but try to include a summary of the list that follows to flesh it out.

Given the contents of Trivia, consider renaming the section to something along the lines of "Media" or "Media appearance" and expand just a bit on the entries as reasonable. This would also become a good place to include the Bluegrass Underground information. Even if not, be aware "Trivia" sections are rather hot button issues as they are frequently abused. I'd attempt to avoid blatantly applying that name.

A lesser issue to take note of is the date standards. If you're going to use number only dates in citations, then the only acceptable format is "yyyy-mm-dd". Slashed are acceptable in very specific circumstances, and even then only in the body.

Overall there's a good start and you've done some good work here, keep it up! I stand by my rating and if another reviewer says it's not, send them my way and I'll defend it. Unless they want to give you better, in which case, take it and run! ;D

P.S. If you need any help or anything, feel free to hit me up. RageBanken (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]