Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 2

< 2010 June 1

2010 June 2

2010 June 3 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

Everbridge

Kkls2010 (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)kkls2010[reply]

I improved the article by fixing links, etc. Make sure it conforms with WP:NPOV. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is that it is written like an advertisement. Take a look at WP:SPAM. -Reconsider ! 14:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americana (1983 film)

I would like to request that someone please read my new article: Americana (1983 film). I have upgraded it from "start" to "B-Class" because, as I understood the instructions, I'm allowed, but someone other than me has to review it to remove the "new un-reviewed article" tag on top of the article's page.

The article is about a film about a Vietnam vet, that starred, was co-produced, directed and edited by David Carradine. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Keep working on adding more references and links to other articles if you can. The article itself is very informative - well done :) Chevy monte carlo 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the review. I would love to add more references (I'm all about the references.) The subject isn't vast enough to have a lot available, but at least the few that I have are varied.

Can you remove the new article link on the top of the page? I don't think that I can since I am the creator (of the article that it, tee hee). --Ishtar456 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice article. I have tweaked various stuff, all very minor, and removed the draft notice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wendyfables/Scotland Manufacturing

The following page User:Wendyfables/Scotland Manufacturing is in need of feedback in order to go live on Wikipedia. I have created this page and added the image through the new Wikimedia Commons process. You will find this image in the infobox, but I have had trouble viewing the image - this may be due to the fact that it is not uploaded yet.

Please review this article and know that there are few resources to outside articles. this is a smaller company that does not have a lot of outside PR or marketing efforts published to use. I've also included three outside sources, so please provide any feedback you can.

Thank you in advance - 24.172.221.186 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the tone is promotional, rather than encyclopedic. More importantly, there are no references to independent reliable sources. You have some references, but they are internal company, or merely evidence of inclusion in an industry association. You need examples of independent sources talking about this company.--SPhilbrick T 11:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrendelsCave

Dear Volunteer editors,

Please review the new article, GrendelsCave, and give me your advice for improving it thus increasing its prospects of survival.

Thanks,

GCMonitor (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with this article would be that it doesn't seem to have any reliable, secondary sources. The reference list primarily consists of the game's homepage (which may be biased as a primary source), and wikipedia articles (which are freely edited by anyone and are therefore not reliable sources). By not demonstrating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the article appears to fail wikipedia's general notability guideline for inclusion. I would recommend removing all of the wikipedia article references and most of the primary references written by individuals or companies associated with the subject of the article, and try to find some reliable third-party sources providing coverage of the subject. This could be a newspaper, a review (as long as it is reliable; e.g. there is some form of editing process involved), or any other form of media providing it is a reliable source of information. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's structure/layout is good though - it's divided up into useful sections and you've added an infobox too which is nice. I agree with Giftiger Wunsh though, the references are possibly the most important thing about an article and they need to be improved if possible. Chevy monte carlo 09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chevy that the structure of the article is good and it includes plenty of wikilinks, so no stylistic concerns; you just need to make sure that the subject is notable enough to qualify for inclusion according to WP:GNG. Sorry, perhaps I should have commented on the good points as well as what could be improved. Do note that showing notability in verifiable sources is arguably the most important factor, however; articles poorly laid out are usually marked for improvement, whereas articles which don't show notability are often deleted via AfD or prod. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful feedback. I find the notability article a big help, so thanks for that. I am looking for more good sources of notability for this article. I have been using Wikipedia for years and would love to be able to contribute. GCMonitor (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Good luck with your article :) Chevy monte carlo 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of WAMBO, from SpongeBob to Startups

This is my first wiki article. I would love some feedback from anyone out there: The meaning of WAMBO, from SpongeBob to Startups

Thank you! Hm24co (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in User:Hm24co/Wambo.

Pages should either be disambiguation listings. or articles about a specific, notable subject. It lacks reliable sources, and seems to be a disguised article about a company. As there are no sources to show the notability of the company, it is not appropriate to add it to Wikipedia - please see WP:VRS, WP:BFAQ.

Urban Dictionary, YouTube and other wikis are not a reliable source. You need to use sources such as books or newspaper articles.

For more advice, see WP:FIRST. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please remember that there are many reliable references that are not on the Internet. Chevy monte carlo 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intalink

I have read all the guidelines and would like some advice on my new article User:BigToe7000/Intalink. My last new article I created was deleted for not being notable enough so I hope this is not a similar problem! I would also like, if you could, to help me create an Infobox with the logo and some information about the organisation in but again I am not totally sure how. Thanks in advance! BigToe7000 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a pretty good article, but you will need a few things:

More References\Sources which are from places not related to, but about the subject. These are needed to prove that it is notable - though I believe it probably is, you will need those
Making the text slightly more neutral - it is somewhat in favor of the company (probably by accident), try making it sound more factual and avoid too much positiveness as shown here.

If you can fix these things, it should be ready to go live pretty soon! I can help you with that later if you contact me here.

I will be putting some instructions for an infobox up (underneath this) in a few minutes, and also about pics - thanks! ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Improve Your Infobox

I placed the business info box on your page - here's how to add to it. (The pic is a different matter all together) Below is part of the code for it (look in edit mode please)...

Just put the correct awnser on the other side of the = with one space before it. Here's an example...
| name =
The name is intalink, so put a space
| name =
Then put the awnser.
| name = Intalink
There is help for the pic in the next box.

Picture
You will need to first get a non-copyrighted picture (or in a few cases, a low rez pic of the logo will be okay), upload it. You always do pics like this (if you didn't know) [[EXACT_FILE_NAME_AS_ON_WIKI\|SIZE_#px]] You can put that in the logo slot and a caption in the caption slot then.

Thanks for the advice! It is hard to find any sources from outside as most are from inside the council/local authorities but I will try and get some more up. Unfortunately I do not think obtaining an image free of copyright will be available so I shall upload a small version of the logo as fair-use. I am also trying to remove what positive language there is - if you have any specific phrases I could change please notify me of them! Thank you again, BigToe7000 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that looks good! Also - you can delete the box I put up to tell you I responded (on the page). ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award

22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Have just done that, thanks. Will see if I can make some more minor changes then maybe think about putting it live :) BigToe7000 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prescott

I had a nose around WP:MWA and drafted up this one, it's very short as I no nothing about the subject, but it is referenced and gives some basic information about the subject. Do I need to do anything else before I move it into article space and let other people have ago at it? Should I create it under; "Sir Mark Prescott Bt" or "Mark Prescott", I suppose the later, but what is the convention? Many thanks in advance. --Wintonian (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry If anything was messed up in the edit conflict!

I would try to revise for neutrality\spelling. And if you can, add more to it (though others prob will later), but it's pretty good - I would make it under the latter, possibly with (Race Horse Trainer) if there's someone with a similar name and make redirects from diff spellings\ways to say it to your article. Good job though! ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should add categories to the article, and mark it as a stub (under a relevant category), but these points are likely to be quickly marked once it is in mainspace anyway. You should add some relevant categories in the form [[Category:(an existing category name)]]. If you're not sure what type of "stub" to mark it as, you can just use {{stub}} and wait for another editor to better categorise it. The article should be created as "Mark Prescott", as titles and honourifics should not be given in the title. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start for categories for this article might be Category:Living people and ~~Category:1970 births~~ Sorry, I misread the article, it says he gained a trainers' license in 1970 so clearly that's unlikely to be his year of birth.. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WP:NPV? I have tried to write it in a neutral way, but if you mean that there is a lot of info about his hunting activities I just put in what interesting bits I could find from decent sources. I know my spelling is awful but I did run it through word so not quite sure what’s up there. Stubs and categories; exactly what I wanted to know and gosh they are mind boggling. Now I have done that I'll publish hence forth. oh and add a expand tag as well. --Wintonian (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about the categories and stubs, it can be difficult finding a specific, appropriate category or stub classification. Usually I just guess one that's likely to exist, and then go to the page for that category or stub category and look at the subcategories: usually you can find something more specific like that. I'm sure there's a better way of finding relevant categories though; maybe someone else will be able to give you advice on this. People actively search for uncategorised articles and articles categorised just as "stub" or similar though, so ou'd probably find the article will get the attention of someone better able to categorise it within a couple of days of entering mainspace. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexander Diane/Alexander Diane:Harper

This is my first time! I'd love some feedback.

Thanks, Alexander Diane (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Harper's employers, who had expressed the intent to retaliate against her for raising concerns about an employee's conduct, initiated a Homeland Security investigation against her, while refusing to disclose the accusations made against her....".

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Sole Soul (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Sole Soul's point, I think that you should perhaps consider adding an infobox to the article to summarise the key points of the article - maybe Template:Infobox medical person/doc or something like that. The example external link that is used as a placeholder can be removed too - it just shows you how to add a link. Chevy monte carlo 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good feedback. I'm rewriting now, and will add infobox. This place is an absolute labyrinth for newbies like me, so I am grateful for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Diane (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]