Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 3

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

Dan Dunn, Journalist

Dan Dunn, Journalist [[1]]

HomerFish (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)HomerFish June 3, 2010

PS - I would like to differentiate the journalist (about whom I wrote) and the early century cartoonist, but was having a great deal of difficulty coding appropriately. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

You have included a few inline citations, but none of them give sufficient information to identify the actual source: for example, I'd imagine "Playboy magazine" has published several issues. You should refer to a specific issue, and preferrably a specific page which supports the citation.

I have made a couple of minor edits to the page to improve it, but the main concern is you need to properly identify reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability and support the content of the article. Try taking a look at WP:RS and WP:Referencing. Let me know if you need any further help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

David Sandlin

David Sandlin David Sandlin

62.91.53.38 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC) panthermoderns 6/1/10

One of the important requirements of an article in Wikipedia is that it demonstrate the Notability of the topic. I don't feel this article has demonstrated the notability of the topic. This can be accomplished by adding references to independent reliable sources which support the notability of David Sandlin.--SPhilbrickT 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article needs more reliable, secondary sources, especially as it is a biography of a living person. This will be important in ensuring that the article meets the general notability criteria, though a quick google search suggests that there are plenty of sources available for this individual. Other than that, it seems to be a fairly well laid-out article and doesn't need too many changes made. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You should also look at WP:CITE and footnotes. When you find references, they need to be formatted in a particular way; the links will explain.--SPhilbrickT 12:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dakota Jackson, Revisions

I would like some feedback on the revised article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Jackson#External_links.Strohlnco (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to read Wikipedia:External links.

• General comment - bare links are not desired. I've fixed the first one as a model.
• Specific comment - I see a Facebook link (although arguably, it qualifies for the exception)--SPhilbrickT 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps you should maybe consider adding an infobox to the top of the article - maybe Template:Artist or something like that. I couldn't find an infobox template specific for a designer so I thought that was the closest template. As the tag template at the top says, I would recommend that you try and make the article more neutral so that it is more suitable for Wikipedia. I think the photos are great though :)

I think that you should perhaps try working on renaming the links though, as Sphilbrick says - the bare links aren't the most ideal. I see the first link has already been renamed to something more specific which is great, but I think you should try to do that to all of the links in that section, so that the reader can click on whatever link they feel is most useful to them, rather than being faced with a long list of meaningless website URLs that give no indication of what the actual linked site is about. Chevymontecarlo 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Multimonica

Dear Editors!

I created the article Multimonica on the 8th of March, but it is still not reviewed. It's about an early electronic synthesizer, so I also asked for feedback from the WikiProject Musical Instruments today, but I'm not shure wether they will see my notes on their talk page... Greets:

Márton Palatinszky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palatinszky (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements... Adding Reliable Refernces - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an enclycopedia. You should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs. Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate. Inline Citations - Show where you got sections of information within the text - they are especially important for somewhat controversial topics. Expanding It - The article is rather short and may need to be expanded. Adding Pictures - You can always use a good photo! Adding An Infobox - Info-boxes are always good for an article - they help people see the most important info.

Good job though! If you have any questions or need help improving, or publishing it to Wikiepdia, feel free to contact me here or visit my page here. I have removed the review notice. Thanks! ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award

Have any notable musicians used one or has it featured on a recording we may have heard? Are there any sales figures? Is it a collectors' piece or does it have a value? Info like this would both expand the article and make it more interesting. As QwertyQwerpus says, a photo would be good too.--Ykraps (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Need feedback on article

In compiling information on paleo Florida and its formation, the geologic/geographic feature "Lake Wales Ridge" has been redirected to Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge. This is sort of mistake. Can this be fixed or should I just title the article I am writing Lake Wales Ridge (geology)? Get back to me please. Noles1984 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is probably discussed in that article, so, since it did not have it's own, it was redirected there. If the lake is notable enough, you can just replace the redirect with what you wan to put, possible mentioning at the top that they may be looking for the Park. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award