Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 6

< 2010 June 5

2010 June 6

2010 June 7 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar

I just created this article in my userspace on Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar. It is an environmental award that is given by the Government of India. This is the first article I've created and I was hoping for some feedback. Thnx. --Regstuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regstuff (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...

Adding Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an encyclopedia. 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.

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 would also recommend possibly reading this.

~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 00:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references. I couldn't find any open source photos and I couldn't find any award infoboxes relating to environmental awards. Please point me to one if you know of any. BTW, the article is now here. Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar Regstuff (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Screen (journal)

Wide Screen (Journal)

This is a page dedicated to the cinema studies journal Wide Screen. I would appreciate any feedback from users. Thanks

09:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Kuhu Tanvir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuhutanvir (talk • contribs)

It's pretty good, but you'll have to make sure those pictures comply to policy and you should add referencing which prove it's notability, or importance for an encyclopedia. If you can fix this, feel free to tell me and I can help you put it up live. Thanks!

~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atomix (video game)

I went and rewrote the Atomix (video game) article, and would appreciate it if someone took a look at it. Here's the diff.

Korodzik (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a first glance, my initial comment is that the inline citations are very messy; there are 8 references for several statements; if one or more references are used for many parts of the article, these citations should simply be listed in a references or sources section at the end of the article as general references. Have a look at WP:Referencing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that problem. Korodzik (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Thetford

I am the significant editor of what was a geographic stub. I have offline assistance form local historians. I would appreciate feedback (before I call for peer review) on the whole article. Some of my rationale and ongoing thoughts have been recorded in Talk:Little_Thetford. Some of my current concerns are

getting advice on citations - convert to less ephemeral sources if practical. Too many citations? Should I remove all citations from the lead?
As the main contributor, I have attempted to ensure that all facts are verifiable. The article probably has too many as it stands. Could someone help please
too many wikilinks?
Need a Casweb (academic access) to access the 1981 and 1991 census data via http://cdu.mimas.ac.uk/index.htm. I do not have such access DONE--Senra (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used embedded convert templates e.g. convert 1311 acres to display 2.0 square miles (5.2 km2). I did this as the source material all shows acre units. I chose to use sqmi/km2 within the article for consistency. Hopefully, using embedded converts in this way allows other editors to check sources easier. Is this sensible or over-cautious?
Local historian has handed me the results of a recent newspaper article search (manual, not online) about a 1941 straffing of the village. Is such text appropriate and how much of it can I quote verbatim?

This is my first significant wikipedia article, so, er, be gentle with me if you can. I know CTRL-A; DEL exists but it would be nice if you did not use it without justification!

--Senra (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, but you will need to clean it up a bit and add it to categories. The overall visual appeal is not very good - try clicking on the quality standards link in the tag for some suggestions on how to improve that. However, I don't think it's in any danger of being deleted. Good job!

~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding academic access, check out WP:MHL#JSTOR--SPhilbrick T 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may also be helpful Category:Wikipedians_by_access_to_a_digital_library--SPhilbrick T 00:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I more than appreciate the time anyone has taken to reply to this RFI. I am however still frustrated. Perhaps because I am new. Perhaps because there are too many help documents to read. Perhaps it is just me. I have made loads of changes since posting this RFI yet the cleanup graphic at the top of the article is still there. I have carefully read through Wikipedia:UKCITIES; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style and applied what I could. I am sorry if this sounds ungrateful. Truly I am not ungrateful at all. Just frustrated at myself.

Please explain the three actions in this quote "...but you will need to [1] clean it up a bit and [2] add it to categories. The overall [3] visual appeal is not very good...".

[1] Clean the article code or the article as it appears to readers? What does clean mean? Remove superscript "th" for example? (I have removed them throughout)
[2] What does add it to categories mean? It was in categorgories when I wrote this RFI. I have compared the article to other similar articles and I cannot see how I can reasonably add it to more categories.
[3] What does visual appeal mean? I guess this is subjective. I also guess that experience would help me here. However, I cannot see how I can make it more visually appealing. I have removed the excess of references in the lead and the excess of subsections in some sections. I am not a journalist by profession. I have however done my best to correct words and phrases to make it as readable as possible. I know some sections are light on prose. The subject is a 2 sq mi village. Not much has happened here.

Also, I checked out the links and do not believe they are suitable. JSTOR is US not UK. Is there some kind of flag (or template or category) I can put in a page to attract someone to fix it? I looked but could not find such a flag. For example CENSUS DATA MISSING. DONE--Senra (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. I am not ungrateful. Just frustrated at myself.

--Senra (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the article and it looks like a nice place! My advice would be to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and have a look at other articles about settlements to get some ideas about what you can add to yours. See if there are any villages close by that have had articles written about them, identify the editors, then ask them for feedback and/or if they are able to contribute to your article. Local history societies and libraries are great places to get both information and references. You might be surprised at what has happened there! :) Hope that helps--Ykraps (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't answer any of your questions. I don't know what QwertyQwerpus means by cleaning the article up but it could possibly be that there are too many wikilinks. I personally don't think it's necessary to link everything, particularly common nouns such as 'railway' or 'settlement'. If your readers don't understand those words they are going to struggle with the rest of the article. Also you have (correctly in my opinion) linked to the Domesday book but doing it once is sufficient you don't need to do it the next time you mention it. I see know reason why you can't use the newspaper article just remember to reference it properly (name of the paper, date of issue, page and column number). Even though the article is over 50 years old, it is best to use your own words to describe what took place. Finally, I don't believe you can have too many references!--Ykraps (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for all the comments. I appreciate them all. As an aside, I would like to preserve this useful information. Would it be proper to copy it to the article talk page and transclude it to here from there? Or do I simply archive it to the talk page and leave it at that?--Senra (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]