Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 13

< 2010 October 12

2010 October 13

2010 October 14 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

User:IrisColumbine/Memorize.com Draft

Are the sources here good enough to establish notability? Also, what else do you think I should add to the introduction?

IrisColumbine (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Article Layout for a start. You aren't following established standards for lede, info boxes, or sections. You have some references, but they aren't well-formatted. See Referencing for beginners.--SPhilbrick T 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre Inc. (OPC)

this is ready to go - what do you think? how do we now make it visible on wikipedia?

Peachy11 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

I cleaned up a couple of minor items.
You have no references. The claims in the article need to be referenced to reliable sources. See Referencing for beginners for help.
In particular, a direct quote from Dingle absolutely requires a reference. As does the one from Hillary.
One of the important requirements of an article in Wikipedia is that it demonstrate the Notability of the topic. (While this is a guideline, not an absolute requirement and exceptions can occur, they are rare.) This can be accomplished by adding references to reliable sources which support the notability of the topic. Note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so while Hillary is clearly notable, as is new Zealand, you need to establish the notability of this Centre--SPhilbrick T 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar

Hello, would appreciate any help - this is my first Wikipedia article :) Comments on Style, appropriateness, all welcome! Thank you Dnamax (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few formatting/layout/style suggestions:

Try and add some names to the references, so they give a better idea of what the references are about. Here is an example:

This is a sentence! <ref>[http://www.google.com|Reference name goes here!]</ref>

The article's subject looks notable, although I think you need to add more suitable references to add to the references you already have.

Other than that, I think you've done a decent job - well done. Chevy monte carlo 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sim/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures

Ready for live? It got user-ed from deletion; added several notability sources as well as general trimming. I don't know how the interaction with the pictures will work, either.

Sim (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis

Why is Mr. William Connolley still allowed to edit climate change articles? It would appear he is reverting to his former bad practices.

76.212.160.78 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting a lot of attention from a number of editors, partially because it has been mentioned in the blogosphere, so I don't have anything specific to add, other than take care to make sure additions can be well-sourced.--SPhilbrick T 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADMS Page Ready to GO?

Hi all, I think that my page is ready to go "live", if you could take a look and let me know if you see any issues that would be great. Also, I have tried to search out the instructions in simple English on how to move the page but I can't figure it out. I know I should have used a "subpage", but any guidance on what I should do now? Thanks Lori Costello (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the article merely presents or announces the existence of the simulator. The article is promotional in content, offering no indication of notability. Just because a company, product, or simulator exists, doesn't mean that it is notable and appropriate for an encyclopedic article. The lede paragraph needs to present the notability of the subject, while summarizing the article overall. This issue needs to be addressed prior to moving to the mainspace. Otherwise, it would likely be deleted due to a lack of notability. Cindamuse (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have rewritten the lede paragraph as one very helpful editor (Thank you Cindamuse) suggested, trying to add more notability. I feel that my referneces are very reliable and that I have covered all bases. My question is this... and I mean this in the most respectful way to all editors. I have gone back and forth several times and made adjustments at the guidance of everyone who had input, BUT, knowing that everyone has a different opinion, when do I finally say - OK, this is a final? It seems as what is acceptable to one may not be to another? I certainly want to be as Wiki-friendly as possible and will do what is needed to make this right, am I getting close? Lori Costello (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

It's 'good enough' to go live, sure, so I've moved it. But no article on Wikipedia is ever finished; this is just the start. There are some unreferenced parts, and some things that can be improved; I imagine others will now edit it; that's what happens here.

For further stuff, see WP:DEVELOP.

Anyway - it's live, as Advanced Disaster Management Simulator. Cheers, Chzz ► 05:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Lori Costello (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I look forward to additional contributions to your site.[reply]

Hi guys. Why is this discussion occurring on my profile? Thanks for the reply.Robinouze (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Due to some weird complicated thing that isn't worth worrying about, the contents of this page were appearing on Robinouze's user talk page. Hence the above message. Now fixed. For those who care, see User talk:Robinouze#Why you saw the page of all feedback here. Chzz ► 13:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Wendt,Dayananda Gunawardena

Dear friends, There was copyright violation suspects for two of there article and i re wrote few times and avoid all of Copyrights on This is a temporary pages Talk:Lionel Wendt/Temp,Talk:Dayananda Gunawardena/Temp. I believe these Articles should be publish . could you please assist me to solve this problem and Fix these articles. In addition to ,if there is Copyrights problems any body can assist me to re write . Thanks--Wipeouting (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these articles are listed at the copyright problems board. Dayananda Gunawardena came due for administrative yesterday; Talk:Dayananda Gunawardena/Temp has been used to replace the problematic text. Lionel Wendt should be reviewed at some point today, as it has now also come due. If there are lingering copyright issues in the rewrite, these will be pointed out at the talk page of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was re edited few times Lionel Wendt. could you please see and solve the problem--Wipeouting (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you a note at your talk page. I'm afraid that there are some lingering concerns. The material needs to be rewritten further. I'll be happy to talk with you further about what you may do at your talk page rather than this. I am watching it and will see any notes you leave me there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRCE

who are you?

Sumerchandkamboj (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not catching the meaning of your question. However, on the assumption that you are looking for feedback, here are some comments:

You have no references. The claims in the article need to be referenced to reliable sources. See Referencing for beginners for help.
Careful with Peacock phrasing, such as "rigorous curriculum" and "illustrious alumni"--SPhilbrick T 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phoenixregister/Phoenix Register of Shipping

Phoenixregister (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User already blocked (promotional) Chzz ► 04:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diversified Global Graphics Group — DG3

Please review. Cleared before, but taken to private page for editing.

Backburnercomics (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"1983–1989" has no references, first para of "1990–1999" is unreferenced, most of "2000–2006" is unreferenced, "Green Business Awards" has no reference.

Everything needs a reference to a reliable source; anything that cannot be verified should be removed. Chzz ► 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Business Awards is already referenced under "Environmental Leadership". Should I move the reference down to the awards section instead? I have added references to the areas lacking, and will continue to research for additional references. Thanks! Backburnercomics (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Any follow-up? Should I resubmit the request? Backburnercomics (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Bogart

Will be adding more info/references as I can gather them, but will this article suffice/not be deleted for now?

The page was previously deleted in 2008. I don't know what the content was, so I'm not sure if my article is about the same person or is more complete than the deleted page. The deleting editor doesn't seem to be very active anymore - do I need to contact him in order for my page to stay put? : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheryl_Bogart&action=edit&redlink=1 Sometimesotherwise (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to contact a specific person; it is not currently tagged for deletion, and I doubt that it would be speedy deleted; it might be proposed for deletion, but if that happens, you'd have time (at least a week) to try and fix the concerns. It definitely needs more references, to show notability, but it should not be in any immediate danger of deletion. Chzz ► 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innovations in International_Health

Hello! We have recently created this page for Innovations in International Health, a consortium of global health technology researchers based at MIT. Please review the content for accuracy.

Many thanks for your work and please let us know if there are changes we can make to improve the credibility of the page.

Ayoung1616 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not maintain a neutral point-of-view; there are many unreferenced claims. For example,

IIH was founded in the summer of 2007 by Amy Smith and Aamir Khan^{[citation needed]} and is directed by José Gómez-Márquez.^{[citation needed]} Its first meeting brought together 12 investigators from 6 countries.^{[citation needed]} IIH has a growing portfolio^{[neutrality is disputed]} of inventions and has launched devices and research studies in the United States, Nicaragua, Honduras, Peru, Tanzania, India and Pakistan.^{[citation needed]}

IIH's community includes scientists, health care workers, international aid officials, public health researchers, businesspeople, and other partners from a wide range of disciplines.^{[citation needed]} They work in twelve R&D sites worldwide in fifteen technology projects across seven health fields.^{[citation needed]}

IIH seeks to connect researchers around the world with several collaborative research tools,^{[according to whom?]}

You should not have external links within the main part of the article; they should only be in == External links == at the end, and these should be very limited - see WP:EL.

"Areas of Research" should probably be removed, unless it has been discussed in independent references such as newspapers. See WP:NOTDIR. Chzz ► 04:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emb777

I am just trying to write something biographical and would like some feedback before trying to publish it, if I have enough sources, references, etc. Also, I tend to be more creative with my writing which may not be the best for here. Just need some wisdom and guidance to make a good article.

Thanks

Emb777 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry if it seems you've had a chilly reception here, but sometimes there are those who either assume bad faith or assume everyone should know the rules of Wikipedia without explaining them. Hopefully, I'll be able to explain the basics and you can go from there...

Like every organization, Wikipedia has its own culture and norms; things which we expect the community to follow. When they aren't followed, people tend to get upset. Think of what would happen if I (hypothetically) went into your church this Sunday and sat down during the middle of the sermon and opened a can of beer and lit a cigarette. Chances are, the members of your church would not respond favorably to it. Well, right off the bat, you violated a few of the core rules and principles of Wikipedia. You might not have meant to, but right away you've established a pattern which alarms many in the community:

One of the biggest taboos of Wikipedia is to either write a new article about yourself or someone you are really close to. I'm not sure if you are the subject of the article(the pastor), but you are obviously an interested party. Even if an article exists about yourself, it is considered taboo to edit it yourself.A few years ago, there was a big stink on Wikipedia because the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales edited the article about himself. The community was almost universal in its condemnation of Wales. So if the founder of this encyclopedia doesn't even have the right to do so... it goes without saying that no one else does. If the subject of the article is notable enough, your best bet is to go here and request an article, not write one yourself because there is a conflict of interest and this is an encyclopedia, after all.
The problem isn't the quantity of sources you have, but the quality. They are almost entirely primary sources. Now if The Oregonian or The Columbian had an article in which they focused on the pastor, then that would help the notability claim substantially.Christianity Today would be a Christian source which would be a credible source.
You mentioned you are a creative writer and that's a good thing, but there is a certain writing style to be expected from an encyclopedia and deviating from that is considered POV. There are many places online in which you can get creative and write good copy which would bring many people to your church, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Believe it or not, having a Wikipedia article about yourself isn't always a good thing. I myself have a certain notability in real life although I haven't really played it up on my user page or elsewhere (if I were to guess, an article about me would probably barely survive deletion if someone created an article about me now). I don't want an article about myself on Wikipedia, and I sort of dread that day happening... it means anything which happens in my life (good or bad) is fair game and I am a private person. So my advice is to find places online where the church can get lots of good publicity without the burden of a Wikipedia article. If the pastor in the article is notable or becomes notable, an article will probably happen eventually, but that might not be a good thing...

Hope this helps and isn't too negative. If you still want to contribute to Wikipedia, you are welcome to if you follow the rules. There is (IMO) not enough good Christian Wikipedia articles out there and several do tend to have an anti-Christian bias, so there is definitely a need. Contact me on my talk page if you are interested. Thanks. VictorianMutant (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xibun

Please comment on my first-ever Wikipedia entry. Thanks!

Battichica (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My gut instincts tell me this could be a good article, but it has issues. The first is that it needs to be wikified- the intro should not start out like a disambiguation page. You also added a disambiguation page here and made changes to the Sibun River page which make it confusing navigating those pages. By making the Xibun page mostly about the river, you have created an alternate page to an existing page and that will surely be deleted. This is what you should do:

Remove the "See also Sibun River" at the top of the Xibun article. You will have a link to the river in the article and will of course mention Xibun as an alternate name for the river.
Ditch the first part of the Xibun article, maybe adding some of the info to the Sibun Rover article.
Expand the Xibun article. The subject will now be the Xibun people and the page might be better off at a new name (Xibun people) But really really expand it... otherwise, there will be people who will cry out to have it merged into Mayan people.
Remove the "See also Xibun" from the Sibun River article. Of course, mention the Xibun people and wiki-link to the article you just created, but don't do it like that at the top.
Do those things and then stick a {{db-self}} tag at the top of Xibun (disambiguation) because if you do those things, we won't need the disamb page anymore.

If you need any help, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Irish_Genealogical_Organisations

I have never seen so many complicated and convoluted rules as there are on Wikipedia! My question is, how does one review an article?

CIGOCIGO (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dia dhuit! You are right when you say there are many complicated rules here on Wikipedia, but believe me when I say most were put in place due to some situation which made the rules necessary. I have added a welcome message to your talk page with some useful links. It would be a good idea to read those before making anymore edits because that may help you understand the community's culture here and how to edit, etc. If I can be of any help, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]