Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 22
This is a new article, which would be linked to the general Kakapo article. I've followed advice from editors at the Kakapo discussion page, who suggested a new page for Sirocco was viable. Here it is - I'd appreciate comments! Thanks
Chris Pitt (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- It would need lots more references - you have to say where facts come from; it has to be verifiable; for example,
He had to be raised away from other kākāpō[citation needed] and this led to him being imprinted on humans.[citation needed] As an older bird, he still does not associate with other kākāpō.[citation needed] This extends to the mating ritual of 'booming': Sirocco booms in the presence of humans, rather than female kākāpō.[citation needed]
Because of his unique upbringing, staff on the island accepted that Sirocco is unlikely to be successful when it comes to breeding.[citation needed] However, his affinity to human beings means he has become an effective advocate for the kākāpō species.[citation needed]
...and so on. Chzz ► 15:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz - thanks for the comments. Definitely happy to do that - the reason I didn't was because most of the links would lead to the same website (as the Kakapo Recovery Team website is the primary source for factual information on the kakapo, as they are the people dealing with the birds). So I wasn't sure if I should cite every fact to the same page? Or is there a way of citing, eg, a section to one page? Happy to do individual citations though if necessary - only one question, I can't work out how to do second, third etc citations to the same page (the wikipedia version of ibid). Any suggestions? I've searched and tried but can't seem to make it work! Thanks a lot, Chris Pitt (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would be very grateful for review of this article please.
Crispinslee (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks OK, really. I've tidied it up a bit - see history - and removed the 'unreviewed' tag.
- If you have access to this device, could you take a photograph or two and upload it at commons? Chzz ► 15:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Chzz. It looks good. I will find some pictures and upload them at Commons. Thanks again.
User:IMechE1/Engineering Heritage Awards
[edit]Hi, I was wondering if someone could have a very quick look at this page and tell me if I am going in the right direction. I need to add a number of additonal links to the Institution and all the recipient websites and wikipedia pages.
On referencing, the information contained in the page comes from the Heritage Committee and with the exception of the IMechE reference, I cannot think of any other really useful addition.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Cheers
Richard
IMechE1 (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You really do need to find some independent references - sources unconnected to the org itself - to show why this is notable; otherwise, it can end up rather promotional-sounding. Be careful in making claims based on primary sources.
- Be careful of weasel words and peacock terms - try to state 'cold hard facts'. For example, many considered this to be a thorough process - how many? who? number of nominations being received had significantly reduced - who says the reduction was 'significant'?
- Please read WP:NPOV.
- At the beginning, you don't need the section name == Engineering Heritage Awards == because the actual page-name forms the title; see WP:LEDE.
- You have used <center> tags, without closing them with </center> - but actually it's best not to use those tags anyway, as they are deprecated; I think there may be a better way. I'll find out, and add here. Chzz ► 15:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like you'd be best using e.g. {{Center|whatever text here}}. See {{center}}. Chzz ► 16:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Laurendickinson (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- It needs inline references to reliable sources - books, newspapers, etc. See WP:VRS.
- All the facts should be verifiable.
- For help on how to add them, see WP:REFB. Chzz ► 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Immunology coordinator (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You need to add more reliable sources, preferably adding some names to them, like this:
<ref>[http://www.google.com|Reference name goes here!]</ref>
It basically gives the reader a better idea of what the reference is about, rather than just a bare URL which isn't that useful unless you click on it. Hope my suggestions are useful. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
we are now signed to a record label and need this wiki
Matfmusic (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article has been speedily deleted, sorry. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
Just wanted to have this contribution reviewed so the temporary "unreviewed" banner is removed.
Bdgallpen (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You need more references, showing that he, or his articles or books have been discussed by multiple reliable sources. So far, you have one reference, which is simply a bio.
- If you can find enough references to ensure he is meets Notability requirements, you should look at Referencing for beginners, which can help you format the references, as well as properly cite the publications. Some editors believe that a long list of publication qualifies for notability, but you need to show that at least some of these publications, or something else he has done, has been discussed in reliable sources.--SPhilbrickT 01:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What can I do to get this article posted on wikipedia?
Thank you, Wiki4tpi User
Wiki4tpi (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see that you've provided any evidence that Angela or TPI has been discussed in multiple reliable sources. Also, please read Username Policy. I'm not certainth at your username is a violation of policy, but some might feel that way.--SPhilbrickT 01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate any feedback you have for this article. I would also like this article to be considered as a possible replacement or addition to the existing Virtual Community of Practice article.
Emaradiegue (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You had spaces at the start of the bullet-point items, so it appeared as 'comments' like this;
* LinkedIn * Facebook * MySpace * YouTube
- I've fixed that, by removing the spaces on that part; there are others that need the same.
- Whilst I admit the existing Virtual community of practice isn't very good - especially because it has no inline references - it would probably be better to 'merge in' your new file, even if then you move it to a new title - just to keep the history, and to avoid duplication of the topic area.
- Be careful to be neutral, and stick to verifiable facts, not opinion.
- Some parts are unreferenced, e.g. There are a growing number of online collaborative tools and forums that are available today. Many of these tools are used by OCoPs, and can be used in both educational and professional settings. - this is quite vague, too; it might be a bit of opinion creeping in; who says it is 'growing', how many is 'many', and who says they can be used in these ways?
- Virtual worlds are excellent tools - again, unreferenced, and opinionated / non-neutral; these are examples only, so please check through the whole thing.
- It would benefit from more wikilinks within the text, where appropriate, to help the reader understand; example growth of a collective identity OCoPs provide a virtual space and so on.
- Please make sure refs are immediately after punctuation, e.g. change;
around the world. <ref name="wenger2007"/>
...to...
around the world.<ref name="wenger2007"/>
- I hope that is useful. Very important though, is, get it live ASAP. Then others can help improve it. The above stuff isn't really 'essential'. Chzz ► 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)