Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 4

< 2010 October 3

2010 October 4

2010 October 5 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

THE SPARKELS

The Sparkels- were four high school friends Barbara Peterkin,Joannis Harding,Lucille Jackson and Patricia Villiers they sung Try Love One More Time and That Boy of Mine on Old Town Records 1160 in 1964..Hy Weiss owned Old Town Records and Herb Bernstein produced the record........can you put this information on wikipedia?

69.127.135.34 (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Refactored. The post was all captials (which is like shouting) so refactored it --Senra (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article about the group, the first thing you need is references to 'reliable sources' - so, newspaper articles and things. For help with how to get started, see WP:YFA.

This 'feedback' forum is for help with articles already written. If you'd like to put in a request for someone else to write an article, see WP:Requested articles instead. Chzz ► 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ykraps/Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset

I have created this article as the landmarks section of Christchurch, Dorset has become a bit bloated. There are more than 300 listed buildings in the borough and all those in the article are grade 2 or above. I hope the article is notable and has sufficient references but would really like feedback on whether there is sufficient information and whether it is interesting to those who don't live here.--Ykraps (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ykraps (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments I am not experienced in lists so what follows are general comments

The lead mentions SSSI's and nature reserves but the article does not

Perhaps Christchurch, Dorset should be linked at least once in the article and perhaps use {{Main}}

There are 122 characters of prose in the article; the rest (due to the bullets) are counted as a list (using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js)

I find it useful to examine other articles for guidance. In this instance, consider looking through such articles as Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, Listed buildings in Crawley, List of National Historic Landmarks in Texas or even Category:Lists of buildings and structures in England

I find the article as it stands a little hard to read. It is neither a structured read nor a list. Following the lead, we move straight into the most important historical structure in the area (I suspect) yet this is not clearly brought out in the article. perhaps a picture of the priory would help? There are no maps to guide us; no historical thread; no easy guide to which structures are Grade I listed

I am undecided whether the article should be a list (in which case I suspect using a table format similar to Listed buildings in Crawley, linking to separate articles for each building) or prose format describing some of the more important buildings in an historical context (in which case, maps are needed and the prose needs to tell a story). I hope the above helps. I wish I had the experience needed to provide a more concrete direction for you --Senra (Talk) 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Senra. Thanks for your appraisal. I couldn't decide the format either which is probably why I got stuck somewhere in the middle. The articles I have been looking at such as Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey don't seem to know either. To me it seems easy to read but I am familiar with the structures and the town's layout. This is one of the reasons I wanted an outsider's view, so thanks for providing that. The Priory and castle ruins have their own articles which is why I haven't given them a major role. I provided a link but I guess I need to make it clearer. Oh well, back to the drawing board! I hope you will be able to take another look when I've sorted it out. --Ykraps (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like a very interesting place - thanks for your work on this new article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

I agree with all of Senra's comments and think a map would be especially helpful.
My main question is what are the selection criteria for inclusion in this article? What makes something a landmark of Christchurch? When I read the lead, I thought the article would list all of the "12 conservation areas, 300 listed buildings, 12 scheduled ancient monuments and three nationally important archaeological sites... [and the] over 150 hectares (370 acres) of nature reserves and wildlife areas including four sites of special scientific interest (SSSI)", though that would be a huge list.
Reading the article, it was not clear to me what each of the places listed was - are they Grade 1 listed buildings, or some other grade, or just tourist attractions?
I think a list might be the way to go with this - perhaps several lists: one for Grade I listed, one for Grade II* listed, and one for Grade II listed buildings. Not sure where the other things listed in the sentences I quoted would fit, but I imagine to keep the list manageable in size it would have to be split up (not all 300 in one list).
The language is rough in spots - here is an example of two fragments that could be easily joined: The Mayor's Parlour. Was originally built as the market hall in 1745 at the junction of Castle Street, Church Street and the High Street; it was moved to its present position in 1849.
Make sure things are consistent - for example most refs list last name, then first name, but current ref 1 is first name, last name.
Watch neutral language - It is remarkable, in that it takes water from one river and spills it into a second river.[8] seems POV. If it is a direct quote, then quote it (then it is OK to use remarkable).
If you want more examples of ways to format list-y topics, here are two. A FL with four lists (one with 120 entries, one with 18) is List of Pennsylvania state parks. If you want to see a FA with entries on 24 named waterfalls in tables, see Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park.
Since the church is the most notable building, I would show an image of it.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruhrfish. Thanks for spending time reviewing this article. I appreciate the lead is perhaps a bit misleading, I was trying to make the point that there was so much to cover that the article couldn't possibly cover it all. I too have been thinking about a list format, and to that end I have created User:Ykraps/Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset (list) which you might like to take a look at. With regards to the selection criteria: To me a landmark is something that is immediately recognisable and has little or nothing to do with how architecturally or historically valuable it is‎. A listed building is one that is valuable but may not be a landmark or be of any interest to the general public. I have tried to select structures that are important, interesting and recognisable. Maybe the issue is with the title? Any way please check out User:Ykraps/Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset (list) and let me know if you think it would be a better format.--Ykraps (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps, if you think that someday this article will be considered for GA or FA, then I think it needs to have some sort of clear criterion for what is and is not a landmark (i.e. what to include and what not to include). Since I am not familiar with Christchurch, I do not know what the possible criteria are - are there tourist guides that list the landmarks, for example? A walking tour with stops at the landmarks, or an architectural history of the town, or something similar? Look at WP:LEAD, the capsule summary is The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. When I read the current lead, I assumed that the 300 listed buildings, etc. would all be included. It seems you have a different idea, but there need to be some sort of selection criteria so that it is clear what is and is not a landmark. I reread what is here and agree with what Senra said above - if the current structure of the first draft is kept, it needs a better narrative thread. This could be historical or geographic or there may be other ways to connect landmarks (religious, civic, commercial, and smuggling?). Right now I prefer the list, just because it seems to be better defined and there are more possible model articles for it. That does not mean the other approach might not also work well, but given my ignorance of Christchurch, I am not sure how exactly such an article would look. Hope this helps some and sorry not to be of more help (at least in terms of "you must do X (or Y)", Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ruhrfish, thanks for coming back to this. I appreciate that getting this article to GA standard is a long way off. Currently I am concentrating on the Christchurch, Dorset article and just want somewhere to put the information I am removing from there. Having said that, I don't want to produce a shoddy piece of work so your comments are very welcome. As I understand it, you are advocating the list format as the prefered option so I will work on that. As it seems to have morphed into a list of listed buildings, I think I will probably change the name to 'listed buildings in Christchurch, Dorset'. Any other interesting or historical buildings/landmarks can probably be put in a 'history of Christchurch' article, as I am probably going to have to do the same with the history section of 'Christchurch'.--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome Ykraps. I think it would be easier to make a list article, but I also think it may be possible to have some sort of Landmarks article - as I said before, I do not know the sources out there, but if there are guides that could be used as the selection basis for landmarks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skilly999/Tony Bailie - Author

A biography of local author from Downpatrick Co. Down

Skilly999 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO.

Articles need independent, reliable sources - e.g. newspapers articles about the person. See WP:VRS, WP:GNG and the core policy on verifiability. Chzz ► 19:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Terrile

hello there, just to check that my new page about Alberto Terrile, photographer born in Genoa, Italy, meets all the wikipedia requirements. I have been working on it for a couple months in my sandbox, everything should be more or less in place.

thank you, Claudio Castellini

claudio castellini (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xplanes/GIMIAS

Could you please provide me feedback about this draft article about GIMIAS? I tried to follow the tutorials and added reliable resources. Thanks!

Xplanes (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first part it says, provides an open source framework for efficient development of research and clinical software prototypes integrating contributions from the Physiome community while allowing business-friendly technology transfer and commercial product development

This reads like an advert/spam. It's not neutral.

The 'About' section seems to be based only on primary sources, and is probably not suitable for inclusion - please see WP:NOTGUIDE.

"History" is unreferenced. Any unreferenced information may be removed, by any editor - core policy, WP:V.

Some of it may be copied from other sources; for example, I note that the section on "" has the phrase semiautomatic quantification of the striatal uptake in neurotransmission which is also on a website here. Wikipedia can absolutely not permit copyright violations, so I have removed that section. Please do the same for others, urgently. Chzz ► 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chzz, thank you for your feedback! I checked the alleged copyright violation with Xplanes and it turns out that he is the author of some of those passages and is therefore allowed to publish it under CC-BY-SA, too. For other parts he has the consent of the copyright owners to publish the text under the CC-BY-SA. Do you think that there is a need to prove that to avoid future confusions? --MSteghoefer (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. Chzz ► 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Associate in Project Management

Looking for feedback on this original article.

Hello, I just posted an article on the Project Management Institute's Certified Associated in Project Management (CAPM) Certification Exam. I would like other to review and provide additional material as appropriate.

Jmuraz (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to lack independent reliable sources.

It says, for example, a valuable entry-level certification - according to whom?

See WP:VRS, WP:CORP. Chzz ► 19:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MVFILM/Martha's Vineyard International Film Festival

New page feedback

MVFILM (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs inline references, see WP:CITE.

Also, I suspect that you need to change your username, due to the policies. To request a change of name, see WP:CHU. Chzz ► 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anikamorshead/ADRg Ambassadors

Anikamorshead (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As that is currently a single sentence, with no references, it is rather hard to review. The first thing to do, when writing an article, is to gather references - they are essential. Please read WP:FIRST. Chzz ► 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After finding suitable references like Chzz says, I think you should definitely consider expanding the article. But you need the references. Chevy monte carlo 05:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lantiq

This is a new description of a potentially very important German semiconductor company stating facts about the size and nature of the technology it is involved with, information is published in various media and on the company's own web site and that of its prime investor. I'd welcome any feedback to improve this page.

MrShephard (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs references, see WP:VRS, WP:CORP, WP:YFA. To see how to add them, refer to WP:CITE. Chzz ► 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Peinado

Hi, I wrote an article on french artist Bruno Peinado... it's the first article I do so I'd be happy if you can have a look and tell me what you think about it... Specially, I'd like to know how to remove notices like Orphan article and Unreviewed... THANKS!

Mario canal (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the 'orphan' tag at the top because there isn't enough links, so try and add some if you can. One issue I can see straightaway is the lack of web references. Please add more reliable, third-party references - see WP:CITE. Chevy monte carlo 05:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cfurgis/Office Accelerator

Please let me know what I can add to make this article more relevent.

Cfurgis (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need references to appropriate reliable sources, to show why it is notable. Example references might be newspapers; you'd give the title, date, page, author, publisher, etc.

We need to be able to check the facts; you say "first released in October of 1991" - where can we check that? It has to be verifiable.

See WP:CITE for how to add them.

If there is not 'significant coverage in reliable sources' then it is not notable and might be deleted. Chzz ► 07:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SHalverson/Alsbridge

Please review and offer feedback to ensure this article is unbiased and will not get deleted.

ReaghanFrancis (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs independent reliable sources. The article relies on facts from the org website, and from PR - this is not appropriate. A primary source may be used, with care, but only for basic facts, and only in a neutral way.

Alsbridge uses a repeatable methodologies to allow companies to identify appropriate sourcing solutions, and according to their website[6], Alsbridge will utilize a contract and deals database as well as assign consultants with industry vertical expertise in helping companies through the outsourcing process. - the website should not be used for non-neutral claims; this part, in particular, is advert-like; it is unreferenced, and promotional.

"History" has no references at all.

"Offices" doesn't either, but is too short for a section header anyway. A mention in another section would be fine - with a refererence.

"A portion of Alsbridge’s profits are directed..." etc - this is unreferenced.

Most important though - it needs independent reliable sources. Chzz ► 07:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlin Robinson School

I have added, reviewed and edited this page about HRS. Please review and provide feedback.

66.235.33.22 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has no references.

Any facts that do not have a reference can be removed.

See WP:CITE for how to add them. You must say where facts can be checked - in reliable sources such as newspapers. Anything that cannot be verified should be removed.

We do not allow original research - you cannot just add information which you, personally, know. You need to say where the facts can be checked.

For example - you wrote that The school was founded in 1983. Imagine that, later, another editor changes that to 1993, or 1903, or whatever .We would have no way, currently, to tell which was correct. Chzz ► 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robinouze/Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways

This is my second article, I'm up for any good piece of advice.

Robinouze (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It requires independent reliable sources (e.g. newspaper articles) to show that it is notable. Chzz ► 07:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Chzz, I'll try and figure this out. I thought that giving the ".eu" related websites would be enough. I'm afraid all third-party sources will be linked to European policy and/or European Union as a whole. But I'll find. Thanks for the tip.Robinouze (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been reviewed and all necessary edits are done. Can somebody please publish this article.

Vatelschool (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already in the mainspace. Chevy monte carlo 05:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New unreviewed article/Duane Hopkins

I'm hoping this article is ok to go live soon, i'd appreciate some feedback to let me know how it's looking. Thanks.

91.103.184.145 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already live. I think you should try separating the article out into sections more and add some names to the references, like this:

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

but these are very minor things - I don't think there is much else wrong with the article. Nice job! Chevy monte carlo 05:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]