Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 5

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

British Utonagan - Wolfalike with no wolf content

Hi how does my contribution recveive feedback to become live?

Lanieniven (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is already in the mainspace, and has been moved to British Utonagan per Wikipedia's naming conventions. It has already been tagged by other users for two issues. Firstly, it has no inline citations at all, so there is no direct confirmation of any of the claims and statements made in the article. You do supply some websites as general references, but these really belong in the "External links" section. The other tag is for notability. Wikipedia's general notability guideline explains the criteria under which a subject is judged notable enough to merit an encyclopaedia article about it. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (magazines, journals, books, newspapers, non-self-published websites, documentaries etc), the British Utonagan dog breed doesn't meet these criteria and the article risks being nominated for deletion. I would add a third issue - the tone of the article is unencyclopaedic in places, and does not conform to Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view. For example, the line "Sadly although a wonderful concept some of these early breeders of the original dogs "the Utonagan" left little room to establish a healthy and diverse breed for the amount of popularity these beautiful dogs gained ..." contains personal opinion (and lacks any citations to back up the assertions being made). My instinct is that you probably can demonstrate notability for this subject, but you need to find and insert the references and make the tone more encyclopaedic. Karenjc 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Smurfit Art Collection

Diarmaid83 (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've formatted it a bit; please see here and read WP:CITE.

However, I'm not sure if it meets the notability requirements; it needs additional independent reliable sources, see WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:V.  Chzz  ►  02:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Orion1231/Ernest Herbert Warrell

This is my first contribution. I am still carrying out research, but would appreciate feedback on how I am doing.

There is obviously much to learn.

Thanks

Orion1231 (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice first draft, and I appreciate the amount of work and learning you've had to do. However, there are a few things that perhaps need to be looked at:

• Consider adding an infobox.
• You need to add references, preferably using footnotes to display them if you can.
• Perhaps you need to break the article up into sections - it makes the article easier to read.

I hope my suggestions are helpful; contact me if you have any questions. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chevy. I like the Infobox, it removes the detail from the text as a useful summary. I agree about the sections. I have just put the text together so far, but I am still researching. The National Archives have his name in some closed SOE papers, so that may give something of interest if I can get access to them. Thanks for your interest. I will let you know when I have made a major change to text.

Orion 1231

Nice job! Feel free to contact me when you've made some improvements. Chevymontecarlo 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty#Depictions

As seen Talk page, two editors who extensively collaborated on a major re-write of and who appear to be self-elected monitors of the Statue of Liberty article including a Depiction section, suggest that the sentence below (inclusive of appropriate refs) does not warrant inclusion in the paragragh about local uses of statue imagery. This editor contends that the history of a logo mentioned, originally used by the CNJ Railroad (whose landmark terminal on the waterfront was a significant part of the history of the era of immigration), and now used as symbol of the current user of its former mainline, is at least, if not more significant than other items mentioned AND that the inclusion of the additional information in no way diminishes, but rather adds diversity to a paragragh currently focused on license plates and sports uniforms.

Starting in 1965, the Central Railroad of New Jersey, its main terminal at the waterfront opposite the statue pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo and is the symbol of its former mainline, now New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line.

Djflem (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I should note that this is a featured article, which maintains the highest standards. Not only is the proposed insertion considerably less notable than the New York Rangers, the sentence he deprecates in the article, but he's engaged in considerable synthesis, attempting to use primary materials such as maps and timetables to support his point (is it a symbol of the Raritan Valley Line? Difficult to say, but you can't derive it from the use of the statue's image ...) We've suggested that the information may fit well in the article Statue of Liberty in popular culture, but been blown off, he wants it in the main article. As for his immigration point, that might be a good reason to put it in the Ellis Island article (the terminal is close to Ellis Island, Liberty Island is some distance in the opposite direction). As for the ownership allegations, that's a bit of a giggle, DCGeist and I have had some considerable disagreements, read the talk page and the FAC page. We do agree on this issue, and on maintaining the very highest quality sourcing in the article, which this would lower. And there's the question of editorial judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To disptach the red herrings and moot points: There has been no accusation of ownership made, thus no defense is required. All information in entire paragragh {license plates, logos, etc.) is already in the popular culture article. Appropriate mention of the CRNJJ is already made in Ellis Island article. (Liberty Island is in the same direction, btw, which is irrelevant) There has been no suggestion made that any information be removed.

Since we are writing a depiction section where the subject is the use of the statue in imagery, sources which clearly show the image/subject being discussed are extremely appropriate. (The inability to read the clear references lies with the reader in this case). The editors have created a non-Wikipedia criteria called mainstream media attention as the benchmark for inclusion in the article. Notability is not a popularity contest. Presenting license plates (and only one of the two produced, since one has also been cut based on the above non-criteria) and sports logos in the one short paragragh dealing with local use of imagery is skewed. Restoration of the sentence above and other license plate in no way diminishes article quality but actually gives a broader view than the one currently presented.Djflem (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a way of detecting notability—appearances in reliable sources. If your very important issues are nowhere mentioned in reliable sources, then perhaps the material is not as notable as you would like to contend.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All of above sources are reliable sources. If not so, specify. Article notabilty criteria standards are not under discussion here, as there is no suggestion that any of the license plates or logos becoming the subject of an article, but simply what they are: items on a list in one paragragh illustrating the impact of the statue on local symbols.Djflem (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is unquestionably a matter of editorial judgment. There are over a hundred similar items in Statue of Liberty in popular culture that any individual editor could similarly get excited about, verifiably source, and claim must, just absolutely must, be included in the main article. Guess what, friend. They mustn't. How can all that trivia not be included in the overview article? For the same reason your specialty car license plate and commuter rail line trivia aren't—editorial judgment. As we say in NYC and the better parts of NJ, fuggedaboudit.—DCGeist (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Having determined that "mass media attention" is a non-criteria, and that quantity and popularity are not characteristics of noteworthiness, we are left we the opinion of two editors that the 2nd of two paragraghs shown below is better than the first. Why they would chose to remove 35 words and three examples (two current and one historical) supporting the premise of the paragragh introduced in its first sentence is grounded in some some judgement on their part (called editorial, but pure POV). The depictions which could come under the category of regional uses of statue imagery are extremely limited. The length of sentences is inconsequential. The arbiitrarily removal of material which actually offers a broader and more complete view is founded in a personal persepective (being called editorial judgement, which would be poor if it was).

Depictions of the statue have been used by many regional institutions, as well. Between 1986 and 2000, New York State issued license plates featuring the statue. New Jersey issues a special Liberty State Park plate which highlights the statue. The Women's National Basketball Association's New York Liberty use both the statue's name and its image in their logo, in which the torch's flame doubles as a basketball. The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. The National Collegiate Athletic Association's 1996 Men's Basketball Final Four, played at New Jersey's Meadowlands Sports Complex, featured the statue in its logo. After 1965 the Central Railroad of New Jersey pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo A reminiscent image now is the symbol of New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line.

Depictions of the statue have been used by many regional institutions, as well. Between 1986 and 2000, New York State issued license plates featuring the statue. The Women's National Basketball Association's New York Liberty use both the statue's name and its image in their logo, in which the torch's flame doubles as a basketball. The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. The National Collegiate Athletic Association's 1996 Men's Basketball Final Four, played at New Jersey's Meadowlands Sports Complex, featured the statue in its logo.

Djflem (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discount the editorial judgment of those who have taken an article to FA, which you have not.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, please explain the editorial concern. The referenced statements are clear and concise, and add breadth (with minimal length) to the paragragh. Otherwise this unfortunatley appears like a promo of a POV and sorry to say, a popularity contest with two self-chosen jurors. (A privilege not awarded with FA contributions.) Why is the 2nd paragragh better than the the first?Djflem (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

user:Hanumantd/Enthuware Test Studio

Wondering if this article is ok to be moved to main space.

Hanumantd (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• You need to find additional reliable references for the article. See WP:VRS and WP:CITE.

• Try and add more links to other Wikipedia articles. Chevymontecarlo 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on new article HomeAway

I would like to get feedback on the content of this new article and suggestions on additional information that would be important to include.

Jennstaff (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

representing 540,000+ paid vacation rental listings across 120 countries - this is a non-neutral claim, referenced to the company website, and that is invalid; see WP:PRIMARY.

Same for initially acquired several sites... etc - ref 4.

Same with acquisitions; I'm not convinced that table should even be in the article; does it really help with our understanding of the topic? If it is to remain, it needs independent sources, not just from the org. (Same for press-releases)

"Key people" - are those people 'public figures', ie have they been in the press a fair bit? If not, please remove their names. See WP:NPF.

Ref. 16 Some Startups Still Lure Investors does not work (at the time of writing this) - I'm getting a 404 error.

The link to LEED is a disambiguation page - please link to the correct, specific article.

Please don't use abbreviations, e.g. Feb. 7

 Chzz  ►  05:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Copper peptide GHK-Cu

Hello, I moved my article to the mainspace a few weeks ago. I would appreciate if someone with a chemistry/molecular biology background could review it. The material is more related to cell/molecular biology than it is to chemistry. Thank you.

Amargolina (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone added a template containing links to two relevant Wikiprojects. If you visit either or both of those wikiprojects, you will probably find a list of participants. I suggest posting a note on the talk page of one or more of the participants, and ask if they would be willing to review your article, or could recommend someone who could. As you are new to Wikipedia, how to follow this suggestion may not be perfectly obvious to you - if it isn't clear, just ask, and I'll do it for you.--SPhilbrickT 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

International Myeloma Foundation

On my article about the non-profit International Myeloma Foundation I have sourced every statement possible with an assortment of reliable media -- well-respected medical journals, national pubic radio, major newspapers and reputable online publications. References to the organization's web site are limited to two: for membership numbers (as reported in the organization's official Annual Report as required by the IRS) and to illustrate an example of a program myeloma sufferers use to track treatment and medication. I would appreciate feedback about improving this article. Maberyroad (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Very nice start. Perhaps a couple more categories would be helpful, and if there's an image available (even a lo-res logo under WP:LOGO) that would improve it. But overall: good refs, neutral tone, solid outline of the subject to build on. Karenjc 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Crispinslee/Enter your new article name here

I have created a new entry which also needs to appear on a disambiguation page as it its name - T6 - is common with other unrelated products. I would be grateful for your feedback please.

Crispinslee (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:CITE, other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a reference. Please remove the Wikipedia reference. However, you can move the link to a 'see also' section or something similar; that is allowed. Also, try and add more links if you can. Chevymontecarlo - alt 05:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks cmc. I have removed Wikipedia reference and added further links to the article. Many thanks for your help. crispin

User:Wessers

Is this article ready to be published? I have sourced everything to the best of my ability. Nothing is copied and pasted, just referenced. Let me know how long it takes for this article to become live. What is the next step?

Wessers (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the article has already been moved into the main space. Try and add more links to other Wikipedia articles, like this:

[[Apple]]

which creates a link to the Apple article. I hope you understand. Also, consider writing a better opening paragraph, just to summarise the article's subject. Chevymontecarlo - alt 05:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks cmc

Bill Meredith

I would like my first-ever article to be reviewed. And I'm very happy to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you

Fusion is the future (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! One suggestion I have is to probably try and add some sections, but other than that I think it's about ready. Chevymontecarlo - alt 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll try to do even better with my next article. You made my day. Fusion is the future (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JaredDean14/new article name here

How do you think the draft looks so far? If it is okay, I would like to add images to my draft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JaredDean14/new_article_name_here

JaredDean14 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add inline references, to show which fact come from which course. See WP:CITE.  Chzz  ►  02:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Marissagordon/New Yorkers for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

Please help me make sure this is a good article. Thanks a lot! And please help me put in links to things such as the Unabomber.

Marissagordon (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has absolutely no sources at the moment, apart from references to the organization's own website and to the Death Penalty info site, which doesn't seem to mention NYADP. There is therefore no indication as to why NYADP is notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article, and if it were to go live into the mainspace it would probably be tagged for deletion. Look at the general notability guideline and the notability criteria for organizations. The article must show how NYADP complies with one or the other, in order for it to be suitable for Wikipedia. Good sources are substantial news or feature coverage of the organization in books, magazines, newspapers or other independent media. See Wikipedia:Citing sources to determine how your sources can be used in inline citations to support the statements made in the article. The article also lacks Wikilinks to other articles. To link to an article, place square brackets around the title: [[Ted Kaczynski]] makes a Wikilink to Ted Kaczynski. See also Wikipedia:Linking. Karenjc 16:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Keyzz/Ed Cash

Hello!

I just wanted to get some feedback to make sure this page is good to go before I were to try and submit it live. I have a picture I would like to add, and sent to it to Ed Cash himself for approval. He released permission to the "Permission's E-mail address" and agreed for free use. Will you guys go ahead and add that to the page? Not sure how to go about that.

Thank you for your help! Also, if you feel as if this is ready to go, will you all post it live for me? I appreciate everything!!

Keyzz (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Like all articles, it needs references to reliable sources. How can we check it is true?

Ed Cash, born as Edmond Martin Cash, is an award-winning producer, songwriter, engineer, and multi-instrumentalist. Named the “Producer of the Year” at the Gospel Music Awards for four consecutive years (2004-2007), Ed Cash is best known for his production and writing with Christian Singer, Chris Tomlin. In addition to several Grammy Nominations and countless BMI Citations of Achievement, Cash has produced or written with artists such as ... etc.

 Chzz  ►  02:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)