Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 September 28

< 2010 September 27

2010 September 28

2010 September 29 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

Sean Greenhalgh (producer, musician)

Just looking for someone to approve the article. Good sources both internal and external links, yeah?

Frank

Fs74367 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad little article. I have tidied up the references and the external links. However, this is a biography of a living person and therefore extreme care must be taken to get the facts correct. You cannot say anything in such a biography unless every statement is fully supported with at least one reliable reference per statement using in-line references. The rules for such biographies are much stricter than for articles about towns or aeroplanes for example. Consider consulting sources such as newspapers, magazines and books. If you cannot find enough reliable sources for each statement then I am sorry, but this person would not be notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. Consider also what wikipedia is not. In addition, if you are connected in any way with the subject of this article, you need to carefully read conflict of interest which, if it applies to you, you will need to seek further help to develop the article, providing the subject is indeed notable enough. Be nice to bears! --Senra (Talk) 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your subject is notable enough and if you can find enough reliable sources to make an encyclopaedic article out of it, then consider reviewing other such articles to get ideas of how other editors have done it. Find your your own :), though you can start with Polly Morgan, a simple WP:BLP --Senra (Talk) 19:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved one reference to the end of the sentence which it supports. Another sentence indeed had a reference but that reference did not support the statement as it was simply a link to a college website. Two unsupported sentences therefore removed. Please do replace them providing they are referenced to reliable sources --Senra (Talk) 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of Empires

Hi, would anyone care to review my page about RoE?

Realm of Empires is popular medieval-based, Facebook Platform Social Application. The game allows registered players to forge a virtual empire by militaristic expansion and diplomatic maneuverings. The developers launched Realm of Empires publicly June 13, 2008 which has grown into over 43,000 active users as of September 2010.[1] The business owners classify it in a Beta testing stage... I was careful not to make it an advertisement.. and I am not afraid to hold back in the controversy section.

Juss Sayin' 03:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well written, but you should expand it a bit more.

--losangelos99 (Talk) 17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources under controversy section.

David Bash

would section 2 on Journalism and The International Pop Overthrow Festival read better if I break it into 2 sub-sections? general feedback also appreciated.

Smallhoney (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Architectsea/Bassetti Architects

1. I would appreciate feedback on suitability of this article to avoid it being subject to deletion. The subject is a noteworthy architectural firm - at least as noteworthy as some others with Wiki articles. For tone and basic approach to the information, I have used Olson Kundig Architects and John Graham & Company.

2. The link to Fred Bassetti article is still being composed.

3. Also, for a few of the references for individual awards listed, the only sources I have found have been from the subject firm's website; the source has been noted clearly. Is this acceptable?

Architectsea (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Architectsea/Council of Educational Facilities Planners International

I would appreciate general feedback and comments on anything that appears to be copyrighted material that has been used inappropriately, and/or anything not cited in an acceptable way. Thanks.

166.187.231.223 (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try and add more links to other Wikipedia articles. Also, be careful with the tone and language style of the article (see WP:TONE for more information). Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral in tone and only present the facts, not sound like advertisements. With these kinds of subject matter for articles, it's easy to make them sound Promotional. Chevy monte carlo 14:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you.

No problem :-) Chevy monte carlo - alt 06:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LSTI

Please check changes and additions for final cleanup

Doris Meier (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

You need more links to reliable, third-party references, in addition to the references you already have.
Some parts of the article sound like an advertisement for the organisation. Please try and make some improvements to the article's tone language style so that it is written from a more neutral point of view.
Try and add more links to other Wikipedia articles.

I hope my suggestions are useful. Chevy monte carlo 14:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm VandenBurg

Seeking fedback, this is the third revison - all help gratefully received.

Lexgenn (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph, at least, sounds like an advertisement for this person. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral in tone, so please take a look at that opening section. Also, try and improve the references by giving them more descriptive names, like this:

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

Finally, I don't think you need to list every one of their publications - perhaps just a select few would be better. Chevy monte carlo 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Border-to-Border Trail

This is the first Wikipedia article I have created from scratch, so I would appreciate feedback as to whether I've done things correctly. Eric L Boyd (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senra, thanks for the feedback. As mentioned earlier, I'm new to wikipedia, so I appreciate your patience as I get familiar with the way things are are supposed to be done. I am confused by your most recent feedback and would appreciate some clarification. Specifically you stated concerns that the page was:

Remove In-line External Links: My apologies. I missed earlier feedback. (Got started right away on the references and read right past this part of the feedback.) I've now read through the External Links guidelines and have a question. The guidelines state "Avoid listing an excessive number of external links; Wikipedia is not a link repository." My question: In this case, the information that exists is scattered across many different government websites and no single link covers all the components of the trail. Hence, while I agree that the number of links is large, there is very little duplication between them in information content. Is this sufficient justification to include many external links?

In a word, no. You should write prose in your own words and reference that prose to sources which can contain external links. For example, your previous external link Annarbor.com article announcing completion of temporary Water Street trail would be written similar to On 24 September 2010, part of the border-to-border route in Ypsilanti was opened for access to the public. This temporary route, constructed using crushed-concrete, extends from Michigan Avenue Bridge, over the Huron River to Park Street.[1] Friends of the Border-to-Border trail called it "almost an urban wilderness".[2] where each number in brackets is a link to a reliable reference. If the reference is a website, use the <ref>{{Cite web}}</ref> template. If it is a news article, use <ref>{{Cite news}}</ref> etc. A full list of citation templates and all their paramters (you wont need all) can be found here --Senra (Talk) 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement: This is a public facility being built by a partnership of governments. Other than taxes, there's no business or revenue associated with this facility. Is the fact that $ figures are listed in one column of the table giving you that concern? They were pulled from formal government planning documents laying out capital improvement plans and the planned expenditure of tax dollars. As far as I know, there is no for-profit or non-profit efforts associated with this trail. As far as I know, there are no fund-raising endeavors associated with this trail. It's all governments expending tax money. Does this answer address your concern?

It does thank you. When I read the article that part of the information did seem to me to be listing funds allocated (Source of funds) and funds required (?? and TBD) and thus read like a prospectus --Senra (Talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future event: 17 of 35 miles of the trail already exist and are in widespread use. The complete trail will likely take more than 4 years to complete, based on available government planning documents. So parts of what I wrote are documenting an existing facility. Parts are laying out the current status of the remainder and the current published government plans for completion. Does this answer address your concern?

I think the issue here is that the article relies too much on the reader knowing the area and (until I removed them) expected the reader to click through lots of different external links to find out more. As per example given above, you should read the sources you have and summarise them for your readers. Did you review the Coast to Coast Walk article I directed you to? perhaps that was not a good example. Consider Cambridgeshire Guided Busway as an alternative (or find your own :)). See how those two articles provide the reader with a quick overview of the subject leading into greater detail. Neither have any external links within the article itself and the Cambridge guided Busway is well supported by external reference. Incidentally, if you have not yet realised, please do edit any existing article to see inside how it works. Of course there is no need to save the edit (unless you make a change you intend making) --Senra (Talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connection with Event: I live in the county. I use the trail. I'm a taxpayer. But, it's a jointly planned endeavor being coordinated by government workers and government commissions from 4 townships, 2 cities, 1 village, 1 county, and 1 metro park authority. I'm not a member of any of the commissions and I don't work for any of the governments or metropark authority. Does this answer address your concern?

Fair enough. The lack of prose, the list structure and the funding made it feel as if you were part of the organisation. Sorry for this confusion --Senra (Talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest: I use the trail today. I live near the trail. Other than that I have no connection to the trail and don't work for any of the governments involved. Is there a formal way to document this? Does this answer address your concern?

As per connection with event --Senra (Talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality: One point of view I could see showing through is "rah rah get the trail built". Another point of view I could see showing through is "way too much tax money being spent on this." I was trying to carefully walk the line in between by saying, here's what exists, here's what the various governments plan to build and when, and here's how much tax money it has cost and is estimated will cost. Does this answer address your concern?

again, fair enough, but I hope you can see now why it looked like this to me --Senra (Talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Published Sources: I did not write any of the documents linked to, nor am I associated with any of the governments that produced those documents. Does this answer address your concern?

Self-published does not mean published by you. It means lack of editorial oversight. A good source could be a New York Times article which is dated, may have a by-line, and is subject to very strict editorial control. A self-published source could be a town or village website - for example my own village (externally linked at Little Thetford), which is a very good site and has lots of detail but has zero editorial oversight. Government sources are usually reasonable sources but not as good as sources such a quality journals, books, or newspapers. See WP:RS for more detail --Senra (Talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Sources: Almost all the links are to news paper articles or official government websites. Many of those links are to official government meeting minutes and agendas. The two links that I could see might be of concern both include a link to a community organization that was reporting out on a briefing by government officials that is otherwise not described anywhere. Does this answer address your concern?

See self-published above --Senra (Talk) 19:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Article: Maybe it's useful to lay out my motivation for writing the article for this point and the previous points. (See below.)

My un-encyclopaedic comment here was related to the lack of prose describing the event and I have explained why it appeared dubious above --Senra (Talk) 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation: This is a public, open trail that has existed for many years and continues to grow in length. The trail has been built and is being built by partnership of local governments. However, information about the trail is buried in official government meetings, formal non-motorized plans published by the various governments, and the like. It took me hours of digging into published government non-motorized plans, government meeting agendas, and government minutes to understand the current status of the trail. I thought it would be useful to assemble all the available information into one encyclopedic source to increase knowledge and make the trail's current status easily accessible.

I appreciate your feedback and patience. Thanks very much for your time. Ericlboyd (talk · contribs)

- Judging by your answers, you have the tenacity to pursue this article to a fine conclusion. You do seem to have grasped this project firmly. You also seem willing to learn. I am unable to help gather local information, but am willing (if you wish of course) to help further with the technicalities of wikipedia. Please do read the example articles I have listed. Do edit them (just to see inside) and do stop by my talk page if you want any further assistance. I am sorry you were confused where to answer. I left a {{talkback}} message on your talk page to direct you to here which you did; however I was watching both pages so would have seen your reply wherever you put it (it is always best to try and keep conversations all in one place hence my talkback). Good luck my friend --Senra (Talk) 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Srena thanks for the feedback. I have read through your comments one time. I will read through them again more slowly, study the suggested examples, find other examples, and follow John's advice below. This will probably take me a few days to recast the article. Eric L Boyd (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Regarding the need for a map. I agree this is critically needed. There is no single, readable map of the trail I can find to point folks to. The only readable maps are buried in PDFs and only show small sections of the trail. What is the correct way to build a map that is permissible on Wiki? I know how to build one on Google Maps, but I suspect that is not allowed. Eric L Boyd (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very complex area. Existing maps will be subject to some form of copyright. Creating your own hand-drawn map is one an option; using one of the wikipedia route templates another; searching for copyright free maps is another. Once you have found something which you think is suitable, ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before uploading so you can be sure it is legal --Senra (Talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start. However the article does not cite any references. Please consult reliable sources and add inline references so that other editors know where you got the information from. You will need to remove all the in-line external links. See manual of style, especially the external links section plus more detail here. Furthermore, in parts, the article reads like an advertisement, discusses a planned event rather than a past event and is not encyclopaedic - see especially what wikipedia is not. This article will need a lot of work to be viable. I suspect also that you have some connection with the event in question. Please read WP:COI and if that applies to you, you will need to carefully reconsider your next steps. Good luck my friend --Senra (Talk) 18:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do consider you can re-work this into an encyclopaedic article, I often find it useful myself to look at other similar articles. Consider reviewing this Coast to Coast Walk B-Class article for ideas --Senra (Talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all of the external links from this article and stored them in the talk page for 48 hrs. This article is in danger of being deleted. It is still not encyclopaedic; still documents a future event; still appears to be using self-published or at the very least, dubiously reliable sources --Senra (Talk) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share Senra's concern about this being a future event. We have articles on the Obama administration, NASA's Space Shuttle program, and Rihanna's Last Girl on Earth Tour. Just like the subject of this article, some portion of those projects are completed, some are yet to be realized. It's simply a work in progress, about which I had not heard until I saw a link to the article.

The article itself could be improved, no surprise for an editor's first attempt. What this article is desparately crying out for is a map, perhaps a few of them, showing, at least, the basic reach of the trail. The reader should be able to glance at the map and see that it stretches from Livingston County in the north to Wayne County in the southeast, with at least minimal indications of Dexter, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The fine details about AA bike paths or intra- or inter-park connections can be in other map(s). And I am sorry that I am clueless about uploading images and determining fair-use/copyright allowances, so I can't help. I think U.S. federal government docs can always be used as public domain works, but what about county or municipal government works? No idea.

Some more prose would then be good, following the TOC, describing in some detail what's going on in or between the parks, what the trail does in AA and Ypsi, etc. It could talk about the development/approval process for such a wide multi-agency project, the costs and funding involved, notable trade-offs and political or technical compromises, construction delays, cost overruns, and public response. All of this, of course, is supported by reliable sources, which it seems to me you, Eric, have in abundance. Those sources are then (linked) in the References section, and don't need to be listed separately in an Articles section or under Minutes and Agendas. Then we've got an article about the thing, explaining what it is, where it is, how it got there, when it's supposed to be finished, etc., and it's supported by some refs for those readers curious about such things, and augmented by some small number of links to maps or the central planning authority's Web page for the project. See? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JohnFromPickney thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the suggestions and will attempt to work them into a reworked article. Eric L Boyd (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I'm awfully sorry I can't help you on the map thing though (beyond, you know, telling you to do it). I really am quite ignorant in that area. Good luck with the article though! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a route map to start you off. I hope that helps --Senra (Talk) 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine_Elechi

Please review

Rulerk (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start. Well done. However the article is not yet ready as there are a few issues. The most important issue is your almost exclusive use of one source of information - ebony online website. You need to find other sources such as newspaper articles, books, and magazines. If there are no other reliable sources such as books, newspapers or magazines then I am sorry, but your subject is not suitable for this encyclopaedia. For guidance on which sources can be used, see reliable sources and also consider looking at other good quality wikipedia articles for ideas. For example, consider looking at Jaja Wachuku (although the referencing style used in that article, whilst ok, is not the style used today - see references. You have used one other source, wikipedia itself, which you should avoid doing - see verifying sources. The latter part of the article is one long list without any references. You should find references for each statement in the list but you should really try to avoid lists - see Manual of style. Good luck and do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page if you need further guidance --Senra (Talk) 17:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have not checked that what you have written is in your own words. If you have simply copied the information from another website, book or somewhere else, the article may be deleted. You are not allowed to copy from other people - see COPYVIO. Once again, good luck --Senra (Talk) 17:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zoltancsaki/the-affair

hello, this is my first new article and i was hoping to get some feedback in general but also specifically on whether the book titles are dealt with correctly?

hi Chevymontecarlo - i made those changes you suggested, thanks for the fast reply. also moved things around to make it flow better. if you could have another look at it that would be much appreciated. Zoltancsaki (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltancsaki (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the Cite book template to cite your books properly. It allows you to add some extra information about the book as well as just the title and author. You've done a very nice job with the references, but I think you need something like an infobox as well, just to summarise the key points about the subject. Also, try and add a few more links to other Wikipedia articles as well if you can, but other than that, and perhaps some expansion I think the article is ready to be moved - you can contact me if you need any help with that. Thanks. Chevy monte carlo 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICAT_Software

I have made a changes to the article to make it more neutral. Thanks to Chevymontecarlo for his comments. Could someone look at it again and give me more feedback. Hope you will provide good feedback to improve the article. I haven't removed the advert tag or the ref tag. I want someone to review it and let me know if I could remove it or still requires additional work to make it more neutral. Mikejohnson22 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Snubber

Please review and provide feedback on my new article. I would greatly appreciate it!

SylvIba (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egnyte

I have linked this article from other pages and have a variety of external sources. However, the page still needs to be reviewed by another person. Please review and make any necessary edits. Thank you!

EmilyEgnyte (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAIR MORTGAGE COLLABORATIVE User:JackieVendetti/Fair_Mortgage_Collaborative

Hello,

I would love some feedback on my page.

And I would love to make it live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JackieVendetti/Fair_Mortgage_Collaborative#External_links

Thanks so much!!!!!

JackieVendetti (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has real potential, but still needs some work. The NYT reference is a solid reference, but one reference is rarely enough. I note that some of the items in the external links section are quite good references. Technically, external links are useful for the reader, but are not "counted" when assessing the article.

The meat of the article is extremely thin, noting not much more than the existence of the entity, and an extremely brief description of purpose.

It isn't even clear what the entity is - a non-profit organization? A lobbying group? An industry resource? A think tank? More importantly, what do they plan to do. Yes, combat abusive practices but how? Bring lawsuits? Write white papers? Write press releases?

It would be quite helpful if you could flesh this out a bit.

Then check out Referencing for beginners, to see how to incorporate your citations into the article.--SPhilbrick T 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse Security

This is the first article I've ever written, and I'm looking for some feedback. What needs to be be improved? Should anything be added or removed from the article? Does it mean the requirements of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:MOS? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gordyslack/Paul K. Wright

This is my first article. I believe I have followed Wiki's instructions and advice carefully but would appreciate someone taking a look. The subject of the article, Paul Wright, is top engineer and member of the National Academy of Engineering, the nation's top engineering honor.

Gordyslack (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the header to link directly to your draft article. Ka renjc 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is here

Please check out Referencing for beginners for help with references.

You have a number of references, which is good, but not all of them count toward Notability, which is an important hurdle to pass. The Bio links are fine for certain non-controversial info, but do not help with notability. The last three appear to show he is a member of various societies, but as not all members are automatically notable, the evidence of notability must come elsewhere. Co-authoring a book helps, but your link is bad - it probably isn't hard to find, but I didn't find it. He appears to be a co-author of another book, but merely being an author of a book isn't enough, you need to show that the author is notable, which would be helped if there is evidence that the books are highly regarded. The award helps, but there is no context identifying whether this is a prestigious award or not. My main concern is that there are zero references in reliable sources showing discussion of his work. With 200 articles published, surely there must be some discussion of his work in something.--SPhilbrick T 22:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Dunbar Need help cleaning up to fit Wiki standards

I was wondering if there is anything else I need to do to get this article officially approved.

129.120.194.65 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no sources at all apart from Janet Dunbar's own self-published ones and the Stanford page, so there is little evidence that she is notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article. You need to add citations to coverage of her or her work in reliable, independent sources, such as books, journals and news media. The criteria for the notability of creative professionals are here. Ka renjc 19:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Cartoonists User:Cartoon_admirer

Please review

IIC.member (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Indian_Institute_of_Cartoonists, but is has been identified as a copyright violation. If it isn't a copyright violation, follow the instructions to resolve it - is the instructions aren't clear, ask for advice. If you did copy from the site listed, we don't allow that. (I wrote this before realizing that the copy violation observation is noted below, but I'll leave this in case you want to ask questions.)--SPhilbrick T 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian_Institute_of_Cartoonists

Please review

IIC.member (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has been tagged as a copyright violation. Ka renjc 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elrodhtz/Stearns_Collection_of_Musical_Instruments

This link is the first draft by a first-time user. The article is about the Stearns Collection of Musical Instruments.

Elrodhtz (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonably good start. You need to remove your signature and byline from the page before moving it into the mainspace - a Wikipedia article does not contain credits for any editor who contributes to it, and don't forget that once it's in the mainspace others can and will do so: you have merely started the article. The duplicate title at the beginning of the article also needs removing, as the page title is generated automatically. Your inline citations mainly reference the Stearns Collection's own publications or website. Such citations are acceptable to verify uncontroversial facts, but cannot be used to support assertions of the Collection's notability, which are essential if the article is to be acceptable, and for which you need citations of coverage in reliable independent media. Fortunately you have a couple of such sources already available and I think they can be used more effectively to support the subject's notability. I would encourage you to find more, particularly articles that mention the Collection's importance. The New York Times article, for instance, does state why the collection is considered important, so could be cited to support a statement to that effect.

I would like to see the draft expanded a little, with a few lines about the Collection's development and history, cited to the useful Michigan Daily article, which should be used as a citation source rather than languishing in the "External links". I found an online copy of the New York Times article you cite, and I have taken the liberty of adding a link to it in your draft, to make that reference easier to access and check. Click on the article's edit history tab, then on the date of my edit, to see how I did it.

I note that you declare a personal interest in the subject. You're probably aware that Wikipedia discourages people from creating articles about subjects in which they have a potential conflict of interest, because of the difficulty of maintaining the neutral tone required. However, in my opinion you've managed this successfully, and provided the article remains wholly neutral and factual, with solid citations to support the claims it makes, there should be no problem making it live once the above issues are addressed. Since you are connected with the collection, could you also provide an image to illustrate the article and improve it further? It would need to be uploaded under a suitable licence, so existing copyrighted works are unlikely to be suitable. A new image taken by the uploader, who is prepared to release it for free redistribution and reuse, is often the simplest solution. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for further info, or ask here and we'll help. Ka renjc 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Driving_Day_-_January_30,_2011

'No Driving Day is the first ever initiative in India. Considering cynical mindset of people here, do you think it can succeed?

Geetanjalirai (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't supply any reliable sources for the Indian initiative, apart from a website that came up with the idea. Without evidence of coverage of the event in multiple credible independent sources (i.e. news articles or features about it) the article will probably be tagged for deletion, I'm afraid. Ka renjc 18:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dayquist88/Festival Foods Minnesota

This is my first page. Just wanted to know if there is anything noticeably wrong with it? thanks

Dayquist88 (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and social networking sites are not reliable sources to establish the company is notable enough to have an encyclopaedia article written about it, and neither is its own website. You need to provide links to independent coverage of the company (news, features, articles) that establish what makes it a notable company. Ka renjc 18:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patch101/Men_as_Trees

Just looking for general feedback about the newly created page.

Patch101 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]