Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 10
why does my article PATRI SATISH KUMAR chosen for deletion
Sangeetharasika (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- As the tag itself says, it's not clear from your article if the subject meets Notability requirements. You can read: WP:Notability (people) for more info on this policy. Your two The Hindu references make some passing mention of him, and the WN link is a YouTube clip (not a reliable source). The main problem you have is that your "footnotes" are actually footnoting anything, they're just clumped at the end of the article. Footnotes should be attached after the sentence that they explictly evidence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read the numerous requests and warnings on your talk page before posting here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't find the invalid ref tag Thanks!!
Snowmanpeachy (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Done Greetings, you had an empty <ref></ref> tag at the very top of the article; maybe you hit the "footnote" button accidentally? So that set off the error since you had ref tags with no content. I reviewed the article, did some formatting fixes (don't bold text other than the first use of the title term), added bulleting to the list of publications, etc. I added a few maintenance tags at the top, so please check those out and fix those; nothing too complicated. Oh, and minor thing, people are generally referred to by last name throughout the article, so not "In 1986, Warren wrote..." but "In 1986, Phillips wrote...". MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note also that you didn't fill out the form right for the image you added, so it will be deleted on the 17th unless you add proper sourcing and copyright data to the form. Click on the picture itself to go to its data page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can the picture be restored? Also, I don't see any of the problems that indicate an issues tag should be applied. Perhaps you could help me with this? Snowmanpeachy (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- In 1986, Warren wrote is no longer there. Snowmanpeachy (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note also that you didn't fill out the form right for the image you added, so it will be deleted on the 17th unless you add proper sourcing and copyright data to the form. Click on the picture itself to go to its data page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Need feedback for this article. I write about PLU-N a new phenomenon in Vietnamese gay community. The site is getting popular amongst gay users as an alternative for Facebook. LGBT issue is slowly recognized in Viet Nam.
Jimlin15 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made some improvements to the format. It should be ready now to go live. If there is anything more please can someone assist me a bit.
Thank you
Pierre erasmussa (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Couple things: you still do not have an introduction (see WP:Lede). Please insert an intro which clearly explains the who/what/where/when/why of the term itself, not just a bunch of business-speak jargon. The article overall is a bit jargony, but not so bad as to prevent publishing at the moment. Note also in your previous RfF I gave you some links to GoogleBooks hits on the term. You really want to include those, since neologism articles are frequently deleted if the main person using the neologism is the person who created it. Using more external sources to prove that the term is more widely used/discussed will greatly strengthen your case. Also: footnotes go after punctuation (you got it right on all but a few of those), but there is no space between the punctuation and the following footnote, and no spaces between footnotes. Minor thing, but it makes your article look more professional to adhere to WP standards. You're close, but the Lede is positively necessary, the footnote formatting will look nicer, and adding a few more footnotes to others' works will help stave off any deletion proposals. Note that you can use http://reftag.appspot.com to turn your GoogleBooks hits into clean footnotes automatically. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks once again for your help. I have definitely learned a lot through this process! I have added existing categories to the page. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do and how I republish if you think it is ready to go? And also the best way to maintain the page so I keep it relevant and worthy of being submitted into wikipedia. Many thanks, Maggie
Hi, Thanks so much for all of your help. Much appreciated. I hope I've made all the changes you suggested correctly. Any more help would be greatly received. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maggieroserogers/Fred_%26_Eric
Help to publish the page User:Maggieroserogers/Fred_&_Eric I have updated the external links and references.
HI, I have now updated the relevant links to feature the articles referenced. any other help or advice appreciated. Thank you.
Maggieroserogers (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, not ready to go live yet, as does not yet demonstrate Notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Your footnotes are to a primary source (subject's website) and to the homepage of a magazine; the latter just demonstrates that "Design Week" exists, it doesn't do anything to demonstrate that design week covered them. Please read the Notability link above, and hunt around to find more proof that neutral, third party sources have discussed your subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Few things that need doing: your only proper footnotes at #2 and #4, but that's good enough (barely) for WP:Notability. The FormFitty blog I don't think meets WP:RS, but it could be good to put in a "Further reading" section. Remove footnote #1, as a link to a blog does not evidence anything, and the blog link is down in the EL section anyway. Further, footnotes #4 and #5 need to merge together, and take the "you can read it here" comment and move that down to the footnote too; the main body of the article is not the place do discuss linking issues. So that'll leave you with two footnotes, one for Design Week (with a little caveat in the footnote saying "also posted at...", and the other for Campaign Live. The other thing you need to do is spell out your footnotes fully: "Design Week Magazine" is not a citation, something like "New Pencils Delight Market. Pencil Weekly, 14 April 2010" is a citation. Once you get those things done, you need categories (WP:Categories). After that you should be ready to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Everything looks good except your Category. Note it appears in red, meaning "non-existent category". You have to look at currently-existing categories rather than simply add keywords; this is different from "meta-data tagging". Take a look at WP:Categories if you want to see the full explanation. I suggest your find a similar business, see what categories they used, and then copy and modify those onto your article to fit your circumstances. Let me know if you need any help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're about ready to publish, which is done by hitting the "Move" button in the drop-down menu between the search box and the star icon. If you don't have Move permissions, let me know and I'll do it for you. The one thing you do want to fix is how you've written your citations: right now your footnotes tell the publisher and date (good), but don't have the actual title of the article, like Creative start-up Fred & Eric lands Comic Relief task for footnote #1. Go ahead and move (or ask me to), and add the article titles to your footnotes, and you're set. IRT keeping the article up-to-date, I suggest that every so often you run a Google search for third-party coverage of the company (news articles, etc. like you have now), and add footnoted, third-party content as it comes up. Nice work, and I hope you'll find other interesting things to write about on Wikipedia. If you're short on ideas, you can always check out WP:Requested articles and see if any of those jump out at you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks once again for your help. I have amended the footnotes now. I'm not sure if I have move permissions, so if you wouldn't mind it would be great if you could do it for me please. Thanks again and yes, I hope this will be the first of many contributions! Maggie
This is an entry on one of my favorite Southern California native photographers. Douglas McCulloh's body of work is quite diverse, he shows work worldwide, and is partially responsible for the world's largest (seemless) phototgraph. I appreciate any feedback on my entry. Thanks in advance.
Swoverland (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia entry for the online browser based football management game, similar to Hattrick, which already has an entry here [[1]].
Iagaddict4400 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Just checking to make sure everything is fine with the article, form-wise.
Nabaati (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done Few minor wiki-fixes. Click your History tab on the article and use the engine to note the differences between your drafts and mine for your future reference. Nice work overall. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- My first article. It's fairly short, but will hopefully grow. Comments welcome!
Pittpanthersfan (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to add a short article for this group in the Los Angeles area that has begun to gain notoriety through different media outlets across the country. I believe my resources are reliable, but this is my first attempt ever at writing a Wikipedia article, and I have no idea what I'm doing. o_____o Help?
Shatteredeuphoria (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, you present some interesting notability angles, as much of the notability appears to come from TV and radio spots you've linked to. A couple things, seeing "YouTube" in a footnote is an automatic alarm-bell, but in your case since it's an NBC clip that actually might be okay. The first thing you want to do is to clarify your references so that they actually indicate what they are. If I just see "YouTube" I'm thinking you're linking to some college-kids self-made vid, but if instead you type:<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/exampleclip123 New Filmakers Teach Art] - San Diegon NBC affiliate, 24 March 2010. On YouTube.com</ref> that would greatly improve the perceived notability of your source, plus if that YouTube clip gets deleted, the footnote itself still makes it clear who/when the subject was covered. Try doing that for each of your footnote links, and that's a step in the right direction. Also, don't forget to add wikilkinks to your article. You might want to run this article by WP:WikiProject Film's Discussion page to get some input too, but once the footnotes are fixed I think you may be ready to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you MatthewVanitas. I've adjusted my footnote links and added wikilinks to the article. I'm going to be doing a little more research as I go along. I'm feeling good about my start. --Shatteredeuphoria (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am a developer and this is the first time I have edited an article here on Wikipedia. The article in question was poorly written, very specific in some cases and too general in others. So I rewrote the entire article and provided valid references from Microsoft Research publications, IEEE, and ACM. I wanted someone to read this and see if anyone could give me some constructive criticism or some feedback on how I did. It would be much appreciated! Thanks
Gc47-NJITWILL (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done Looks decent overall, though note that I made a bunch of little formatting changes to bring it into line with WP standards. Hit the page's History tab to see what I changed between drafts, for your future reference. The article looks pretty good, only concern is that some bits are more conversational than encyclopdic: "Although this is a more in-depth view, it doesn’t necessarily go into the implementation, code examples or the full-on technical details of the CLR runtime. For this, it is highly recommended to read Microsoft’s paper on CLR listed in the references below. This page is, instead, meant to give a more developer-oriented perspective of CLR." Try glancing around at a few similar WP articles to get a feel for "encyclopedic tone". I would recommend, for technical perspective, that you bring up your article at the Discussion tab of WP:WikiProject Computer Science to get critique from the technical side. Nice work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I got info from wikipedia about the individual people in my article, and then I wrote an articla about the discoveries relations and such. Now all I need are some people to edit my work. Keep in mind this is my first time publishing and I have no idea if I'm doing it right or anything..... So I need lots of help!
Baasascience (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay... the initial problem you have is that another editor has submitted that your article doesn't really add anything not covered in History of molecular biology, so that's a whole separate technical issue I won't even get into. That aside, and I mean nothing personally by this, you really need to read up on basic Wikipedia format. There's a link on your Talk page to the "writing your first article" guideline, which I strongly suggest your read. Your article as written had disruptive auto-spacing (don't indent, especially by putting spaces at the front of a paragraph, it sets off a code which puts all your text in a box). You also tried to add images by linking to external websites, which doesn't work. Next, your footnotes weren't "footnotes" (in that they weren't put at the end of a sentence to provide evidence proving that sentence), and your References were links to other Wikipedia articles. You can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, as that's circular. It's fine to link to specific terms, or have a "See also" at the end, but the point of footnotes/references is to prove that given statements are verifiable (see: Wikipedia:Verifiability) in published sources. So the enthusiasm is good, and your writing is fine, but you need to learn at least the very basics of Wikipedia formatting. Here's what I suggest we do:
- I'm moving your current article to this page in your Userspace (draft area). I'll leave you a link for it on your Talk page so you can always find it. That will keep it from getting deleted while you learn the ropes.
- You can go and read up on the basic Wikipedia formatting, or try using the Wikipedia:Article_wizard to walk you through the basics.
- I suggest that for your next shot at an article, you aim at a smaller, tighter topic (less danger of overlap). I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Requested_articles and pick out something of interest to you, and use the Article Wizard to start a draft on your Userspace. Pick a topic where you can find references on GoogleBooks so you can foonote it (and you can use http://reftag.appspot.com to auto-generate gBooks footnotes). Aim for a short article, just a paragraph or two, and then come back here to check in. Once you get a few easy ones under your belt, you can get back to bigger topics.
- If you try that, I think you'll find it makes your path a lot easier. Feel free to write me personally if you need help and aren't finding it that day. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- You start off on the wrong foot with an unencyclopedic title (who on earth is Morgan Williams? He is not mentioned in the article.). The article reads too much like a school essay. It is definitely a duplication of material in other articles (we call such a "fork"). I suggest you abandon it and concentrate on improving existing articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)