Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 23
what else can i add to prevent deletion?. I have added all the links to this subject that i can find, what else do i need to keep this article alive??? please help!
Izzyfureal (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, the key issue you have right now is "Notability"; that is, the benchmark set out at WP:Notability which basically says: "for a subject to be covered on Wikipedia, it has to already have been covered in reputable academic or journalistic sources." I strongly recommend you look over the basics of this policy.
- In the short term, I've saved your article by moving it to your userspace as a draft, here: User:Izzyfureal/Rotoki kite. You have several things you'll want to do to improve the article, but the key one is to provide footnotes to reputable sources. Go to books.google.com, look up "rotoki kite", and you'll see it's been mentioned in several books and magazines you can use to prove Notability. Find a passage that backs up a claim you make in the article, copy the website address from GoogleBooks, and plug it into http://reftag.appspot.com to auto-generate a footnote, and plug that footnote wherever in your article it can prove a statement true. Do that first with at least 2-3 of the GoogleBooks hits, then check back in at this same discussion and I can help you fix it the rest of the way. This should be easy to get published in just a few steps, you just have to do a small bit of reading on format and guideline, but the "notability" hit your article was to be deleted for can be easily overcome. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this article ready to be moved to mainspace?
Ironimp (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have a couple things to fix: first, in your footnotes with URL links, you don't specify where on http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ the phrase "Hunstanton and Wolferton feature some of the best examples". If it's a footnote, presumably it's telling us "this claim is proven by this link", but your link just goes to the main page. Can you link us to the specific section/article, and in the citation give us it's author/title/date along with the website? Secondly, you're using sub-sub-sections before even using sections; sections should "nest", that is, there should be a ==Section title==, and if more detail is needed a ===Sub-section title===, but right now you just jump to ====Section==== right out. I've fixed your first section by reducing it to just two "=" signs; do you track what I'm getting at? It's far simpler than my explaining it makes it sound. Third, your article lacks categories; please look at catgories for similar types of stone and note which categories they use, so you can modify and apply those to your article. Once you get those done, check back in here, and we'll put on the finishing touches. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please could you put this article on line now?
Thank you.
Vleit (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i'm requesting some help on finishing this article about the browser based soccer management game, similar to Hattrick which already has an entry here [[1]]. I hope someone can help me get this entry together, thanks for your help, and time.
Iagaddict4400 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on this article - been writing, finding sources, checking out details, etc for the past four hours. Was surprised he didn't already have a Wikipedia article, so I decided to make one.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance!
Airbuds908 (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, you need to add categories, first off. Second, your footnotes aren't full citations; you'll want to format them as author/title (with link hyperlinked)/publication/date/access-date. Right now, "interview" is a pretty vague description, why not put the full title of the article? As a last point, coverage of New Media figures can be a bit hard to document since most of their fame is on non-traditional and rapidly-moving info sources, but if you can add at least one or two other articles covering him from reputable/traditional news (like you did with NYT and Pak Spectator), that would help firm up the verifiability of the article. Pretty solid work overall though, and the PakSpec and NYT articles really help make your case for meeting WP:Notability (people). MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Does my article have enough references to be moved to the mainspace? Thanks for your assistance.
Jakeyboy1989 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned about the whether Anita Parkhurst Willcox does meet the notability criteria -- upfront, Anita Parkhurst Willcox is my grandmother. I edited her memoires (One Woman) following extensive research in her papers (archived at the Schlessinger Library at Radcliffe) and other sources. My own belief is that she is a "forgotten" artist, rather than an "un-notable" one: she was considered one of the leading graphic artists in the 1920s; her political committments (as a pacifist and "progressive") meant her work was censored during the McCarthy period (I would argue this is an important story on our country's freedom of speech, as well); and her experiences and understanding - of the first world war, of women's work in industrial societies, and on pacificism (which was a leading committment for Anita), and her artwork on these issues, are equally significant and unique.
I would be very appreciative of any thoughts you may have about this; does the article make the case for her significance adequately?
Of course, another approach would be to ask another person to write this article for Wikipedia. However, as I have access to her artwork (which to me is a critical part of the article), and am the most familiar with her story, it seemed logical for me to attempt it.
Thanks, look forward to responses --
Judy Seidman (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, very interesting article, but we do have some ironing out to do. Accordingly, I've moved your draft to User:Judy Seidman/Anita Parkhurst Willcox so that it can be fully smoothed out before publishing to the main articlespace. I've tagged the top with a list of items to address, and we can remove those tags as we check the maintenance tasks off.
- First, several of your category links don't work because those aren't the actual names of the categories. For example, Category:Women in First World War is not a category, but Category:Women in World War I is. You need to figure out what the actual names of the cats are.
- Second, you don't have any footnotes (see WP:Footnotes), so it's impossible to tell what statements are verified by which sources of information. Ideally, someone wanting to verify "Willcox spent six months in bed with puerperal fever (childbirth fever).) could look at the footnote, get that website/articles/book cite, and verfiy that the info is indeed accurate based on the source. This enables us to preserve the credibility of articles.
- It's great that you've been up-front about your relation to the subject, and that's not a total bar, it just requires you to put out the effort to be neutral on the subject. However, the sticky issue is that if you're writing the article using primary documents, particularly those not available to the general researching public, that's WP:Original research, and not what we do here on WP. If you're finding interesting new things about Wilcox that have never been written about before, they can't be cited here since that info hasn't been processed and vetted by the academic and journalistic communities yet. If you want some backstory as to why we're strict about this, please check out Wikipedia:No original research/history#History of the core policies.
- Minor thing: you don't have to link the entire "http://" address if linking to another Wikipedia article. Just type double-brackets around it, like so: Germany --> Germany. What you have now is very bulky coding and makes the editing hard to follow, so please instead just double-bracket your internal links to other Wikipedia articles.
- Greetings, very interesting article, but we do have some ironing out to do. Accordingly, I've moved your draft to User:Judy Seidman/Anita Parkhurst Willcox so that it can be fully smoothed out before publishing to the main articlespace. I've tagged the top with a list of items to address, and we can remove those tags as we check the maintenance tasks off.
- These are a few of the basics to address, and after that we can keep fine tuning. Drop back in here with any questions, or when ready to move to the next stage of cleanup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mathew, the comments are very useful and welcome, as well as encouraging.... I have now corrected the footnotes, the categories, and references, as well as got the captions on the pictures to read (which had really stumped me technically in earlier draft). Please let me know if this meets the criteria sufficiently, and dealt with the problems you raised.
I did look at the issues on original research and referencing; my concern with adding the detailed footnotes was (as to some extent still is) the majority of the specific references come from the one book that I edited -- I do not want this to be interpreted as pushing my own work. For that reason, I referred to the archival sources rather than the secondary source. In this re-edit, I have attempted to address this by giving the secondary source (as the main reference), but including where the information came from as well, as part of the footnote.
This is my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia; and I do hope it will not be the last. Thanks again for the suggestions!Judy Seidman (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - forgot to ask: what is protocol about loading the article from User to main pages? should I reload the article up to the main pages when I think it is done, or wait for response to changes? Again, thanks Judy Seidman (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking for any insights or help on this one. I'm a newcomer as to article creation, but the subject is quite respected by a key group of the hammocking community so I felt the topic noteworthy. It is also important to not that he seems underrepresented at the page "Hammock Camping" which was my motivation in creating this article.
Thanks in advance!
Canadiandy1 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hoping for some help with this
Jjmcphee (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking for general feedback on my first article. It'd be great if I could get the unreviewed article template removed as well.
Catemonsterq (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Done Reviewed, tag removed. Nice work on footnoting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know how this is looking. I am the owner of the company (as evident in the article). I'd like to post this without errors or mishaps within.
Thanks- William Matte
Williammatte (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Jjmjjm/Design Within Reach
[edit]Please help edit.
Jjmjjm (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Enough of the Britishphile Main Articles I am so sick of reading British topics in "Today's Featured Article". Seriously, there are so many other topics to publish. Why so many about Brit history, or geography, etc? Come on! Do more on politics, Science, etc. BTW, look up the number of countries in this world. There are many more than just England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland. Bollocks indeed.