Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 5
I just need someone to see if this is acceptable for publication. Thanks!
Sheelal (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I created a userspace tonight. I don't even know if that is something I had to do, but I've gotten little help or feedback getting the desired page up and running. Because of this, I don't know what I'm doing right or wrong. To the best of my knowledge, the intended page is finished but likely needs only to be renamed (which I do not know how to do) complete with multiple references. A link to that article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RachelRuth/new_article_name_here
The article name would be: Dana Evan Kaplan. I do not have "move" as an option so I am assuming I am doing something wrong or something more needs to be done but I do not know what. Am I supposed to create a subpage from my userpage and, in a sense, start the process over? Please help. Thank you.
RachelRuth (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Rachel. I read the article and it looks like you have a good beginning. I believe that the subject is notable and that you have some good resources. There are a couple of things that I would suggest you look at before the article is moved to the main article space (which another editor can do for you when you're ready).
- First, the article now reads like a resume. It has the basic facts but might not be written in an engaging way for the reader. You might wish to expand it a bit and add sections - Biography, Early life, Writings on xxx topic, etc. Second, there are a number of terms in the article with which I'm not familiar. You should wiki-link those (surround them with brackets ( [[ ]] ) if an article exists for the term or idea. (Reform Judaism, Georgia, diaspora, for example). Remember that you're writing for people that might not be familiar with those things. :) You might want to put his writings in a list form as well. If you can find the ISBN numbers for his books (usually at Google Books, Amazon, etc) it is good to include those as well. It is helpful so others might be able to find them.
- I don't remember what the requirement is to be able to 'move' an article. You could simply copy and paste the article into a new page in your userspace but you would lose the history of edits. That might not matter to you. If you can't move it and would like me to, let me know. Good luck! Wikipelli Talk 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Moved it to your requested title on your Userspace. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This if for Wikipelli (assuming I am submitting this correctly but any additional help would be appreciated. My article has been revised substantially now and I feel it is ready for publication. Could someone please review and let me know what finalizations if any need to be done to publish it or, if it is ready now, perhaps one of you publish it? Thank you for all your help, guys.
- Still a few more tweaks you need: right now footnotes 9 and 10, as well as both your "External links" are barre URLs rather than written-out citations or links. You need to write those out something like this: [http://example.com Example.com] official site For publications, you need a basic full footnotes: author, title, publisher/date, ISBN if applicable. Further, most of your footnotes 1-8 are not evidence of statements made, they're just links to articles mentioned. Footnotes are for evidence. Links to someone's works just go in "Works" or "Further reading". Make sure your footnotes are used as verification of claims made in the article. Those are the main things that jump out at me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, MatthewVanitas and Wikipelli for your help and suggestions. I have revised my references section (I hope) accordingly. Do please let me know if this is all now correct and/or what further changes I may need to make.
- As mentioned above: footnotes 2-8 are not evidence, they are just links to his works. Since footnotes from a source tend to set of bias red flags, it would be safest to move the citations for works by the author into a list form of "Works" or similar. Again, footnotes are for evidence, not just showing that a given essay exists or providing a link to it. Also, as you publish you need to add categories; cats should be as specific as possible, and the most directly applicable (so not "Authors" and "Judaism", but "American Reformed rabbis", "American scholars of Judaism", or whatever the existing categories are; you'll have to wander the categories for a few minutes to find the best-fitting). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand. What I need to do then is removed the links from the article that point to his works (currently in the References section). Since I do want those pieces listed somewhere, I should move those to a new section entitled Works but not link to them from the article itself. Would that be more appropriate?
- Though External Links within the body of an article are generally discouraged, a Works section or similar is an acceptable place to list links. What I'd do is take footnotes 2-8, chop them out as-is, remove the "ref" tags from around them, and put them in a list with each on its own line, starting with an asterisk (to bullet them), and call it "Works" or something similar (might need to tweak titles to avoid redundancy). Having the links is totally fine, and they're good full details of the works, so good there. Again, I realise this differes slightly from other works' customs, but on Wikipedia footnotes are very rarely used for parenthetical comments (since usually that's covered by wikilinks) or for external links, but are 95% of the time used as references to published evidence/verification/substantiation. Article looks pretty solid overall; once you do this tweak I'd say go ahead and publish. Oh, and don't foget to "sign" your posts by typing four tildes, or by hitting the "sign" button at the top of your editing window (to the right of the bold B, italic I, and image icon). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again for your assistance and creating the Works section for me. When you said "chop them out as-is, remove the "ref" tags from around them, and put them in a list with each on its own line, starting with an asterisk (to bullet them)", you do mean to cut those parts from the article, make the changes you mentioned, and paste them into the Works section as you mentioned, correct? And, is this the correct way to sign? I've not done that before. My apologies. RachelRuth (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not to cut any content from the article, but where you currently have "in 1986 he wrote "History of Judaicia"<ref>{{cite-web|Kaplan, ''History of Judaica''. Cambridge Press 1986}}</ref>", take everything within the "ref" tags, copy-paste it in Works with an asterisk bullet, and remove the "ref" tags but leave all the "cite web" bracketing. It should end up looking just like the one example item I moved down there. No worries on signing; just lots of little things to learn, but you've already got most of the basics, so for a novice you're doing quite well indeed. After you get the mods made, you can hit the Move button (in the drop-down menu next to the star towards the top of your screen) to move the article, by chopping off the "User:RachelRuth/Title" and just having "Title". If you don't have a move button due to the newness of your account, message me directly and I'll do it for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment and assistance. I moved most of the suggested material down to Works, but wasn't sure about what is now references 2,3, and 4. I was under the impression the Works section should or is supposed to be for works that are entirely his own. Refs 2-4, he only contributed to so I wasn't sure if those could or should remain as just references (i.e., acknowledgement of the fact that he contributed pieces to them) or may indeed need to be moved to Works. And definitely thanks again for moving that one to the Works section. That was an enormous help in showing me what/how it needed to be moved and look. If I'm not mistaken, now, aside from my question about refs 2-4. the article should be good to go and I can smile (finally).--RachelRuth (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- If the footnote in question is not evidentiary, but rather a link to a work that is mentioned by name, then it should go in Works, but if you want to emphasise that he's a co-autor, you can use a triple equal-sign to make a sub-section of works called "Co-authored", or else just put (co-authored with John Smith) after the entry ont he bulleted list. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for all your guidance and help. I believe I've got everything squared away now. I did as you mentioned and placed the works he'd been a contributor to as a sub-section of Works titled Co-author and removed the refs from the article. All of that went quite well. I did notice, though, while I did not set the word "Co-authored" to be bold, it appears to me to be so. Is this automatic or can it be undone or, really, does it even need to be?--RachelRuth (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's bold because it's a sub-section title; that's just how they format. Just a few things more you need: you need to add WP:Categories, so please scope that guideline and add a few. Note in other bios how birth dates (and death dates if applicable) go right after the name in parentheses, and don't forget to add "1960 births" and "Living people" as categories. Also, now that you have a clear works section, can you not remove the first two paragraphs of writings (perhaps merging one or two short facts into the following paragraphs) since they're almost entirely just lists of things covered below? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thank you! I have made the suggestions and corrections you mentioned and moved it into, I suppose, publication. However, despite having added the article to the categories you mentions, I see this at the top of the article: This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. If you are the article's creator, you can seek feedback on your new article. (January 2011) Wiki letter w.svg This article has not been added to any categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.
Here is the link to the "published" article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Evan_Kaplan
Thank you again for all your assistance thus far. --RachelRuth (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is my first company post on wikipedia so I am looking for feedback.
RyanAStoner (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, a couple things: articles about people or organisations must demonstrate "notability" (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). If not, they are deleted as soon as they are moved to the article space. In order to substantiate Notability, you need to provide references from neutral, third-party sources, demonstrating the importance and uniqueness of the topic (that is, why this one company out of thousands?). Please take a look at the Notability policy, as well as WP:Reliable sources; note that blogs, forums, Facebook, etc. are not proper references. It needs to be a published book, news, technical journal, etc. On a sidenote, to link to another Wikipedia article all you have to do is put double brackets around a word: [[Germany]] --> Germany. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Trying to get this post checked and up. How do I add images?
Fedeforpieter (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Check out WP:Images for basic info on how to add images. Note that there are copyright issues, so in order to use a pic it has to be pre-1923, US Federal source, or somehow otherwise Creative Commons or Public Domain. There are "Fair Use" exemptions, mainly for dead people or past events where there's no feasible way to produce new Public Domain pics. I suggest you read the policies, and if you can find a Public Domain pic you can upload it to Wiki Commons. If you can find a Fair Use pic, you can use the Upload button on the left side of this screen. Whichever you pic, the first time you upload an image make sure you select Copyright info; it is very common for newbs to fail to provide Copyright info, which gets their images auto-deleted, which is frustrating. Just got to check all the boxes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please check this page to see whether it is good enough to publish?
Wareid21 (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I'm not really spun up on book policy, but recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (books) to see how book notability must be substantiated in an article. You may also want to inquire at the Discussion tab of WP:WikiProject Books for advice on getting book articles published on WP. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please check to see if my article is correct and eligible to be posted?
Carashmara (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Basic write up of a Melbourne upcoming musician.
Bestyeahbest (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this article ok to include on Wikipedia in terms of style and sources? Thanks, Jenny
Jemimaaaa (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Requesting feedback on my first wiki page, XTG underwear brand. Thanks.
BishopA4 (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I would love to hear/read comments on this latest article I've written. I haven't created many articles and I am still learning and would like to create good articles. Thanks!
Wikipelli Talk 11:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rushing right now, but I gave it a basic once-over for structure and format, and dipped into a few paragraphs, and overall it looks great. Well laid-out, footnoting really well done, and overall just comprehensive coverage of a niche topic of long-term notability. Nice work, and with photos too. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The template has been there for a long time now. Would somebody please check the page? Thank you!
RM Vollmer 11:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewed, template removed. Also moved your image to the right; that's pretty much WP standard, so it's almost jarring to see the first image on the left side of the page. Looks great, good work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This WIKI entry is not meant to be comprehensive. It is a base for others hopefully to expand on. I believe the entry is a good starting point and substantiated by references.
Kentzo (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This WIKI entry is a base for others hopefully to expand on. I believe the entry is a good starting point and substantiated by references.
Kentzo (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, the main thing that jumps out is that you're over-using wikilinks. You don't wikilink every time a name is mentioned; generally you just link its first appearance in each article. I fixed that (most of the way through, ran out of enthusiasm), and also added bullets to your list as is WP standard. Article seems decent overall, though the footnoting is a bit minimal for such a long article, and only some of the footnotes are to actual trade articles or books (vice YouTube links, fansites, etc). It's enough to establish WP:Notability, so the article's existence isn't problematic, but more comprehensive footnoting would improve the article. Overall interesting and detailed article though; I've added WikiProject Film to the Discussion page as well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This WIKI entry is not meant to be comprehensive. It is a base for others hopefully to expand on. I believe the entry is a good starting point and substantiated by references.
Kentzo (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It works overall, though you need to add {{WikiProject Film}} to the Discussion tab. Also, again, only link the first occurrence of any given wikilink, not every time the name/term appears. Also advise you use http://reftag.appspot.com/ to auto-fill any GoogleBooks citations or links. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I received the warnings found on my article, and have hopefully addressed them. Do I remove the warnings myself? Does someone else? I'm new at this... Max
MaxSewell (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, if you resolve an issue you can remove the tags. This is easier on straightforward things like "uncategorised", "dead end", etc. where it's pretty clear what needs to be done. Some tags are best discussed before removing, mainly "POV" (indicating a bias). In your case, I would contact the editors who added the BLP Unreferenced tag to see what needs to be done to better-document the notability of this individual. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to give an overview of the main components of this Business Intelligence software.
I'm not sure if it's sufficient to expand the short description on the Cognos#Products page or to create an own article for this software, since Cognos was aquired by IBM in 2007. So its a product sold by IBM, but it was first released by Cognos in 2005, has even kept the name of the developing company.
Infopedian (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
New listeing for deceased visual artist, Jason Berger. Reliable resources are included and linked. what else must I do to legitimize this posting? KB
Berger Jason (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Need help on organization , concise language, and perhaps some added content, mainly international information about the day. Would appreciate all input!
Lenses (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Any suggestions/feedback on how to improve references, notability, etc. is greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Cchucks (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hate to leave you hanging, I just don't know much about games. I suggest you take your question to the Discussion tab at WP:WikiProject Video games. The folks there might be more familiar with how to document fast-moving and primarily new-media covered issues like gaming. RFF only has a few people, and sometimes there's just nobody around comfortable or interested in covering some topics, so sometimes a WikiProject is a safer bet. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Michaeltaft (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Neat article, good work on sourcing. That said, it needs categories, so I've marked it "uncat" until it gets them. Also changed "terrorist" to "militant" as per Wikipedia:TERRORIST; the word is very loaded and subjective, so "militant" is prefered as technically accurate and less taking a side. Just add cats and WikiProjects (those go on the Talk page) and you should be good to go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Matthew. I'll get to work on the categories and WikiProjects.Michaeltaft (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
A minimal version of both categories and WikiProjects in place. Michaeltaft (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There really not more references that I have used besides the website, what would you recommend? Also, is it acceptable for publication? thank you
Mlbpaa (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, the article doesn't yet clearly document notability; please check out Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a few ideas on how to go about this. The article currently is lacking in that it's based on "primary sources", that is, the subject talking about the subject. Can you rustle up any mentions of this organisation from news websites? Maybe check GoogleBooks as well? I recommend you also post your request for help on the Discussion tab at WP:WikiProject Baseball. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
this broad topic is only briefly stubbed at Athletic sports; the Athletics (sport) page causes a lot of confusion because it is the main "athletics" page but the topic is extremely narrow. I will be developing the page more, and adding more references.
TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
After having the article rejected for not having reliable third-party sources, I added references from the Abbey Theatre, Dublin Theatre Online, and Entertainment.ie. I was wondering if those met the criteria? If not, what type of sources should I look for? (I'm assuming the de facto national awards for theatre in Ireland meets the notability guidelines).