Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 February 2
This is a new page. The Lightship is mentioned on two different pages about Cardiff but had no entry of its own. This is still quite basic.
Yrieithydd (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- In the references, just say the specifics. So, instead of;
...served as chaplain<ref>[http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/digest/index.cfm/2006/3/14/Cardiff_to_serve_as_hub_of_European_Church_Communication An article which mentions Moncia's role as chaplain]</ref>
...you should put...
...served as chaplain<ref>[http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/digest/index.cfm/2006/3/14/Cardiff_to_serve_as_hub_of_European_Church_Communication Cardiff to serve as hub of European Church Communication], Anglican Communion News Service, Digest News, March 14, 2006</ref>
...something like that.
- Try to avoid writing in bullet-pointed lists, where possible; so possibly the "visiting" and "chaplains" could be converted into prose.
- Make it more neutral. For example, Chapel - A quiet space for prayer and reflection. Services are held here regularly. is not appropriate; it sounds like an advert. How 'regular' is regular? simple meals and snacks are served also sounds like an ad, and The tables have fiddles which can be raised to prevent crockery from falling off seems unnecessary detail - what is a 'fiddle' in this context, anyway? Chzz ► 15:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Holmwood_Estate
[edit]Please tell me if the article is ready to be published and made searchable.
124.43.248.195 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Holmwood Estate is already a live article - but, it has no references. See WP:VRS, WP:V, WP:REFB, WP:FIRST. Chzz ► 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have added article with name PERSAURA, and provided some information about it, but in future I will add more information about it. Please review it and let me know your feedback. Regards, Sageer Ahmed
Sageerahmed1983 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Cardiac_MRI_perfusion
[edit]This is a page dedicated to the technique of Cardiac MRI perfusion scanning with evidence and links to other useful resources
Please feel free to ask any questions if anything is not clear (this is my first article, so please forgive me if I have made any glaring errors)
Tom.burchell (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's rather essay-like; section headings like "Why do we do it?" and "How does it work?" are inappropriate; Wikipedia does not "do it"; we just need to state facts.
- Because those sections are unreferenced, it looks like original research, which is not permitted.
- Please read the policy regarding neutral point-of-view, and also WP:TONE. Chzz ► 16:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could provide me with feedback on this article I have just created.
--Suraj T 10:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know if went wrong somewhere and if I can improve it further. Regards
--Suraj T 10:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article. Thanks
86.146.64.98 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It does not seen to meet the notability requirements for inclusion - see WP:VRS and WP:WEB. Chzz ► 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this is an improvement please comment on my article format and content.
Purringtiggra (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It requires numbered, inline references - footnotes. See WP:REFB. We need to see where each specific fact comes from. Chzz ► 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
... would just like to have someone take a look and remove the "new unreviewed article" tag - many thanks!
76.79.3.146 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
please can you review and publish this article, or give me feedback. thank you
Rachel Ditchfield (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is already a live 'published' article; however, the references are inadequate; you need inline references to reliable sources, to show where each fact comes from.
- Any unreferenced facts could be removed, by any editor. Please see WP:REFB. Chzz ► 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Just need a general review. Concerned about whether or not I was supposed to put the hyperlinks to the references in the ref tags. Mahalo (thank you) for your help!
Meaono (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need a == Heading == at the start, because the page title makes the heading; so I changed it, to just begin with '''Eric Lee''' is a ....
- For the links, it is OK but it's better if you make the title of the ref into the link. For example;
- -I have changed those two; perhaps you could look at others. You might consider using {{citation}} templates, which makes it easier; see Wikipedia:Citation templates.
- Also, please be careful to maintain a neutral point-of-view. For example, in the sentence above, you could remove a few words; ...
bestknown for itspopularbeaches and surf spots - see WP:PEACOCK. Chzz ► 15:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Mahalo (thank you!) for your help! Meaono (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a straightforward review with comments please
Richard Avery (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- These articles definitely need more references. "queseros.com" is a reasonable start, but you need to show why it is notable - e.g. articles in newspapers, or something.
- Some sections don't have footnote refereces - the "Flavour", "Rind", "Texture" and "Uses" - therefore, those parts look like original research, which is not permitted. Chzz ► 15:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A review and comments please
Richard Avery (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- As above Chzz ► 15:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A review and comments please
Richard Avery (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- As above, except this one does have one more ref [1]. I can't speak Spanish, but it looks OK; however, you still need more sources. Please see WP:VRS. Chzz ► 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am writing an article on an mobile utility application called "TekTrak" and it's functionality. I would appreciate any insight to ensure the article can go live without any problems. Thanks!