Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 February 4

< 2011 February 3

2011 February 4

2011 February 5 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

User:Kenatipo

Thank you!:)

This user lists a accidental quote of mine on his user page that I had corrected by the time he posted it, I don't want to confront him on this as we have had previous disagreements. If someone knows of a good way to handle this, please let me know.

_WikiMan^One 00:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the right place to discuss this; here, we review articles.

In the first instance though, I really think you need to just politely ask the user to change it. Others can't really do much, unless they've seen such a request. In the event of problems, I'd suggest you put {{helpme}} on your own talk page, and explain what you want there, or - if necessary - try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Chzz ► 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of GPS Software for Mobile Phones

MarcelCuculici (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would wonder if this information wouldn't be better captured and presented in a different way. Perhaps as a subsection of a article on GPS or Cellular phones. Particularly when you consider that the software market changes swiftly in new areas, the article seems likely to be outdated on contact. I don't think it's a deletion, per se, but it seems like this isn't quite the best way to present it. GormtheDBA (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McCoy and The Papercuts

Thank you Eric Cable! Great advice. Will happily follow. I plan on writing a wikipedia article on Tim McCoy. Perhaps removing "renowned" is prudent. That is how he is described in the press but it does come across promotional. I wish for this to be encyclopedic.

Would greatly appreciate a review and the unreviewed template removed. Any advice greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Sean D. Powers 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sean. OK, first of all, there is too much stuff in parentheses. It makes the article difficult to read. Here's a trick: read it out loud.

If you can't read it without hesitating think about re-writing. Next, put your citations in line (here's some help:Wikipedia:Citation templates.)

I don't get involved in notability arguments, but you will likely face one. You call Tim McCoy "Reknown". Does he have a wikipedia article? Does he warrant one? If not, then this article is also unwarranted.

Good luck! Eric Cable | Talk 16:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroot Soccer

This is a new article, and I am interested in receiving feedback on it.

Vuvuzelaben (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, nice to see lots of references. I've removed the unreviewed article tag. I suggest you add some wikilinks: for example, where it says Ethan Zohn, put square brackets around it like this, [[Ethan Zohn]], and then it becomes a wikilink to the Ethan Zohn article. Regards --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Theiss

Please help me, I am trying to edit this article best as possible, I think this is an important link to have in the directory.

Mthurricane (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great so far; I don't see any immediate problems. I've made a few language/grammar corrections but they were only very minor mistakes. Chevy monte carlo 11:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asledge/Aaron Sledge

This article is about an american artist, writer and producer. Currently the reliable sources are referenced as link to other Wikipedia pages.

SkyHigh 06:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The article is actually at User:Asledge/Enter your new article name here --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember responding to this query, and I see nothing's changed. Looking at User talk:Asledge I wonder if you don't understand what we are saying here -- about notability, for example, or questions regarding conflict of interest. These issues were brought to your attention almost half a year ago, so I must not be the only one who thought they might be problems.

Look at WP:BAND. There is a list of 12 ways you can show your subject is notable. Which of the 12 can you use? For which do you have a reference that is not another Wikipedia page? Those are what you need to put in your article to demonstrate notability. If you don't understand this, please ask questions. Tkotc (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karrattul/Dharma Man Tuladhar

This is an article about a Nepalese philanthropist who headed the restoration of Swayambhu, one of the holiest Buddhist shrines in Nepal in 1918. Would be very grateful for suggestions to improve it.

Karrattul (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's good - can't really think of any advice! Maybe you could say how long the refurbishment took. I like your articles Karratul. By the way, now you've got the hang of writing them, have you thought of replying to other people's requests for feedback? Only if you fancy it... it can be rewarding on occasion.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks. I will try to reply to other people's requests too.Karrattul (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Görges

How are my revisions to the Julia Görges page? I significantly expanded the article. Aandalib90 (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some very good copyediting; but we're going to have to discuss the removal of all diacritics somewhere else. Jared Preston (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asledge/Enter your new article name here

SkyHigh 07:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Asledge/Enter your new article name here

SkyHigh 07:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have a problem right off, because your username (at least for this article) is asledge and your subject is A. Sledge. There will be curiosity and concern about a possible conflict of interest. See, WP:COI.

You have no references. You need inline references to reliable sources which verify facts establishing the notability of your subject. See, WP:BAND.

Does your subject even have a date of birth?

If you aren't going to use an external link, then remove the section. If he has released an album, perhaps start a discography showing its significant details. Tkotc (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Hayssen

Hello sir/madam,

Please provide general and overall feedback about this article. I am aware it require references and citations. I await them from the subject of the article as well as reliable sources.

Thank you.

NS1973 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently in an Articles for Deletion discussion. The discussion page gives a summary of the problems. The only remedy for you at this point is to come up with references to reliable sources containing facts demonstrating the subject's notability. Waiting to hear from the subject to provide you with more information only suggests that there is a likely additional issue of conflict of interest. Tkotc (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hakanforss/Personal Kanban

Have created a description of what Personal Kanban is. Feedback wanted and help to publish

Hakanforss (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GR:EEN - Europe's role in the Emerging Global Order

I would really appreciate any feedback on my new article. Thank you so much in advance!

LauraDowney (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has already been deleted for copyright violation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Transport

As you can see this is my first article.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Denisa.zoe (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is written ok and cited ok, but my gut tells me this belongs as a section within a larger article. Eric Cable | Talk 16:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsover Cruise Club

I want to request feedback please on this article that I was told was not neutral enough, I have edited it and would like feedback please

Article posted here, moved to User:Crociera01/Bolsover Cruise Club - see below

Thanks so much for your time!

Crociera01 (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article which you pasted here into your own user subpage, User:Crociera01/Bolsover Cruise Club.

The article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.

Please see WP:REFB for help with that; try to make sure all the facts have an inline numbered footnote reference, and then ask again. Chzz ► 14:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Leonards-Mayfield School

Hi I have submitted an article about our school, and I am hoping that it is not advertising and it meets all your criteria. Thank you for your time.

Mayfieldgirls (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because all (or almost all) of this article had been copied from another website, we'll have to quickly delete it.

Articles require references to reliable sources. Please see WP:FIRST. Chzz ► 14:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

glassey/Silliker Glass Opens New Plant

This is my first article and I would like feedback in order to publish it to Wikipedia.

Glassey (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Link here: User:Glassey/Silliker Glass Opens New Plant. I suggest you call your article Silliker Glass, rather than Silliker Glass Opens New Plant, and make it about the whole company. There's not much info there yet, have a look at some other wikipedia articles on companies, for ideas about things to include. Some requirements that you'll need to know:

The article can only be accepted it shows that the company meets wikipedia's notability criteria. Include lots of independant reliable sources.
If you're an employee of the company then you need to read the conflict of interest guidelines, as employees writing their company's article is discouraged.
Many new articles about companies fall foul of wikipedia's ban on advertising. The article needs to be written in a neutral and objective tone.

Best of luck, you could ask again when you've expanded it a bit.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Academic Centers

Please review, thanks!

Dstringer71 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rbid1/September Concert

The page I've created describes the non-profit organization called The September Concert which is devoted to putting on free concerts around the world on the anniversary of September 11 every year. I was wondering if someone could look at the page and let me know if I have done anything that does not conform to the guidelines. Also, when will I be able to take the page live? Do I have to have been registered for 4 days and have made 10 edits to "move" it? Thanks for the help! Rbid1 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Rbid1 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome. At the moment the article doesn't fulfill the guidlines so it's best not to move it to the mainspace yet anyway. First, check that the topic meets the notability guidelines for articles: the article will need to prove that the topic is notable, by including plenty of independant, reliable sources. Secondly, it needs a lot of changes formatting-wise. This is mainly because of the picture collage and the large logos: read some other wikipedia articles and try to copy their formatting. Have a look at Concert for Diana, as an example of the kind of thing to aim for. It has lots of references to newspapers, and has the logo in an infobox in the top right corner, and small pictures on the right. Also remember to keep the tone of the text neutral and objective, as befits an encyclopedia article.

I realise that's a lot to take in - let me know if you need help doing any of it! All the best --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earlymind/Taggart Siegel

Sending article in for review.

Earlymind (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PrintIsDead

This article was rejected for lack of "notability, neutrality and particularly, that it is a form of original research and novel synthesis." Leaving aside the issue of neutrality (I'm not sure where the reviewer thinks I stand on print being dead), I'm confused on the issue of notability. The idea of "print is dead" is a cultural meme that is extremely significant as the world goes increasingly digital. It's amazing to look at the past of this meme and see how the contexts in which it has been used in the past have differed. Certainly, the research as it stands now is lacking -- would this article be more appropriate as a stub? Thanks.

Slowlyslyly (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to add a gloss on the review of your article -- from one Wikipedia fan to another. You assert that "print is dead" is an important cultural "meme", but your article doesn't really show in what sense it is a meme; the article seems mainly to discuss when people first asserted it to be a fact, whether or not it is a fact, and whether the consequences of such a fact are good or bad. Even "The Fallacy of the Print Is Dead Meme" article didn't really look at the meme-ness of the catch-phrase. So I think you have a notion that could be an interesting article, but what you've written is not an overview of that kind of analysis. Perhaps people haven't really done that kind of analysis in print yet. You seem to be trying to write that kind of analysis, but the problem is that the result is what Wikipedia considers original research. Result: good idea for an article but only if there are good sources who have done analyses you can report on.

Having babbled on long enough, let us consider the issue of "notability". The issue is not whether the subject of the article is important, interesting, or anything else. It's whether people have already taken sufficient notice of it. If enough notice has not been taken, if people have not written about it, analysed the idea in some kind of depth, then it isn't (yet) notable. As you yourself say, "the research as it stands now is lacking." That's the bottom line problem. You'd have the same problem with a stub at this point, in my opinion.

If I were in your shoes, though, I wouldn't necessarily give up. Possibly with either more research, or re-thinking the article, writing it from a somewhat different angle, you can start down this path. History of Ideas articles can't always be written overnight. Tkotc (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse_Publicity

{helpme-helped}} Thank you for your message regarding the contribution of "Workhouse". We are grateful for your consideration in this matter.

In review of your notes we wish to point out a number of pages currently accepted on the site for which our contribution was modeled.

You will find that beyond Workhouse's established industry recognition and numerous awards, seminal events and historical accuracy, we disagree with the assessment that the entry is purely advertising or not Encyclopedic.

Please review the following links in contrast to our own contribution and advise as to any necessary changes that you see fit as we are happy to revise in any manner whatsoever rather than face speedy deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5WPR /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_Public_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOTTLE_PR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMA_Creative

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and WP:COI. WuhWuzDat 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peterarnell69 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse_Publicity

Thank you for your message regarding the contribution of "Workhouse". We are grateful for your consideration in this matter. We are trying to make the material as close to standard as possible and believe there is merit. I firmly believe that will find that beyond the agency's established industry recognition, numerous awards, seminal events, and historical accuracy, we heartily disagree with the assessment that our entry is purely advertising or not Encyclopedic. In review of your notes we offer the number of pages below that have been accepted by Wikipedia for which our contribution was modeled. Please review these in contrast to our own and help or advise as to any necessary changes that you see fit as we are happy to revise in any manner whatsoever rather than face speedy deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5WPR /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_Public_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOTTLE_PR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMA_Creative

Peterarnell69 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Socrates

Would just like to request a review of this article so that the "new unreviewed article" template may be removed from the top of the page. Thanks in advance! :)

Q Ramona (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Best please review and check links.

Please take a look at the article and check the links and let me know how it looks. I tried to check all of the spelling and grammer but please double-check that as well.

Millespiece (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to the extent of formatting a link to a web page correctly and changing a reference to a Wikipedia page to a "Wikilink". You should review to see how this is done. I got the template for recording the necessary data from Wikipedia:Citation templates.

The article is chock full of information and no sources. You're going to have to show how you know all this. What are the sources of your knowledge? Put in some inline citations to show.

Maybe it's just taste, but I don't particularly like your discography. Maybe you could look at something like Bob Dylan's discography or other musicians to see how to say more about the discs.

After you have used your subject's name, refer to her by her last name, not her first. The article as it stands sounds too much like a promotional piece or a Mysp*ce page. I don't doubt that your subject can meet notability guidelines, but you must write the article as an encyclopedia article. Looks like an excellent start, though. You certainly have access to all the facts. Tkotc (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me jumping in. I started wikifying the article; it's not done. Also to help out, I started looking for sources/references for the article. My favourite one is Library and Archives Canada external here: www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/lac-bac/search/all. To date, I've always managed to find something at the library. I even looked here [1], but nothing. Next, I looked for the label; it is self-produced. On her website it indicates Broadcast Music Incorporated. So I looked there. Again nothing. I am not that knowledgeable about country music which may be the problem with me finding sources. I did place a music notability banner on the article. I'm quite willing to help you with references. Let me know. Argolin (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan-Cabarrus Community College

Angela.vandenbroek (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stephenalewis/Liberty Safe

Added more references to improve notability. My main concern is not having this be an advertisement, as some of the References are the retailers that carry the manufacturer's product... but these refs definitely help with notability and reliability. I'm new, and this is my first article, so any feedback is welcome. I appreciate your time.

Stephenalewis (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devrim II

A HYBRID GASOLINE CAR NAME DEVRIM II Pakistan made a hybrid car named Devrim II, inspired from actual Devrim 1960's of Turkey. I created the article, though incomplete but demands your feedback. Students from National University of Science and Technology already won first prize in making hybrid car back in 2010 and with Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute in 2003-04 of Shell Eco-marathon Asia circuit. Aim is to Help protecting the environment and promote the concept of green energy.

Dr.faizanali (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NUST: do it like this -- National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST). After you have defined it like that, you can just say NUST in the rest of the article. Spell out what E&ME is, don't use the initials. Same with CEME. The second paragraph of Background and History is a bit unclear. As I read it, the NUST students were inspired by the Turkish car, and got some kind of help or ideas from students at the other two institutions who had participated in 2009. Can you rewrite slightly and make this clear? The photo of the D2 looks like a design mock-up or just the body shell. Was there a working version and a photo of it? If the only photo you can use is the one in the article, it should be captioned to explain if it is a design model or incomplete version. Alas poor Turkey: Istanbul has the most beautiful (and affordable) light rail system, but the D1 looks ... like a 1960's American car. At least give the year of the car in the photo caption. Also, although you say it was the inspiration for the D2, it isn't clear exactly how it was inspirational. Certainly it wasn't a hybrid. What was the nature of the inspiration? The inset quote about fuel efficiency doesn't seem appropriate in the History section, and I don't think it needs to be inset. Unless there is further explanation about who Faizan Zafar is, I don't think you need to use his name directly in the article. Just properly reference the quotation. In reading the article I became curious about where the engine, batteries, and electrical motor came from. There could be more technical information. Does the whole car weigh 160 Kg? I know humans who weigh more. Nice start. Tkotc (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Huff

I'm trying to add some legitimacy to this article, sources, interviews, etc. I am in the process of getting an interview with the actual person.

Grammar, punctuation, and general article structure assistance would also be greatly appreciated!

Truthseeker8907 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please observe the admonition regarding notability in the notice.

In the future, you would be wise to use (and read) the Article Wizard to create articles in your own userspace first. See Wikipedia:Article wizard.

An interview with the subject of the article wouldn't be directly usable because it would constitute "original research" (see, WP:NOR); furthermore, it could suggest circumstances constituting a conflict of interest. See, WP:COI.Tkotc (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrritage9384/James_Veitch

General feedback please.

Hrritage9384 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "site specific" theatre company? Your article uses that description in its second sentence but doesn't say what it means. Fortunately it is described in one of your references; it's a fairly important aspect of what your subject does! So, you know what to do.

Ref 7 (Playbill) is advanced to support that V. "wrote" a play, but it's in the future tense in the reference (will...). Shall we lose some sleep over it? More important, however, is that ref 6 (Pogue) just comes up with a blog's comments. I think this is one reference you can do without.

His name is duplicated on the first line. Keep the bold name. Add his date or year of birth if you can find it in parens. Usually some information about education, training, and past work experience is included fairly high in the article.

There are names, places, etc. that could possibly be wikilinked to other articles. You need to proofread for missing italics and the like. You might want a "Works" subsection.

If I had to be critical, it would be to say that the "article" in some respects is organized as a concatenation of peacock language (at least as Wikipedia calls it). I don't find paragraph 2 terribly enlightening in the manner I would expect an encyclopedia to enlighten. The quote in paragraph three would probably support a clearer explanation in your own terms. Paragraph four gives us "brainy, intense young actor/director", "scorched by his high-voltage passion", more peacock plumes than the average flock -- language that is suitable only for advertisement copy. Let the readers of your encyclopedia article find this stuff when they look at the references. However, the information about his educational and early professional background is important and should be given due emphasis and a better place in the article. I found your subject interesting without all that BS. You seem to have a notable subject and have good references. Tkotc (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Adair

This article focuses on one mans life and professional career as a scientist that specialists in rocket and space craft propulsion. It has been tagged for speedy deletion, as they thought I was creating a hoax. However, the article is very real and the scientist has many in the UFO-oligy, Scientific, and physics fields to back his findings at a time where he says he worked at Area 51. True or false, this should be documented, ad he has stuck with his story for almost 2 decades.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the story and utilize all of the best knowledge at hand. I need to be quick about this, so all help is greatly appreciated. I am trying to add legitimacy to this article, sources, interviews, etc. I am also in the process of getting an interview with the actual person. Grammar, punctuation, and general article structure assistance would also be greatly appreciated!

Truthseeker8907 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]