Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 3
PLACE A LINK TO YOUR ARTICLE HERE
[edit]2.201.12.210 (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find your article anywhere in your contributions; do you have a direct link to the article you want some suggestions for? Chevymontecarlo 10:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Srbhat09 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like you've just copied and pasted the article's content from another site, and so as a result it's been tagged for deletion. Sorry. Chevymontecarlo 10:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I want to go live with this article please suggest things I need to do to it so that when I request for it to be moved it is accepted and not removed. Thanks
Sjakulc (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you need to work on adding reliable sources to your article, as I think that is the main problem with it. At the moment I think the article's subject may be non-notable with the references you currently have. Chevymontecarlo 10:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Any general feedback will be most appreciated - thank you.
Figlipped (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- One suggestion I have for your article is that you perhaps could use inline citations to display your references more clearly. Also I think you should perhaps cut down the opening paragraph; you might want to break it up into sections a bit more. Chevymontecarlo 10:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Much of the information in this article is badly out of date. Most of it was clearly written several years ago.
69.137.246.190 (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, this page is so that people who have written new articles can get a review and feedback on their work and they can see whether it is suitable for Wikipedia. As this is a more developed and older article, but with some problems that you have highlighted, I think perhaps you might want to raise the issue on the article's talk page or on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page. You might also want to place a tag in that section of the article so that the issue is more clearly highlighted. Thanks, but if you have any questions please send me a message. Chevymontecarlo 10:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I am submitting my article again for your review, I have made all necessary changes into it. Please help me out for publishing this article into main wikipedia category.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks & Regards,
Merissa
Meri0098 (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think there are a few problems with the article's tone and Point Of View; it sounds a bit like an advertisement for this organisation in places. Also, I think the opening first few sentences just sound like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. Chevymontecarlo 10:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just need general feedback for my article so I can post.
Robert Zausner (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GiniChen/Test1 Hi Wiki Team,
[edit]Hi Wiki Team,
I would like to make this article live. I attempted to include as much reliable sources as I could. Also, I find this person to be notable because of the major charitable donations. Please let me know if you believe this article works.
Thanks
GiniChen (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if someone would review my article for me. Thanks!
Lwhiteman (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article is nicely constructed and formatted. It seems like your subject should be considered notable (see, WP:ENT) on account of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows", although "significant" is the weasel word here. The references are somewhat weak, however.
- The reference to the obituary is only a link to a library site saying an obituary exists. Accordingly it would be better to reference the actual printed obituary rather than this web page. See, WP:CIT ("news article") for a template to record the necessary data describing the article. The data is all in the linked page so this should be easy.
- The second paragraph has no reference showing the source of the information.
- The "memorial in NY Times" is only an announcement of a memorial service. (Since this is an "external reference", leaving it in is fine; I was just hoping there would be information that could be used to verify some of your article.)
- Other sources are from IMDB. Issues have been raised about the extent to which IMDB is considered a "reliable source". See, WP:RSEX under "Use of Electronic or Online Sources". The objections to IMDB are twofold. First is that IMDB lacks "editorial oversight" and "author credibility". To the extent that you use IMDB purely to verify that your subject appeared in various productions, I personally do not see a problem -- but others may disagree. The second objection to IMDB, however, is the notion that IMDB has no "assured persistence". This objection is hard to work around. (The link to the genealogy web site could be targeted with the same objections.) I don't know if others will see this as a serious problem in the overall context of your article, but that is why I suggest that you see if you can find any other sources you can use to verify what you have written. Tkotc (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! I made a few changes:
- I added a news article citation and a scan of the actual obituary from Wilmette Life.
- I added a reference for the second paragraph.
- I edited the bio information (supporting any additional information with references, and removing any weakly supported information).
- I used the obituary info wherever possible (rather than IMDB), and just used IMDB as a source for performances. I also added a couple other sources, including his obituary from The New York Times, and his brother's obituary.
- As for the family bio information, although it appears to be supported by the various obituaries, I left in the reference to the genealogy web site as an additional source.
- Do you think there's anything else that needs to be done in order to change its status from a "new unreviewed article"?
- Removed the Unreviewed Article banner. Tkotc (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is my first article, so feedback would be appreciated. I followed the Article Wizard, but let me know if any updates are required or recommended. Thanks!
Hnaj (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I need for this article to be reviewed and tagged so it can be a completed Wikipedia article.
BiggKhrisco (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
Can you please review my article on DynaVenture Corp, a conglomerate company based in Saskatoon Saskatchewan.
Advance thanks.
Suzy Huber (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
On the page I created, I see "template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator", but I don't know if you do that automatically or if I need to submit it in a different way to have it reviewed. I do have more references than are noted on this page, but I felt what is there is sufficient. Should I go ahead and reference more. I have a reference for almost every line on that page. Can I add photos as soon as the page is reviewed and approved? Thank you!!
KathyJLBT (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hope other editors will comment on your article.
- After reading your comment above on the availability of references, I turned to the actual article and noticed that most of the History section really isn't referenced. If I were you, and if I indeed had references for almost every line, I would add a few more to that section.
- Since your article is already in the public part of Wikipedia, why not add the photos now? But please do a little research before you do so. Wikipedia has some suggestions about size, format, and technical stuff. And Wikipedia is very fussy about the rights to any posted photographs. So see how to comply.
- Just leave the review template. Someone will remove it. I would do so, but I am not as familiar with "place" articles and I think someone comfortable with what they should look like would be best to remove it. It does no harm to leave it there. Tkotc (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This article may need to be checked for a neutral tone. Thanks
Lwaltner (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Toyotsu (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your article seems to cover the same information as the Itanos article. If it is in fact referring to the same city, the two articles should be merged into the one I mentioned. Jncraton (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Culdrol (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reviewed your work. It looks quite good. I've marked the article as reviewed and added a tag which indicates that it needs to be tagged with some categories. There was also one quote that I didn't see cited. Jncraton (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia, please check the article and make sure that the tone is suitable and that the content is appropriately referenced. Once it has been reviewed I'll remove the tag at the top stating it is awaiting review.
Many many thanks!
Dmc124wk (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. It could use some polishing and more wikilinks. I've removed the unreviewed tag. Good work! Jncraton (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
212.36.33.226 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to see how this company is notable. It seems to be a pretty average consulting firm based on the content of the article and the sources provided. See WP:N for more information on the notability guidelines. Jncraton (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)