Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 June 9
The Press Thornton Future Masters
[edit]Droy1289 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
GaryLindblad (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have sent the request 1 June and I am just resending the request. This page has already been peer reviewed, I just would like remove the "unreviewed article" tag. Kindly let me know what I have to do. Thank you very much. Levita.lev (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, but as you can see the queue is long and we just a small team of part-time volunteers. This seems a very narrow technical article, which also limits your potential reviewers. It is not my field, but I have done a few scientific articles to provide some feedback. Generally it looks like you established notability, but have some style issues. For example, citations should include all the information about the article that you known, especially their title, not just a link. Not sure what "peer review" you are talking about? Do not see any log. W Nowicki (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Levita.lev and Nowicki. I happened on the request and response by accident. I am not a chemist or physicist, but the subject looks interesting. I would be happy to do some editing in an attempt to make it more readable if you both think it a good idea. (I realise that I don't theoretically need permission, but I am more of a biologist than a solar power engineer, so in context I do not think it would be responsible to jump in without permission!)JonRichfield (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh sure, there is not supposed to be ownership of articles, but comunicating clearly with other editors is always a courtesy much appreciated (though engaged in less often than it should, IMO). This issue is on the opposite extreme from most articles here: there are many sources in respected publications, so it mainly needs to get a more acessible tone, giving context and history etc. and please comment on the proposed move to singular. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK... Here goes. Wish me luck!JonRichfield (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, JonRichfield. Welcome and thank you, good luck! Levita.lev (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
started new page on this 1943 disaster which is again topical as it was raised in Dáil Éireann this week http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0609/1224298640928.html
Coolavokig (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hungrybags (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Could I post an image of Charles McNutt from his faculty page on the University of Memphis's website? And if so how could I upload the image to Wikipedia to insert the file onto the article?
Najamirah (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate a quick review.
Thanks!
Serickson3 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
User:ReidPeterson/Guenter Klose My first article.
[edit]Seeking feedback for my first article to ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards.
ReidPeterson (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is what I posted on May 12 (I'm new to this, so I'm not sure if that's linked readily for editors): Greetings, I work in the IT department at the University of Pittsburgh. We have a resource known as D-Scribe, which provides free and open access to many valuable materials - mostly historical items and journals that have been digitized and cataloged. We simply want to increase the awareness and availability of these resources, which is why we created a Wikipedia page. Since we are not trying to achieve financial gains, I do not believe I possess a conflict of interest. This is my first time building a Wikipedia page, so I am interested in feedback regarding the construction of the page. Initially my boss wanted me to create a separate Wikipedia page for every single individual collection in our system, but I opted to create one main page listing everything available from D-Scribe. Should I also create separate pages for each collection? Also, by the nature of this material it is very difficult to find sources confirming what I wrote that exist outside the scope of the University of Pittsburgh. I did, however, attempt to link to other Wikipedia pages whenever possible. If this is not an acceptable method, what suggestions have you for otherwise verifying this highly specialized material? If there is anything wrong with this page, please just let me know and do not simply delete it. Like I said, I'm new to this. Anything wrong was probably done out of ignorance and not malice. Thank you for your time, Jourdan
Since then, I have cleaned up the appearance of the page significantly, adding a lead paragraph and a table of contents. The entry will remain one article, except for the academic journals, which will get their own pages in the future. I removed all external links from the article and collected them at the bottom. I added several external sources. Is the article ready to be published?
Thank you,
Jourdan UPittIT (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Untitled please add to Castro Valley High School Noted Alumni" Lalita Tademy author from Oprah's book club
[edit]24.205.200.240 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I am working on an article about a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization. My questions are about formatting the references: I have read the tutorials, used the wizard, and checked other sources, but I cannot figure out how to format my references correctly. All of the information is in the article and down in the references section. I could really use some help with that.
Also, I just want to ensure that I've included enough information on the subject, so that it's completely clear what the organization is/does. Any suggestions regarding expanding or clarifying the content are welcome. Thanks!
Sch0larmatch (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alas, the article looked like it was coming along OK, with several independent sources cited. However, it seems your user name was deemed too close to the subject of the article. User names are supposed to be associated with individuals, not organizations. W Nowicki (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Richard Percival Lister Any criticism welcome, but I would like to remove the "Unreviewed" tag. Thanks.
[edit]Any criticism welcome, but I would like to remove the "Unreviewed" tag. Thanks.
JonRichfield (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, some general feedback. In general, well done, notably lots of reliable sources. You can never have too many but it's solid to my eye. And hundreds of poems published in the New Yorker, the Atlantic and Punch, plus many books, seems notable.
Some picky suggestions:
--You don't need colons after section headings
--don't capitalize B in born in the lede
--I would rephrase the lede something like "RP Lister, born 1914 is a writer, poet and artist. He previously worked as a metallurgist."
-- The distinction between pre- and post-WW2 seems artificial. I would move his marriage to the first part and rename it as Personal Life or something like that, and make the second part "Career." (I realize that metallurgy was also a career of his but it is not why he is notable.)
-- "Recognitions and activities" -- the honor should go in its own section, along with any other honors he may have won. The rest of this section should go in his career section. Also, what is an FRSL? I think you should explain what that acronym stands for.
-- in the painting section I would reword it to start out "Since 1980, he has focused on painting ,though he still writes poems occasionally."
Hope that's not too many little criticism. Nice job!
I don't know what the protocol is on these new reviews, whether this opinion qualifies you to remove that tag or not. Anybody? Msalt (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Msalt. I have made some changes as suggested. I also was startled to see that I hadn't linked FRSL which I now have; total oversight; I could have sworn...!
- I would have put the honour in its own section, but he is such a private person that it is hard to get any details. To confirm that he really was awarded the FRSL was easy; I just don't know where to find declarations from the Royal Society, explaining their choices. So rather than leaving the point as an orphan, I combined it with the other material. If anyone has more on the subject, I would be happy to see it as a separate section.
- The Pre- and post-WWII separation seems to have struck me as more significant than it did you. It was a watershed age for many people and led to many changes of career. I suspect that there were unstated factors that played a role for RPL in 1950; as I said, he is a private person; I desperately wish that he had written more about his war and early post-war years. If you follow the links to British Non-Ferrous Metals Research Association, you might find some hints that could suggest why he left his metallurgical consultancy work. If anyone unearths anything revelatory on such subjects I would love to see it in the article.
- I know nothing about his first wife and marriage unfortunately. The reason his second wife figures so late in the article is that she entered his life so late.
- I have not structured the article about priorities of notability; it seemed to me that the story of his life, skeletal though the details may be, formed a better framework for his achievemants than vice versa. His professional work seems to have been a calling until something happened to terminate it about 1950. The fact that it was less interesting to some readers than his art strikes me as no reason to displace it from its sequence in his life story. Sorry if that sounds too plodding! :-)
- All this is of course a matter of style, but not only do I see his history and vocations as being as important as his art, but it would be presumptuous of me to impose my personal view of his career on what is to serve as a statement of historic fact.
- But irrespective of the disagreemant on structure, many thanks for your crits.JonRichfield (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ruthie Berman and Connie Kurtz
[edit]It would be nice if somebody could review my new article Ruthie Berman and Connie Kurtz. Thanks. Dante8 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Lois Gould
[edit]Please review my article Lois Gould. Thanks.
Dante8 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article User:Jurov17/Abbey Sozan. I am not sure whether my english is good enough.
Jurov17 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not copyrighted material but just information taken from the magazine's website. It is neutral in nature. The Coren Search Bot has sent an error message. Please give feedback.