Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 March 26
Need proofreading. Just re-did most of this article. Thanks all!
Onevets (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
MightyMesser (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The references to reliable sources that you use to support the claims made in your article should be "inline". I edited your article to do this. You should review what I did to see how I did it. The data was recorded in the templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Tkotc (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
People-centered development is an approach to international development that directs efforts towards sustainability, social justice, and participatory decision-making. It originated in the 1980's and became a critical development concept in the 90's. Please review for Wikipedia worthiness. Thank you!
Wellspeterson (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks decent overall, and good work on having solid footnoting. However, you need to add Categories to the end. Please add the most specific categories possible; avoid "dumping" articles into extremely broad top-level categories like "Human rights" or "Law". MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Christopher Unknown Is Christain Mendoza a small r&b Musician. He attends Kingsburg High he has two albums at the age of 17
Chrismendoza (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
My article is about social media in the music industry. In it, I include a brief history, advantages/disadvantages, and how social media helps with traditional methods of marketing in the music industry
I was looking for feedback on what I have so far I also was wondering if I cited sources correctly/formatted it the right way.
Thanks for your time!
AceofSpades9 (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Neat idea, but does need a fair amount of tweaking, and needs to be nudged back from the OR/SYNTH direction it's leaning. First off, you need to remove the "book capitals" from the title. Wikipedia titles aren't book titles, only proper nouns and the first word are capitalised, as though it were a normal sentence. Second, you need to be very sure that any statements/conclusions in the article are taken from existing published works on the topic of social media and music. WP isn't a place for groundbreaking research, it's a place to compile and organise existing scholarship. So you don't say: "Thompson noted X in his article, Smith noted Y, and Newsweek mentioned Z, therefore we can conclude that 2003 represented a watershed moment in music technology." Right now, too much of the article resembles "Ace of Spade's personal opinion on the topic" and not enough "what journalists and academics have concluded." For some explanation on these policies, check out WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the page needs more content or needs to be formatted better?
Djhaniff (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting topic. It could always use more content, but it's good enough for a start. Couple minor issues: your categories are too broad, try to refine them down into deeper sub-categories. Also your first footnote, to the WHO, just goes to the WHO's main website front-page. Is that where your "400 million" figure comes from, or do you need to link to a more specific WHO page? Last, and most important: I'd submit your title would be clearer as "technology in the treatment of mental illness" or similar. With the current title, it could mean "technology causing mental illness" just as easily. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
New article, so just looking for some feedback to get the "new, unreviewed article" template removed. thanks!^^
Loquaciousfluffy (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to have at least one good review/journal coverage, though more would help. Recommend you move the band members to just that section in the infobox (and don't wikilink common nouns like vocals, etc.). Also advise you remove "History", as most of that is covered in Discography, and anything else that's an actual notable (covered in major media) concert/event should be covered in what you now call "Biography" (should probably be renamed "history" after the current history section is deleted). Also your current footnotes are raw links, advise you format they as full Wikipedia citations to make it easier to locate them in the future if the links change (see: Wikipedia:Citation templates). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering if my article is up to standards before it goes live. Improvement comments would be appreciated.
Doh5678 (Talk) 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lol I love it. You should make one so you can add a picture.
--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- This article was short, but sweet. Tkotc (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
After accidentally 'advertising' a company, I have attempted to correct the mistake. This article is on P.J. Dick, Incorporated. A construction company that has been recognized by Engineering News Record (ENR.com) as a Top 100 firm in a few different categories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musky_punch/PJ_Dick,_Incorporated
Musky punch (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Please review this article. I want to get rid of the template at the top where it says "this article has not been reviewed..." Thanks! Imattdotnet (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ran RefLinks to fill out footnotes, moved "Drummer --> drummer", added name to John Richardson disambig page. Needs further review for article/sourcing quality. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first attempt at an article, but I'd really like to have someone with experience take a look before I go any further. I welcome any thoughts, criticism, etc. Thank you!
Jpsrah (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this page appear ready for publication?
PEI-Palomino (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are a variety of issues that need fine-tuning/copyediting, but overall the article is good enough to enter the main article spaces. The most concerning issue, though, is that there are a lot of references to an unpublished (work in progress?) document. On the bright side, at least the article is up-front about that issue. I would go ahead and add it, but look to improve the references as a finalised report becomes available. Also please look at other articles for similar Colombian cities so you can copy over an "infobox" (the standardised box that has basic city data). Also please check the page for a similar Colombian city to see which categories that article is filed under; your current article has no categories, and those should be added before moving over to a new article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)