Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 16
Articl on one of my key research areas. I hold a masters degree MEng Structural Engineering and am completing research in the field.
Neither Arching Thrust or Compressive Membrane Action have articles on wikipedia, and are major fields discovered in the 1950s, with 100s of academic papers published since. This page is aimed to provide a definition of the phenomenon to the general public and is from papers i have written based on work from the 1970s.
Fearghusq (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- While the content is good, the format is way off. Have you read many other Wikipedia articles? Rather than direct you to a series of policy documents, it might be smoother if you look at a few articles about subjects you like, and hit the "Edit" button just to view how they're coded. To start with, you don't have sections or subsections (formed by typing a double =, or a triple, respectively, at each end of the sub/section title). You also typed your footnotes manually within the sentences, while WP uses an auto-footnoting device that's very handy, see WP:Footnotes. Long/short, you type <ref> at the start of your footnote, and </ref> at the end of it (in-line in the text), and a footnote will automatically appear in the "References" section where you have {{reflist}} entered. You also need a clear (accessible to a layman) lede (see WP:Lede) to introduce the article. And at the end, you need to add [[WP:Categories. So definitely a good start, you just need to get a feel for how Wikipedia works. Feel free to post back here with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I just published my first article, and I would like to get feedback on how i did. I've been in live chat with a couple of editors and feel pretty confident. The user page shows my draft and edits from the past week ( User:Pacey123/Christopher_K._Ho ), and I copy and pasted for the published page. I appreciate any advice you might be able to lend me.
Pacey123 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The format looks pretty good, but I have questions about the notability of the artist. Right now the only definitely [{WP:RS|reliable source]] to prove notability that you have is the New York Times, which has a blurb on him. I am not sure if that is enough to satisfy the criteria at the guidelines for creative professionals like artists. As for formatting, there are a couple minor mistakes that are easily fixable (I fixed one of them already, actually).
- The naming guidelines suggest that we use the subject's most common name, for example "Snoop Dog (not Cordozar Calvin Broadus)" As such, I have moved the page to Christopher Ho as that is the most commonly used name.
- When linking references, generally only the title of the article or book cited is an external link. The date and place it was published should be regular text.
- Hope this helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
An article about a non-governmental organization in Seoul, South Korea that aims to discuss and promote North Korean human rights, Korean reunification, and provide educational programs for North Korean defectors.
Any comments and feedback is appreciated.--Cbyoon90 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Cbyoon90 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to require more reliable sources to show notability per the General Notability Guidelines. Also, you need to wikify most of the article; there are many terms that would do well as wikilinks. Also, please note that external links do not go in the main body of the text; they should be in their own section on the bottom. You should also add some categories to make the article easier to find if you move it to main space. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Can I describe a website review as audit or evaluation of the performance of a website, with reporting techniques as used by Mystery Shopping companies?
Drachsi (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if website reviews are notable of their own right. Maybe you could consider merging the pertinent information to mystery shopping. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just published my first article, and would like to get some feedback on it. As a music enthusiast, I started out writing an article about a small record label, which already has a Dutch version. I'm curious if the content and format are okay.
Chasse patate (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I sent you a welcome message with some key policies and guidelines and have tagged some things for clean-up. Here are a few notes:
- Don't be afraid to use foreign language sources. Although English sources are preferred, they are not required.
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source for writing other Wikipedia articles. Try and verify that information from another place, preferably a reliable one.
- I hope that helps, and don't worry; nobody writes a featured article on their first try. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried fixing the requested things. Does it look okay now?
Hi - this article is to describe a not for profit organization and eventually link out to the standards they create for the industry as a whole. Comments welcomed
SRUG admin (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire_Dubstep HardBassMusic (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- This article does not yet meet WP:Notability (music), so another editor had proposed it for Speedy Deletion (see WP:CSD). To protect it, I moved it to your userspace for drafting: User:HardBassMusic/Esquire Dubstep. Please read WP:Notability (music) and understand that you need neutral, third-party citations from reliable sources. Not the band's page, not Facebook, etc. Feel free to post back here with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
New article needs review.
DanGraves (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- On the right track, just needs a few mods. Your URLs need to be full citations, and tucked into the title (see WP:Citations or take a look at any established article). You also need to add WP:Categories (as specific as possible, so not "Film" or "Christianity"). Lastly, IMDB and other user-submitted sites aren't citeable; you don't necessarily have to remove the cited fact if it's non-controversial, but you should remove the IMDB footnote. That should do you overall. Note also, if you can find a logo, you can upload it under WP:Fair use. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
ChristinaBabu (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Pissedov (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Currently, all your footnotes are to comics, rather than to books/articles about comics, which is the usual Wikipedia standard. I would strongly suggest you swing by the Discussion page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and make this same request for feedback. The folks there know better the formats and policies for covering comic topics, and at this point I would normally say your article is not ready, but I defer to the experts at WPComics. Definitely check in with those guys, lest your article be deleted for not meeting policy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to figure out if I have enough sources for this article. Thank you!
Laurenboukas (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sourcing overall looks pretty solid, however you need to turn your footnotes' WP:Bare URLs into WP:Citations so the what/who/when/where is clear. Also need to add WP:Categories (as specific as possible). You also have some issues with tone, in that phrases like "hard work paid off", etc. are more journalistic or "press release" than encyclopedic. Work on the above, and then check back in here. Note also you can upload a logo under WP:Fair use. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The NOMINATE scaling method is a procedure for recovering the ideal points of members of the United States Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)
Chris hare84 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting article, but needs some tweaks. You should add at least one category associating this article with other scaling methods, for one. Next, your article leans far too heavily on WP:Primary sources, so it's more an article by proponents of the method than about the method. What you need is to footnote some independent, reliable, substantive coverage discussing the method and its impacts, evaluating it, etc. Otherwise it's just a promotional page rather than a neutral article.
- Next, major issues with tone. The article is written too much like a personal essay, or actually more like a textbook. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't have conversational "now let us consider" or leading questions like "but what if...?", phrases like "the lion's share", etc. I recommend reading WP:Tone for some ideas.
- Overall you're on a good track, it just needs to be made more neutral and encyclopedic. Speaking of which, if you have any WP:Conflict of interest (are personally involved in this method and its promotion), you should leave a brief note on the article's Talk page divulging your involvement. You don't need to necessarily give personal or contact data, but if you are one of the developers, a staffer thereof, an employee of a company providing such a service, etc. it should be mentioned for the sake of transparency.
- Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am creating an article about the new technology snapshot hyperspectral imaging. Can someone please look over my page and give me feedback? It would be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Idabjonn (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm thinking it may be better as a section in Hyperspectral imaging rather than its own article.. -- Ϫ 21:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
t is a multiple edited page. I accidentally edited out the new article move heading that was there. I just want to have it reviewed once again to make sure it is clear for landing. =) Thanks for your time and efforts.
Krogers555 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for general feedback prior to creation of article
I have drafted an article for the upcoming direct to video release of "Spooky Buddies," the tenth film in the Air Bud (series). I have several solid reliable sources, but I'd love to get some additional feedback. I'm considering adding an image to represent the film. Also, I have included temporary "categories" at the bottom of the draft. Prior to creating the article for Disney Second Screen, I was able to get some great feedback here, so I thought it would be in the best interest of the community to swing by here again before creating this article. Thanks.
TravisBernard (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I would also suggest you copy this same Feedback Request to the Discussion tab of WP:WikiProject Film to gain advice from that angle as well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I just posted there as well.--TravisBernard (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please review my new article on Kate Swift? Thank you.
Dante8 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looks very strong overall; the main thing you need to do is fix your footnotes, and add appropriate WP:WikiProjects to the Discussion page. For the footnotes, you need to turn your WP:Bare URLs into full WP:Citations to prevent WP:Link rot and for easier referral. Also, if you have multiple footnotes that go to the exact same reference, you can auto-combine them using WP:REFNAME. Looks good, and hope to see more articles from you! Also recommend you drop into the Discussion page of WP:WikiProject Feminism to introduce yourself and your article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Please help me with feedback on this article about the ISAPP organization. They are very important in providing guidelines to food companies on probiotics and prebiotics (think foods like yogurt) which have very important health implications. Thank you!
Heatheramen (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Would love to get feedback on the sufficiency of the writing and references in this article. Would be interested in adding more content (along with more references), but wanted to get 3rd party thoughts on what I have so far.
Thanks in advance for your feedback and time.
- R
Reva27 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, short on time at the moment, but I did some formatting for you and left some maintenance templates as a "to do" list. Note also, individuals are not referred to by title, so in the body of the article just "Bottles". Feel free to write back with any questions on this section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking for general feedback. I have patterned this after similar articles regarding other professors at the University of Houston.
Cyberwombat (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
can this be made into a normal wiki page now?
- Always sign your posts when posting on a Talk page
- Note: requestor intially just linked Vallance
- Not sure what you're asking. It is a published page, and it's a WP:Disambiguation page. What is it you want exactly? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, you want feedback on Vallance F.C. Looks workable overall, but I need you to add WP:WikiProject Football to the Talk page, turn your WP:Bare URLs into proper WP:Citations, and go to the Discussion page of WP:WikiProject Football to get a final check there. Oh, and always sign your posts! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a basic overview of an industry-accepted term used for a type of foot brace. It's my first submission, so I'd like to make sure it's Wikipedia friendly.