Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 2

< 2011 May 1

2011 May 2

2011 May 3 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

Decreasing graduation completion rates in the United States

Needs some feedback. This article is part of a class project (LSU - Seminar in political communication) about a public policy issue. I wish I could get some feedback about my article and how to improve it. I am not an expert on the subject, neither an English native speaker. This is also my very first contribution to Wikipedia. I tried my best to make this article fulfill the Wikipedia expectations, even if I know it still need to be worked on. I would be very grateful if you could give me some comments, advices, clues, (and maybe rating the page) about how to make this a valid article.

DCamille (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long article (though pretty well-formatted) so I can't get into all the details. Suffice to say the first thing that jumps out at me is that the WP:Lede needs some work. Starting out with definitions, ala "Webster's dictionary defines excellence as 'the state or condition of being excellent.'" has rather fallen out of style in recent generations as needlessly clunky. Instead, you can wikilink to articles covering specific definitions, and leave the lede for summarising the basic issues outlined throughout the article. I recommend you pick a well-established article about education issues, see how that lede is written, and use that format to modify your own lede for maximum clarity and smoothness. You're on a good track overall, but that lede really needs work. Also suggest you post a request for feedback at the Discussion tab of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities andWikipedia:WikiProject Education to get more expert subject-matter advice. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andreygeo/Epoch of Extremal Inundations

Andreygeo (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend you also post this request at the Discussion page of WP:WikiProject Geology. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And/or WikiProject Archaeology. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Decline Effect

Request for feedback/review on the article.

Frodnord (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit needed some work to comply with Wikipedia's in-house style guide. However, those problems have been fixed by Mohamso. Between your and Mohamso's work, this article is looking pretty good. You should move it to Decline effect or Decline effect (science) per Wikipedia's naming guide. I think perhaps you and Mohamso could work together to further develop this article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Tropical_and_Public_Health_Institute I have updated this page to try and resolve the open issues, but the issues message still appears. I would love some recommendations on how to solve this. Many thanks

Joanne.blackwell (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the editors who've tagged it continue to read your page and not find the issues addressed. The primary (no pun intended) issue is that almost all your footnotes are to WP:Primary sources, the TPH itself. What you need is independent, reliable, substantive coverage of the issue to balance it out. As far as the "advert" part, the page still reads like a page for TPH, not a page about TPH. As a general rule, if a Wiki article reads pretty much the same as an organisation's "About us" subpage, it's not yet balanced enough. Take a look at it in that light, try to find some external coverage, and give it a shot. You can also hit the "History" tab to see which editors are adding/restoring the tags, and message them directly to see what their specific concerns are that are causing them to keep the tags. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darkus67/The Topaz Commander

(adding title link; request previously just entitled "wikilink")

Is thsi okay for an article? I would like to add images I have collected.

Darkus67 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're off to a very good start. I've "tagged" the top of the article with a few items you need to address: you have no categories, no WP:wikilinks to other WP articles, and your footnote links are just WP:Bare URLs rather than full WP:Citations. You're on a good track, but I advise you check out a few ship articles to get inspiration for format, and also to get the template for an "Infobox". The article HSC Speedrunner IV looks pretty solid, so you can use that to get infobox/category/formatting clues. So far as images, check out WP:Image use policy, and make sure the images you want to upload are your own property, Public Domain, or similar. Also make sure you fill out the sourcing and copyright info when you upload; common noob errors that get images deleted and cause admin hassle best avoided. Nice start, feel free to post back on this page with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gaebler/Product Development Technologies

I would really appreciate some feedback on this article. Thanks in advance for your help.

Gaebler (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the article may need some other fixes, but in the meantime I'd say your priorities are to add categories (specific categories, not "Business", "Computers", see WP:Categories) and to turn your WP:Bare URLs into full WP:Citations. On a minor copyediting sidenote, you also want to move your reference tags after the punctuation marks, and remove any excess spaces between the tag and the text (on either side) so they'll align better. The only space involved should be between indidivual title words in the tag, and following the last "/ref" closout. Fix those and check back in and it'll be easier to advise you on the rest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, thanks for your helpful comments! I've made the suggested changes to the page. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions! Gaebler (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your footnotes still aren't full citations; the ones to PDT's site and the one to Aesir, for example, just give a title without any indication of who is presenting that page, and a date (if available). Advise you fix that; easy fix. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very easy fix. Thanks, I took care of those. Gaebler (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! I'd say you're cleared hot to publish. Just hit the "Move" button and chop off your Userpage address and just leave the title. Once you move it, advise you add {{WikiProject Business}} to the top of its Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your help. Much appreciated! Gaebler (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Russellbyrne/Robert_Byrne_(author)

I wrote this article as a birthday present to my father. Since the subject is my father, it's difficult to maintain a professional editorial distance, and the sources may not be handled properly.

I want to get this in shape to go live around the 20th of May, 2011. Thanks in advance for your time and suggestions.

Russellbyrne (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely difficult to maintain editorial distance when covering one's own father; I do recommend you put a note on the Discussion page there stating your Conflict of Interest for the sake of transparency. It's not a total bar to writing an article, but a definite "proceed with caution." I've fixed some of your formatting, the the absolute main thing you need to do is add sourcing. Give a read of WP:Notability (people) to understand what sort of coverage is required. Ideally, you want to footnote as many individual portions as possible to the source from which the information was derived. This is the other problem with writing about family, you know many things that you can't necessarily back up from published sources, which is called WP:Original research (or at least in the same vein thereof). One of the keystones of WP is WP:Verifiability, and info we can only get by personally asking someone doesn't really work. That said, it should be impossible to find articles written about his work and accomplishment, media profiles, etc. since the man seems to have done a lot of work. A thought: might you be able to get your mom to sneak away his book of press clippings about himself (if he has one)? That could make it a lot easier if you have a copy of the DesMoines Tribune from 1978 to quote for whatever facts about him. Though online resources are preferred, we understand that not everything is online yet, so a good, clear citation to a specific article still qualifies as "verifiable." Good luck in your mission, and I recommend that you also drop by the Discussion tab of WP:WikiProject Books and WP:WikiProject Billiard to post the same request for aid from the experts there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with all of that, other than the fact that there is no official Wikipedia preference for online sources. If anything, the opposite tends to be truer, as a much higher percentage of online sources versus print ones are unreliable. Some editors prefer online sources as they are easier to verify, but this has nothing to do with Wikipedia citation guidelines or verifiability policy. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning After (web series)

Hey all. I was frustrated by not being able to find solid, consolidated information on what I consider to be notable. AKA, The Morning After show on Hulu. Especially since it may be the first in-house original content from Hulu. Any feedback would be appreciated. At the very least, it might be that the article gets merged into Hulu. Thanks. ComposerDude (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple comments:

To prove notability you generally need reliable, independent sources. As of now, your article has two references to Hulu's site, one to a Gilmore Girls fansite, and GigaOM (I am not sure if it qualifies).
Spellcheck; there are some redlinks because of typos.

Other than that, seems like a good effort for your first article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Crisco. Especially for catching the typo... I usually make edits on the wiki for other people's typos, wow. I can provide further citations. Until I have a replacement source, I will refrain from excising the blog/fansite reference (nice catch... I missed that it was a fansite). As far as GigaOM and iTVedia, those are reputable industry news sites as far as I know, but I'll definitely take it under advisement. Thanks again! ComposerDude (TALKIE) 05:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Great start! Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to check in with this same RfF at WP:WikiProject Television; they are also likely more familiar with what sources are the go-to authorities, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Iowa School of Art and Art History

Hello, I would greatly appreciate a review of this new article on the University of Iowa School of Art and Art History. Many thanks for your kind efforts!!

Ericdean (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat: I am no great content editor. I just dropped by to help where I can. A notable subject and good references. The school's website should not be linked in the first sentence so I changed it up a bit. I modeled my changes based on a few other articles I perused. This is always dangerous as the other articles may have been done sloppily or incorrectly. I would understand any alterations that might be needed there. The "History" section could use more references and the "Graduate Archive" seems a bit promotional. If there were more secondary references (generally, but for the Graduate Archive section in particular) that could be cited it would lend more weight in the notability column. Thanks for taking the time to contribute. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jharrisonpr/Melodic Learning

- Please provide feedback. This is my first entry. Melodic Learning is a theory about how music affects learning.

Jharrisonpr (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tags at the top of the current edit say it best, I think. Also, it would be nice to have more online references if possible. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]