Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 24
Thanks for the initial feedback, this is a revised article about a multidimensional scaling method used to assign ideological scores to members of Congress (and other legislative bodies).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_%28scaling_method%29
Chris hare84 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems fairly okay to me, although someone's added a few tags to the top that detail a few issues with the article, so you might want to work on resolving those. Chevymontecarlo 05:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm in the process of writing articles on several notable people and contemporary issues and work very hard on making the articles balanced. Feedback would be wonderful. Thank you in advance!
Clickrubyshoes (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any immediate issues; you've certainly got the references/sources sorted. Chevymontecarlo 06:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ruby, I tagged your article with a few clean up tags. The most important thing is that this needs some major clean up. Your citation style is inconsistent, you have many run on sentences and you need categories. You may need to work a little better to establish notability, but you seem to be on the right track. Also, we should use his full name if it is available. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please help me with article. Need your feedback.
Dmitrij.shpilchevskij (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The opening paragraphs are decent (although the first sentence needs some work, it should be described as an airline, instead of identifying the corporate ownership structure.
- The rest clearly shows a lot of effort, so it pains me to point out that much of it is not appropriate.
- Lists have their place, and a list of corporate milestones could belong in an article about a company, but lists of milestones often cross the line into being more promotional than encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia article is usually mostly prose, accompanied by images where appropriate and including lists where prose is not the best way of delivering the information, I see too much emphasis on bullet points.
- I'm fine with the logo history, and the presentation in a table. It is a good example where tabular presentation may be better than prose.
- The company policy section is problematic. It reads very promotional, and gives an unbalanced view of the company. Of course they strive for "high quality of service" but this applies to just about any company. If an independent source said they achieved high quality, it might be worth including.
- Statements such as
On the whole, AeroSvit Airlines’ product can be characterized as meeting international standards and requirements of the market, not conceding and in many respects surpassing the product offered by competing airlines.
- are quite unacceptable. This is obviously not an outside view, but a company position.
- Similarly, the strategy section isn't appropriate, unless its strategy has been the subject matter in reliable sources.
- The list of destinations and codeshare agreements is fine, and here is a case where tabular presentation is appropriate.
- Watch out for wp:peacock wording, such as "maximizing the use of Boryspil International Airport’s transfer potential". It isn't encyclopedic.
- Phrasing such as
We aim to improve our fleet further...
- is a no-no. Prose must be written neutrally, and not in first person. I haven't checked, but this concerns me that you may have copied material under copyright.
- Again, there is evidence of a lot of work, unfortunate, you have a fair amount of work before it can be acceptable. I suggest you strip it down tot he minimum, then work on adding additional material gradually, making sure it conforms with good encyclopedic writing.--SPhilbrickT 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Felix_Cane
[edit]Please review my article.
59.167.248.133 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article.
Magi. A 09:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - I've taken a look through the article, and the first thing that sticks out is that it really wants more inline citations; a citation to support every statement of fact, and the sources for this should be reliable. Check out the pages below.
- What references should be
- Referencing for beginners
- Basic 'how to write an article properly' information
- Wikipedia's manual of style
… and here's one which makes producing good citations a lot easier!
I'll leave more information on referencing on your talk page, too.
Hope this has given you some pointers. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Din (din is noise)
[edit]I am the author of din but I have tried my best to have a NPOV citing references. This is my first new article on Wikipedia so if there is a problem will be happy to correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din_%28din_is_noise%29
92.233.69.135 (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just taken a quick look at your article. The first thing that strikes me about it is that it has no inline citations. We really need to have secondary sources - i.e. where other people have published something about it, and they also have to be reliable sources - i.e. not from a blog, and so on. So, anything where there's maybe a review in a magazine or newspaper would be a good source to include.
Take a look at WP:VRS to get some ideas on this. A quick check through a Google book search and Google news search is not getting me any 'hits' at all, so I suspect that this may not be considered to be notable, as nobody seems to be talking about it! That's likely to be your biggest challenge, I think, so the very first thing to do will be to find more than one reliable source for your article where people other than the producers of the software are writing about it.
Once you've found some reliable sources for verifying facts and proving notability, take a look at Referencing for beginners to learn how to put those into your article. Citation templates can make this job easier for you, when you get around to that.
Best of luck! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Tamer Shaaban Review Article
[edit]Article about a young notable film maker. Want the article to be reviewed. Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamer_Shaaban
Mantis50 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your review; I think the couple of press reference for the new article are enough reliable sources to demonstrate the fashion designer Jamal Taslaq is notable enough to take place in this wonderful encyclopedia. As it is my first contribution, I will be happy to follow any suggestion you would like to give me. Thank you Daniela Boniolo
Aster dani (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's not the right way to construct references. Check out Referencing for beginners for some help.--SPhilbrickT 22:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Legal Spend Management: Why Spend Management for Legal is Different http://www.spendmatters.com/index.cfm/2011/5/23/Legal-Spend-Management-Why-Spend-Management-for-Legal-is-Different
[edit]I'm requesting that Legal Spend Management be added as a new Wikipedia topic. The linked article desribes its fundamental differences. I considered adding it as an edit to the term Spend Management generally, the differences are, I think, significant enough to warrant its own term.
Your thoughts appreciated.
Jhodge 45324 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We would like to add a reference under the "Computing" title in the disambiguation page for SNAP: "Synapse SNAP, a mesh network operating system." This reference would have a link to go to the page I am submitting for your feedback. I have included ten resources, but could add more if useful for your readers, as well as qualify the entry as notable. Thanks! Bdfloyd (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Just taken a look at the article - before we can go any further, the references need to be placed inline, so that each point is followed directly by a link to the relevant source. See this page for basic information about creating inlince citations. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
New article on the FOUR Score - a recently developed clinical grading scale for comatose patients.
Aflint (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- My first reaction is positive. The challenge to most new editors is finding adequate references, and then formatting them correctly. You've mastered that quite well.
- I have two specific concerns:
- You removed a notice that the material is possibly subject to copyright. You addressed the issue on the talk page, but I was unable to access the linked site, so I need to do some homework to confirm that everything is fine. If you know the address in question, please let me know. I'll separately pursue it another way.
- Inline hyperlinks to external locations are no longer acceptable, such as the link to Dr. Eelco F.M. Wijdicks. (I have no doubt old examples still exist, but we can make sure new ones are not added.) At such time as there is an article in Wikipedia on Eelco F.M. Wijdicks, an internal link is allowed. At this time, the link should be changed to a reference. --SPhilbrickT 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am totally confused with the Referencing/citation of sources and the order of appearance in the article and the list in references is all messed up. Help! Thanks!
- This seems to be the article on which the user is requesting comments: → User:RealspiritLi2/Panyaden school •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
RealspiritLi2 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I've left some information on your talk page which should help! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
General review to confirm unbiased and if enough references for a starter page. Thanks!
Odotech (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - I've taken a look through the article, and the first thing that sticks out is that your username, and the name of the article, are the same! This is always going to bring up questions of possible conflict of interest. You'd probably be best to request a change of username, as well as ensuring that your Wikipedia 'work' isn't entirely focussed on this one article, to avoid any unfounded accusations which you may otherwise be subject to. (Consider joining the typo team doing a bit of typo-correcting for a few days, perhaps?)
Second, to have an article of its own in Wikipedia, a company has to be considered 'notable' as a company. Check out the "is this company notable?" guidelines to see if your article would be accepted; if it fails this test there wouldn't be much point carrying on improving the article.
Next off, if it passes that test, is that it really wants more inline citations; a citation to support every statement of fact, and the sources for this should be reliable, and therefore not just from the company's own literature. Check out the pages below.
Hope this has given you some pointers. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
C.C.test
[edit]the C.C.test has been tested by its creator ( who I am )
- Please provide a link to the page that you want to be reviewed. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)