Net Price Calculators
I'd appreciate some feedback on this article. I'm a subject expert however I think a review by a more experienced Wikipedia contributor would be very helpful.
Thanks M Fallon 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC) MAC Fallon May 3, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAC Fallon (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, but the article you've tried to link to is a dead one - it doesn't lead anywhere. Please try and fix your link so that I can review your article. I have tried searching but I still cannot find the article. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found it! I think there's still a lot of work that needs to be done to the article. I think you need to add more links to the article, as well as sections to divide up the parts of the article to make it easier to read. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor of Trim The Fat has requested that this user space draft article be moved to article space. I'm not sufficiently conversant with the criteria associated with music articles, so I'm hoping someone else will provide some feedback, and make the move if warranted.--SPhilbrickT21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few comments on the article's discussion page, just about the POV problems it's got, which can affect any type of article. Chevymontecarlo12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert but to me it reads like a discography and doesn't tell me much about the artist: When he was born, where he was educated, what he did before he got into the music business, how he started out etc.--Ykraps (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor of Netexplorateur has requested that this user space article be moved to article space. The references are all in French, so I'm hoping someone else will provide some feedback, and make the move if warranted.--SPhilbrickT22:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the second reference seems to be a news article of some sort (I translated it using http://www.translate.google.co.uk) and the first reference seems to be another article of some sort, but I'm not entirely sure. Where shall I provide the feedback? On the user's talk page? Chevymontecarlo07:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created an article for DC Special Series. This is a comic book related item so any editors with expertise in that area are invited to review. Thanks!
Well, I do not have any expertise with the criteria associated with comic book articles but I can advise on the actual layout and design of the article. Although you have references in there, they are all from more or less the same website which can be an issue. I can understand that the website you are using for multiple references is very useful but using different parts of the same website for multiple references does not bode well. Maybe that's something you need to look at. Chevymontecarlo07:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am requesting that the article Schoep's Ice Cream be reviewed. This is the first article I have written without guidance and I would like some input on how I did. I know it needs additional content, but I am not sure where it is lacking. Feel free to be honest, I won't be offended. Thank you. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be rather nice. I'd suggest reading WP:LEAD to help judge how large the lead should be. Also, try using Template:cite web. It's hard to get the hang of it, but helps describe the author and so forth. There's some thing in your preferences section that helps with that, I just don't remember what. Hope this helps! Buggie111 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alpha Quadrant, I'm no wikipedia expert but I love ice cream. I enjoyed your page. If you want to include some additional external links or references, I found the following articles that mention Schoep's ice cream. I was particularly interested in the first one--that they make over 200 flavors including 7 kinds of vanilla! Nice job.
Hello - I am writing a Wikipedia post for the Black Weblog Awards. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia post, so I would like any feedback to make sure this gets accepted. Would also like to add some category pages as well if this is accepted. Thanks!
Good - the infobox is nicely done, enough links in there, and at least some references. I think perhaps you should put all of the award categories into a table instead of a list like that, the template for a table is found at Template:Table - just copy and paste the code in like you maybe did for the infobox. I will remove the unreviewed template. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo07:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well written article, with appropriate sections and Wikilinks to other articles. I think it needs some more references for the 'list of events' section though - it's a big section with no references so that is likely to be picked up sooner or later by someone if it went live now. And I'm not sure about the notability of the article either - although it seems it has been featured on local radio and press in the past so maybe it's not so much of a problem. Chevymontecarlo06:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would really appreciate feedback on this article. There is a definite under representation of live art and performance on wikipedia and it would be really great to know the best ways to go about redressing this?
Expanding on Alpha Quadrant's point, the table template found at Template:Table may help you. You can copy and paste the code into your article and add the information in. Hope this helped! :) Chevymontecarlo06:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Sphilbrick, it sounds like a dictionary entry. I think it needs a bit more work to make it more encyclopedic as personally I think an article on that subject would be very useful. Chevymontecarlo06:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that according to the rules and policies at WP:CITE, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references for other articles, so I think you should probably remove the Wikipedia article link that is being used as a reference and replace it with another from an external site, if you can find one. Chevymontecarlo06:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your time and help in reviewing new articles - this is my first entirely new article
The 10th anniversary of the Pier 34 Collapse in Philadelphia has been in the news (even nationally) a lot lately, and I saw no article on here for the 2000 collapse, and since it was mentioned in a list of Engineering Disaster/Collapses in another artice, I decided to write it.
There was considerable coverage of the collapse, especially since the owners were brought up on criminal charges as a result of the deaths that occured.
I think there needs to be a few more references in the history and location section, and the opening paragraph as some important statements are made but there's no references to prove it. Technically, I think your article is great, with sections correctly inserted into the article and a few Wikilinks, but it needs more. Categories would also be useful to add to the article. Try searching for something like 'American accidents' and then add the categories to the end of the article, underneath the references section. Please ask at the help chat or the Wikipedia Help Desk if you are unsure about adding categories to your article or if you have any more questions. Hope this helped! :) Chevymontecarlo06:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Article has been updated with additional references to shore up the weaker areas. I added a catagory for Building Collapses, and also put in a few helpful WikiLinks. If anyone else has a moment to look at it and give me a thumbs up/thumbs down, I really would like to move it! =) Thanks!!!! Ngmweb (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! The categories will help to list the article with similar ones and get people reading it. I am not very confident with the process of moving a new article into the mainspace so I'm hoping someone else will be able to help you - If someone else could assist with moving the above article into the mainspace and/or provide a review that would be great! Thank you. Chevymontecarlo06:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it - if someone else besides Chevymontecarlo could also review it and remove the article flag, I would appreciate it! Ngmweb (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - I'm not sure if English is a first language for you, but if you can work with anyone here, maybe they can understand what the article's subject is more clearly, and then help you re-write it. Ngmweb (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks - the article needs more links to other articles to help the reader. Please try adding more if you can.
Some Point Of View problems - articles on Wikipedia need to sound neutral in tone. Your article is good, but I think in places the tone makes the article sound like an advertisement. Please try to improve it if you can. I hope this helped :) Chevymontecarlo06:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the article "Van Tuyl" in December 2009 and it still has an "unreviewed" tag. If you would be interested in reviewing this summary of my family history and can suggest changes and/or remove the "unreviewed" tag, I would greatly appreciate it.
Hello. Just moving the article into the Wikipedia mainspace will not necessarily mean that it will get reviewed straightaway. Not all editors want their new article reviewed, and it can take a while for someone to patrol the new page to check if it's OK, so that's why unreviewed tags stay there for a while. I will provide a review in a minute... Chevymontecarlo15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think although the article is very informative there are a few problems/issues that I found:
References - although you have some in the article, which is great, the whole article seems to rest on just a couple of references from the same source. Please try and find a few more varied sources (But please don't remove the references you have at the moment)
Wikilinks - the last part of the article has a definate lack of Wikilinks (Links to other articles on Wikipedia). Please try and add a few more - that'd be great.
Yes, the links and references that are already in there are great - it's just the tone that you need to improve. At the moment it sounds like an advertisement for the company and is therefore not encyclopedic. Chevymontecarlo11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please take a look at Pirmin Meier and then hopefully remove that ugly new unreviewed article template? Thanks (and don't be too hard on me, it's my first article) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your first article?! It's very good - many links are broken and the notes section should be called references (and you need some more inline citations), but it has a picture, table, and is very long. Also notable - that's very important. I've removed the feedback template. I would give it a B-Class (if I knew how to officially rate it) Great Job! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for that positive feedback. Feels good! And yep, it's the first page I created myself; before that I only did some minor edits on other articles. For the boxes and stuff, since I didn't (and still don't) know my way around templates, I just copied the relevant sections from other articles that I considered good and then changed their contents – kinda tedious, but it worked... (Speaking of templates: I would have a question about how you change what their output looks like; can I ask it here or shold I take it elsewhere?) As for the broken links, I'm planning on creating the corresponding articles as well, and thought I'd already prepare the linkages. Can they stay for a while like that? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very good article - the references are really messed up (no offense), and it could use a pic and infobox, but it is very good. If you want, I can fix the references and move it into mainspace (create it for real). ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|04:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need a few more links to other articles in there - if you are unsure how to do so please ask. I also think there a few minor Point Of View (POV) problems (It sounds a bit like it's in favour of the company in places), so it could do with being made a little more neutral in tone. It's nothing major though so I don't think it's anything to worry about. Chevymontecarlo12:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand infoboxes either, but for pics, just put this "[[Exact On-Wiki FileName|thumb|alt=Text That Shows If Pic Can't|Caption]]" Here's an example - "[[Image:Period_(school_term).jpg|thumb|alt=Period|The Word "Period".<br><small>Typeface - Helvetica, Size - 57, Color - Black</small> ]]" produces ... The Word "Period". —Preceding unsigned comment added by QwerpQwertus (talk • contribs)
Oh - that's called an infobox. I can't really explain how to do one - I barely can myself, but here is a link to the help page on them. I hope that helps! For a better explanation, try asking how to do them at the Help Desk. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award
Saying what the cleaning process is, how it works and what, if anything is different about it would add interest to the article--Ykraps (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to know if the way of listing the patents looks OK, or should somehow connect it with the references.
I'd like more references, but it seemed like I'd jut be repeating the external links.
Obviously the article will benefit from photographs, but looks like we have to wait a while before we're allowed.
I'm a bit troubled by your use of "we", please keep in mind wikipedia's policy of one person one account. It looks like you have enough references to establish notability, and it's a good start. The article does read like a resume, I would suggest dumping the patents section in favor of a sentence or two about his most important patents. Also, you can give a url that porints to Google's patent search to provide a link to them. It is also not necessary to list all of his publications, two or three representative works should suffice. In terms of the prose, I'd suggest avoiding non neutral phrases such as "renowned", "particularly well known", "keen interest". I also notice that the articles about him are listed, and that the body of the article remains largely unsourced. Rather than listing the articles, it would be better to use them as sources for the text in the body, such as the awards and recognition he has received, the equipment he uses, and his influences. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about my comments. --Nuujinn (talk)20:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the article that his images have been used in advertising and PR. If there are any examples or any advertising campaigns we might be familiar with, it would be good to mention them.--Ykraps (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We" was referring to us as a group, meaning "all new contributors who have to wait before being allowed to upload photographs".
Regarding patents, I dont't know if one patent is more important than another. The fact that there were quite a few seemed the important factor. Good idea on the Google patents search. Should this be a single link below the list, or make each patent a link? "Renowned' has been removed but, having read the introductions to his three books, I think "keen interest" could be classed as verifiable.
Andyoakey (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a local but nationally well known cruise agent. Some notable sources are included. Feedback would be very much appreciated. Geotgeot (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Gill's Cruise Centre per your request. Please note, if you try to search for it using the search option, it always takes some time, a few hours to a day, for it to show up in search, and at the moment, it appears the indexing is lagged a few days.--SPhilbrickT13:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been havng my first stabs at creating a wikipedia article for the EC funded research project, InTopSens of which I have the joy (?) of managing. I uploaded a couple of versions of the article but each time they were deleted. Perhaps someone could be so kind as to go to this link and tell me what I can do to avoid this happening again:
Sorry to report this, but I see no way to avoid this happening again. You have a conflict of Interest, which means you shouldn’t be creating or even editing such an article, although if someone else creates it, you can provide help at the article talk page. On occasion, we hear that people have been instructed to create a Wikipedia page about their project/company. In those case in may help to show the employer the COI guideline. SPhilbrickT18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found these articles via google: [1][2][3] I might not get chance to take a decant look for a while though so if anyone else wants to contribute they are welcome. Dannyhill, if you know of where we can find any news articles on InTopSens, then please post the links here ^_^ Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that it was previously known by a different name, I added a redirect from the previous name to this page, you can see it here so if you go to Kenneth Lafferty Hess Family Charitable Foundation you end up at Science Buddies. Another comment of mine would be: try to add more internal links, for example K-12 (being from the UK I don't know what K-12 is) or "science fair" in the first sentence. Don't link everything though, and only link to a page once (e.g. noodles are very nice I like noodles.) Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry me again, I fixed the external link to the official website here External links work differently to internal links:
It's pretty good (it has notability, an infobox, good description), but it does have some problems. There are three sections linking Wikipedia articles to other places:
References - To show that the subject is notable (important), and for more info, and some of where you got info.
Sources - Where you got your info, and for more info.
External Links - For more info.
Your should add references from other books\sites that are not related to the company to show that it is notable. I believe it is (per a google search), but please do add some independent examples to make it better. Good work! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes and added another external link to the list. I also added two more outside article sources about Cold Spring Granite. If this is sufficient, I would like to make this live on Wikipedia. Any thoughts?
All Pro Dad
The article I posted was about the All Pro Dad organization, I gave a brief summary and history of the organization the followed with the 3 main things that they do to outrach to fathers, the daily email, the dad's breakfast and the all pro dad's day. I kept it brief and tried to cite the sources and websites that I used from All Pro Dad. The feedback will be greatly appreciated and I thank you very much for your time.Swsafety28 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good (it has notability, and a good description), but it does have some problems. There are three types of sections linking Wikipedia articles to other places:
References - To show that the subject is notable (important), and for more info, and some of where you got info.
Sources - Where you got your info, and for more info.
External Links - For more info.
Your should add references from other books\sites that are not related to the company to show that it is notable. I believe it is (per a google search), but please do add some independent examples to make it better - all current ones are on their sites. But, good work! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think notability is dubious in this case. Most of the references are self references and don't count for notability purposes. Of those that remain, none appear to have the significant coverage that is required to demonstrate notability. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of view - at the moment it sounds like an advertisement for the school. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral style. I think that the full list of courses avalaible needs to be removed and replaced with a brief sentence evaluating the different courses that are avalaible - this would be a more neutral way of displaying the same information.
Wikilinks - the article needs more links to other articles. You need to add more links to make it helpful for the reader.
Organisational problems - the article's content needs to be divided into more sections and paragraphs to make it easier to read. I recommend starting in the part of the article where all the different courses are listed, try adding a section for each.
I agree with the above. Chevymontecarlo gave some specific thoughts on organization, for a general discussion, see Article Layout. One important addition note tis that you have included no references to reliable sources. Wikilinks are nice, references are required.--SPhilbrickT12:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but probably not. You'd need to show that the stream has been discussed in a number of reliable sources. Which I suppose is possible, but it seems unlikely. (And while lack of hits on Google is certainly not proof of lack of notability, the burden is on you to find the references.) Sorry.--SPhilbrickT13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your photos are nice, they really add loads more information to the article - they are really useful for the reader. Good luck with that and I'm pleased that it seemed to be accepted by the people at the WikiProject. Chevymontecarlo18:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could say what the source of the stream is. Is it a spring or a pond or does it just drain an area of marshy ground? What sort of soil, rock does it flow through? Is it a chalk stream for example. What sort of vegetation grows in the stream and on its banks? There ought to be plenty of insect life (Dragonflies, Caddis Larvae, Water Boatmen etc). Do you know what the fish are? A stream like that where I live would typically contain: Bullheads, Sticklebacks, Minnows etc as well as the fry of larger fish. Hope that helps--Ykraps (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an article "draft" in my personal user space onProto magazine. I think it warrants an entry -- articles from the magazine have been reprinted, cited, etc., in a number of well-known venues, including the Washington Post (they have reprinted three stories since 2008). The magazine also inspired discussion from Rush Limbaugh. I'm worried, however, about the article appearing "promotional" and being deleted. I would love any input on how to make sure I'm approaching things correctly.Elemiska (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very slightly promotional, though I can tell that you were trying not to. Try to avoid overly positive or unprovable adjectives. Some examples:
"the latest in biomedicine (regardless of where it’s being studied)"
Latest in biomedicine
"interviews with controversial figures in the medical world and personal essays about patients’ experiences with health care"
I am respectfully submitting the recommended changes to the section in the link below. I can be readhed with questions. I am the Deputy Fire Chief for Miami. I would like the data more accurately reflect our department. Thanks.
The City of Miami Fire Rescue Department is the agency that provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the city of Miami, Florida. This professional fire department protects approximately 500,000 city residents 24/7, 365 and operates out of 14 Fire Stations, located throughout the city's 35 square miles. The department also operates a fire apparatus fleet of 11 Engines (Including 1 Foam Engine), 3 Aerials, 3 Quints. Within this staffing constraint it also runs 1 Haz-Mat. Unit, 1 Technical Rescue Unit, 1 Dive Rescue Unit, 1 Air Unit, 1 Fire Boat and 24 multi-purpose Fire-Rescue transport units. Miami Fire Rescue responds to approximately 90,000 incidents annually. The department also operates FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Florida Task Force 2. FLTF2 is 210 member organization deploying teams of 70 Rescue workers, search dogs, physicians and structural engineers who travel with 50,000 lbs of equipment to assist in major disasters.
Miami Fire Rescue Department
Motto: "Excellence through Service"
Established July 17, 1898
Staffing Career
Strength
699
Stations
14
Engines
14
Trucks
3
Rescues
24
Fireboats
1
EMS Level
ALS Transport
Commissioner
Maurice Kemp
Freddie Fernandez, Deputy Fire Chief
City of Miami Department of Fire-Rescue
1151 NW 7 Street, 3rd Floor
Miami, FL 33136
<redacted>
"Excellence Through Service!"
The process doesn't work that way, but I realize you have no way of knowing that. You are discouraged from editing the article itself (See WP:COI) but you are encouraged to post suggestions on the talk page. I will do that for you.--SPhilbrickT14:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copied it over to Talk:Miami Fire Department. Although you are undoubtedly knowledgeable about the facts, Wikipedia works on the concept of verifiability, and we must find the information in printed in published sources.SPhilbrickT14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put a different way, I could claim to be Justin Beber and claim to be gay and want my wikipedia page changed ;-)
But if you can find somewhere else that gives more information about the department (e.g. an official website, a news article that mentions the department etc.) then someone else will happily link to it and reference the facts. Hope that makes some sense! Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review this article and consider putting on Wikipedia live. I've compared this to other larger pages and companies on Wikipedia that have only 9 resources, this one has a few since it is a small company. Nothing is advertising language and it is all factual. They do not have outside articles published, being so small.
I'm not sure about the neutrality of the article in places. Language like 'for over thirty years', 'a supplier for some of the largest original equipment manufacturers' , 'family-owned', and 'the oldest company' sound a bit like an advertisement and I think they should be either rewritten or removed entirely. There are a few Wikilinks (links to other articles) in there, but there could be a few more, so please try and add a few more if you can. I also think the Products section is a bit technical in places - to the average reader they may have no idea what many of the terms mean so adding a link or rewriting the section in a more simplified way would be a nice idea. One final thing you perhaps need to maybe think about is the references. It's good that you have at least have some, but most of them seem to be just from the official site. These are good, but it'd be great if other references and sources from places that are independent of the article's subject (i.e. no site that is affiliated with Scotland Manufacturing), as these sources/references are usually more reliable. Other than that it's a nice article. I hope these points have helped. Chevymontecarlo18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested changes you described above. I do not have many more resources to add to this at this time, however I do anticipate more in the future once they can provide articles that have been published, etc. Please review and let me know of any further changes needed before going live.
Again, thank you for your time in reviewing this article and taking the time to provide feedback.
The article is about a nutrceutical company in California called Botanical Wisdom. They use a patented process called Bio-Enhanced Extraction to extract a high yield of nutrients to manufacture herbal supplements. They are an umbrella company of Hamida Pharma, a global nutraceutical manufacturer.
I am not sure about the notability of the article's subject. Articles on Wikipedia have to be notable enough to stay on the site. Please see WP:NOTE for more information. I am not sure about the rules regarding notability so I'm hoping another user can help out and provide another opinion on this. As to the rest of the article, one definite problem is the lack of links to other articles. Please try and add some if you can. To start you off I think you should link the place names in the article (Lake Forest, California) by placing [[ ]] around them. References in the article are OK, but as with many articles that are just starting out there needs to be a few more. Please keep on searching and please add them to the article. Thanks and good luck with the article. Chevymontecarlo19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite concerned about the need to establish Notability. You need multiple mentions in independent reliable sources. While you have three references,
The first appears to be an entry in an online catalog, so doesn't count for Notability
The second is a blog. With some rare exceptions (this isn't one) blogs are not reliable sources
The third is a PR release. Acceptable for verifying certain types of facts, but does not count toward notability.
A biography of Bonnie C. Templeton, a pioneering female botanist who was the curator of botany at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County from 1929 to 1970. User:Pkmartin/Bonnie_C_Templeton
Your article is pretty good - it is notable and has a lot of info, though you do need some sources\references that prove the notability of the article. (ex. Newspaper entry on her work\her). I will go ahead and fix some minor layout\coding probs for you. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your additions to the page--I think it is very much improved by them. I made one reversion--I don't think the Cal State Northridge Botanic Garden is the California Botanical Garden: the dates are wrong. In fact, I've not been able to identify it</chagrin>. I suspect it has had a name change or been absorbed by another entity.
There are three articles in the Los Angeles Times that discuss her work, which I hope establish notability. These are listed in the references, being #2,5,7 and 8. Also, the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Library has acquired and processed her archives, indicating they thought she was notable enough to preserve her records.Pkmartin (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is my first wikipedia page, the page is about Rebecca Huxtable an assistant radio producer in the UK. Would greatly appreciate some feedback! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewMerrell (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but she may not be notable enough for her own article per notability guidelines. Somebody may have also made it before, I believe, but I think that it was merged in to the radio show article as a small section and redirected there. Try searching it - you get redirected to the show article. Though it is a pretty good article (minus the lack of notability\refs), I encourage you to continue contributing - maybe by editing existing ones first. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Family First
I wrote a page about this article breifly describing it and giving a brief summary about the company citing all the sources i found online. I highlighted the 3 internal companies briefly sourcing them from their online websites as well. I thank you for your time and consideration, your help will be greatly appreciatedSwsafety28 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my message on your talk page: in brief you edited an existing disambiguation page and turned it into a new article. That is not the way to do it, so I have reverted your changes. Further explanation on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that your article has been nominated for deletion, you need to add more references to show that something is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. A good place to start might be here: news.google.com if you are looking for references to show something's notability (These two looked good: [4][5]).
To be honest, this isn't really a good article - it would never be accepted. This is an encyclopedia - like a real one - something like that probably doesn't qualify for inclusion and if it did, you should not use a joking tone. I encourage you to keep contributing though - perhaps by editing already-existing articles that you may be interested in. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not very suitable for Wikipedia, both in tone and in content. If you want to improve Wikipedia though, please do help out on existing articles instead. Chevymontecarlo15:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm honest with you, I'm surprised that there isn't a (real ^_^) wikipedia page on it. While single serving sites are a meme, there has been quite a bit of coverage of the topic. Captain n00dle\Talk11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. The article is well written, with good references and Wikilinks (links to other articles). I don't think the notability of the article's subject is a problem but a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference, so I'm afraid you'll have to remove it. I also recommend that maybe you should make a few improvements to the article's layout - maybe separate the article into sections or something like that. Chevymontecarlo15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback - I'll experiment with how to use sections!
The article is currently tagged with a box saying "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2010)" Is there any more "clean-up" I can do to get rid of this? Lilysask (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can make it sound more neutral. The template box at the top basically means that because a major contributor to the article appears to have a close connection with its subject, there's a few problems with the tone - it's sounding a bit like an advertisement or in the article's subject's favour. That's basically what it means. Cleanup is all about making an article more suitable for Wikipedia. Chevymontecarlo18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please provide some feedback on my Ornella Barra article. It is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article. Thank You
Hello. It seems that the link you've provided is dead-it does not lead anywhere. I've tried searching manually but there doesn't seem to be any articles of that name on Wikipedia. Please try and fix your link if you can. Chevymontecarlo14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sphilbrick! That's a really nice article. References, links and appropriate layout is all there, which is excellent. One thing I did find though - you should maybe think about putting the timeline part of the article into a table - there's a template that you can use that's perfect for that at Template:Table - both examples would work great. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo18:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fastflow_(computing) is a C++ programming framework based on lock-free synchronizations.
I am requesting review of this article, which has been recently improved to address previous issues. Any advice would be appreciated, thank you. | History page
Nice article. An infobox is always a great thing to add to an article. You have at least some references and links, which is also good for an article. Chevymontecarlo09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
( ← outdenting ) It is indeed a very well-written article, but I'd suggest to its author that he would do well to refrain from editing on the topic for now. The author's not at fault, but it's my opinion that any additional work could end up being wasted labor, i.e. might have to be reverted. I don't mean to sound ominous or mysterious, and I apologize for doing so, but I did want to put up this preliminary message right away, as a courtesy. More to follow very soon, i.e. within 1 - 2 hours, as soon as I can finish researching the problem and composing notice of it. Ohiostandard (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow follow-up, and very sorry indeed for what I must say about this article: I don't blame the user who created it, but the article and related edits to other articles have multiple problems, all quite serious. Of these, conflict-of-interest is the most immediately-apparent. This was disclosed to the article's author by another user ( along with other concerns, such as for notability ) in the previous request-for-comment he initiated on this article. Like most relatively new users and especially most single-purpose-account new users, he probably just doesn't understand the applicable guidelines as they applied to the article he created nor the implications of the COI information he had been sent. Further developments pending. Ohiostandard (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, due to the previous comments, I tried to strictly follow FAQ for organizations: "editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies" and conflict-of-interest guidelines: "editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty" . Most is not all, I see. Said that, the best I can do is just to stop any further edit and hope that the article will be evaluated for its content and its verifiable sources from now on, and not just for one its editor. Anyway, thanks for the comments. Aldinuc (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article and found that it needs a ton of work to make it more suitable for Wikipedia...
References There are no references or sources for the article to prove the statements that are made in the article. You need to add some otherwise it's likely it'll just be deleted.
Sections You need to add sections to the article, to break it up and make it easier for someone to read. Please try doing this.
Tone It sounds like it was copied from a magazine article. Please try and rewrite the article to make it more neutral in tone, instead of sounding like a magazine article.
Links You need to add more links to other articles in the article itself. These aid readability (they make the article easier to read and help the reader find out more).
Wikipedia articles have a specific structure to them, specified in a guideline called Layout (Click on the link to see the details). Your article doesn't incorporate some of the required elements of the structure. --SPhilbrickT20:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on Chemicalinterest's point, when using <ref></ref> tags you can insert them at relevant points in the article, for example if the article talked about a date of birth you could put the reference that proves the date of birth next to it in the article using the <ref></ref> tags. Chevymontecarlo18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Dernulc has generated some recent coverage in one local (online only?) media outlet, but he's running for a county council seat in one of Indiana's many counties, right? Running, not elected? The relevant guideline as to whether he's considered sufficiently notable in such a case appears to be wp:politician. And the way I read that guideline, this person doesn't qualify as notable for purposes of Wikipedia, and thus doesn't warrant an article. I don't think the article can legitimately be created in mainspace, and would be likely to get speedily deleted if it were. Sorry. Ohiostandard (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... I got distracted from looking at this earlier, and had forgotten that he was in office; my mistake. Politician is still the relevant notability standard, I think, but he probably meets it. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly plenty of content there, but there are a few problems with the tone in places. Please try and make it a bit more neutral. There are some good references and the article is appropriately Wikified with sections and links, which is great. You might want to include an infobox somewhere too, perhaps at the top of the article to help summarise the basic information about the article's subject. I recommend the Template:Infobox person to get you started. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo09:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that page seems notable enough to warrant an article, and is laid out correctly. To add categories, at the bottom of the page write [[:Category:]], and then following the colon, put the categories you feel the article slots into. WackyWacetalk18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to adding categories to the article, all you need to do is add the appropriate category links to the bottom of the article, and they will appear in a bar at the bottom automatically. For example, I could add Category:American college songs to the bottom of an article whose subject was linked to the subject of the category and it will appear in a bar at the bottom automatically. I hope this is what you mean :) Chevymontecarlo18:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is nicely done. There's references and links, which are vital in an article, but no categories which is what you need to work on - you've asked about it so I'm guessing that's what you'll be trying to do. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More References Which Prove the band is important enough for an encyclopedia
To make the text more neutral - not in favor of the band\showing that they are good such as "They have been compared to The Faces, The Rolling Stones, and The Black Crowes" - this is not provable and is biased
Thanks for the feedback! I changed some of the wording and tracked down a few more published references. I'm also going to try another article soon. This first one was good practice.Rexodus (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually I would like to go live with this article again. Have made more excisions than inclusions to solidify article. Just the facts here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good - it has notability\references, but I would recommend expanding it and making it sound a little more official or encyclopedic, but it is pretty good. If you can fix those things, contact me here and tell me, I'll put it up live for you. - I don't think it would survive as is. Thanks! ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award06:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tip with posting on talk pages - after you make a post please type or insert the four tildes (~~~~) at the end so people know who said what. If you don't have a key to type a tilde you can click on the tildes at the bottom of the edit window to insert the four tildes automatically. Chevymontecarlo08:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What notability criterion are you using here? WP:LEAD suggests that the subject's main field of endeavour should be listed first; that makes Mr Correa primarily an artist. But he doesn't satisfy WP:ARTIST, or WP:CREATIVE for his comedy work (check out the criteria to see why not). And coming last in a municipal mayoral election does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, although elected local mayors do normally qualify. That leaves us with the primary notability criterion "significant coverage in reliable independent sources".
Of the references you cite, all but 2 are local news media and most are just passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of Mr Correa and his achievements - only numbers (6) and (9) could possibly be considered nontrivial - the rest are passing mentions. This leaves you with a local paper's review of his artwork in a local exhibition, and the Sue Stephens NPR piece. The latter was interesting to listen to, but it was about Rockford and the mayoral election, not about Mr Correa, who had just two very short soundbites devoted to him in the whole of the 9-minute piece. I cannot see that the references you have given constitute significant reliable independent coverage, so as it stands, I think the article fails WP:N. Sorry, he sounds like a great guy and I'm sure I'd enjoy a drink with him, but I don't think he's notable by Wikipedia standards at present. Karenjc17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like a publicity release at present, not an encyclopaedia article. It contains POV language (for example, "vivid imagination"; "creative and shocking marketing approach" "the legendary Tommy Chong"). "Award-winning" is a term to be used with caution on Wikipedia: see WP:PEACOCK. There are unsourced claims that need verification: for example, that her PR firm has turned companies into multi-million dollar enterprises (which ones?), and that she has worked on "hit shows" (which ones, and by whose definition are they hits?) There are references to events and individuals which assume the reader will be familiar with them so offer no links or clues: what, for example, are "the unforgettable shenanigens of the Mid-West's Party Chaser Girls" (whoever they are)? Basic information is missing: one of the references notes that Brandi Knight is not the subject's birth name, for example, but there is no mention of this in the lead section; she is described there only as a "writer", but the article makes it clear she has many business interests and appears to be known, if for anything, as a publicist. Most inappropriate is the controversial unsourced material: the article claims that federal agents tried to "silence" Ms Knight with "bogus" criminal charges. These serious allegations are completely unsourced and should be credibly cited or removed. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong, but if you are connected in any way with Ms Knight, you are strongly discouraged from writing about her on Wikipedia. Karenjc20:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. No problem with notability, and the citations are fine as far as they go, but it needs a careful rewrite to achieve a neutral and encyclopaedic tone. Don't tease, i.e. don't hint at detail and then avoid explaining it ("a series of disturbing personal events..."). Don't write in the third person from the perspective of the subject ("Gustave sees his career as work in progress"). If you can cite a direct quotation that has him saying this, and you think it's important enough to be in the article, then use the quotation - otherwise it just sounds like a press release. And don't list awards and honours unless they are meaningful; it gives the wrong impression. It's nice that he appeared in a film that his friend made, and nice that the film won a prize at a festival, but it's hardly an award or an honour for Mr Gustave, and YouTube links are not a good source, generally speaking. Karenjc18:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for review and feedback by Wiipedia volunteer editors. Please pay special attention to if this is sufficient re mainitating a neutral tone, the proper use of citations, and regarding needed categories (I am still researching categories) Thank you very much. Austin3301 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's on the border with WP:N, but the more ways you can say how it's notable. Reading that as someone who knows nothing about it, it just seems like some building development. Good luck, and let me know if you want me to read it later. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I will edit some more and keep it in feedback space until it is ready. It's not just a building, it the Austin metropolitan area's only large-scale mixed-use, master-planned project with office, retail, resturants and living for a live-work-play environment. Perhaps I should include some mention of New Urbanism, etc. Do you think the photo of one building hurts, versus say a map or a master plan? Austin3301 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A master plan or map would be helpful, I think. The article should have additional references, take a look at Google News Archive, some of those might be helpful. Also, it's always a good idea to look at other articles on similar topics to get a feel for how other editors have approached the topic. --Nuujinn (talk)20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I actually have tons of articles that can be used for references, I was just trying not to BOMBARD. A map is an excellent idea. I need to research how to use a Google or Mapquest map image with proper license and attribution. Thanks for the advice. Austin3301 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin3301 (talk • contribs)
User:Austin3301/La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas) Categories
What have I mis-coded in Categories to get this result (red titles)? I copied each category name precisely from it's web page. Austin3301 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was deleted and redirected by a bot. Best to click on them all and see what you can do, creating new cats if necessary. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The red-linked categories do not yet exist. I assume you had copied them from an article's title, so you'll need to find which categories do exist. You can try using the gadgetHotcat to assist. —fetch·comms21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you. Great tip about Hotcat. Austin3301 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin3301 (talk • contribs)
Try to avoid using his own website as a reference, and just try to add more references in general. But overall, it looks almost ready to become a live article. —fetch·comms21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made one little fix here to show the external link in the template (on the right-hand-side) properly. Normally an external link looks like this: [http://www.example.com external link] and an internal link looks like this: [[example article]], but that was a template so you just needed to use the address! Hope I didn't confuse you Regards, Captain n00dle\Talk11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first line would benefit from rewording to "Jonathan Lloyd Walker is an English [or British] film and television actor and writer", thus avoiding repeating the info about his birthplace given in the next section. The lead section needs at least one more sentence, establishing the grounds on which this particular actor and writer is notable in his chosen field.
Other points:
"Mother" and "Officer" should not be capitalized in this context.
There's no reason for "Simon Davis Barry" and "Gregory Middleton" to be in bold text - if they have articles, they should be Wikilinked; if not, do they need mentioning?
Avoid non-neutral language, e.g. "diverse and complex roles"; "substantial roles"; "iconic series".
Avoid excessive name-dropping and attempts to inflate the subject's importance. For instance, there is no need to list seven notable cast members of the film Red, just as part of a sentence pointing out that Mr Walker appeared in it too. And the choice of the term "opposite" in that sentence is inappropriate, because it implies his billing and importance are on equal terms with those of the seven actors mentioned, whereas in fact his role doesn't merit a mention in any of the material I can find on the film, including our own Wikipedia article, where he is not in the cast list.
You describe him as a writer, but include no mention of any published or commercial work.
I have addressed most of the notes above. Thanks for them. To explain, I do believe that Mr.Walker merits this Wiki listing being posted for a few reasons; 1) He has played major roles in several high profile American studio movies. This is vouched for by his involvement in both "Red" and "The Thing" receiving mention in Variety. As a trade publication Variety is not generally in the habit of writing articles about the casting of minor roles. I have sited these articles in the references. Further, the fact that he is not listed in the Wiki for the film "Red" should be no means be considered definitive. Beside the reference given from Variety there are also several sources, such as IMDB, that confirm his involvement. 2) He has played a lead in an American network series for which there is certainly an established fan base and has been invited to and made appearances at several sci-fi fan conventions. 3) He is both a member of The Canadian Academy and has served as a jury person for voting on the Gemini awards. These are details I will add to the posting and reference accordingly.
I did not expand on his writing credits simply because they are listed in his IMDB profile which is already referenced.
I agree with you that he's notable enough for an article - I don't dispute this. Concerns were over tone and citations, and you're addressing both, it appears. The Variety pars are good new citations to confirm his recent work; the point about taking care not to describe this work in promotional language still holds good. A neutral, factual description of a person's accomplishments is more appropriate in an encyclopaedia than exaggerated terms, and will survive here much more easily. Bear in mind that, although IMDB is frequently cited in Wikipedia (and there are helpful templates for this purpose at WP:IMDB), it is not regarded as a truly reliable source because it contains self-published material, so ideally other reliable independent sources should be cited to support facts drawn from the site. When the article goes live, the title should be "Jonathan Lloyd Walker" - there is no other entry of that name, so the (actor) disambiguation is not necessary. Best of luck with it. Karenjc22:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request for feedback regarding Signmanager's userspace draft User:Signmanager Australia/Signmanager. This article aims to list what Signmanager; an Australian company, does and highlight their achievements. Signmanager has been written about by the media and these references are listed in the article. Thank-you for your time. --Signmanager Australia (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an okay article, though the text definetly needs to be changed so that it will sound neutral (not in favor of the company), as described here. It also should have more inline citations and only the pics most important to the article (not a collection of pics). It is an okay article though I encourage you to try and fix these things. Also, per WP:COI, a company or organization or anybody working for them should not write about them. It is also a user name violation and in some cases, you may be blocked. ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would like to make a couple of suggestions first, if that is okay?
I might reword the lead section to "The Sun Valley Center for the Arts was founded in 1971 and is the oldest " (you can miss out the very first line "Sun Valley Center for the Arts" then).
I've noticed that you keep capitalising "The Center" it should be "the center" (unless at the start of a sentence, then it should be "The center"). This is because "the center" is not a proper noun.
I replaced the second link as the first only went to a search page, not very useful for anyone clicking the link. I also replaced the first link with this template {{official|http://www.sunvalleycenter.org}} to be consistent with other pages.
You might like to use this tool so that your references to websites look better (that tool uses a template to make references) I find it quite useful.
Hello! Jxie04 I can see that you created this: Template:Infobox People2 however, it will soon be deleted because it isn't a template! A template can be used on more than one article, the one that you have created can only be used on the one article.
You will have to use this template: Template:Infobox Person on your wikipedia page e.g:
{{Infobox person
| name = Zhang Jianhong
| other_names = Li Hong
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1958|03|06}} -->
| birth_place =
| death_place =
| nationality =
| other_names =
| known_for =
| occupation =
| criminal_charge = Instigating to overthrow the national regime
| criminal_penalty = Imprisonment for 6 years
| criminal_status = Convicted March 19th, 2007
}}
IOCS is any of a number of packages for IBM computers used to do record level I/O. This article is based on personal use of 7070/7074 IOCS and a reading knowledge of 709/7090 IOCS, but I know of IOCS packages for the IBM
1401/1440/1460
1410/7010
7040/7044
7080
I vaguely recall that there may be one for the IBM 1620 and 1710 as well.
I considered adding sections on the 7070/7074 IOCS and the 709/7090 IOCS. but wasn't sure whether that would be too much information.
Hello! We don't have much expertese in this area I fear, but I left requests to get people to help here and here.
I can provide some general pointers, but generally more information is always good in my opinion! Here are my suggestions:
I would make "implementations and nomenclature" a different section (if that makes sense) and avoid the bulleted list here, try to write more prose.
You can link to Macro instruction like this: [[Macro instruction|macro-instructions]] this says "macro-instructions" but links to "Macro instruction".
One thing that I've noticed is that you have linked "IOCS", but this page is IOCS so you don't need to link it.
Once your page is in the mainspace at "Input/Output Control System (IBM)" we can add disambiguation to IOCS.
Once the article is done I would add: {{Redirect-distinguish|Input/Output Control System|Input/Output Control System (Fujitsu)}} to the top of the article
Do you know if "Input/Output Control System" should be capitalised? I'm not sure it should because I'm not sure that it is a proper noun but you can look here to check, and please let us know!
To my laymen's brain: "record oriented access to peripheral equipment" confuses the hell out of me, perhaps you could write a section on "useage" and link to record oriented access (it might be here: Record-oriented filesystem but I don't know!).
You've put in some references, which is great! But the only thing that is referenced at the moment are the different models of computer that use IOCS, try to reference what it does, when it is from and how it was used. Good tips can be found here: Tutorial (Citing sources), Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes
I would put the External Links section above the references, so that the Notes section, and the References section appear together. Although you haven't put any external links in, so you can remove this (external links are not a requirement, but you could try and put in some links to non-commercial links here).
Thanks. It will take me a while to digest and act on your suggestions, but here's my first take.
It turns out that there are two relevant macro articles, Macro (computer science) and Macro instruction; the former was listed in the disambiguation page but the latter is not (IMHO it should be.) I've corrected my tags.
Are you saying that references from within a page to the subject of the page should be pure text rather than links? If so, I have a few other articles to edit ;-) Or are you just pointing out that some of my links were broken?
Would it be wrong to add your suggested redirect tag now?
The IOCS manuals that I have capitalize the titles.
I thought that I was writing in layman's language; obviously I need another pass at adding background information )-:
What I was saying was that referenes to the same page should be pure text, so I were to discuss this page, I would just write Wikipedia:Requests for feedback because if I link it, it just looks like this anyway: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback which isn't necessary.
You could put the template in "{{Redirect-distinguish|Input/Output Control System|Input/Output Control System (Fujitsu)}}" but don't put the redirect in, it wouldn't go anywhere! (Redirect pages look like this)
Thank you about the Capitalisation, no we know where to put the article when it is finished ^_^
And sorry for not understanding! It is a specialist subject so I did expect it to be complex but internal links help. Don't make it too simple though, because people likely to be reading this article will have some background knowledge!
No need to apologise; nobody held a gun at my head and forced me to write. I asked for feedback, and you took the time to give me some, which I appreciate. If you didn't understand, that may be a sign that I didn't write at the right level or that I didn't provide enough background. I'll try to flesh it out more.
As for a lot to do, the IOCS article is a piece of cake compared to some of the other articles in my user space, e.g., User:Chatul/System Generation (OS); it's more or less self contained and I won't have to write a half dozen other articles to provide context. For the others, I've found myself linking to articles that don't exist, and unless I can find volunteers I'll have to write them.
"record oriented access to peripheral equipment" - I also do not understand that term. Would contrasting / comparing to the term BIOS help explain IOCS ? AlanDewey (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so; the term BIOS refers to a nominal partition of low level OS functions between a machine dependent part (BIOS) and a machine independent part (BDOS); It doesn't relate to the functionality of file systems. I'll have to craft a few paragraphs of background information and then see if they're intelligible to readers without mainframe experience. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning Mainframes helped me in that I now know there is a good reason I never heard the term before, and that everything will be new to me. Your comment regarding BDOS and BIOS is helpful in that it makes it clear that IOCS is different and that difference has a clear distinction. Perhaps briefly mention one of those differences and add link to the wikipedia BIOS article. Then reading the two articles would make it very clear. AlanDewey (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would rewording the lead section something like this help:
Input/Output Control System (IOCS) refers to several software packages on early IBM entry-level and mainframe computers that provided low level software access to peripheral equipment via record oriented access...
Soemone else caught that when I requested a move to Input/Output Control System. In addition, I did as you suggested and changed some of the bulleted lists to narrative. The article is now in main space awaiting review.
I plan to split out the references to IOCS manuals from the other references and to use {{cite manual}} where appropriate.
Should I change the heading in the feedback entry as part of the cleanup from the move, or is the user-page reference supposed to remain for the record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does a good job of introducing the topic in context and provides a number of useful facts. Given that, I focused on improving the expression of the facts you've already selected.
I agree with Captain-n00dle's suggestion to create a "Usage" section and that the list of supported equipment might be clearer in prose, meaning sentence and paragraph form, than in a list.
These sentences confuse me:
"Computers in the 1950s and 1960s..."
"The implementations and nomenclature of the various IOCS packages vary"
"Identify features that it needs" should be more precise if possible
"Specify the processing", same
Areas where additional context would be helpful:
I see the article is in the past tense – but over what date range did IOCS apply? (For example, you could indicate the release dates of software versions that supported IOCS, or the date range during which the applicable hardware was sold.)
Define SPOOL on first usage, something like: "IOCS was designed to coexist with SPOOL, a system for ..."
Is this a tool used for assembly language programming? Any other languages? Indicating this would be helpful, even if it's implied by the kind of systems you're talking about, because it makes the article more accessible to a general audience. This could be as simple as saying "assembly languagemacro instructions" on first reference.
External link: Indicate the relationship between the subject of the manual and the topic of this article, or somehow provide context. Also, indicate which pages in the manual cover the article's topic.
To help meet Wikipedia's notability requirement, it would be useful to cite a reputable source that establishes the technical significance of IOCS – to show that IOCS has received attention. (For example, I cited the two external links at routing table as evidence of notability for route (command).) The more independence, reputability, and significance of coverage, the better. Maybe you can get your hands on a copy of Programming the IBM 360 or A Guide to IBM 1401 Programming (some Google Books results) and find a good reference there.
Copy editing suggestions:
Incorporate the notes into the body. "Other vendors had similar packages, under different names..." can be included <- this can go in the article body, wherever seems most appropriate. probably
To improve readability, try to move references to the ends of phrases or sentences, when appropriate.
It will take me a while to work throgh all of your suggestions, but as a first take:
I had already planned to convert my references to use {{cite manual}}. For all of the manuals that I cite, the hardware/software vendor is the publisher; I plan to identify the company as the author rather than as the publisher so that the company name will appear first in the citation. For the most part I don't know the dates.
Is it consistent with Wiki style to have a separate list of references specific to IOCS, with group=IOCS, so that it will be clear that the footnotes do not refer to hardware manuals? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with separating references by group, but since it's a short article, I suggest you try to present the references in one list. --Pnm (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND would be the notability standard here, and as he's an unsigned artist who sings with an unsigned band, I can't see how he satisfies it (but have a look at the criteria for yourself). Failing that, you could establish notability by proving that he personally has had significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see WP:N). Note that blogs and other self-published media are not reliable sources (see WP:IRS for more details), and that "significant coverage" means reasonably detailed content about the subject, not just passing mentions, listings or similar. The tone's OK, perhaps a little unencyclopaedic in places, and there are some assertions which need to be sourced for the sake of verifiability but are not. These issues could be addressed once the basic notability problem is overcome. Karenjc23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bookisha, and welcome (again) to me your article seems great! But you haven't formatted your references properly, I understand that this can be quite confusing so here is a tutorial and some more information. Basically the <ref></ref> tags go next to the thing you want to be referenced, and the reference goes between them, then they automatically appear at the bottom!
You have also put in lots of internal links like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise] but they are meant to look like this: [[Social enterprise|social enterprise business]]. I have changed the first one to show you: here
You've gone to a great deal of trouble to include many references, although you've not formatted them correctly, and Captain n00dle's advice above will help you to do so effectively. However, I've followed up as many of them as I can, and I have yet to find a single independent source that actually mentions the company or the product, Rescue Chocolate, by name. Since the article is about this subject, you need to provide citations that demonstrate that Rescue Chocolate has already had significant coverage in neutral, reliable secondary sources that actually discuss the company itself, not the social issues it has been formed to address. See WP:COMPANY for the guideline you need to follow here. Unless you can do this, the article will fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines and will almost certainly be speedily deleted if it goes live. I note that the company started only a few months ago, so it may well be hard (but not necessarily impossible) to find references of the quality needed here. If so, the company is probably not yet notable enough to have an encyclopaedia article written about it. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia exists to record things that are already notable, and is not a suitable place to promote new projects. Karenjc23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should try and add a bit more information to the infobox, if you can. Perhaps some brief details about the destinations (Europe, North America, etc) but please make sure you have references for it. I think the tone of the article is OK, there doesn't seem to be any problems there and I don't think it sounds like an advertisement anywhere in the article. I do think you need a few more references for some details, such as in the second paragraph and for the infobox. If you already have references for these sections and they're after the 'Capital Airlines', I think that you should space them out a little more through the article. Hope this helps and if you have any more questions feel free to ask. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo06:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note → This user has only made one edit and might be looking for someone to expand the article instead of feedback.
Hello! I saw that your IP address has only made one edit and linked Chinese government I linked it like this: [[Government of the People's Republic of China|Chinese Government]] so that it still says "Chinese Government" but it goes to Government of the People's Republic of China. I hope that helped a little bit. If you forgot to log in, then feel Chevymontecarlo made some good suggestions. Regards, Captain n00dle\Talk08:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. I gave some points to any other users who want to improve the article though - I haven't got the time at the moment to work on the article, I'm afraid. Sorry. Chevymontecarlo10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment not very many other pages link to this one, you could add links from other pages to Drug Addicts Anonymous
Your article still may be deleted because it doesn't show its notability, you can't just link to the DAA website, you have to reference third party sources like news articles that mention the association, one bad example might be this: www.patient.co.uk/... These might be others: [6][7][8][9]
As the template note, "This article is written like an advertisement." Also see Peacock. I'm sorry I haven't provided specific suggestions, and my apologies if this is harsh, but I see almost nothing worth saving. It is a PR release masquerading as an encyclopedia article --SPhilbrickT15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have recently completed a wiki article on Switchboard of Miami, Inc., a nonprofit organization in Miami, FL that is near to my heart. I would like to seek some further advice on any corrections I might need to make or changes that are necessary to comply with Wikipedia's standards. In the article, I discuss the organization's credentials, history, background and body of work. I hope my sources, formatting and adherence to site policy are appropriate.
This is a new research center at the California State University, Channel Islands. This entry is currently a brief outline of the institute and will be updated as things unfold in the coming months.
I think this article is OK, but there are a few problems...
Try and add a few more references if you can, preferably not to sites that are affiliated with the article's subject as they can cause tone problems in the article, i.e. it can make it sound like an advertisement. However, links like this can go in an "External links" section instead.
There are a few tone problems in the article in places. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be neutral in tone, otherwise they sound like an advertisement and therefore are less useful to the reader. Please try and improve the tone of the article - things like 'actively promote' and 'encouraging business' are not really ideal. Chevymontecarlo17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that someone please read my new article: Americana (1983 film). I have upgraded it from "start" to "B-Class" because, as I understood the instructions, I'm allowed, but someone other than me has to review it to remove the "new un-reviewed article" tag on top of the article's page.
The article is about a film about a Vietnam vet, that starred, was co-produced, directed and edited by David Carradine. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Keep working on adding more references and links to other articles if you can. The article itself is very informative - well done :) Chevymontecarlo17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the review. I would love to add more references (I'm all about the references.) The subject isn't vast enough to have a lot available, but at least the few that I have are varied.
Can you remove the new article link on the top of the page? I don't think that I can since I am the creator (of the article that it, tee hee). --Ishtar456 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following page User:Wendyfables/Scotland Manufacturing is in need of feedback in order to go live on Wikipedia. I have created this page and added the image through the new Wikimedia Commons process. You will find this image in the infobox, but I have had trouble viewing the image - this may be due to the fact that it is not uploaded yet.
Please review this article and know that there are few resources to outside articles. this is a smaller company that does not have a lot of outside PR or marketing efforts published to use. I've also included three outside sources, so please provide any feedback you can.
Unfortunately, the tone is promotional, rather than encyclopedic. More importantly, there are no references to independent reliable sources. You have some references, but they are internal company, or merely evidence of inclusion in an industry association. You need examples of independent sources talking about this company.--SPhilbrickT11:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue with this article would be that it doesn't seem to have any reliable, secondary sources. The reference list primarily consists of the game's homepage (which may be biased as a primary source), and wikipedia articles (which are freely edited by anyone and are therefore not reliable sources). By not demonstrating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the article appears to fail wikipedia's general notability guideline for inclusion. I would recommend removing all of the wikipedia article references and most of the primary references written by individuals or companies associated with the subject of the article, and try to find some reliable third-party sources providing coverage of the subject. This could be a newspaper, a review (as long as it is reliable; e.g. there is some form of editing process involved), or any other form of media providing it is a reliable source of information. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article's structure/layout is good though - it's divided up into useful sections and you've added an infobox too which is nice. I agree with Giftiger Wunsh though, the references are possibly the most important thing about an article and they need to be improved if possible. Chevymontecarlo09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chevy that the structure of the article is good and it includes plenty of wikilinks, so no stylistic concerns; you just need to make sure that the subject is notable enough to qualify for inclusion according to WP:GNG. Sorry, perhaps I should have commented on the good points as well as what could be improved. Do note that showing notability in verifiable sources is arguably the most important factor, however; articles poorly laid out are usually marked for improvement, whereas articles which don't show notability are often deleted via AfD or prod. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]10:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful feedback. I find the notability article a big help, so thanks for that. I am looking for more good sources of notability for this article. I have been using Wikipedia for years and would love to be able to contribute. GCMonitor (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pages should either be disambiguation listings. or articles about a specific, notable subject. It lacks reliable sources, and seems to be a disguised article about a company. As there are no sources to show the notability of the company, it is not appropriate to add it to Wikipedia - please see WP:VRS, WP:BFAQ.
Urban Dictionary, YouTube and other wikis are not a reliable source. You need to use sources such as books or newspaper articles.
I have read all the guidelines and would like some advice on my new article User:BigToe7000/Intalink. My last new article I created was deleted for not being notable enough so I hope this is not a similar problem! I would also like, if you could, to help me create an Infobox with the logo and some information about the organisation in but again I am not totally sure how. Thanks in advance! BigToe7000 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a pretty good article, but you will need a few things:
More References\Sources which are from places not related to, but about the subject. These are needed to prove that it is notable - though I believe it probably is, you will need those
Making the text slightly more neutral - it is somewhat in favor of the company (probably by accident), try making it sound more factual and avoid too much positiveness as shown here.
If you can fix these things, it should be ready to go live pretty soon! I can help you with that later if you contact me here.
I placed the business info box on your page - here's how to add to it. (The pic is a different matter all together)
Below is part of the code for it (look in edit mode please)...
Intalink
Company type
County Organization
Just put the correct awnser on the other side of the = with one space before it. Here's an example...
| name =
The name is intalink, so put a space
| name =
Then put the awnser.
| name = Intalink
There is help for the pic in the next box.
Picture
You will need to first get a non-copyrighted picture (or in a few cases, a low rez pic of the logo will be okay), upload it.
You always do pics like this (if you didn't know)
[[EXACT_FILE_NAME_AS_ON_WIKI|SIZE_#px]]
You can put that in the logo slot and a caption in the caption slot then.
Thanks for the advice! It is hard to find any sources from outside as most are from inside the council/local authorities but I will try and get some more up. Unfortunately I do not think obtaining an image free of copyright will be available so I shall upload a small version of the logo as fair-use. I am also trying to remove what positive language there is - if you have any specific phrases I could change please notify me of them! Thank you again, BigToe7000 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a nose around WP:MWA and drafted up this one, it's very short as I no nothing about the subject, but it is referenced and gives some basic information about the subject. Do I need to do anything else before I move it into article space and let other people have ago at it? Should I create it under; "Sir Mark Prescott Bt" or "Mark Prescott", I suppose the later, but what is the convention? Many thanks in advance. --Wintonian (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry If anything was messed up in the edit conflict!
I would try to revise for neutrality\spelling. And if you can, add more to it (though others prob will later), but it's pretty good - I would make it under the latter, possibly with (Race Horse Trainer) if there's someone with a similar name and make redirects from diff spellings\ways to say it to your article. Good job though! ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should add categories to the article, and mark it as a stub (under a relevant category), but these points are likely to be quickly marked once it is in mainspace anyway. You should add some relevant categories in the form [[Category:(an existing category name)]]. If you're not sure what type of "stub" to mark it as, you can just use {{stub}} and wait for another editor to better categorise it. The article should be created as "Mark Prescott", as titles and honourifics should not be given in the title. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]22:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, WP:NPV? I have tried to write it in a neutral way, but if you mean that there is a lot of info about his hunting activities I just put in what interesting bits I could find from decent sources. I know my spelling is awful but I did run it through word so not quite sure what’s up there. Stubs and categories; exactly what I wanted to know and gosh they are mind boggling. Now I have done that I'll publish hence forth. oh and add a expand tag as well. --Wintonian (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about the categories and stubs, it can be difficult finding a specific, appropriate category or stub classification. Usually I just guess one that's likely to exist, and then go to the page for that category or stub category and look at the subcategories: usually you can find something more specific like that. I'm sure there's a better way of finding relevant categories though; maybe someone else will be able to give you advice on this. People actively search for uncategorised articles and articles categorised just as "stub" or similar though, so ou'd probably find the article will get the attention of someone better able to categorise it within a couple of days of entering mainspace. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Dr. Harper's employers, who had expressed the intent to retaliate against her for raising concerns about an employee's conduct, initiated a Homeland Security investigation against her, while refusing to disclose the accusations made against her....".
In addition to Sole Soul's point, I think that you should perhaps consider adding an infobox to the article to summarise the key points of the article - maybe Template:Infobox medical person/doc or something like that. The example external link that is used as a placeholder can be removed too - it just shows you how to add a link. Chevymontecarlo17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good feedback. I'm rewriting now, and will add infobox. This place is an absolute labyrinth for newbies like me, so I am grateful for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Diane (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I would like to differentiate the journalist (about whom I wrote) and the early century cartoonist, but was having a great deal of difficulty coding appropriately. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
You have included a few inline citations, but none of them give sufficient information to identify the actual source: for example, I'd imagine "Playboy magazine" has published several issues. You should refer to a specific issue, and preferrably a specific page which supports the citation.
I have made a couple of minor edits to the page to improve it, but the main concern is you need to properly identify reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability and support the content of the article. Try taking a look at WP:RS and WP:Referencing. Let me know if you need any further help. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the important requirements of an article in Wikipedia is that it demonstrate the Notability of the topic. I don't feel this article has demonstrated the notability of the topic. This can be accomplished by adding references to independent reliable sources which support the notability of David Sandlin.--SPhilbrickT12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps you should maybe consider adding an infobox to the top of the article - maybe Template:Artist or something like that. I couldn't find an infobox template specific for a designer so I thought that was the closest template. As the tag template at the top says, I would recommend that you try and make the article more neutral so that it is more suitable for Wikipedia. I think the photos are great though :)
I think that you should perhaps try working on renaming the links though, as Sphilbrick says - the bare links aren't the most ideal. I see the first link has already been renamed to something more specific which is great, but I think you should try to do that to all of the links in that section, so that the reader can click on whatever link they feel is most useful to them, rather than being faced with a long list of meaningless website URLs that give no indication of what the actual linked site is about. Chevymontecarlo17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article Multimonica on the 8th of March, but it is still not reviewed. It's about an early electronic synthesizer, so I also asked for feedback from the WikiProject Musical Instruments today, but I'm not shure wether they will see my notes on their talk page...
Greets:
Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
Adding Reliable Refernces - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an enclycopedia. You should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate.
Inline Citations - Show where you got sections of information within the text - they are especially important for somewhat controversial topics.
Expanding It - The article is rather short and may need to be expanded.
Adding An Infobox - Info-boxes are always good for an article - they help people see the most important info.
Good job though! If you have any questions or need help improving, or publishing it to Wikiepdia, feel free to contact me here or visit my page here. I have removed the review notice. Thanks!
Have any notable musicians used one or has it featured on a recording we may have heard? Are there any sales figures? Is it a collectors' piece or does it have a value? Info like this would both expand the article and make it more interesting. As QwertyQwerpus says, a photo would be good too.--Ykraps (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In compiling information on paleo Florida and its formation, the geologic/geographic feature "Lake Wales Ridge" has been redirected to Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge. This is sort of mistake. Can this be fixed or should I just title the article I am writing Lake Wales Ridge (geology)? Get back to me please. Noles1984 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably discussed in that article, so, since it did not have it's own, it was redirected there. If the lake is notable enough, you can just replace the redirect with what you wan to put, possible mentioning at the top that they may be looking for the Park. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award
Siddharth Kara (author and expert on modern slavery)
I have just created my first Wikipedia article about Siddharth Kara, author and expert on modern slavery. Please could I trouble you to review the article, and give me your advice and assistance on how to improve it before I move it to the article space, so that it has the best chances of being accepted?
Adding An Infobox - Info-boxes are always good for an article - they help people see the most important info.
Good job though! If you have any questions or need help improving, or publishing it to Wikiepdia, feel free to contact me here or visit my page here. I have removed the review notice. Thanks!
I have created this page for Hugh Stuckey who is a well known Australian TV writer, he appears several times on Wikipedia but doesn't have a page for himself. However I can't get it approved. Can someone help me out.
Immediate problems that I saw - it sounds too much like a promotion or advertisement for him. Please look to try and rewrite the article to make it more neutral in tone. Things like 'most experienced and respected' and 'from almost he could walk' should be removed or rewritten as these sorts of phrases make the article sound like an advertisement. I also think you should try adding more reliable references to the article, preferably from notable third-party sources. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references, and please do not rely on IMDB as a reference, as it cannot always be reliable. Chevymontecarlo17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, this is my third attempt! I am utterly hopeless with technology.
Again, thank you for having a look at this BLP.
The subject is Sophie Chandauka, a Zimbabwean corporate lawyer who has accomplished a great deal against the odds and is a business woman and social advocate to watch.
Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
Just A Couple More Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an enclycopedia. You should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate.
Good job though! If you have any questions or need help improving, or publishing it to Wikiepdia, feel free to contact me here or visit my page here. I have removed the review notice. Thanks!
It looks to me like the history section was lifted from here. At a minimum, attribution is needed. The linked site is called "free", I'll have to check as to its copyright status. Not sure it qualifies as a reliable source.--SPhilbrickT11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put as a "draft" a new article, I think it is interesting because it is a tool often use in computational complexity, a field of computer science, but I'm not sure if I did things correctly. Since it's my first article, I would really like a feedback. Configuration graph
And if you can also tell me on my page when you wrote the feedback, it would help me, so I would be sure to see the notification next time I connect on wikipédia.
Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little cleanup. Just FYI, it makes more sense to ask for notification at your talk page. For example, I'll add this note to your talk page, and you will see an obvious notification next time you log on. I'm going to contact someone else who may be better equipped to provide feedback.--SPhilbrickT16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about spring of St. Anna which is located one kilometer from the village Onyshkivtsi, Rivne region and on the eastern outskirts of the village Lishnia, Ternopil region, Ukraine. The spring of St. Anna is a hydrological nature monument of local importance. Stable water temperature is 6С (43F). This temperature remains the same, regardless of season. The spring of St. Anna is protected by the government.
Think paragraphs - the History section is too long for a singe paragraph
References are important. While you have listed some, they aren't formed as references, but merely as external links. See WP:CITE and footnotes for help
Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
Adding Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an encyclopedia. You should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate.
Adding An Infobox - Info-boxes are always good for an article - they help people see the most important info.
Good job though! If you have any questions or need help improving, or publishing it to Wikiepdia, feel free to contact me here or visit my page here. I would also recommend possibly reading this.
I added some more references. I couldn't find any open source photos and I couldn't find any award infoboxes relating to environmental awards. Please point me to one if you know of any. BTW, the article is now here. Indira Gandhi Paryavaran PuraskarRegstuff (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good, but you'll have to make sure those pictures comply to policy and you should add referencing which prove it's notability, or importance for an encyclopedia. If you can fix this, feel free to tell me and I can help you put it up live. Thanks!
At a first glance, my initial comment is that the inline citations are very messy; there are 8 references for several statements; if one or more references are used for many parts of the article, these citations should simply be listed in a references or sources section at the end of the article as general references. Have a look at WP:Referencing. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the significant editor of what was a geographic stub. I have offline assistance form local historians. I would appreciate feedback (before I call for peer review) on the whole article. Some of my rationale and ongoing thoughts have been recorded in Talk:Little_Thetford. Some of my current concerns are
getting advice on citations - convert to less ephemeral sources if practical. Too many citations? Should I remove all citations from the lead?
As the main contributor, I have attempted to ensure that all facts are verifiable. The article probably has too many as it stands. Could someone help please
I used embedded convert templates e.g. convert 1311 acres to display 2.0 square miles (5.2 km2). I did this as the source material all shows acre units. I chose to use sqmi/km2 within the article for consistency. Hopefully, using embedded converts in this way allows other editors to check sources easier. Is this sensible or over-cautious?
Local historian has handed me the results of a recent newspaper article search (manual, not online) about a 1941 straffing of the village. Is such text appropriate and how much of it can I quote verbatim?
This is my first significant wikipedia article, so, er, be gentle with me if you can. I know CTRL-A; DEL exists but it would be nice if you did not use it without justification!
It's good, but you will need to clean it up a bit and add it to categories. The overall visual appeal is not very good - try clicking on the quality standards link in the tag for some suggestions on how to improve that. However, I don't think it's in any danger of being deleted. Good job!
I more than appreciate the time anyone has taken to reply to this RFI. I am however still frustrated. Perhaps because I am new. Perhaps because there are too many help documents to read. Perhaps it is just me. I have made loads of changes since posting this RFI yet the cleanup graphic at the top of the article is still there. I have carefully read through Wikipedia:UKCITIES; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style and applied what I could. I am sorry if this sounds ungrateful. Truly I am not ungrateful at all. Just frustrated at myself.
Please explain the three actions in this quote "...but you will need to [1] clean it up a bit and [2] add it to categories. The overall [3] visual appeal is not very good...".
[1] Clean the article code or the article as it appears to readers? What does clean mean? Remove superscript "th" for example? (I have removed them throughout)
[2] What does add it to categories mean? It was in categorgories when I wrote this RFI. I have compared the article to other similar articles and I cannot see how I can reasonably add it to more categories.
[3] What does visual appeal mean? I guess this is subjective. I also guess that experience would help me here. However, I cannot see how I can make it more visually appealing. I have removed the excess of references in the lead and the excess of subsections in some sections. I am not a journalist by profession. I have however done my best to correct words and phrases to make it as readable as possible. I know some sections are light on prose. The subject is a 2 sq mi village. Not much has happened here.
Also, I checked out the links and do not believe they are suitable. JSTOR is US not UK. Is there some kind of flag (or template or category) I can put in a page to attract someone to fix it? I looked but could not find such a flag. For example CENSUS DATA MISSING. DONE--Senra (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again. I am not ungrateful. Just frustrated at myself.
I liked the article and it looks like a nice place! My advice would be to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and have a look at other articles about settlements to get some ideas about what you can add to yours. See if there are any villages close by that have had articles written about them, identify the editors, then ask them for feedback and/or if they are able to contribute to your article. Local history societies and libraries are great places to get both information and references. You might be surprised at what has happened there! :)
Hope that helps--Ykraps (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't answer any of your questions. I don't know what QwertyQwerpus means by cleaning the article up but it could possibly be that there are too many wikilinks. I personally don't think it's necessary to link everything, particularly common nouns such as 'railway' or 'settlement'. If your readers don't understand those words they are going to struggle with the rest of the article. Also you have (correctly in my opinion) linked to the Domesday book but doing it once is sufficient you don't need to do it the next time you mention it. I see know reason why you can't use the newspaper article just remember to reference it properly (name of the paper, date of issue, page and column number). Even though the article is over 50 years old, it is best to use your own words to describe what took place. Finally, I don't believe you can have too many references!--Ykraps (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you for all the comments. I appreciate them all. As an aside, I would like to preserve this useful information. Would it be proper to copy it to the article talk page and transclude it to here from there? Or do I simply archive it to the talk page and leave it at that?--Senra (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request for review for the article on "Results_for_Development_Institute." The article describes a nearly 3 year old non-profit organization that focuses on a number of health, transparency and education issues in the developing world. It is in many ways similar to a think tank, however the mission is to not only research and publish on the issues, but also actively engage policymakers, donor agencies, and other key stakeholders so that knowledge is translated into action. Please review this article so that the box at the top "unreviewed" article can be removed and any improvements necessary can be made. Thank you.
Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
Adding Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an encyclopedia. You :should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate.
Inline Citations - Show where you got sections of information within the text - they are especially important for somewhat controversial topics.
Expanding It - The text portion is rather short and may need to be expanded.
Reformatting Coding - The coding is somewhat out of uniform and should be touched up.
Cleaning It Up - Improving the visual appeal of the article.
Adding An Infobox - Info-boxes are always good for an article - they help people see the most important info.
Good job though! If you have any questions or need help improving, or publishing it to Wikiepdia, feel free to contact me here or visit my page :here. I would also recommend possibly reading this. :QwerpQwertus (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
Adding Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an encyclopedia. You :should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate.
Inline Citations - Show where you got sections of information within the text - they are especially important for somewhat controversial topics.
Cleaning It Up - Improving the visual appeal of the article.
You should add references to prove it's notability and make it sound more neutral most importantly. Also, a pic and infobox may help. After that, I can help you with possibly putting it up live here. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_·23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
Adding Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an encyclopedia. You :should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate
Reformatting - The coding is somewhat out of uniform and should be touched up.
I would be very grateful if you would please kindly review my short article about Sophie Chandauka, a young Zimabwean corporate lawyer in London who has achieved notable success prefessionally, whilst advocateing the empowerment of young people and women.
The article was created carefully using the Article Wizard. I also sought and received some feeback from a volunteer editor, which I appreciated and took into account in revising the article before making a request for it to be posted.
It looks very good. I made a couple minor changes, the most notable of which was to use her surname rather than first name per WP:SURNAME policy. I did it semi-automatically, I don't think I made an errors, but you might want to make sure. Nice job.--SPhilbrickT23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your contributions, but your article may not be suitable for Wikipedia as is, however, with some work, it may be...
You should add references to prove it's notability or importance to the world and why it should be in an encyclopedia. If it is not notable enough, it may be deleted.
It will need to be made longer.
It should have a very official and factual tone.
Pictures and an info box may help.
Also, would you like to make the name Mall Cricket Club instead of ARTICLE NAME HERE?
(QQ responded while I was writing; I’ll still include with this similar observations.) I’m in a club related to a sports team as well, and we do love our club. However, that doesn’t make our club notable enough for Wikipedia. Unless you can find independent coverage of your club in reliable sources, the Club will not be considered notable enough for inclusion. In addition, the tome of the existing draft is not consistent with the desired tone for a Wikipedia article. see WP:Tone for more information.SPhilbrickT22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it's a pretty good article, but it could use a few things...
You should add references to prove it's notability or importance to the world and why it should be in an encyclopedia. (and inline citations may help.)
You might also want to merge some of your external links into the article, using the inline citations that QwerpQwertus mentions. As well as this, you might want to add more links to the article as well. Chevymontecarlo - alt 12:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an article about the actor Tony Scott George, it should include things like: where he was educated, what he did before he got into acting, what stage school he attended etc. otherwise it just sounds like a resume. Adding stuff like this will make the article more interesting and longer which is one of QwerpQwertus' concerns.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your first article? It's very good, though it may not survive if it's notability now cannot be proven - future notability is not counted. Other than that, all I can recommend might be a picture. ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_·22:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine; move it to the live area. It would help if you could add a little more context for the layman; explaining it in simpler terms at the beginning.
It shouldn't be classed as a stub - it should be 'start class', and then perhaps ask for a more detailed review to expand and improve it towards B-class, etc.
This article describes release 1 of Operating System/Virtual Storage 2 (OS/VS2), ususally known as Single Virtual Storage (SVS) to distinguish it from MVS. The article is intended to provide enough information to put SVS in context, but not to reproduce the information already in OS/360 and successors or related articles. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FO_(complexity) used to be a "stub" I added a lot of thing, and since FO stands first order, I added second order SO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SO_(complexity). I would like a feedback for both.
And in fact I wonder if they can't be just part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_complexity, or may be if every "operators" shouldn't be an article by themselves (I could add more details if they were section to give an idea of why the theorems I state are true).
There is only one reference, but it is because every single result are in this book.
I think with the first article you need to try and add more references. Even though you have a book reference already, the whole article only has one reference. Please try and add a few more reliable references if you can. Chevymontecarlo04:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why ? Every proof are in it, so if I link some other lecture speaking of that it will just be he same proofs and same information. And I can not put as reference the lecture I received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur MILCHIOR (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to update/re-write the article on the Generic cell rate algorithm (it currently flagged as in need of expert attention). However, as this is a version/implementation of the leaky bucket algorithm, it will be necessary to address that article first.
The leaky bucket article has been flagged as disputed since March 08. This flag was removed 28 May 2010, with the statement that the talk page contained no factual dispute. I have put this flag back and included a new section in the Talk:Leaky_bucket page that, I hope, explains the core issues of the dispute: that there are actually two different versions on the leaky bucket algorithm in the literature, and the article confuses these.
This leaky bucket article currently falls well below the quality that should be expected and needs, as a minimum, major revision, and may need to be fully re-written. To this end, I have a text that I think addresses all of the issues, and would be willing to provide this for comment, editing, etc. However, as a newbie to editing articles, I am unsure about how this should be done. Also the text I have runs to some 4k7 words, so may be a little over-detailed in this context.
So, while I feel confident in regard to the subject, I ask for assistance in the process.
You got “this”, because you didn’t sign your comment. Personally, I think the software should do it for you, but that hasn’t happened. Whenever you are supposed to sign (you don’t sign articles, but you do sign talk pages), you add four tildes (~) to the end of your post, and it will be rendered as your name. If you don’t a friendly bot will follow you and add that comment.SPhilbrickT16:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that I had signed it by putting four tildes at the end. If there's more to it than that, where is the info?
This article introduces User:Pspspsmmm/Plateau Systems a software company in Arlington, VA named Plateau Systemsthat provides Talent Management Systems.
I would avoid using management speak, buzz words, technical terms and abbreviations. Okay so some of the terms are linked but I was just taken to another article with management speak, buzz words, technical terms and abbreviations. As a layman, I found it almost impossible to finish reading. Sorry. I hope someone who is a bit more au fait with the subject will review it too--Ykraps (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, too promotional, e.g. solutions that help organizations develop, manage, reward and optimize organizational talent to maximize workforce productivity - how can you verify this claim?
The whole "Products" section is not encyclopaedic, see WP:NOT
We strongly recommend that users with a conflict of interest do not try to write articles about subjects that they are involved with; if this applies, consider helping us to edit other articles instead; if the company is notable, then eventually someone else will write about it.
If you want to help improve Wikipedia in general, that's great, and we'll help as much as you like. But if you only wish to ensure we cover this particular company, then you will run into difficulties; check the business FAQ. Chzz ► 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but words such as "optimize", "maximize", "operating performance", "streamline", "drive innovation" are example of Peacock words, or PR-lingo, usually a sign of an article written more like an advertisement than neutral coverage. I believe this would require a fundamental rewrite to become acceptable, preferably from someone else if you have a WP:COI--SPhilbrickT23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've move an article to the mainspace from my user space. It was reviewed here by SPhilbrickT and by Nuujinn (talk). The review can be found at [User/Smoked Bear].
I think you also need to try and add a few more links to other articles if you can. You already have two links, but they don't lead anywhere. Don't remove them, though, as a page may be created eventually, and then the link will work. Chevymontecarlo15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
Adding Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an encyclopedia. You :should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate.
Inline Citations - Show where you got sections of information within the text - they are especially important for somewhat controversial topics.
That's an excellent little article you have there. Plenty of references and links. You've even managed to include categories in there as well. It's great. One other tip I have with writing posts on talk pages and forums on Wikipedia like this one - please sign your posts with the four tildes (~~~~). This places a userstamp next to your post detailing when and who is posting. If you don't have a key that can type tildes on your keyboard, you can click the four tildes in the bar below the 'Save page' button at the bottom of the edit window to automatically insert the four tildes into your post. Thanks and I hope you understand. If you have any more questions please ask. Chevymontecarlo04:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a title in the article. When the article is eventually moved to the mainspace it will be given the correct name.
Please add more links to the article. I recommend starting with adding links to place names first. You can add a link to another article on Wikipedia by putting [[ ]] around it - for example [[Loughborough]] would create a link to the Loughborough article. Links help the reader out - they can click on the link of a term or place they've not heard about and go to the other article to find out more.
Please try and move the references into the article rather than in a separate section. For more information on how to do this, please visit WP:CITE, in particular the 'How to present citations' section.
OK, I have made a few improvements to the article, but I agree with the template tag at the top - in places the article sounds like an advertisement. I think in the 'Development' section is where the problems are. Phrases like 'over 40,000 retail outlets' and 'quickly, at the best market value possible' should be rewritten or removed if you can, to try and make the article sound more neutral. For more information on this, please see WP:NPOV. Thanks and I hope you understand. One last thing - maybe try adding more links - I'd say that you should maybe start with the place names first. Chevymontecarlo05:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a connection with the company. But more importantly I feel this business has an important message in that they started small, creating a new industry and way of doing things, and they have developed into a larger business. And I feel they are noteworthy because they continue to be recoginised with acheivement awards. Kushla Smith (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi can you please give me your feedback on this page that I've created. I am new to wikipedia, and would apprciate your help! Here's the link to my article - [12] Thanks a ton!
Newway123 (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes:
The article is a compilation of promotional materials and news reports, starting with the choice of section headings. Phrases were lifted, in their entirety, from copyrighted sites. A whole paragraph spoken by the CEO and reproduced by an industry website is copied without quotations and without attribution. This is a serious policy breach and may lead to immediate deletion of content. Even if you are writing for the company you cannot use their press releases until the copyright owner publishes them under a free license (see more at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism).
Wikipedia policy clearly says: Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. That is, advertizing is prohibited and phrases like "The company is a leader in India" are usually frowned upon, and need very serious, independent references to stay. Place yorselves in the shoes of a complete stranger - if they need to describe corporate structure, would they call company units Centres of Excellence? And will they dedicate so much space to corporate structure, at all? Look at the featured article BAE Systems for an example of the balance between structure and the rest of article.
And yet, the article misses on certain important points:
History - just how old is it? Who founded it, and how it was brought from the start to present day? Ideally, there must be some human "hook" - an insight into the stories of the people who shaped the company (i.e. an article on Ford Motor Co. must discuss the role of Henry Ford). But in case of a relatively new company this may be impossible to back up with reliable independent sources.
Basic financials - how large is it? How much revenue it generates?
Articles should present factual information in free-flowing text, not bulleted lists. Again, take a look at the featured articles.
User:Tatyana_Popova/ShareCAD
This article is about a new web-service which lets one view several formats of drawings over the web free of charge, and if needed share the drawings with other users.
That would be great to receive an evaluation of the article.
Thanks everybody.
Tatyana Popova (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article's references need a bit of work. Most of the references in the article seem to be the service's official site. Please try and find references from reliable sources which are independent of the article's subject. Also other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, so please remove these. Please also try and work on the article's tone - at the moment it sounds like an advertisement. Things in the article like the system requirements and the service's official site need to be either removed or changed. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your opinion Chevymontecarlo and for your time with this! I will mind your comments and try to improve the article. Tatyana Popova—Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
User:Sami70/International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief
Please try and add a few references for the 'Objectives' section of the article. Also although the photos and infobox are great I think the 'Objectives' section needs to be made more neutral-sounding, as at the moment it sounds a bit like an advertisement. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia people
I have created an entry for the School of Business, Trinity College Dublin. The School is in the process of planning a new building. I have an image of the architectural plan of the proposed building, but every time I have uploaded to the site, it has been taken down. I have permission of course to use the image, and I have asked others with experience with Wikipedia what to do, but to no avail
Any help is greatly appeciated
--Norah Campbell 09 June 2010-83.71.13.113 (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the image has been repeatedly taken down is probably because it is either considered spam or is not useful to Wikipedia. The article on the School of Business has probably got tone problems- it's likely to sound like an advertisement. If you have any more questions, please ask at the Help desk, where the users there have a much greater knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and the like. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good article but I think you should try adding more links to it, and try and rename the reference links to something more descriptive. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. You have plenty of references, categories and the infobox is good as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with the article, except maybe separate the article out into sections a bit more. Chevymontecarlo05:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should work to establish notability in the lede. As a threshold matter, for inclusion on wikipedia the article's topic must be notable within the meaning of WP:N. Secondly, you should work to provide more references/citations for the claims in the article. I made a few edits to improve the format of the sources, but there is still work to be done. I haven't given it a full review, but this is what I picked up from a first pass. -Thibbs (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a book that:
1) crystallizes and quantifies the important relationship between a business' information technology department and overall corporate strategy.
2) introduces five principles that are used to align IT with business strategy.
The themes outlined in this book have influenced current business theory by outlining an important business trend with metrics and measures.
I would really appreciate any feedback on this article!
In general I think this looks good. There was another review of the book that you may want to add (<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/345924/Book_Review_IT_Leadership_Boiled_Down_to_5_Elements> ). The more references you include, the more credible the article. Also, you may want to relate the article to more topics in the "see also". One minor point, the publisher, Jossey-Bass, is a division of Wiley-Press, which you may want to add.
I think the 'five principles of world class IT' sounds a bit like a magazine article - I think that you should maybe replace the section with a brief sentence or paragraph summarising what's in the section already. Chevymontecarlo05:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm a long-time editor here so I usually have a pretty good sense of what is right or wrong with articles that are in development, however I am running into big problems at the article on Bop It. I've been editing at that article since April of 2008 and during this time I have spent the majority of my editing efforts trying to deal with another highly bipolar editor who sometimes adds useful information and at other times adds huge amounts of what I consider to be useless information. This same editor has also spent an enormous amount of time vandalizing the article as well as several other articles and he is currently banned. This hasn't stopped him, however, as he is editing from behind a dynamic IP address. So consequently I am endlessly engaged in trying to turn the eternal stream of edits he makes into something useful for Wikipedia. It's a wearisome process and by now I have had direct engagement with practically every line in the article. Since 2008 the article has ballooned and expanded from 5,230 bytes (when I first began editing it) to 23,972 bytes and there is no indication that an end is in sight. Whenever I think the article is now fully complete this other banned editor adds more trivia. I try my best to cut out the most trivial stuff but despite my best efforts the article has become bloated and cumbersome and thus difficult to navigate.
About a year ago exactly, in June of 2009 another user made a number of BOLD edits in which she mercilessly slashed out huge sections of the article that she thought was useless. While I am in general more of an inclusion-minded editor and while I generally decry the wholescale slashing of verifiable information, I feel that her edits did improve the article considerably. This other editor (the one who cut out material) has departed from the article now and I was hoping to call upon my fellow editors here at RfF to help provide an external objective viewpoint on the article as it stands. I have a vague impression that it is too big but my close familiarity with it has rendered me considerably more useless at cutting material then I normally would be. Even if your opinion is simply that it is fine, any help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, -Thibbs (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much help this is, but it seems to be pretty good, though some of it does go somewhat off-topic. You may possibly consider forming any of the off-topic parts (that would be notable enough to do so) into their own articles or maybe adding it to the company article or making an article on the company's products. If not I'd just shrink it somewhat and leave it, it is useful info if you stick to the main points of the off-topic stuff. ~ QwerpQwertusn> ·_Talk_·(Talkback Me)·03:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - If anyone else wants to take a look at it that would be great too. The more eyes on it the better I feel it will become. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd actually started there. I was going to ask for peer review at WP:VG to try to bump it up a class but the problem is that the class structure they use seems to presuppose that the article isn't detailed enough and that to improve it an editor shoudl add more information. Meanwhile I believe this article may actually suffer from being too detailed. Anyway I'll use the class structure as guidelines if I'm considering cutting anything. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add an article for Yefim Shubentsov, currently in my user space, and would appreciate feedback. Thank you! I have done lots of editing but never article creation.
I would reccommend adding more references which prove the notability or importance to an encyclopedia, expanding it, and adding reliable sources, and an infobox an picture always can help. Good job though! If you can possibly improve some of these things and you'd like help putting it up live, feel free to contact me. ~ QwerpQwertusn> ·_Talk_·(Talkback Me)·03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I added an info box and more news articles from reliable sources (newspapers etc). I don't have a photo of him and the only one I found online is probably copyrighted and looks to be really outdated. I also don't know what more to write about him that's not 'advertising' sounding. Splash90 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good, but you will need to add more references which will prove it's importance or notability to an encyclopedia in addition to possibly making it a little less like an instruction manual - it should be purely about the subject in most cases. Good job though! ~ QwerpQwertusn> ·_Talk_·(Talkback Me)·03:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, do you mean that you are requesting that an article on Shalabh Maheshwari be created or have you created that article? I don't understand what you mean. Chevymontecarlo19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent article. I have made a few minor improvements (There was an edit summary that had been placed in the article by accident, and I added bullet points to the list of links in the 'External links' section. You've got a lot of information in the article, which is great, but there are plenty of references for them which is fine. To be honest I can't find anything that you should perhaps try and improve! Maybe if you want to help out with Wikipedia a bit more you might like to take a look here for some suggestions on what to do. Of course you may help out with the requests here if you want! Chevymontecarlo19:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries
Requesting feedback for the article The Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries.
This article is to explain the purpose the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries and the work that it does.
here is my article.
Amandahgei (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a minor correction to the opening paragraph. I think that you should maybe try and add more web references to the article if you can, to supplement the references you already have. Chevymontecarlo19:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you have a problem with the links in your article. To add a link to another Wikipedia article, you need to add [[ ]] around the article name that you want to link. I see you have only put one [ ] around the links, and that is why they're not showing up. I hope you understand what I mean :) Chevymontecarlo20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should maybe try and add sections to the article. You can do this by placing == == around the section name, for example ==History== creates a section with 'history' as the title. Chevymontecarlo14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping someone can review my article, and let me know if I can clean something up. I know a lot about this educational approach, but am afraid to write more and risk sounding like an advertisement. How am I doing so far? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESWI (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should try adding more references to the article, as at the moment it relies on just a couple of sources. I also think that you should maybe add more categories to the article. You can search for appropriate categories by going here. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo20:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article's coming along nicely, but as well as doing what Reconsider says I recommend maybe adding a few more external links, but the references to verify the article is the main thing. Chevymontecarlo05:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article discusses in detail some of the finer points of multiple baseline designs which are not appropriate for the single-subject design page. Please review, and if appropriate, post this submission
I fixed your link. I think that you should maybe try and add more links to the article, by placing [[ ]] around a word to link to another Wikipedia article. I also think that you should maybe add inline citations to the article's references, see WP:CITE for more information. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that some parts of the article might be considered original research, which is not permitted; for example, the "Concurrent Designs" section has no references, and it says e.g. This strategy is advantageous because it eliminates several threats to validity - which appears to be opinion, rather than fact. Be careful to maintain a neutral point-of-view.
It would also help if you could give more context; at the start, it says measurement of many participants before and after a treatment - but what kind of treatment? Medical treatment? I think, presently, it makes too much of an assumption about the reader; please try to give an overview at the beginning, putting the whole subject into context. Chzz ► 06:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure about the 'Presidential Unit Citation' section, I don't quite understand the purpose of it and why there are some words in capital letters. I also think you should try and add links into the article. I can see you've added some already, so I'm assuming you know how to add links already. It's not a bad article, but it needs some improvements still. Chevymontecarlo04:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are some tone issues in the article - at the moment it sounds like an advertisement and Wikipedia articles are supposed to sound neutral. Please see WP:TONE for more information. Also, although you've added categories to the article, they don't exist as they are red links. Please remove these categories or add some categories to the article that actually exist. Thanks and I hope you understand. Chevymontecarlo04:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire piece reads like a publicity brochure, not an encyclopaedia entry. You need to remove all the registered trademark logos from the title and the text body - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)#General_rules. The references you have supplied do not IMO amount to "significant coverage in reliable independent sources", so I'd also be looking for additional evidence of notability. If you are associated with the company or the product, you need to read WP:COI. Karenjc09:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
El Morro, New Mexico
Please review and provide feedback on my new article about a small village named El Morro, New Mexico. If the article is satisfactory, please remove the "new unreviewed article" template.
It's a good article but the references need a bit of work. Please try and add more references from reliable sources. One reference is good but it's not really sufficient. By the way, the unreviewed template is supposed to be removed when sufficient feedback is given, not when the article is determined to be satisfactory. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should add some categories.
As noted, it needs more references. For example, you mention two nicknames in the infobox, but there are no references to the nicknames.
May I have some feedback on the new article Paul Legrand? Thank you. Beebuk 23:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebuk (talk • contribs)
Very nice. I removed the unreviewed tag. I'm nervous about the long quotes—I'm almost certain that the books are beyond copyright, but what I don't know about copyright could fill a book. I'll ask at WP:MCQ. BTW, you should work on drafts in a user subpage, not your user page. If you don't know how to make one, let me know and I'll show you.--SPhilbrickT01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for feedback from anyone else about this particular DJ. I heard that he is starting a record label as well, but can not find conclusive information on this. Any input is appreciated
There are definitely some tone problems with the article. At the moment it sounds like an advertisement, so I think you should perhaps think about rewriting the article so it sounds more neutral - for more information see the guidelines at WP:NPOV. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo09:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a complete re-write of an existing article. The re-written "Classic book" refers to what makes a book a classic in different expert's opinions. The only connection between the new article and the present (live) article is the title. The new version also does not bring back the problematic lists of "classic books" that apparently caused issues in the article's previous incarnations.
Here is the present 'live' Wikipedia article...
Original: Classic book
Pretty good, however I would recommend adding more things that will distinctify it from a dictionary entry or it may be dramatically rewritten or deleted per WP:DICDEF. A picture or infobox would be good, which I can help with if you want. Good job though. ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_·00:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added infobox with picture, tweaked the quotes for visuals, added TS Eliot as a commentator within the Literature section, plus other improvements. Article is now 'live' as Classic book. Shearonink (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better way to address what I took to be bias in the original article about Federal Appeals Court Judge nominee Robert N. Chatigny?
To respond quickly, I did not alter the original, but added information after a heading "The preceding paragraphs require essential details:"
The original article appeared to me decidedly -- I might say, shockingly -- selective. I have never before Wiki-edited, but felt something needed to be done quickly since the reason I was looking for information was that I just received a very negative viral email about Judge Chatigny, whose nomination is being scheduled for a vote by the full Senate, and the Wiki reference is the first item on Google. Surprisingly, it took quite a bit of googling to find anything at all neutral or affirmative.
Both should be neutral. The original is only very very against him slightly-sounding, but this is mostly just because it is said so matter-of-factly, in my opinion, though your text would be helpful if you can just make it less supporting of him - it cannot support or be against him. But I encourage you to try to work on that it - the article does need some work. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_·04:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting feedback on a wikipedia article I have requested which is a song titled, Scarless by Australian singer, Paulini Curuenavuli. All information provided is true and is also linked to the singers article. Ozurbanmusic 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting feedback for an article I have created of a Australian pop duo called, Scarlett Belle. The information provied is all true. Ozurbanmusic 04:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is written about one of my city's (Ashland, Kentucky) most famous athletes from the mid-1990's. Peter Chamis was a fantastic soccer player in high school, college, and professionally, and with the recent World Cup 2010, I wanted to write this article about him. I have tracked his career from the early stages until he retired in 2003. I'm requesting feedback on the article so that it does not get deleted and so that I can make it as good as possible. This is my firt submission but with many more to come once I get the hang of the process. Thank you for your help. --Longdecember (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting for feedback on an article I created of a song by Australian singer, Hayley Warner titled, "Good Day". All information provided is true. Ozurbanmusic 05:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Please try and add some more categories to the article at the bottom, this allows the article to be listed with similar articles and help to increase the amount of viewers to a page. I reccommend you maybe start searching at Category:Categories - ask if you're not sure about adding categories to an article. Apart from that it's an excellent article. Chevymontecarlo - alt 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am again also requesting feedback for another article I have created of Australian singer, Tamara. The reason I have created this article is because she does not have one at all but her information about her was stored in the Scandal'us article. I am also wanting to change her article name to Tamara Jaber instead of Tamara (Australian singer) but it won't let me because Tamara Jaber is linked to the Scandal'us article. Is there any way you can help me. Ozurbanmusic 05:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking to get some feedback on an article on a distributed file system. Both style and content. I left out some parts of the source paper on adding and removing servers, and backup, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrady0 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I do not have the knowledge to comment on your article but you are obviously having trouble getting it reviewed. I would advise that you look at other 'computery' articles, go into the edit history, identify the contributers, then ask for feedback on their talk pages. I have not removed the no feedback tag because I do not consider this feedback.--Ykraps (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am sorry your article has not been reviewed yet. I am new to wikipedia editing myself so I am not qualified to provide a review. However, I do have a little knowledge of the subject area so may be able to give some pointers.
It is a good factual start. It is not glaring copyvio.
The article lead is too short and is not interesting. See WP:Lead. See lead on Samba as an example. Yes I know it is not a DFS but the lead is interesting.
My impression is the article does not take a neutral stance. See NPOV. It talks specifically about Fragipani without any comparison with other similar approaches. See for example Distributed File System for a small list
The article has only two references. Compare yours with this smaller article which cites 10 references.
The first three sections are lists. This is hard to read. I accept the subject matter may be hard to write in a prose style. I feel prose would be better here.
I am requesting for feedback on an article I created of an Australian singer, Tamara Jaber. I assure you that all information provided is true. Ozurbanmusic 09:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Good article. Plenty of references, infobox is nice, links as well...try and add some references for the opening paragraph though if you can - see WP:CITE for more information. I will remove the unreviewed tag for you :) Chevymontecarlo15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request a name change in this article. I am requesting that this article's name be changed to Paulini because the public knows her as Paulini not as Paulini Curuenavuli. This will also make it easy for people to know that this is an article about Paulini or else people will get the wrong idea that is about a different Paulini. Ozurbanmusic 09:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking further assistance in improving the NBA Nation (tour). This is my first article!
NBA Nation (tour) is the current touring festival from the National Basketball Association. I have been collecting more information on the history of the Tour as well, but it is not as well doccumented as the current one. I will add it as I can. The article is complete for this year's touring schedule, however.
The whole thing reads like an advertisement. Giving the tour dates and the names of the sponsors has no other purpose. You might be better writing the article after the tour when you will be able to tell us what happened, how successful it was (how may attended), any highlights etc. You might want to look at other Wikipedia articles on festivals, concerts and events to see how they are written and what sort of stuff is included.--Ykraps (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently made major edits to the Dallas Children's Theater wiki page and would like someone to look over it for me. This is my first time publishing a wiki article and would love some input! Thanks!
It needs to be more neutral in tone. Things such as 'unparalleled leadership and vision' are subjective and therefore cannot be used. You appear to have an 'interest' in the subject and therefore you may not be the best person to write the article. It could do with more citations and if you can link anything to an existing Wiki article that would be good too. It sounds like a worthwhile thing you are doing and I wish you luck with it.--Ykraps (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The history section does not seem to contain much history. You have used the word 'is' a lot which seems to suggest you are talking about the present. You could add the production history to this section and any milestones you reached in terms of ticket sales, production costs etc. Also how the idea came about, who the innovators were and what they were doing before.--Ykraps (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting that this be posted as an article. I do not meet the requirement to post because I have not edited 10 times. This article is not controversial.
You have managed to maintain a neutral tone which must have been a challenge! :) You need to explain what a Labradoodle/Goldendoodle is (although I could probably guess). Some pictures would be good. Also for the benefit of us foreigners, you need to explain what a 501(c)(3) group is as it may differ to our idea of a 'not for profit' oranisation. Or you may be able to link with existing articles that explain it. Otherwise good job!--Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! I have added a brief description about what they are. I have also added links to explain 501(c)(3) as well as what a Not for Profit is. I am going to work on adding photos as soon as I figure out how to do that. Again, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDOGDirector (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Ykraps, look on a user's contributions ^_^ Hope that helps for future reference
It needs a bit of work but could be an interesting article. Firstly don't indent as it causes problems (see how I have set it out). You need to decide whether the article is about the horse or the jockey and if necessary write an article for each. It needs more references and the citations need to be inline. There is lots of subjective stuff such as 'Lucien liked the way Jim worked'. How do you know that? If this a quote, it needs to be referenced properly. Things such as 'The Triple Crown' need to be explained or linked to other articles and remember that there is a Triple Crown in other countries too (in England there is a Rugby accolade called The Triple Crown). I will try to take another look when I have more time but hope this helps in the meantime.--Ykraps (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should also try adding categories to the bottom of the article, so it can be listed with similar articles and also help to increase the amount of viewers to a page. You can start your search at Category:Categories. Once you've found a suitiable and accurate category for the article you can add them to the bottom of the article, where they will automatically appear in a bar along the bottom. If you have any more questions please ask :-) Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia,many Islamic article eg.Milad,are written with wahabi]Point of View.Which have been sourced by non-neutral wahabi sites.many wahabis consider sunni muslims as kuffar/mushrikeen.Actually which is wise versa.
This article provides a brief explanation to people who are unsure of what the Washington International Trade Association is and what it does in Washington, DC.
The current Board of Directors and a brief summary of past events are given as well to give people an idea of what WITA does for the international trade community in the nation's capitol.
Wita4 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Sophia Siddiqui 6/15/2010[reply]
Hello all, I've recently joined Wikipedia and have created an article on Dr. Kenneth O. Hill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ict1969/Dr._Kenneth_O._Hill).
I've read all of the new page articles outlining issues such as notability and neutrality however I hope that by posting here I can receive some constructive feedback from seasoned Wikipedia editors in case there are any major errors with the article.
Thank you very much for your help! Ict1969 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good, I cannot find any major problems, however, you may wish to add an infobox, which I can help you with if you want. Also, it seems to be ready to be moved to mainspace, would you like me to do that for you? Thanks!~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted!01:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a particulary good job with the references too, and I'm glad to see you've added categories as well. A lot of users miss these out when they create new articles. Well done. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the feedback QQ and Chevymontecarlo. I would be very appreciative with help moving it over to the mainspace, I'm not exactly sure how to move it given that there are other Ken Hills present on Wikipedia. Help there would be wonderful. As well, excellent idea about an infobox, I'll take a look at other examples on Wikipedia and see if I have enough credible information to create one. Thanks again! Ict1969 (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like feedback on the page that I drafted for my company. We do a lot of great work in the Community and for the environment. Our history in the states is not long but has involved major players in the transportation industry. I wanted to confrorm that the information I am using is historical and note worthy, not promotional.
Well, as tagged, it does have neutrality problems, the text is a bit short, and it needs more reliable references and sources to prove the accuracy and notability of the subject. I would add more of these, expand it, and rewrite portions for neutrality (I see you have been working to fix that, however), that is, if you still wish to work on it - it is discouraged to work on company articles you are associated with. With these things, it would probably be a pretty good article.~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted!01:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I do not know how to change "Enter_your_new_artcle_name_here to the Date Safe Project
submitting for feedback and approval. Thank you.
Pretty good, but you might add more reliable third-party sources and references to prove the importance, notability, and accuracy of the information, such as a newspaper or big website. Expanding it would also help - it's pretty short as is (a photo and infobox are also always great). If you want, I can add the infobox for you. Good job though! I've changed the name for you. (ForFutureReference. That's called the move function - it is under a tab at the top of the page. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted!01:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of awards and nominations received by Guy Sebastian
Thanks Chevymontecarlo. The tables and citations and all research was mine. Ozurbanmusic simply copied and pasted it and moved it to a separate page from Guy Sebastian's main page and added an info box. After it was moved I decided to break it up into Award categories and add a little info on each award section. As a separate page it was a little plain as just one long list of awards.
The list was incorrectly split from the main article. The result of this is that other contributors, such as Natbelle, is not given due credit for their contributions. You should always mention in the edit summary of both the main article and the new page that you are copying content from another page. Since this was not done in this case, I would strongly suggest adding {{copied}} to Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Guy Sebastian with the appropriate parameters filled out. decltype (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for preparing this article is to clarify Margo Oliver's bibliography. I collect her cookbooks, and found it impossible to sort out the confusion using Alibris, ABEBooks, etc until I had acquired copies of all of the titles. The list of books and their data are drawn from copies in my possession.
Margo Oliver is probably unheard of by Americans, but many Canadians remember her newspaper writing, and her cookbooks are highly valued by those lucky enough to own them. I have restricted the information given to those elements connected with her career as a writer on cooking.
Nice work. I like the book details that you have included - the ISBN numbers are really handy things to include and it's great that you've added them to the article. I was thinking that you should maybe move the references in the 'Life' section into the actual paragraph rather than in the section header - you can put the citation/reference next to the appropriate sentence so it makes it easier for the reader to check up on the statements made in the article. Other than that, I would also consider maybe adding more links to the article - you can do this by placing [[ ]] around a word to link to another Wikipedia article - for example [[Loughborough]] would create a link that if clicked would lead to the Loughborough Wikipedia article. I hope you understand :) Chevymontecarlo - alt 06:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that putting the references on the "Life" section heading clued in the reader that both references are general sources of information, not just specific points. Otherwise, the entire section would be sprinkled with references to those two articles, which somehow seems unproductive, looks bad, and is pointless, especially in view of the brevity of that section. I'll take a second look, though.
Glad you like the article, and pleased that you appreciate the detail on the books. When I was actively collecting her cookbooks, it was impossible to be sure how many titles were involved largely because of the triple publication of item 8 under three different titles, one an abridged form. it was only when I had copies of them all that I could see what the situation was. There'll be fewer cookbook collectors tearing their hair out with this information all in one place.
I've moved all the references to the "Notes" section, instead of having numbered references in the body of the article. This should be an improvement. I'll wait another day or two, and if there are no further substantive comments, I'll move the article to the main part of Wikipedia.
I've added the necessary citations in the ==Concurrent== section, and set up some wikilinks to key terms when possible. Please take a look it over and publish if possible!
Nice article, but try and add some external links and categories to the article if you can. Categories allow the article to be listed with similar articles, and as a result helps to increase the amount of traffic to an article. You can start looking for sutiable categories to the article at Category:Categories. You can then add the categories to the bottom of the article, where they will automatically appear in a bar at the bottom. I think you should also add relevant external links to the article if you can - if you've come across pages that you perhaps don't think are good enough to use as references or that WP:CITE does not allow to be used as references, such as YouTube, you can add them to the article as external links. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the info in Health communication in India very useful so please make sure this write up should not be delated .
Dr Ashwani Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.168.74 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vapor Trails (The Novel) is the name of a novel written by RP Siegel & Roger Saillant and published in May 2009 by Sustainable Stories. It is the story of Mason Burnside, an oil company executive who, after using ruthless tactics to reach the number 2 spot in the company, is brought down when a major project of his, in the Ecuadorean rain forest turns into an environmental disaster. In a cynical punishing move, his boss and rival, Jack Masterson demotes him to a staff position as head of corporate sustainability, something that is abhorrent to both of them. Hoping to regain his stature, Burnside vows to find a way to undermine the environmentalists that populate this movement. He attends a conference in New Orleans to study the enemy's ways, but when a category 4 hurricane sweeps over the city, he finds himself fighting for his life instead. Eventually he finds himself stranded in a flooded out house with Jacob, a young wide-eyed environmentalist, and the beautiful Diana Mars, one of the keynote speakers at the conference. His conversation with Diana makes quite an impact on him, and might just provide an opening for his assistant, Ellen Greenbaum to persuade him to set out to find his predecessor, John Pennington, who has disappeared under mysterious circumstances. As the story unfolds, many of the company's dark secrets are revealed.
I think you should try and give some more descriptive names to the external links, as bare links are not really useful to the reader and are not encouraged. - one way to do it is like this- [http://www.apple.com|Official Apple website]. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo - alt 12:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Little Thetford has recently been through peer review. There have been some changes since, mainly to the lead and Economy sections, but some minor changes to other sections too, including the addition of one image. There is an active To-do-list which documents further work that may be added at a later stage. In the meantime, would someone have a look to see if it is suitable for GAN? Thank you in advance --Senra (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the requests that come to this page are from newer editors, so the focus is on basic issues of notability and how to do basic referencing. Obviously, if someone feels comfortable with the GA criteria, they can jump in, but it is my experience that GA assessment tends to be done by editors active in various Wikiprojects, as the specific application of the general criteria often are tailored to each project. Not to mention that people who have experience with such reviews (I don't ) are in a better position to help. If you don't know which Wikiproject applies, let me know and I'll poke around.--SPhilbrickT17:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Talk:Little Thetford the article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography. I had a look there two weeks ago and entered my name in the participants list. I went there again after your post. I was unable to see anywhere I could post a pre-GAN request for feedback. I am reluctant to pester the hard-working peer-reviewer (Rodtalk) now that the peer review is archived. As a matter of interest, what is a newer editor? Whilst I concede that I have added 52 kilo-bytes since I started this exercise 17 days ago, I would still consider myself newer than a new one in a new thing! (Mis-quoting from Blackadder is a sin, I know. Sorry) --Senra (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Wikiproject members or the peer reviewer would probably be the best people to ask. Also, I believe that technically, a new user is one who is not autoconfirmed. I think most people attribute it to how experienced you generally are with Wikipedia. Though I've done quite a bit so far in my opinion (1,900 edits and a rollbacker most recently), I've only been here around a month, so I'd consider myself to be relatively "new". |:-)~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted!00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're new if you consider yourself new and are still learning the ropes/guidelines; When I first started major work on an article I was weeks (months?) into editing and didn't know a thing about notability!
As for your article, if its been through a peer review without any significant issues its generally good to go for WP:GAN, the GA reviewer will typically guide you through any minor remaining problems. I can see several sentences (particularly at the end of paragraphs) without citations, though, which is reason for a fail. There's a lot of hidden notes, are any of them meant to be eventually cited and added? If so, do so- if not, remove them and move discussion to the talk page where editors can more easily collaborate.
So, prose and content looks good, but citations are needed for every sentence. If several sentences are backed up by a single reference, the citation can come at the end of the clump---but if one of those sentences is at the end of a paragraph, there needs to be a cite there. If you have questions, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talk page. liquidluck✽talk06:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, but you should add more Referencs and Sources to prove the notability and accuracy of the information and some categories so that editors with similiar interests can find it. An infobox and picture are also always good for an article too. Would you like me to get it pubished to mainspace for you? ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted!19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also cannot be used as a reference, so please remove the Wikipedia article reference. However, you can create a new 'See also' section and have the other useful Wikipedia articles linked to there. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback! This is my first time making an article! I added a infobox, however I was having some issues with the sizing of pictures to go in it. I also, I fixed the reference to an Wikipedia article and took your advice about the 'Also See' section. I would love some help getting it published to the mainspace =) Tjp008 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you also think about adding an Infobox to the article, and maybe some links to categories at the bottom, where they will appear in a bar at the bottom automatically. Categories list the article with similar articles and help to increase the amount of readers/visitors to the article. The infobox would be a good idea as it would summarise the article - if you have any more questions please ask either at WP:HD, on here or on my talk page. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to try and add some more useful names to the references. At the moment the reader has no idea what each of the sites are about. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a request for feedback.
I am testing a new template I'm developing for use here. Feel free to ignore this. Please do not edit it, rather edit the template as it will disrupt my results. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted!00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting feedback on this article I created. Thanks! Ozurbanmusic 03:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Like many of the articles you have created so far, it's really good. You obviously know what makes a good article - well done. I think you need to add some categories to the article though if you can - I think you know how to do that. The references are good but please try not to rely on one site or source too much - try to keep the references varied and overall the references will become more reliable. Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An thorough article. A tip with signing your posts on talk pages and pages like this one - please remember to type the four tildes (~~~~) to stamp your username tag after your posts. That way we can all keep track of who said what. As to the article, I think the 'Surgeon in US Navy' section needs a few more links added if you can. The pictures and infobox is great too, and you've done a nice job with the references. Well done :) Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed subsequent uses of "Dr.", it is normal to just use the last name throughout the article. I, too, think you've done really good. Another nitpick is that you seem to insert a space before your footnotes. Ideally, footnotes should be placed immediately after punctuation (or immediately before). If you are planning on creating more articles, I encourage you to nominate them for the "Did you know ...?" section of the Main page. You can do so at T:TDYK within five days of creation. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ConsensusDOCS is a library of standard form construction contract documents, written and endorsed by 23 industry associations. Our Wikipedia page aims to provide the public with brief decriptions of its 90+ documents, general information on how the documents are written and edited, a list and description of each endorsing organization of ConsensusDOCS, the ConsensusDOCS drafting process, and brief information on standard form contract documents.
We request a review of ConsensusDOCS to ensure that it meets Wikipedia quality standards. We hope this page will be a resource for those seeking general information regarding ConsensusDOCS and construction contracts.
Thank you for the feedback and reply, and for changing the name. Thanks for offering to add the info box for me. Yes, I would like that! Also, I am trying to figure out how to make the page go live. I used the Wizard,
13
Lynn C. Tolson Lynn329 Lynn329 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I do not know how to change "Enter_your_new_artcle_name_here to the Date Safe Project
submitting for feedback and approval. Thank you.
Pretty good, but you might add more reliable third-party sources and references to prove the importance, notability, and accuracy of the information, such as a newspaper or big website. Expanding it would also help - it's pretty short as is (a photo and infobox are also always great). If you want, I can add the infobox for you. Good job though! I've changed the name for you. (ForFutureReference. That's called the move function - it is under a tab at the top of the page. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted! 01:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn329 (talk • contribs)
Hello, looking for someone to review my addition on our company, was originally submitted back in November 2009, not sure why it's not searchable yet. Many thanks!
Thank you for the feedback. Now that I've added categories in the article like you said I should, can I remove the notice at the top of the article now? thanks! Ozurbanmusic 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Could you please review my article. It has been written about the company, Yodel Australia. The information provided on this company is completely unbiased. It has not been written as an advertising method, but just a place where people can find information, history and details about Yodel.
Are there any changes I can make that would improve it? Any sources that should be added or removed? I spent quite a lot of time writing this and would really really appreciate any help that you can offer.
It's pretty good, but you may want to improve the neutrality of the article as, though it isn't necessarily biased, it's tone is in favor of the company. Changing the text so that it will be neutral and factual-sounding would help, and maybe a few more reliable third-party sources, like from big newspapers or websites, but good job - if you can fix that, I'd be happy to publish it to mainspace for you. ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted!00:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, user has been blocked for having a company-name in their username, and the article was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion".
If you do come back, please read the business FAQ, and ask for more help at that time. You - and other users in a similar position - might be interested in the rough draft essay I've been working on, on this very topic - which is in User:Keegan/Butterfly; I hope you will help us to edit some other articles. Chzz ► 03:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
