Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Raymond Premru

American/British trombonist and composer. Think I've got it going now; I'd appreciate any general evaluation, and esp. on citation/reference style--the article relies heavily on online sources, so it didn't seem to make sense to separate them out as "External Links". I hope my solution makes sense. Also most of the article synthesizes multiple sources so it's difficult to footnote or Harvard-cite each item. Does it seem encyclopedic? Hopefully the text establishes notability. thanks.--Turangalila (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tartan Noir

I've written a completely new article for this subject, as the previous version wasn't really up to scratch. I've added a section on roots and influences, revised and expanded a list of Tartan Noir authors, added notable works in the genre. This is my first crack at a wiki article, and I'd like to know what others think of it. Many thanks. Edofedinburgh 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Screen Quotas

Could you come and give some comments for rivision. This is my article for screen quotas. Thank you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Quotas

I like the writing style used, however I will say that you should take a look at the formatting style used in some other articles to get a feel of how Wikipedia is generally formatted. Also, you can make internal links to articles like [[this]] which would output a link like this. Also, please sign your name by writing four tildes (~~~~) after making posts on project pages. Phuzion 03:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Katsuhiko Nakajima

• This is an article I made about a week ago and have expanded on slightly since. I feel this could become one of the better wrestling articles on Wikipedia with some fine-tuning, and I'd like some advice on how to take it to the next level. Thanks. MarcK 10:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Suzanne Shell

Subject of article is a longtime activist who has been in the news recently for a notable case brought against Internet Archive. Though I have tried to be extremely meticulous with sourcing statements, the subject of the article has complained on the talk page about inaccuracy and NPOV. Please review the article and double check the sources, as well as provide any feedback on how it might be improved. Thanks! Jokestress 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

David Pines

I just created an article for David Pines, a theoretical physicist with a long career. The page needs a lot of clean up and is too list like.

The first thing it needs is some source that would tell something about him. Right now, it's mostly a list of awards and then of things he authored which could obviously be sources for other things. He certainly seems notable, so I'd think there'd be something out there about him.

Other items to note would be that the lead is too long. Even if you want all of that in the article, there's no need to list each individual thing out like that in the lead. The lead should just be a brief overview of why he is notable. The last sentence of the interests seciton is written in the first person. Mwelch 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

James Phinney Baxter

Can someone please check this over? I added headers but I don't think I split it up right. Tikuko 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead should definitely mention that he was the mayor specifically, rather than just "civic leader". After reading the lead section only, I had my doubts if he was even notable at all. Also, I wouldn't title a "Trivia" section. Just mention the poem as a regular part of the article. Mwelch 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Narasimha Rao

The prose of this article has ben called strange. Please comment on what should be done to improve it.--Shahab 10:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I found your article informative and quite readable. What I do suggest though is that you edit your heading/section titles to remove all but the initial caps so as to conform to the Wikipedia "Manual of Style" for articles (see under "Sections and Headings -->Wording"). And I made what I consider to be some minor edits to your section on religious strife and the Latur earthquake.  K. Kellogg-Smith 15:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGENDA

I'm trying to compile a list of all the hidden agendas we hold dear here at Wikipedia. Your feedback on the content and format of the page, and your contributions, would be greatly appreciated! Jouster  (whisper) 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Jouster! RFF is for requesting feedback on articles. I don't think there's a process for seeking feedback on pages in the Wikipedia namespace; you may wish to try a policy RFC. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Chelton Flight Systems

This is my first wikipedia article. I would like some general feedback on it. Is it following the correct form? Are the sentences too long? How is my puncuation and grammer? Thanks a lot.

You might want to review WP:ATT. You need to provide sources for everything you put in the article. And also fairly fundamentally, you need to assert why this company is notable. It's not appropriate to have a Wikipedia article for any old company just because it exists and is in business. There needs to be something notable about it. This article (and in particularly the lead paragraph) doesn't make clear what makes this company notable. It might well be notable, in fact, but there's nothing in there that tells me this right now. Did their TAWS system revolutionize the industry? Has it demonstrably met its goal of reducing accidents? What exactly that makes this company notable? Right now, all this article tells me is that Chelton is a company that exists and makes avionics components. Mwelch 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lilliput_(company)

Description: Lilliput is a professional manufacturer of mobile lcd video.

Ive created this article and its the first one Ive created. Since I hope this isnt my last major contribution, I would like to know what I can do better next time.

Greetings, Mizipor! In future, please remember to sign your posts on discussion forums (but not your edits to articles) with four tildes. To do so, click the signature button on the edit toolbar - it's in between the W and dash.

The article is currently a stub - a very short article providing only a little information on the company - so it is difficult to give any useful feedback. Once you have expanded the article with more information on the company, feel free to file another request for feedback.

Is Lilliput notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? If it is notable, the article should establish its notability. If it is not notable, the article may be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising; if you are closely affilated with Lilliput, please read our policy on conflicts of interest.

All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DAXCON Engineering, Inc.

Daxcon My article was flagged as being written like an advertisement. I have made changes throughout the whole page in an attempt to write it more like an encyclopedia article. However, I was hoping that I cuold have several other people look at it and make changes to it if they would like in an attempt to make it even more neutral.

You should make the references links so that oneself can go and read it. See WP:REF on how to make nice looking sourcelinks. Also, see Mwelch response to the Chelton article above. Read WP:ATT, what makes this company noteable? In what way have they changed the way the industry works (or similiar)? Mizipzor 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Aullbw! Please remember to sign your posts on discussion pages (but not your edits to articles!) with four tidles. To do so, click on the signature button on the edit toolbar; it's in between the W and hyphen.

Since the article does not appear to be blatantly spam, I'll give you some general advice, with links to policy pages which you should read. If you don't understand a policy, you should seek clarification on the policy talk page.

Firstly, is DAXCON notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? As a corporation, it should satisfy the notability criteria for corporations. If DAXCON is notable, the article should establish its notability; if it isn't, the article may be nominated for deletion.

To make the article read less like an advertisement, ensure the article is written from a neutral point of view. As following NPOV can be difficult, several Wikipedians have prepared a tutorial which should answer any questions you have about the policy.

All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The absence of consciousness

First, I am obliged to explain the meaning of the word "consciousness". I would not describe it a level of self-awareness, or a sense of subjectivity, but more as an awareness of the world. I have noticed a very strange phaenomenon among the "less" educated population. They do not have a logicall concept of reality in its full term. According to their character, social situation and group in society, they subsequently, mostly completely subconsciounsly decide which feelings, effects and even moments should be shut out, because there is a risk of a "mutilation" of their conception of reality, so to speak. I ask you for help, thank you.

Which article are you requesting feedback on? Factual questions should be asked at the reference desk. If you are simply ranting, do so on your own blog. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Herne Bay, Kent

Hi. I've been working on this article for quite a while and would appreciate any further recommendations for improvement. Epbr123 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that it's a GA nominee, and it looks great to me, my only suggestion would be to make the reference list multi-column. Excellent article! Wikipedia needs more editors like you --Kimon^talk 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bradley effect

Since the issue may get some more media coverage over the next year or so, as Barack Obama's presidential campaign is watched, it seemed as though it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about the "Bradley effect". Any feedback other editors would care to offer is appreciated. Mwelch 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See "Arjen Robben" above for my disclaimer, but for my money this is an FA candidate. I would submit it to WP:PR. Only the very last sentence stuck me as at all potentially problematic--maybe needs a date (ie "as of 3/07") to insure against future obsolescence?--Turangalila (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Just made that change. Thanks for that feedback! Mwelch 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article lacks images and external links. I understand that finding suitable images and external links may be difficult, given the topic, but please make an effort to find some to add to the article. Although it looks far from Featured Article status, if you add a couple of images and external links, Good Article status is a possibility. Before nominating the article for Good Article status, please review the Good Article criteria. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. At this point, anyway, official GA or FA status and all of that isn't a concern for me. I just want to make sure the article is legitimately a quality piece of work and to have my writing reviewed. Once I'm pleased in that arena (and yes, to that end, I'll go ahead with PR once I get time), then maybe I'll find myself interested in GA or FA or what have you. Nonetheless, far be it from me to just turn my back on other ideas for its improvement aside from the actual writing itself, so I'll indeed see what can be done about pictures and external links. Thanks! Mwelch 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Lowell, Massachusetts

This is my first article of any real length, and I was just curious all around about how it was written. It's been up for a few days and nobody but a bot has made changes. Other than the obvious flaw of almost no inline citations (I have a bibliography instead), I'm not sure what else needs to be seriously worked on. So basically, I'm looking for any and every change you can make to improve this article. CSZero 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good. Maybe you should capitalize only the characters in the headings (WP:MSH). An overview or a bigger lead would be nice. There can be a few subheadings. Cheers.--Shahab 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I made the first two changes already, I'll look into having some subheadings. CSZero 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arjen Robben

I have been working on this article for some time and would like make it a good article. I understand that there's a long way to go but I'm not sure what I should do to improve it. This is an article about a football player, and some people have told me that a football player's page in general stands no chance for any good status, unless he is a remarkably well-known star (like David Beckham). Could anyone please kindly give me feedback on the current condition of the article. Any suggestion is very much appreciated. Thanks so much. S. Miyano 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still something of a newbie, but given the backlog I'll go ahead & comment. Overall the article seems very thorough, pretty balanced in tone & content, and fairly well sourced. Indeed, it actually seems like a lot of copy for a 23 year old--if anything it could use some trimming, particularly the "quotes" section, not all of which is sourced, plus some of the quotes seem like boilerplate. Also, heavy sourcing from a fansite might seem dubious to some, esp. if you could get the same stuff from official team sites or newspapers.

One other thing. it might just be my browser, but the "Netherlands Roster" box displays weirdly--runs off the screen & doesn't align with itself. Hope all that helps. --Turangalila (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the feedback. I've removed all the unsourced quotes and will only insert them back in if i can find proper sources later. I replaced the fansite which was used as reference (thanks for telling me!). The quote section looks quite short now. About the template Netherlands Squad, it seems fine to me (I'm using Firefox). Also, I'm confused about your advice of trimming, because I always thought that I should make this article longer to make it reach GA status, do think it is currently long enough? S. Miyano 06:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a rookie, I can't be much help wrt achieving GA or FA status; better advice might be available at Peer Review (which seems more active than this page anyway!).

The "trimming" advice is more a matter of personal stylistic preference: I like "tight" writing, at least in non-fiction, and I generally look to an encyclopedia for a concise intro, rather than an exhaustive treatment of the subject; also, I think brevity can sometimes help maintain NPOV. However, the reader is free to "skim", or to read only the infobox & intro, so I may be all wet here. I certainly don't speak for any community consensus, if there is one. WP:SIZE seems to leave alot to one's judgement, and perhaps erring on the side of thoroughness is the better bet. Certainly my comments here aren't notable for brevity :-). --Turangalila (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I'll need to "trim down" some text this weekend. ;)S. Miyano 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to post this a few days ago, I've shorten a few paragraphs and removed unnecessary phrases. I do hope the article looks better now. Arfan 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahbag

At Wikipedia:Peer review/Shahbag/archive2 it has been advised that a Civic Administration section should be added to the article, as well as information on geography, climate and such. How necessary is that, and how relevant? What other information is largely missing from the article, but needs to be there? I am trying to take the article to FA status. Aditya Kabir 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Engines List and Others

Mitsubishi has a couple v8s but I only see one. This is an example of where the engines list are lacking, is there someone who can contribute to this list and other engine list as they are all lacking details for past couple years, well im hoping a Volkswagon engine list will evently be added wich I beleave are made by Audi and alot more details to each engine listed would help aswell. --Jay173 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So there's one V8 missing? Which one? --DeLarge 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This one in this article available on the Mitsubishi Raider its a 4.7 liter v8. http://research.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?logtype=6&section=summary&aff=freep&call=crp&makeid=34&year=2007&modelid=148 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the one you meant. That's a Chrysler (PowerTech) engine; see the wikilinks at Mitsubishi Raider. In fact, the whole truck's a badge engineering job. The powerplants at List of Mitsubishi engines are only those "produced by Mitsubishi Motors", not those bought in from outside manufacturers. VW's 2.0 L turbodiesel in the Mitsubishi Grandis isn't included for the same reason. Regards, --DeLarge 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On that note i think the all engine catigorys can be more detailed from now on because they are lacking this.

09:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Sowers

Reposting request ... I'd really appreciate it if someone would take a look and give me some feedback. My initial request was archived without any comments. Thanks.

First request (from 13 March 2007): I've just posted a complete overhaul of this page. As it's my first WP contribution, I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Before I worked on it, there was virtually no sourcing and a good deal of what I didn't think to be encyclopedic content/language. Here's a link to the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Sowers&diff=114682815&oldid=111020744 Thanks in advance. --Sanfranman59 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm not intereested in sports at all, so I'm an objective observer. The article appears to be comprehensive. You might consider the use of the "as of" templates to indicate information that is current but that may change in the future. -Arch dude 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't aware of the "as of" templates. I'll take a look and see how they might be incorporated. --Sanfranman59 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance

I recently did a fairly major overhaul of the Renaissance (diff) article's structure, as well as rewriting and referencing several sections (35 refs now, up from 6).

I need to know whether the new structure makes sense, and what more can be done to complete this article. I'm hoping to get it to GA status (at least). Thanks.MAIS-talk-contr 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some copyedits to make the language a bit crisper. Please review. Overall, I think your changes are a massive improvement. Thanks! -Arch dude 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked at your copyedits, and agreed on all points - makes the prose that little bit sharper. Thanks! I will continue to try to improve this article.MAIS-talk-contr 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cobranet

I recently finished my first wiki article, and would like to make sure that I've done a decent job. The article is Cobranet. I think the intro might be a bit too short, but I'm not positive. Any other comments you might have would be appreciated. Snottywong 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your article looks good already. It is a credit to Wikipedia as it stands. Since I know little about the subject, I represent the "intellegent 12-year-old" to whom the intro should be addressed. In that regard, I think you need to succently address the following questions in the intro:

• Who uses this? (theaters, home sound systems, auditoriums?)
• What competes? (analog, wireless, whatever?)
• Who competes? (technologies, companies?)

Going deeper, you might consider some network diagrams. You can use any tool you are comfortable with to make the diagram, and then upload it to wikicommons. Keep up the good work! -Arch dude 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good comments. I'll definitely add that stuff. Snottywong 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Microarchitecture Stub

Please review and let me know what is thought of my revisions to this stub. Here is the diff page for the revisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microarchitecture&diff=next&oldid=106982850

Thank you

Timmh

nice work dude add few pictures with it

You've done a great job expanding this stub. I did a bit of copyediting, but the prose is good on the whole. A few more references (at least one per paragraph preferably) and some diagrams could improve this article a lot.MAIS-talk-contr 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Highfield Church

Link to difference page for revisions: [1] Calineed 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the template fo a UK place, but I botched ti. I think you need to figure out how to refie this. we nnd a more detailed map, and we need the precise geolocatin of the church, but I do not know how to do this. -Arch dude 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I don't quite understand about the 'template for a UK place', isn't that just for cities? I don't know how to get a geolocation but I did add a satellite image of the Church. Calineed 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken Noguchi

I wrote this article last month, and it was featured in the "Did you know?" section on the front page, but only one person besides me edited it and that was to pipe a wikilink. I'd like feedback and a review of the page. In particular, I'd like people to check the prose (I sometimes write in a bit of a clumsy manner without realizing it) and the neutrality (I think it's neutral, but the point is whether other people do or not). Do not hesitate to point out formatting or other technical improvements either. Thanks! Leebo ^T/C 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article! I'm a rock climber and sometime environmentalist myself, so I was quite interested by it. Hadn't ever heard of Noguchi before. I would say the article is NPOV and flows smoothly. The one suggestion I have is that you not duplicate information about Noguchi's birthplace and birthdate, which currently appear in both the intro and the Bio section. I suggest removing that from the intro and leaving it in the Bio section. Moxfyre 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! You're right, the duplicated information doesn't read as well as it could if it was well-placed in a single location. I'll look at some other biographies to see how they avoid repeating information in the intro and body. Leebo ^T/C 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I combined the intro sentences on his childhood into the Bio section. The customary way on Wikipedia seems to be: list birth/death dates in the intro, and provide other info about childhood in a biographical section. See George Washington or Mustafa Kemal or Bill Clinton, for example. MOXFYRE (contrib) 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the help. Leebo ^T/C 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sleepytime Trio

I have made an article on the emo band sleepytime trio and would like help, constructive criticism, comment, etc. Doody 09 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the first place to start would be finding some sources, because the article currently has no citations to allow the reader to verify the information. For instance, the sentence "Many have described Sleepytime Trio's style as..." who are the people describing them this way? How many is many? It's a good start for a music stub, but with some sources, others could help research the band too. If you can find some reviews, interviews, etc., I could help you format them so they appear properly in the article. Leebo ^T/C 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Daxcon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daxcon

I was hopingto get some feedback on the layout of my article. The reason that I care about my layout is that it is a company article and feel that it should follow a certain layout. Also, I was wondering if there were any other specific pages to where I could link my article or if I need to add a section to make the article more wikipedia oriented.

It doesn't appear that the layout is a problem, other than it reads like an advertisement. The commercial tone needs to be stripped out (for example, the See also section is merely a list of clients), and the article needs to establish what makes it worth including. For example, have they won industry awards, or are they mentioned in independent media - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Frauentausch

Hello!
I am new here, I come from the German Wikipedia and my English is not so good …
Yesterday I created the article Frauentausch. I ask you for reading and correcting the article. I hope that there are not so many mistakes. Thanks for reading and correcting! --Despairing 11:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the vocab & grammar, the article appears to be crufty - Ideally, the article would only need to highlight what makes the German franchise of Wife Swap unique. There is no need to list every detail of the show's format. - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747

Hello everyone,

I have made some major edits to the above article over the past 2 days, which refers to Iran's nuclear programme.

Could you please tell me:

1. if it is NPOV enough?

2. If You think I have omitted any material fact.

Thanks in advance for your time and feedback.

SSZ 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• There seem to be too many one-paragraph sections, making the Table of Contents longer than is needed. Could these be consolidated into fewer sections? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback RJH. I did the change as per your remarks.SSZ 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro feels a bit long and unwieldy to me. Perhaps some of it could be moved into a section called "Background for current crisis" or something to that effect? Otherwise it's an excellent article, clearly well-sourced and well-researched. In terms of NPOV, I think it's quite good. I might add some quotes of Iranian leaders (such as Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map, or to strike US interests) as explanation of why many western countries believe Iran has aggressive, military goals for its nuclear program. MOXFYRE (contrib) 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback MOXFYRE. Points well taken. I have removed some background information and placed it at the end of the article in a separate sub-section. I also added some lines to the introduction from Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Also, I grouped the information about Iran and Israel in one new sub-section, and finally, added two extra mentions about the beligerant Iranian rhetoric. SSZ 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Itanium: a merge and complete rewrite

For historical reasons, The articles relating to the Intel Itanium are in a state of complete disarray. The main articles are IA-64, Itanium, and Itanium 2. I have proposed a merger of these articles, and I intend to complete the merger/rewrite on 16 April. My proposed new article is currently at User:Arch dude/Workspace, and I intend to move it to Itanium. Itanium is a really big deal in the computer industry. Is proponents assert that it will eventually dominate an industry that accounts for a significant percentage of the world's economy.

Please comment on the following:

• lead paragraph: If you are not a computer person, does this make sense?
• sales forecast chart: I contributed this to wiki commons, so I can change it. Does it convey the correct information? The intent is to convey the extreme discrepancy between the original published expectations and the current reality, which I believe is central to the Itanium story. Does the chart convey this? Is this actually relevant?
• Architecture: Is there enough context here?
• Relevance: Is it clear that Itanium is important?
• POV: Many in the industry, including me, think that Itanium is an unmidigated disaster. The existing articles include a great deal of PR from the Itanium marketing community. Have I gone too far in the other direction?
• Completeness: have I failed to preserve relevant information from the three "merged" articles?
• Citations: most citations are to the web-based trade press. too many? too few? too biased?

Thanks.-Arch dude 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(09:44, 9 April 2007 24.113.110.55) added:

Itanium and itanium 2 are two separate itianium generations of processers.

Yes, they are. However, Itanium is also a brand used universally in the industry to identify both generations and to Identify the entire project and its history. The new article is about the brand, and therefore includes both processor families. Incidentaly, the Itanium 2 family has multiple generations. -Arch dude 15:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think a combined article would be good. A few suggestions: (1) There are a pair of excedingly long paragraphs in this article. They should be split up for ease of reading. (2) At the other extreme, there are several one-paragraph sections. These should either be merged to shorten the ToC, or expanded with more information. (3) There are several one-sentence paragraphs. Can these be merged or expanded? — RJH (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have edited the proposed article. Please take another look if you have time. I'm not completely sure what you mean by " paragraph", so I made edits to reduce the TOC, split the biggest two true paragraphs, and consolidate the single-sentence paragraphs. Some single-sentence paragraphs are fairly fundamental, however. Do you have an opinion on the timeline?I could not find a way to consolidate it into the rest of the article. -Arch dude 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One page could have first genration and then the second generation listed and if theres ever a third it can be listed like that aswell, rather than having to look at two seprate articals and just because they share a similer itanium name doesnt make them even close they just share some of the ia64 instruction set. This is what make the 386,pentium4 and intel core2 totaly diffrent processers for example.

Good article! Very very thorough and I learned a lot that I didn't know although I'm a big hardware geek. A couple of things about the history section: how do you know exactly what HP's goals and actions were when initially developing the architecture? Also, the "sales forecast" graph lacks units for the Y axis... millions of dollars, millions of units sold? Otherwise, so far so good... no other problems except for a few typos. MOXFYRE (contrib) 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks four your inputs. My spelling is horrible, so I will re-check, but a few will gte through anyway. HP stated its goals in its "History" paper: I will change the references so thta each reference is exact. Perhaps I can find and use direct quotes. -Arch dude 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. I updated the article in he main wikispace. -Arch dude 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Small suggestion: I'd move the Itanium logo from the top left corner. At screen resolutions above about 1232 pixels it causes the table of contents to be indented, and such image layouts in the lead are deprecated at the WP Guide to layout (Images, fourth paragraph). --DeLarge 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I struggled a lot with the logo placement and decided that the current location is the least bad. If I pu it on the right, the infobox gets pushed down and several other bad things begin to happen. Please try a few things to see if you can find a better layout. If you find one you like, then change the article: I will not revert you. -Arch dude 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work, ArchDude. The only thing I worry about is the merge of Itanium 2. The old article seemed to present some architectural details in a different and possibly more thorough way (particularly the detailed description of floating-point architecture). Do you believe that the combined article contains all the useful info from Itanium 2? MOXFYRE (contrib) 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I may have over-reacted here. In the old Itanium 2, the rest of the architecture was essentially ignored, leaving only the floating-point stuff, and almost all of the floating-point stuff was not particluarly specific to Itanium (with the exception of the 80-bit arithmetic and the 82-bits registers.) the truly important parts are : 128 registers, 2 FMACs. This is what gives Itanium its killer SPECfp numbers. Note that the stuff about using the "graphics" ionstructions to get better floating-point performance is bogus: It's true for all modern architectures but this is not the way the industry defines "FLOP." If I did over-react, please edit the article, or propose wording on its talk page and we can discuss it. However, I have recently found a trove of better references: we may want to substantially expand the architecture section and split it back out. (I'm now going to re-read the old article in light of your comment.) Thanks again for your comments. -Arch dude 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Best Bet

The Best Bet is a Singaporean film about the perils of gambling. I wrote this article on 31 March and have just nominated it for DYK. As the creator of RFF, surely I should benefit from it, by receiving feedback that would help me improve this article, so that the DYK nomination will be successful and the article will receive a B-class rating (and possibly GA status in future)?

Two major concerns:

• Has my prose improved? I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed due to choppy prose.
• In Singapore, we use the term "strike" to refer to a lottery win (whether 4D or TOTO). So we'd say "I hope I strike 4D" or "If my number strikes, I'll give you a treat". Since this term is not used in other countries, I have instead used the words "win" and "[the number] came out", but it sounds just...weird. Should I use the Singaporean term "strike", or stick with terms familiar to international readers?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike is used in the USA in a simmilar manner to mean "win" or "find," as in the phrases "strike it rich," "gold strike," and "he struck oil." You might consider a small stub article on this usage of the word strike. Yes, wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is one of many cases where a small disambiguation article is the best solution to the problem. -Arch dude 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a concise explanation in the article itself; that tends to be preferable to being forced to open another article just to find a definition. Incidentally, the term is not widely used in that context in Britain, where strike is something that employees might do. Adrian M. H. 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Video blog

Video blog is a blog that contains regular video posts and is usually accompanied by an RSS feed with media enclosures. (i.e. a video podcast) Before I began editing the article, it was mostly OR from videobloggers who have an attachment to the article. I gradually (over the last 6 or so months) removed a lot of non notable content, indiscriminate links, and unsourced content after requesting citations. The article is currently undergoing an revert war between the cleaned up version and the original version (from about 6 months ago). Cleaned up version, Original Version, Difference Between Versions See the talk page for a summary of my changes and the current discussion.Pdelongchamp 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If a revert war is in progress, it might be more appropriate to request a 3rd opinion. Adrian M. H. 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Destination ImagiNation

A global problem-solving competition. I've done some work improving, want to know what should be done next. -AtionSong 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made some minor edits to the article and left feedback at User talk:AtionSong. Adrian M. H. 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

SQL NULL

We just completely rewrote an article stub on SQL Null, and would like to get feedback on it. Any and all feedback appreciated. Particularly we're looking for advice on style, content, citation, NPOV, etc. All the things that make a good article good. Old Article here: Old SQL NULL article, Current Article here: SQL NULL. ThanksSqlPac 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Another computer article, which is good. However because it's computer related, and not everyone understands it, you may want to put some brief introduction on what SQL is, why would we need NULL and other basic stuff like that. Try WP:LEAD to get the main idea about the lead section. Also congratulations for the improvement, I can see that you guys have done a lot. Another thing I want to suggest is to improve the prose. Now the article looks like bunch of sentences put together without a nice prose. Also try to wikify the article, means that "lots of words", making the article thicker. The tables and syntaxes (or whatever people called it :P) are very good and appropriate. Try to put some pictures, maybe screenshots or anything so the article looks nicer. The last thing is, citation goes after punctuation. Good luck - Imoeng 00:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! We've added a couple of sentences describing what SQL is, with a link to the SQL article. I also moved the references outside the punctuation marks. I think we discuss why you would need NULL (to represent "missing information and inapplicable information", per Codd's definitions) in the lead. I'm not sure what we could do in terms of screenshots. Basically all that could be done (as far as I can tell) would be to show the result of a query that displayed a bunch of NULLs in the result set. Not sure if that would be add much value to the article though. What do you think? I'm definitely more of a technical guy than an artistic type, and I tend to think in terms of getting maximum information across as efficiently as possible. If you have any specific suggestions about improving the prose, I could definitely use (and would appreciate) it! Thanks! SqlPac 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Main Line

This is an older article (first created in 2004), but it has never been in particularly good shape. Several dozen other articles link to this article, so the topic has some importance. The subject is a geographic area in the western suburbs of Philadelphia. One of the problems, probably, with this topic is that in the Philadelphia area, the Main Line is frequently considered as a "prestige" address in comparison to some other areas; this results in heated debate over which geographic areas should properly be included as part of the Main Line. Spikebrennan 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Spikebrennan, a good article there. It's got good headers and plenty of external links, as well as access to commons. And maybe you can get one or two pictures from commons and put it there so we can see them easily. Moreover because it's a collection of towns, with many important people, we'd like to see some pictures. The other very important thing is references, as well as inline citations. You've been here quite awhile so I assume you have understood how to use them. Try read WP:CITE and you can use WP:CITET to help you. In terms of the content, you may want to explain why this area is so special, why there are many notable people live there and so forth. Also try to avoid lists and put more paragraphs to make the article looks more encyclopedic. Good luck - Imoeng 09:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rob.bastholm/Smartwool

I've been providing some guidance to User:Rob.bastholm to help improve this article from its former CSD status to at least a legitimate corporate stub that can be moved to the Main namespace. For a new editor, he has done an admirable job in looking for WP:RS to the point where this is no longer a speedy candidate. If any other editors can provide any more information, that would be helpful. Also, while I would have no qualms about moving the article to the Main namespace right now, agreement from others would definitely help, so please do let him (and me!) know. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Kinu, you can always move it to the mainspace, as long as you provide references and inline citations. If it has avoided from being speedied, then it should be fine on the mainspace. With some researches, you, and Rob can put more information. So, add the stub template, add more references (reliable ones) and move it to the mainspace. Good luck - Imoeng 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mindphobia

how can this page be linked to other pages eg. mental health, mental illness, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s. 15), discrimination and disability?

You can add a new section called "See also", which can contain some internal links, just like you have mentioned above. Considering the article is up for speedy deletion, you may want to research some more while providing references and inline citations. See WP:CITE for more details. Good luck with it! - Imoeng 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Flight 261

I'm new to editing at wikipedia, and trying to learn the ropes. I've been fairly "bold" with this article, and have made substantial changes to its organization and content. I feel the middle section, "Analysis" still needs to be completely re-written, but am happy for now with the first section, "The accident flight". Please let me know if you think I'm doing a good job or not, especially with how I've used citations...I'm trying not to overdo them, but it might be considered inadequate. Thanks! Lipsticked Pig 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, good on you for being italic, and bold. Maybe the most important thing for me to tell you is to consider using the "show preview" button, so you don't have to click save so many times. It's just good to use that :). Also good on you for using inline citation, which probably the most important thing. And no, you didn't overdo them, in fact, plenty more would be desirable. Try comparing it to other related articles, or articles with the same length. Most of them would have 40-60 inline citations. With a bit of research, you'll be able to do it easily. I like your article structure, above all, because you separated between the accident and the investigation, which is clearly better. And again, I suggest you to look at some aircrash-related articles, so you can get the idea. Last thing, some pictures may help as well. Good luck - Imoeng 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback; much appreciated! Lipsticked Pig 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is my edit not there?

I added a link to an article and when I pulled it up just now it wasn't displayed, but it is still in the edit page. Did I do it wrong?

The article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats. The link is to a book written by my dad on the history of the critical mass lab there. He was a scientist there for the entire existence of the lab. The book was written under government contract.

You may want to ask that at the help desk. Good luck - Imoeng 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ketchup Effect

I would like to have this article reassessed, while I dont believe it's a stub anymore, i have added a few things that i feel that it makes it even better. The language may need to be changed also.

Hello there. Please sign your edit with ~~~~. Good start, with infobox and picture, you've got the basic things of an article. But I'm afraid you missed the most important thing, references. I believe you wrote the article because you have seen the movie (pardon me if I'm wrong), and that's what you should avoid, per original research policy. Try to avoid writing an article from your own perspective or ideas, and search for some information, from the net, or books, preferably. From there, you can add references and citations, as written on citing policy. Since it's a movie-related article, you may want to add more info than just the synopsis, like, the making of the movie, reception, criticism and so forth. There must be plenty information about those things. The last thing is your writing style. I suggest you to split the synopsis section into paragraphs, just for the sake of readers. It would be better to do that than cramping everything on a paragraph. Also try to avoid lists because paragraphs of words are just more encyclopedic. Good luck with that! After you put some references, maybe you can take the stub template off. Have a good day - Imoeng 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

STS-51-L Mission timeline

Hi there! I've recently started work on this detailed timeline of mission STS-51-L (the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster), and I assume it comes under the definition of a list. I'd very much like to get it to featued status, but as I have never penned a Wikipedia list before, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback with advice as to what I need to do to improve it. Thanking you in advance, Colds7ream 13:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colds7ream. You did all those by yourself? That's really cool, congratulations on that. I reckon it is not a list, because a featured list would be a list, with different points on it. In this case, it's more like, a timeline, or a story, if you wish. For some example of lists, take a look at here and here. So now you can focus to featured article. The good things about the article is that you have written a very detailed timeline of the mission, both in paragraph and table form. The pictures are good too. However you've missed the most important thing, which is references and citations. I saw a couple of inline citations, which is good, but to pass FA, you would need plenty more. Generally speaking, in this kind of articles, you will need about 30 - 50 inline citations, but that's generally speaking. And of course, references, where you can put a list of general references that you used. I suggest you to put "See also" and "External links" section at the bottom of the article, where you can put some internal and external links. Well that's all about it, you may want to submit it to peer review for a more detailed review after you satisfy all the above. Good luck - Imoeng 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that - i'll start on some changes this afternoon. Yes, I know I need references - i've got a list ready to go; its just that I didn't know what arrangement lists took - as its not a list, I can get going (I've already got Shuttle-Mir Program to FA, so I have no fear of references! :-D) Thanks again! Colds7ream 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lecrae and FLAME

Today I found these two articles and saw that they were on the articles for deletion category so I made the obvious clarity edits, updated information, and added references to the two articles. I was wondering what other suggestions there were for fixing the articles so that they are not deleted. Also I was wondering if it is NPOV enough and if not then what would you edit to make it more NPOV. What else might I add to show the notability of the articles and the artists that they represent. God Bless, Professor Davies 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello professor. For the Lecrae article, I did find some NPOV statements, like "Lecrae Moore is a Christian rap artist from Reach Records who has devoted his career to preaching the Gospel through his music." The statement is not neutral because there is no source saying that. So the reviewer might assume that the writers have taken an assumption. Also "LeCrae is devoting his life to glorifying God in everything that he does, in word, life, and thought. Understanding that Christians live as regenerate (born again) people in an unregenerate (not born again) world, he knows the odds are against him. With no ambitions of being the next big thing or dreams of fame and wealth, LeCrae simply wants to point listeners in the direction of the Cross". Remember one thing though, try to avoid getting information from the related parties. In this case, the record label, because they are trying to sell. Instead, look for some third parties resources.

The flame article is fine, although you may want to unbold some bolded phrases. The only thing that should be bold is the first word in the lead section (flame). Good luck with that! Imoeng 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Muchos Gracias, thank you very much I will edit those phrases and try to get third party references. God Bless, Professor Davies 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Skank (band)

I have translated text from the Portuguese language WP, added more information and references. Macgreco 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 storms in Vancouver, Canada

Hi. I made some major edits to the article a few months ago, and now it has been tagged repeatedly. I want to eventually improve it, but I want to know what this article lacks the most. Please tell me the major things this article needs, like sources, wikify, tone, etc. I could possibly find sources, and will try to wikify. Does wikifying indicate adding links, or is it more than that? Also, what is an easy way to change the tone? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick copyedit to add links. I also changed the structure of hte first sentence into a more "correct" form. I added a single reference to give you a template to work from: You may wish to remove my reference after you find better ones. I modified a sentence to remove the term "knock-on": I suspect that this term is Canadian or regional. I tried to link ot "Aleutian Low" but we do not have an article: either create a stub article for the term, add a reference to the term, or define it in place. I did not remove the tags, but I think you can remove the "wikify" tag after you make another pass, and remofe the "references" tags after you add one or two good references. -Arch dude 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Crystal field theory

I have done a fair bit editing on the page and would like to know what else I could improve or change. I changed from the image formating (in addition to adding one) and has a result had to change some of the content as well.Furthermore more, it appears that the image for the Crystal Field Stablisation Energy section disagrees somewhat with the image Here's the diff page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_field_theory&diff=126918701&oldid=119466862

I am also responsible for the eight intermediate edits. --YanA 06:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made some more edits. The link above has been updated.--YanA 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I no longer feel that it is necessary. --YanA 06:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comet McNaught

Hi. I made this article several months ago, and now I am requesting feedback. It has mostly been edited by other users. The talkpage states it is mostly still at Start-class, and haven't been much improved since. I want to know what the article still lacks, so someone could make it better. What does it need: more info, pov, length, sources, images, reports, interestingness, or something else? I know this is a very bright and notable object, so what needs to be improved? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Current status" section needs to be removed and replaced with a description of the outbound trajectory and eventual fate. This will help convert the "current events" style into the proper "encyclopedic" style. Re-read the article and ask yourself if it will be useful in ten years. -Arch dude 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The orbital parameters don't appear to match what is on the JPL site[2] nor the referenced ephemerides site.[3] The text doesn't even mention that this comet likely has a parabolic orbit, and so will not be returning. There is an ESO news release that had some scientific results.[4] — RJH (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Natural organic matter

Hello all! I just posted a new article disscussing Natural organic matter. I am just curious if there are specific sections I should expand on more. I welcome all feedback and opinions. Thank you for your time and efforts.

1013-alex 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Flowers in the Attic and Flowers in the Attic (movie)

I made some changes to the the article covering the book by V.C. Andrews and created another one focusing one the movie based on the book. I would like some feedbak on whether or not my changes are more in keeping with the standards of Wikipedia and if there's more that should be done.

Jahunta07 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BC Express (sternwheeler)

Hi, I wrote BC Express sternwheeler and several other ship articles of that nature including a couple larger index type articles. I thought I'd get someone to look at this one and see how it can be improved as it is one of my favorites. I'd like to be made aware of any mistakes I'm making now, rather than repeating them over and over again. Thanks for your time.CindyBo 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is already a credit to Wikipedia. Thanks for writing it. I enjoyed reading it. However, it is not yet ready for "good article" status. first and foremost, you need inline citations. This is sort of silly in this case given the book references you cite, but the consensus that has evolved over the last two years is that in-line citation is needed. I reccomend that you use the "ref" syntax with a "cite book" template. Where a particular paragraph is suppoirted by a chapter in a book, just put one cite on the end of the last sentence in the paragraph.

• You use a lot of terms that you do not explain. Sure, you know what they mean, and a reader could do some extra work to find them, but it's a whole lot better if you do it first. A trivial example: sternwheeler.
• Change the first sentence to say: The BC Express was a stern wheel paddle steamer (sternwheeler) that operated on the Fraser River in British Columbia, Canada, from 1912 to 1919. Other undefined terms are steel end and head of navigation.
• With a long article like this, the introductory section needs to be longer. It should briefly sularize the whole article. Pretend that your reader is a bored but inquisitive and intelligent 12-year-old who found your article by clicking on the "random article" link.Give the reader a succinct overview. The lead-in should also cater to the desperate high-school or college student who need to determine very quickly whether or not to read the rest of the article.

If you have not done so already, please review the WP:GA criteria. GA is a relativel low threshold. After you get to GA, I think you should go for FA. -Arch dude 01:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Humboldt State University

I have been working on the Humboldt State University article for a little bit now, struggling with what kind of content should go into the article of a small public university. A main problem I have is a lack of sources about the university. I have added little content, mostly correcting and changing the format. I added the History section, however. Any comments would be helpful, especially about the scope of the article. abexy 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You should add references to the statistics section like the college entrance exams, etc. Royalbroil 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

William Bengen

Hi:

This page is my attempt at giving credit to William Bengen for his research on retirement planning. I am relatively new to editing, and wanted feedback in 2 areas. 1. Since this is sort of a biography of a living person, did I violate any etiquette 2. Is it NPOV? I tried to write it as such, but don't know if it came out objective. Any suggestions welcome and I will try to follow up on them.

Thanks, Ramnarasimhan 16:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Schloss Einstein

For a few minutes I created the article Schloss Einstein. Because my English is not so good, I ask you for reading and improving. Thanks. --Despairing 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rise of nationalism in Europe

I have been working on this article recently, and I was wondering if it can be included as part of a history series on wikipedia? I am new to wikipedia so any advice on this would be great. Thanks TerritorialWaters 10:13 (UTC) 6 May 2007.

Responded at user's talk page. Adrian M. H. 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fiber-optic communication

I created this article a while back, but it hasn't developed much. I was hoping for some suggestions for improvement- specifically how it might be made more relevant to the average reader. Possibly better tie-ins with other articles or specific suggestions for word-choice problems? Thanks! johnpseudo 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did a cursory read-through. This is a promising article, but it needs a bit of work.

• The introductory section is too short for such a long and broad article
• The article needs many more references
• We need at least a short paragraph on very short fiber (e.g., TOSLINK) if only to keep people from adding this stuff to this article when it does not belong here.
• We probably need further cross-linking with the other articles on this subject. This article would end up as the "lead" or "overview" article for the others.
• You may want to mention OC-768 (i.e., 40Gbps) and polarization dispersion, which are teh leading-edge spedd and its new limitation.
• FTTH is finally actually happening. (e.g., Verizon FIOS.)
• (shameless pitch:) link to core router.

-Arch dude 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fairy painting

I am especially looking for a standard to apply to determine which modern artists (and external links) might warrant inclusion -- the article periodically sprouts new ones (I am aware that the modern revival section currently lacks sourcing). Also, suggestions on how to appropriately expand of the lede and commentary as to whether the artwork depicted is adequately representative would be appreciated. I would like to start this on the long road toward GA and FA. Serpent's Choice 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge

I first found this article as a very small stub which basically stated that it was a refuge and where it was located in Florida. For an English project, I was asked to radically expand the article and find many sources to back up the claims/facts in the article. I am fairly new to this Wikipedia thing. I would like specific help with the following:

• What do I need to do to make the article more appealing?
• What do I need to do to make the article be considered a "Featured" or "Good" article?

Thanks for any help/comments/concerns... 1013-andy 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it could be a WP:GA candidate and probably without much further work. The GA reviewer – or a good one at least – will tell you what needs to be improved to meet their expectations. GA reviewers are encouraged to work to quite high standards. You need to sort the ref format, though: get rid of the plain links and the chevrons around them, and use the examples at WP:CITET to guide you. Move the first picture, because the infobox must go there. Remove the external links from the photo gallery – external links do not belong in body text – and place the link to Clay Degayner's Photo Album Slideshow in the External Links section, unless it mostly duplicates those gallery shots? If you haven't seen them already, peruse the many pages that make up the Manual of Style, but I don't think that you have any major issues of that nature. Again, any such issues will be raised by a GA reviewer. Good effort! Adrian M. H. 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge

Hey, I'm new to wikipedia and recently had an assignment for my english class to expand an article. I was just wondering if anyone had any advice to improve the article in any way, shape, or form. I would appreciate any help. Thanks. 1013-Jeff 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Full Twisting Layout

full twisting layout
i started this article, and its just a stub, and i can't think of anything to add, anyone have any ideas. Maddiekate

References to your sources would be a significant addition, in order that the material may be verified. You may know the facts, but most readers – me included – will not and that is one of a number of reasons why attribution is such a vital policy. The article left me wondering where, when and from whom this manouvre originated. And how is it similar to a piked full twist? What is its value or significance in terms of a competition routine? It needs more context in the lead section and the tone of the whole article is too instructional, as if it has been taken from a manual. It is uncategorised and no other articles link to it. It might benefit from an image of someone performing the manouvre as well. Adrian M. H. 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitstable

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Westgate-on-Sea

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Birchington-on-Sea

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Polska (dance)

I did a major revision of this page. Will appreciate feedback on how to give it a better structure--that is, break it into different entries, add headings, or other suggestion on how to make it better fit the wikipedia model. Cpgruber 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• References would be nice. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• They certainly would. It must verifiable, otherwise it can be taken to be OR. Reference your sources with footnotes. I have given the article some much-needed cleanup work, which is described in detail in my edit summary. I have left specific comments for you within the text; you can remove these once you have read them. Another issue that struck me was the essay-like and, at times, informal tone. The writing style is a little too prosaic and not sufficiently encyclopædic. You ought to revise your use of punctuation marks as well. For example, you put the first instances of dance names into quote marks, rather than italicising them. There was a lack of capitalisation as well, though some instances of this may be correct, according to the specifics of how a particular proper noun is commonly written. Adrian M. H. 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Code of Dinotopia

Hi. I recently created this article. However, a few days after I added a second edit, Thehedgehog (talk · contribs) reverted it, stating it was false, and that it was a new edit. However, after checking his/her contribs, it turns out that the user has been on wiki longer than I have, but have made far less edits. In fact, the user's only edit in May 2007 was to revert this edit. How, and why? I sent that user a comment, questioning about his/her recent revert. Most likely, this user either clicked on Random article, or he/she visited another article, clicking individual links until that user arrived at that one. Unfortuneately, since that user rarely makes a lot of edits, I'm not sure he/she will reply anytime soon, which is why I am adding this comment here. If this is not the place to put this comment, please tell me where else, if anywhere, I could put it, such as the Help Desk, etc. Anyway, what should I do? With that user not likely to reply anytime soon, I'm not sure what I could do. Why do I think his/her revert was unjustified? Please see the comment on that user's talkpage, the only comment after "welcome". Also, what else should I do (when I have time) to improve that page? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The first part of your question should have been placed at either the HD or the NCH, but as it is a simple one, I'll answer it here. Basically, as with all such things, if you can verify the claim with a reliable source, then re-insert it in a suitably revised form. The burden of attribution is always on the editor who makes the claim, not those who read it or choose to remove it per the above policy. I note that you have only provided general sources; they are not references and so should not be classed as such.

With regard to improving the article, there is a lot that you should do and a lot more that you can do in addition to that.

• For one thing, it lacks context. I mean, what is Dinotopia? A link to the main article is not enough to provide the necessary context and inform the reader. See WP:LEAD, which is one small part of the Manual of Style.
• Why is it notable? You have provided only a primary first-party source, which fails to demonstrate notability and is not the best type of source. Where are you secondary sources? See those links above, plus WP:ATT (related to WP:V) and WP:REF. Being a small part of a larger subject is not necessarily enough to fulfill notability.
• If you don't have enough material to expand the article sufficiently, consider the possibility of a merge.
• Categorise it.

Adrian M. H. 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Although "total number of edits" can be a good indicator of someone's familarity with wiki, it is not always the case.  ;) I've responded to your comment in my talkback already, but just to summarize -- based on what I've read in the books, I felt your recent addition was taking a character's offhand comment as truth, and using that to fill in the final part of the Dinotopia code. From all that I've read of the books, the final code has never been found.

As for improvements, again, as I mentioned in my comment, perhaps quoting one or two of the codes to show the aim of the utopian society of Dinotopia, and discussing this purpose of the codes would help. Perhaps even a small paragraph mentioning the codes in other media, such as the TV series which edited the codes slightly and actually "found" the final code in the TV canon. Although as Adrian above noted, perhaps the code article would be better if merged in the main article. (I'm a fan of Dinotopia myself, so I'm for more informative articles on the works, but the Dinotopia universe, and more specifically the laws, don't have the same amount of fictional beef as say, Star Trek's section). -- Thehedgehog 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi. The revert was resolved on that user's talkpage, and thanks for the help, but I'm not sure if I should post as the newcomer's help place because I've been on wiki for more than 7 months. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversible reaction (chemistry)

The article Reversible reaction contains the following statement, which is utter rubbish.

"Irreversible reactions are often called "spontaneous" or "favorable". These reactions are usually entropically driven, as opposed to thermodynamically driven. In an irreversible reaction, there is generally a great increase in entropy."

However, before editing this out I need some information. In what context is the concept of a reversible reaction used? Clearly the context here is different from the thermodynamic one, as in Reversible process (thermodynamics).

The other difficulty I have with this idea is that all chemical reactions are equilibria. This follows directly from the relationship (at constant pressure)

$\Delta G^{\theta }=-RT\ln K$

Whatever the value of $\Delta G^{\theta }$ there is a corresponding equilibrium constant. Under standard conditions, the cases are

1. $\Delta G^{\theta }$ is large and negative: the reaction "goes to completion", kinetics permitting.
2. The absolute value of $\Delta G^{\theta }$ is less than about 20 kJ mol^-1: the reaction will go to equilibrium, kinetics permitting.
3. $\Delta G^{\theta }$ is large and positive: the reaction "does not go".

Is there a real difference between a reaction which is "reversible" and one that goes to an equilibrium mixture?

Petergans 10:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The best way I can explain this is to have you forget the math for a moment. A reversable reaction is one that obeys LeChatelier's Principle, while a non-reversable one does not. That is, a reversable reaction can be forced one way or the other by introducing relatively small changes to the system. An irreversable reaction will go to completion REGARDLESS of the conditions the reaction occurs at. Consider the following two reactions:

1. H₂CO₃ <-----> H₂O + CO₂
2. CH₄ + 3O₂ ----> 2H₂O + CO₂

AT first they look very similar, yet the first is reversable, while the second isn't. Think about these as real world processes.

1. The first is the dissociation of Carbonic Acid. In solution, carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. Whether this reaction moves to the right or left is completely at the whim of small changes to its conditions. Relative concentrations, pH, pressure over the surface of the water, and temperature all have profound effects on the reaction. This precarious equilibrium, and the reversable nature of the reaction, makes it very useful in many applications. For one, it is the vital component of gas exchange in your lungs. By carefully controlling this equilibrium (see Homeostasis) your body is able to reliably eliminate Carbon Dioxide from your blood. Also, consider a can of soda. If left closed, pressure builds, forcing the equilibrium to the left. Essentially, the pressure is high enough so that the reaction is ALL Carbonic Acid, and NO carbon dioxide. Leave the can open, and the Carbon Dioxide literally drifts away, driving the equilibrium to the right, until it goes to near completion to the right. At this state, it is ALL Carbon Dioxide, and NO Carbonic Acid. (CO₂ concentration in the air is so low that it is essentially nil as far as this reaction is concerned). The reaction goes essentially to completion (in each case, no equilibrium) but is fully reversible, since by making relatively minor changes to conditions, it can be forced one way or the other. These changes can be effected WITHOUT an input of external energy, and thus are spontaneous and reversible.
2. The second is the combustion of methane. Regardless of the ambient temperature, pressure, pH, or concentrations involved, once you start the reaction (give it a spark to overcome the activation energy) it goes all the way to completion at the right, and NO amount of change to the conditions will EVER get Carbon Dioxide and Water to spontaneously form Methane and Oxygen. Thus, the process is irreversable.

I hope that clears things up a bit. Your mathematical analysis using Gibbs Law is correct, but it obfuscates the real nature of reversability.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BeetlesMod request for feedback

Thanks in advance for any feedback about my first Wiki, BeetlesMod. It's intended to replace my outdated static HowTo web page, BeetleFart's Admin Mod for CS:Source.

I've added References per the Wiki style guide, citing authoritative sources for this subject matter. I haven't filled out the detail, yet, pending your feedback.

Is this a reasonable subject for Wikipedia? What else (besides content) is missing from my first Wiki?

Thanks.
Rabid—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabid QODA (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 May 2007.

Just to be clear; this is not a Wiki, but an article that is part of a Wiki. Wikipedia, more than any other Wiki, exists solely as an encyclopædia and it is not a place for instructional guides. Your article reads like an instructional guide and, crucially, it fails to establish notability. Where are the third party sources? The magazine, newspaper and website editorial that writes about this subject in a non-trivial fashion. Adrian M. H. 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Adrian. I'll take another route to publish my instructional guide. Rabid QODA 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that didn't put you off. Off the top of my head, I don't know of a wiki that would be suitable, but it is virtually certain that there is one somewhere. There are a lot of wikis for all kinds of content and gaming must be high on the popularity list. For convenience, would you mind placing {{db-author}} at the top of the article? That will let admins know that you don't want the article to remain, since it's probably a candidate for deletion. Thanks, and good luck with your guide. Adrian M. H. 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I added two unique and reputable third-party references to my article, which, in my opinion, establishes notability. I also removed the instructional text, and will update the article to include a link to a site where instructional text will be available. Rabid QODA 05:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

BeetlesMod was speedily deleted by Marasmusine. Rabid QODA 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid Too

I Not Stupid Too is Singapore's all-time second-highest grossing film. It is a sequel of the famous satirical comedy I Not Stupid, which prompted reforms in the Singapore education system.

I have spent two months on this article, and have finally finished it today. As the creator of the RFF process, surely I should be allowed to benefit from it, by getting feedback on an article I have rewritten?

Please give me general feedback and suggestions for improving the article, and assess its GA potential.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Places in the Philippines

I am trying to get certain articles on the Philippines up to featured article status. I compared the article of Metro Manila to featured articles on other cities around the world and I found out some criteria and information missing:

• A picture of a well-known landmark or the downtown area.
• Time zone
• Area code
• A climate graph for the Geography and Climate section would be much appreciated.
• Communications and Media
• Health and Public Safety
• External links to official government websites

Also, I've been looking at other articles on places in the Philippines which I hope would reach featured status, these can be found on my page under "Hitlist". If anyone knows how we can get these articles to featured status, or added information, please tell me. Eternal dragon 09:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This sort of general request might be better at EA. RFF is intended to provide feedback about your work on a specific article. As a strategy, I suggest that you tackle one article at a time in order to focus your efforts. You have made a good start by comparing an article against its most relevant benchmarks. Adrian M. H. 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

asking for attention

DEAR

I LIKE TO SEND SPME LONODN PICTURE IN LONDON LITE

BUT COULD NOT FOUND PLEASE LET ME KNOW

Huh? For images try Wikipedia:Requested pictures or the Commons. — RJH (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Serials of SAB TV(India)

I request for feedbacks on the following articles at my talk page- Four(Indian Soap) or Four(SAB TV) Left Right Left(SAB TV) Love Story(SAB TV) Gj talent 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It would help us to help you if you followed the instructions at the top of the page. We really need to deal with one article per request, and you need to provide some more information that relates to your work on the article. And we usually reply here, not on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg

Article about a spiritual group that has been labeled a cult.

This article has been recently drastically changed. Feedback greatly appreciated. 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Loyola University New Orleans

I would like some outside feedback on this article, which I have worked on in spurts for over about a year. Any criticism is appreciated. Samwisep86 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it still looks a bit unreferenced — only two references for an article this length looks a bit like OR. The multiple subsections in "Student Life" could probably be merged as well. (The "Greek organisations" I think needs some explaining or at the very least wikilinks, since it will mean nothing to anyone outside the US.)

I do really like the use of images; too often in this kind of article you get fifteen similar shots of similar-looking buildings, but in this case they're all different and give a good feel of what the place must be like. I also like the fact you've put descriptive captions, rather than just "The xxx building" with the reader left to plough through a block of text to work out what the image refers to — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but they are primary refs. Where are the secondary refs? It is far too under referenced. Incidentally, you should include the name of the website in the ref when using an online source, as I did when converting the first ref. Adrian M. H. 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A1 road (London)

I created this article after merging-and-redirecting five stubs on individual sections of this road (the five stubs can be seen here, along with my original Aldersgate Street article). I then completely rewrote the five stubs to a common format, wrote sections for the ten stretches of road that didn't have existing pages, and sourced representative images for the more interesting stretches of road to try to provide some kind of context for the way in which this road changes character along its length. I'd like to know what others think, both of this particular article and of this concept as a way to deal with long roads that run through a number of different districts — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Steenbok

Not sure what the next phase is. At the request of another user, I have provided a distribution map and standardized/styled the references. Please advise whether this could be deemed ready for peer review. Thanks—GRM 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems decent, although a little on the brief side. You could compare it to some of the entries under Wikipedia:Featured articles#Biology.2C medicine and psychology for additional ideas. BTW I got within 20-30m of one of these little creatures a few years back—it really is amazing that they can survive with so many superb predators around. — RJH (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Walters (author)

The article isn't finished; I just wanted to check I'm going in the right direction... I am intending to add articles for each book, similiar to Blast Off at Woomera Does this approach sound OK ? GrahamHardy 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given it a minor cleanup to improve its compatibility with the guidelines at MOS. Your refs need to be formatted properly with fuller information (see comment in text) per the layouts provided at WP:CITET (though you do not need to use those templates). I would suggest expanding on the subject's context and describe what makes him notable (create a proper lead section for this). By "notable", I do not just mean WP:N, but also what makes him interesting. You have touched very briefly on his memberships; expand on these if you can. These should not be in the lead section (when you create it) and should be somewhere in the body of the article. The same goes for his educational history. Try to keep it fairly chronological, ie: Early Life, Career Before Writing, etc. Look at other good quality bios to provide inspiration: Portal:Biography/Selected article/archive is a good place to go. Oh, and don't forget to get some categories in there: use any that are directly applicable, being as specific as possible, and don't repeat the entry into parent categories. Some of the sub-cats at English writers might apply. Message me if I can help with anything specific. Adrian M. H. 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also took a look, and unless you can expand the articles on the books further, and include reviews of them, or other outside discussions, the articles are probably not viable separately. I do not know if there is enough material. DGG 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote this article 'Quality Issues in Pakistani Higher Education: Accountablity vs. Improvement debate' sometime back as a university Assignment. I thought I should be placing it on the Wikipedia so that people interested in higher education could be benefited. I didn't know properly how to upload the file. Now I got the message that it should be deleted within next five days.

Could you please look into the issue?

Eclipse

This article is listed on WP:Vital_articles#Astronomy and I've attempted to do some further development of the page. At this point, however, I'm at a bit of a loss what else to do. The Lunar eclipse and Solar eclipse pages cover those respective topics to a high level of detail, so I think this page only needs summary-style coverage. Is anything else needed? Or should I call it done; polish it up (with refs.), and take it for a PR? Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite interested in this subject, but I am no expert when it comes to astronomy. From my layman's viewpoint, it looks like a pretty decent article; it's probably ready for a proper peer review and then on to a GA nomination. But if you want more specific advice/feedback first, you could enlist the assistance of someone at the astronomy wikiproject. Adrian M. H. 17:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

my entry - Micro Focus (Micro Focus International plc)

Dear volunteer editors,

Last night I posted my first article, about Micro Focus International plc, but without a category, and I would like to delete it, but can not find it!! Then this morning, I posted the article, with categories, but in PDF format... Ugh! That is not want I wanted it to look like, either... so I posted it in a different format, one in which I could use your toolbar to create links, bold items, etc., with categories included at that bottom...

I also included a new category, to add to your incredible burden... sigh...

I posted my article because I was looking for items about application portfolio management (APM) and noticed you don't have any on the site. I included links to other reference works. I wrote up the information, based on my own research about this particular company. I hope that is okay.

Please let me know.

Sincerely, Sami Menefee

I removed your email address to protect your privacy. See your talk page where I have posted a welcome message that may answer, or has links to a tutorial that will answer, your questions. Thank you for joining Wikipedia! In the future if you need help it may be more useful to post questions at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks again! S.dedalus 05:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Buddhist

I have written and contributed an article (Black Buddhist) for publication. My article does not appear when I do a google search. Can you help me to get such article published or can you explain any errors I have made. I am sight impaired and may be missing some simple written instruction. Thanks Paololarenzo 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You have come through to Requests for Feedback, which is for requesting an informal review of your work on a specific article. You won't find your article via external search engines for days or weeks yet. Adrian M. H. 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Joanna Jepson

I'd welcome feedback, advice and help etc. on this article which I have been working on in my 'area', and have now uploaded. Suggestions how to link more properly to other articles, and how to do referencing properly (I have all the references, just not 100% sure how to present them) would be esp. welcome.

I'm actually 'pro choice' myself, but I remember reading about this in the news a few years ago, and when I noticed that the cleft palate article had only a vague, slightly out of date reference, I thought I'd write this.

Hopefully you will see that every effort has been made to ensure neutrality and that both sides of the argument are put across.

Feel free to edit/add to the article and leave comments here and on my talk page if necc.

Joistmonkey 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your refs are certainly a bit of a mess right now! Fortunately, footnotes are straightforward. Read this advice. You should cite all the quotes in particular, plus anything else that is even remotely questionable by the reader. BLP is a must-read policy. Don't use wikilinks in article sub-headings; it looks messy. Good effort with the NPOV; I think you succeeded on that count. Adrian M. H. 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a personal opinion, but I think your paragraphs are very short, especially in "The Case" section — it makes the page look a bit messy, and separating out almost every couple of sentences into different paragraphs isn't necessary since they're about the same topic — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've had a go at merging a few paragraphs - might do a bit more later - and will read the footnote stuff and re-read the BLP before I sort out the references etc. in a day or two. Thanks for feedback. Anyone else wanting to give any, gratefully received. This is more about me learning how to write articles well, than it is about this particular article being perfick :-) Joistmonkey 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about perfection. If it was perfect, I would have listed it at FAC! It's nice to read comments such as yours about wanting to learn how to write good articles. MOS and IA can help with that process. Adrian M. H. 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hippolyte de Bouchard

Bouchard was a french-argenitne corsair who, among other things, occupated California in the name of Argentina. I've been translating the article from the Spanish featured article and now I've finished and am trying to feature it here in en. I need advice. I'm contacting editors who have a high level of English and Spanish to help me with the language. Argentini an 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles Upham

Hey everyone, ive done a few minor edits to this article (Charles Upham) and i intend to do more. The article is about one of the greatest war heros of our time! It is in desperate need of attention, can anyone suggest anything major that might improve the article a lot, i am less experienced on the subject of a good article, as i am a beginner at writing and editing articles. i intend to do some research for this article in my own time. He deserves more than this! Slowbro 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative method

Collaborative methods are processes, behaviors and conversations that relate to collaboration between individuals. I have written this article and created the images … another set of eyes is desperately needed!

• Please check the writing and make this well written.
• Also, please check the contents and ensure that it is appropriately broad in its coverage.

Thank you —Parhamr 11:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Excluding "See Also" and below, there (I think) sixteen individual lists, either numbered or bulleted. That really is far to list-heavy and I am sure that at least some of that content can be reformed into proper paragraphs. Use lists as sparingly as possible. Your writing style is OK, I think; perhaps a little too "HR-speak" in places for my liking, but I suppose that this is perhaps more difficult to avoid with a subject such as this. Some small tweaks are needed per the MoS, such as the layout of the "Values" section. It would benefit from a few extra references here and there and the "Notes" section should really be labelled as a "References" section, because it currently contains no notes. Quite a good effort, all in all. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent feedback, thank you! The list problem certainly exists and appears to be the top-priority item, now. —Parhamr 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AEMT-CC

This is a NYS EMT certification level. I re-wrote the article and would like it reviewed to see if there are any errors I have made/overlooked. Demantos 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow

I am currently in the process of rewriting the article here, and I am wishing if anyone is willing to help me out during writing who is more knowledgable than me with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, for me to cite the tie-in books more. Alientraveller 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for assistance are best posted at WP:EAR. If you want help with citations, see WP:FN, WP:CITET for the layouts for each type of source, and the advice to another editor at my talk page. Adrian M. H. 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on "Harringay"

The article on Harringay had been around since 2004, but was short and contained inaccuracies. Some of the original remains, including the final para which another user clearly didn't want deleted. But most of what's on the page is new. This link shows the diffs [5].

I noticed a message today about tone, and on digging down a start-up rating. Feedback please on what's needed re tone and how to move beyond start-up.

If you haven't read it already, you may want to read this very long discussion on precisely this topic at WP:LONDON — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Myth and ritual

I've recently made major additions to a little-known article called Myth and ritual. Myth-ritualism and Myth-ritualist redirect there. When I originally created the article, User:KillerChihuahua immediately (and prudently, now that I think about it) hit it with an "original research" notice.

As far as I can tell, the problem wasn't that I went too far: it's that I didn't go far enough. I mentioned only a few scholars as representative examples, making the article read more like an essay than like an encyclopedia article. Now I think I've fixed the problem by adding more information and references, so I've removed the "OR" notice. User:KillerChihuahua suggested that I ask other users to look over the article.

Please take a moment to look over myth and ritual and leave feedback on its talk page. More is better!

Current version: myth and ritual

Version before my major additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myth_and_ritual&oldid=130819843

Sorry; forgot to add signature. --Phatius McBluff 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about "hypostasis"

Please see my concerns about the hypostasis (linguistics) and hypostasis (religion) articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypostasis_%28religion%29

Sorry; forgot to add signature. --Phatius McBluff 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Polyanhydrides

Hello everyone! I have added a new article to Wikipedia: Polyanhydrides. This is a class of polymers generally used in the medical or drug delivery fields. Any suggesstions or reccommendations would be much appreciated! polyanhydrides

Article would be better if references were standardized. Use this tool http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates be sure to click the add ref tag button when generating a citation. Demantos 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Du’a Khalil Aswad

A small article so far, but I would love some suggestions on how to improve it. S.dedalus 05:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While horribly tragic, it is unclear why this singular slaying is of particular notability, other than the video was widely distributed. Did it spark some type of political discourse or reforms? — RJH (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Kesel

Been trying to add a bit more to this article as it was rather barren when I first came across it. Her name was also misspelled all over the site. I don't consider myself a writer and would appreciate any comments/help I could get on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbecf (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 May 2007

The biggest issue is that it is essentially unsourced. You should add footnotes in the appropriate style (use the examples at WP:CITET to find those styles). Next up, the lead section; it should be a brief summary of the key points, establishing notability and reader interest, but here it is the bulk of the article. Much of its content belongs elsewhere in expanded paragraphs. Too many external links, some of which are, I suspect, your sources (so they need to be removed from that section and cited). Be careful about writing style and punctuation; I gave the lead a quick cleanup to correct a few such errors and added italics to book/comic titles. Adrian M. H. 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ill continue to work on it in my spare time.--Campbecf 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that its ready to go from stub -> start class in the biography/comics ratings? Oh and - how do you add comments to these things without using linebreaks? :\ --Campbecf 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some indents for you, just to format this section correctly. Was that what you meant about avoiding the use of breaks? I'll let you read Wikipedia:Stub so that you can find out how to make that assessment yourself. Adrian M. H. 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)