Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 August 9
The article is not done yet but I would like to know if it is heading towards the right direction and what propblems I may not be aware of.
Right now I believe it falls within class Start but feel it might be class C in the quality scale.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. ~~Joel M. (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that I am aware that that article needs to be cleaned up. There's a lot of floating facts that need to be stringed together better. --Joel M. (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be errors with two of the photos - so if you could fix them I think that'd be great. Also, I think things like the visitor information don't need to be included - it makes the article sound more like an advertisement overall - take a look at WP:POV or WP:TONE for more information. Thank you. Chevymontecarlo - alt 07:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I found the image errors you spoke of. It was introduced by User:QwerpQwertus when the user replaced "-" with " —" and didn't notice it broke the images.[1] I fixed the image's names to what it should be, they are once more working properly.
~~Billstroud1980 (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where the article is; can you provide a link in the section title? Thanks. Chevymontecarlo - alt 07:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It does not have any independent reliable sources, and those are essential to show why it is notable, see WP:VRS. Chzz ► 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Want this article reviewed so that it can be made official. Will it then show up in a google search?
- It was already live; I've tidied it up a bit, and removed some unreferenced, promotional parts. See WP:NPOV, WP:V.
- However, you need to change your username, see WP:CORPNAME. And please read WP:BFAQ. Chzz ► 15:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how to write this article - it does have reputable sources, and I will be adding more.
- So, currently, it has no references to reliable sources, hence it does not show that the company is notable, as required; see WP:VRS.
- Also, it needs to be neutral; stick to facts from independent reliable sources.
- Please read the business FAQ. Chzz ► 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hope I've done this right - I've added links and citations and images... just not sure how to get it fully live so it appears in searches...
~~Turlinator (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is already a live article, Jamie West. It will appear in the Wikipedia search within a few hours; Google takes longer to index things (and that is up to them; not under control of Wikipedia).
- It needs more than one reference to show why this person is notable - see WP:VRS. Chzz ► 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Created the following article. There are many references to journals and publications. Hope it be approved soon. :)
- You should make sure to keep a neutral and disinterested tone throughout the article and possibly add sections about their history, employees, ect. — there is only a lead section. Looks pretty good though! ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
~~CarlosPhilly (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pretty good, but I'd recommend adding another reliable source; writing more about their history, encounters, ect; and, if you can, a picture. ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like this article to be reviewed so it can be made official. Thanks!
- It is already 'official' - or, rather, there is no such thing as 'official' articles on Wikipedia. It is live, there for the world to see and edit.
- It is a little bit non-neutral; several references to claims appear to be press-releases, not independent coverage - see WP:PRIMARY. It talks of them developing new things, and e.g. MicroConstants is able to rapidly turn around sensitive method development projects - assertions like that need a truly independent reliable source such as a newspaper article...or, they should be removed, to keep it neutral, unopinionated and purely factual.
- Overall though, it is 'acceptable', I think; I will remove the 'unreviewed' notice on the top.
- I imagine that you have a conflict of interest, so be sure to read WP:BESTCOI. Chzz ► 19:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I created this page because I think this product shows notable advances in RFID technology. However, I am wondering if it is notable enough to warrant its own page, or if it might be better placed within a products section on the Impinj page, as it is an Impinj product. Thanks in advance for any feedback!
~~Allisonk45 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is borderline-notable, per the basic requirements in WP:VRS. A couple of the refs look like press-release type info...or corporate ads rather than truly independent sources; also, I note that Google News shows 0 hits for "Speedway xPortal" - and that is a bad sign; it might be subject to deletion as not-notable.
- So, in my opinion, it would indeed be best as a reasonably short section in the Impinji article, instead of stand-alone.
- Please be careful to keep it neutral; I think that the first ref is a primary source, because it says " Impinj's announcement [...] of its new Speedway xPortal"...and thus shouldn't be used for things beyond simple statements of fact - and e.g. this part does read like an ad (without supporting independent refs): Unlike previous RFID readers, the Speedway xPortal was marketed for retail and office environments, including narrow hallways and doorways. In this manner, the product was more application specific than previous RFID readers that were marketed to a warehouse setting.
- Okay, I will move it to the Impinj page and edit it there based on your advice. Thanks so much for the help!
- Allisonk45 (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I read about merging pages, and I see that copy and paste is not suggested. I also think that I shouldn't just delete the article now that it is live. What is the best way to move the key information to the Impinj page, and to get rid of the Speedway xPortal page itself? Thank you!
- Allisonk45 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just made this page from a watch company i have been hearing about all over the place, just wondering if anybody had feedback for me.
~~64.91.56.249 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm going to assume that you're User:Mreinsteiner logged out. You should take the urls you listed in the references section, put <ref> and </ref> around them, and put them next to paragraphs they support. Example...
- http://www.europastar.com/magazine/highlights/1003552926-new-brands-find-a-niche.html?zoom_highlight=bozeman+watch
- <ref>http://www.europastar.com/magazine/highlights/1003552926-new-brands-find-a-niche.html?zoom_highlight=bozeman+watch</ref>
- High Definition Trilogy is developed by Jorg Hysek.<ref>http://www.europastar.com/magazine/highlights/1003552926-new-brands-find-a-niche.html?zoom_highlight=bozeman+watch</ref>
- And maintain a neutral and disinterested tone, avoiding puffery. Looks good though! ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I assume that you are Mreinsteiner (talk · contribs)? Please remember to always log in.
- The article was very promotional; someone else has tried to address the concerns, and it has been tagged re. other issues.
- It would help if it had inline references - but, I would imagine you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest and thus should not edit the article yourself; see WP:BFAQ, WP:BESTCOI.
I would just like to know If this kind off stuff is to specific, as it is gona be a lot of work to gather all this information and I would not like to see it wasted.
Thanks
- I'm not exactly sure; on the one hand, we have WP:NOTDIR, but on the other, it seems a notable subject (Selenium responsive proteins), about which an encyclopaedic entry could be written.
- The main point is, we like prose, and try to avoid big long lists where possible; if the article had at least some prose discussing what these things are, that would help a lot. We don't want just a 'list of facts', we'd like discursive explanation.
- I suggest asking more experts on the subject area, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Also, please look at some featured lists - I'm not saying you need to rise to that very high standard, but, it should give the notion that I am trying to express - that good lists are not simple lists; they include prose. Chzz ► 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback. I am a bit confused with regard to notability. I've read the help page on Notability, and am wondering about the easiest way to establish it. I am looking for suggestions to establish this in my article. Also, in the References section (where I've reformatted my references), do you know why the onlne newspaper articles are preceeded by numbers, but the other web sources are not? Thanks in advance.
~~Kristigaylord (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- The article looks pretty good - be careful to avoid puffery and you need to surround the {Citeweb s with <ref> and </ref> as well as the news ones and put alll of them next to paragraphs and statements they support rather than in the references section - they'll automatically appear there. As for notability, you can establish it by including references which show that it is important enough for an encycloepdia. (Ex. News, Books). The references you have are probably sufficient, but more is always better. :) ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the notability concerns, I suggest you look at WP:VRS, which explains it as simply as possible. My 'rule of thumb' recommendation is, if there are at least 3 newspaper articles about the thing (independent, reliable ones) then it'll be OK.
- For the referencing...I will add a guide on your own user talk page. (Others reading this can see it at user:chzz/help/ref). best, Chzz ► 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, this is an article I've created about a theatre company in San Francisco. I feel like the notability is up to scratch but I just want to make sure the tone of the article is okay before I send it out for suggestion into the Mainspace. Any comments or feedback would be greatly appreciated.
- "Season 8 - 2010/2011" should probably be removed, unless you can provide a solid, independent reliable source - otherwise it appears promotional; see also WP:CRYSTAL.
- This bit sounds promotional, but possibly you could put it as a direct quotation (in quotes): The mission of The Sandbox is to promote new works utilizing top-notch directors and actors, with limited design elements and as little financial risk as possible.
- Controversy - "Recently" - try to avoid using that term; articles should be timeless.
- It would be nice - though not required - if you could use citation templates such as {{cite web}} or whatever, to give details of the sources instead of the bare URLs.
- Other than that, I'd think it would be 'acceptable' - so could be made live, so that others can edit it; please, once it is live, be careful about conflict of interest and use best practices - instead of actually editing it, you should suggest changes on the article talk page, and use {{edit request}}. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This is already an long standing and well developed article but it was not quite GA status, I done alot of work on the article recently and wanted some feedback on how to make a GA
~~Mr.Kennedy1 talk 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- The main problem is the lack of references. For a GA, everything needs a reference to an appropriate reliable source - currently, there are large chunks with no references...in fact, most of the article. Be careful about that, because any info that lacks a reliable source can be removed, by anyone.
- That really does need sorting out, first.
- After that, I suggest you request a peer review, to get a more detailed analysis of it. Also, please see User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet.
- The main thing - and I cannot emphasize this too much - it must be verifiable. Chzz ► 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Article has 10+ independent reliable sources - see WP:VRS. For example, newspaper for Florida Business Journal. Not sure what you mean by primary sources, as the article is not written that way. Please review article Loggerhead Club & Marina. Thank you.
~~74.11.177.210 (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It needs independent reliable sources - see WP:VRS. For example, newspaper articles about the org. Be very cautious in the use of primary sources; also, please read about conflict of interest and the business FAQ. Chzz ► 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been granted permission by Michael V. Roberts (St. Louis businessman who heads a multi-billion dollar corporation) to do his Wikipedia page. I am in no affiliation with his companies so my review is unbiased and I reviewed different sources for my information. Please let me know if what I have placed up is sufficient. I really would love to get this done! Thanks and have a wonderful day.
- Looks fine to me. However, your article is in the user namespace. You might want to move it into the article namespace. Btw, you don't need permission to make an article on someone. He cannot control what the medias say about him, so anyone can make an article on him. Your article looks good, with proper references. —Waterfox (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- You should make sure to add reliable, third party references to establish notability and accuracy by taking the url to a reference, typing<ref> and </ref> around it, and putting it by statements or paragraphs it supports. Here's an example...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QwerpQwertus
- <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QwerpQwertus</ref>
- I recieved a copy of the Wikipedia Signpost today.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QwerpQwertus</ref>
- This will create a [1] by the paragraph and it will automatically appear in the references section, where the {{Reflist}} is. Also, you should be careful to avoid puffery within the text. Good job though! ~ Qwerp Q ⋮ T ☏ ⋮ C ✄ ⋮ シ ⋮ 01:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)