Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 July 13
I just added footnote citations, as per a suggestion from a volunteer editor. Anything else?
~~Deaconbagshaw (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I see many problems. First, notability is very thin. You have three references, not all that many if all solid, but:
- The third is a Youtube link. While Youtube is acceptable in some circumstances, this isn't one.
- The second is a link to a blog. While Redstate is well-regarded in some circles as a blog, it isn't easy for a blog to qualify as a reliable source. Based upon this discussion, it doesn't look good.
- That leaves the CBS blog. My guess is that it is acceptable, as blogs under the editorial control of a RS are acceptable, but even if you can confirm that this one qualifies, a single acceptable source is generally not enough to establish Notability
- It isn't appropriate for you to make the determination that this site is an example of crowdsourcing—if you want to say it, you need to find a reliable source saying it.
- think it needs substantially more work on sourcing and content.--SPhilbrickT 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Crowdsourcing" assertion especially needs an inline citation.Shearonink (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Article about a 2009 film made in Adelaide, South Australia.
~~Kwah-LeBaire (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even better than the last - nothing more I can recommend. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 04:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I posted a request for feedback for this new article on 4 July, but have not yet received any response, so I'm reposting this request. Looking forward to your comments!
~~PressedBack (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see a number of issues in this article.
- Occasional use of unnecessary superlatives. e.g. 'Live Native is the first skincare company in Scotland to produce products made from...' Why is the fact that no other company in Scotland do this important? Can Scotland not import skincare products? Perhaps it would be better to say 'Live Native is a Scottish company producing "raw skincare" products. These products are made from...'
- Is this article about a company or about raw skincare? Obviously raw skincare should be described to a small extent, but I think much of this article should actually go into a different article called Raw skincare. The article could be similar too (and provide a link to) Raw foodism.
- Some of the claims about raw skincare seem exceptional and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Saying "there is some evidence that..." may still be giving the claims undue weight. On the other hand, if you write an actual article on raw skincare, there should be room in that article to discuss the claims made for it and what is the nature of any evidence supporting those claims.
- Yaris678 (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an article about the Estuary Transit District in Old Saybrook, CT. It is a political sub-division of the state of Connecticut, and as such is part of WikiProject Connecticut. Please read wikipedia's notability guidelines so I do not have to explain this again.
~~Joeyjoec (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- What makes this Transit District notable?
- In many cases, such as with elementary schools and high schools, there are enough examples that we informally decide that all in the class (high schools) or none in the class (elementary schools) are deemed notable (with the obvious exception that if a particular example in an excluded class meet the General Notability Guidelines, it can be included.)
- Generally speaking, subway lines and railroads are considered notable, while bus routes are not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and to be fair, I note there is some dispute about the status of this page.
- I don't read that page as concluding that the subject matter cannot be notable, but it does mean that it will take far more than one reference to support the Notability of this article. Frankly, it reads like a directory entry. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--SPhilbrickT 00:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I need feedback or an edit so that I can remove the template on this new page for author Robb Forman Dew, who's first book Dale Loves Sophie to Death is already a wiki entry.
~~Somewikiwork (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the unreviewed template. However, please take a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, or WP:CITE and footnotes. You have included references, but as bare links. proper links would be much better. --SPhilbrickT 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also created citations for most of her works. I added the ISBN for the upcoming one; you might consider putting it in the same format as the other, take a look to see the template I used - if it isn't clear, just ask, and I'll explain.--SPhilbrickT 01:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know if the article that I have created for a company profile has a sufficient amount of content, relevance and citations to be published.
Hiya! I am the author of this article, it was posted in March 2010. I am hoping some kind soul could please review it, so then it can become a fully fledged entry, as no one reviewed it yet. Thank you!
~~82.4.181.140 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! I read your article; the problem here is that the article only promotes the company without giving any indication as to the company's notability (why it belongs in an encyclopedia). Also, while the article lists some external links, it cites no references. Serious problems! Please see WP:GNG and WP:Reliable references for information on notability and references, respectively. The article will likely be proposed for deletion in its current form, so I would copy and save it so you can continue working on it should that happen. If you try again, create the article in your userspace or sandbox, and then work on it keeping the guidelines in mind, submitting it for feedback as you go. Once you get feedback saying it's ready to go live, then publish. Hope that helps. :) Pianotech 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, I am the author of this article (sorry forgot to log in last request, doh), I would love someone to give me feedback, so I could fix it, or that the template box could be removed, thank you so much!
~~Dominic451 (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like feedback to ensure this page becomes a properly certified page of Wikipedia, as I throughly think it deserves to be.
~~86.22.210.53 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice article and well-written. The Queen site reference is a good reference; it needs several more strong references like that one, I think. The reference from her website would not be considered reliable since it's not from a third party. I don't think there will be any notability issues, but definitely a few more references would give the article more credibility as to the source of the info. Hope that helps! Pianotech 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Drafted an article about a new bestselling thriller novel, The Panic Zone, that includes a synopsis and critical response.
~~Brooklyngirl11215 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Victoria Espinel is a new article[edit]
I just created a page for Victoria Espinel; she's a fairly major figure in the US Government (and, given her charge, someone wikians should certainly know!). It's just her bio blurb at this point, but it really deserves review, expansion and link to the recently released "Joint Strategic Plan to Combat Intellectual Property Theft".
Nice article, but needs references! The article lists no references as to the source of the information. See [[wp:Reliable references] for more information. Pianotech 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have provided sources of information, and as much detail as I could locate. I understand wikipedia is always a work in progress. Is this article good enough not to be flaged for deletion? Thanks for the help --Robtencer (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have recreated the article Nihal Sri Ameresekere as there are more than 50 hits on the Google News for Nihal Sri Ameresekere to establish his notability.EconomicTiger (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Many times, an individual will write an article on Wikipedia, then work like the dickens to try to find sources to support what has been written. This is truly putting the horse before the cart. It is recommended that editors instead, write articles based on sources rather than the other way around. If you have located 50 reliable and independent sources to support the article, I would recommend that you work to add those sources to the article. At this point, the article is poorly sourced to content that only briefly mentions the subject, or provides a blanket list of articles, rather than the article to which you are using as a citation. Remove wikilinks to commonly used terms. Review the Manual of Style, in order to bring the article into compliance, presenting proper formatting, layout, italics, and capitalization. The six identical citations trailing each paragraph is overkill. Focus on only using the best citations that significantly support the article content. Remove external links that have already been used as citations. In Persondata, change date to July 16, 1947. In Public Interest Activist section, please rectify the open semicolon in the first sentence. That's a start. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you need additional assistance. I would also like to invite you to check out the group of editors that work together to create and improve articles about Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. You can find the link HERE. Best regards, Cind.amuse 08:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alan_McBrazil_Burger/Chile_versus_the_Soviet_Union_1973
i await your feedback