Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 28
The Dungog Film Festival is an inspiring and fun-packed event held in the picturesque Hunter Town Dungog, New South Wales annually. Dungog Film Festival is a not for profit arts organisation that is dedicated to celebrating and promoting Australian screen industry. The Festival is committed to education and nurturing the health of the Australian film and TV industry through a range of dynamic initiatives. Some proceeds of the Festival have gone towards preserving the James Theatre.[1][2][3] The Festival aims to support the Australian Film and TV Industry in a non-competitive environment that exclusively showcases Australian screen content. Dungog Film Festival showcases feature films, short films, television, documentaries, Aussie classics and music videos. The Festival also runs an extensive education program, including workshops, seminars, Master Classes with prominent directors, and the In The Raw script readings for television series, miniseries and feature films scripts. It is considered the biggest festival of Australian cinema in the world,[4] as well as the largest short film festival in Australia. Screenings take place in local venues including the iconic James Theatre and the RSL auditorium.[5] The 2010 Dungog Film Festival attracted over 9000 people and national media coverage including Sunrise, NBN News and channel 10.
Harry Windsor (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, referenced, reasonable balance, don't think you are guilty of copyright violation anywhere- inspiring, fun-packed picturesque will have to go per WP:PEACOCK and maybe a couple of categories need adding. Not sure what you were doing with moves of various articles but I suspect you were trying to create redirects to it. If that was the case just create a new article with Redirectarticlename. Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)).
Stars and Stripes 87
Please review the article proposed on my user page and offer suggestions to improve it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting read, but there are few things that would make it much better:
- Most importantly, check out Article Layout. You've written this as a single section. It would greatly benefit by writing it with section, in particular, a defined lede, followed by main sections (possibly one).
- You wikilinked 12-Meter, but not the first instance. Guidelines suggest the first instance should be wikilinked, with subsequent uses not wikilinked (although in a long article, a subsequent wikilink further down is OK.
- The article would benefit from an infobox (as in Stars & Stripes )
- A picture would be a nice addition. I can't tell if the image in Stars & Stripes is the right yacht.
- A minor point - I'm puzzled about the numbering in Stars & Stripes 86 and Stars & Stripes 87 (US 55). Both built in 1987, but it isn't clear which came first. What are the two different numberings?--SPhilbrickT 15:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I will look again at the article layout. I was thinking it was too short, but will be happy to break it into sections. The 12-Metre class link is moved to first mention. I will look at adding an info box and picture. I have a good picture and just have to figure out how to upload it to Wikipedia. These steps may take me a bit. As to the boats, Dennis Conner named all the boats he sailed in his syndicate Stars and Stripes. The 85 boat was built in 1985. The 86 and 87 boats were both built in 1986 and were sailed in 1986, the 87 boat competing in the Cup Challenger races beginning in October 1986. The numbers of these three boats reflects the date and order of their building. The picture of the hull on the Stars and Stripes (yacht) page is definitaly not any of these boats I am writing on, but is one of the more recent boats, perhaps USA 11. There are not two sets of numbers, Dennis Conner just used numbers in the naming of some of his boats. Thus with Stars and Stripes 86 (US 56), the name of the boat is Stars and Stripes 86. The second number (US 56) identifies the hull in its class by nationality. For example, KZ 7 was a 12 Meter from New Zealand given the hull designation #7. The mainsail on that boat would have to have three identifiers, the 12 Meter symbol, the national designation KZ (New Zealand) and the hull designation #7. Thus Stars and Stripes 87 (US 55) is a United States 12 Meter with hull designation #55.
I'm sure that's more than you wanted to know, but there it is.
Well, I have a bit of work ahead of me yet. Thanks very much. I really appreciate your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Please assist me in reviewing this page. I have provided notability and reference information. I have obtained permission for all media, and uploaded them to Wikipedia. Please assist me in reviewing this page to ensure it not a CSD.
Thank you.
Bravehrt77 (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a CSD. It shouldn't be speedy-deleted, and message me if it is. It might be a WP:AFD, that is, deletion after discussion. I haven't examined the article enough to tell if they could survive a WP:AFD or not, but I suspect not. See WP:BAND. Do they meet it? Is Nightmare Records a major label or important indy label? And so forth. If you want the article to survive a WP:AFD, it at least needs to look its best. my suggestions are:
- "Wikikify" it. Don't use HTML markup. Use "*" for bullets, and don't use much bolding, for instance. I started this process, you can continue it.
- Shorten it considerably. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. It is very much appreciated. Yes, they meet WP:BAND requirements under criteria - 1,4,5,6,11 and 12. I have researched this extensively, and they satisfy all the accepted criteria under these guidelines. Therefore, I believe this qualifies them under these rules if I am reading correctly. I listed this under my "NOTE to Wikipedia Editors" that was previously deleted. Additionally, Nightmare records is the premiere label for bands of this genre, currently supporting over 300+ international, (and Wikipedia entry-approved) artists. Therefore I believe it should additionally qualify them as well. Also, I can shorten it, but I would prefer not to do so, if possible. I am preferring to give the entire context of the quotes by listing them, blockquoting, and citing them appropriately. Am I doing something incorrectly ? Lastly, permission for all media on this site has been uploaded to Wikipedia for archiving. Please advise. Bravehrt77 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This is my first article and I wanted to make sure it was unbiased and fact based. Please let me know how to improve it.
Thanks.
Workerjoe (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- You need more references to the company in reliable sources. You only have one reference, it's OK as a reference, but marginal in terms of asserting Notability --SPhilbrickT 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Rob Schenck Looking for a review and someone to remove the "new article tag"[edit]
I'm looking for review on the article on Rob Schenck and someone willing to take the "new article" tag off of the piece. Rob Schenck
R. T. Gates (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
R. T. Gates (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I wrote an article last June and there is still a tag on top of the article saying "this page is a new unreviewed article". How can I have my article reviewed or have this tag removed since the page has been there for some time already?
Thank you in advance for your help !
Best,
Exergue
Exergue (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amyp2778/Facing_the_Dragon_-_How_a_Desperate_Act_Pulled_One_Addict_Out_of_Methamphetamine_Hell[edit]
I am trying to create an article about a new book that is being released. I've never created anything with Wikipedia before and would like to know what others think so far. Thanks.
Amyp2778 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
How long will it take for an editor to review this? Will the editor post the page live, or do I need to. If I do, what steps do I take. It is currently in the user mode. Thank you!
JudyMoore4321 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article is already in the encyclopaedia, not in user space.
- The lead section needs to be more encyclopaedic, and the acronyms and jargon used need expanding and explaining. Not every reader will know what is meant by "an association of CPA firms", for example.
- The references need fixing. The pages you link to do not support the statements they appear to be referencing, and you make claims and quote statistics that are not referenced. You currently have links to external sites in the body of the text, which is incorrect. Blue clickable links within the body of the text should be internal links to other Wikipedia pages, not external sites. I have fixed the CCH link as an example.
- The most urgent matter to address is notability. Your references are almost all to the organisation's own website, or to those of affiliated organisations. Please read Wikipedia's notability criteria for organisations. You need to provide citations to reliable, independent sources that cover this organisation, such as articles and news features, in order to establish that it is notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article. Without such citations, the article runs the risk of being nominated for deletion. Karenjc 15:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an article on a formerly grant funded company that has become relevant and notable in the educational community. I believe I've read all I can about how to properly write an article, and have provided sources for everything I've added. I'm hoping for feedback on how I've done. Thanks in advance for any reviews, criticisms, or edits.
HumanJHawkins (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey all!
I've just added a new page and would love some feedback. I think it's sourced very thoroughly but look forward to hearing your (more experienced) edits. Thanks in advance for your help!
Argyle Cardigan (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)