Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 September 17
Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks, Spartanbu (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Spartanbu (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It could use a fair amount of copy-editing. You are using non-standard usage of place names, e.g. Randa/Canton Valais, we do not use a slash in place names. You are using non-standard quotation marks. See WP:MOS in general.
- This sentence "22-year-old he joined the Society of Jesus." needs reworking. As does this phrase "As practical studies he worked in..."
- It needs many more references to reliable sources. There are quite a few claims that sound as if you simply interviewed him, or found some material elsewhere, but the claims are not attributed.
- For example, "he founded 1995 the Lassalle-Institute of Zen – Ethics – Leadership which they led until 2002."
- I added a few [citation needed] tags, but I didn't take care to identify every statement needing a citation, so there may be more.
- The claim is made that he has authors a number of books, those books should be listed. Wikipedia:Cite book will help, please ask if you don't know how to use a template.--SPhilbrickT 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Pologroup (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Done
- User is blocked, and has created no content to review.--SPhilbrickT 21:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
129.244.12.167 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! It appears that your IP address may be that of the editor that has worked on this article, possibly forgetting to log in to Wikipedia. If so, you may want to consider applying for a different username, as the one used to create this article may be blocked as an account used primarily for advertising and/or promotional purposes. No harm; no foul. Just a heads up.
That said, when we review articles, we primarily look at notability. The current notability for periodicals is under creation, so we use the criteria found at WP:GNG. The notability of the subject needs to be established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At this time, the only references provided are those linking to the organization. Two references are dead links. I reviewed the CELJ and could not find a corresponding webpage. They possibly changed the website since you added the reference. The third reference provides no direction or informational context. At this point, the subject lacks references to support notability.
While I realize that the information in the lede was provided by the organization, the claim that the subject is the first journal devoted solely to the study of women's and feminist literature is a bit dubious, since there were other prominent journals in existence toward the late 1800s and early 1900s addressing women's literature and the women's suffrage movement. This claim would most likely be challenged, if not established with significant coverage independent of the organization's website.
It is not clear in the prose whether or not the journal remains in existence or not. A rewrite may be in order to clarify the "now-defunct" Tulsa Center for the Study of Women's Literature, the role of the journal, and it's current existence and oversight.
- Watch your spacing between sections.
- Change the section heading "About" to "Organizational background" or something similar.
- Revise the Awards section from prose to a list.
- Change the Contents section to chronological rather than alphabetical order.
- Move the TSWL covers image to the infobox.
The primary concern overall is the lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Hope this helps. Good luck and again, welcome to Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is about estimating multivariate probability density functions using kernel estimators. It was written to complement the existing wikipage on (univariate) kernel density estimators.
Drleft (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I posted a request at the Math Reference Desk as well as two subject knowledgeable editors.--SPhilbrickT 21:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Two comments that were posted at the mathematics reference desk. Yaris678 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a very nice article. The main improvement I can think of is that the exposition could use a few more wikilinks. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Before I get to the main body of the article, I have an issue with the first sentence "is one of the most popular techniques for density estimation". I can only think of three techniques: histograms, parametric methods and kernal methods. Of these, I would suggest that kernal methods are the least popular, partly perhaps because they are the least well-known. I would probably say simply say "is a technique for density estimation". Yaris678 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Both of these suggestions have been implemented: first sentence changed and wikilinks added to other flavours of density estimators i.e. parametric, spline, wavelet, Fourier (orthogonal) series.
Drleft (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
made a start to a musician pager for the dubstep DJ James Blake. he is signed to R+S records and has released 3 EP's. 3dd8 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The subject appears to be notable according to WP:MUSICBIO criteria #12. However, this notability is not clear in the article itself. I discovered this information through a review of the BBC source. Take another look and make sure his notability is clearly stated in the article according to the notability guideline. Play up the fact that he was the subject and guest of a 120 minute national radio broadcast, providing published feedback on his appearance (if available). Add other information as appropriate that will support his notability. Keep in mind that social networking sites (MySpace/Facebook) and blogs are not considered reliable sources and may be deleted by editors. See WP:ELNO. Look for reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support the article's content. The section heading "History" is a bit redundant, since all biographies are essentially a historical report of an individual's life. Work on developing the personal, educational, and professional background of the subject. If you have an image or birthdate, that would be an asset. Finally, check the typos and change whilst → while. Good luck and have fun with it! Cindamuse (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
PUT TITLE HERE within Warren Woods High School[edit]
JMP62 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm a bit lost. Your heading contains a link to Warren Woods High School, which is a redirect to Warren Woods Tower High School, an article which has been around for years.
- You have been working on an article with the name Warren Woods High School, but the one you were working on has a different address. The one on Twelve Mile is now the Middle School. Did it used to be the High School?
- What are you asking us to review?--SPhilbrickT 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The article presents information on a former high school (Warren Woods High School), prior to emerging with Tower High School, to form what is now known as Warren Woods Tower High School. The article does not appear to establish notability for the former school. However, the lede paragraph would be an excellent addition to the Warren Woods Tower High School article. Outside of a merge, the article needs to establish the school's notability as presented at WP:GNG in order to remain. Cindamuse (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at this article and offer any feedback you may. 1plant1world (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is an excellent start. That said, it is difficult to establish whether or not the subject is notable and under what specific criteria he falls. Take a look at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC and focus on identifying criteria that establishes the subject's notability. Make sure that you emphasize the significance of the subject according to the applicable notability criteria. The claims of notability need to be established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The references provided to the publisher's website pages about the books written by the subject are not considered independent, so you need to do a bit of research to come up with more references. Finally, the article needs to comply with guidelines for writing biographies. You can find this information at WP:MOSBIO. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I've created a page with the most basic information about this upcoming phone. Looked at other articles for reference. Could not yet add a picture for I do not have sufficient edits on my name. Is this enough to post the article? Thanks! Dwizzy (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It looks OK to me, however, there are some editors who feel that not every single model of a device deserves a separate article, so I don't know how the community will feel about this specific article. I say go for it. (To put it differently, if someone proposes deletion, it won't help to point out I said go for it.)
- You only need one more edit to post a picture on Wikipedia commons. You only need one more edit before you can move it yourself, but if you want help, I'll move it for you.--SPhilbrickT 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would hold off on moving the article. At this point, it is a classic crystal ball, lacking notability. Since the product hasn't been released yet, it would be an easy candidate for a G7 speedy delete. I would recommend keeping the article in the userspace until such time as notability is established or at the very least, the product is released. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Jeffreymadams (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! When we review articles, we need to determine if the article indicates the notability of the subject and supported by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At this point, the article does not clearly state why this individual is notable. While the article provides references using profiles from the subject's company website, they are not considered independent. Additionally, the Sports Illustrated reference doesn't mention the subject, while the Fox Sports reference mentions the subject in passing. This coverage is not considered significant. Accordingly, the article may be deleted. (I'm not saying that it will be.) You can find the deletion policy here. The notability criteria for biographies here. Take a look at the notability criteria and see if the subject may qualify under previously unknown attributes, adding that information to the article, supported by reliable, independent sources. Don't let the process scare you. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm ready to post, just need help/guidance on if I listed the references right? Also, need to post pictures but was having some trouble- do you help with that as well?
Thanks for all your help! Rickinniss (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! This is a great start. The primary issue that we take a look at involves notability, supported through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The current article does not present how the subject meets the notability criteria according to WP:ENT or WP:AUTHOR. Review the criteria and indicate how the subject meets notability, supported with reliable sources (see WP:RS). Social networking sites including MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are not considered reliable per WP:ELNO and may be deleted. The article includes a list of references and external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Finally take a look at the Manual of Style pertaining to biographies and WP:MOSHEAD for section heading guidelines. Remove the empty category links and the subject's name at the top of the page. As far as the references, it's better to show you, rather than to tell you, so I made a revision at the article that will visually answer your question there. I am happy to help you with images once these other issues are addressed. Just hit me back. Good luck and have fun with it. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a new article, please review and provide feedback if needed. Thanks Davidhaspas (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! This is a well-written article. However, it needs to be supported with significant coverage by reliable sources. At this point, there is nothing to support this article outside of the notion of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. You can find more information here. The article needs to be supported with inline references, based on reliable sources. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I got most of this from recent information looking at this technology and it is accurate... I just thought I'd try to post it ..but do not know how.. exactly who "reviews" it... and do they "post it" live? Thank you OemEngr... first time writer
Oemengr (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! I would hold off on moving the article to the mainspace before current issues are addressed. Otherwise, the article may be quickly deleted. While the article title indicates that the subject is "technology", the article is a subtle advertisement for a company. The article needs to be rewritten to be considered encyclopedic. It is also missing a lede paragraph that presents the notability of the subject and summarizes the article content. The article and subject currently lacks notability established through significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Citations culled from the company or companies that offer this technology are not considered independent. The image permission issues also need to be resolved. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Conflict of interest issue too, as this user has inserted links to textspeak.com elsewhere, which this article focuses on. I've replaced the template on the page with userspace draft, as that includes the noindex function. This user has an understanding of advertising on Wikipedia, as he submitted a report to the conflict-of-interest noticeboard on a competing product. See here. Netalarmtalk 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)