Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 26
Hey! Thanks again for walking me through this! I have moved it to "In Schools We Trust". What do I do now to remove the unreviewed banner at the top? Is it live now? You guys are the best!
Bloynoys (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Overall seems workable; few minor tweaks. Note in the references the changes I made; you'll want to imitate those by tucking the weblinks into the title, and by bulleting the list with asterisks (and no empty lines between). Further, some of your footnotes are basically "ibid", but you don't want to do that because somebody might insert a footnote between your footnotes and throw the whole scheme off, so instead just repeat each full footnote. Lastly (and importantly), your categories are way too broad; only the absolute most general of topics should be filed directly under "Education". Try instead "Category:Education theory", "Category:Education literature", etc. Maybe try finding an article about a similar book and take inspiration from the cats that article uses. Fix those, and you'll be good to publish (hit the "Move" option in the drop-down menu between the search box and the star icon). If you don't have Move privileges, post back in this same thread and I'll do it for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, just keep writing good articles, and when you get good come back in and help other noobs to find their way. Your article is indeed live, and I've removed the Review tag. Two quick things: you still need to "tuck" your links down in the References (the links should hyperlink on the titles, not be sitting next to them). Also, you should add an image of the cover of the book. See WP:Image use policy and WP:Fair use to understand how there is a provision in US copyright law to use one low-res photo to represent the subject. If you have any trouble, message me personally on my Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Any feedback would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
Seattlemusicweekly (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing about SixReps.com, Social Network for Fitness Enthusiast. Any feedback is much appreciated.
Sportindo (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I'm not familiar with your sources, so can't judge those, so you may want to check WP:Reliable sources and assure yourself that your sources meet that benchmark. That aside, your whole "Features" section is rather non-encyclopedic and verging on "promotional"; a list of the great things a site provides is not of larger interest, a brief summary of what the site does, in a 4-5 sentence paragraphy, would be fine. The site describing itself should not be the majority of the article, as it is now. For cats, "SixReps" is not an existing cat, so remove that, but try adding a sub-category from within "Physical fitness" or similar; the more specific the sub-cat the better. Lastly, you really want to fix your citations, which are currently WP:Bare URLs, just "http://www...." instead of an actual author/title/publisher/date citation. Take a look at any established WP article to get a feel for how those are written. I'd say fix those, and provided your references meet WP:RS, that should be good to go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Matthew, thank you for your feedback. I've made a lot of changes. I would really appreciate if you drop a comment or two. Thank you. Sportindo (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mathew, the comments are very useful and welcome, as well as encouraging.... I have now corrected the footnotes, the categories, and references, as well as got the captions on the pictures to read (which had really stumped me technically in earlier draft). Please let me know if this meets the criteria , and deals with the problems you raised.
I did look at the issues on original research and referencing; my concern with adding the detailed footnotes was (as to some extent still is) the majority of the specific references come from the one book that I edited -- I do not want this to be interpreted as pushing my own work. For that reason, I referred to the archival sources rather than the secondary source. In this re-edit, I have attempted to address this by giving the secondary source (as the main reference), but including where the information came from as well, as part of the footnote.
What is protocol about loading the article from User to main pages? should I reload the article up to the main pages when I think it is done, or wait for response to changes?
This is my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia; and I do hope it will not be the last. Thanks again for the suggestions!
Judy Seidman (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- We're about 90% there, but let's get it up to 95% before launching. I have to get to bed now, but I've done some minor tweaks. In the meantime, you'll want to spell out all bare links, including the external links. If it's a link to a poster shop, then "[http://acmeposters/wilcox Wilcox posters] at Acme Posters", which will display nice and neat as "Wilcox posters at Acme Posters". The single biggest thing, though, is to make your lede (WP:Lede) a little meatier. Your intro is one sentence, but ideally you want a 4-5 sentence summary of the highest points of the article. Like a more elegant form of "Wilcox was an American female painter who painted for the Saturday Evening Post and partipated in social movements, then got in trouble for visiting Red China and was put on trial by McCarthy before later moving into (whatever she did later in life) until her death in 1984." Just a really short gist of the "if you only read a paragraph about Wilcox, read this" spirit. Hope this helps, feel free to post replies here even after this day closes, I have all the pages on Watchlist for weeks after. Going to bed now. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Any feedback would be greatfully appreciated! Many thanks
BsccZurich (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Feedback on the article about Ângelo de Sousa is appreciated. --RaulCovita (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- For bios, the main focus should be meeting WP:Notability (people); for that you want as many third-party sources as you can add. Published books, academic papers, news articles (in any language); anything to prove that the person has been previously covered in print. Right now you have one good footnote (the obituary), but the other "footnote" is just an explanation of a grading system; on WP footnotes aren't meant for comments, but for evidence of the sentence your footnote bears witness to. You'll want at least a couple more footnotes to WP:Reliable sources, so can you dig up a couple more of those? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Edit: Wow cara, there are tons of references for Sousa on Google Books. Find some good facts in those books, use that citation to prove claims made in the article (and/or add and then footnote new statements in the article). Fortunately, there's a quick and easy tool to format full detailed references from gBooks: just plug the link in your address bar into http://reftags.appspot.com and it'll give you a full footnote you can copy/paste. Note, if the book you're looking at is only giving you the "snippet" view, the page number won't automatically come into the citation, so you have to type it in manually. Feel free to write me if you have any questions; it'll be a really cool article once you tune it up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is a new article on a Buddhist temple in NSW, Australia. Grateful for your comments and feedback.
Rupertsu (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings; your first and foremost issue is to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). For that you need multiple instances of substantial third-party coverage, such as discussion of this temple in a book on the spread of Buddhism, an academic article on religion in Autralia, or a news article about the activities of the temple. We can only publish once we get footnotes added from sources other than those affiliated with the subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- To protect the article until it meets Notability (otherwise it is subject to WP:Speedy deletion), I've userified it by moving the draft to User:Rupertsu/International Buddhist Cham Shan Temple of Australia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Translation completed and some additions and editing done. Feedback requested please
User:jkslouth 14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks very good overall; experienced editor work indeed. As minor tweaks, the "Legend" section could use referencing, the section titles weren't quite standard (I fixed this), and in your "External links" you have some "en" to translate to "at", and also one of the links should be tucked into the title rather than listed separately next to it. Other than that, nice work and great top image. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback Matthew and for changing the section headings. I'll fix the rest as I can. I'm not a very experienced WP editor more a translator, so I'm very pleased with your reaction! User:jkslouth 16:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I just put this article live and need reviews! Any Grammar/Information suggestions are will be appreciated. Thanks!
p.s. This article is a part of class project, so please put any major changes in the talk page first and wait for me to read them!
SocialPsych231 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- RfF isn't so much for grammar/copyedit, other than to just say "you need to copyedit" and add a mainteance tag at the top. We mainly provide specialised advice about layout and format. For those, the first things you want to do is set up your WP:Lede to WP standards: no standalone title, no section heading, just start off your intro paragraph directly and bold the first occurrence of the title term. Take a look at any established WP article to see how that's formatted. Also, you have no WP:Categories, so you definitely need to add those; not cats must be specific, like "American impressionist artists", not "America", "Art". MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Czezo (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not my topic of expertise, but looks solid overall. The main thing you want to fix is your WP:Bare URLs down in your footnotes; you want those to be full author/title/publisher/date WP:Citations with the article title hyperlinked. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a newly created page describing the University of Iowa School of Art and Art History. This article was created by a member of the School's Administrative Staff.
Ericdean (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This is my first Wiki article. I have paid attention to making the tone neutral and adding resources I could find. Please comment if it's enough. Thank you so much!
Ddzz02468 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
New article, feedback would be appreciated. Thank you
Steveswei 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ready to take the article on Mike Evans live; seeking feedback and input.
Thanks, Meagan Gillan
MeaganG (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello... How would I go about removing the "/" from the start of the title of this article? I don't know how it got in there and can't figure out how to get rid of it. Thanks!
Grizzleemusic (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Minor technical issue from a typo of yours; I won't get into the gory details, but long/short I tagged Speed the Band for "delete for non-controversial move from /Speed The Band". Once you see Speed The Band go red, that space is freed up and you can hit the "Move" button to move /Speed the Band to the proper title. It's just the redirect from the correct title to the wrong one was holding up that slot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- even tho Speed The Band has gone red, i am still getting this message when I try to move it: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."
- My bust, I typed it with a lowercase "the" so it was going to a blank space. Is the band "Speed the Band" or "Speed The Band"? If you want the final destination to be Speed The Band, if you click that link (while it's blue, as right now), you'll note I have a "speedy delete for move" tag on it. It's just taking a little longer than usual. Just keep checking the link Speed The Band over the next day or so, and it'll either go blank (allowing a move), or the deleter who blanks it will take an extra step and also move it for you. In any case, it should be totally fixed in a day or so, and it's just from a typo when you published the article. Annoying, and taking a little longer (due to backlog?) than it should, but nothing huge. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the first article I have written and would like to find out if it is acceptable. Second, I am concerned about the conflict of interest issue, because I am currently an employee of the person who is the subject of the article. I tried to only include factual statements, but am interested in feedback on this issue.
Chesterhanvey (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- A few things to work through:
- A variety of copyediting issue: don't CAPITALISE an entire business name, that's "shouting" (unless all-caps it totally legitimately the name of the company). Second, "Psychologist" and other such terms are not proper nouns, so don't capitalise those.
- More importantly, your article needs to meet WP:Notability. I strongly urge you to read that policy, as your current footnotes don't appear to meet criteria since they're passing mention on a list of names/awardees. For Notability, we need to see whole sentences or paragraphs in independent sources covering the subject. Also, when you make footnotes, use a format from WP:Citations rather than just a "http://www..." link. A right citation is author/title/publisher/date, and the web link is a hyperlinked "blue link" of the title.
- So far as COI, just make sure you read WP:Conflict of interest, stay honest and transparent about your involvement, and make some mention of your circumstances on the Talk page. Recall: you do not "own" the article, so due to CoI you need to recuse yourself from removing any properly-cited material that you dislike; if you feel it's incorrect/libel/inflammatory, please find a neutral editor or admin to address it so you woon't be accused of bias.
- So, a few things to start with, and you can check back in at this same thread later. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that previous versions of this page (by others) were deleted. I don't know how to see those earlier attempts, and hope I've avoided their errors. Full disclosure: I'm currently a contractor for the company in question.
I'd also like to add the company's logo, available from http://acquia.com/about-us/newsroom/logo-download, but Wikimedia Commons rejected it for being non-free and suggested I upload it locally. Where do I go for that?
Thanks in advance for your help!
tgeller (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- By "upload locally", they mean upload to en.wiki vice Commons. Using a low-res copy of a logo qualifies as WP:Fair use, so it's kosher to use in the specific article about the subject. The reason it can't go on Commons is that Commons images are totally Creative Commons/Public Domain, free images, while Fair Use has to be more tightly controlled for legal reasons. Read WP:Fair use to get a feel for it, but what you want to do is hit the "upload" button in the left margin of the Wiki window, and then fill out the whole form (don't miss the drop-down menus). Make sure to pick "Fair Use - Logo" or whatever the option is called. Then your image will be uploaded, but can only be used on en.wiki and only on the article about the owner of the logo. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I've added the logo. I plan to eventually add more corporate details, such as customer count, revenue, etc.. But I'm waiting for them to be reported somewhere other than the company's web page. All other recommendations would be most welcome. --tgeller (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a business expert, but I believe stats like that can be quoted from the company itself, caveated as "according to their site" or similar. Just make sure the bulk of footnotes are to independent third-party sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
i have done what i believe is about as much as i can and i'd like to get some feedback on this entry. is this part of the review process as well? thank you.
Happi2001 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
How do I make a page published?
JVL12345 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? What band? The link you provided (for "Sammy") leads to a disambiguation page that shows all the "Sammy"s on Wikipedia. --tgeller (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I wrote the "Nuclear laser" article. Though it's only documented by a single source, it's a serious source ( American Physical Society).Also, the source says that there was previous research done for achieving nuclear lasers, so the phycisist that I mention in the article was not the only one with this idea. I didn't write much, because there are a lot of technical details in the article I referenced.So, maybe someone who has a better understanding of nuclear physics could expand the article. Thanks.
Stefan Udrea (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Great work
99.173.51.119 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Article is not yet ready for publication; userifying to User:Jasperkelly96/TeenNick's "The '90s Are All That!" for drafting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- And it's not "great work" yet; the article will take a lot of work, nearly a rewrite, to be ready for publication. To being at the beginning, to meet WP:Notability you must provide multiple indepenent, reputable sources covering the topic. So we're going to need some footnotes to media articles, etc. covering the channel and what it does. YouTube, Facebook, blogs, forums, etc. do not count, we need actual news to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Article is recently written. Seeking review. Thanks
150.101.198.144 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I posted this article about a week ago and it still has not been reviewed. This is about the Chicago Rose of Tralee Selection. The Rose of Tralee is a big Irish festival that has been around for over fifty years. Girls from all around the world compete in this event. I'd appreciate any comments, thanks!