Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 15
Booth088 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's a nice start. I do think perhaps you might want to add more references from sources independent of the article's subject. Chevymontecarlo 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Booth088 (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Chevymontecarlo 11:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello - just wrote an article of a musician who doesn't appear on Wikipedia, but perhaps should. Criticism welcome.
Sukiebapswent (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- You need to establish "notability". Take a look at WP:BAND, which has a list of criteria, for some ideas about how to proceed. Tkotc (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth is published in several publications, has a successful book on Random House, appears on radio talk shows regularly to answer questions about beauty/health/etc. I'm just wanting to create a page that does her justice and a bit confused on what's a reliable source or not. If you google her there's hundred of articles, etc. All feedback/help appreciated.
Brookelemoine (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Unfortunately much of that article deals with scholarly or academic works, but there are a few useful tidbits. "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable." So if your subject is covered in the news, you're in luck. Websites that are promotional in nature are "questionable". And "[t]he proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." What won't be acceptable: "Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth..." Although there are circumstances in which a blog may be acceptable, in general blogs won't work. You may find it interesting that "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." There are examples and a more readable discussion in WP:RSEX. Tkotc (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I am hoping to better understand what language is appropriately neutral. I want to be as descriptive and accurate in my wording as I can while maintaining wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Any editing help is appreciated, thank you.
Rdelamater (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey there again, I am hoping to better understand what language is appropriately neutral. I want to be as descriptive and accurate in my wording as I can while maintaining wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Any editing help is appreciated, thank you.
Rdelamater (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This page was tagged for cleanup, however, I am not the creator, have reviewed the article and would like the tag removed. How can i do that? thanks