Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 27
Hello. I've drafted my first article on a foundational book in Engineering called "What Engineers Know and How They Know It" by Walter Vincenti. Could you please glance over it before I launch it?
On the Wiki main article for "Engineering" this book is listed under "Recommended Reading"... so it would be a redirect. I'm not sure how to do that but I'll figure it out. TU,--pjm (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
pjm (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Request for constructive feedback. Thank you.
Communicationcrunch (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have done a bit of work on this article to improve it. I have come to a standstill now as i cant seem to find more reliable sources for existing and additional info. Please help.
Suraj (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Very nice article, I suggested on the talk page using Google Book search to find more articles using the more common name "Ooty Botanical Garden". Sharktopustalk 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please review my article and perhaps even help me with the set up, I was finding it a little difficult to get it to look like a normal Wikipedia page!
Mspivey2 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I changed the headers in the article to conform to the usual list of works setions in Wikipedia articles. See, WP:WORKS. For the conventions overall of article layout, see WP:LAYOUT. The citation of the various works could be improved. See WP:CITE. It would be easiest to use the templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates.
- Your article has no external references. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article, especially point number 6: gathering references.
- Evidently your article was reviewed at Articles for Creation. I cannot find the comments left by the reviewer. Tkotc (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I really need some help with my referencing. I have a lot of independant sources, but need to check that everything I have written is acceptable. Would you mind reading through it and letting me know what needs improving? Thank you
Lolaberic (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure what the "Sources" section of your article was. I guessed that it consists of references you intend to use later. So I will confine myself to the references in the body of your article, and how to do them right in the easiest manner. First, the canonical guide to references is probably WP:CITE, but it doesn't give a really easy way to record and format the necessary information. For that, this is my recommendation: use the templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates. For example, copy and paste the one starting "Cite web". Fill in the blanks. The template page has specimen filled in templates. When it's filled out, you can collapse the vertical format of the result by backspacing or deleting to remove the line feeds at the end of each line.
- Each filled-in template, opening "{{" braces, closing, and all, goes between the ref tags like this: <ref>{{Cite web |more stuff}}</ref>.
- I recast one of the references in your article as an example.
- Please ask for more feedback after you have dealt with the referencing issue. Tkotc (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I would love for this page to be reviewed. Thank you!
Lnreid515 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:COMPANY for more, but "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." Your article hasn't included references that demonstrate this. Tkotc (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a new article on Mexican Parachico dancers. It's been included in UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists, so I reckon it would be deemed notable. The article already exists in the Spanish version of Wikipedia, and I based it from there, but there's fewer online references in English. Would appreciate any further comments/suggestions/additions. Happy editing!
Update: Article has been moved to mainspace on 2011-02-02 Pacotqa (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want some overall feedback to know if, with all the sources I have provided, the page can be published. Any comments/suggestions are more than welcome.
Dbh04 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The first thing I think any reviewer considers is whether the author has established notability of the subject within the meaning of Wikipedia. The way you have introduced your subject, he could be notable as an author, a financier, or for his service in the military. In order to do this, you would need to introduce references bearing on the issue consisting of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, independent of each other, and independent of the subject. See, WP:BASIC. The problem is that you haven't really done this. Can you find some other references where others discuss your subject or his work so that we could see that he is indeed notable in one or all of these fields?
- There is one aspect of your subject's career that does make him notable: his service in the state legislature, but you don't mention this in the lead section of the article. It would be better to mention that fact there too.
- The works section of your article should be in the form of lists. You do that by typing a "*" in front of each item. There are some other minor issues of formatting as well. Perhaps the best thing would be for you to glance at MOS:WORKS to see how to do it best.
- Also, the works section is out of the typical order of a Wikipedia article. Again, this is a simple fix. Take a glance at WP:LAYOUT for a complete explanation. Works is the first standard appendix to an article and should come after the body of the article.
- Look over the article and make sure your statements of fact are supported. Tkotc (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
zane malik[edit]
Zane malik1 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)