Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 July 18
Just wanted to point out that I do have a slight conflict of interest as I do know some people associated with the journal. I have kept my voice as neutral as possible, but feel free to guide me if it still comes across as biased in any way. Thank you for your help in advance. Also, on this article I accidentally spelled the title of the journal wrongly on the user page part: it should be Pakistaniaat and not Pakistaniat. I am not sure how to fix it. Thanks.
OK: So in order to fix the title, I "moved" the article. Sorry, am new to this. This means that the article has gone live earlier than i expected. I would be grateful for all your help and sorry for the inconvenience.
rajam (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)This looks good. I have checked the facts against all sources and found them to be correct. Maybe, another expereinced editor can give better suggestions about layout etc.
Jcaneen (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, Since it has been quite a few days, I have "moved" the draft to the Article Space, please feel free to advise if any changes should be made; It would be much appreciated if some of the required changes can be highlighted... Thousands Thanks! :) Sofitel Macau At Ponte 16
This is just an article about the general information of a luxury hotel in Macau.
As advised, this is a rewritten article for the preceding speed deleted version as it was said to be advertising previously. I would like to know if this one can be qualified to be published as an article or it would be much appreciated if the experts here can highlight one or two examples or wordings should this still be too promotional.
Many thanks! :)
XFONG (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I removed a few peacock terms. It's still on the spammy side, although you may find other editors more critical of that than I am. Other than that, looks OK.--SPhilbrickT 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Nyle86 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
117.18.231.13 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Hsaunders24/Ian Wilder Ian Wilder was a local councillor ion London who made headlines with his unusual approach.[edit]
Is this article subjective and well-written?
Hsaunders24 (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Requests for feedback/2011 July 18 (new section)
Lordrogerhaywood (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Facebook doesn't qualify as a reliable source, so this ia an article about a "gnome" with no sources. That is not acceptable. You hint that there is coverage, so there should be potential for adding sources. (For example, this) However, it sounds like someone trying a promotional stunt, so I think the odds are against this becoming an article, absent significant coverage in national papers. One BBC item does not constitute significant coverage. My recommendation is to abandon this, as I think you could put a lot of work into it and still not get it acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Sought feedback two weeks ago for my article, but would still love to see what others have to say.
I $ore9515 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's OK, but I see some issues:
- The last sentence of the first paragraph reads like an extraneous fact. I'm not challenging the fact, just the location. The lede paragraph is supposed to act as a summary, summarizing the key points. The equity funding is relevant tot he article, but doesn't really belong in the lede. Unfortunately, I looked for a better location, and don't see a clear choice. Ideally, there should be a section about history or operations, where such a statement would belong.
- You say this is the "world’s only guayusa processing facility" I see three footnotes after that sentence, read all three, but didn't see support for the claim. Did I miss it?
- Despite ten footnotes, sourcing is quite weak. It is acceptable to use a company website as a source for certain types of uncontroversial information, but six of the ten footnotes are to the subject company website. One is to a first person, source, not secondary. One is to a blog; blogs are usually not acceptable as a source, I haven't checked this one thoroughly to see if it qualifies as an exception, but I suspect not. That leaves only two sources which might qualify as reliable sources. I'm not familiar with either, and both may be acceptable, but that's very thin sourcing.--SPhilbrickT 15:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to ask why somebody wants to remove my Taskwise article. What I have to do for not to be removed from Wikipedia. Remember the Milk and Attask are the same product, and they are always on Wikipedia. Please, dont remove my article, I will improve it if its necessary. Please, let me know what to do. Thank you!
Mirey Hara (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The guidelines are are clearly given. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability for example. You need more sources than blogs and press releases. Not sure about your other comment? milk of course is an importance substance to many people and animals. I did find AtTask which is a similar one that might need to be deleted too. We are just volunteers and often it takes a while to get things cleaned up. W Nowicki (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Hullian/British Olympic Association Archive New article about an archive in London. Please let me know what you think, still sketchy atm
Hullian (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
PLZ READ N RATE!
Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Steffen Thomas Request clean up[edit]
Hi! My draft has just been moved to an article, but it got a B rating and needs a little help! If someone would give it a good look and let me know how to improve, I would so greatly appreciate it! I know I'm having a bit of trouble with images, so help on those is much needed! All advice welcomed (I think)! Thank you in advance!
HHaney (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Although you did the right thing, reading the note on the page that says this page is for "articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed" (emphasis added), the facts are that this forum is woefully understaffed, and those that do drop in are usually in a mindset to review very new or draft articles. If you glance at other entries on this page, you'll see that 98% or so are brand-new. My usual advice is to say that improvements such as the ones you requests are better handled by the relevant project. I don't see a wikiproject template yet; perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts is relevant. I'll leave the request here; if someone wants to respond,that would be great, but as you can see, responses are lagging, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I'll separately look into modifying the advice on the Requests for feedback page, in case others agree that this is not the right forum for a request such as yours.--SPhilbrickT 15:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've added several more sources for another review of this article, I would really appreciate some feedback.
Thanks in advance!
Guinunez (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, nice work. Do you want to move it?--SPhilbrickT 18:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, Thanks a lot!, I am doing it right now Guinunez (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)