Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 July 5
Sections were added and more reliable sources were applied, is there any further action required to remove these flags?
Bdgallpen (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new genealogical history on a person that is quite remarkable; he comes from such a humble origin and is related to over 15 Royal Houses of Europe. Please read and provide feedback. Thanks.
DSearle63 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, ancestry.com is a user-generated site, so not considered an independent source. Anyone can upload information to it claiming to be related to someone but that does not qualify them for a wikipedia article. Of course you also cannot claim other wikipedia articles as sources, especially when they do not support caims made in the article. And please do not submit the same article in two places, e.g. Thomas Richard Moore. It might be a good idea to read the guidelines for notability before submitting new articles. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ancestry is not one of my strong points, so please forgive me if I'm missing something major. I'm concerned because I'm not convinced of the notability of this article, and you've gone to a lot of work, so I don't want to be dismissive, without making sure I get this right.
- I would think there could easily be a million direct descendants of any person at random, after 13 generations. How many for a specific person could vary a lot but the numbers are potentially quite large. Interestingly, this site which I'm not claiming to be a reliable source, claims the number is zero.
- If the number is hundreds of thousands, then I would assume every one of them could trace their lineage to 15 Royal Houses of Europe. I do see that the claim is direct descendant, which is stronger, but I'd like some expert feedback on whether this is truly extraordinary, or not so surprising.
- Of equal importance, is that assay NOTINHERITED noting that Notability is not inherited. That means in a broad sense, but applies here literally. However, I'll note that is an essay, which is not a policy or even policy, but the subject(can I call him a subject?) will have to meet the notability guideline.
- Many of the sources are ancestry.com. Unfortunately ancestry.com is not viewed as an acceptable reference.
- Many of the links are to Wikipedia. If the article meets the notability guideline, these links should be changed so that they are Wikilinks, rather than external links.--SPhilbrickT 16:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Upon further review(at least of the first such instance) you did wikilink the relevant term, so it isn't a case of creating wikilinks. However, Wikipedia cannot be sued as a reference. In some cases, should this article survive, there will be a need to provide proper references. This should be straightforward—while a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference, if that article contains a proper reference supporting the claim, that can be used.--SPhilbrickT 16:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Josh Hai, Toh Hum Hai!
Udayan Chakrborty 07:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Should Pancake be marked as a good article? I have looked at the criteria and it looks like it matches it all.
Puffin Let's talk! 10:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Requests for feedback does not address Good article nominations. Please check there.--SPhilbrickT 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
DSearle63 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Pradowick/Houston First Corporation[edit]
Pradowick (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I recently posted an article about Dr. Michael Warren, the forensic anthropologist who recently testified in the Casey Anthony trial. I'd appreciate feedback!
Forensic Dork (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Royal Ascendances of Thomas Richard Moore[edit]
Please review. Thanks.
DSearle63 (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- See above --SPhilbrickT 17:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any important info missing or blatant styling issues that need to be taken care of? I usually edit, not create articles, so this is new for me.
Andrei.computer (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the subject does not appear to meet the primary notability requirement. As explained at the top of this page when you asked the question, you need to provide a reliable independent source. A comment in the code does not count. W Nowicki (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Seeking feedback on a new article about an architecture centre.
Tugboat2011 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This is my first article, and I would like some feedback before I publish it.
Thank You.
Tod55 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked at the article and tagged it with cleanup tags. So far it looks good for a first article, you need to assert notability by coming up with a few more independent sources that have significant coverage of the arena. It doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, which is good, but as it stands a few more sources would be good to avoid a potential deletion nomination. If you need any more feedback, just ask--Mrmatiko (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Propnik001 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- Why is the title "Stul.ru" when the article is about yxo.com?
- The footnote only contains sample text.
- The external link is the one provided as a temple - if you have none, please remove it.
- You need to assert Notability. There is nothing in the article to show why this site is notable.--SPhilbrickT 17:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to follow all the guidelines and I have links to reliable sources. Please let me know if there is anything else I should add to make this a top-notch Wikipedia article. Thank you.
69.39.109.48 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Tooting Bec FC[edit]
Please review this page, about Tooting Bec FC, an amateur football club based in South London
Sj mac84 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please review this article about Tooting Bec FC, an amateur football club in South London. Thank you.