Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rube3000/Royal_Farros Royal Farros has spent over two decades as a technology entrepreneur and investor in Silicon Valley.
Founder and CEO of a half dozen companies and is worthy of a wiki entry...
Looking to more this bio to production.
thanks, Mike
Rube3000 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I need help fixing the references.
Mcgill40 (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Formatting them, or getting proper references? You actually need to work on both. For formatting, see WP:Citations. You do have a larger issue though, in that you don't yet have enough footnotes to meet WP:Notability (people). You need at least two references which are independent, reliable, and substantive. Most of your refs now are not WP:Reliable sources, as Vimeo, Wordpress, and IMDB are not authoritative/peer-reviewed. The two award footnotes are themselves fine, but since they don't meet substantive they don't count for your two refs towards Notability. Dig around a little more and see if you can find a few reputable news sources that dedicate at least a paragraph or more to Avezzano. One more thing on footnotes: do not footnote items which are simply "external links"; http://www.bearbonesmusic.com/ is not a "reference", it's just showing that such a site exists. The "about" page thereof may be a reference if it gives evidence to specific claims, but just a general link to "it exists" is not really evidence. Footnotes on WP aren't for "this is also interesting" they are meant for "this item verifies the accuracy of the claim made above." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
1) Something's wrong with the Categories in this article. They either don't show up, or they are not sorted correctly. Not sure what the fix is. Also, I noticed the User page from which the article came from is still there, and one of the Categories from the User page shows up.
2) Not sure where to Discuss this article in WP:Books concerning whether the book's notability warrant's inclusion in another Category or List.
Thanks,
Howardrandallsmith (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Couple things; your cats work fine, but for whatever reason your default sort (down by the cats) was set to "Sortkey" rather than "A Taste of Blackberries" or "Taste of Blackberries, A". "Defaultsort" is used to put "John Smith" under the "S" in all its categories. So it's showing up fine in its cats; what's the current standard, sort as "A Taste" or "Taste..., A"? So far as the Userpage, the problem is that you cut-pasted for a new article; what would have been better would be to hit the "Move" button so your draft and all its edit-history would slide over. Right now your actual article has no history of its drafting, just appeared as a full article the day you started the page. Not a game-changed, but Move is best to preserve the history. In any event, you no longer need User:Howardrandallsmith/A Taste of Blackberries; there is, I believe, a way to "merge histories" of two different pages; this would be a good way to maintain the historical continuity of your draft and article. I don't know all the details myself, but you can read Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and figure out how to do it. No hit on you, I myself made similar mistakes when I was new and didn't realise how important maintaining histories is for continuity, but fortunately there's a whole policy on how to fix such. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and for WP:Books, just bring it up on the main Discussion page, and I'm sure folks will let you know if you should post it elsewhere. I reckon they're pretty hospitable, and your article is awfully good quality. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am writing an article about a free open source software for social networking sites - Oxwall. The article contains description of the product, information on its history, community, executive board and developers. I'd love to hear your feedback. It's my first article to Wikipedia, so I'd love to hear your feedback before going live. Thank you in advance guys for taking time and trouble to express your opinion and give a piece of advice!
HookAndEye (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeking review by experienced user to move this to actual page status (and solve disambiguation issue w/same-named subjects). Have incorporated earlier feedback on sourcing and citations. Thanks.
Bikebookreader (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your article is indeed an actual page already, no longer a draft. It's just an "unreviewed" new page; I've reviewed and added "uncat", so make sure you add categories. I advise you find an article for a similar cycling writer and imitate the categories that article uses. The sources are great, but the citations (WP:Citations) need a little work. For GoogleBooks, you have an easy fix: just plug the gBooks link into http://reftag.appspot.com and it'll produce a complete Wiki footnote for you. For articles, etc., you want to do it college style: author/title(hyperlinked if available online)/publisher/date. If it's purely a website, use the website name as publisher, and any date available on the page (copyright, "last updated", release date) as the date. Lastly, for disambiguation just to to Bill Strickland (disambiguation) and add your man's name to that list; note that on DAB pages only the names of the articles are linked, and the article names are not piped (linked as one thing, displayed as another), but are listed by their exact title. Just add your name in the same format as the other two B.S.'s and you'll be fine. Nice work, just needs a little fine-tuning. Also, if you are comfy contacting the subject you can ask for a photo (current or historical) to be released to Creative Commons; you'll just need to file an WP:OTRS to prove that the copyright holder has legitimately released a photo. Nice work, hope you'll find other cool things to write about next. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Review is needed for this article.
Awriterwrites (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please review this contribution to ensure that it meets standards. Thanks!
Dictionaryfan (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The main thing you need to do is fix your WP:Bare URLs; both to make the citations clearer and also to make the info findable again if the web addresses of the articles ever change and render your links useless. See WP:Citation for the formats, and WP:Footnotes if you need further info. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I am looking to have this article reviewed. Right now, it doesn't come up when you search for the subject (either John F. Frame, John Frame, or John Frame (sculptor). Please let me know what I need to do to fix this! Thanks.
Salmonsinginthestreet (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewing, looks decent overall except for the one section ("Solo Exhibitions") where you confusingly have footnotes before any actual text. I tweaked your cats and ELs, so good there. So far as disambiguation, I added a "hat" at John Frame to direct folks to your article for the sculptor. Now, would you prefer your article be "John F. Frame" or "John Frame (sculptor)"? Was he generally reffered to as "John F." in print? Let me know which title you prefer, and I'll make sure it ends up at that space and that the other term is a redirect. So far as search, when I search "John F. Frame" I go right to your article; are you just meaning that the title doesn't auto-populate into the Search box as you type? If it's that, just give it a few days to update itself, but it'll still search fine if you type it out. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, he's not generally referred to as John F. John Frame (sculptor) would be better. Thanks!
Done Moved to John Frame (sculptor). BTW, don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ or hitting the "sign" button at the top of your editing window, each time you post on a Talk page. You can also indent to distinguish your block of text from the one above, by typing a ":". If the person above already has one indent, you type two of them to separate, and so on. If you're getting too far scooched over to the right, type a {{deindent}} and start over at the far left. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! Salmonsinginthestreet (talk)
This is a new unreviewed article. I wold appreciate any feedback about this musical artists
Thank you in advance
Blastjacket (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I need to have this article reviewed to make sure it meets standards. Thanks!
Blastjacket (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
How do I get the box on the right pane with the company logo, type of business ect? Also any feedback is really appreciated. Thanks!
Scottgaem (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Coupla things: the box you want is an "infobox". To get it, find a page on a similar topic (business, film, etc) and hit Edit to see their coding, and just copy the whole format of their box and plug it into yours. A ton of what I learned of Wiki I learned by copying coding from other pages. Secondly, your article does not yet meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which is needs to do to publish. You need at least a couple footnote of independent, reliable, substantive coverage to meet WP:N. That means at least a couple news articles that are from companies totally unaffiliated with the subject, that are legit news sources (not just blogs, fansites, business pages), and aren't just passing mentions on a list or in one sentence, but in-depth discussion of the importance of your subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Major issue: your page reads like an advertisement. A WP page is about a business, not for a business. So "we bring talent and tenacity to everything we do" is a huge red flag, as are even simple phrases like "our clients include". The article simply will not be publishable until all promotional tone is removed, and footnotes to sources unaffiliated with the company are cited. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just moved this article to "live" status and would greatly appreciate feedback or recommended changes.
Thanks.
MeaganG (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a complicated one, bear with me.
- First, and primary, you want to really firm up evidence of WP:Notability (people). Before you react and say "well, obviously the man is notable!" please read the policy and note that it's not a literal measure of "how famous", it's a matter of substantiating that other people have written about him. Right now most of your footnotes are to pages affiliated with him, or to his works. What we're looking for to balance it out is other people writing about him, ideally from a variety of perspectives. The YouTube footnotes are a little problematic, as it would depend whether the uploaded is affiliated with the media source (MSNBC, etc) or whether the content is stolen. Long/short, you really want to find a few articles discussing his works rather than just presenting his works and the statements of organisations he leads or is in.
- Format-wise, you have a ton of in-line external links, that is, blue WP links that lead offsite. That is strongly discouraged: other than sub-sections like "Further reading" or "External links", you should link only to other Wikipedia articles. If there is no WP article for "Acme Corporation", so be it, but linking to "acmeco.com" in the middle of the text is not an accepted practice.
- I tagged the article with a few other issues, mainly that you need to fix the WP:Bare URLs and turn them into full proper WP:Citations.
- Titles should be as simple as possible while still distinguishing him from any other "Mike Evans" on WP. There's no other journalist, so I've renamed the article Mike Evans (journalist). Speaking of which, once he's been introduced, you don't need to call him "Mike Evans", throughout; custom would be to just call him "Evans." MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am writing articles on architects, living persons, in the US and the UK. Is there a place to go where I can find others interested in this topic, say a Discussion Page? My goal is to obtain feedback and editorial review as well as to assist with same.
Wednesday 0008 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WikiProject Architecture. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this article about stylist and newly appointed fashion director of W Magazine - Edward Enninful.
Thanks!
Christopherjmiles (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! My name is Avery Twitchell-Heyne and I am hoping to create my first Wikipedia article. I'm a student at Rice University and the final project for our Animal behavior class was to write and submit a Wikipedia article on an insect of our choice. Leptanilla japonica is a Japanese ant known for its unusual larval morphology and hemolymph feeding, and the research on it, mostly conducted by Dr. Keiichi Masuko, is in short supply. My sources are few in number, which I recognize is a problem, but each one is very thorough and specific, and they are quite literally the only ones that exist. There are photographs, few in number as well, but they are held under licenses that don't allow for commercial use. Despite these setbacks, I believe the following article is of the caliber Wikipedia demands and would be a welcome addition to the encyclopedia. Thank you for reviewing it!
Akt2 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Overall really solid article, and despite your concerns the footnoting is awfully good. I made a few minor format fixes: there is no "title" above the first paragraph, since WP puts a huge title at the top of your screen, so you just need to start right into the first paragraph with a bolded title term. You had too many general categories, cats should be as specific as possible. A few of you External links just had the link next to the title, vice hyperlinked. One thing you do need to fix is that you have several commonly-understood words wikilinked unnecessarily: the average reader knows what blind and yearly mean, so no need to link such easy terms. The exception is the cases when you say "posterior" and then link to a specific technical use of the term in insect anatomy; similar for "tribe" where you link to specifically the biological designation. The latter are fine, but for the former, remove any wikilinks to non-technical terms that a layman would know. At this point, looking great. So far as the lack of non-copyright photos, perhaps you have a friend in college qualified to make a good textbook-style sketch of the insect based on the photos but their own artistic work?
- At this point, you're getting past RfF's basic noob formatting advice, I suggest you next go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects's Discussion tab to get any technical advice. That page would also be a good place to get some informal "peer review" if you do have a friend sketch the ant, to ensure that there isn't some error in the sketch as compared to the copyright photos. Really nice work; hope you'll stick around and find more things you enjoy writing about, and I hope you get a good grade! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This is my mother, I think she is notably worth of a wikipedia page. I tried reading through the instructions but must say they are quite confusing, not so straight foward. Will this article appear, and what do I need to do. A few other questions, but I will continue reading and rereading the instructions.
Davidcalton (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)