Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 October 26
I would like to get some feedback on whether this company is notable for posting the article on Wikipedia. The article is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Royale_International_Group
Thanks.
Xpathy (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, you should check two help pages at Wikipedia before submitting it for a review:
- WP:WIKIMARKUP - explains our markup, how to add wikilinks, headlines and other useful stuff
- WP:REFB - explains how to cite correctly, especially how to use the inline references.
- Also, think about removing the section "Teams & Sponsor" since it is highly promotional and in no kind of encyclopedic value and about the section "History Timeline" which is also not really useful for any encyclopedia since it only lists some store which were opened.
mabdul 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I am a newbie on the board and seek a lot of assistance. Thank you for your input and advice. I will look into those sections and re-edit the article before submission. Xpathy (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Xpathy
Just general feedback request for the new article. I think I have lots of refs, so should be good on that point.
Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if someone could have a read through this. Check notability (second opinion) and give me a hand with deciding upon categories. Thanks!
Jakobalewis (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've created a page to define/explain the Southern California Timing Association (SCTA) and added numerous sources to validate my statements.
I'm not a Wikipedia pro, rather a retired software developer/photographer and I also happen to be a Land Speed Racer.
I'd appreciate help or guidance on this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.
Thank you,
RtR
Ray the Rat (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to get some feedback on the sources for this page. This organization has been making a bit of a splash in politics online in the last year or so, thought it was definitely noteworthy enough for a page. Have had trouble finding serious sources, since a lot of the discussion about it is on political blogs, etc, and not in the papers. Want to know if what I've found is enough to at least get it started.
Texasdude (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- As it stands, I think the organization may be notable enough for a page but I agree the the sources - especially the Daily Caller links - don't really look reliable. This LA Times article is more neutral, at least. I'd say they need some more independent coverage before this can be a solid article. §everal⇒|Times 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback - I'll definitely incorporate that article into the page. I will look out for similar articles as well. I actually worked for the Daily Caller as an intern once, which is probably why I looked their first for sources. It seems to me that it's hardly any different than HuffPo, a common source. But again I'll try to find more. Texasdude (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Yet another request for feedback (YARFF). Seeking feedback regarding notability and conflict of interest, as I happen to work at the organization(s) written about. We happen to employ writers, editors, and the like, and the content has already been through a couple rounds of writing & editing already. I've tried to remove any remaining hyperbole and spin, but I'm not a professional editor or anything (I'm just one of the IT/Web gals). Any comments or help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Abigailwatson (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)