Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 September 1
Looking for an article review ... Subject is Amateur Radio Software. What is it? How do you sort out the different offerings? What makes it Great? What are some examples?
W9kfb (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- The top half makes sense in that it explains the software, but the bottom section "What to Look for in Quality Amateur Radio Software" makes no sense, in that Wiki is an encyclopedia - people come here for answers and information - not a list of questions. You either need to remove the section, or rewrite it into objective fact-based paragraphs "...sofware was designed with X, Y and Z in mind, and can do this, that and 'other..." and "...software supports Windows XP, Vista, 7.. Mac OS X..." etc. You need to assess your approach to writing that part and rework it, to suit how wiki works, in terms of providing info, not leading people to other sites to find it - the questions need to be dealt with here, otherwise it comes across as using Wiki as some form of portal to direct customers to other sites, which wiki is not.
Ma®©usBritish [talk] 11:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just created my first new page in Wikipedia - it is very short and summarizes an initiative my organization is part of - the Global Rice Science Partnership.
I am seeking feedback at this early stage to help develop it and insure I retain a neutral voice. I have a conflict of interest so would like to invite other writers and editors to contribute to it, but I have tried to find reliable and independent sources of information to justify what I have written.
Sophie Clayton (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my first article on wikipedia. I have tried to conform to the wikipedia standards and rules.
I would like your feedback for the article I have created. Any sort of feedback is welcome for improving it further, before I make it public.
Shadow7777 (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, All seems very good, neat job, plot nicely summarised - so just one major query and a few minor comments:
- There are a couple of references but they don't seem to help determine the films notability. Have a read of WP:FILMNOT, first, to get some ideas what is reliable to use - then see if you can reference a couple of sources with independent critics or reviews of the film - that should do it.
I'm a little bit concerned about the "???" for unknown actors. I note IMDB doesn't list them either, but what about the film itself? - Are there no credits at the start or end (or both) to name the actors? I've never seen a Bollywood myself, but I would be surprised if they didn't credit the cast and crew.
DoneYou need to replace all the "&" signs with the word "and" - I see about 4 or 5 in the article - only ever use "&" if it's part of a brand name, band name, act, title, etc, or in a direct text quote. That applies to titles, headers, prose, and references - just so you're aware for future articles; you can verify that at WP:&. Done
Hope that helps. Regards. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ma®©usBritish [talk] for your valuable feedback. Looking at ways to add references for the films notability(if I find). But if there isn't any other references that I can add, can I make it public?
Regards, Shadow7777 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Feedback and comments please regarding Tacton.
I am absolutely pants at using websites so i am hoping you will all chip in and take this over now it has been started.
Peter C Matthews 1962 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
social defense theory social defense theory is an extention for attachment theory[edit]
Teindor (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, here is an article I wrote for a new software / mobile application designed for professional dog walkers called "Pet Check Technology." I would greatly appreciate your critiques and comments!
50.20.144.10 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Write-up isn't bad, the problem here is sources. You have 5 references, but of those 5
- 2 are self-published on PCT's website, and 1 is on the PC creators website which affects conflict of interest.
- 1, PRNewsWire, is a press release, therefore self-published, affecting point of view.
- The CNet article appears the best third-party, independent, reliable source per WP:CORP requirements for establishing notability of organisations, products, etc, or WP:WEB for online media. If you could reference/cite one or two more like this, from reliable independent sources reviewing or commenting on the product in a non-trivial manner, it would go a long way to balancing things out. A national veterinary/pet owner magazine, who has produced a review in one of their issues, would be a strong indication of notability.
- "How It Works" section needs renaming to "How it works" - only capitalise first letter.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 22:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
This is a new article I have just created on the libertarian political commentator, Anthony Gregory. He is currently a Research Editor for the Independent Institute, columnist for LewRockwell.com, and a writer for various blogs and newspapers. He is heavily influenced by the Austrian School of economics, Murray Rothbard, and other anarcho-capitalists. Please review this article at your earliest convenience. All constructive criticism would be most appreciated. Link (just in case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Gregory
Deulofeut (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- The main problem I see is that it lacks secondary sources, upon which WP articles should be based. It looks like it's just a restatement of the subject's autobiographical and other writings. The lack of independent sources may mean the subject does not meet the notability standard for biographies, WP:BIO. I urge you to read that guideline and find the kind of information that it requires. Otherwise the article may be deleted. Will Beback talk 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see that a previous biography of the subject was deleted in 2008 for lack of notability. I don't see any new accomplishments listed. Will Beback talk 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have prepared and published a new article and am seeking feedback from the editors on it, many thanks!
Leithlad (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's a summary of a draft I've written on my user page:
"API management refers to the process of publishing and managing application programming interfaces (APIs). Commonly this is achieved through the use of a software application known as an API management system or solution. API management systems were first developed around 2006 in response to the increasing use of Web APIs. API management systems exist primarily to help Web API publishers make it simple to create new applications against the APIs they publish."
I'm pretty pleased with the draft and I'm thinking of moving it to Wikipedia proper. If and when I do that, I'll probably do another feedback request.
Sam Macklin 22:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
hello and thank you so much for the help. I am wondering if I should add more links in my article to existing wiki articles (for instance the Universities, etc.) I'm also wondering about using the blog articles on the architect for references. My last question is if I should edit the awards to only the "most" significant. Any additional advice you can offer me would be most appreciated. Many thanks for your time.