This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
OneAPI repeted deletion and impossibility to communicate with the person who deleted it
Hi,
I just want to mention that I want to create a page about a new API specification and this page created yesterday was first deleted by Deb, I contacted her and she kindly suggested me some improvements.
The URL of the page was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneAPI
Which I did today. And this page was immediately proposed to deletion but I put an hangon label but during the half hour that needed me to write an explanation why I feel it's important to have an article about OneAPI. But both the article page and the discussion page were deleted by JzG during the time I wrote the discussion page.
JzG should have left me some time because there was the "hangon" label, but now I am trapped, because the discussion page of this user is protected so I have no possibility to discuss my problem.
I'm not able to review deleted content, so I cannot discuss the merits of the decision to delete. I thought a hangon tag should help, but I don't know the exact sequence of events. I can tell you that if you start a draft article in a user subpage, assuming it doesn't violate copyright or have other egregious problems, you can work on it at your own, pace, then come here and ask for feedback, which won't guarantee it will survive, but it should help. Using the Article Wizard will give you an option to save to a user subpage, or if you have the content saved somewhere and want to directly copy it into a user subpage, just ask and I'll create one.--SPhilbrickT 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I wrote this article a few months ago and edited it a bit today. I'd like to get some feedback on it. Some other people also edited it but the unreviewed tag is still present.
{{done}}
Hi there, I'd love feedback on a page I would like to move to the article space: Minnesotans' Military Appreciation Fund Please let me know what could be changed or improved. Thanks in advance!
Good variety of sources you have. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Would you (or anyone else) be willing to move this to the main article space? Thanks again for the feedback. - Lmg0603 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
{{done}}
Again, another article I'd love feedback on: The Minnesota Cup I would like to move this to the article space, but want to make sure it is ready. Thanks in advance, again, for your help and insight.
Did a very quick pass for manual of style issues. My edit summary is not quite right—it actually has a decent variety of third party sources; I saw all the URLs to the same website so thought incorrectly they were all citations to the contents of that website rather than its archiving of material from other publications.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Would you (or anyone else) be willing to move this to the main article space? Thanks again for the feedback. - Lmg0603 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Net Price Calculators
I'd appreciate some feedback on this article. I'm a subject expert however I think a review by a more experienced Wikipedia contributor would be very helpful.
Thanks M Fallon 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC) MAC Fallon May 3, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAC Fallon (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, but the article you've tried to link to is a dead one - it doesn't lead anywhere. Please try and fix your link so that I can review your article. I have tried searching but I still cannot find the article. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo 05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, found it! I think there's still a lot of work that needs to be done to the article. I think you need to add more links to the article, as well as sections to divide up the parts of the article to make it easier to read. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The editor of Trim The Fat has requested that this user space draft article be moved to article space. I'm not sufficiently conversant with the criteria associated with music articles, so I'm hoping someone else will provide some feedback, and make the move if warranted.--SPhilbrickT 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made a few comments on the article's discussion page, just about the POV problems it's got, which can affect any type of article. Chevymontecarlo 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert but to me it reads like a discography and doesn't tell me much about the artist: When he was born, where he was educated, what he did before he got into the music business, how he started out etc.--Ykraps (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Netexplorateur
The editor of Netexplorateur has requested that this user space article be moved to article space. The references are all in French, so I'm hoping someone else will provide some feedback, and make the move if warranted.--SPhilbrickT 22:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the second reference seems to be a news article of some sort (I translated it using http://www.translate.google.co.uk) and the first reference seems to be another article of some sort, but I'm not entirely sure. Where shall I provide the feedback? On the user's talk page? Chevymontecarlo 07:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently created an article for DC Special Series. This is a comic book related item so any editors with expertise in that area are invited to review. Thanks!
Well, I do not have any expertise with the criteria associated with comic book articles but I can advise on the actual layout and design of the article. Although you have references in there, they are all from more or less the same website which can be an issue. I can understand that the website you are using for multiple references is very useful but using different parts of the same website for multiple references does not bode well. Maybe that's something you need to look at. Chevymontecarlo 07:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting that the article Schoep's Ice Cream be reviewed. This is the first article I have written without guidance and I would like some input on how I did. I know it needs additional content, but I am not sure where it is lacking. Feel free to be honest, I won't be offended. Thank you. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be rather nice. I'd suggest reading WP:LEAD to help judge how large the lead should be. Also, try using Template:cite web. It's hard to get the hang of it, but helps describe the author and so forth. There's some thing in your preferences section that helps with that, I just don't remember what. Hope this helps! Buggie111 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Alpha Quadrant, I'm no wikipedia expert but I love ice cream. I enjoyed your page. If you want to include some additional external links or references, I found the following articles that mention Schoep's ice cream. I was particularly interested in the first one--that they make over 200 flavors including 7 kinds of vanilla! Nice job.
Hello - I am writing a Wikipedia post for the Black Weblog Awards. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia post, so I would like any feedback to make sure this gets accepted. Would also like to add some category pages as well if this is accepted. Thanks!
Good - the infobox is nicely done, enough links in there, and at least some references. I think perhaps you should put all of the award categories into a table instead of a list like that, the template for a table is found at Template:Table - just copy and paste the code in like you maybe did for the infobox. I will remove the unreviewed template. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo 07:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a well written article, with appropriate sections and Wikilinks to other articles. I think it needs some more references for the 'list of events' section though - it's a big section with no references so that is likely to be picked up sooner or later by someone if it went live now. And I'm not sure about the notability of the article either - although it seems it has been featured on local radio and press in the past so maybe it's not so much of a problem. Chevymontecarlo 06:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Would really appreciate feedback on this article. There is a definite under representation of live art and performance on wikipedia and it would be really great to know the best ways to go about redressing this?
Looks pretty good, however I suggest reorganizing the list of people into a table so that it is easier to read. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Expanding on Alpha Quadrant's point, the table template found at Template:Table may help you. You can copy and paste the code into your article and add the information in. Hope this helped! :) Chevymontecarlo 06:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made a few improvements to your article, but nothing major. I will remove the 'unreviewed' template for you. Chevymontecarlo 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Request To Review "Period (school)"
Could somebody please review my article called "Period (school)" about periods, as used in school - a time allotted for classes. I'd appreciate any suggestions you may have! I plan to add more to it soon, probably more sections and an info-box. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 18:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sphilbrick, it sounds like a dictionary entry. I think it needs a bit more work to make it more encyclopedic as personally I think an article on that subject would be very useful. Chevymontecarlo 06:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I should also add that according to the rules and policies at WP:CITE, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references for other articles, so I think you should probably remove the Wikipedia article link that is being used as a reference and replace it with another from an external site, if you can find one. Chevymontecarlo 06:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have prodded it as it appears to be nothing more than a dicdef. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't aware of this guideline, though I think that something should be made on this - it's a very common word\thing ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_··_Contribs_· 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean QwerpQwertus, it is a very common word. Does anyone else know the policy on soft redirects for such things? Captain n00dle\Talk 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, brainwave, would something like this be cool: -itisCaptain n00dle\Talk 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your time and help in reviewing new articles - this is my first entirely new article
The 10th anniversary of the Pier 34 Collapse in Philadelphia has been in the news (even nationally) a lot lately, and I saw no article on here for the 2000 collapse, and since it was mentioned in a list of Engineering Disaster/Collapses in another artice, I decided to write it.
There was considerable coverage of the collapse, especially since the owners were brought up on criminal charges as a result of the deaths that occured.
I think there needs to be a few more references in the history and location section, and the opening paragraph as some important statements are made but there's no references to prove it. Technically, I think your article is great, with sections correctly inserted into the article and a few Wikilinks, but it needs more. Categories would also be useful to add to the article. Try searching for something like 'American accidents' and then add the categories to the end of the article, underneath the references section. Please ask at the help chat or the Wikipedia Help Desk if you are unsure about adding categories to your article or if you have any more questions. Hope this helped! :) Chevymontecarlo 06:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I'll update my note here when I am ready for anyone to review the changes - Ngmweb (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay! Article has been updated with additional references to shore up the weaker areas. I added a catagory for Building Collapses, and also put in a few helpful WikiLinks. If anyone else has a moment to look at it and give me a thumbs up/thumbs down, I really would like to move it! =) Thanks!!!! Ngmweb (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! The categories will help to list the article with similar ones and get people reading it. I am not very confident with the process of moving a new article into the mainspace so I'm hoping someone else will be able to help you - If someone else could assist with moving the above article into the mainspace and/or provide a review that would be great! Thank you. Chevymontecarlo 06:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I just moved it - if someone else besides Chevymontecarlo could also review it and remove the article flag, I would appreciate it! Ngmweb (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked at this article and found it hard to understand what it is about. Jean99 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Seconded - I'm not sure if English is a first language for you, but if you can work with anyone here, maybe they can understand what the article's subject is more clearly, and then help you re-write it. Ngmweb (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to have been deleted in the past -
13:25, 23 May 2010 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "H2:Do" (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject)Chevymontecarlo 06:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
Wikilinks - the article needs more links to other articles to help the reader. Please try adding more if you can.
Some Point Of View problems - articles on Wikipedia need to sound neutral in tone. Your article is good, but I think in places the tone makes the article sound like an advertisement. Please try to improve it if you can. I hope this helped :) Chevymontecarlo 06:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Van Tuyl
I posted the article "Van Tuyl" in December 2009 and it still has an "unreviewed" tag. If you would be interested in reviewing this summary of my family history and can suggest changes and/or remove the "unreviewed" tag, I would greatly appreciate it.
Hello. Just moving the article into the Wikipedia mainspace will not necessarily mean that it will get reviewed straightaway. Not all editors want their new article reviewed, and it can take a while for someone to patrol the new page to check if it's OK, so that's why unreviewed tags stay there for a while. I will provide a review in a minute... Chevymontecarlo 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think although the article is very informative there are a few problems/issues that I found:
References - although you have some in the article, which is great, the whole article seems to rest on just a couple of references from the same source. Please try and find a few more varied sources (But please don't remove the references you have at the moment)
Wikilinks - the last part of the article has a definate lack of Wikilinks (Links to other articles on Wikipedia). Please try and add a few more - that'd be great.
I will remove the 'unreviewed' template for you :) Chevymontecarlo 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
If you make it neutral - make it not in favor of the company, it will be pretty good. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 05:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the links and references that are already in there are great - it's just the tone that you need to improve. At the moment it sounds like an advertisement for the company and is therefore not encyclopedic. Chevymontecarlo 11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody please take a look at Pirmin Meier and then hopefully remove that ugly new unreviewed article template? Thanks (and don't be too hard on me, it's my first article) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That's your first article?! It's very good - many links are broken and the notes section should be called references (and you need some more inline citations), but it has a picture, table, and is very long. Also notable - that's very important. I've removed the feedback template. I would give it a B-Class (if I knew how to officially rate it) Great Job! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You should turn the broken links into reg text and add inline citations though. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 05:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that positive feedback. Feels good! And yep, it's the first page I created myself; before that I only did some minor edits on other articles. For the boxes and stuff, since I didn't (and still don't) know my way around templates, I just copied the relevant sections from other articles that I considered good and then changed their contents – kinda tedious, but it worked... (Speaking of templates: I would have a question about how you change what their output looks like; can I ask it here or shold I take it elsewhere?) As for the broken links, I'm planning on creating the corresponding articles as well, and thought I'd already prepare the linkages. Can they stay for a while like that? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You can leave the broken links for a while - it's not going to get deleted or anything. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is an excellent article. Well done with that. Chevymontecarlo 11:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a pretty good article - it needs expansion, but I can't help - that's way above my head. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Because of WP:NOR, I didn't want to do experiments on it and record the data, so it will remain small unless someone helps expand it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Good point! If the article can't be expanded very well perhaps you should add some more external links. Chevymontecarlo 12:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is anything about this obscure unstable compound. :) --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have moved it to mainspace as it looked ready to my layman's eye. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It is a very good article - the references are really messed up (no offense), and it could use a pic and infobox, but it is very good. If you want, I can fix the references and move it into mainspace (create it for real). ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 04:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You need a few more links to other articles in there - if you are unsure how to do so please ask. I also think there a few minor Point Of View (POV) problems (It sounds a bit like it's in favour of the company in places), so it could do with being made a little more neutral in tone. It's nothing major though so I don't think it's anything to worry about. Chevymontecarlo 12:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help...still figuring out the infobox and photos...
Kkls2010 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Katie
I don't quite understand infoboxes either, but for pics, just put this "[[Exact On-Wiki FileName|thumb|alt=Text That Shows If Pic Can't|Caption]]" Here's an example - "[[Image:Period_(school_term).jpg|thumb|alt=Period|The Word "Period".<br><small>Typeface - Helvetica, Size - 57, Color - Black</small> ]]" produces ... The Word "Period".—Preceding unsigned comment added by QwerpQwertus (talk • contribs)
Can some help me format the information below the photo? Thank you! Kkls2010 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Katie
Oh - that's called an infobox. I can't really explain how to do one - I barely can myself, but here is a link to the help page on them. I hope that helps! For a better explanation, try asking how to do them at the Help Desk. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award
User:Jordan.labelle/Oxi Fresh
User:Jordan.labelle asked me to review a draft article. The user page explains the COI issue. The article is at User:Jordan.labelle/Oxi Fresh and my comments on the sources and the notability guidelines are at the article talk page. I'd welcome a second opinion - I'm not as experienced in this sort of thing as my edit count would suggest. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made a few comments on the article's structure, as this is something I would probably say that I am best with. Chevymontecarlo 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Saying what the cleaning process is, how it works and what, if anything is different about it would add interest to the article--Ykraps (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to know if the way of listing the patents looks OK, or should somehow connect it with the references.
I'd like more references, but it seemed like I'd jut be repeating the external links.
Obviously the article will benefit from photographs, but looks like we have to wait a while before we're allowed.
I'm a bit troubled by your use of "we", please keep in mind wikipedia's policy of one person one account. It looks like you have enough references to establish notability, and it's a good start. The article does read like a resume, I would suggest dumping the patents section in favor of a sentence or two about his most important patents. Also, you can give a url that porints to Google's patent search to provide a link to them. It is also not necessary to list all of his publications, two or three representative works should suffice. In terms of the prose, I'd suggest avoiding non neutral phrases such as "renowned", "particularly well known", "keen interest". I also notice that the articles about him are listed, and that the body of the article remains largely unsourced. Rather than listing the articles, it would be better to use them as sources for the text in the body, such as the awards and recognition he has received, the equipment he uses, and his influences. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about my comments. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the article that his images have been used in advertising and PR. If there are any examples or any advertising campaigns we might be familiar with, it would be good to mention them.--Ykraps (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"We" was referring to us as a group, meaning "all new contributors who have to wait before being allowed to upload photographs".
Regarding patents, I dont't know if one patent is more important than another. The fact that there were quite a few seemed the important factor. Good idea on the Google patents search. Should this be a single link below the list, or make each patent a link? "Renowned' has been removed but, having read the introductions to his three books, I think "keen interest" could be classed as verifiable.
Andyoakey (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a local but nationally well known cruise agent. Some notable sources are included. Feedback would be very much appreciated. Geotgeot (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty good - and has all the main components of an article - notable, long, sources, etc. Would you like to get it moved into mainspace? ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done! It is a nice article. Chevymontecarlo 06:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, yes please could you move it to main space. Geotgeot (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I moved Gill's Cruise Centre per your request. Please note, if you try to search for it using the search option, it always takes some time, a few hours to a day, for it to show up in search, and at the moment, it appears the indexing is lagged a few days.--SPhilbrickT 13:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, should have checked before posting; the indexing is now back to normal.--SPhilbrickT 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
InTopSens
I have been havng my first stabs at creating a wikipedia article for the EC funded research project, InTopSens of which I have the joy (?) of managing. I uploaded a couple of versions of the article but each time they were deleted. Perhaps someone could be so kind as to go to this link and tell me what I can do to avoid this happening again:
Sorry to report this, but I see no way to avoid this happening again. You have a conflict of Interest, which means you shouldn’t be creating or even editing such an article, although if someone else creates it, you can provide help at the article talk page. On occasion, we hear that people have been instructed to create a Wikipedia page about their project/company. In those case in may help to show the employer the COI guideline. SPhilbrickT 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I found these articles via google: [1][2][3] I might not get chance to take a decant look for a while though so if anyone else wants to contribute they are welcome. Dannyhill, if you know of where we can find any news articles on InTopSens, then please post the links here ^_^ Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Science Buddies
This entry on Science Buddies gives background on the formation of this K-12 nonprofit site and details its current offerings.
Shiera Shierab (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It is very good - it has an info box, is notable, and written well (also with references\sources). I took away the 2010}} at the top and the box. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 23:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You mentioned that it was previously known by a different name, I added a redirect from the previous name to this page, you can see it here so if you go to Kenneth Lafferty Hess Family Charitable Foundation you end up at Science Buddies. Another comment of mine would be: try to add more internal links, for example K-12 (being from the UK I don't know what K-12 is) or "science fair" in the first sentence. Don't link everything though, and only link to a page once (e.g. noodles are very nice I like noodles.) Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry me again, I fixed the external link to the official website here External links work differently to internal links:
Please review and comment on the Cold Spring Granite page.
Thank you in advance Wendyfables (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty good (it has notability, an infobox, good description), but it does have some problems. There are three sections linking Wikipedia articles to other places:
References - To show that the subject is notable (important), and for more info, and some of where you got info.
Sources - Where you got your info, and for more info.
External Links - For more info.
Your should add references from other books\sites that are not related to the company to show that it is notable. I believe it is (per a google search), but please do add some independent examples to make it better. Good work! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes and added another external link to the list. I also added two more outside article sources about Cold Spring Granite. If this is sufficient, I would like to make this live on Wikipedia. Any thoughts?
Thank you again for your help with making this a better page 24.172.221.186 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If all goes well, it will be in mainspace in a few minutes. It may not appear in search results for quite some time though. Thanks for contributing! ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_··_Contribs_· 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
All Pro Dad
The article I posted was about the All Pro Dad organization, I gave a brief summary and history of the organization the followed with the 3 main things that they do to outrach to fathers, the daily email, the dad's breakfast and the all pro dad's day. I kept it brief and tried to cite the sources and websites that I used from All Pro Dad. The feedback will be greatly appreciated and I thank you very much for your time.Swsafety28 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty good (it has notability, and a good description), but it does have some problems. There are three types of sections linking Wikipedia articles to other places:
References - To show that the subject is notable (important), and for more info, and some of where you got info.
Sources - Where you got your info, and for more info.
External Links - For more info.
Your should add references from other books\sites that are not related to the company to show that it is notable. I believe it is (per a google search), but please do add some independent examples to make it better - all current ones are on their sites. But, good work! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think notability is dubious in this case. Most of the references are self references and don't count for notability purposes. Of those that remain, none appear to have the significant coverage that is required to demonstrate notability. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Point of view - at the moment it sounds like an advertisement for the school. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral style. I think that the full list of courses avalaible needs to be removed and replaced with a brief sentence evaluating the different courses that are avalaible - this would be a more neutral way of displaying the same information.
Wikilinks - the article needs more links to other articles. You need to add more links to make it helpful for the reader.
Organisational problems - the article's content needs to be divided into more sections and paragraphs to make it easier to read. I recommend starting in the part of the article where all the different courses are listed, try adding a section for each.
I hope my advice has helped :) Good luck with the article. Chevymontecarlo 12:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Chevymontecarlo gave some specific thoughts on organization, for a general discussion, see Article Layout. One important addition note tis that you have included no references to reliable sources. Wikilinks are nice, references are required.--SPhilbrickT 12:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Now what about this article? Would it be a good one to add to Wikipedia? I plan to take some pictures of it as I live close to it. Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, but probably not. You'd need to show that the stream has been discussed in a number of reliable sources. Which I suppose is possible, but it seems unlikely. (And while lack of hits on Google is certainly not proof of lack of notability, the burden is on you to find the references.) Sorry.--SPhilbrickT 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
We have a WikiProject Rivers. The participants there are undoubtedly more knowledgeable about what it take to meet the Notability hurdle. See the list of participants, my guess is any one of them would be happy to help.--SPhilbrickT 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
They seemed to accept it at WP:Rivers. I also created an article for the Nine Mile Run, a major branch of the Six Mile Run. I plan to take some photos of it and post them on the page. Additions are welcome. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Your photos are nice, they really add loads more information to the article - they are really useful for the reader. Good luck with that and I'm pleased that it seemed to be accepted by the people at the WikiProject. Chevymontecarlo 18:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could say what the source of the stream is. Is it a spring or a pond or does it just drain an area of marshy ground? What sort of soil, rock does it flow through? Is it a chalk stream for example. What sort of vegetation grows in the stream and on its banks? There ought to be plenty of insect life (Dragonflies, Caddis Larvae, Water Boatmen etc). Do you know what the fish are? A stream like that where I live would typically contain: Bullheads, Sticklebacks, Minnows etc as well as the fry of larger fish. Hope that helps--Ykraps (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Proto magazine
I've added an article "draft" in my personal user space onProto magazine. I think it warrants an entry -- articles from the magazine have been reprinted, cited, etc., in a number of well-known venues, including the Washington Post (they have reprinted three stories since 2008). The magazine also inspired discussion from Rush Limbaugh. I'm worried, however, about the article appearing "promotional" and being deleted. I would love any input on how to make sure I'm approaching things correctly.Elemiska (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It is very slightly promotional, though I can tell that you were trying not to. Try to avoid overly positive or unprovable adjectives. Some examples:
"the latest in biomedicine (regardless of where it’s being studied)"
Latest in biomedicine
"interviews with controversial figures in the medical world and personal essays about patients’ experiences with health care"
interviews with controversial figures
Good job though - perhaps expanding it would help - it is notable enough, with some improvement, I think it'll be very good and ready for mainspace. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that it is notable as it does not cite any reliable sources. Without those, it will not survive long if moved to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
AMANCIO...Two Faces on a Tombstone
I would very much appreciate a review of my article. My synopsis of the film has disappeared and the full listing of Festivals.
It is very short and needs references and sources. You should provide those links in their sections and write a bit more. Otherwise, somebody may delete it. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I am respectfully submitting the recommended changes to the section in the link below. I can be readhed with questions. I am the Deputy Fire Chief for Miami. I would like the data more accurately reflect our department. Thanks.
The City of Miami Fire Rescue Department is the agency that provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the city of Miami, Florida. This professional fire department protects approximately 500,000 city residents 24/7, 365 and operates out of 14 Fire Stations, located throughout the city's 35 square miles. The department also operates a fire apparatus fleet of 11 Engines (Including 1 Foam Engine), 3 Aerials, 3 Quints. Within this staffing constraint it also runs 1 Haz-Mat. Unit, 1 Technical Rescue Unit, 1 Dive Rescue Unit, 1 Air Unit, 1 Fire Boat and 24 multi-purpose Fire-Rescue transport units. Miami Fire Rescue responds to approximately 90,000 incidents annually. The department also operates FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Florida Task Force 2. FLTF2 is 210 member organization deploying teams of 70 Rescue workers, search dogs, physicians and structural engineers who travel with 50,000 lbs of equipment to assist in major disasters.
Miami Fire Rescue Department
Motto: "Excellence through Service"
Established July 17, 1898
Staffing Career
Strength
699
Stations
14
Engines
14
Trucks
3
Rescues
24
Fireboats
1
EMS Level
ALS Transport
Commissioner
Maurice Kemp
Freddie Fernandez, Deputy Fire Chief
City of Miami Department of Fire-Rescue
1151 NW 7 Street, 3rd Floor
Miami, FL 33136
<redacted>
"Excellence Through Service!"
The process doesn't work that way, but I realize you have no way of knowing that. You are discouraged from editing the article itself (See WP:COI) but you are encouraged to post suggestions on the talk page. I will do that for you.--SPhilbrickT 14:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I copied it over to Talk:Miami Fire Department. Although you are undoubtedly knowledgeable about the facts, Wikipedia works on the concept of verifiability, and we must find the information in printed in published sources.SPhilbrickT 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Put a different way, I could claim to be Justin Beber and claim to be gay and want my wikipedia page changed ;-)
But if you can find somewhere else that gives more information about the department (e.g. an official website, a news article that mentions the department etc.) then someone else will happily link to it and reference the facts. Hope that makes some sense! Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review this article and consider putting on Wikipedia live. I've compared this to other larger pages and companies on Wikipedia that have only 9 resources, this one has a few since it is a small company. Nothing is advertising language and it is all factual. They do not have outside articles published, being so small.
I'm not sure about the neutrality of the article in places. Language like 'for over thirty years', 'a supplier for some of the largest original equipment manufacturers' , 'family-owned', and 'the oldest company' sound a bit like an advertisement and I think they should be either rewritten or removed entirely. There are a few Wikilinks (links to other articles) in there, but there could be a few more, so please try and add a few more if you can. I also think the Products section is a bit technical in places - to the average reader they may have no idea what many of the terms mean so adding a link or rewriting the section in a more simplified way would be a nice idea. One final thing you perhaps need to maybe think about is the references. It's good that you have at least have some, but most of them seem to be just from the official site. These are good, but it'd be great if other references and sources from places that are independent of the article's subject (i.e. no site that is affiliated with Scotland Manufacturing), as these sources/references are usually more reliable. Other than that it's a nice article. I hope these points have helped. Chevymontecarlo 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made the suggested changes you described above. I do not have many more resources to add to this at this time, however I do anticipate more in the future once they can provide articles that have been published, etc. Please review and let me know of any further changes needed before going live.
Again, thank you for your time in reviewing this article and taking the time to provide feedback.
The article is about a nutrceutical company in California called Botanical Wisdom. They use a patented process called Bio-Enhanced Extraction to extract a high yield of nutrients to manufacture herbal supplements. They are an umbrella company of Hamida Pharma, a global nutraceutical manufacturer.
I am not sure about the notability of the article's subject. Articles on Wikipedia have to be notable enough to stay on the site. Please see WP:NOTE for more information. I am not sure about the rules regarding notability so I'm hoping another user can help out and provide another opinion on this. As to the rest of the article, one definite problem is the lack of links to other articles. Please try and add some if you can. To start you off I think you should link the place names in the article (Lake Forest, California) by placing [[ ]] around them. References in the article are OK, but as with many articles that are just starting out there needs to be a few more. Please keep on searching and please add them to the article. Thanks and good luck with the article. Chevymontecarlo 19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite concerned about the need to establish Notability. You need multiple mentions in independent reliable sources. While you have three references,
The first appears to be an entry in an online catalog, so doesn't count for Notability
The second is a blog. With some rare exceptions (this isn't one) blogs are not reliable sources
The third is a PR release. Acceptable for verifying certain types of facts, but does not count toward notability.
It needs spell checking--SPhilbrickT 19:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about your user name, and have responded on your talk page--SPhilbrickT 19:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
User name is a blatant violation of WP:CORPNAME and I have reported it to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Bonnie C Templeton
A biography of Bonnie C. Templeton, a pioneering female botanist who was the curator of botany at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County from 1929 to 1970. User:Pkmartin/Bonnie_C_Templeton
Your article is pretty good - it is notable and has a lot of info, though you do need some sources\references that prove the notability of the article. (ex. Newspaper entry on her work\her). I will go ahead and fix some minor layout\coding probs for you. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I made a small contribution to the article, I added lots of [[internal links]] please double check that they all go to the right place! You mention "El Segundo sand dunes" and some others, it would be good to link these too, but I don't know where to link it! Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for your additions to the page--I think it is very much improved by them. I made one reversion--I don't think the Cal State Northridge Botanic Garden is the California Botanical Garden: the dates are wrong. In fact, I've not been able to identify it</chagrin>. I suspect it has had a name change or been absorbed by another entity.
There are three articles in the Los Angeles Times that discuss her work, which I hope establish notability. These are listed in the references, being #2,5,7 and 8. Also, the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Library has acquired and processed her archives, indicating they thought she was notable enough to preserve her records.Pkmartin (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first wikipedia page, the page is about Rebecca Huxtable an assistant radio producer in the UK. Would greatly appreciate some feedback! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewMerrell (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but she may not be notable enough for her own article per notability guidelines. Somebody may have also made it before, I believe, but I think that it was merged in to the radio show article as a small section and redirected there. Try searching it - you get redirected to the show article. Though it is a pretty good article (minus the lack of notability\refs), I encourage you to continue contributing - maybe by editing existing ones first. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! You're right it does lack refs! I will probably just stick to making much smaller edits for the moment! AndrewMerrell (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to drop by here again if you would like us to help with anything else! Captain n00dle\Talk 10:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Family First
Family First
I wrote a page about this article breifly describing it and giving a brief summary about the company citing all the sources i found online. I highlighted the 3 internal companies briefly sourcing them from their online websites as well. I thank you for your time and consideration, your help will be greatly appreciatedSwsafety28 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see my message on your talk page: in brief you edited an existing disambiguation page and turned it into a new article. That is not the way to do it, so I have reverted your changes. Further explanation on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see that your article has been nominated for deletion, you need to add more references to show that something is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. A good place to start might be here: news.google.com if you are looking for references to show something's notability (These two looked good: [4][5]).
To be honest, this isn't really a good article - it would never be accepted. This is an encyclopedia - like a real one - something like that probably doesn't qualify for inclusion and if it did, you should not use a joking tone. I encourage you to keep contributing though - perhaps by editing already-existing articles that you may be interested in. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_| 04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's not very suitable for Wikipedia, both in tone and in content. If you want to improve Wikipedia though, please do help out on existing articles instead. Chevymontecarlo 15:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Added {{Humor}} template on it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Chemicalinterest's suggestion is good, though. It'll probably save it getting deleted if it gets moved into the mainspace. Chevymontecarlo 18:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If I'm honest with you, I'm surprised that there isn't a (real ^_^) wikipedia page on it. While single serving sites are a meme, there has been quite a bit of coverage of the topic. Captain n00dle\Talk 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. The article is well written, with good references and Wikilinks (links to other articles). I don't think the notability of the article's subject is a problem but a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference, so I'm afraid you'll have to remove it. I also recommend that maybe you should make a few improvements to the article's layout - maybe separate the article into sections or something like that. Chevymontecarlo 15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback - I'll experiment with how to use sections!
The article is currently tagged with a box saying "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2010)" Is there any more "clean-up" I can do to get rid of this? Lilysask (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You can make it sound more neutral. The template box at the top basically means that because a major contributor to the article appears to have a close connection with its subject, there's a few problems with the tone - it's sounding a bit like an advertisement or in the article's subject's favour. That's basically what it means. Cleanup is all about making an article more suitable for Wikipedia. Chevymontecarlo 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ornella Barra
Can someone please provide some feedback on my Ornella Barra article. It is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article. Thank You
Hello. It seems that the link you've provided is dead-it does not lead anywhere. I've tried searching manually but there doesn't seem to be any articles of that name on Wikipedia. Please try and fix your link if you can. Chevymontecarlo 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sphilbrick! That's a really nice article. References, links and appropriate layout is all there, which is excellent. One thing I did find though - you should maybe think about putting the timeline part of the article into a table - there's a template that you can use that's perfect for that at Template:Table - both examples would work great. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo 18:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback ABComms—Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC).
Fastflow_(computing) is a C++ programming framework based on lock-free synchronizations.
I am requesting review of this article, which has been recently improved to address previous issues. Any advice would be appreciated, thank you. | History page
Nice article. An infobox is always a great thing to add to an article. You have at least some references and links, which is also good for an article. Chevymontecarlo 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You're completely right. I've added "parallel computing" infobox. Thanks for the suggestion. Aldinuc (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
( ← outdenting ) It is indeed a very well-written article, but I'd suggest to its author that he would do well to refrain from editing on the topic for now. The author's not at fault, but it's my opinion that any additional work could end up being wasted labor, i.e. might have to be reverted. I don't mean to sound ominous or mysterious, and I apologize for doing so, but I did want to put up this preliminary message right away, as a courtesy. More to follow very soon, i.e. within 1 - 2 hours, as soon as I can finish researching the problem and composing notice of it. Ohiostandard (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow follow-up, and very sorry indeed for what I must say about this article: I don't blame the user who created it, but the article and related edits to other articles have multiple problems, all quite serious. Of these, conflict-of-interest is the most immediately-apparent. This was disclosed to the article's author by another user ( along with other concerns, such as for notability ) in the previous request-for-comment he initiated on this article. Like most relatively new users and especially most single-purpose-account new users, he probably just doesn't understand the applicable guidelines as they applied to the article he created nor the implications of the COI information he had been sent. Further developments pending. Ohiostandard (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, due to the previous comments, I tried to strictly follow FAQ for organizations: "editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies" and conflict-of-interest guidelines: "editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty" . Most is not all, I see. Said that, the best I can do is just to stop any further edit and hope that the article will be evaluated for its content and its verifiable sources from now on, and not just for one its editor. Anyway, thanks for the comments. Aldinuc (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the article and found that it needs a ton of work to make it more suitable for Wikipedia...
References There are no references or sources for the article to prove the statements that are made in the article. You need to add some otherwise it's likely it'll just be deleted.
Sections You need to add sections to the article, to break it up and make it easier for someone to read. Please try doing this.
Tone It sounds like it was copied from a magazine article. Please try and rewrite the article to make it more neutral in tone, instead of sounding like a magazine article.
Links You need to add more links to other articles in the article itself. These aid readability (they make the article easier to read and help the reader find out more).
If you have any questions about doing any of these, please ask at the Wikipedia Help Desk or the help channel, where you can talk to other users who will be happy to help you live. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo 09:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles have a specific structure to them, specified in a guideline called Layout (Click on the link to see the details). Your article doesn't incorporate some of the required elements of the structure. --SPhilbrickT 20:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It reads like a blog and is too promotional. Try to make it more like an encyclopedia article. Yaris678 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Put your references in <ref></ref> tags, or click the bookmark symbol located on the editing toolbar and paste your references in it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Expanding on Chemicalinterest's point, when using <ref></ref> tags you can insert them at relevant points in the article, for example if the article talked about a date of birth you could put the reference that proves the date of birth next to it in the article using the <ref></ref> tags. Chevymontecarlo 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Dernulc has generated some recent coverage in one local (online only?) media outlet, but he's running for a county council seat in one of Indiana's many counties, right? Running, not elected? The relevant guideline as to whether he's considered sufficiently notable in such a case appears to be wp:politician. And the way I read that guideline, this person doesn't qualify as notable for purposes of Wikipedia, and thus doesn't warrant an article. I don't think the article can legitimately be created in mainspace, and would be likely to get speedily deleted if it were. Sorry. Ohiostandard (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh... I got distracted from looking at this earlier, and had forgotten that he was in office; my mistake. Politician is still the relevant notability standard, I think, but he probably meets it. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
very good, just needs some categories and templates say that it might be one sided. Sophie(Talk) 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There's certainly plenty of content there, but there are a few problems with the tone in places. Please try and make it a bit more neutral. There are some good references and the article is appropriately Wikified with sections and links, which is great. You might want to include an infobox somewhere too, perhaps at the top of the article to help summarise the basic information about the article's subject. I recommend the Template:Infobox person to get you started. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo 09:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
( ← outdenting ) I've just finished making multiple edits to the article for references and tone; see the article's talk page for extensive documentation thereof. Ohiostandard (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that page seems notable enough to warrant an article, and is laid out correctly. To add categories, at the bottom of the page write [[Category:]], and then following the colon, put the categories you feel the article slots into. WackyWacetalk 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As to adding categories to the article, all you need to do is add the appropriate category links to the bottom of the article, and they will appear in a bar at the bottom automatically. For example, I could add Category:American college songs to the bottom of an article whose subject was linked to the subject of the category and it will appear in a bar at the bottom automatically. I hope this is what you mean :) Chevymontecarlo 18:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the article is nicely done. There's references and links, which are vital in an article, but no categories which is what you need to work on - you've asked about it so I'm guessing that's what you'll be trying to do. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo 18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. That's exactly what I was asking. Appreciate the feedback and help and encouragement Austin3301 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Is that OK? Do you have any more questions regarding the article? Chevymontecarlo 06:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The Dirty Rooks
This is the first new article I've created. Everything look ok?
Rexodus (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend adding the following:
More References Which Prove the band is important enough for an encyclopedia
To make the text more neutral - not in favor of the band\showing that they are good such as "They have been compared to The Faces, The Rolling Stones, and The Black Crowes" - this is not provable and is biased
Without these things, I'm afraid that it may be deleted, but it is a pretty good article - I encourage you to keep working on it and Wikipedia. ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 06:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I changed some of the wording and tracked down a few more published references. I'm also going to try another article soon. This first one was good practice.Rexodus (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Eventually I would like to go live with this article again. Have made more excisions than inclusions to solidify article. Just the facts here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty good - it has notability\references, but I would recommend expanding it and making it sound a little more official or encyclopedic, but it is pretty good. If you can fix those things, contact me here and tell me, I'll put it up live for you. - I don't think it would survive as is. Thanks! ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 06:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
A tip with posting on talk pages - after you make a post please type or insert the four tildes (~~~~) at the end so people know who said what. If you don't have a key to type a tilde you can click on the tildes at the bottom of the edit window to insert the four tildes automatically. Chevymontecarlo 08:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
What notability criterion are you using here? WP:LEAD suggests that the subject's main field of endeavour should be listed first; that makes Mr Correa primarily an artist. But he doesn't satisfy WP:ARTIST, or WP:CREATIVE for his comedy work (check out the criteria to see why not). And coming last in a municipal mayoral election does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, although elected local mayors do normally qualify. That leaves us with the primary notability criterion "significant coverage in reliable independent sources".
Of the references you cite, all but 2 are local news media and most are just passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of Mr Correa and his achievements - only numbers (6) and (9) could possibly be considered nontrivial - the rest are passing mentions. This leaves you with a local paper's review of his artwork in a local exhibition, and the Sue Stephens NPR piece. The latter was interesting to listen to, but it was about Rockford and the mayoral election, not about Mr Correa, who had just two very short soundbites devoted to him in the whole of the 9-minute piece. I cannot see that the references you have given constitute significant reliable independent coverage, so as it stands, I think the article fails WP:N. Sorry, he sounds like a great guy and I'm sure I'd enjoy a drink with him, but I don't think he's notable by Wikipedia standards at present. Karenjc 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Brandie Knight
I need someone to please review the article about American author Brandie Knight and let me know if any improvements need to be made. Thank you! --VegasRev (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)VegasRev, May 29, 2010
I would recommend:
Tweaking the text a little (it is a little in favor of her), so it is neutral
Adding more inline citations\refs which really prove the importance of her.
For Inline Citations - Put, in editing, "<ref>EXACT_ADRESS_OF_WHERE_INFO_FROM</ref>" and you already know refs
This article reads like a publicity release at present, not an encyclopaedia article. It contains POV language (for example, "vivid imagination"; "creative and shocking marketing approach" "the legendary Tommy Chong"). "Award-winning" is a term to be used with caution on Wikipedia: see WP:PEACOCK. There are unsourced claims that need verification: for example, that her PR firm has turned companies into multi-million dollar enterprises (which ones?), and that she has worked on "hit shows" (which ones, and by whose definition are they hits?) There are references to events and individuals which assume the reader will be familiar with them so offer no links or clues: what, for example, are "the unforgettable shenanigens of the Mid-West's Party Chaser Girls" (whoever they are)? Basic information is missing: one of the references notes that Brandi Knight is not the subject's birth name, for example, but there is no mention of this in the lead section; she is described there only as a "writer", but the article makes it clear she has many business interests and appears to be known, if for anything, as a publicist. Most inappropriate is the controversial unsourced material: the article claims that federal agents tried to "silence" Ms Knight with "bogus" criminal charges. These serious allegations are completely unsourced and should be credibly cited or removed. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong, but if you are connected in any way with Ms Knight, you are strongly discouraged from writing about her on Wikipedia. Karenjc 20:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to add - the Facebook link should go (see WP:ELNO), particularly since there's already a link to Ms Knight's own website. Karenjc 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The fawning and smarmy tone makes it look like it was written by his press agent. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. No problem with notability, and the citations are fine as far as they go, but it needs a careful rewrite to achieve a neutral and encyclopaedic tone. Don't tease, i.e. don't hint at detail and then avoid explaining it ("a series of disturbing personal events..."). Don't write in the third person from the perspective of the subject ("Gustave sees his career as work in progress"). If you can cite a direct quotation that has him saying this, and you think it's important enough to be in the article, then use the quotation - otherwise it just sounds like a press release. And don't list awards and honours unless they are meaningful; it gives the wrong impression. It's nice that he appeared in a film that his friend made, and nice that the film won a prize at a festival, but it's hardly an award or an honour for Mr Gustave, and YouTube links are not a good source, generally speaking. Karenjc 18:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, a little cleanup is needed with the section breaks. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for review and feedback by Wiipedia volunteer editors. Please pay special attention to if this is sufficient re mainitating a neutral tone, the proper use of citations, and regarding needed categories (I am still researching categories) Thank you very much. Austin3301 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's on the border with WP:N, but the more ways you can say how it's notable. Reading that as someone who knows nothing about it, it just seems like some building development. Good luck, and let me know if you want me to read it later. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and I will edit some more and keep it in feedback space until it is ready. It's not just a building, it the Austin metropolitan area's only large-scale mixed-use, master-planned project with office, retail, resturants and living for a live-work-play environment. Perhaps I should include some mention of New Urbanism, etc. Do you think the photo of one building hurts, versus say a map or a master plan? Austin3301 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
A master plan or map would be helpful, I think. The article should have additional references, take a look at Google News Archive, some of those might be helpful. Also, it's always a good idea to look at other articles on similar topics to get a feel for how other editors have approached the topic. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I actually have tons of articles that can be used for references, I was just trying not to BOMBARD. A map is an excellent idea. I need to research how to use a Google or Mapquest map image with proper license and attribution. Thanks for the advice. Austin3301 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin3301 (talk • contribs)
User:Austin3301/La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas) Categories
What have I mis-coded in Categories to get this result (red titles)? I copied each category name precisely from it's web page. Austin3301 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The first one was deleted and redirected by a bot. Best to click on them all and see what you can do, creating new cats if necessary. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The red-linked categories do not yet exist. I assume you had copied them from an article's title, so you'll need to find which categories do exist. You can try using the gadgetHotcat to assist. —fetch·comms 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Great tip about Hotcat. Austin3301 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin3301 (talk • contribs)
P.S. you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end! It looks like this by default: Example (Talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) And mine looks like this: Captain n00dle\Talk 11:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
My first wiki entry. Hoping someone can look it over and, if ready, help me to get it posted.
Regards,
David Carillo
Manuchampions (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Try to avoid using his own website as a reference, and just try to add more references in general. But overall, it looks almost ready to become a live article. —fetch·comms 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I made one little fix here to show the external link in the template (on the right-hand-side) properly. Normally an external link looks like this: [http://www.example.com external link] and an internal link looks like this: [[example article]], but that was a template so you just needed to use the address! Hope I didn't confuse you Regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The first line would benefit from rewording to "Jonathan Lloyd Walker is an English [or British] film and television actor and writer", thus avoiding repeating the info about his birthplace given in the next section. The lead section needs at least one more sentence, establishing the grounds on which this particular actor and writer is notable in his chosen field.
Other points:
"Mother" and "Officer" should not be capitalized in this context.
There's no reason for "Simon Davis Barry" and "Gregory Middleton" to be in bold text - if they have articles, they should be Wikilinked; if not, do they need mentioning?
Avoid non-neutral language, e.g. "diverse and complex roles"; "substantial roles"; "iconic series".
Avoid excessive name-dropping and attempts to inflate the subject's importance. For instance, there is no need to list seven notable cast members of the film Red, just as part of a sentence pointing out that Mr Walker appeared in it too. And the choice of the term "opposite" in that sentence is inappropriate, because it implies his billing and importance are on equal terms with those of the seven actors mentioned, whereas in fact his role doesn't merit a mention in any of the material I can find on the film, including our own Wikipedia article, where he is not in the cast list.
You describe him as a writer, but include no mention of any published or commercial work.
From the info you've given, this subject probably does meet WP:ENT but the article needs cleanup before it can go live. There's some helpful material at WP:FILMBIO. Karenjc 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have addressed most of the notes above. Thanks for them. To explain, I do believe that Mr.Walker merits this Wiki listing being posted for a few reasons; 1) He has played major roles in several high profile American studio movies. This is vouched for by his involvement in both "Red" and "The Thing" receiving mention in Variety. As a trade publication Variety is not generally in the habit of writing articles about the casting of minor roles. I have sited these articles in the references. Further, the fact that he is not listed in the Wiki for the film "Red" should be no means be considered definitive. Beside the reference given from Variety there are also several sources, such as IMDB, that confirm his involvement. 2) He has played a lead in an American network series for which there is certainly an established fan base and has been invited to and made appearances at several sci-fi fan conventions. 3) He is both a member of The Canadian Academy and has served as a jury person for voting on the Gemini awards. These are details I will add to the posting and reference accordingly.
I did not expand on his writing credits simply because they are listed in his IMDB profile which is already referenced.
I agree with you that he's notable enough for an article - I don't dispute this. Concerns were over tone and citations, and you're addressing both, it appears. The Variety pars are good new citations to confirm his recent work; the point about taking care not to describe this work in promotional language still holds good. A neutral, factual description of a person's accomplishments is more appropriate in an encyclopaedia than exaggerated terms, and will survive here much more easily. Bear in mind that, although IMDB is frequently cited in Wikipedia (and there are helpful templates for this purpose at WP:IMDB), it is not regarded as a truly reliable source because it contains self-published material, so ideally other reliable independent sources should be cited to support facts drawn from the site. When the article goes live, the title should be "Jonathan Lloyd Walker" - there is no other entry of that name, so the (actor) disambiguation is not necessary. Best of luck with it. Karenjc 22:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Signmanager Australia/Signmanager
Note
Requesting Editor is currently indefinitely blocked Captain n00dle\Talk 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a request for feedback regarding Signmanager's userspace draft User:Signmanager Australia/Signmanager. This article aims to list what Signmanager; an Australian company, does and highlight their achievements. Signmanager has been written about by the media and these references are listed in the article. Thank-you for your time. --Signmanager Australia (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is an okay article, though the text definetly needs to be changed so that it will sound neutral (not in favor of the company), as described here. It also should have more inline citations and only the pics most important to the article (not a collection of pics). It is an okay article though I encourage you to try and fix these things. Also, per WP:COI, a company or organization or anybody working for them should not write about them. It is also a user name violation and in some cases, you may be blocked. ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This may be the same account as User:Signmanager, whose only edit was a spammy piece on their talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this article Sun Valley Center for the Arts is ready to go but I can't remove its template tag until someone reviews it. I would like to add categories but the obvious ones,like regional arts centers, do not seem to exist.
Cammisa (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to make a couple of suggestions first, if that is okay?
I might reword the lead section to "The Sun Valley Center for the Arts was founded in 1971 and is the oldest " (you can miss out the very first line "Sun Valley Center for the Arts" then).
I've noticed that you keep capitalising "The Center" it should be "the center" (unless at the start of a sentence, then it should be "The center"). This is because "the center" is not a proper noun.
I replaced the second link as the first only went to a search page, not very useful for anyone clicking the link. I also replaced the first link with this template {{official|http://www.sunvalleycenter.org}} to be consistent with other pages.
You might like to use this tool so that your references to websites look better (that tool uses a template to make references) I find it quite useful.
I hope I have made some useful comments! Feel free to write back. Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to answer your questions about categories! I added a couple, and you can find more here: Portal:Contents/Categorical_index but your best bet is to add this: {{morecats}} to the top of the article when it gets moved from your usespace. Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review these articles and be sure that all bias has been removed! Thank you so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.52.182 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I believe you forgot to log in before writing that? Are you Michelemcd (talk·contribs)?
I will write some comments soon, best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 13:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end! It looks like this by default: Example (Talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) And mine looks like this: Captain n00dle\Talk 13:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Neither article has any inline citations or sources other than the event's own website. In order to establish that the events are notable enough to have an encyclopaedia article written about them you need to add citations from reliable sources. Karenjc 16:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Those were the main two I could think of right now. Also, the article needs some cleanup, putting up the tag now. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you should also try and add a few more links to other articles, if you can. Chevymontecarlo 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Problems with your template
Hello! Jxie04 I can see that you created this: Template:Infobox People2 however, it will soon be deleted because it isn't a template! A template can be used on more than one article, the one that you have created can only be used on the one article.
You will have to use this template: Template:Infobox Person on your wikipedia page e.g:
{{Infobox person
| name = Zhang Jianhong
| other_names = Li Hong
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1958|03|06}} -->
| birth_place =
| death_place =
| nationality =
| other_names =
| known_for =
| occupation =
| criminal_charge = Instigating to overthrow the national regime
| criminal_penalty = Imprisonment for 6 years
| criminal_status = Convicted March 19th, 2007
}}
IOCS is any of a number of packages for IBM computers used to do record level I/O. This article is based on personal use of 7070/7074 IOCS and a reading knowledge of 709/7090 IOCS, but I know of IOCS packages for the IBM
1401/1440/1460
1410/7010
7040/7044
7080
I vaguely recall that there may be one for the IBM 1620 and 1710 as well.
I considered adding sections on the 7070/7074 IOCS and the 709/7090 IOCS. but wasn't sure whether that would be too much information.
In addition to advice on or editing of on my text, I'd appreciate references for any IOCS that I haven't already given. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! We don't have much expertese in this area I fear, but I left requests to get people to help here and here.
I can provide some general pointers, but generally more information is always good in my opinion! Here are my suggestions:
I would make "implementations and nomenclature" a different section (if that makes sense) and avoid the bulleted list here, try to write more prose.
You can link to Macro instruction like this: [[Macro instruction|macro-instructions]] this says "macro-instructions" but links to "Macro instruction".
One thing that I've noticed is that you have linked "IOCS", but this page is IOCS so you don't need to link it.
Once your page is in the mainspace at "Input/Output Control System (IBM)" we can add disambiguation to IOCS.
Once the article is done I would add: {{Redirect-distinguish|Input/Output Control System|Input/Output Control System (Fujitsu)}} to the top of the article
Do you know if "Input/Output Control System" should be capitalised? I'm not sure it should because I'm not sure that it is a proper noun but you can look here to check, and please let us know!
To my laymen's brain: "record oriented access to peripheral equipment" confuses the hell out of me, perhaps you could write a section on "useage" and link to record oriented access (it might be here: Record-oriented filesystem but I don't know!).
You've put in some references, which is great! But the only thing that is referenced at the moment are the different models of computer that use IOCS, try to reference what it does, when it is from and how it was used. Good tips can be found here: Tutorial (Citing sources), Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes
I would put the External Links section above the references, so that the Notes section, and the References section appear together. Although you haven't put any external links in, so you can remove this (external links are not a requirement, but you could try and put in some links to non-commercial links here).
I hope that I made some useful suggestions! Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 09:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It will take me a while to digest and act on your suggestions, but here's my first take.
It turns out that there are two relevant macro articles, Macro (computer science) and Macro instruction; the former was listed in the disambiguation page but the latter is not (IMHO it should be.) I've corrected my tags.
Are you saying that references from within a page to the subject of the page should be pure text rather than links? If so, I have a few other articles to edit ;-) Or are you just pointing out that some of my links were broken?
Would it be wrong to add your suggested redirect tag now?
The IOCS manuals that I have capitalize the titles.
I thought that I was writing in layman's language; obviously I need another pass at adding background information )-:
I don't believe that I have references to any hardware manuals, only to the IOCS manuals. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I have given you a lot to do! :-(
What I was saying was that referenes to the same page should be pure text, so I were to discuss this page, I would just write Wikipedia:Requests for feedback because if I link it, it just looks like this anyway: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback which isn't necessary.
You could put the template in "{{Redirect-distinguish|Input/Output Control System|Input/Output Control System (Fujitsu)}}" but don't put the redirect in, it wouldn't go anywhere! (Redirect pages look like this)
Thank you about the Capitalisation, no we know where to put the article when it is finished ^_^
And sorry for not understanding! It is a specialist subject so I did expect it to be complex but internal links help. Don't make it too simple though, because people likely to be reading this article will have some background knowledge!
No need to apologise; nobody held a gun at my head and forced me to write. I asked for feedback, and you took the time to give me some, which I appreciate. If you didn't understand, that may be a sign that I didn't write at the right level or that I didn't provide enough background. I'll try to flesh it out more.
As for a lot to do, the IOCS article is a piece of cake compared to some of the other articles in my user space, e.g., User:Chatul/System Generation (OS); it's more or less self contained and I won't have to write a half dozen other articles to provide context. For the others, I've found myself linking to articles that don't exist, and unless I can find volunteers I'll have to write them.
What about providing separate sections on 7070 IOCS and 7090 IOCS. Is that a question of too much information, or would it be useful? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"record oriented access to peripheral equipment" - I also do not understand that term. Would contrasting / comparing to the term BIOS help explain IOCS ? AlanDewey (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so; the term BIOS refers to a nominal partition of low level OS functions between a machine dependent part (BIOS) and a machine independent part (BDOS); It doesn't relate to the functionality of file systems. I'll have to craft a few paragraphs of background information and then see if they're intelligible to readers without mainframe experience. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Just mentioning Mainframes helped me in that I now know there is a good reason I never heard the term before, and that everything will be new to me. Your comment regarding BDOS and BIOS is helpful in that it makes it clear that IOCS is different and that difference has a clear distinction. Perhaps briefly mention one of those differences and add link to the wikipedia BIOS article. Then reading the two articles would make it very clear. AlanDewey (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not that BIOS is a different approach, it's that BIOS is a different level. If you were to do something like IOCS for PC-DOS, you would use BIOS or BDOS for its access to the hardware. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Would rewording the lead section something like this help:
Input/Output Control System (IOCS) refers to several software packages on early IBM entry-level and mainframe computers that provided low level software access to peripheral equipment via record oriented access...
I might have got parts of that wrong, but would similar wording help? Captain n00dle\Talk 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd already written some background material; I've merged your suggestion into it. Does it look any better? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you have done, and I can see why you have done that, but unfortunately, according to wikipedias manual of style the paragraph should really mention IOCS in the first sentence. Perhaps you could organise the information something like this? User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox4 Does that help? Captain n00dle\Talk 11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Soemone else caught that when I requested a move to Input/Output Control System. In addition, I did as you suggested and changed some of the bulleted lists to narrative. The article is now in main space awaiting review.
I plan to split out the references to IOCS manuals from the other references and to use {{cite manual}} where appropriate.
Should I change the heading in the feedback entry as part of the cleanup from the move, or is the user-page reference supposed to remain for the record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The article does a good job of introducing the topic in context and provides a number of useful facts. Given that, I focused on improving the expression of the facts you've already selected.
I agree with Captain-n00dle's suggestion to create a "Usage" section and that the list of supported equipment might be clearer in prose, meaning sentence and paragraph form, than in a list.
These sentences confuse me:
"Computers in the 1950s and 1960s..."
"The implementations and nomenclature of the various IOCS packages vary"
"Identify features that it needs" should be more precise if possible
"Specify the processing", same
Areas where additional context would be helpful:
I see the article is in the past tense – but over what date range did IOCS apply? (For example, you could indicate the release dates of software versions that supported IOCS, or the date range during which the applicable hardware was sold.)
Define SPOOL on first usage, something like: "IOCS was designed to coexist with SPOOL, a system for ..."
Is this a tool used for assembly language programming? Any other languages? Indicating this would be helpful, even if it's implied by the kind of systems you're talking about, because it makes the article more accessible to a general audience. This could be as simple as saying "assembly languagemacro instructions" on first reference.
External link: Indicate the relationship between the subject of the manual and the topic of this article, or somehow provide context. Also, indicate which pages in the manual cover the article's topic.
To help meet Wikipedia's notability requirement, it would be useful to cite a reputable source that establishes the technical significance of IOCS – to show that IOCS has received attention. (For example, I cited the two external links at routing table as evidence of notability for route (command).) The more independence, reputability, and significance of coverage, the better. Maybe you can get your hands on a copy of Programming the IBM 360 or A Guide to IBM 1401 Programming (some Google Books results) and find a good reference there.
Copy editing suggestions:
Incorporate the notes into the body. "Other vendors had similar packages, under different names..." can be included <- this can go in the article body, wherever seems most appropriate. probably
To improve readability, try to move references to the ends of phrases or sentences, when appropriate.
When you use {{cite manual}}, indicate a publisher and a date for the manuals, if possible
"Other vendors had similar packages, under different names, e.g., File Control Processor (FCP)[1], GEFRC" - suggest something like this:
IOCS provides functionality similar to File Control Processor in ____, and ___ GEFRC.
I hope these suggestions are helpful to you! --Pnm (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It will take me a while to work throgh all of your suggestions, but as a first take:
I had already planned to convert my references to use {{cite manual}}. For all of the manuals that I cite, the hardware/software vendor is the publisher; I plan to identify the company as the author rather than as the publisher so that the company name will appear first in the citation. For the most part I don't know the dates.
Is it consistent with Wiki style to have a separate list of references specific to IOCS, with group=IOCS, so that it will be clear that the footnotes do not refer to hardware manuals? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with separating references by group, but since it's a short article, I suggest you try to present the references in one list. --Pnm (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:BAND would be the notability standard here, and as he's an unsigned artist who sings with an unsigned band, I can't see how he satisfies it (but have a look at the criteria for yourself). Failing that, you could establish notability by proving that he personally has had significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see WP:N). Note that blogs and other self-published media are not reliable sources (see WP:IRS for more details), and that "significant coverage" means reasonably detailed content about the subject, not just passing mentions, listings or similar. The tone's OK, perhaps a little unencyclopaedic in places, and there are some assertions which need to be sourced for the sake of verifiability but are not. These issues could be addressed once the basic notability problem is overcome. Karenjc 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rescue Chocolate
Please help out with formatting the references in the article Rescue Chocolate.
Thanks in advance,
Bookisha (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Susan (Bookisha), May 31, 2010
Hello Bookisha, and welcome (again) to me your article seems great! But you haven't formatted your references properly, I understand that this can be quite confusing so here is a tutorial and some more information. Basically the <ref></ref> tags go next to the thing you want to be referenced, and the reference goes between them, then they automatically appear at the bottom!
You have also put in lots of internal links like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise] but they are meant to look like this: [[Social enterprise|social enterprise business]]. I have changed the first one to show you: here
You've gone to a great deal of trouble to include many references, although you've not formatted them correctly, and Captain n00dle's advice above will help you to do so effectively. However, I've followed up as many of them as I can, and I have yet to find a single independent source that actually mentions the company or the product, Rescue Chocolate, by name. Since the article is about this subject, you need to provide citations that demonstrate that Rescue Chocolate has already had significant coverage in neutral, reliable secondary sources that actually discuss the company itself, not the social issues it has been formed to address. See WP:COMPANY for the guideline you need to follow here. Unless you can do this, the article will fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines and will almost certainly be speedily deleted if it goes live. I note that the company started only a few months ago, so it may well be hard (but not necessarily impossible) to find references of the quality needed here. If so, the company is probably not yet notable enough to have an encyclopaedia article written about it. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia exists to record things that are already notable, and is not a suitable place to promote new projects. Karenjc 23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:CITE and footnotes. As Karenjc noted, uou included items in a reference section, but not in the way that is appropriate for Wikipedia.--SPhilbrickT 15:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
