Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 November 11

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

Rich Constable

This style page is considered a stub, correct?

ELSOSA (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

• You have no external links, so I removed the section
• You have a few references to support some information about this person, but I don't see any indication the subject meets Notability requirements. I don't believe a Deputy Commission of a state agency automatically is deemed notable, so I urge you to find reliable sources discussing work he has done, positions he has taken, or something other than CV material.
• I'm not entirely sure when grouped references would be appropriate (frankly, I've never seen them before), but I see no particular value in this case. Was this deliberate? Do you have any objection to using the more traditional reference numbering?
• Bare urls are acceptable but a full citation is better. I've fixed the first one as a model. I personally find it very helpful to use the optional citation gadget. To install, go to "My preferences", select the rightmost tab "Gadgets", the check the box next to refTools (in the Editing gadgets section). Once installed, it will add a new button "Cite" to your editing toolbar. Click on it to add a citation. Makes it much easier.--SPhilbrickT 16:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States

I created this article after it was on the "on this day..." for January 11, but the report itself didn't have a page. It's my first, and it's something that I care about, as it's the reason that all four of my grandparents quit smoking, and it probably saved some of their lives. Nevertheless, I'm trying to be neutral and I think I've done a good job. What I would like review and advice on is the following:
General:
1)Basic review, see how the article is doing, what to improve, etc. etc. The new unreviewed article tag is starting to irritate me as it's almost been a year. Is the expansion tag still necessary? Any other ideas or concerns I can't see because of my involvement would be appreciated.
2)Ideas for what else could be put in. I'm not asking for you to do all the work unless you want to, but I would like some ideas on where to go with it. It still seems like many sections could be expanded, but I have no idea what else I can add, and hopefully a new mind can see other things that I've missed. Which brings me to-
3)How do I spread the word about it? I'm not exactly new to wikipedia, but I'm not very active and I'm still learning how the community works. Where can I go to hopefully get more editors interested in it so it isn't just me? I feel like I'm running the page, and I'd rather avoid any ownership issues.
Specific:
1)The name is accurate, but unwieldy. What redirects would be appropriate, i.e. Smoking and Health (with a did you mean health effects of smoking?) or surgeon general's report on smoking? I can think of many permutations, which would be effective at satisfying WP:REDIRECT?
2)Two of the big content contributions from others are in the findings section regarding the report saying smoking isn't an addiction. The first was essentially saying that this was an error later corrected, the second basically overwriting the first and saying smoking is not an addiction. While I personally believe smoking is an addiction, I'm by no means an expert so I did my best to bring it to a middle ground. Did I handle it well, or poorly? Does it seem neutral? Is there research which states that tobacco smoking does or does not satisfy the medical definition of an addiction, instead of making me put two and two together, which would be original research? I've looked and haven't found anything.
Thanks,

Somedaypilot (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• In general it looks pretty good.
• I understand your concerns about the title length, but I don't see any obvious shortenings, so unless there's a policy limit, I'd leave it as is.
• A redirect is a good idea. Personally, I always call it the Surgeon general's report. However, there are a number of reports, so I suggest "Surgeon General Report smoking". That seems to me like a logical search term, and will be unique once the reader gets to "report"
• For next steps, I suggest you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness. That page will include a list of participants. I suggest you contact a couple at their talk page, let them know you've added this article, but would like some more detailed feedback. Article assessments are usually done by Wikiprojects, so that can be requested. Some of the participants may be more active than others—I don't know any of them myself, so consider posting to one or two, if no response in a couple days, pick a couple others.
• I'm surprised how few participants at the Health Wikiproject. It seems like the logical one, but you might also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine --SPhilbrickT 17:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Macedo

Please review my article about Ricardo Macedo, who is one of the leading Personal Trainers in London, the UK, the article provides a quick background check on Ricardo Macedo and details regarding Ricardo's credentials and contributions.

Seoworkz (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Isle_Park_Raceway

MayFlowerCornelia (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Article is a hoax from a known vandal, marked for speedy deletion. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Letajici_cihla/SugarScape

I've tried to write article about Sugarscape simulation. It's my first piece of work here. Could anybody please give me some feedback ? :) Letajici cihla (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• If I may be blunt, seeing three misspelled words in the lede wasn't a good start. while my typing skills are abysmal, and my talk comments may be littered with problems, I try to make sure my article space work is spelled correctly.
• "Nowadays" isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia (used more than once)
• Please see Article Layout to see how to do subsections.
• Bare links to external sites (such as the link to "tricky" in the Principles section) is discouraged. You've demonstrated the ability to do references, all external links should be done as references.
• The phrase "SugarScape on steroids" is not encyclopedic
• The example.com link is provided as an example to show you how to format an external link. If you don't have any, you should remove the link and the section.--SPhilbrickT 01:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:AurynInc/Auryn Inc.

I would like to have this article uploaded as soon as possible. It describes the history and work of an animation company in LA.

Is this article acceptable for Wikipedia? If yes, then please, upload it as soon as possible. If no, then what do I need to improve?

AurynInc (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At present, the article is highly promotional, and not neutral in tone. See WP:ARTSPAM and WP:TONE for more information. Even if the tone is substantially improved, you need multiple references to reliable sources discussing the company.--SPhilbrickT 23:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures

Please review so it can become part of Wikipedia!

Hilaryb90 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of good and interesting information in your draft. Unfortunately, there are a number of points which need addressing:

• First, while not all articles need photographs, this is the type of article that does benefit from photos. You've added several mice photos, but there are some problems with each on them. One has been noted at your talk page, but I see similar issues with the other pictures in the article. If you simply click on each image, it will bring you to the page with the image and a note about the problems. I suspect the problems can be easily addressed, but if they aren't the photos may be removed.
• The photo of the museum itself seems to be cropped at both the bottom and top, making it hard to view. Is there a better version?
• It is acceptable to have a factual claim in the lede section without a reference, if that claim is part of an appropriate summary of the article, and the claim is referenced where it occurs in the main article. The lede mentions "over a million objects", but I did not see a reference there, nor did I see the claim with a reference in the main article.
• You've followed some of the Article Layout guidelines, but not others. You've identified main sections appropriately, but not subsections. The link with give you more information about how to do the subsection titles properly.
• An "In the News" section isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia.
• Some decent references, but it would be better if they weren't bare urls. See Referencing for beginners for help, or footnotes, if that was too basic.
• The link in external links was provided to show you how to do it, if you don't have one, the section should be removed.
• The single bullet pointed item in the Archeological Photographic and Note Collection section looks out of place.--SPhilbrickT 00:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Jaime070996#EL_SALVADOR

This section is a machine-translation of parts of http://www.elbaloncuscatleco.com/historia.html. I was told by Fae that "translations can be a good basis to draft an article (in your userspace) and ask for comment using WP:RFF."

Jaime070996 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you have a good article here that can provide many good citations. It has several translation errors or is unclear in English in places, with words such as "aofficial" and phrases like "Thinking of a good paper, ..." standing out just in the first few sentences. Machine translators can do that. As far as I can tell, it is a translation and rephrasing instead of just a direct translation. This is a good thing, as it seems like you are learning from past mistakes with copyright violations, but it also means I can't always figure out what you meant to say. Of course, my Spanish is a bit rusty, but you get the idea. As for the source, make sure it fulfills wp:reliable and that you are steering clear of just copying and pasting blocks of text, as even with the translation I'm fairly certain that's still a wp:copyright violation. My best advice is to check and make sure you aren't violating any copyright issues, read it out loud to yourself a few times and edit the errors and oddities, then expand the existing article with what you have. You can cite the source as is no need for translation, but be sure it mark the source as Spanish language. Once it's live on the article, other editors will come along and fix the English errors, there are many editors who just do copy editing for grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Don't worry too much if it isn't perfect when you put it up, Wikipedia is not on a deadline nor is it ever expected to be complete.

On a personal note, you seem to be very passionate about the team and that article. Keep it up, we can always use good editors. Somedaypilot (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)