Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 September 30
How can my article on RoE be improved? Juss Sayin' 00:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh.Cyrus (talk • contribs) 00:15, 30 September 2010
- It needs to be written from a neutral point-of-view, using facts from independent, reliable sources. FaceBook, blogs, etc. are not reliable sources.
- You need to show why the game meets notability requirements - ie significant coverage in references to e.g. newspaper articles.
- See also WP:NOTMANUAL. Chzz ► 15:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Feodor mak (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've corrected some formatting, and another user has worked on the references - see the page history.
- Please try to rewrite the first section, so that it tells us what the subject is, and summarizes the rest of the article. Currently, it does not even mention 2010 Youth Olympics. It needs context. Please see WP:LEDE.
- There are quite a lot of facts with no reference - for example, The reflective surfaces is meant to act as a mirror, reflecting images of its surroundings as it goes along and it is fueled by propane cans and it able to last for more then 10 minutes. As with previous Olympic torches, the torch requires a key to be activated., It is also used to keep backup flames lit, so that the torch may be re-lit from it should the torch go out and at least 3 were kept lit during the duration of the relay., all of 'Aircraft', etc. - everything should be verifiable. Chzz ► 16:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The article adresses a specific unit operation within the industry, more specifically the food industry. References will be added progressively.
Denoyelle (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- This has no references at all; a core policy of Wikipedia is verifiability - you must say where the information comes from. Otherwise, it appears to be original research, which is not permitted. Chzz ► 16:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
For once it's me making a request (!). Not sure about how to properly display the different speed/distance conversions. I'm going to try and add more references when I get the chance. Thanks for any feedback that you might give :-)
Chevymontecarlo 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone beat me to it. See Template:Convert and Template:Convert/check. Chzz ► 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have added the UK based charity ICT4Autism. I have tried to be as informative as possible. Would appreciate feedback as only my second page. Thanks.
Andyhuggett (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- All articles need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, etc. - this is essential, to show notability. See WP:GNG.
- Articles need to be verifiable - through appropriate sources. ICT4Autism was founded early in 2010 - so, where can I check this fact? when following the diagnosis of her own son's autism a governing deed was drawn up between the founding trustee and two other trustees - according to whom? See WP:V, WP:CITE.
- Please remove the external links within the main article; see WP:EL.
- Please remove the names of non-public figures. Chzz ► 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Lexineibart (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:ADVERT and WP:CORP, Only has a primary source.
I have been working on this entry after receiving some feedback a few weeks ago. I'd appreciate any further comments.
Ktraino1 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- It appears to be a neologism, and although mentioned in some sources, I do not consider the references to represent significant coverage per WP:GNG. It looks like a disguised promotion for nerdgirls.com. Refs 1 and 2 are primary sources, the third maybe OK, the last is PR. So, overall, fails to meet notability requirements, I think. Chzz ► 06:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Chzz. I understand what you're saying about the 'promotion' part -- I guess I was trying to add info that would show NerdGirls' reach (as a nonprofit) but I failed to do it correctly :) As for the primary references, I want to make sure I understand before I try again.... If the refs are from publications independent of NerdGirls, which I considered secondary, what is making them primary? (One is directly from nerdgirls.com, and that one I understand!) Is it a question of whether the paraphrased/quoted content comes from NerdGirls originally, and is just reproduced in the secondary source? I just want to make sure I understand so I can correct the issue and pick more appropriate research. I appreciate your time and help.
I don't know if this article is already fit for publishing. It contains several links to verify the entry. Thanks for reviewing it.
Bryaned (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- As of now, it is live. I do not know if it passes the notability requirements of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. There does not appear to be significant coverage of the person. Chzz ► 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like that somebody reads the article, that he corrects my bad english and that he removes the unreviewed box.
DACONTI (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Usually the unreviewed box (we call them 'tags') is only removed after someone provides a review, like I am doing right now ;) You need to be careful with the article's tone. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to sound like advertisements. See WP:POV for more information. Also, try and add more references if you can, because it's definitely lacking. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo - alt 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chevymontecarlo, many thx for your tips (by the way this is my first wikipedia article). I added few more references and I try to move the article to a more neutral position next week.
- Excellent! Don't forget to type the four tildes after your posts (~~~~) Chevymontecarlo - alt 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Question about stub[edit]
I could not understand the page on recommending stubs, and since it probably would be a good idea to have some kind of article on graph-theoretic periodic graphs, I posted one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_Graph_(Graph_Theory) . Per the discussion page, this is intended to be a stub that would distinguish between periodic graphs in graph theory and the quite different periodic graphs in geometry (for which I posted two articles, Periodic Graphs (Crystallography) and Periodic Graph (Geoemetry)). If there is a difficulty, please let me know.
Glmccolm (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The article has received attention from several editors since it was posted, is currently tagged as needing a lead section and general improvement, but overall appears to be an acceptable stub. Karenjc 20:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This only my second article. Could use some guidance/input. Thanks.
LeaveDogLights (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Consider adding something like an infobox. Also, I don't really understand the way you've done the references. Usually there's just one list for both the printed (i.e. book/magazine) references and the web references, but you seem to have done something different....If you're happy with that, you can certainly leave it as it is if you want, but personally I don't understand it. Nice job with the references though, and I like you've added all the links and categories - not many new articles have those :) Chevymontecarlo - alt 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This is my first article. Can somebody assist in cleaning this article? Vatelschool (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is almost entirely referenced to campusfrance, which is not independent. There are non-neutral claims from the primary source, which is inappropriate. Example, 24 campuses in 14 countries - according to who? It must be verifiable. It is advert-like. Sections such as "Key Dates" should not be included, see WP:NOT.