Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 18
I need someone with more experience to take over the design of this artical about the actress ilza rosario. she has just appeared in the television movie "Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe" and i wanted to add a wiki about her.
Dw1020 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I've added some links to other articles and categories, you can see what I did by hitting the "history" button at the top. You need to demonstrate she meets the notability guidelines for biographies, by adding more links to reliable, independant references about her. Regards, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
kindly review this article
Director, e-Governance division, Deptt of Informaiton Technology, MoC&IT, India (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your primary initial problems are that your footnotes are based entirely on Indian government sources, and that you've added no categories (see WP:Categories). At significiant portion, or majority, of the footnotes should be from netural, third-party sources (such as news media, academics) etc. Try to find some more footnotes, and also add categories to the end of the page. You may also want to request additional technical input from WP:WikiProject India. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that I have corrected the problem of reliable references on this article about William Hundley. Please let me know if this is satisfactory and if so, how I may move the page William Hundley to the mainpage space and out of the draft stage. I would be more than happy to have someone else take over the creation of this page if that is what is necessary to get it the stage where it can be published in a final form. Thank you!
Olivia Junell (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi,
- On the whole this looks quite good. I've added a few more links to other wikipedia articles. The paragraph about the "Heaven can wait" video is problematic, because as far as I can see, the reference doesn't seem to back up what the article claims. I also think some of the language needs to have a more neutral tone: for example "wildly popular" and "numerous publications and countless blogs and websites" (see WP:PUFFERY).
- It would be really nice to have a picture, but it would have to comply with the the Wikipedia:Image use policy. I wonder if we could persuade the artist to release a low resolution version of one of his photos, to demonstrate his work? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(you don't need to reproduce the article here, just a link in the sub-section title and any comments about issues you're having trouble with in formatting and preparing your article for publication -MV)
Eulah (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I fixed some basic formatting, but you have a few issues. Your only "reference" is "Jersey Heritage - The Jersey Archives", which is extremely general. The article should be footnoted to indicate which particular claims come from which specific source. For example "Eulah was damaged in a storm in 1938 and closed for two years.<ref>''Storm-Damaged Country Estate Re-Opens''. Cardiff Times, February 10 1940</ref>" Without clear footnotes, the information cannot be verified. The resources are not required to be available online (though that's always nice), but clear footnote citations are key to a good quality article. You also need to add categories (WP:Categories) to the article; note that you need to identify and use existing categories, not just tagging terms. I suggest you check out some articles on other English houses to get an idea for which categories are normally applied. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Monaibra (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a good start, but a tourism site is really not the best reference. Fortunately, I checked GoogleBooks, and there appear to be plenty of reputable academic sources covering this location: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&tbo=1&tbm=bks&q=Sannur+Cave&aq=f&aqi=m1&aql=&oq= . I suggest you take a look through these sources and see what you can use to footnote your article. Note you can use http://reftag.appspot.com to automatically turn gBook links into proper WP citations, which can save you a lot of time and make the article look clean. Note I also fixed your categories and did some minor formatting, as well as adding WikiProjects to your Talk page. Do you have any photos of this cave available (ones you took yourself), or know of where to find pics that aren't under someone else's copyright? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a new article and is my first, so I just wanted to get some feedback on it
Vido.ardes (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Please provide decent feedback, I've provided lots of relavant references. Thank you
Starclass (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
i would like to know if this article is acceptable
Ogarro (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just minor cleanup: footnotes go after the punctuation; "it's" means "it is" while "its" means "belonging to it" (common grammar error), and you need to filter out subjective/editorial comments like "The choir was very fortunate to" as non-encyclopedic (just the facts, ma'am). More importantly, you need to convert your "bare URLs" in your footnotes to full citations; check out any established WP article to see how footnotes are given as author/title/publication/date with a clicklable link on the title, vice just "http://www...". MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking for assistance for a review of this new article. Thank you in advance.
Michelle ruane (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good overall, but you need to fix your "bare URLs"/"link rot"; see my explanation to the person above you. Also, if you want to add the company logo, you can upload it to WP (not Wiki Commons) under the WP:Fair use provision. Just make sure you explicitly select the right logo/FU criteria on the drop-down menu of the upload form, and attribute the source. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone review this article for me:Laurie Rosenwald?
I think I've followed all the guidelines (I'm new at wiki-editing), and I'd like the message at the top to go away...
602chrystie (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Same as the guy above you, and the guy above him: fix your "link rot" by turning the "http://www..." footnotes into proper citations. I also note you have several good interviews in the "External links"; I strongly advise you go through those to add more footnotes to the article, as that'll make it yet stronger. You need to remove footnote #7, as you can't cite WP articles on WP; instead wikilink it with double-brackets. Likewise, links to outside websites are strongly discouraged in the main body of the article, so for " Galleri Konstepidemin", remove the external link and instead wikilink it; it it's a red-link (for no existing article), so be it. On a minor layout comment, your many short paragraphs make things a bit choppy; see if you can smooth out the flow and avoid having one-sentence paragraphs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
-->User:MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- thanks!
Request for feedback
DeePatton (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, the article does not yet give two independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability per [[WP:Notability (people). I've moved it to your drafting space on your userpage until it does so, as articles not meeting Notability in the mainspace are subject to immediate deletion. Note also that your article lacks categories, your links are bare URLs, and that people are not referred to by title on WP; after the first introduction, he should be referred to as "Pasik" throughout. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The article was written regarding an internet company, SendThisFile. It covers it's brief history, what it does and how it works. I wrote it when I realized it wasn't listed on wikipedia so I figured I would add it. I think you will find sufficient references and links as well as a neutral tone. Cheers!
Techprivateer (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just barely makes notability with two references from Wichita media; I note that your other footnotes don't appear to establish the notability of STF, they just validate statements made about file size policies in general. If at all possible, it'd be good to add a couple (non-Wichita?) sources to demonstrate that media outside of your physical area have written about the company, in business/tech news, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
is this article/page of the requisite quality to go live?
Grandmadge (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- A few issue; most of your categories are not the names of existing cats, that's why they're showing up in red. You need to use already existing categories. Most of those cats exist, you're just not using the name they go by. Also all your links are "bare URL"s. Note that I address that issue several times in requests above yours on this page. Finally, some of your footnotes seem a bit off, in that they go to a main page rather than to a page which proves a fact about Wallen. Are you saying that the main Hotchkiss.com page has statements about him? Footnotes must be evidence of some claim about the subject, not just random links. Fix your cats, turn your links into full citations (check out any established Wikipedia article for how good citations look) and check back in here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I have posted all kinds of commendations we have received, but most of our press is pretty old. I don't really want to include it now. will the commendations suffice?
BookEndsLA (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, we have no evidence of those commendations since you provide no footnotes, and also just being listed on a list of awardees does not meet the benchmarks of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Find neutral, third party articles substantively discussing the subject. Note the other tags I put at the top of your page for things to fix. Also, when you list out a series of items, put an asterisk at the front of each, and they'll turn into a bulleted list. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note that you also have a conflict of interest on this topic, so I advise you read WP:Conflict of interest. You have to be extra, extra careful to be neutral and provide plenty of third party references of notability, and terms such as "follow us on Facebook" are absolutely non-encyclopedic, so please winnow those out. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on creating my first article and looking for any feedback I can get.
Catemonsterq (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- You need to spell out your links as full author/title/publisher/date citations, and choose categories that actually exist (showing up as blue links vice red). Also minor note: people are referred to by last name, so she should be "Loebe" throughout the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Please review this article. It is only my second one. Thanks.