Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive21

William Fehr

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Could somebody please review this page? Its probably no more than a stub, but at the very least it would be nice if the "unreviewed article" template could be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasdell (talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed, tweaked, added some cats and a talk page project template. – ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on User:Hezimmerman/new article name

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hezimmerman/new article name here

I've put in the article I have as a temporary file.

This is fairly long and involved a lot of work. But it eventually will need chemical drawings in places.

But for now I need to know if it is acceptable as a good review of some imporants organic chemistry.

Fine-tuning the article with drawings will take time but is not necessary at this point.

In short, I don't want to re-do all this work. Improvements are possible but re-doing all of it is not reasonable.

Thus do give advice, an opinion, regarding whether it is to be deleted. If it is, I will know not to do more work on it.

As I've noted elsewhere, I submitted this as a result of several suggestions of people who liked the material and did not know all of it came from one source.

Hezimmerman (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is but it is not an encyclopedia article. If you intend it to be a repository for your own research, a collection of source material for personal use, or snippets for a curriculum vitae I am afraid that is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia and should be tagged for deletion accordingly. If it is supposed to be an article it needs a lot more work, particularly in stating exactly what it's supposed to be about. – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to add that I concur. Obviously, a lot of work was done. Please make sure to make a copy of it somewhere so it isn't lost. I have no idea what it is for, but it doesn't look remotely like an article.--SPhilbrickT 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is an old academic who clearly is finding it difficult to come to terms with wikipedia. He needs help not biting. I have just removed a prod notice on his user page. I have also been trying to improve the WP article on him at Howard Zimmerman. He is clearly notable, but the article needs improving. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is biting and no one is denying that this user is probably notable. That was a speedy tag on the user page, not a PROD, because as far as I am concerned it is a c.v. and way too overboard for a user page. As regards User:Hezimmerman/new article name here, I am prepared to assume good faith, but it is most certainly not a draft article. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As to your "new article name" , Wikipedia is not a gazetteer to list every work you published or worked on, it is not CiteBase. It has no content, only a list of products produced by a person named "Howard Zimmerman", and not a very well presented list at that. If you handed that as a "biography" to a 9th Grade English teacher, I'd hate to see the grade s/he'd give you. Think of what you could hand-in as a biography assignment given in High School English Class. If it won't pass muster for that, then it probably won't here either. Only list works that were award winning or greatly cited by others (non Howard Zimmerman people and groups), or which third parties (not related to organizations involved with Howard Zimmerman) consider significant works. Then work these papers/studies into paragraph form that an English teacher would give a passing grade on, with footnotes. Describe why these papers/studies are influential, award winning, or greatly cited. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

stephen miles

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Created a new article on Stephen Miles

Leadershipadvisory (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the draft is too promotional in tone to survive if moved to the mainspace. Mr Miles may be notable per WP:BIO but the article needs toning down a lot to a neutral point of view. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pomodoro Technique

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate feedback and suggestiions for improving this article about a time-management technique. Thank you in advance. Pomodorotechnique (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds potentially interesting, but your references are extremely sketchy.

The first one is understandable, but doesn't qualify as a reliable source. The second is a reliable source, but only mentions the technique in a minor way. The third and fourth refs gave me "not found " errors. The seventh ref worked, but I didn't find "pomodoro" in it.--SPhilbrickT 18:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Historian

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I have posted an article on personal historian and solicit your feedback.

Thanks Lax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakade (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you post it? It's not showing up in your contributions nor does Personal Historian exist. – ukexpat (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Z Public Limited Editions

{{Done}} - page deleted, expired PROD. – ukexpat (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Z Public Limited Editions (Andywuhol 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywuhol (talk • contribs)

Sid Dickens

{{Done}} Article in mainspace (advice apparently ignored); tagged with issues. – ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Spittingfeathers/SidDickens

Can someone help edit my article -- the problem I'm running into is that there hasn't been much published on this artist, though he is clearly well-known and there are many websites that sell/discuss his work. Therefore I don't have many references as there isn't much biographical information online. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spittingfeathers (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are going to run into the verifiability vs. truth issue. He may well be notable as that term is used outside Wikipedia, but for Wikipedia purposes, reliable sources to verify claims of notability are essential. So, without them you face a bit of an uphill battle. Don't forget that sources do not have to be online, although that is preferred for ease of verification. Offline sources, if you can find them, are perfectly acceptable so long as they are referenced in such a way that someone can actually find the source (newspaper, magazine etc) and read it to verify.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mutual Engagement

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added an article on Mutual Engagement and would appreciate feedback.

Many thanks

Nickbk (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A good start. Have a look at the manual of style to see how we use capital letters in headings. Only the first word should be capitalised. So the article should be moved to Mutual engagement; that's easy to do using the Move tab at the top of the page. And you need to be consistent throughout. Another style thing is that you have put a number of words and phrases in bold that shouldn't be. Just remove the bold and it will be fine. I thought the reader could do with more context. Consider starting off not with "Mutual engagement is... " but with "In the psychology of work, Mutual engagement is...". I might have got that wrong, though and perhaps the concept doesn't relate to psychology of work, but to some other discipline. It could still be useful to the reader to know. You should link to Etienne Wenger and any other theorists who have used the term or whose work is relevant. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed further, removed the tag and made a few other clean up/formatting edits,. – ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review new page Satan's Pilgrims

{{done}}

The new page about the instrumental surf band, Satan's Pilgrims,can be found at User:Crowdesign/Satan's Pilgrims.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowdesign (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your footnotes need tighetening up, but before working on that, make sure you can establish Notability. That link is general, for more specific advice, see WP:MUSIC.--SPhilbrickT 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

{{done}}

I am writing this article for a history class I am taking at the University of Maryland. I was wondering if anyone could provide me with constructive criticism on how I can improve this article. Any feedback would be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodarre (talk • contribs) 05:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opening sentence assumes the reader knows what a safety fuse is. Start with an introduction, directed at people who might not be familiar with the object.

Please review Article Layout for some suggestions for improvement.

Your current structure is a single long section. Think about how to break it into two or three relevant sections.

Unfortunately, I have to suggest that you read Fuse (explosives). At first glance, I see a lot of overlap, so you'll have to figure out if your exposition can be distinguished from the existing article.--SPhilbrickT 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Institute of Land Administration

{{done}}

Requesting feedback. Institute of Land Administration Smwiti (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You've jumped too quickly into details without a proper introduction.

For example, you mention it is in East Africa, but you don't mention the country.

One might guess it is a college or university, but those guesses would be wrong.

Start by telling us what is it, and where it is. With whom is it affiliated? When was it created?

The sentence starting "possible employers" and the sentence closing "this is an education for you" are not appropriate.

You need to establish Notability with references to reliable sources

If you can address these issues, then look at footnotes for suggestions on how to properly include references.--SPhilbrickT 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic Language 2

{{done}}

user:Rick206/Dynamic Language This article is about a communications company I heard about located in Washington State. It is in a subpage. I would like to add a picture as well if this possible after the move is allowed. Thank you for reviews and remarks. Much appreciated. Rick206 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As before, you still need to provide more third party, secondary sources that support claims of notability. The tone is also a little spammy so that will need some work. Also take a look at WP:FAQO. – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to request another review to see if the above issues have been resolved or are making progressive steps toward a mainspace article? Thank you!

Rick206 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The added sources do not add a lot of the mentioned necessary press coverage in WP:CORP. Please add more information of third party, secondary sources if possible to document notability. The revenue alone is not reason for notability alone, although this could be argued. Furthermore, there could be the question of WP:COI with your username. Are you related to the company? --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am aware of the COI rules. It is truly a coincidence. My only relation to the company is that I have used their services. I have never personally dealt with their higher management and thus never knew the gentleman's name was Rick until beginning this article. But I see the cause for COI. How do I go about resolving that situation to not conflict with COI?

Also, if you wouldn't mind clarifying, as article writing is new to me: "The revenue alone is not a reason for notability?" Would revenue mean the location of the sources? The sources I found are all articles about the company or founders. Is it not possible to use that as notability? Thank you for your help. Much appreciated! Rick206 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to do anything about the coincidence of your username with the the VP of the company. I just wanted to make sure. For revenue, I referred to the values on the linked page on inc.com. However, I cannot access this page anymore at the moment. I just wanted to note that independent third party, secondary sources are desired that explain the importance. The fact that a company is listed with a profile even with a certain revenue may not be enough to render it notable. Could you please check the currently broken link? Thanks, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Galen Institute

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Andrewpsroyal/Galen Institute

Hello,

Was hoping someone could look over the article on the Galen Institute I created in my user space and give some feedback before I post it. Thanks! Andrewpsroyal (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comments on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Bearman/Maxwell_L._Anderson

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to try editing myself since I'm now co-hosting a meeting this spring with the Wikimedia Foundation on museum staff involved in editing wikipedi and have been feeling that I should at least have done it once.

This article User:David Bearman/Maxwell L. Anderson is a first stab at introducing someone who has played an important role in driving American art museums to the adoption of new media and online technologies. I first became involved with Max Anderson in the mid 1990's when I was directing the Getty Art Museum Image Consortium an he was a player on the Board. Since then I ve watched him in numerous roles in driving high tech in US Art Museums, most recently introducing the Dashboard feature at the Indianapolis Museum of Art which edp[oses all their data to the public. This 'stub-like' bio doesn't go into all that though if it is ok as is I may try adding some references to the important role Max has played in these efforts over the years. Feedback of any sort would be welcomed. David Bearman (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)David Bearman, Jan. 8 2010

I have reviewed the draft and made some formatting and other edits. You need to brush up on how to link to other Wikipedia articles (using double square brackets, not ref tags) and a few other Wikipedia editing tricks! Anyway, I cleaned it up for you, but I still have concerns that the tone is a little bit too "press release"/promotional. I also posted a welcome message on you talk page with lots of useful links. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hotel Tofo Mar

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please can someone review and release the article on Hotel Tofo Mar User:FBImagineering/Hotel Tofo Mar

There is some historical importance of the hotel that I am still finding out but a treaty was signed with regards to Mozambique independence at this hotel and it is one of the oldest hotels in the area..

FBImagineering (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the article does not indicate how or why the subject is notable per WP:N - the sources cited do not provide the significant coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability. Also, your user page is promotional in violation of WP:UP and your username appears to be a violation of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lactic acid fermentation

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Soo… I’ve been working on lactic acid fermentation for a few days, and want to know what you all think about it. I’m reasonably sure that it conforms to standard policy, except for the decided lack of references in the first few sections. I’m right on fixing that, but am being lazy (and occupied with schoolwork), so will probably get to it in the next couple of days.

Thank you! Just for comparison, this is the article before I began. It was, um, pretty bad. Insorak ♫ talk 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. I made a couple of minor formatting changes. – ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Cornish

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My first attempt at creating an article from scratch, and also my first attempt at writing about a person (and one who is still living). It arose from people asking who created the sculpture of Paddington Bear in Paddington railway station in London, which I photographed. I would welcome any feedback on the article. I'm particularly concerned about whether or not the subject meets the notability guidelines for articles about people. Many thanks in advance to anyone who can spare a few minutes to review and comment. -- DMS (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! Judging from the sources you have cite he is most definitely notable. I made a couple of formatting changes. I think it is worthy of a DYK nomination. Will keep you posted on that. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination: Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on January 10. – ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- DMS (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Out on Film

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is my first time posting an article and I would welcome any input. Out on Film Thanks Jim Jgfl1 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed and made some small formatting changes, and I removed some material that sounded obviously promotional. I also tagged it with an advert tag as I think the tone needs a little more work. – ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

MC Zenzei

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

MC Zenzei

Hi!! I just want some feedback on mi article about this new rapper in Mexico who is making the critics crazy, so ill wait for some feedback thanks! MC Zenzei--Zenzei2010 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Jaime Rene Aguayo Lopez,17/1/2010--Zenzei2010 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fatal problem: this is the English Wikipedia and we only accept articles in English. You are welcome to translate the article into English, but if you do, you will have to make sure that the subject meets the notability requirements set out in WP:MUSICBIO. including some reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Article has now been speedily deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Zenzei

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to have a feedback so this page would stay here, this is a rapper that is in Mexico and he is a good artist he is making the critics crazy over here so I will wait for the feedback and thakss!!! godbless!!

Zenzei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenzei2010 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

See above - the article has been deleted because it did not indicate why the subject is notable - please see WP:MUSICBIO. Not every rapper is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. – ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

titanmoon

{{Done}} - discussion can proceed on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, please give me some feedback on my article about titanmoon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Indiekitten/Titanmoon I know I should have some references here but which things should be referenced? When I look at pages for similar entries like Black Tie Dynasty the references are for accomplishments. Maybe I should linke to a newspaper article about their tour? (I think we are not supposed to link the the band's website itself?) Thank you for your time!

(Indiekitten (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia aims to have every statement it contains referenced to a reliable source. Of course, most pages on Wikipedia do not meet this standard, although all articles classified as "good" or "featured" do. Unreferenced information in an article is subject to removal, especially if they are about a living person.

Beyond living people, the most important statements to reference in an article are the ones that establish the notability of the article's subject. For bands, the notability guideline are WP:BAND. Black Tie Dynasty's claim to notability is that they peaked at #8 on a Billboard chart, which the article writer referenced with a link to Allmusic. Your article on Titanmoon does not yet establish Titanmoon's notability. Read WP:BAND, add information about how they meet that notability guideline, and then source that information to reliable sources.

If you have any questions related to these suggestions or editing in general, contact me by clicking on the "talk" in my signature. You can also find help at the Wikipedia:New contributor's help page. Liqudluck✽talk 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

THank you for your help! I added two television performances and will work on adding more "notable" things! I think I can move this over though safely now without fear of speedy deletion. Indiekitten (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how this band meets the notability guidelines in WP:BAND. There is also only one source and that is of dubious reliability. You need to fix this quickly otherwise it will be tagged for deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok - under the notability WP:BAND listed above by LiquidLuck, it says performance on a television show is a qualification of notability. I am also going to add one other thing - there is also video of the performance on youtube - should I link to that as well to verify? Indiekitten (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, YouTube is not considered a reliable source, see WP:YT. – ukexpat (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on all this- working on it Indiekitten (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have added some more information (notability) and references, although I'm not sure I've done the references right because sometimes a couple of facts have been referenced in the same article. Indiekitten (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job adding references and notability! Liquidluck✽talk 08:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

SRT Communications

{{Done}}

New article on SRT Communications at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRT_Communications/SRT_Communications. Please provide constructive help.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SRT Communications (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but at the moment this reads like an advertisement masquerading as an article. Please take a close look at WP:SPAM. Also, there are no references that support the alleged notability of the subject - please take a look at WP:RS. Finally (for now) your user name is clearly in breach of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian Youngs/Enormous (band)

{{Done}} - moved to mainspace

Kindly requesting feedback for my first article, about the music band called Enormous User:Ian Youngs/Enormous (band)
Thank you.
Ian Youngs (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed and made some formatting tweaks. I think it's ready to be moved to the mainspace - let me know if you need help doing that. – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

SRT Communications 2

{{Done}}

SRT Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Entry, feedback please!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tealswanson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealswanson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Same comment as yesterday (I reverted your deletion of my previous comment - please do not refactor discussions on project pages like this one) - it is way too promotional in tone and needs to be edited so that it reads from a neutral point of view otherwise it will be tagged for speedy deletion. It also does not indicate how or why the company is notable per WP:CORP nor does it have any references from reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ukexpat. I did delete your comments, but tried to recover them after I saw what I had done. I apologize for that. I appreciate your input on the entry, and would like you to continue to help me with the entry. I have tried to change the tone, but specific examples would be helpful on how you think they should read. As far as being notable - I am simply trying to add and update to what was posted earlier by someone else under Souris River Telecommunications. I am not sure how they "proved" notability at that time, but would guess that if the company was notable then, it should be now, especially with more information. I have added the company website as a reference. Again, and additional feedback is appreciated! tealswanson Tealswanson (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The company's own website is a self-reference and cannot be used to support notability. If you take a look at WP:RS, you will see the kind of thing we need - significant coverage in the press or other media. If the company is notable as required by WP:CORP, it must have received some press coverage somewhere. That would be a good place to start. As for the tone, the stuff in he "products and services" section looks like it came out of the company's marketing materials, phrases such as: With the push of a button a person can contact emergency personnel.; SRT can provide Internet service to rural and city homes; Home and business security systems are monitored 24 hours by a UL approved monitoring station, and can include intruder detection, fire alarms, carbon monoxide detection, surveillance, and more.. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help. As I mentioned, the website has been added as a reference in response to the "It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. Tagged since January 2010." tag. Would you agree that there is now a reference, and agree to remove this negative tag?

I have re-written the Products & Services section, would you please review and also remove the "advertisement" tag?

As for notability, I am still confused by this. Can I put links under a "notes" section that would link to coverage? For example http://minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/535586.html or http://minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/535094.html or http://minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/533290.html? Or something more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAGIC_Fund_(Minot) (mentioned in paragraph 4 of History section)? Can you tell me what makes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Communications notable, for example? That may be helpful. Thank you! Tealswanson (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will change it to "refimprove", but it will need heavy improvement, and will remove the advert tag, though I still have concerns about the tone. As for notability, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference - as a tertiary source, Wikipedia is not reliable for this purpose. Rather than just slap those other external links in the references section, please use them as citations for the text, as explained in WP:CITE (and as done in MAGIC Fund (Minot). As for Midcontinent Communications, that probably isn't notable as it stands either and I will tag it accordingly, but please note that "other stuff exists" is not a helpful argument, we are talking about this article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am continuing to try to make improvements, and have the offer of help from another user. Please understand, I was not trying to "turn in" Midcontinent Communications, simply trying to look at articles of businesses I am familiar with and what they are doing on Wikipedia so I better understand how to make the SRT Communications page better. Tealswanson (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and you are going about this the right way by seeking help. I will mark this request as done so that it is archived and I will add the article to my watchlist. – ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mungo Mackay

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote an article on Mungo Mackay. He is mentioned in several Wiki articles but does not have his own article. I request feedback and suggestions on my draft in my filespace. Block1945 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good start at User:Block1945/Mungo Mackay. A few notes:

• There are some punctuation errors. Inline citations go after periods (.<ref...) and some general clean up is needed (In November of 1775 Massachusetts... doesn't have one at all)
• Verification is a little hard. Not everything needs to be online but it looks like several parameters are missing. provide as much information as possible. See [[1]]. You don't need to use the templates but it shows the common details mentioned in various formats. When using a reference multiple times, give the initial reference a name so that it can be reused without additional citations.
• It appears to be underlinked wiklink wise/not descriptive enough. Try adding some clarification or links to the lead.
• James Otis is a disambiguation page. Which one is it. Also, adding a line to why his testimony was important or what its effect was would be good.
• You might want to clarify Newcastle, England just to be on the safe side.
• The subsection headings seem off. Use a higher level section heading (ie ==Early life==, ==Revolution==, ==Post...==) or similar. Also, do not use title case for section headings. Drop the capitalization on the second word if it is not a proper noun.

Alan Heston

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello wikipedia world. I have created the User:Resumerenovators/Alan Heston wiki. I'd appreciate any feedback for this article about an economist notable for his contributions to purchasing power parity and national income calculations.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resumerenovators (talk • contribs) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does look like he is notable and merits an article. However, to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, an article's subject must demonstrate significant coverage in third party publications- publications neither Heston nor UPENN is affiliated with. For example, this New York Times article. Offline references to reliable journals or other media are also acceptable. "Signficant" doesn't mean an entire article, but something greater than a trivial mention.

In addition, while the article starts off well, the latter part of the article is very listy and reads like a resume. It also looks like it was copy-and-pasted into the article, which likely violates copy-right. You can either make it prose or delete it- don't worry about creating a short article, as long as it shows notability. Almost all Wikipedia articles are works in progress.

Finally, add more references to your article. You got the information from somewhere, so cite it. See WP:Referencing for beginners for help.

Nice start to an informative article on a good topic! If you have further questions, you can contact me by clicking the "talk". Liqudluck✽talk 02:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Garth Jones

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Please be patient as this is my first attempted/proposed article.

The subject Alfred Garth Jones (User:GarthJones/Alfred Garth Jones) was a notable illustrator around 1900-1901 as well as being my Great Uncle. Some information is a bit sketchy but I hope the article does attain the required Wikipedia standard.

Thanks for any feedback!

GarthJones (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a notable subject. I'd recommend watching your conflict of interest, though- you're not so connected that I'd tell you not to contribute at all, but make sure not to simply remove cited criticism or negative details that other editors might add to the article. Instead, discuss it on the article's talk page.

On to the article itself! You'll need to cite where you got your information by adding inline references- see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. As a quick example:

"At that time, Thomas Jones was a Mechanical Draughtsman although he later progressed to become an Engineering Lecturer".<ref>reference material</ref> produces: "At that time, Thomas Jones was a Mechanical Draughtsman although he later progressed to become an Engineering Lecturer". On the actual article, that number will be a link to the source.

Also, watch biased words which do not present a WP:Neutral Point of View. For example, "prestigious" in "adorned many prestigious publications of his day"- although HG Wells is probably more important than Farmer Bob, Wikipedia can only state what reliable sources state. So, if the New York Times says the work is prestigious, you need to put a cite at the end. Alternatively, if the NYT says Jones' created the best artwork ever ever ever, you can say "___ ___ of the New York Times described Jones' work as "the best artwork ever ever ever" - with a cite at the end.

You may include references to offline works, such as books or magazine articles. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for how to cite them.

Thanks for your contributions. If you have questions, you can contact me on my talk page (click "talk" at the end of my signature). Liqudluck✽talk 00:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

California Farm

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have just written my first article about a building I visited recently which I belivee to be of historical significance. I have written my first draft an dwould welcome some feedback on whether I have written this correctly and am in a position to publish it?

Yours gratefully

Sue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sueowen (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I see the article has gone live now, but it's been tagged as potentially not notable. Unfortunately, it may well be that this farmhouse is not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. The only positive thing that is said about notability at the moment is that the farmhouse is 350 years old. But this is quite typical of farmhouses in England. Is there any other reason you know of that this farmhouse is special? If there isn't then the article will be deleted, because at the moment it could be taken as an advertisement for the bed & breakfast business, which goes against our rules on WP:SPAM. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I put the Angana P. Chatterji article up a while ago, but am still learning my way around editing Wikipedia and would appreciate some more eyes. An IP user made some edits but did not leave any comments in the discussion page regarding them, so I'm also hoping for other Wikipedians (hopefully others familiar with the work of Angana Chatterji?) to weigh in on those changes as well. Thank you. -- Torren (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with her work but I have read a lot of biographies of academics. The first thing to note is that just being a professor does not automatically mean that the person should have a Wikipedia article. The criteria are at WP:PROF. And the assertion of notability should be in the lead paragraph of the article. For example: "... is a biologist who won the .... prize for his work on ....". This article uses the subject's official biographies a lot, which gives it a particular flavour that is not really part of the Wikipedia style. My guess is that she actually is notable, but that needs to be stated more clearly. Have a look at a number of articles on really famous academics and see how they are structured. You have done a lot of work on this and your efforts are appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Torren (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy Federal Building

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just wrote a short article on the John F. Kennedy Federal Building. I noticed that most of the articles on buildings on Wikipedia are generally short and functionally descriptive. Keeping that in mind, I wanted to keep my article on the building succint, because there is a comprehensive building description on the GSA web sight (to which I've linked my article).

I would greatly appreciate any constructive criticisms or feedback from more experienced editors. In particular, is the length too short? Is there something I should add? I can't add it to the list of Boston's tallest buldings because it sits under 400 feet. Nevertheless, should it be included somewhere else rather than in a stand alone article?

Lastly, I had a little trouble categorizing it, so if someone could provide information on how to to that, I would be grateful.

Thank You.

Wildcard6 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice start. Most articles on buildings are short because the articles' creators knew the building was notable, but never expanded them further. While stub articles are welcomed, it is always nice to have thorough, informative articles- so if you would like to expand further, please do so, but you are not required to. If you do add more cited information, you can nominate it to appear in the Did You Know? section of the main page (DYK articles must be at least 1500 characters long, and JFKFB is currently 500 characters). Articles described as Wikipedia's best, called as Featured Articles, on architecture are considerably longer- see Michigan State Capitol or Scottish Parliament Building for examples.

As to your article as it is, please add wikilinks to relevant articles by typing [[ ]] around the word- for example, [[postmodern architecture]] produces postmodern architecture. You can also create Piped links to other articles. It would be useful to know what the building is used for and when exactly it was built. It may also be helpful to add the Template:Infobox building, which creates a box on the side as a quick reference for readers.

You may have to search for ways to de-orphan/link to your articles. First, do a search for your article's name (if you use the toolbar in the left menu, make sure to hit "search" and not "go". I just did so and came up with Boston, which mentions the John F. Kennedy Federal Office Building (side note: is that the actual name of the building?). You could also add a link from City Hall Plaza. If the architect has an article, you could add a link from there.

The easiest way to categorize is by looking at the categories of similar articles. For example, Boston Public Library has several categories JFKFB would fit into. Hope this helps, and if you have questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page (click "talk" in my signature). Liqudluck✽talk 05:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New Milton railway station

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just started to contribute to Wikipedia and was wondering if someone would be kind enougth to look over my expansion of New Milton railway station from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Milton_railway_station&action=historysubmit&diff=335586211&oldid=333876743 I have listed my changes on the talk page which currently only contains the comment on my changes.

Many thanks in anticipation. --Wintonian (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Great work, and I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and decide to carry on. The only problem was a few spelling mistakes. They're quickly corrected - I'll do that - but you might want to consider writing in wordprocessing software and using the spellchecker before copying your text into Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right ofcourse, I should have thought about running through a spell checker. Grammer has never been a strong point of mine so thanks for going through it for me. --Wintonian (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We The People (band)

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to hear some feedback. Thanks in advance.

We The People (band), Elitropia (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Have a look at WP:BAND to see which of the notability criteria you think the band meets. If it doesn't meet any, then it isn't notable and the article will probably be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This band definitely meets Wikipedia notability criteria as per WP:BAND and should not be deleted. Criteria that the band specifically meets are "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" and "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"...although their albums are actually compilations of singles/unreleased tracks from the 1960s, but still. This article looks like a good start at first glance, although it could do with some inline refs. I'll try to have a more thorough look at it over the next day or two and see if I can help improve it any. It's good to see this band finally get an article - I particularly like their song, "Mirror of My Mind". --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Evanmackmusic/Angel of the Amazon

{{Done}} - ready to archive. – ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article name is User:Evanmackmusic/Angel of the Amazon

I am requesting feedback

Evanmackmusic (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Evan Mack

Two issues: First as composer of the work you have a huge conflict of interest and should not be creating or editing this article; second, as this is a new work it is not yet notable and may never be. Please take a look at WP:N and WP:NMUSIC for guidance. – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MichaelRosenfeldGallery/Charles_Seliger

{{Done}} - draft speedily deleted as a copyvio, user name blocked as a user name violation. – ukexpat (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MichaelRosenfeldGallery/Charles_Seliger

Hello:

Michael Rosenfeld Gallery has just finished editing our contribution for Charles Seliger, an artist whom we have represented for over twenty years. The biography text we have submitted for this page is text written by Michael Rosenfeld Gallery, for which we have the rights to use. We would like to retain our copyright to this text, yet allow it to be reproduced on Wikipedia.org.

We would also like to move our Charles Seliger draft page to the main page Charles_Seliger.

Please advise how to proceed.

Thank you, Marjorie Van Cura Assistant to the Director Michael Rosenfeld Gallery LLC MichaelRosenfeldGallery (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Article already exists here Charles Seliger and you have a clear conflict of interest. Teapotgeorge<sup>Talk</sup> 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had to tag the draft for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. The website it is taken from (http://www.michaelrosenfeldart.com/artists/artists_represented.php?i=8&m=biography) has a clear copyright notice on it and Wikipedia cannot accept copyright materials in the absence of a clear release from the copyright owner - see WP:COPYVIO. Even though you are connected with the gallery and the artist (which puts you in a huge conflict of interest, by the way), Wikipedia will need a clear release to allow this material to remain - see the process set out at WP:IOWN. Even if the copyright is released, the text is too promotional in tone and must be re-written from a neutral point of view. Sorry be to so blunt about this, but Wikipedia takes matters of copyright very seriously, and without further evidence we only have your word that you are who you say you are, no disrespect intended. One last point for now, your user name is a clear violation of Wikipedia's user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RenderX

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've created an article called RenderX (in my userspace), describing a commercial company that has XSL-FO related products. The basic content is originated from once deleted article under the same name (created by another user). I would like to make sure it is neutral, as this was the main problem with the original page. I don't think that the notability is a problem - the company is notable and very well known in the relevant community. Could you please give your feedback? Thanks, Odo1982 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the draft does not demonstrate the notability of the subject as required by WP:CORP - the sources do not provide the significant coverage in reliable sources that is necessary to show notability. If it is notable as you say, then there should be some third party coverage. – ukexpat (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that if I start providing examples of coverage, it will look more as a promotional article. For example: According to John E. Simpson, "RenderX has provided many valuable services to the XSL FO community. For instance, they've come up with a DTD for XSL-FO documents..."[Source here]. Can you give an example of an article about a company that does provide a significant coverage in reliable sources? Thanks. Odo1982 (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You could say something like: The company has devised [or whatever the correct verb is] a document type definition [better to spell it out for the non-cognoscenti] for XSL-FO documents[citation] - presumably using the {{Cite web}} template. It is perfectly OK to cite sources like that without appearing to be promotional so long as the statement being supported by the citationis neutral in tone. The words you have used in your draft - One of the important contributions of RenderX to the XSL-FO community - are a little "press releasey". Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've emphasized the notability of the company. I hope it doesn't look too promotional. What do you think? I guess that when I move the article, more people will edit the article and add more information, but I want to create a good base. Odo1982 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what should happen. Let me know if you need help moving the draft to the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that it's good enough already to moved? What about the fact that the page was deleted before? Odo1982 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not, at least we will get some more eyes on it. – ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've moved it. Odo1982 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Efficiency Training

{{Done}} - draft speedily deleted as advertising. – ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Efficiency Training

Hi , I am sorry to bother you without first studying all the texts and tutorials. I am not english in origin and it takes me so much time to find and understand so much information.

I hope you find my article draft under my user name.

I have two problems with it.

First of all I thought I have to use my name also inside the article but I am not the main source of this. The main source is L. Ron Hubbard and I referred to several texts and books from him on which this technique is based.

Should I leave away the information at the end?

The other question is, whether to make this article as a new separate article or to put it into the page "Time Management". I want to put it as a separate article as the term Time Management is misleading - but it could also linked to this page. I dont know how to do this yet.

I could also edit the time management page and make some references there to this Efficiency Training Method.

thanks for your attention

Bernhard, Bernhard Schmitt (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my message on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tongal

{{Done}} - article has been speedily deleted as non-notable. – ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tongal Any advice is appreciated. Thank you for your time. Fightonfortroy (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Fightonfortroy

I am afraid that at the moment the article does not show how or why the subject is notable per WP:WEB, which is our notability guideline for websites - please take a look at the Criteria section of the guideline. You will need to find and cite significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I cleaned up the formatting a little, but notability is the biggest problem. – ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there was some cleanup from last time but significant coverage of the subject, the use of bold, and somewhat promotional nature of the article are still a concern it looks like.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ross Palombo

{{Done}} - draft reviewed and moved to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I just wrote my first article about Ross Palombo... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newsdoggie/Ross_Palombo ... would the community please give me some feedback on it?

Thanks.

-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsdoggie (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A pretty good start, thank you for putting it together. I have made some minor formatting and content changes and it is probably OK to be moved to the mainspace. You should work on wikilinking to the articles about the various TV stations and news shows where he has worked, but be careful not to over link. Let me know if you need help moving it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Felix Rodrguez Alvarado

{{Done}} - article has been speedily deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Felix Rodriguez Alvarado at Felix Rodriguez Alvarado. Appreciate review and comment. Keenonit (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)keenonit (mla) 1/17/2010.

It's not clear to me how or why the subject meets the notability guidelines set out at WP:BIO and even if he is notable as set out therein, it will need some reliable sources to support notability. It also reads like resumé/curriculum vitae and so needs toning down to a neutral point of view. – ukexpat (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Donnington Grove

{{Done}} - draft deleted as spam and user name blocked as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Donnington Grove/Donnington Grove Country Club Donnington Grove (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 26/01/10Donnington Grove (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be harsh, but at the moment, this appears to be nothing more than an advertisement masquerading as an article, reinforced by the fact that your user name implies that you are a representative of the club and therefore have a conflict of interest. So, it will need a complete rewrite from a neutral point of view before it can be moved to the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is taken from a copyrighted web site, and has been tagged for deletion at wikimedia commons, where you apparently uploaded it. And i must agree with ukexpat, this is nothing but an ad. Indeed it approaches the level that warrents speedy deletion even in userspace.

Furthermore, even if rewritten to be neutral, it is not at all clear that this country club is notable and therefore a proper subject of an article. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

17 Bis

{{Done}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EdGilmour/17_Bis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EdGilmour/list_of_fictional_towns_and_villages

How close are these articles to article creation? EdGilmour (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

On User:EdGilmour/17 Bis I see significant notability problems. The only sources cited are from a vendor site, no independent reviews or comments. There is not even any statement of why the album is significant. This might well be speedy deleted if put in the mainspace now. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 16:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

On the list, it is hard to see what this offers that Category:Fictional cities and towns does not do more thoroughly (to say nothing of List of fictional location types, List of fictional city-states in literature and other such existing pages). A list can usefully differ from a category by including information (and sources) about each list item, but User:EdGilmour/list_of_fictional_towns_and_villages does not currently do this. Also, it is very sparse compared with the 74 articles in the category (plus the many more in sub-cats). I think this is a long way from ready. It might be better to add to one of the existing pages. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to be more encouraging, i hope this is helpful. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will bin the first article, and work on the second one or bin it and edit existing pages.EdGilmour (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to bin them, just keep them in user space and work on them to add references and additional material as and when you find them. Don't forget there is no deadline! – ukexpat (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Chandra Om

{{Done}} -- ready to archive for inactivity. – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

This is the first page i have created, subject is Chandra Om User:Premandom/Chandra_om, a well-known teacher in Yoga circles. i am intersted if you think it needs any work, and what type before i try to post it for everyone to see. Thanks very much.

Premandom (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the article not being promotional, but aren't you in violation of the conflict of interests rules? Xcviii (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Premandom - thank you for your time and the feedback Xcviii. i am not sure what you mean about the conflict of interest. Is it because my username has a 'om' in it? 'Prem and Om' is how i sign some of my emails. It means Love and God and i thought it was a nice username. Sorry for the confusion. Should i try to post it under a less confusing looking username? Or do you have any other suggestions? Premandom (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your user name is fine. However I disagree with Xcviii about the draft article. It does read as promotional to me, more like a press release than an encyclopedic article. Phrases such as "dedicated her life to selfless service", "initiated by Sri Dharma Mittra into his spiritual lineage", "dedicating her life to the service of others" are not encyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Premandom - thank you for the feedback. I am not sure how to edit it to make it more understandable. In the Yogic tradition, spiritual initiation and selfless service (Karma Yoga) are commonly understood phrases and ideas, though in western culture they are not. I looked at wiki pages on other Yogis, ie, Swami Sivananda, Dharma Mittra and Swami Sivanda Radha to see what language had previously been acceptable and this language is common to them as well. Do you have any specific suggestions on how it can be more encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Premandom (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just remove it (it should come out of the other articles too). The articles on Yogic tradition and related concepts already explain the service and lineage stuff, among many, many other things, so those two things do no need to be re-emphasized in an article on a Yogic individual. Articles on Christian abbots do not include wording like "devoted his life to selfless service to others and the church" or "initiated by Father Jorge Paulus into his spiritual lineage". It's too "personal" in a sense, like it was written for a company board member bio or a résumé, with "power words" like "initiated". Something more like "is a ... in the Yogic lineage of Sri Dharma Mittra". Just the facts. And "spiritual" is redundant here, unless "Yogic" things are spiritual by definition. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ Contribs. 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

3CX Phone System

{{Done}} - now in mainspace

I have updated this page based on the feedback received User:Voipguy/3CX_Phone_System and would welcome further feedback Voipguy (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have evidently put quite a bit of work into improving this article. I managed to find some earlier feedback on this here: I guess this is the "feedback received" you refer to.

In my opinion the article is generally good: far better than is usual from a relatively inexperienced editor, and you are to be congratulated on your work. However, there are a few bits and pieces which could be cleaned up a little.

You have certainly responded to the earlier feedback by providing a lot of sources. The quality of the sources is, however, a different matter. I do not have time right now to do a thorough check on all of your sources, but I have had a quick look at a few of them, and they seem to be quite variable. http://www.voip-info.org/ is, unfortunately, no use at all in establishing notability, as it has an open wiki which anyone can edit, which means it is not a reliable source. (For the same reason Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.) Many of your other sources, however, avoid this problem, and are perfectly reliable sources. Some of your sources call themselves blogs, but exactly what this means is highly variable. A blog set up by just anyone on a general purpose blogging site is a totally unreliable source, while a column by an established journalist published by a reputable newspaper in a blog format is just as reliable a source as a column by the same journalist in a printed newspaper. I have not examined the credentials of the writers of every source you have given. Reliability is not the only criterion: there is also the question of how much coverage they give. My own opinion is that overall you indicate plenty of coverage, so that assuming enough of your sources are reliable enough there should be no problem with notability.

As for the content of the article, most of it is fine. However, the fact that particular magazines have reviewed the product is too tangential to be mentioned. There is an important distinction to draw here. The fact that a number of reviews exists, and that you can cite them as sources is important, helping both to establish notability of the product and also to confirm some of the statements you make in the article. However, that is not at all the same as saying that the existence of those reviews is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Likewise the fact that someone said something about the product in a blog post may or may not be notable; if the person making the blog post is unheard of then it certainly isn't.

As I have said, generally the article is good. A few bits of touching up will help. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank B. Wynn

{{Done}} - reviewed, tweaked and moved to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just started a new article User:Davidclydewalters/Frank B. Wynn I have much more information on Dr. Wynn and his considerable contribution to medical history and the conservation movement in the United States. I have just completed a Doctoral dissertation on leadership and the biography of Dr. Wynn at the University of Montana. The article is not complete. I have only started it to learn how to contribute. I am requesting feedback only so that the article is properly constructed and will not be deleted. I will continue to work on it. Thank you for creating and maintaining this valuable information resource. I have already made a donation and expect to do so again in the future. --Davidclydewalters (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have looked only briefly at your draft article, so what I am about to say is only a first impression.

The article generally looks very good to me, and there are only two points I think are worth bringing up. It would be helpful if you could give inline citations: that means put <ref> details of reference </ref> in the text, at points where the references are relevant, rather than at the end. The <references/> tag which is in the "References" section will then cause the details to be shown in a list at the end, without you having to list them there. Unfortunately the "Lincoln Boyhood National Park" link is not working at the moment. It may be repaired by the time you read this, but even if it is I am not sure it should stay. The guideline on external links to be avoided discourages, among other things, "sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". If the page linked is about the Lincoln Boyhood National Park, not about Frank B. Wynn, then, although there is clearly a connection, it is an indirect connection. However, as I have said, the draft looks generally good, and I look forward to seeing it launched as an article soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Acrompton/multifaith spaces

{{Done}} - now in mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Posting request based on Acrompton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pasting article text into this page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obie One B.A.

{{Done}} - now in mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nemo05/obieoneba (Nemo05 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)).

Ayodele Awojobi

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have recently written the article, Ayodele Awojobi, and would need valuable feed-back.

The article, I believe, speaks about the life and achievements of what I believe to be a remarkable Nigerian academic; a pioneer in Mechanical Engineering research, out of Africa.

Feed-back would be highly appreciated.

Thanks.

Krrush 10:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krrush (talk • contribs)

I have reviewed about half the article and cleaned it up quite a bit -- the language is way too "flowery", repetitious, and full of hyperbole, and has to be toned down to make it more encyclopedic. Please take a look at WP:MOSBIO for guidance. I will continue to review and tone down. – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Material ConneXion

{{Done}} - In mainspace and reviewed. – ukexpat (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting feedback on this page. The company is one of the few existing resources on innovative materials. Your insight is appreciated! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylewooley (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Gene expression profiling in cancer

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This is the first article--Gene expression profiling in cancer--I have written and any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Ahwang1 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great first article, well done. A few remarks: On the first hand, the article is repeating a lot of information that can be found already in other articles. In this respect, I was wondering whether this profiling could not just be a section in the main article Gene expression profiling with a few references on clinical applications, which is the major important point of the new article. However, the topic cancer is very important. Therefore, it could really be worthwhile to have a specific article on this sub-topic. Still, the text should be shortened to prevent too much of redundancy with other articles. A shorter text will also help the reader to really find the specific information and not loose him/herself in the long text. In respect of shortening: Currently, I get the impression that single references are cited with many additional information like author name, university and journals inside of the text instead of just using the reference. This could be deleted not only to shorten the text but also to increase the focus to the facts themselves and not distract the reader by less important information.

The article is well referenced. Currently, there are just a few examples of certain cancers, which is a good starting point. However, such a selection has always the risk to give a biased overview, in particular if there are some primary sources. I think that the article could be improved for an encyclopedia by moving the focus to more general insights that can be drawn on various cancers with this method. If a reader really needs very detailed information on a particular cancer, she/he has to read current scientific articles.

And as a last point, I would like to recommend to also introduce some critical discussion on the value of this technique. This would help to get a neutral point of information. Such points could be: What is really the clinical relevance of these markers at the moment despite of scientific interest? Although many markers have been shown retrospectively or prospectively to be associated with better or worse prognosis (i.e. to be a prognostic factor), it is not so sure for many of them whether they can also be used as a trigger for therapeutic decisions.

In general, I think your article is on a very good road. Best wishes, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doren Robbins

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doren Robbins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doren_Robbins

I have created this Wiki page for Doren Robbins himself. He has provided me with all content, much of which has already been cited. Please let me know what else I need to do to get the warnings at the top of the page to go away.

Thank you!

Jrwood08 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read our guidance on conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

seeking user input on first page: Willie George

{{Done}} - now in mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gu2542/williegeorge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gu2542 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

H2O Audio

{{Done}}  – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have created the page H2O Audio and don't want it to get deleted as potential advertising, I feel that I have reliable sources, but would love a second opinion...

DanaS (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)DanaS 12/14/09

Sara Kruzan

{{Done}}

I have written an article on Sara Kruzan who is serving a sentence of life without parole for crimes committed as a juvenile. I would very much appreciate any feedback. Many thanks Martlayton 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire article is biased and does not demonstrate a NPOV. Comments such as "abusive pimp," "opted to ignore the extenuating circumstances," etc. all indicate the bias of the article, as do the listed references. It needs significant re-work. (GregJackP (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Much better (GregJackP (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

I have cleaned it up a little more and changed refs to cite web format. Marking this as done and ready for archiving. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Harpax

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Harpax was a roman naval seige tool created in 36 BC by Agrippa. It was first used in the Battle of Naucholus to great effect against Sextus Pompey, the last of the armed republic defenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circes (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! I removed the tag and made a few minor formatting changes. – ukexpat (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cincinnati Women Bloggers Page

{{Done}} - Stale. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is my first attempt and creating a Wikipedia page. I would love your feedback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shannanb/CincinnatiWomenBloggers

Thank you! shannan boyer 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Shannan Boyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannanb (talk • contribs)

Unless you can WP:CITE some significant coverage in reliable sources this group does not appear to meet the notability guidelines set out at WP:ORG, and the article would almost certainly be speedily deleted if moved to the main space. – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We have been written about by the Cincinnati Enquirer too, but unfortunately the article is no longer online. Is there another way to site them;/ shannan boyer 20:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)shannan boyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannanb (talk • contribs)

It is a common misconception that sources have to be online - they don't - as long as the source can be verified by someone minded to do so (in a public library for example) then it is perfectly OK. In fact we have a citation template for that - {{cite news}}. However unless that coverage is significant, I don't think it's going to help. Also, as you appear to have a conflict of interest, please see WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kashcroft/new article name here

{{Done}} - now in mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I wondered if someone could take a look at this for me. I can't seem to figure out how to get the title right! It should be GEORGE PECK. Also, any other comments would be really helpful. thanks

Kashcroft (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Kashcroft 18/12/09

Please take a look at WP:BIO - at the moment the article does not speak to the notability of the subject as per Wikipedia's inclusion policy. You will need to look for and cite significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources to show notability. – ukexpat (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Spill.com

{{Done}}  – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

hello, I just recreated the page for Spill.com, a page that has a contentious history and has been deleted many times in the past. I put a lot of time into it and I believe it to be notable and reliable with over 10 reliable sources so I think it should be fine. I'm just requesting here for someone to give it a quick look to see if there are any other things wrong with it so that new unreviewed article template can be removed. Smithers45 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still a minor website with no notability outside the Austin city limits. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You can read my answer on the article talk page and your talk page Orangemike, but I thought I might post my reply to your suggestion for deletion here as well. I would have to completely disagree with the suggestion from Orangemike that Spill.com isn't notable. Under the specific criteria for notability for web content located atWikipedia:Notability_(web), it mentions that only one of the listed criteria must be met for the page to be considered notable. The second listed Criteria for web content goes as follows,"2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Obviously Orangmike must have not read the entire article because there is an entire section dedicated to awards in which it is mentioned that they won the 2009 best podcast for the movies/film section from The People's Choice Podcast Awards, better known as the Podcast Awards. Clicking on the wikilink or going to their website at www.podcastawards.com and scrolling down the page, on the right hand column, will find that Spill.com has won the award. The podcast awards are the preeminent awards for podcasts in the world and are most definitely an organization. Other winners include This American Life and ESPN so it is very feel known, I really don't think there are any disputes of that. Also, user Gogo Dodo has backed this article up in saying that it is notable. On my talk page he has said, " The awarding of a 2009 Podcast Award would qualify Spill.com per the notability guidelines." I have no objections to recreating the article because now the site meets the notability guidelines" and you can visit the top of my talk page to confirm that. Smithers45 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Steinhorn

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request feedback on the new article for writer/political analyst Leonard Steinhorn. Thank you. Theparticipant (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The subject's autobiography at his college's website does not constitute a reliable source; neither do book reviews on commercial sites such as Amazon. Please read WP:CITE for guidance on how to format a citation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

75B

{{Done}}  – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like feedback before moving this article: 75B to the mainspace I am an Art History student specialised in contemporary graphic design. I think it's pretty good but hope someone can take another look.

Thank you for your time Ghckraak (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) GHC Kraak December 21, 2009

Gabriele_Giolito_de'_Ferrari

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've created the page User:LiMarMu/Gabriele_Giolito_de'_Ferrari in my user space. Giolito was a 16th century Italian printer active in Venice during the early 16th century, and was later succeeded by his sons. The text is largely translated from the Italian Wikipedia, though I also consulted a source not previously listed in the Italian article. Thanks in advance for your feedback. LiMarMu (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made the page live now - it will be redirected from the link above. LiMarMu (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe Root

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe Root

Dannyhall04 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! I have removed the tag and made a few formatting/clean up edits. I will also add project templates to the talk page. I think that the article is a candidate for a DYK spot on the main page, maybe something about being the youngest player to be awarded a Yorkshire scholarship, if a reference can be found for that. – ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated for DYK at Template talk:Did you know#Joe Root. Thinking about an alternative hook based on that 235 not out innings. – ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bazley v. Curry

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bazley v. Curry Hey, this is the first wikipedia page i've written. It's just a brief summary of a Canadian Supreme Court decision in a torts case. Any feedback would be appreciated! Musicsucks (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! I have reviewed and removed the tag. I also made a few formatting and other minor fixes, and added appropriate project templates to the talk page. You might want to also think about asking for review on the talk pages of the Law and Canada Wikiprojects. – ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

George Peck (Founder & Principal of The Oxford School of Drama)

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

George Peck (Founder & Principal of The Oxford School of Drama)

Kashcroft (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For starters, moved it to the more appropriate and less advertising-like George Peck (theatre). --Orange Mike | Talk 11:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Stevens (aka Georg Franz Hein)

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Stevens (aka Georg Franz Hein)

Carrera57 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• What an interesting man, I have tidied up the article and 'wikified' it for you. It would be a good idea to see if any more references can be found in addition to the Daily Express one online.Paste <sub>Let’s have a chat.</sub> 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so! I have made a few more clean up edits, moved the article to Peter Stevens (pilot), and nominated it for s DYK spot. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Daksh '10 page

{{Done}} – ukexpat (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Please do review my article and suggest measures . All suggestions and constructive criticism is more than welcome . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smavikir (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is DAKSH '10. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Few independent sources, student level event, seems not to be notable. Written like an outline: looks like a copy ftom a website, ::if so, probably a copyright violation. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Daksh+SASTRA+UNIVERSITY shows several news stories on the various events over the years -- an article on this as a recurring festival just might pass, but there is almost noting useful in the current article. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jmwinkwo/Kalamazoo Manufacturing Company

{{Done}}, now in mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Could somebody review this article? Hopefully it will only be a quick review.

Thanks.

Jeremy Winkworth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmwinkwo (talk • contribs) 12:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not bad, but there are a few issues

• There needs to be an introductory paragraph. This should start "Kalamazoo Manufacturing Company was..." and summerize the articel so that a reader gets a general overview right at the start.
• It would be nice if there were a citation for the founding and early years, particularly for the dates.
• The article says that the factory 'was described as "located admirably for its purposes".' Who so described it? Quotes should be attributed to a specific source, and if at all possible should be cited.
• For the refs to the 1960 Kalamazoo Manufacturing Company Product Catalog, it would be helpful to give page numbers. It would also be helpful if an independent reliable sources could be cited for some of this information.
• for the Kalamazoo Gazette references, listing the story title/headline, the page number, and the author if credited would be good. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more detail. You might find that {{Cite News}} is useful.
• the article now says "Despite a militant work force that went on strike a number of times...". Adjectives such as "militant" effectively convey an opinion, and should not be used unless they can be attributed to a specific person or source, and backed by a citation. This might be better phrased as "Although the employees went on strike a number of times..." and even then there should ideally be a specific citation or citations that document the strikes. News stories would be good for this.
• The Wikipedia manual of style on numbers says "Decades as such contain neither an apostrophe nor the suffix -ies (the 1980s, not the 1980's, not the 1980-ies)."

You might want to consider using content from the following sites. I also found what seems to be your personal web site on the company.

• http://miceage.micechat.com/stevedegaetano/sd121808a.htm
• http://digitalcollections-wmich.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p124301coll2&CISOPTR=871&CISOBOX=1&REC=3
• http://mmm.lib.msu.edu/search/browsedisplay.cfm?t=1&subj=Kalamazoo%20Manufacturing%20Company%20--%20Kalamazoo%20%28Mich.%29

none of these are huge problems, but fixing them will make the article much better. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

THANKS!

I've made as many improvements as possible. As you know already, not every newspaper article has a name associated with it. Various other changes have been made so it's probably as ready as it can get.

Jeremy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmwinkwo (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)