Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

"WP:FEED" redirects here. For the essay on vandalism, see Wikipedia:Deny recognition. For RSS and Atom feeds, see Wikipedia:Syndication. For the page rating system, see Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool.

Requests for Feedback

This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed. This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions. If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.

Before you request feedback

There are certain things which come up again and again so it may help if you deal with them before requesting feedback: Does your article have reliable sources? These are important in terms of both verifiability and notability. Do you have a conflict of interest that may harm your ability to produce a neutral article? If you would like a beginner's guide to these sorts of issues, take a look at the article wizard. If you are unsure about how to edit Wikipedia articles, take a look at this tutorial. For a more general discussion of writing your first article, see "Your first article".

How to post a request

Place a Wikilink, with the title of the page inside [[ and ]] - for example, [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] - in the box below. Click Click To Add Request In the new article, Write a brief summary of your work or what in particular you need help with, but do not post the whole article here. If you have rewritten an existing article, you may wish to provide a diff link from that article's history that shows your changes. Check regularly for responses to your request; they will most often be made here. ↓ Post your request using the box below. Replace "Untitled" with a wikilink to your article - e.g. [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] ↓

After Receiving Feedback

Check back here often, as you will receive a response here. Respond to the feedback, either with a simple thank you, to ask for help with anything mentioned, or, after you've made some of the improvements, what they think of them. Consider helping out here in the future - anyone can read up on what articles should be like and provide constructive criticism.

Are you providing feedback?

Please consider notifying the user whose article you are providing feedback for by placing a message on their talk page, so they will be able to read it in a timely manner and reply if necessary. You can use.. {{Feedbackreply-sm}} A template asking the user to check back here and consider responding {{Feedbackreply-alt}} A more personal version of the first offering your help with developing, moving to mainspace, etc.

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

The previous few days of requests are transcluded below. The pages for the past 20 days are: ()

• June 12
• June 13
• June 14
• June 15
• June 16
• June 17
• June 18
• June 19
• June 20
• June 21
• June 22
• June 23
• June 24
• June 25
• June 26
• June 27
• June 28
• June 29
• June 30
• July 1

Index of all requests for feedback

Brainerd

Please look over the page I've put together on my user space and let me know what I need to do make it "proper" for Wikipedia. Thanks for your time!

Blackanguskhan (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters please see WP:Notability (music) for what criteria your band needs to have in order to have their own article. If the band does meet the criteria, references have to be included to prove that they meet notability standards for Wikipedia. A quick glance at what you've written on your user page shows that the lead paragraph is very promotional in tone and Wikipedia isn't about advertising. Also you seem to have overlinked a lot of words. Simple nouns like "cars", "guitars", "vocals" (etc.) don't have to be linked a thousand times, (in the case of "cars", it shouldn't have a wikilink at all because it has no relevance to the main topic of the article).

I would also say (if your band meets notability requirements, and this actually ends up being an article) that you should remove a lot of the extraneous info from the history section. You don't need a new subsection for each year your band has been active. Killiondude (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Brainerd is a "notable" band because we've had two records put out on larger indie labels of credibility. I've deleted most of the extemporaneous material. Please look it over and let me know if you think it's ready. Thanks very much for your assistance!! (is the link to each record label with our album reference enough?)

Blackanguskhan (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It still needs reliable, published sources from third parties. So please provide references for all the info in it. One other thing of concern is that it includes a lot of external links in the article portion. Perhaps you could find Wikipedia articles on those subjects, and replace the external link with an "internal" wikilink. See WP:MUSTARD (MUsic STAndaRDs) for more info on how to format the article correctly. Killiondude (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section "Name" could go to just a sentence in the history paragraph.— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to move the page to Brainerd and need an admin to do so. Apparently, because I am an imperfect human being, I moved the page to "braienrd" which is incorrect. I would like the page to link to the pre-existing Brainerd pages. Who should I contact for this move? Blackanguskhan (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody already has. See Brainerd (band). The typo page is now a redirect to the propertly titled article. Killiondude (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's UP! Cool! Thanks a lot for all your help and insite. I've learned a lot and plan on doing more wiki things. Don't be surprised if you see articles for everything on our page soon. Thanks again!!

Blackanguskhan (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

List of improvisational theatre companies

So, I'm new to Wikipedia, but have decided to take it upon myself to clean up and dusty little niche here: Improvisational comedy. One of the things I'd like to do is make a usable list of notable improv organizations around the world. However, a terrible, terrible list aleady exists. There are a few reasons why I think it is a bad article (not wikified, full of external and red links, missing many notable troupes included in Wikipedia already, etc), but most importantly, I think that the list being divided by geography is utterly useless. Most of the troupes are concentrated in a few states, and it just doesn't seem very helpful at all. I think it would be much better if the groups were divided by type of troupe (major professional, professional, collegiate, guerilla, other, etc). I suppose my question is if it would be breaking any formatting guidelines if I reordered them this way? Does anyone have any guidance? SMSpivey (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One great way to organize them would be in a wikitable. If you take a look at, say, List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama, which happens to be a Featured List candidate, one can see that the table is great for laying out information. You could change the columns to whatever you'd like (name, location, type of troupe, and so on). It would be a lot of work, but you could do that for the list you have asked about. For example, in the Alabama list you can click on any column header and it will sort the information in alphabetical order based on what you've clicked. If you did group each section in the List of improvisational theatre companies into a wikitable, then each table could be sorted however the person wants to sort it (by type of troupe, location, etc.). I'm tired, and I think that suggestion may have been confusing. Hopefully you get what I was trying to say. Killiondude (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Lake Ralphine, Santa Rosa, Ca.

This lake is named after Ralphine North, wife to Mark McDonald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.147.113 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -Optigan13 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Monroe Doctrine

I have added and updated some 20-odd links (also discussed in the discussion page). Added several links to the sources and where possible a boggle books link to the exact page in question (especially in quotations in the text). Also changed the text of the 'Criticism Section' as the criticisms offered were not verifiable or referenced. Instead I re-wrote the sentence to exclude authors that were not referenced and only left the authors that were and added correct references to the texts. See also comparative layout of the change in question: Page Comparison So, I think the article is now ready to be released with the disclaimer on the top as it should have the required standard of factual verification. Ssoulakiotis (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and added specific inline fact and weasel tags for where clarification or citations are needed and removed the less specific header level tag. I would try to move away from the Britannica sources where possible because Wikipedia shouldn't reuse another encyclopedia. I think this is also why it has some weasel words where it says critics, but doesn't specify who they are or any publications critical of the Monroe Doctrine. I've added fact tags for where presidents and other US officials invoked the Doctrine as there should be something where they pretty much specifically invoke the Doctrine. The whole paragraph around América para los americanos needs some kind of citation. There are several books listed in the further reading which I'm guessing could be used to back a lot of the text, and that is likely the next logical step is to integrate those books with inline citations. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wildfire

I've spent a few months and have over 300 edits on this article. I'm getting close to the end but would like to know if I'm going in the right direction. Thanks. MrBell ^(talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• First off is yes the article is in a good state, but as I'm sure you know it's tough to get an important topic like this to meet all of the needs of a global encyclopedia. I didn't even try to address the globalization tag as I'm from California so I would likely overemphasize California and US wildfires.
• I've tried to trim the images down a bit to avoid image stack-ups and to limit it to images that explain the concepts in the text. I would also trim the external links to what is necessary as it is currently a link farm. My guess is only some of the educational and research ones would hang around (WP:EL). The hard part is likely cleaning up the two sections (Wildfire#Detection and Wildfire#Goals) which have reference tagging. Detection looks like it came from some kind of published research or guidelines and needs to be cited. In the same detection section, do you mean disabled in geostationary orbits, when the article says "desabiled in geostationary orbits"? In addition to more references, Detection and Goals could also use some wikification to make sure the right concepts are linked.
• I would integrate the fast attack section into the more general direct attack section and remove the fast attack heading to keep the heading levels somewhat reasonable.
• This is the first time I've seen the {{rp}} template, and personally I prefer the notes, citations, bibliography style like in the recent Harvey Milk FA, but switching those citations around can wait until you take this to WP:Peer Review. Although there is an external link in Wildfire#Control lines which needs a citation template.
• With the Notable fires section, I would remove it outright and just leave the link to the list article. You should try to integrate as many of the links from the see also into the main article, and then look into either removing the links altogether or creating a navigation template for all the articles linked and what the scope they all fall under for.
• After you've addressed the referencing in the sections, the image layout, and wikification; I would recommend setting aside some time and taking this to WP:Peer review for a much more lengthy and involved review of this article which is probably what is required at this stage in the article's development. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Morello discography

I would like to get some feedback on this discography article, mainly on the 'As The Nightwatchman' and the 'Other apperences' section. Roger Workman (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearances was misspelled so I corrected that(missing an a), I also did some formatting on that table. With respect to the intro a lot of his earlier career info doesn't have references, especially going to school with members of Tool and his early RATM bandmates. Linking to a wiktionary is a bit unusual, but that's an easy change if it comes up at FL nomination. The album names are unevenly linked in that section and I'm thinking some of them are singles and not full blown albums. I would take this to WP:WikiProject Music and have them help with an additional review of the material as they would be more familiar with discography work. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Benchmark Electronics

I have created a new article about Benchmark Electronics, Inc. I am an employee of Benchmark Electronics, and I am trying to have the article reviewed for notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Because I have an obvious conflict of interest, I am trying to follow the guidelines from Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization page. I am confused about where I should post this for review. I posted it for review on the Drawing_board but then found this page as well. Where should I be posting this for review? What about for creation? Your help is appreciated. Thank you.TanKaram (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• The article is a very good start. Unlike many first-time articles, you have started off without any junk, so from here on you just have to add, not look to take away any 'unencyclopaedic' material. The company is very large, so there should be no problems at all with notability. The first thing to do therefore is to get together a couple more references. Finding newspaper articles (solely on Benchmark, not just mentions) should be doable (paper is as good, if not better than, online). After that, I think the content that would interest me most would be expanded information on what exactly you make, any famous products or deals in the past, and a more comprehensive customer list.
  At this stage, I think it would make good sense to move straight into the main article space straight off, as this is a good enough article already (once the one to two more refs. are there).— Kan8eDie (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Dang it. Kan8eDie got to it first. Oh well :-) The only thing I would add, is that normally the references section is placed above the external links section. Just a minor formatting issue that can quickly be taken care of. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Kan8eDie and Killiondude, thanks for your feedback. I'll check for some paper references. I started out with some google research, but I guess I need to delve in a little deeper. Thanks again! TanKaram (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've added a bit of information about Benchmark Electronics' customers to the article as well as expanded the references. Because of Killiondude's and Kan8eDie's comments, I am now looking for someone to move the article to the main article space. My understanding is that it is not a good idea for me to do this since I have a stated conflict of interest. I guess I will continue to contribute to the article through the talk page once it is moved. Is that the best way to proceed? TanKaram (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be fine, but I have done it anyway. It is a bad idea to have orphaned articles on WP as well, so if you can think of any pertinent links to add to the page, that would be useful. Regarding your conflict of interest, you have kept neutral so far, and it is stated up front on you userpage, so I would not worry about it; just keep editing as you have been (though use of the preview button to cut down on quite so many entries in the edit history would be useful, as well as occasional use of edit summaries).— Kan8eDie (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

International Chinese Martial Arts Championship (ICMAC)

My first article...User:Kungfulist/ICMAC I'm asking for feedback. I haven't rounded up my references yet, and I still have to cross link to other pages (and fix some that are already cross linked). Other than that, am I headed in the right direction? Thanks. Kungfulist (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comodo

Would very much appreciate feedback on page [Comodo]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comodo. I am a Comodo employee. Question 1: Someone has recently appended a section about a recent episode with one of our resellers issuing an invalid product. My boss, naturally, would like to see that section removed from the page. I question the motives of the person who posted it. What is the best way to proceed? Question 2: I referred question #1 to my sponsor. He posted a "conflict of interest" banner on the page. I would be delighted if non-employees updated the page and removed the whiff of conflict. How do I get them to do that? Question 3: If you go to the talk page of the Comodo entry, you see that this subject falls under the computing wikiproject. When I went to the computing wikiproject page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing I could not figure out what I should do first: request peer review? Destubbification? Do you have any suggestions? Katharine908 (talk)Katharine908 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Police Department

I have made many improvements to this page over the past few months (as documented on the page's historyDodgerblue777 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)) but can't seem to bring it up to where it can be considered a feasible good article candidate