Wikipedia:Requests for feedback: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Werdnabot (talk | contribs)
m Automated archival of 1 sections to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 12
Andremun (talk | contribs)
Line 207: Line 207:
[[User:Thrill59|Thrill59]] ([[User talk:Thrill59|talk]]) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Thrill59|Thrill59]] ([[User talk:Thrill59|talk]]) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:As a programmer, I find this offers far too little context, let alone for the layperson. There is plenty of good information there, but the lead entirely fails to explain exactly what CE-HTML is. As mainly a backend database developer, I have not come across this, and still don't know quite whether is is a new type of document, or a platform specification, and if so what parts of the system it covers, and so on. More explanation is needed. Thanks for making a good start to this though.— [[User:Kan8eDie|Kan8eDie]] ([[User talk:Kan8eDie|talk]]) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:As a programmer, I find this offers far too little context, let alone for the layperson. There is plenty of good information there, but the lead entirely fails to explain exactly what CE-HTML is. As mainly a backend database developer, I have not come across this, and still don't know quite whether is is a new type of document, or a platform specification, and if so what parts of the system it covers, and so on. More explanation is needed. Thanks for making a good start to this though.— [[User:Kan8eDie|Kan8eDie]] ([[User talk:Kan8eDie|talk]]) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

== University of Valle ==

Greetings. I've made substantial additions to this page, could you please make some comments about its structure, contents, and cites. Please also add comments to the feedback section of the [[Talk:University of Valle|talk]] page. -[[User:Andremun|Andremun]] ([[User talk:Andremun|talk]]) 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:21, 19 February 2009

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:

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
  1. Place a Wikilink, with the title of the page inside [[ and ]] - for example, [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] - in the box below.
  2. Click Click To Add Request
  3. 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.
  4. If you have rewritten an existing article, you may wish to provide a diff link from that article's history that shows your changes.
  5. 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
  1. Check back here often, as you will receive a response here.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


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

Index of all requests for feedback

Template:Werdnabot

Hi i have added an article on an organization in the wikipedia as it is the oldest UPS manufacturing company since 1922, Kindly pls provide me feedback on the article if it needs to changed or modified.

User:Santosh77/Subpage

Thanks Santosh Santosh77 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)santosh77Santosh77 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can guide me on it, any corrections that i need to make or any feedback, :-), pls let me know. Thanks Santosh Santosh77 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)--Santosh77 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just took a look at your article. It has a lot of information with references which is really good. The thing I noticed it that most of the references come from Tripp Lite's own website--which isn't bad for just citing fact, but it doesn't show the notability of the company. On Wikipedia, a subject of an article has to have "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (from the link I provided in the last sentence). As of right now the article lacks any significant coverage in subject independent of the company. These sources can be online or offline (i.e. articles in business magazines, newspapers, etc.). Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, i will add in more secondary reference from mags & newspapers to the existing ones once done will inform you to have a look at it again Santosh77 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)--Santosh77 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First time user. I wrote an article about 'Lugs' Branigan, a tough, hard policeman in Dublin, Ireland in the 40s, 50; 60, 70s. Very well known in Dublin and Ireland, but not outside. I wrote the article n my sandbox, and am how looking for feedback and information on next steps.

User:Subaculture or —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.56 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Subaculture[reply]

A good start. There are plenty of books and references to copy this over to the main article space at James Branigan and get editing. The first things to do are to find any related articles and see if you could add appropriate links to the new article, and then on the article itself, maybe using a few more headings might be useful. It looks pretty good though.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing a company in the Companies In Houston page

I am so confused as to waht is correct ... I tried to put list a company on the page. I used several other d3scriptions that were on this page as a reference to make sure I was in line.

It was deleted.

I also completely updated the Network Tap page and everything was deleted and the page is written to support one vendor and no tutorial links are allowed???

I would like to develop a page on Network Acces methods - Tap versus SPAN access.

Would this be acceptable?

I have read and reread the conflict of interest plus amny of the other requirements and I believe that this is a fit for wikiPedia.

It actually should be under Network Tap but who ever ius running the site refuses to allow the discussion/tutorial.

I look forward to actually heading from the Team.

Oldcommguy - tim@oldcommguy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldcommguy (talkcontribs) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to understand clearly what you're talking about. It seems you've had a confusing time here on Wikipedia. Sorry about that! Have you read WP:YFA? It talks about creating your first article. As far as your problems with adding external links--WP:EL covers the policies for that on Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherita/wikilink

Cherita [pronounced CHAIR-rita] is a Malay word for story or tale. A Cherita consists of a single stanza of one-line verse, followed by a two-line verse, and then finishing with a three-line verse. It was created by ai li, editor of still: home of short verse, on the 22 June 1997.

The Cherita arose out of the English-language haiku and tanka tradition, but is more anecdotal, or nano-narrative, in nature than are the “momentary” haiku and the more lyrical tanka, though it is easily adaptable to lyical expression. It is imagistic in nature, and depends on conciseness and suggestion for its effect.

More about Cherita, as well as examples, can be found on still: home for short verse [1] Winfred Press [2]

Soaphollow (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaphollow (talkcontribs) 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
This looks like WP:original research, or WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Please do not add it without discussing your sources first.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed for wikipedia newbie

Please check my one and only article. Is the material ready for submission. Feedback on the content and format would be appreciated.

Thank You, Sayyes1985 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soaphollow (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be heavily pushing the organisation. Could I ask whether you are involved yourself? I suspect this article will need looking into before it goes up.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I improve this article?

Thanks!

Iatpiatp (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could start by following the tags at the top of the article. Your username suggests that you will find it virtually impossible to convince us that you are truly neutral. Please only edit as yourself, and not as part of your employment. We could do with a lot more references: books about you, articles, and so on.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References are the most important, especially those that show outside iterest in the company, so newspaper articles etc (most companies will have at least local coverage). I would restructure the article too, put Areas of work into the lead instead of a seperate section - it is the most iportant thing an ignorant reader like me wants to know. The move history to be the first section, with time line a subsection (using 3 === instead of 2) of that. Timelines like this are rarely seen as good writing, so re-writing as prose paragrpahs might be an improvment.
assuming you work there, can you get a photo of the offices released into public domain? Also if the company has a logo, this can be uploaded as fair use (ask at my talk page if you are unsure of image uploading).Yobmod (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodgersia

As a new contributor, I am unsure how to proceed with the botanical article which I have finished writing on my home page. (There may be a mistake with the referencing.) Do I have to move the article elsewhere? Thank you for your help. Saxifraga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxifraga (talkcontribs) 10:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs quite a bit of cleanup, but I have still moved it to the Rodgersia page. Please do keep working on it there. Thanks for the solid start to the article.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help.I will go over it again & try & improve it. Saxifraga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxifraga (talkcontribs) 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:BETTER if you want ideas on how to make articles better. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it a good idea to include cultivars of the Rodgersia species because I only know about those in the UK & as there are very few which have definate descriptions, they are notoriously mis-labelled or duplicated. Is there any other information on this subject which would be advantageous to include? Again, thank you for your encouragement & help.79.74.230.159 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna ask Wikipedia Talk: WikiProject Plants if they see anything further that could be included. They are a little more in touch with plant-related articles. Killiondude (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I will try that now.Saxifraga (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Saxifraga[reply]

Contributed an introduction to Domain-specific_multimodeling

Hi,

as my first wikipedia article, I've written up a fairly comprehensive article on Domain-specific_multimodeling. The format that I've aimed for is the following:

  1. intro
  2. example
  3. problem
  4. solution
  5. see also and references

Any ideas on improving the content would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Ahessellund (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only had a short glance at the intro, therefore can't say much about the content. Here is what I noticed:
  • The first sentence is quite heavy for somebody unfamiliar with the subject. Which view? What is developed? "Language" as in Chinese, English,...? I think you should at least state the field (programming/software development?) this article is about and explain "development paradigm" (or better link to a wikipedia article).
  • More inline citations are needed
  • Put weblinks in the references or an "External links" section not in the text
  • Consider the boxes at the start of the article
  • Explain the relation to Domain-specific modeling (maybe you did and I missed it) bamse (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback for an article I wrote from scratch. Being virtually the only author, I am looking for a second opinion on what needs to be improved (apart from language) to get it up to good article standards. bamse (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a truly extraordinary effort! I am sorry that I don't have the time to read and analyse all that just at the moment, but that is a lot of text to produce on the subject. I will try and get back to it soon. The most reassuring this is the long edit history, as otherwise we would instantly assume some copy and paste, but it looks clean and a great addition to the encyclopaedia.— Kan8eDie (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is definitely not a copy-paste :-). Hope you will find time to have a look at it. Also partial looks (only "Architecture" for instance) are appreciated. bamse (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback re: my White River War article - mainly about wiki-formatting

Hi, just posting this RFF because I wrote an article, and I'm not sure if all the formats, etc. are exactly right. I've left it saying it is a stub, although maybe it isn't anymore? Thanks for your suggestions

The article It is about the White River War, which was a war between the US army and the Ute Indians of Colorado in 1879. Basically lists all the interesting aspects of the war. I didn't put subheadings or photos or anything of that sort, but did provide references and did also put in internal links. Thanks for you help!--Roar-the-bore (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Should be at least start class in my opinion. Consider using a reference scheme with Notes/References as in Quiriguá for instance to avoid using "ibid." To make the article more readable add sections, something like: "causes-events-outcome". I noticed that "Utes" links to a disambig page. You should redirect the links to Ute tribe instead.bamse (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When will the article be posted?

After I have wrote my article and uploading my picture, what's Next? When will the article be posted on Wikipedia for others to view? How long does it take? Please let me know if I need to take an additional step.

Thanks Tish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridesmartarc (talkcontribs) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the page is created then the article is there to view (and to be changed and messed about with) try WP:YFA for more info Bihco (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this article this afternoon, and would appreciate some quick comments. Lay people welcome! If the article doesn't explain or link it sufficiently, do tell me, as that is the sort thing I find most hard to get right.— Kan8eDie (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never really dealt with math related articles on Wikipedia (I'm more of an English guy). I have read the article several times already and I still don't really get what an arg is. However maybe I'd need to read the Simple Wikipedia listing for this article to understand it, because I'm just not that great at math higher than basic algebra. I think that somebody who has a firm college-level math understanding will be able to read it though... As far as the wikilinking, I'd say it could use more. I'd say the word "periodicity" in the "Definition" section could wikilink somewhere (because I'm not sure what that means...) also maybe the word "cut" in the last sentence of the same section could be wikilinked? I'm not sure if these are words that even have pages, but it seems they should. Hopefully this helps... I feel like an idiot though. Killiondude (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem at all! You have to be pretty clever to make any sense of the embarrassing train wreck I seem to be producing.— Kan8eDie (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more of a math guy. I think the intro and the new figure are much better and easier to understand than a day ago. One problem though: you write about an "angle between the point and the positive real line" which as far as I know is not defined. You could copy something from Polar coordinate system or the Definition(s) section of your article. Also replace line->axis. The second paragraph about the principal value could go into a separate section (after Definitions).
  • In the algebraic Definition it is not clear if 1,2,3 have to apply simultaneously or if one or two would be enough. In 2., shouldn't the "r" be on the other side of the equation to agree with figure 1? My math teacher and me don't like expressions like (better write as two expressions) but that's up to taste I guess.
  • After "in which case the term phase is used equivalently." there should go a new section in which you explain the multi-valuedness of arg. Capital pi is not defined (probably some interval of length 2 pi?)
  • In "Principal value", is it possible to define Arg also for negative real numbers? If not, there should be a note in the text. In the same section you write arg in terms of Arg. However arg operates on all complex numbers, while Arg as defined by you only on a subset of C.
  • In identities, the modulus-argument form could be more prominent (bigger?) as it is a very familiar expression. Also make the article easier to read by using either "r" or "|z|" not both. In figure 1 indicate "x", "y" and "z" as in the first figure in Complex plane. bamse (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. The 'angle between the half-lines corresponding to the position vectors representing the point and the positive real axis' just doesn't sound as snappy for a lead. Modern texts use inner products to angles directly from vectors (no half-line defs).
  • Absolutely. My typo. Two expressions now there if that's what you prefer.
  • I was just indicating that the image is in R. Hopefully clearer now.
  • I did indeed get this exclusion from an older Beardon book. Even he gives up on it though, so I have removed all dated references to maintaining arg continuous by excluding a half-line.
  • In what way exactly? I am considering just dumping the article and running, so could you do this yourself?— Kan8eDie (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How was running? Not sure if (and how) you can increase the size of TeX equations in wikipedia, so forget about the modulus-argument stuff. I edited a tiny bit in the article and think there are no major mistakes anymore. Personally I'd remove "amplitude" from the first definition as I'd never seen it before in this context. Are other people besides the authors of reference 1 using this term for arg(z)? Amplitude states: "In older texts the phase is sometimes very confusingly called the amplitude." If you prefer to keep "amplitude", a warning like this is necessary IMHO. An easy thing which still could be done is to indicate "x,y,z" in figure 1. bamse (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Haley's Queen

Please give me your feedback on the two following articles: Queen: The Story of an American Family, and Alex Haley's Queen. Also please make sure their disambiguation pages are correctly done. This is my first REAL attempt at creating anything for Wikipedia; and I did NOT write the information on the articles (most of it was already there). I plan to do that next but I wanted to do the formatting and whatnot for them first. Thank you ever so much, Rivka (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seeking feedback on the above draft article--D.M. Edgar (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link to your draft above (you forgot "User:"). bamse (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only had a short glance at it. Could you add references/sources to the article.
  • Start the article like other wikipedia articles: "Millbuies Estate is a Country park in ..."
  • Add wikilinks to the text.
  • Put sections to make it more readable
  • Remove or substantiate (with reference) POVs (for instance: "This bridge is a well-photographed spot.")
  • Remove non-encyclopedic stuff (I am not sure that Councilor Edgar's diet (sandwiches, tea, biscuits) is relevant for the country park)
  • Parts of the article sound too much like advertising to me
You also might want to read WP:YFA if you haven't done already. bamse (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm handling this according to procedure but, here goes. I feel that the article on President Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia needs to be re-evaluated. John Schlinder who is already resourced in the article has recently come out with another book entitled "Unholy Terror". It's a book that is thoroughly researched with a full bibliography for evidence of his assesments. Many of his arguments and evidence refute what has been thought of as "common knowledge" as to what really happened during the Bosnian conflict. I'd like to forward the idea that someone besides me who might be more even handed and experienced then me, read the book and then make any editorial adjustments that might be felt as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazycelt1969 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I link the correct article in the section heading? If you cannot find somebody here, you might want to leave a message on the article's talk page. Expert wikipedians or people interested in Alija Izetbegovic will more easily find your request there. Sorry, it is not exactly my cup of tea, so can't help you with this request. bamse (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite technical up till now, but is it clear to a casual reader and does it make sense ? It would be great if someone would examine the article somewhat from a layman's view. Thrill59 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a programmer, I find this offers far too little context, let alone for the layperson. There is plenty of good information there, but the lead entirely fails to explain exactly what CE-HTML is. As mainly a backend database developer, I have not come across this, and still don't know quite whether is is a new type of document, or a platform specification, and if so what parts of the system it covers, and so on. More explanation is needed. Thanks for making a good start to this though.— Kan8eDie (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Valle

Greetings. I've made substantial additions to this page, could you please make some comments about its structure, contents, and cites. Please also add comments to the feedback section of the talk page. -Andremun (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]