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: ()

• May 3
• May 4
• May 5
• May 6
• May 7
• May 8
• May 9
• May 10
• May 11
• May 12
• May 13
• May 14
• May 15
• May 16
• May 17
• May 18
• May 19
• May 20
• May 21
• May 22

Index of all requests for feedback

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)

Well, I prodded both of the disambiguation pages. If you read WP:DISAMBIG it explains when disambiguation pages are used and such, and I don't believe these pages needed their own titled disambigs. The Story of an American Family is looking okay. I fixed some minor things on the page. The biggest thing is to try and add content to it, and fix the concerns addressed in the tags at the top of the article. Try to find sources for any info that you add to it though, the more sources the better. See WP:NOVSTY for info on style guidelines for novels.

As far as Alex Haley's Queen, I added three tags to it. It is completely unreferenced, which is not really good. Like I said, the more sources the better. If you can fix that, you could take the tag off or change it to template:refimprove. The second issue with that article is that the plot summary is much larger in comparison to the other aspects of the article (unbalanced). You could try paring that down as well as adding content to the other parts. See WP:MOSTV for more info on how to structure that article. Killiondude (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! I will look at your suggestions and try to improve the article!! Rivka (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

CE-HTML

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)

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)

Improved on the article, including a concise introduction plus picture, rearranged the technical stuff to different areas, and hopefully made it more clearer ; how does it look ? -- Thrill59 (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Valle

Greetings. I've made substantial additions to University of Valle 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)

I skimmed the page for a few minutes looking at various parts. I can give you a few pointers. You can remove the subsections that have no content in them right now (Athletics, Activism and any others). The Noted people section could probably include a few of the more notable people that are included on the List of University of Valle people page. "See also" sections are generally used for pages that are already not wikilinked inside the article. I'm not sure if all those are wikilinked, but I see the "list of people" page is. As a matter of personal opinion, I think all reference tags look better after punctuation (if punctuation is directly next to it), but Wikipedia policy simply maintains that each article be consistent with however they place the reference tags. You seem to have stayed consistent, which is what matters. The Faculties subsection looks like it needs some clean up... you can remove the parts that don't have any info after them (Faculty of Health: for example). In the future, you might wanna just convert that subsection into prose instead of a half list/half prose piece. Overall, the article looks nice. Good job on referencing. You can probably take the tags off of the top of the article now. If you have any further questions or requests feel free to post here or on my talk page. Killiondude (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kman787

Hi,

I just wrote my first wiki article in my user space. Can someone review and give some feedback to see if it is o.k. to move it into the live Wikipedia main area? If not, what changes need to be made to improve the article.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kman787 (talk • contribs) 21:21, February 20, 2009

I see that you attempted to post the article live at SelfMadeEasy.com (a few days after posting here), and it was speedy deleted. I'm sorry that your request for feedback wasn't answered sooner! Accounting4Taste was correct in what he wrote on your talk page about why the article was inadequate. If you have any further questions about how you could fix the article, you can ask me on my talk page. Also read WP:BFAQ. Killiondude (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

EmEditor

I've made substantial additions to the EmEditor page, could you please make some comments about content citations, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. I'm most concerned about having enough/proper references. Thanks! Red Summer Rain (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. So from the page's history is looks like it has been in existence for 3 years (almost to the day), largely untouched until you spruced it up. The first thing that should be done with the page is that more independent, third party sources to show that it is notable enough to meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Somebody put a {{notable}} tag on the article a few years ago, but an IP rewrote the article and removed the tag (not addressing the issue). If notability isn't proven, then the article has a chance of being deleted.

After notability is taken care of, you can probably focus on the following:

• "EmEditor" is the starting word of a lot of sentences. In fact, it is stated many times throughout the article. You can probably substitute "the software" or something similar in many places so that it is a smoother read and less repetitious.
• The lead section is pretty choppy. Try combining sentences (make compound sentences) and give a little more of a summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for more info.
• Similarly, you might wanna combine short paragraphs (one or two sentences) into longer paragraphs.
• You might want to check out this guide to see if it could help in any way (I've never extensively edited software-related articles, so this might help you more as far as what content you could add).
• You also might wanna check out this tool that helps citie things (when you're finding sources show notability).

Hope that helps. If you have any further questions you can ask here, or on my talk page. Killiondude (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Composting toilet

Major rewrite, removing flags for verbosity/repetition, NPOV, worldview. Open to any critique or comment on this stumbling first -- Red58bill (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleacher Creatures

I started this page a while ago and have recently tried to fix the grammar and references. It has some good content but I would like some suggestions on how to improve it. --Sportskido8 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 14:59, February 27, 2009.

Royal Cliff Beach Resort

Hi,

I tried to write the new article about Royal Cliff Beach Resort, Pattaya in Thailand and It was deleted from Wikipedia which was explained that the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company.

Now I have rewritten this article to become more like encyclopedia and I think this article will be useful for any viewers who want to know about PATTAYA, THAILAND. This hotel is the one of most popular in Thailand and is the one of the very first hotel in PATTAYA. They have received multi-award from all over the world in the past 35 years. User:Kannaphon/Royal_Cliff_Beach_Resort

Could you please kindly review my article and advise me how to improve this article.