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

Virginity test

I almost completely rewrote this article last night. It was previously an opinion essay with one source, so I spent last night finding it other sources, organizing, adding information and rewriting. I don't feel comfortable removing the NPOV and the clean-up tags when I'm the only one who's worked on the article since those tags were applied. Any commentary or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I made almost 50 edits last night, so I'm sure I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took awhile to respond. I'm actually procrastinating on writing an essay right now... so I'll give you some feedback to fill my time :-)

• You should probably format the references. You've done a nice job of referencing things, but the formatting is just a little off. See how the links in the reference section come up as [1], [2], etc? You need to fill in a title for the webpage after the URL to give the blue link a name. If you aren't sure how to do this, let me know.
• The sentence in the lead that states "It is based on the incorrect belief that a woman’s hymen can only be torn as a result of sexual intercourse." should probably be changed. More specifically, the word "incorrect". Maybe substitute "false assumption"? Incorrect seems harsh and perhaps a little overbearing. Also, the lead needs at least one or two references up there (they can be ones that are included already, but just haven't been tagged up top yet) to verify its info.
• The article is a little unbalanced right now. It sort of focuses a lot on Africa. Granted that that is probably where a lot of this stuff happens today, I'm sure there's info about elsewhere in the world. Check out Google Scholar at www.scholar.google.com. I've found they can find a lot of good sources for Wikipedia.

Don't get me wrong, I think you've done a very nice job so far. Those are just some things that can help the article. Remember, no article is ever perfect. You could probably take those tags off the top of the article now since you've fixed things. Killiondude (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on all of that. Thank you! AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Take care with WP:OR especially WP:SYNTH - in the lede.
• Sadly still occurs in many countries in the Indian continent; I've heard about a plastic surgery proves that 'restores' the hymen. Japan had/has? a tv show with 'live' deflowering; not sure if that's relevant. Bit more digging needed to broaden the scope, I think. Good luck. --  Chzz  ►  14:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

new user

I wrote an article for someone else, i am finished with the article. i did it in sand box how do i post the article--Elvis "BlacElvis" Williams (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm assuming you're talking about the article you wrote in your user space? It seems to be an auto-biography which Wikipedia strongly advises against. Not only that, but you don't seem to meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Additionally it seems to be full of untrue statements and unreferenced (among other issues). See WP:INTRODUCTION and WP:FIRST. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Marisko/eFileCabinet

I'm a first-time new contributor and I am looking for some feedback regarding at article I created in my user space. It's far from complete but any tips/suggestions on how to further improve the article to make sure it is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and NPOV would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! --Marisko (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it could use at least one or two more sources that discuss the company in depth. This fulfills the requirement of WP:COMPANY that states a source has to have significant coverage in secondary sources for it to be included in Wikipedia. It certainly has a neutral point of view, and you back up your claim with sources, which is really good. You could also wikilink things like Provo, UT (the first instance), and maybe one or two other relevant terms in the article (it seems a little "wikilink bare"). When you think you've reached the requirements of WP:COMPANY you can move the article into the mainspace. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulltick

Hi, Could you please give me some feedback on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Communicationsbcm I'm a first-time new contributor. I really need help on how to improve the article. Any tips will be much appreciated. Thank you Alejandra --Communicationsbcm (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs references from reliable sources to support the facts. People have to be able to check the information - for example, it says "was founded in 1999" - how could I verify that? Is it mentioned in a newspaper or book? If not, you'll have to remove that fact.

Also, as with all corporate articles, be very wary of conflict of interest. If you do have an interest in the company, then you should carefully read WP:BESTCOI. Hope this helps; any questions, ask me on my own talk page. Good luck! --  Chzz  ►  10:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheree Silver

Hi, Sheree Silver is a relatively new article brought back in a deletion review. Could somebody take a look at it and see where it is on the article class scale? Thank you for your time. Spring12 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on proposed TurnKey Linux article

The User:Abd/TurnKey Linux was rewritten based on an earlier article that was deleted in a rather messy affair triggered by an anonymous IP vandal.

The current version of the article has been substantially rewritten and cites multiple reliable sources which establish it's notability. It is now awaiting additional feedback in order to reach a broad consensus on it's move from userspace back to mainspace.

I've opened an RfC but that seems to be a venue that focuses on edit conflicts, rather than a good place to asking for general feedback. I wasn't previously aware of this page, but now that I've found it, it looks like what I was originally looking for.

LirazSiri (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Keown100/Sion_Record_Bostick

This is my first original article and only my second contribution. Although I've tried to do my due diligence, I would appreciate any feedback.

I'm particularly interested in feedback and advice regarding citing references. I want to use inline citations as opposed to general citations. However, one reference serves as the source for several facts in the article. Is there a more appropriate way of doing this than the method I have employed?

Keown100 (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

I have remade this article, and for sure it is not any more start-class. Can somebody review it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Perelien/Sandbox

Hi! I'm a new user, and a first-time contributor. I've just written an article on Dutch trance artist DJ Dazzle (it's in my Sandbox), and I would really appreciate it if someone could have a look at it and give me some feedback. Thanks a lot in advance! Perelien (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Article: Situationist International - from Start to C-Class

I would say Situationist International has now evolved to C-Class. Any comments?--Sum (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)