Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback/Archive4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WWriter (talk | contribs)
189 edits
Line 780: Line 780:
;Other comments?
;Other comments?
*
*

== Feedback from WWriter (30 July 2010) ==

<!-- you can answer next to the stars below the questions - you needn't answer all of them -->

;Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
* NO, NO, NO

;Was it easy to understand ?
* yes

;Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
* Please note the page has a selection for "Create an Article Now" and never actually does this. I clicked on "create a new phrase/word" and was taken to the "End" tab that describes neologisms. Huh? It appears to me that the Article Wizard does not describe how to actually create an article (arrrrg). In the discussion pages there is a reference to "New article name is" so there must be a mechanical procedure somewhere, but I cannot find it from the wizard.

;How can we make it better?
* Wikipedia continually makes the same mistake on its instructional pages. There should be two categories, let's say "policies" and "procedures" OR "guiding principles" and "mechanics" OR "preparation" and "doing it". The two categories of instructions should have distinctive and identifying colors or marks so users can immediately see the difference. PLEASE NOTE: Procedures should almost always be written as numbered lists and have verbs for titles. Policy pages can be unordered lists or tabs or standard text and typically have nouns for titles. This convention is well known to technical writers. Why? Because it is what people consciously or subconsciously expect. The title "Article wizard" should inform the user at the beginning what he/she can expect to accomplish by following the wizard. Thank you.

;Other comments?
* [[User:WWriter|WWriter]] ([[User talk:WWriter|talk]]) 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:20, 30 July 2010

This page is for user feedback from users of the Wikipedia:Article wizard. Please let us know what you think of the wizard (what was good? what was bad? what was confusing?), particularly any suggestions for improvement. For answering predefined questions, click here.

Note: this page is for new contributors, or established users actively using the wizard. Established users who are not active users of the wizard are asked to comment at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard.

General feedback and suggestions for improvement

  • It has weird tabs on the top that don't do anything on the first page, and the END tab is wrapped around under the number 1 tab. And after searching for my topic, it does not fill it in the final name box! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I get your final point now. Sorry, there's currently no way for a search box on one page to know what happened in a search box on another page. Rd232 talk 11:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If the pageviews go down as the steps through the wizard do, maybe add a small line of encouragement (you're almost there! or great, first down, a little more to go!) JoeSmack Talk 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well it's clear how many steps there, and the progress through them (isn't it?). I fear such messages might be distracting and patronising. And don't forget that unless we expect every person using the wizard to have a well thought out idea for an article on a notable topic with sources to hand, then the objective isn't going to be to turn 100% of users into article creators. It would help if users abandoning told us why, but that's hard to achieve. Rd232 talk 08:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, number of steps is quite clear, but it's different from looking up, 'which step am I on now?...gee wiz, i'd rather be checking my tweets...*clickgone*'. The non-well-thought-out people aside, thats what I was envisioning. JoeSmack Talk 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback from 86.170.203.91 (9 December 2009)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

It was very informative and helpful in every way to start an article.

Was it easy to understand ?

It was fairley easy to understand and complete. The language was all spot on and understandable. Apart for how to actuall make the actual article.

Was it complete enough, with enough details ?

I thought it could of asked for more things like name and email so you could contact them.

How can we make it better?

Ask a few more contact details and 'have you ever done something like this before' or 'You must do it on a word document' because I was very confused on where to do it on.

Other comments?

You could have a article on tips for writing articles.

Feedback from EdGilmour (9 January 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Yes
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Yes
How can we make it better?
  • Cannot
Other comments?
  • It was concise, direct, and useful. Very good.

Feedback from Edgarhana (14 January 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

yes

Was it easy to understand ?
  • yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • no
How can we make it better?
  • state a sample of articles
Other comments?


Feedback from Robot777 (30 January 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Yes, it was
Was it easy to understand ?
  • It was okay.
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • No,it was not.
How can we make it better?
Other comments?
  • Add more detail!

Feedback from 118.102.184.46 (6 February 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • no, the whole wizard got over but there was no critera for writing
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?


Other comments?

Feedback from Jackthebigspack (25 February 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • yes it was
Was it easy to understand ?
  • it was very easy
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • deffinaltly
How can we make it better?
  • sum up some of the meandering points
Other comments?

Page request

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • No
Was it easy to understand ?
  • No
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • No
How can we make it better?
  • Include important facts on each step of using wizard
Other comments?
  • Add a page with information about www.airpoop.com, i searched for it but was re-directed to an information page with the subject of flatulance

Feedback from Crunkyboy (28 February 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Yes, it was.
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes, it was.
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Yes.
How can we make it better?
  • It's already quite good. It gives you the ggod way to do a neutral and good article.
Other comments?
  • No, its all.

Feedback from Roxanne47 (7 March 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Yes it is helpful
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes it is very easy
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Yes
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from Pwned191 (18 March 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

no

Was it easy to understand ?

no

Was it complete enough, with enough details ?

no

How can we make it better?

let me write about myself!

Other comments?

please let me write about myself

Feedback from Gamalcybereader (19 March 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • yes
Was it easy to understand ?
  • yes, it's easy to understand
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • not really,
How can we make it better?
  • by adding more tools to help readers better find what they are looking for
Other comments?

I suggest it would be a landmark for your esteemed work, to help us as readers to give you a hand to enrich your fine work. As an example, a new Emam of Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, Egypt is assigned today. Unfortunately, your articles mention nothing from near or far, about Sheikh Ahmad ElTayeb, and when I tried to send to you some "seeds" for an article to be composed in a mature or valid structure, I got surprised by the burdensome work it might take, in case it'd be done in one step. I am certain you know better and could do better. For instance, why not collect information about the above mentioned person and review the reliability of the given? The respect and appreciation of your work, motivates me to send to you the under-mentioned facts about the person I am talking about. thank you for your patience and I'm awaiting an answer from your esteemed society, which would be a fine greeting to me.

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

I think it is, but haven't found out how to link to exisitng content...I am the organizer of the first ever, Leeds Festival Fringe, events in August 2010...how do I link to what is already on wiki please?


http://www.leedsfestivalfringe.org

http://www.phoenixfm.co.uk


Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from Kandi111777 (25 March 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Yes, I've created a few new articles myself but this was great!
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes.
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Yes.
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from 61.88.45.5 (26 March 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

Not really. Wikipedia has very little information about the topic at hand, I have at least two websites, the first being http://www.onecmdb.org and the second being the CA website for CA CMDB.

I was going to add a page for OneCMDB, for which the page reference is onecmdb.org, in relation to what an MDR is and how it is used.

Both CA CMDB and OneCMDB use MDR for their CMDB implementation. I can see the MDR page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_Data_Repository - right here.

I've just had to piece together the information useful for this page, and in the past I've started wikipedia pages on topics to which there are needed like this.

I'm not lost and confused.

Every time I use this wizard it leaves me thinking that I shouldn't be putting this information into wikipedia.

This page - http://www.onecmdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Import_Excel_with_MDR_Configurator - has a start on what you can expect of a generic MDR.

Was it easy to understand ?

I'm still not sure how I'm meant to create a new page on a technical topic to which the audience, at this time, is minimal. I suppose I could link to some white papers on the topics, but I really don't see how that is going to help.

In this case, and MDR is an MDR is an MDR. There is no way of saying that it is anything else; the only question is how each CMDB implementation uses it.

Do you want me to create this page or not?


Was it complete enough, with enough details ?

I don't think it wants me to create a page on something which exists in reality. OneCMDB is just as every bit as valid in existance as CA CMDB software, so why can't I create a OneCMDB page? The only real reference I can give right now is the OneCMDB website. According to your rules, this would be deemed as being Advertising. I think. I'm not sure. I'd rather not break the rules.

How can we make it better?

Allow people to create pages first, then decide afterwards if it is valid or not?

I've spent more time being wound up about not being able to create several new pages ... actually.. given that I have this information right here I've spent more time trying to figure out why the wizard wouldn't let me create pages then actually adding content.

I think the content I'm trying to add must not be worthy.

Please then, delete the pages on: CA (computer associates), CA SCM (Harvest), Endevor, "CMDB", CA CMDB, and related pages.


Other comments?


This is depressing.

Feedback from Lennonbuff (17 March 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • No, you need a lawyer to figure it all out. This needs to be simplified to a user friendly format.
Was it easy to understand ?
  • It is not easy to understand!
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • NO!
How can we make it better?
  • The way to make this better is to SIMPLIFY. Make it so that all one has to do is to select a page format, with capsuls to fill in and move around to desired locations on the page. Simple photo/Video upload form section with a browse select button to chose the source and location of desired photo/video. This will make for a more reliable format and submission process.
Other comments?
  • The user does not need to see code or code sections, it is distracting! fix this for us and it will be a more pleasent experience.

Feedback from Gould363 (21 March 2010)

Was this page helpful ?
  • Was expecting more in the way of help with the actual mechanics, & less in the way of 'Are you being a bozo? Click Yes or No' questions. Seems like the Wizard's main function is to prefilter out stuff that violates Wikipedia's standards -- which, believe me, I appreciate the need for (I don't begrudge Wikipedia's tireless admins the help, especially since I'm not pitching in myself as an admin); but it wasn't what I was expecting.
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better ?
  • More links to formatting & style help (like the one for how to add references).
  • Better yet, examples included as a template in the new article itself. Everybody needs to add refs, right? So why make people go find and copy & paste the template from somewhere else?
  • Tips like 'you may find it easier to edit using external software such as Word'.
Other comments ?
  • I found the ASCII user interface prohibitively user unfriendly. Anything that would make it easier would help. What it really needs, of course, is a WYSIWYG front end. While I wouldn't expect that from the Wizard -- it would constitute a next-generation-scale project -- there must be tips & tricks for laying things out in a more human-readable fashion within the constraints of the ASCII system.

Feedback from 217.149.203.147 (28 March 2010)

Б

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from 96.239.60.250 (28 March 2010)

this is

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from Lwangaman (1 April 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • I would suggest including, in the "SUBJECT" tab, the category "FILM" together with "MUSICAL GROUP, ARTIST, ALBUM, or SONG"
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Lwangaman (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from 91.177.94.148 (7 April 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

Halfway

Was it easy to understand ?

Yes

Was it complete enough, with enough details ?

No

How can we make it better?

Get the first option (draft) to work: I could not input

Other comments?

As accountant of the Multinational Advisory Police Element and only remaining WEU staffer from this body, referred to (unlinked) in the Foreign Relations of Slovenia page, I have primary responsibility for the history of this organisation. I am also a resigned Wikipedia editor. Can your authorising editor contact me on jelmain arubase skynet dot ISOcodeForBelgium, please?

Feedback from 68.4.76.22 (23 April 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ? no I wabted to add a note after "12mm gyrojet" in "List of pistol cartridges" since there is no page associated with this heading, but was unable to do so or steer reader to "rocket pistols" and "gyrojet".
Was it easy to understand ?no
Was it complete enough, with enough details ? no
How can we make it better? Simplify process
Other comments? My first try.

Feedback from 88.85.58.246 (27 April 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ? Yes it is .
Was it easy to understand ? Yes.
Was it complete enough, with enough details ? I think it has the useful things.
How can we make it better? Help the "SIC".
Other comments? I Love Wikipedia.

Feedback from Jnotary (3 May 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ? Yes
Was it easy to understand ? Yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?Yes
How can we make it better? Although writing an article about yourself is not nutral, the other consideration is
No one knows the truth better than yourself.
Other comments?

Feedback from Ranel5310 (21 May 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Almost helpful.
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Somewhat easy...
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Enough.
How can we make it better?
  • Re-writing the wizard very clearly... I am confused...
Other comments?
  • No more. Thanks.

Feedback from LBMRLS (26 May 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
Was it easy to understand ?
  • No, as I am trying to find out how to upload my article from my Userspace LBMRLS I cannot find the[move] button in my space.
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
  • Make it clear how to uplacod.
Other comments?

Feedback from 76.64.63.21 (9 June 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Yes
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Yes
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Andris Berzins (scuptor)

Born 1946 in Riga,Latvia. Meber of Jurmala`s artists group. Great sculptor and artist.

Feedback from Oliver Peyton (10 June 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • No
Was it easy to understand ?
  • No. You might as well have written it in ancient Sanskrit
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • It was incomprehensible and wasted an hour of my afternoon
How can we make it better?
  • Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Other comments?
  • I am very unlikely ever to contribute anything to Wikipedia. I am a professional historian, presently working at Oxford University, and I thought that W'pedia was a genuine forum for public knowledge. It is nothing of the kind, however, and I found the whole experience very disappointing.

Feedback from BillAngus (26 June 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

Yes

Was it easy to understand ?

Yes

Was it complete enough, with enough details ?

Yes

How can we make it better?
Other comments?

I see other Wikipedia entries which describe places and organizations (Schools, school boards, etc.). However, these do not meet the definition of "notability" in the wizard (they neither cite authorities nor are they likely to be cited as authorities in other articles). I intended to write an article about a Drug & Alcohol Treatment facility operated by a government organization. The article would be about a notable subject using the dictionary definition of the word (i.e. worthy of note). I surmise that Wikipedia doesn't want such content -- if this is a wrong surmise, you may want to change the description of "notable" in the wizard.

Feedback from EverMoody (27 June 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Yes
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • I have only just read the introduction, but the overview of what can be done using the Wizard was concise and clear.
How can we make it better?
Other comments?
  • I appreciate that one of the first things noted in the instructions for creating your first article is that the article can be constructed as a draft on my user page prior to publishing it. I am meticulous and do not like to publish work-in-progress. Thank you for this option.

Feedback from 92.8.11.125 (1 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

boo hiss for wikipedia

Feedback from NeisenKR (7 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • It was very helpful in understanding what subjects an article should be created on, and how Wiki wants those article sourced. It did not help me understand the intricacies of actually working on / making an article at all.
Was it easy to understand ?
  • The info that was presented was well done.
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • It wasn't a wizard so much as a brief explanation of guidelines. When I hear "wizard" I think of more information plug and play.
How can we make it better?
  • I would like to see / was hoping for a tool to help me build the article itself. It would be best to be able to insert headers, links, notes/ref, etc etc all with a few buttons instead of an average joe (that's me!) trying to follow this computer language.
Other comments?
  • I build cars, not websites. I love Wiki as a reference but I don't think I can actually contribute to it, which is frustrating.

Feedback from 83.82.149.251 (19 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from Substar (19 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Somewhat; though I knew most of what it told me, having been a Wikipedia contributor for a few years.
Was it easy to understand ?
  • Yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Yes
How can we make it better?
  • Please include a description of STUB articles. Is it possible to create a stub using the wizard?
Other comments?
  • The main purpose of the wizard seems to be to discourage people from composing an article when not warranted.

Feedback from 92.113.191.205 (21 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?

yes

Was it easy to understand ?

yes

Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • yes
How can we make it better?
  • everything perfect and clear
Other comments?

its really boon for humans

Feedback from Junkboxrudebox (27 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from 128.156.10.80 (28 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • Not really. While it gives the user some idea of what creating an article entails, it doesn't fulfill the normal standards of a wizard; little template is provided, there is no direct link to the usual "Create an Article" interface, etc.
Was it easy to understand ?
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
How can we make it better?
Other comments?

Feedback from WWriter (30 July 2010)

Was the Wizard helpful to guide you in creating an article ?
  • NO, NO, NO
Was it easy to understand ?
  • yes
Was it complete enough, with enough details ?
  • Please note the page has a selection for "Create an Article Now" and never actually does this. I clicked on "create a new phrase/word" and was taken to the "End" tab that describes neologisms. Huh? It appears to me that the Article Wizard does not describe how to actually create an article (arrrrg). In the discussion pages there is a reference to "New article name is" so there must be a mechanical procedure somewhere, but I cannot find it from the wizard.
How can we make it better?
  • Wikipedia continually makes the same mistake on its instructional pages. There should be two categories, let's say "policies" and "procedures" OR "guiding principles" and "mechanics" OR "preparation" and "doing it". The two categories of instructions should have distinctive and identifying colors or marks so users can immediately see the difference. PLEASE NOTE: Procedures should almost always be written as numbered lists and have verbs for titles. Policy pages can be unordered lists or tabs or standard text and typically have nouns for titles. This convention is well known to technical writers. Why? Because it is what people consciously or subconsciously expect. The title "Article wizard" should inform the user at the beginning what he/she can expect to accomplish by following the wizard. Thank you.
Other comments?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback/Archive4&oldid=376332743"