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.
Net Price Calculators
I'd appreciate some feedback on this article. I'm a subject expert however I think a review by a more experienced Wikipedia contributor would be very helpful.
Thanks M Fallon 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC) MAC Fallon May 3, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAC Fallon (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, but the article you've tried to link to is a dead one - it doesn't lead anywhere. Please try and fix your link so that I can review your article. I have tried searching but I still cannot find the article. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found it! I think there's still a lot of work that needs to be done to the article. I think you need to add more links to the article, as well as sections to divide up the parts of the article to make it easier to read. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive this breach of protocol please, but I know helpers here are much more likely to read a message here than on the talk.
Helpers, please see the discussion about how many threads we should keep on this page, and when we should archive them. I think it's a bit long, but before we change it, we could do with more opinions.
The editor of Trim The Fat has requested that this user space draft article be moved to article space. I'm not sufficiently conversant with the criteria associated with music articles, so I'm hoping someone else will provide some feedback, and make the move if warranted.--SPhilbrickT21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few comments on the article's discussion page, just about the POV problems it's got, which can affect any type of article. Chevymontecarlo12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Netexplorateur
The editor of Netexplorateur has requested that this user space article be moved to article space. The references are all in French, so I'm hoping someone else will provide some feedback, and make the move if warranted.--SPhilbrickT22:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the second reference seems to be a news article of some sort (I translated it using http://www.translate.google.co.uk) and the first reference seems to be another article of some sort, but I'm not entirely sure. Where shall I provide the feedback? On the user's talk page? Chevymontecarlo07:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created an article for DC Special Series. This is a comic book related item so any editors with expertise in that area are invited to review. Thanks!
Well, I do not have any expertise with the criteria associated with comic book articles but I can advise on the actual layout and design of the article. Although you have references in there, they are all from more or less the same website which can be an issue. I can understand that the website you are using for multiple references is very useful but using different parts of the same website for multiple references does not bode well. Maybe that's something you need to look at. Chevymontecarlo07:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am requesting that the article Schoep's Ice Cream be reviewed. This is the first article I have written without guidance and I would like some input on how I did. I know it needs additional content, but I am not sure where it is lacking. Feel free to be honest, I won't be offended. Thank you. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be rather nice. I'd suggest reading WP:LEAD to help judge how large the lead should be. Also, try using Template:cite web. It's hard to get the hang of it, but helps describe the author and so forth. There's some thing in your preferences section that helps with that, I just don't remember what. Hope this helps! Buggie111 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alpha Quadrant, I'm no wikipedia expert but I love ice cream. I enjoyed your page. If you want to include some additional external links or references, I found the following articles that mention Schoep's ice cream. I was particularly interested in the first one--that they make over 200 flavors including 7 kinds of vanilla! Nice job.
OneAPI repeted deletion and impossibility to communicate with the person who deleted it
Hi,
I just want to mention that I want to create a page about a new API specification and this page created yesterday was first deleted by Deb, I contacted her and she kindly suggested me some improvements.
The URL of the page was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneAPI
Which I did today. And this page was immediately proposed to deletion but I put an hangon label but during the half hour that needed me to write an explanation why I feel it's important to have an article about OneAPI. But both the article page and the discussion page were deleted by JzG during the time I wrote the discussion page.
JzG should have left me some time because there was the "hangon" label, but now I am trapped, because the discussion page of this user is protected so I have no possibility to discuss my problem.
I'm not able to review deleted content, so I cannot discuss the merits of the decision to delete. I thought a hangon tag should help, but I don't know the exact sequence of events. I can tell you that if you start a draft article in a user subpage, assuming it doesn't violate copyright or have other egregious problems, you can work on it at your own, pace, then come here and ask for feedback, which won't guarantee it will survive, but it should help. Using the Article Wizard will give you an option to save to a user subpage, or if you have the content saved somewhere and want to directly copy it into a user subpage, just ask and I'll create one.--SPhilbrickT21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article a few months ago and edited it a bit today. I'd like to get some feedback on it. Some other people also edited it but the unreviewed tag is still present.
Hello - I am writing a Wikipedia post for the Black Weblog Awards. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia post, so I would like any feedback to make sure this gets accepted. Would also like to add some category pages as well if this is accepted. Thanks!
Good - the infobox is nicely done, enough links in there, and at least some references. I think perhaps you should put all of the award categories into a table instead of a list like that, the template for a table is found at Template:Table - just copy and paste the code in like you maybe did for the infobox. I will remove the unreviewed template. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo07:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well written article, with appropriate sections and Wikilinks to other articles. I think it needs some more references for the 'list of events' section though - it's a big section with no references so that is likely to be picked up sooner or later by someone if it went live now. And I'm not sure about the notability of the article either - although it seems it has been featured on local radio and press in the past so maybe it's not so much of a problem. Chevymontecarlo06:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would really appreciate feedback on this article. There is a definite under representation of live art and performance on wikipedia and it would be really great to know the best ways to go about redressing this?
Expanding on Alpha Quadrant's point, the table template found at Template:Table may help you. You can copy and paste the code into your article and add the information in. Hope this helped! :) Chevymontecarlo06:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Sphilbrick, it sounds like a dictionary entry. I think it needs a bit more work to make it more encyclopedic as personally I think an article on that subject would be very useful. Chevymontecarlo06:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that according to the rules and policies at WP:CITE, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references for other articles, so I think you should probably remove the Wikipedia article link that is being used as a reference and replace it with another from an external site, if you can find one. Chevymontecarlo06:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your time and help in reviewing new articles - this is my first entirely new article
The 10th anniversary of the Pier 34 Collapse in Philadelphia has been in the news (even nationally) a lot lately, and I saw no article on here for the 2000 collapse, and since it was mentioned in a list of Engineering Disaster/Collapses in another artice, I decided to write it.
There was considerable coverage of the collapse, especially since the owners were brought up on criminal charges as a result of the deaths that occured.
I think there needs to be a few more references in the history and location section, and the opening paragraph as some important statements are made but there's no references to prove it. Technically, I think your article is great, with sections correctly inserted into the article and a few Wikilinks, but it needs more. Categories would also be useful to add to the article. Try searching for something like 'American accidents' and then add the categories to the end of the article, underneath the references section. Please ask at the help chat or the Wikipedia Help Desk if you are unsure about adding categories to your article or if you have any more questions. Hope this helped! :) Chevymontecarlo06:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Article has been updated with additional references to shore up the weaker areas. I added a catagory for Building Collapses, and also put in a few helpful WikiLinks. If anyone else has a moment to look at it and give me a thumbs up/thumbs down, I really would like to move it! =) Thanks!!!! Ngmweb (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! The categories will help to list the article with similar ones and get people reading it. I am not very confident with the process of moving a new article into the mainspace so I'm hoping someone else will be able to help you - If someone else could assist with moving the above article into the mainspace and/or provide a review that would be great! Thank you. Chevymontecarlo06:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it - if someone else besides Chevymontecarlo could also review it and remove the article flag, I would appreciate it! Ngmweb (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - I'm not sure if English is a first language for you, but if you can work with anyone here, maybe they can understand what the article's subject is more clearly, and then help you re-write it. Ngmweb (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks - the article needs more links to other articles to help the reader. Please try adding more if you can.
Some Point Of View problems - articles on Wikipedia need to sound neutral in tone. Your article is good, but I think in places the tone makes the article sound like an advertisement. Please try to improve it if you can. I hope this helped :) Chevymontecarlo06:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Van Tuyl
I posted the article "Van Tuyl" in December 2009 and it still has an "unreviewed" tag. If you would be interested in reviewing this summary of my family history and can suggest changes and/or remove the "unreviewed" tag, I would greatly appreciate it.
Hello. Just moving the article into the Wikipedia mainspace will not necessarily mean that it will get reviewed straightaway. Not all editors want their new article reviewed, and it can take a while for someone to patrol the new page to check if it's OK, so that's why unreviewed tags stay there for a while. I will provide a review in a minute... Chevymontecarlo15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think although the article is very informative there are a few problems/issues that I found:
References - although you have some in the article, which is great, the whole article seems to rest on just a couple of references from the same source. Please try and find a few more varied sources (But please don't remove the references you have at the moment)
Wikilinks - the last part of the article has a definate lack of Wikilinks (Links to other articles on Wikipedia). Please try and add a few more - that'd be great.
Yes, the links and references that are already in there are great - it's just the tone that you need to improve. At the moment it sounds like an advertisement for the company and is therefore not encyclopedic. Chevymontecarlo11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please take a look at Pirmin Meier and then hopefully remove that ugly new unreviewed article template? Thanks (and don't be too hard on me, it's my first article) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your first article?! It's very good - many links are broken and the notes section should be called references (and you need some more inline citations), but it has a picture, table, and is very long. Also notable - that's very important. I've removed the feedback template. I would give it a B-Class (if I knew how to officially rate it) Great Job! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for that positive feedback. Feels good! And yep, it's the first page I created myself; before that I only did some minor edits on other articles. For the boxes and stuff, since I didn't (and still don't) know my way around templates, I just copied the relevant sections from other articles that I considered good and then changed their contents – kinda tedious, but it worked... (Speaking of templates: I would have a question about how you change what their output looks like; can I ask it here or shold I take it elsewhere?) As for the broken links, I'm planning on creating the corresponding articles as well, and thought I'd already prepare the linkages. Can they stay for a while like that? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very good article - the references are really messed up (no offense), and it could use a pic and infobox, but it is very good. If you want, I can fix the references and move it into mainspace (create it for real). ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|04:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need a few more links to other articles in there - if you are unsure how to do so please ask. I also think there a few minor Point Of View (POV) problems (It sounds a bit like it's in favour of the company in places), so it could do with being made a little more neutral in tone. It's nothing major though so I don't think it's anything to worry about. Chevymontecarlo12:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand infoboxes either, but for pics, just put this "[[Exact On-Wiki FileName|thumb|alt=Text That Shows If Pic Can't|Caption]]" Here's an example - "[[Image:Period_(school_term).jpg|thumb|alt=Period|The Word "Period".<br><small>Typeface - Helvetica, Size - 57, Color - Black</small> ]]" produces ... The Word "Period". — Preceding unsigned comment added by QwerpQwertus (talk • contribs)
Just wanted to know if the way of listing the patents looks OK, or should somehow connect it with the references.
I'd like more references, but it seemed like I'd jut be repeating the external links.
Obviously the article will benefit from photographs, but looks like we have to wait a while before we're allowed.
I'm a bit troubled by your use of "we", please keep in mind wikipedia's policy of one person one account. It looks like you have enough references to establish notability, and it's a good start. The article does read like a resume, I would suggest dumping the patents section in favor of a sentence or two about his most important patents. Also, you can give a url that porints to Google's patent search to provide a link to them. It is also not necessary to list all of his publications, two or three representative works should suffice. In terms of the prose, I'd suggest avoiding non neutral phrases such as "renowned", "particularly well known", "keen interest". I also notice that the articles about him are listed, and that the body of the article remains largely unsourced. Rather than listing the articles, it would be better to use them as sources for the text in the body, such as the awards and recognition he has received, the equipment he uses, and his influences. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about my comments. --Nuujinn (talk)20:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a local but nationally well known cruise agent. Some notable sources are included. Feedback would be very much appreciated. Geotgeot (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Gill's Cruise Centre per your request. Please note, if you try to search for it using the search option, it always takes some time, a few hours to a day, for it to show up in search, and at the moment, it appears the indexing is lagged a few days.--SPhilbrickT13:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been havng my first stabs at creating a wikipedia article for the EC funded research project, InTopSens of which I have the joy (?) of managing. I uploaded a couple of versions of the article but each time they were deleted. Perhaps someone could be so kind as to go to this link and tell me what I can do to avoid this happening again:
Sorry to report this, but I see no way to avoid this happening again. You have a conflict of Interest, which means you shouldn’t be creating or even editing such an article, although if someone else creates it, you can provide help at the article talk page. On occasion, we hear that people have been instructed to create a Wikipedia page about their project/company. In those case in may help to show the employer the COI guideline. SPhilbrickT18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found these articles via google: [1][2][3] I might not get chance to take a decant look for a while though so if anyone else wants to contribute they are welcome. Dannyhill, if you know of where we can find any news articles on InTopSens, then please post the links here ^_^ Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that it was previously known by a different name, I added a redirect from the previous name to this page, you can see it here so if you go to Kenneth Lafferty Hess Family Charitable Foundation you end up at Science Buddies. Another comment of mine would be: try to add more internal links, for example K-12 (being from the UK I don't know what K-12 is) or "science fair" in the first sentence. Don't link everything though, and only link to a page once (e.g. noodles are very nice I like noodles.) Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry me again, I fixed the external link to the official website here External links work differently to internal links:
It's pretty good (it has notability, an infobox, good description), but it does have some problems. There are three sections linking Wikipedia articles to other places:
References - To show that the subject is notable (important), and for more info, and some of where you got info.
Sources - Where you got your info, and for more info.
External Links - For more info.
Your should add references from other books\sites that are not related to the company to show that it is notable. I believe it is (per a google search), but please do add some independent examples to make it better. Good work! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes and added another external link to the list. I also added two more outside article sources about Cold Spring Granite. If this is sufficient, I would like to make this live on Wikipedia. Any thoughts?
Thank you again - I was able to search for it and find it instantly. I didn't see an "unreviewed article box", but if you are seeing something that I'm not, that would be great. This way other administrators know that it has been reviewed already. Again, thank you! 24.172.221.186 (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All Pro Dad
All Pro Dad
The article I posted was about the All Pro Dad organization, I gave a brief summary and history of the organization the followed with the 3 main things that they do to outrach to fathers, the daily email, the dad's breakfast and the all pro dad's day. I kept it brief and tried to cite the sources and websites that I used from All Pro Dad. The feedback will be greatly appreciated and I thank you very much for your time.Swsafety28 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good (it has notability, and a good description), but it does have some problems. There are three types of sections linking Wikipedia articles to other places:
References - To show that the subject is notable (important), and for more info, and some of where you got info.
Sources - Where you got your info, and for more info.
External Links - For more info.
Your should add references from other books\sites that are not related to the company to show that it is notable. I believe it is (per a google search), but please do add some independent examples to make it better - all current ones are on their sites. But, good work! ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think notability is dubious in this case. Most of the references are self references and don't count for notability purposes. Of those that remain, none appear to have the significant coverage that is required to demonstrate notability. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of view - at the moment it sounds like an advertisement for the school. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral style. I think that the full list of courses avalaible needs to be removed and replaced with a brief sentence evaluating the different courses that are avalaible - this would be a more neutral way of displaying the same information.
Wikilinks - the article needs more links to other articles. You need to add more links to make it helpful for the reader.
Organisational problems - the article's content needs to be divided into more sections and paragraphs to make it easier to read. I recommend starting in the part of the article where all the different courses are listed, try adding a section for each.
I agree with the above. Chevymontecarlo gave some specific thoughts on organization, for a general discussion, see Article Layout. One important addition note tis that you have included no references to reliable sources. Wikilinks are nice, references are required.--SPhilbrickT12:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but probably not. You'd need to show that the stream has been discussed in a number of reliable sources. Which I suppose is possible, but it seems unlikely. (And while lack of hits on Google is certainly not proof of lack of notability, the burden is on you to find the references.) Sorry.--SPhilbrickT13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your photos are nice, they really add loads more information to the article - they are really useful for the reader. Good luck with that and I'm pleased that it seemed to be accepted by the people at the WikiProject. Chevymontecarlo18:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proto magazine
I've added an article "draft" in my personal user space onProto magazine. I think it warrants an entry -- articles from the magazine have been reprinted, cited, etc., in a number of well-known venues, including the Washington Post (they have reprinted three stories since 2008). The magazine also inspired discussion from Rush Limbaugh. I'm worried, however, about the article appearing "promotional" and being deleted. I would love any input on how to make sure I'm approaching things correctly.Elemiska (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very slightly promotional, though I can tell that you were trying not to. Try to avoid overly positive or unprovable adjectives. Some examples:
"the latest in biomedicine (regardless of where it’s being studied)"
Latest in biomedicine
"interviews with controversial figures in the medical world and personal essays about patients’ experiences with health care"
I am respectfully submitting the recommended changes to the section in the link below. I can be readhed with questions. I am the Deputy Fire Chief for Miami. I would like the data more accurately reflect our department. Thanks.
The City of Miami Fire Rescue Department is the agency that provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the city of Miami, Florida. This professional fire department protects approximately 500,000 city residents 24/7, 365 and operates out of 14 Fire Stations, located throughout the city's 35 square miles. The department also operates a fire apparatus fleet of 11 Engines (Including 1 Foam Engine), 3 Aerials, 3 Quints. Within this staffing constraint it also runs 1 Haz-Mat. Unit, 1 Technical Rescue Unit, 1 Dive Rescue Unit, 1 Air Unit, 1 Fire Boat and 24 multi-purpose Fire-Rescue transport units. Miami Fire Rescue responds to approximately 90,000 incidents annually. The department also operates FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Florida Task Force 2. FLTF2 is 210 member organization deploying teams of 70 Rescue workers, search dogs, physicians and structural engineers who travel with 50,000 lbs of equipment to assist in major disasters.
Miami Fire Rescue Department
Motto: "Excellence through Service"
Established July 17, 1898
Staffing Career
Strength
699
Stations
14
Engines
14
Trucks
3
Rescues
24
Fireboats
1
EMS Level
ALS Transport
Commissioner
Maurice Kemp
Freddie Fernandez, Deputy Fire Chief
City of Miami Department of Fire-Rescue
1151 NW 7 Street, 3rd Floor
Miami, FL 33136
<redacted>
"Excellence Through Service!"
The process doesn't work that way, but I realize you have no way of knowing that. You are discouraged from editing the article itself (See WP:COI) but you are encouraged to post suggestions on the talk page. I will do that for you.--SPhilbrickT14:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copied it over to Talk:Miami Fire Department. Although you are undoubtedly knowledgeable about the facts, Wikipedia works on the concept of verifiability, and we must find the information in printed in published sources.SPhilbrickT14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put a different way, I could claim to be Justin Beber and claim to be gay and want my wikipedia page changed ;-)
But if you can find somewhere else that gives more information about the department (e.g. an official website, a news article that mentions the department etc.) then someone else will happily link to it and reference the facts. Hope that makes some sense! Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review this article and consider putting on Wikipedia live. I've compared this to other larger pages and companies on Wikipedia that have only 9 resources, this one has a few since it is a small company. Nothing is advertising language and it is all factual. They do not have outside articles published, being so small.
I'm not sure about the neutrality of the article in places. Language like 'for over thirty years', 'a supplier for some of the largest original equipment manufacturers' , 'family-owned', and 'the oldest company' sound a bit like an advertisement and I think they should be either rewritten or removed entirely. There are a few Wikilinks (links to other articles) in there, but there could be a few more, so please try and add a few more if you can. I also think the Products section is a bit technical in places - to the average reader they may have no idea what many of the terms mean so adding a link or rewriting the section in a more simplified way would be a nice idea. One final thing you perhaps need to maybe think about is the references. It's good that you have at least have some, but most of them seem to be just from the official site. These are good, but it'd be great if other references and sources from places that are independent of the article's subject (i.e. no site that is affiliated with Scotland Manufacturing), as these sources/references are usually more reliable. Other than that it's a nice article. I hope these points have helped. Chevymontecarlo18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a nutrceutical company in California called Botanical Wisdom. They use a patented process called Bio-Enhanced Extraction to extract a high yield of nutrients to manufacture herbal supplements. They are an umbrella company of Hamida Pharma, a global nutraceutical manufacturer.
I am not sure about the notability of the article's subject. Articles on Wikipedia have to be notable enough to stay on the site. Please see WP:NOTE for more information. I am not sure about the rules regarding notability so I'm hoping another user can help out and provide another opinion on this. As to the rest of the article, one definite problem is the lack of links to other articles. Please try and add some if you can. To start you off I think you should link the place names in the article (Lake Forest, California) by placing [[ ]] around them. References in the article are OK, but as with many articles that are just starting out there needs to be a few more. Please keep on searching and please add them to the article. Thanks and good luck with the article. Chevymontecarlo19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite concerned about the need to establish Notability. You need multiple mentions in independent reliable sources. While you have three references,
The first appears to be an entry in an online catalog, so doesn't count for Notability
The second is a blog. With some rare exceptions (this isn't one) blogs are not reliable sources
The third is a PR release. Acceptable for verifying certain types of facts, but does not count toward notability.
A biography of Bonnie C. Templeton, a pioneering female botanist who was the curator of botany at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County from 1929 to 1970. User:Pkmartin/Bonnie_C_Templeton
Your article is pretty good - it is notable and has a lot of info, though you do need some sources\references that prove the notability of the article. (ex. Newspaper entry on her work\her). I will go ahead and fix some minor layout\coding probs for you. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is my first wikipedia page, the page is about Rebecca Huxtable an assistant radio producer in the UK. Would greatly appreciate some feedback! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewMerrell (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but she may not be notable enough for her own article per notability guidelines. Somebody may have also made it before, I believe, but I think that it was merged in to the radio show article as a small section and redirected there. Try searching it - you get redirected to the show article. Though it is a pretty good article (minus the lack of notability\refs), I encourage you to continue contributing - maybe by editing existing ones first. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Family First
I wrote a page about this article breifly describing it and giving a brief summary about the company citing all the sources i found online. I highlighted the 3 internal companies briefly sourcing them from their online websites as well. I thank you for your time and consideration, your help will be greatly appreciatedSwsafety28 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my message on your talk page: in brief you edited an existing disambiguation page and turned it into a new article. That is not the way to do it, so I have reverted your changes. Further explanation on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that your article has been nominated for deletion, you need to add more references to show that something is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. A good place to start might be here: news.google.com if you are looking for references to show something's notability (These two looked good: [4][5]).
To be honest, this isn't really a good article - it would never be accepted. This is an encyclopedia - like a real one - something like that probably doesn't qualify for inclusion and if it did, you should not use a joking tone. I encourage you to keep contributing though - perhaps by editing already-existing articles that you may be interested in. ~QwerpQwertus|_Talk_||_Contribs_|04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not very suitable for Wikipedia, both in tone and in content. If you want to improve Wikipedia though, please do help out on existing articles instead. Chevymontecarlo15:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm honest with you, I'm surprised that there isn't a (real ^_^) wikipedia page on it. While single serving sites are a meme, there has been quite a bit of coverage of the topic. Captain n00dle\Talk11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. The article is well written, with good references and Wikilinks (links to other articles). I don't think the notability of the article's subject is a problem but a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference, so I'm afraid you'll have to remove it. I also recommend that maybe you should make a few improvements to the article's layout - maybe separate the article into sections or something like that. Chevymontecarlo15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback - I'll experiment with how to use sections!
The article is currently tagged with a box saying "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2010)" Is there any more "clean-up" I can do to get rid of this? Lilysask (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can make it sound more neutral. The template box at the top basically means that because a major contributor to the article appears to have a close connection with its subject, there's a few problems with the tone - it's sounding a bit like an advertisement or in the article's subject's favour. That's basically what it means. Cleanup is all about making an article more suitable for Wikipedia. Chevymontecarlo18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ornella Barra
Can someone please provide some feedback on my Ornella Barra article. It is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article. Thank You
Hello. It seems that the link you've provided is dead-it does not lead anywhere. I've tried searching manually but there doesn't seem to be any articles of that name on Wikipedia. Please try and fix your link if you can. Chevymontecarlo14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sphilbrick! That's a really nice article. References, links and appropriate layout is all there, which is excellent. One thing I did find though - you should maybe think about putting the timeline part of the article into a table - there's a template that you can use that's perfect for that at Template:Table - both examples would work great. Hope this helps! Chevymontecarlo18:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fastflow_(computing) is a C++ programming framework based on lock-free synchronizations.
I am requesting review of this article, which has been recently improved to address previous issues. Any advice would be appreciated, thank you. | History page
Nice article. An infobox is always a great thing to add to an article. You have at least some references and links, which is also good for an article. Chevymontecarlo09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
( ← outdenting ) It is indeed a very well-written article, but I'd suggest to its author that he would do well to refrain from editing on the topic for now. The author's not at fault, but it's my opinion that any additional work could end up being wasted labor, i.e. might have to be reverted. I don't mean to sound ominous or mysterious, and I apologize for doing so, but I did want to put up this preliminary message right away, as a courtesy. More to follow very soon, i.e. within 1 - 2 hours, as soon as I can finish researching the problem and composing notice of it. Ohiostandard (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow follow-up, and very sorry indeed for what I must say about this article: I don't blame the user who created it, but the article and related edits to other articles have multiple problems, all quite serious. Of these, conflict-of-interest is the most immediately-apparent. This was disclosed to the article's author by another user ( along with other concerns, such as for notability ) in the previous request-for-comment he initiated on this article. Like most relatively new users and especially most single-purpose-account new users, he probably just doesn't understand the applicable guidelines as they applied to the article he created nor the implications of the COI information he had been sent. Further developments pending. Ohiostandard (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, due to the previous comments, I tried to strictly follow FAQ for organizations: "editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies" and conflict-of-interest guidelines: "editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty" . Most is not all, I see. Said that, the best I can do is just to stop any further edit and hope that the article will be evaluated for its content and its verifiable sources from now on, and not just for one its editor. Anyway, thanks for the comments. Aldinuc (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article and found that it needs a ton of work to make it more suitable for Wikipedia...
References There are no references or sources for the article to prove the statements that are made in the article. You need to add some otherwise it's likely it'll just be deleted.
Sections You need to add sections to the article, to break it up and make it easier for someone to read. Please try doing this.
Tone It sounds like it was copied from a magazine article. Please try and rewrite the article to make it more neutral in tone, instead of sounding like a magazine article.
Links You need to add more links to other articles in the article itself. These aid readability (they make the article easier to read and help the reader find out more).
Wikipedia articles have a specific structure to them, specified in a guideline called Layout (Click on the link to see the details). Your article doesn't incorporate some of the required elements of the structure. --SPhilbrickT20:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on Chemicalinterest's point, when using <ref></ref> tags you can insert them at relevant points in the article, for example if the article talked about a date of birth you could put the reference that proves the date of birth next to it in the article using the <ref></ref> tags. Chevymontecarlo18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Dernulc has generated some recent coverage in one local (online only?) media outlet, but he's running for a county council seat in one of Indiana's many counties, right? Running, not elected? The relevant guideline as to whether he's considered sufficiently notable in such a case appears to be wp:politician. And the way I read that guideline, this person doesn't qualify as notable for purposes of Wikipedia, and thus doesn't warrant an article. I don't think the article can legitimately be created in mainspace, and would be likely to get speedily deleted if it were. Sorry. Ohiostandard (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... I got distracted from looking at this earlier, and had forgotten that he was in office; my mistake. Politician is still the relevant notability standard, I think, but he probably meets it. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly plenty of content there, but there are a few problems with the tone in places. Please try and make it a bit more neutral. There are some good references and the article is appropriately Wikified with sections and links, which is great. You might want to include an infobox somewhere too, perhaps at the top of the article to help summarise the basic information about the article's subject. I recommend the Template:Infobox person to get you started. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo09:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that page seems notable enough to warrant an article, and is laid out correctly. To add categories, at the bottom of the page write [[Category:]], and then following the colon, put the categories you feel the article slots into. WackyWacetalk18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to adding categories to the article, all you need to do is add the appropriate category links to the bottom of the article, and they will appear in a bar at the bottom automatically. For example, I could add Category:American college songs to the bottom of an article whose subject was linked to the subject of the category and it will appear in a bar at the bottom automatically. I hope this is what you mean :) Chevymontecarlo18:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is nicely done. There's references and links, which are vital in an article, but no categories which is what you need to work on - you've asked about it so I'm guessing that's what you'll be trying to do. Hope this helps :) Chevymontecarlo18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More References Which Prove the band is important enough for an encyclopedia
To make the text more neutral - not in favor of the band\showing that they are good such as "They have been compared to The Faces, The Rolling Stones, and The Black Crowes" - this is not provable and is biased
Thanks for the feedback! I changed some of the wording and tracked down a few more published references. I'm also going to try another article soon. This first one was good practice.Rexodus (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually I would like to go live with this article again. Have made more excisions than inclusions to solidify article. Just the facts here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good - it has notability\references, but I would recommend expanding it and making it sound a little more official or encyclopedic, but it is pretty good. If you can fix those things, contact me here and tell me, I'll put it up live for you. - I don't think it would survive as is. Thanks! ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award06:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tip with posting on talk pages - after you make a post please type or insert the four tildes (~~~~) at the end so people know who said what. If you don't have a key to type a tilde you can click on the tildes at the bottom of the edit window to insert the four tildes automatically. Chevymontecarlo08:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What notability criterion are you using here? WP:LEAD suggests that the subject's main field of endeavour should be listed first; that makes Mr Correa primarily an artist. But he doesn't satisfy WP:ARTIST, or WP:CREATIVE for his comedy work (check out the criteria to see why not). And coming last in a municipal mayoral election does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, although elected local mayors do normally qualify. That leaves us with the primary notability criterion "significant coverage in reliable independent sources".
Of the references you cite, all but 2 are local news media and most are just passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of Mr Correa and his achievements - only numbers (6) and (9) could possibly be considered nontrivial - the rest are passing mentions. This leaves you with a local paper's review of his artwork in a local exhibition, and the Sue Stephens NPR piece. The latter was interesting to listen to, but it was about Rockford and the mayoral election, not about Mr Correa, who had just two very short soundbites devoted to him in the whole of the 9-minute piece. I cannot see that the references you have given constitute significant reliable independent coverage, so as it stands, I think the article fails WP:N. Sorry, he sounds like a great guy and I'm sure I'd enjoy a drink with him, but I don't think he's notable by Wikipedia standards at present. Karenjc17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like a publicity release at present, not an encyclopaedia article. It contains POV language (for example, "vivid imagination"; "creative and shocking marketing approach" "the legendary Tommy Chong"). "Award-winning" is a term to be used with caution on Wikipedia: see WP:PEACOCK. There are unsourced claims that need verification: for example, that her PR firm has turned companies into multi-million dollar enterprises (which ones?), and that she has worked on "hit shows" (which ones, and by whose definition are they hits?) There are references to events and individuals which assume the reader will be familiar with them so offer no links or clues: what, for example, are "the unforgettable shenanigens of the Mid-West's Party Chaser Girls" (whoever they are)? Basic information is missing: one of the references notes that Brandi Knight is not the subject's birth name, for example, but there is no mention of this in the lead section; she is described there only as a "writer", but the article makes it clear she has many business interests and appears to be known, if for anything, as a publicist. Most inappropriate is the controversial unsourced material: the article claims that federal agents tried to "silence" Ms Knight with "bogus" criminal charges. These serious allegations are completely unsourced and should be credibly cited or removed. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong, but if you are connected in any way with Ms Knight, you are strongly discouraged from writing about her on Wikipedia. Karenjc20:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. No problem with notability, and the citations are fine as far as they go, but it needs a careful rewrite to achieve a neutral and encyclopaedic tone. Don't tease, i.e. don't hint at detail and then avoid explaining it ("a series of disturbing personal events..."). Don't write in the third person from the perspective of the subject ("Gustave sees his career as work in progress"). If you can cite a direct quotation that has him saying this, and you think it's important enough to be in the article, then use the quotation - otherwise it just sounds like a press release. And don't list awards and honours unless they are meaningful; it gives the wrong impression. It's nice that he appeared in a film that his friend made, and nice that the film won a prize at a festival, but it's hardly an award or an honour for Mr Gustave, and YouTube links are not a good source, generally speaking. Karenjc18:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for review and feedback by Wiipedia volunteer editors. Please pay special attention to if this is sufficient re mainitating a neutral tone, the proper use of citations, and regarding needed categories (I am still researching categories) Thank you very much. Austin3301 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's on the border with WP:N, but the more ways you can say how it's notable. Reading that as someone who knows nothing about it, it just seems like some building development. Good luck, and let me know if you want me to read it later. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I will edit some more and keep it in feedback space until it is ready. It's not just a building, it the Austin metropolitan area's only large-scale mixed-use, master-planned project with office, retail, resturants and living for a live-work-play environment. Perhaps I should include some mention of New Urbanism, etc. Do you think the photo of one building hurts, versus say a map or a master plan? Austin3301 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A master plan or map would be helpful, I think. The article should have additional references, take a look at Google News Archive, some of those might be helpful. Also, it's always a good idea to look at other articles on similar topics to get a feel for how other editors have approached the topic. --Nuujinn (talk)20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I actually have tons of articles that can be used for references, I was just trying not to BOMBARD. A map is an excellent idea. I need to research how to use a Google or Mapquest map image with proper license and attribution. Thanks for the advice. Austin3301 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin3301 (talk • contribs)
User:Austin3301/La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas) Categories
What have I mis-coded in Categories to get this result (red titles)? I copied each category name precisely from it's web page. Austin3301 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was deleted and redirected by a bot. Best to click on them all and see what you can do, creating new cats if necessary. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The red-linked categories do not yet exist. I assume you had copied them from an article's title, so you'll need to find which categories do exist. You can try using the gadgetHotcat to assist. —fetch·comms21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you. Great tip about Hotcat. Austin3301 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin3301 (talk • contribs)
Try to avoid using his own website as a reference, and just try to add more references in general. But overall, it looks almost ready to become a live article. —fetch·comms21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made one little fix here to show the external link in the template (on the right-hand-side) properly. Normally an external link looks like this: [http://www.example.com external link] and an internal link looks like this: [[example article]], but that was a template so you just needed to use the address! Hope I didn't confuse you Regards, Captain n00dle\Talk11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first line would benefit from rewording to "Jonathan Lloyd Walker is an English [or British] film and television actor and writer", thus avoiding repeating the info about his birthplace given in the next section. The lead section needs at least one more sentence, establishing the grounds on which this particular actor and writer is notable in his chosen field.
Other points:
"Mother" and "Officer" should not be capitalized in this context.
There's no reason for "Simon Davis Barry" and "Gregory Middleton" to be in bold text - if they have articles, they should be Wikilinked; if not, do they need mentioning?
Avoid non-neutral language, e.g. "diverse and complex roles"; "substantial roles"; "iconic series".
Avoid excessive name-dropping and attempts to inflate the subject's importance. For instance, there is no need to list seven notable cast members of the film Red, just as part of a sentence pointing out that Mr Walker appeared in it too. And the choice of the term "opposite" in that sentence is inappropriate, because it implies his billing and importance are on equal terms with those of the seven actors mentioned, whereas in fact his role doesn't merit a mention in any of the material I can find on the film, including our own Wikipedia article, where he is not in the cast list.
You describe him as a writer, but include no mention of any published or commercial work.
I have addressed most of the notes above. Thanks for them. To explain, I do believe that Mr.Walker merits this Wiki listing being posted for a few reasons; 1) He has played major roles in several high profile American studio movies. This is vouched for by his involvement in both "Red" and "The Thing" receiving mention in Variety. As a trade publication Variety is not generally in the habit of writing articles about the casting of minor roles. I have sited these articles in the references. Further, the fact that he is not listed in the Wiki for the film "Red" should be no means be considered definitive. Beside the reference given from Variety there are also several sources, such as IMDB, that confirm his involvement. 2) He has played a lead in an American network series for which there is certainly an established fan base and has been invited to and made appearances at several sci-fi fan conventions. 3) He is both a member of The Canadian Academy and has served as a jury person for voting on the Gemini awards. These are details I will add to the posting and reference accordingly.
I did not expand on his writing credits simply because they are listed in his IMDB profile which is already referenced.
I agree with you that he's notable enough for an article - I don't dispute this. Concerns were over tone and citations, and you're addressing both, it appears. The Variety pars are good new citations to confirm his recent work; the point about taking care not to describe this work in promotional language still holds good. A neutral, factual description of a person's accomplishments is more appropriate in an encyclopaedia than exaggerated terms, and will survive here much more easily. Bear in mind that, although IMDB is frequently cited in Wikipedia (and there are helpful templates for this purpose at WP:IMDB), it is not regarded as a truly reliable source because it contains self-published material, so ideally other reliable independent sources should be cited to support facts drawn from the site. When the article goes live, the title should be "Jonathan Lloyd Walker" - there is no other entry of that name, so the (actor) disambiguation is not necessary. Best of luck with it. Karenjc22:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request for feedback regarding Signmanager's userspace draft User:Signmanager Australia/Signmanager. This article aims to list what Signmanager; an Australian company, does and highlight their achievements. Signmanager has been written about by the media and these references are listed in the article. Thank-you for your time. --Signmanager Australia (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an okay article, though the text definetly needs to be changed so that it will sound neutral (not in favor of the company), as described here. It also should have more inline citations and only the pics most important to the article (not a collection of pics). It is an okay article though I encourage you to try and fix these things. Also, per WP:COI, a company or organization or anybody working for them should not write about them. It is also a user name violation and in some cases, you may be blocked. ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_·The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would like to make a couple of suggestions first, if that is okay?
I might reword the lead section to "The Sun Valley Center for the Arts was founded in 1971 and is the oldest " (you can miss out the very first line "Sun Valley Center for the Arts" then).
I've noticed that you keep capitalising "The Center" it should be "the center" (unless at the start of a sentence, then it should be "The center"). This is because "the center" is not a proper noun.
I replaced the second link as the first only went to a search page, not very useful for anyone clicking the link. I also replaced the first link with this template {{official|http://www.sunvalleycenter.org}} to be consistent with other pages.
You might like to use this tool so that your references to websites look better (that tool uses a template to make references) I find it quite useful.
Hello! Jxie04 I can see that you created this: Template:Infobox People2 however, it will soon be deleted because it isn't a template! A template can be used on more than one article, the one that you have created can only be used on the one article.
You will have to use this template: Template:Infobox Person on your wikipedia page e.g:
{{Infobox person
| name = Zhang Jianhong
| other_names = Li Hong
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1958|03|06}} -->
| birth_place =
| death_place =
| nationality =
| other_names =
| known_for =
| occupation =
| criminal_charge = Instigating to overthrow the national regime
| criminal_penalty = Imprisonment for 6 years
| criminal_status = Convicted March 19th, 2007
}}
IOCS is any of a number of packages for IBM computers used to do record level I/O. This article is based on personal use of 7070/7074 IOCS and a reading knowledge of 709/7090 IOCS, but I know of IOCS packages for the IBM
1401/1440/1460
1410/7010
7040/7044
7080
I vaguely recall that there may be one for the IBM 1620 and 1710 as well.
I considered adding sections on the 7070/7074 IOCS and the 709/7090 IOCS. but wasn't sure whether that would be too much information.
Hello! We don't have much expertese in this area I fear, but I left requests to get people to help here and here.
I can provide some general pointers, but generally more information is always good in my opinion! Here are my suggestions:
I would make "implementations and nomenclature" a different section (if that makes sense) and avoid the bulleted list here, try to write more prose.
You can link to Macro instruction like this: [[Macro instruction|macro-instructions]] this says "macro-instructions" but links to "Macro instruction".
One thing that I've noticed is that you have linked "IOCS", but this page is IOCS so you don't need to link it.
Once your page is in the mainspace at "Input/Output Control System (IBM)" we can add disambiguation to IOCS.
Once the article is done I would add: {{Redirect-distinguish|Input/Output Control System|Input/Output Control System (Fujitsu)}} to the top of the article
Do you know if "Input/Output Control System" should be capitalised? I'm not sure it should because I'm not sure that it is a proper noun but you can look here to check, and please let us know!
To my laymen's brain: "record oriented access to peripheral equipment" confuses the hell out of me, perhaps you could write a section on "useage" and link to record oriented access (it might be here: Record-oriented filesystem but I don't know!).
You've put in some references, which is great! But the only thing that is referenced at the moment are the different models of computer that use IOCS, try to reference what it does, when it is from and how it was used. Good tips can be found here: Tutorial (Citing sources), Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes
I would put the External Links section above the references, so that the Notes section, and the References section appear together. Although you haven't put any external links in, so you can remove this (external links are not a requirement, but you could try and put in some links to non-commercial links here).
Thanks. It will take me a while to digest and act on your suggestions, but here's my first take.
It turns out that there are two relevant macro articles, Macro (computer science) and Macro instruction; the former was listed in the disambiguation page but the latter is not (IMHO it should be.) I've corrected my tags.
Are you saying that references from within a page to the subject of the page should be pure text rather than links? If so, I have a few other articles to edit ;-) Or are you just pointing out that some of my links were broken?
Would it be wrong to add your suggested redirect tag now?
The IOCS manuals that I have capitalize the titles.
I thought that I was writing in layman's language; obviously I need another pass at adding background information )-:
What I was saying was that referenes to the same page should be pure text, so I were to discuss this page, I would just write Wikipedia:Requests for feedback because if I link it, it just looks like this anyway: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback which isn't necessary.
You could put the template in "{{Redirect-distinguish|Input/Output Control System|Input/Output Control System (Fujitsu)}}" but don't put the redirect in, it wouldn't go anywhere! (Redirect pages look like this)
Thank you about the Capitalisation, no we know where to put the article when it is finished ^_^
And sorry for not understanding! It is a specialist subject so I did expect it to be complex but internal links help. Don't make it too simple though, because people likely to be reading this article will have some background knowledge!
No need to apologise; nobody held a gun at my head and forced me to write. I asked for feedback, and you took the time to give me some, which I appreciate. If you didn't understand, that may be a sign that I didn't write at the right level or that I didn't provide enough background. I'll try to flesh it out more.
As for a lot to do, the IOCS article is a piece of cake compared to some of the other articles in my user space, e.g., User:Chatul/System Generation (OS); it's more or less self contained and I won't have to write a half dozen other articles to provide context. For the others, I've found myself linking to articles that don't exist, and unless I can find volunteers I'll have to write them.
"record oriented access to peripheral equipment" - I also do not understand that term. Would contrasting / comparing to the term BIOS help explain IOCS ? AlanDewey (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so; the term BIOS refers to a nominal partition of low level OS functions between a machine dependent part (BIOS) and a machine independent part (BDOS); It doesn't relate to the functionality of file systems. I'll have to craft a few paragraphs of background information and then see if they're intelligible to readers without mainframe experience. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning Mainframes helped me in that I now know there is a good reason I never heard the term before, and that everything will be new to me. Your comment regarding BDOS and BIOS is helpful in that it makes it clear that IOCS is different and that difference has a clear distinction. Perhaps briefly mention one of those differences and add link to the wikipedia BIOS article. Then reading the two articles would make it very clear. AlanDewey (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND would be the notability standard here, and as he's an unsigned artist who sings with an unsigned band, I can't see how he satisfies it (but have a look at the criteria for yourself). Failing that, you could establish notability by proving that he personally has had significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see WP:N). Note that blogs and other self-published media are not reliable sources (see WP:IRS for more details), and that "significant coverage" means reasonably detailed content about the subject, not just passing mentions, listings or similar. The tone's OK, perhaps a little unencyclopaedic in places, and there are some assertions which need to be sourced for the sake of verifiability but are not. These issues could be addressed once the basic notability problem is overcome. Karenjc23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue Chocolate
Please help out with formatting the references in the article Rescue Chocolate.
Hello Bookisha, and welcome (again) to me your article seems great! But you haven't formatted your references properly, I understand that this can be quite confusing so here is a tutorial and some more information. Basically the <ref></ref> tags go next to the thing you want to be referenced, and the reference goes between them, then they automatically appear at the bottom!
You have also put in lots of internal links like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise] but they are meant to look like this: [[Social enterprise|social enterprise business]]. I have changed the first one to show you: here
You've gone to a great deal of trouble to include many references, although you've not formatted them correctly, and Captain n00dle's advice above will help you to do so effectively. However, I've followed up as many of them as I can, and I have yet to find a single independent source that actually mentions the company or the product, Rescue Chocolate, by name. Since the article is about this subject, you need to provide citations that demonstrate that Rescue Chocolate has already had significant coverage in neutral, reliable secondary sources that actually discuss the company itself, not the social issues it has been formed to address. See WP:COMPANY for the guideline you need to follow here. Unless you can do this, the article will fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines and will almost certainly be speedily deleted if it goes live. I note that the company started only a few months ago, so it may well be hard (but not necessarily impossible) to find references of the quality needed here. If so, the company is probably not yet notable enough to have an encyclopaedia article written about it. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia exists to record things that are already notable, and is not a suitable place to promote new projects. Karenjc23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should try and add a bit more information to the infobox, if you can. Perhaps some brief details about the destinations (Europe, North America, etc) but please make sure you have references for it. I think the tone of the article is OK, there doesn't seem to be any problems there and I don't think it sounds like an advertisement anywhere in the article. I do think you need a few more references for some details, such as in the second paragraph and for the infobox. If you already have references for these sections and they're after the 'Capital Airlines', I think that you should space them out a little more through the article. Hope this helps and if you have any more questions feel free to ask. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo06:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note → This user has only made one edit and might be looking for someone to expand the article instead of feedback.
Hello! I saw that your IP address has only made one edit and linked Chinese government I linked it like this: [[Government of the People's Republic of China|Chinese Government]] so that it still says "Chinese Government" but it goes to Government of the People's Republic of China. I hope that helped a little bit. If you forgot to log in, then feel Chevymontecarlo made some good suggestions. Regards, Captain n00dle\Talk08:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. I gave some points to any other users who want to improve the article though - I haven't got the time at the moment to work on the article, I'm afraid. Sorry. Chevymontecarlo10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment not very many other pages link to this one, you could add links from other pages to Drug Addicts Anonymous
Your article still may be deleted because it doesn't show its notability, you can't just link to the DAA website, you have to reference third party sources like news articles that mention the association, one bad example might be this: www.patient.co.uk/... These might be others: [6][7][8][9]
As the template note, "This article is written like an advertisement." Also see Peacock. I'm sorry I haven't provided specific suggestions, and my apologies if this is harsh, but I see almost nothing worth saving. It is a PR release masquerading as an encyclopedia article --SPhilbrickT15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have recently completed a wiki article on Switchboard of Miami, Inc., a nonprofit organization in Miami, FL that is near to my heart. I would like to seek some further advice on any corrections I might need to make or changes that are necessary to comply with Wikipedia's standards. In the article, I discuss the organization's credentials, history, background and body of work. I hope my sources, formatting and adherence to site policy are appropriate.