Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

"WP:FEED" redirects here. For the essay on vandalism, see Wikipedia:Deny recognition. For RSS and Atom feeds, see Wikipedia:Syndication. For the page rating system, see Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool.

Requests for Feedback

This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed. This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions. If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.

Before you request feedback

There are certain things which come up again and again so it may help if you deal with them before requesting feedback: Does your article have reliable sources? These are important in terms of both verifiability and notability. Do you have a conflict of interest that may harm your ability to produce a neutral article? If you would like a beginner's guide to these sorts of issues, take a look at the article wizard. If you are unsure about how to edit Wikipedia articles, take a look at this tutorial. For a more general discussion of writing your first article, see "Your first article".

How to post a request

Place a Wikilink, with the title of the page inside [[ and ]] - for example, [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] - in the box below. Click Click To Add Request In the new article, Write a brief summary of your work or what in particular you need help with, but do not post the whole article here. If you have rewritten an existing article, you may wish to provide a diff link from that article's history that shows your changes. Check regularly for responses to your request; they will most often be made here. ↓ Post your request using the box below. Replace "Untitled" with a wikilink to your article - e.g. [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] ↓

After Receiving Feedback

Check back here often, as you will receive a response here. Respond to the feedback, either with a simple thank you, to ask for help with anything mentioned, or, after you've made some of the improvements, what they think of them. Consider helping out here in the future - anyone can read up on what articles should be like and provide constructive criticism.

Are you providing feedback?

Please consider notifying the user whose article you are providing feedback for by placing a message on their talk page, so they will be able to read it in a timely manner and reply if necessary. You can use.. {{Feedbackreply-sm}} A template asking the user to check back here and consider responding {{Feedbackreply-alt}} A more personal version of the first offering your help with developing, moving to mainspace, etc.

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

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

• April 22
• April 23
• April 24
• April 25
• April 26
• April 27
• April 28
• April 29
• April 30
• May 1
• May 2
• May 3
• May 4
• May 5
• May 6
• May 7
• May 8
• May 9
• May 10
• May 11

Index of all requests for feedback

Christopher Catherwood

Christopher Catherwood is an internationally based author in Cambridge England and Richmond Virginia. He has taught for the Institute of Continuing Education in Cambridge and has taught for many years now for the School of Continuing Education at the University of Richmond. He has been associated each summer with the Univerity of Richmond's History Department, where he is their annual summer Writer in Residence, where most of his recent books have been written.

He is known as the author of many books. Beginning with Five Evangelical Leaders for Hodder and Stoughton in the UK and for Harold Shaw in the USA, he has written many books on religious and historical subjects since then. For these he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 2005.

His other main books include: Martyn Lloyd-Jones A Family Portrait (Kingsway in the UK and Baker Book House in the USA, 1995), Why the Nations Rage (Hodder and Stoughton in the UK in 1997 and a new academic edition with Rowman & Littlefield in the USA in 2002), A Crash Course in Church History (Hodder and Stoughton in the UK 1997 and new edition in the USA with Crossway 2007), Five Leading Reformers (CFP 2000), The Balkans in World War Two (Palgrave 2003), Christians Muslims and Islamic Rage (Zondervan 2003), and his recent bestseller Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Iraq (Carroll and Graf in the USA 2004: called Winston's Folly with Constable in the UK in 2004). He has recently completed A Brief History of the Middle East (Carroll and Graf in the USA and Constable in the UK, 2006).

He has been a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society, and has degrees from Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and the University of East Anglia. He was educated at Westminster School, Balliol College Oxford and Sidney Sussex College Cambridge and since 1994 has been linked to St Edmund's College Cambridge.

For many years now he has taught students from Tulane, Villanova and other American universities in the Cambridge England based INSTEP program, teaching 20th century history and also church history.

In 2001 he was a Rockefeller Fellow at the University of Virginia's Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy, and in 2002 was briefly a consultant to the British Cabinet Office's former Strategic Futures Team of their Performance and Innovation Unit.

He is the son of Sir Frederick Catherwood (former Vice-President of the European Parliament), and maternal grandson of the preacher Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He is married to Paulette, daughter of the late Rev. John S. Moore, for many years the editor of the Virginia Baptist Historical Register. He and Paulette are members of the historic Cambridge city center church, St Andrew the Great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Widge (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

George Wallace Australian Comedian

Hi I just contributed a sub on George Wallace a very famous AUstralian comedian and now I can't find it. A message came up about editorial conflict and then the article just disappeared. What do I do? Thanks Judy Tanner

I've replied on your talk page. The article was created in the template mainspace and reverted. -- Longhair 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti

I found this page the other day while making an entry on my userpage about graffiti. It had a tag for cleanup that I removed after finding large blocks of text and no formatting in the middle of the article. I mainly cleaned up the modern history section, added some to the clean train movement era and added some pictures for formatting purposes. I even moved things around in hopes of keeping everything in order by time. The old page is here [1] the new one is bscailly as I last edited it [2]. I would show diffs but it was considerable ammount of work spread out over many many edits. The dif looks like a mess to me, its here [3]

Was hoping to get user feedback on the following:

• Does the article flow better now that a timeline is established?
• Does the section title ""Clean Train Movement" Era" make sense?
• Does it require more sources?

I am having trouble finding them when talking about specific policies of the New York City MTA from so far back. Even articles online are a problem, I haven't attempted to locate books but the problem with that is, while I wanted to help the article, I do not know if I have time to find the original persons sources. Feedback in general on the article is also welcome, things that are unclear etc. I hope this is the right place for this. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

need help on style, format and content of new article

I've added an article (this is my first) on Indian cinematographers. This is under the Cinema of India category. I have based this article on the Indian film directors article. How can this be improved in terms of style and content?

The article is about cinematographers but the lead sentence is about the film centers - I'd change the lead to be about Indian cinematographers. The article is ok as is, but is little more than a list with links to the pages of the conematographers. It would be more interesting if there was some history, information about what influenced them, perhaps something about their unique styles, any awards they might have, etc. Right now, a reader learns little new unless he clicks through to the individual cinematographer articles --- that's can be ok, but if you want to imprive the content, I'd have more content on this page. My two cents, but don't be discouraged, it's a nice start.

Brian 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)btball

non-Orthodox Jewish views on Resurrection

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=60451581&oldid=60150198 Someone with knowledge of the Conservative Jewish spectrum of opinion could please weigh in and see if my update is NPOV and accurate

James Harford

Hello.

I've just written my first article! It's about James Harford, who was a Colonial Administrator. As it's my first foray into Wikipedianism [sic?], I thought I'd ask for feedback here; any constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Thanks! Giler S 10:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say, you know more about wiki markup than I do, and I've been here since February 2006! For example, I can't figure out how you put the table at the bottom of the article. (I could do that with HTML.) I'd like to ask: is this person notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia?

Now on to the article. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like lists (all the positions he was appointed and the two times he was married) in articles. I suggest you try converting the lists to prose, organized in headings. You could then turn the article into a comprehensive biography of his life. For example: how did he fare in the positions he was appointed to, and why did his first marriage fail?

I suggest you read Google Groups, an article I wrote which has been nominated for Good Article. This will give you a better understanding of what I'm talking about. I could simply list the features Google Groups provides, but I decided to explain each of the features using prose, organized by headings. Perhaps you could give me some feedback on the Google Groups article as well? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, J.L.W.S. The Special One — I've left you a note on your talk page. Best wishes, ^talkGiler S 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Myrtles Plantation

I did a major rewrite of the Myrtles Plantation article; comparison is here: [4]. The original read like an advertisement, and I hope I fixed some of those problems. I'm not sure it I did the source citing thing right - thoughts? Also, if people want to add more or could recommend sources to me, that would be super. --Natalie 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks like good work. Yes, the citations are substantially right for a basic citation style. (If you want to learn the more complex citation style that involves the <ref></ref> markup and the citation templates, see Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citation templates.) The only thing is that citations are put outside the punctuation at Wikipedia, but that's a minor detail. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

New contributor questions:

A couple of questions for someone who has the time:

1) As a longtime reader of Wikipedia, I've begun making additions to articles and creating new ones as a registered user - specifically, I recently added a "Works" (bibliography) section to the article on early science fiction author Alfred Bester, as well as brief writeups on some of the books listed that did not already have articles. How would I go about finding someone to look these pages over and get back to me about whether or not the edits (unfinished as they are) are appropriate?

2) Where, if not only here, would the "discussion" take place? How would I get this person's response? If any of the work I've created is unacceptable, I would want to know why and how to improve so that I can continue working on articles.

3) Looking through this page itself, seeing where everyone has responded, how does one respond? Is it simply hitting the "Edit" button and adding to the post, or is there a more standard way to conduct these discussions?

Thank you - User: CGrue (speaking of which, how does one generally 'sign' questions/responses?)

Hello CGrue — I have left you a reply on your talk page. Best wishes, ^talkGiler S 11:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, CGue! RFF is an initiative for new contributors to get feedback on their contributions. Therefore, you came to the right place to seek feedback. (For high quality articles you hope to get to Good or Featured status, Wikipedia:Peer Review is the place to go.) However, RFF is a pretty new initiative (I created it a few months ago), and is not so well known, so it may take some time before you get a response.

All articles have talk pages, where discussion takes place. You can get there by clicking on "discussion" (at the top) when you are at the article page. Since you posted at RFF, there may be some discussion here as well. All users also have talk pages, so someone may leave a message on your talk page, as Giler has done.

To respond to you, I clicked on "Edit this page" and typed in my response, then clicked "Save page", similar to how one would edit a Wikipedia article. To sign, click on the signature button on the editing toolbar - it's third from the right, to the left of the hyphen and #R buttons, and to the right of the "striked-out W" button. To see how your signature will look, see the end of my reply, where I attached my signature. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Morometii

Hi, I've recently edited a note abour Marin Preda's novel Morometii. I would like it to be read by someone and eventually related to Marin Preda's page (if OK).

Thank you,

Dragos

Hello, Dragosioan. I'm Hildanknight, the user who created the Requests for feedback initiative several months ago. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and posting your feedback request (it increases the activity of RFF).

Since you did not provide any link to the article or "diff", I'm afraid I don't know where to go to read your article or edit. So how could I (or anyone else) give feedback?

If you are seeking feedback on an article you wrote, please provide a link by typing the article name enclosed in double square brackets. For example, here's how to create a link to Google Groups (an article I wrote, pardon the plug): [[Google Groups]]. Or you could type in the name of the article, highlight it, and click the underlined "Ab" button on the editing toolbar. Either way, you'll give me a link to the article, so I (and others) will be able to read it and give feedback.

If you edited an exisitng article (you say you "edited a note"), then please provide a link to the "diff" page. To get this link, go to the article and click on the "history" tab at the top. There will be a list of all edits made to the article. You should find your edit with your username, edit summary and the time the edit was made. Click "(last)" to arrive at the "diff" page. Now copy the URL and paste it here. Enclose the URL in single square brackets. For example, here's a link to the "diff" of an edit in which I expanded the Google Groups article.

Once you provide a link to your article, or the "diff", someone (possibly myself) will soon reply with feedback on your article or edit. Hopefully, the feedback will help you gain insight into your strengths and weaknesses as an editor, and you will use the feedback to improve your editing skills.

As a side note, please remember to sign all your posts. However, do NOT sign your contributions to Wikipedia articles! At the end of the post, click the signature button on the edit toolbar (it's third from the right, to the left of the hyphen and to the right of the W) to sign your post. Here's how it will look like:

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Morometii (II)

Hello, sorry for my lack of experience. The article I wrote is named Morometii. It is also linked to the main author's page Marin Preda. Thank you a lot for your reply and guide.--217.167.123.107 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a quick structural and stylistic edit, and moved it to the correct spelling (with the correct character instead of a "t") and made a redirect from the spelling with a plain "t". To improve the article, some references to people writing about the book would be useful, for starters. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you Saxifrage

Hi, thank you for your corrections ans suggestions. I've modified the opening phrase concerning the two parts of the novel. Indeed, the second volume was not in intended by the author to be the continuation of the first one, some critics consider it a different novel. I inserted the opening phrase of Morometii I (how can I quote the name of the transaltor by the way?) and added more details on the second volume. Concerning the citation in the top of the article, I don't know exactly who or when said that, but I wrote it by myself at first, persuaded that this novel deserve this qualification. I can quote some Romanian critics who wrote about it (comparing Preda to Faulkner for example), like Eugen Simion or Manolescu, but I don't have their works at hand, I no longer live in Romania. Again, a lot of thanks for your guide and corrections,

Dragos--217.167.123.107 09:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Dragos. It's Hildanknight here again. Yes, the creator of RFF. I've just looked through your article, and would like to offer a couple of tips.

I notice your article lacks internal links, and I suggest you add some internal links to the article. Remember how I showed you to add a link to the article? A tough question is where and when to use links, and whether to link something or not. I suggest you read Wikipedia's advice to only make links relevant to the context.

I suggest you also add some relevant external links to the end of the article. For example, if you could find this book's entry at Amazon, do add the URL! For example, in the Homerun (film) article, I added a link to the official Homerun website, and to Homerun's entry at the Internet Movie Database.

When replying, please don't start a new heading. Read my reply to you. I know wiki markup is difficult, and I still haven't mastered it yet. Just remember that the number of colons in front of a sentence determines how indented it is. So your initial post does not begin with any colons. In my first reply, I start my paragraphs with 1 colon. Then, when you reply, you should start your paragraphs with 2 colons. If Saxifrage happens to drop a "You're welcome" note, his paragraphs would start with 3 colons. If you don't understand this, I hope someone else could offer you a better explanation, or point you to the relevant help page.

By the way, I remember that your first request for feedback was made as a logged-in user (Dragosiaon). Why did you make subsequent edits as an anonymous user?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hildanknight. I followed your council, hope now it's better... Unfortunately Morometii it is not available on Amazon, Preda did not receive the international attention he deserved, this is why I decided to write about this book. If I manage to get this article higher than a simple stub, I'll write a second one about his most known novel Cel mai iubit dintre pamînteni. Yours trully

--User:Dragosioan

Please give me feeback

Hello, I've just joined two days ago, if I'm correct and I've managed to make three new articles. What I need is feeback from all the good writers :) cause its an Indonesian related, so probably people wont see it (thats why I want you to see it!) :)

• Dewa Budjana
• Mohammad Ridwan Hafiedz
• Abdee Negara

And I also have significantly expanded this one, a recreational site in Jakarta

• TMII

Cheers for everyone! Imoeng 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've requested too many things.. Just pick one :) Thanks Imoeng 10:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm working through Dewa Budjana; will comment more fully shortly. This is very good work, though! --jwanders^Talk 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm looking forward to it, don't be to harsh though.. :P Imoeng 10:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You remind me of a common quote on Singapore drama serials: "You asked me too many questions, I don't know which one to answer first!" When I requested feedback on the two articles I wrote, Google Groups and Homerun (film), I put each in a seperate header, making giving feedback easier for others.

Since you "significantly expanded" the TMII article, and we don't know which contributions were and weren't from you, please provide a link to the "diff" of your contribution. To get the link, go to the article page, click on "History", and look among the list for your edit, which should have your username and edit summary next to it, as well as the time of the edit. Click on "last" next to the time of your edit, which will take you to the "diff" page, from where you can copy the URL to paste into here.

You seem to be interested in Indonesian songwriters/musicians - if you are an expert and wish to write articles on more Indonesian songwriters, I suggest you join the Composers WikiProject. WikiProjects are great ways to meet like-minded Wikifriends, and to find Wikipedians who will help improve your articles. Read articles on other Indonesian songwriters to see if there is an article format you should follow.

I created Requests for feedback several months ago, and as it's still a pretty new initiative, it may take some time for someone else to drop by and give more thorough feedback. So please be patient, and keep up the good work. All the best in your life, and your time as a Wikipedian!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply Thank you (whatever your name is)!! I really appreciate it. About the contribution and differences thing, I will do it from now on, thanks for reminding me. And actually I'm in WikiProject Guitarist, but because all of my international guitar heroes' articles have been made, I was thinking why dont I make articles from my own country? :)

You know, cause your words are very nice I actually checked your userpage :)

Thanks again, best wishes to you too Imoeng 10:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at Dewa Budjana and tidied it too. It's great, although there's a real danger that the copyright of this site could be violated — see especially the text at the bottom of that page. If you can put it into your own words, though, there shouldn't be a problem. You may find Wikipedia's copyright FAQ helpful. Best wishes, and welcome to Wikipedia! ^talkGiler S 11:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Either you don't look like someone who joined two days ago, or I underestimated you. I'm working on my new userpage, and hope to have it up in a few weeks. I agree you should make articles on your own country - I write articles on Singapore TV shows/movies - such as Homerun (film). I'm glad to have helped you. Before I forget, you may wish to add references to your article - although that's something I always have trouble with. If you have a relevant picture you can contribute to your article, all the better (see the screenshots in Google Groups, an article I wrote). My username's Hildanknight, though you can call me J.L.W.S. (my initials) if you want to. P.S. Looks like you get a lot of attention. I've already had two edit conflicts in this section. I'm glad to see more participating in this initiative I created. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply' - Thanks again for your time, I really appreciate it. I don't really understand which part of copyright did you mean, since I just said he owns a double neck Klein guitar by looking at his new album (or it is a major problem?)

And about the pictures or photos, lately I have had a problem about copyright, as usually I searched the image from Google, but when I read on the policy, it states that image from search engines shouldnt be uploaded so I'm confused where am I going to get the photo? However I've contacted gitaris.com's webmaster so I can use the information and photos there.

So you are the one who created this feedback section? Wow thats great!

-Imoeng 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)-

You're welcome. I'm a 14-year-old with lots of time to waste. And yes, I (Hildanknight - or J.L.W.S., if you prefer) created this feedback desk, called RFF. It was an idea I had when I was seeking feedback on two articles I wrote - Google Groups and Homerun (film) but discovered Peer Review was only for high-quality, established articles.

Regarding copyright, please don't copy more than a few sentences of text from a website - it's easy to express them in your own words. Also, be careful with images, especially those you find on Google. Unless the website which hosts the image is in the public domain, you should make sure uploading the images is acceptable under fair use copyright law, or get written/e-mail/etc. permission from the webmaster.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear earlier on. My fault. The copyright violation I was referring to is that the five sentences in your original article beginning "Budjana's style veered heavily into jazz...", "He also established a jazz band...", "The passion grew stronger...", "After graduation, off he went..." and "He came across jazz maestro..." are all taken word for word from the subject's official web site — even the spelling errors are the same! So those sentences really need to be rewritten, I'm afraid, in order to conform to Wikipedia's policy on use of copyright material. Of course, the ideas themselves aren't copyright, only the way the ideas are expressed; so a simple rewrite will put the article in the clear. Best wishes, ^talkGiler S 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ReplyThank you for your time, I've edited it :) Imoeng 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft focus

I just rewrote soft focus (it was significantly factually incorrect, stating that soft focus was the same as out-of-focus) and added illustrative pictures; I'd like some advice on how to improve the article further. grendel|khan 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Since you "rewrote" the article, this means you were not the one who created and wrote the original article. So I don't know which parts of the article were written by you. Could you please provide the URL of the "diff" of your edit? To get the "diff" URL, go to the article, click on History, and look for your edit in the list (it should have the date and your username and edit summary next to it). Then click on "last" next to your edit to arrive at the "diff" page - copy the URL and paste it here. Thanks!

Here's the diff containing the rewrite. Mainly I'm looking for ideas on how to expand it at this point; I've explained what the effect is and how it's achieved (specialized lens, specialized filter, schmutz on the front element), and included illustration. grendel|khan 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick peek at the article, though, and it seems pretty good. It is well written and formatted, and makes good use of links (both internal and external), references and images! However, the article is pretty short. Try and expand it a little further - after a Peer Review, you could nominate it for Good Article. I'm in the Good Articles WikiProject, so I'd be happy to see your article become a Good Article. All the best to you, both in your real life and as a Wikipedian. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much where I'm stuck; I can't think of a direction in which I might expand the article. There's just enough text there to support the images, but obviously if it's to become a good article (in either sense of the term), it should be longer. But what to add? grendel|khan 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Political criticism

Political criticism is a term simply meaning "commentary on political topics", covering all basic political discussion and propaganda. I wrote the article some time ago and consider it one of my better works but would greatly appreciate some feedback on it. Thank you all in advance. Ben Tibbetts 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Specific Carbohydrate Diet

I was just wondering if it would be possible to get some constructive comments on the page I have done. I know there are a few things which would improve it if I spent maybe 5 more minutes, but I can do that when I do the major over haul.

Thanks SO mcuh for help. It is truly greatly appreciated.

Iheartflutes 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Hildanknight, creator of Requests for feedback. Here are some pointers you may find useful:

In the introductory paragraph, you made good use of internal links. However, there are very few internal links elsewhere in the article. Wikipedia thrives on internal links, so do use more internal links where relevant. In addition, there are no external links or references at all. Although I find referencing difficult, I suggest you add external links to relevant web sites about the Specific Carbohydrate Diet. If you can find some references too, great! Without external links or references, we are not sure whether the diet is notable enough to merit an entry in the encyclopedia.

The style of writing in this article worries me. This article is written like an instruction manual, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or a how-to; therefore, the article should present information about the diet in an encyclopediac way. For example: "Always discuss diet with your doctor before trying anything." Refrain from using "you" to address the reader in articles. In addition, instead of recommending a few book titles (which shouldn't be underlined) in the article, why not list them in a Further Reading section (without letting it get too long)? Otherwise, you may give us the impression that you are trying to sell your books.

Sorry to sound harsh, but I think you will need to do plenty of work during the major overhaul. RFF is a new initiative and hasn't garnered much traffic, but I hope another Wikipedian will drop by and offer you more feedback. Nevertheless, all the best to you, both in your real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iheartflutes, great job putting that article together. Here's some more detailed feedback:

1. One of the main guidelines we try to follow on Wikipedia is that articles are written with a neutral point of view; meaning we don't support one side or the other in an argument, but only present the facts. Your article does a very good job of presenting only the facts of the diet, but it doesn't talk at all any facts against the diet. Are their nutritians who disagree with Elaine Gottschall's book? Has any research been done to support or refute the claims of the diet? These are the types of questions that I have after reading your article. (See WP:NPOV for more information).
2. All articles on Wikipedia try to be as similar as possible in terms of style and structure, so that our readers know what to expect once they get used to it. The way we work together to achieve this similarity is by using the Wikipedia manual of style. It's absolutely full of guidelines for language, article headings, grammar... anything you can think of is in there! They're not rules, just advice that the editors of Wikipedia have agreed makes for the best articles.

I hope you find that helpful; if you have any questions about what I've said (or anything else!), please feel free to ask on my talk page. --jwanders^Talk 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your ideas and suggestions. They are really great. Sorry the page sucks so much, but thanks to what you have said, I now have some really great ideas to keep going. Thank you SO much!!! Iheartflutes 08:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! So get going! I'm just a 14-year-old with lots of time to waste and a talent for writing, so I decided to "waste my time" helping you. I just had a look at the article, and it's much better! However, please don't add comments like "I have more to say and will return to this section tomorrow night, but right now it is rather late for me!" or "(Can someone get this to work please!!!!!)" in articles. You can leave them in HTML comments, the edit summary or the talk page. And since you asked for help on how to make external links work, the format is an opening square bracket, followed by the URL, then the anchor text, and concluding it with a closing square bracket. Hope that helps! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio-controlled boat

I have updated some information and request input for others.

Hello 7severn7 — your edits to the article Radio-controlled boat look great. One thing: please do remember to use the "Show preview" button, and only to click "Save page" at the end of your editing session. This will prevent the history page from becoming clogged up with your edits, and will also enable other editors to see more easily what changes you have made. Thanks! Best wishes, ^talkGiler S 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

International Rugby Board

• Just needed help with a todo list on the talk page - suggestions on what should and shouldn't be in the article.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Erotic Engineer

can't find my page in search?????????????

That is strange cause I can find it.. Erotic Engineer. Do you want any feedback or something? Imoeng 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It will take some time for a new page to appear in search results. Imoeng, I think you clicked "Go" instead of "Search". I entered "erotic engineer", clicked "Search", and could not find the article (although I found it clicking "Go"). The first search result was a link to an AfD debate on the article Erotic engineering, which was deleted. Therefore, I'm not sure if Erotic Engineer (which should be moved to Erotic engineer) is notable enough to merit an entry in the encyclopedia. JoDiva, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but NOT your contributions to articles!) by clicking on the signature button (third from right in the editing toolbar). All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The search uses a index that is separate from the main database to find pages. It is updated on a schedule, so there is often a delay between creating an article and it appearing in search results. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ibanez JEM

After a good response from all of you guys, I decided to request another feedback for an article I've just created. Thank you for your time!! :) -- Imoeng 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice use of images and links (including references)! You've improved a lot, so keep it up! I did spot a couple of minor issues, though no one is perfect:

I noticed minor writing style problems in the "Ibanez and Steve Vai" and "Design and production" sections. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia, so articles are expected to have encyclopediac tone.

Wikipedia doesn't like lists. The list I'm referring to is the list of guitar models. Only the first 3 sections of models have prose; what about the other 5 sections of models? If you think too much detail would make the articles long, you could provide a summary while offering a more comprehensive coverage in a sub-article.

That I had to search hard for faults to find suggests your article is pretty good. I wonder if another reviewer will come and disillusion you, spotting problems that escaped me. If not, try getting your article to Good Article status. It's probably a good idea to Peer Review the article before nominating it for Good Article, though.

Before I forgot, Imoeng, thanks a lot for your barnstar! It's the first barnstar I ever received, so it means a lot. When I first stumbled across the barnstars page, I thought that if I got a barnstar, it would probably be because of my writing skills - I never expected a Random Acts of Kindness barnstar. Perhaps if we discovered a common interest, and collaborated on articles on that interest, we could become Wikifriends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ReplyThanks again Hildanknight! Just one question from me, what do you mean about "encyclopediac tone"? I don't know because I've never read the real encyclopedia anyway. hahahha. So probably it'll be very useful if you could tell me.

About the barnstar, that is alright, don't thank me, but thank yourself! :) You deserve it. --Imoeng 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Basketball (ball)

Please leave feedback for my latest article Basketball (ball).--Showmanship is the key 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article, its a very good article, I reckon. The good thing about it is you have explained in details about the topic, and the topic is also very specific, which is good. To make it even better, I think you should include the specifications of the ball, like, the diameter, weight, pressure, and stuff like that. Of course you can also relate that to a particular organization like NBA for example.

And I see you are already good at referencing, and why dont you try this link and see "Multiple uses of the same footnote", so people can easily see you references.

You could also put some images, but be carefull with the policy and guidelines, just make sure you have the rights to publish it. So yeah, thats it from me, I like the article and its a good one. Take care! -- Imoeng 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Supershow. Did you write the whole article? If so, great job! Here's my feedback:

There's a problem with the footnotes - they seem to be invisible! All I see are bullets and daggers with no text next to them. I viewed the page in Opera 9 (my favourite browser) and Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7., so it isn't a problem with my browser. I don't think External Links should be formatted as a bulleted, numbered list.

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia's guideline to make internal links relevant to the context. For example, you added internal links to several colours, but failed to add internal links to several technical terms and proper names.

I noticed minor writing style problems in the article; for example, read the "Reinvention" section. In addition, I don't think you should add a section on notable basketball sellers; Wikipedians may mistake that for advertising or spamming, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia!

You may wish to add images where useful. Once you address these issues, I suggest you nominate the article for Good Article, though it's probably a good idea to Peer Review the article first, before nominating it for Good Article.

Hope that helps. All the best to you, both in your life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus. Was Jesus' death at the cross?

Recently I added a contribution in Historical_Jesus but other editor deleted it due to grammar errors. Can you check if there is some grammar error and correct it?

Ok there is the text:

"Gerard Messadié develops more his idea in his novel L'Affaire Marie Magdalene . According Gerard Messadié, Jesus survived thanks to an conspiration . Messadié supports also the idea of survival basing himself on the Jesus' irregular crucifixion. The crucifixion was a slow martyrdom that took several days,. The death at the cross was slow because was usually due to asphyxia caused by the parallelization of thoracic muscles due to immobilization that caused that posture. Surprisingly Jesus was a little time in the cross (approximately three hours, according the gospels). If the prisoner was death, the tibias were broken. Jesus tibias don't were broken, instead, Jesus was wounded by a lance in the side (not a mortal wound).

Besides, the corpse which suffered crucifixion was buried in a common grave but Jesus was buried in a new tomb, according Mattew gospel. (At least Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemos were part of the conspiration, since they deposit the corpse). Besides the shroud that was used to bury jesus wasn't sewed "

User:Atenea26 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Atenea26, sorry cause I didnt read it at the first time, because I am a muslim and I dont know whether I can give a good feedback to you. However I tried to prioritise the sake of wikipedia good articles and decided to give you some feedback! :) From my english point of view (just one level above you on the userbox :)), there is no any grammatical error. Just one thing though, since its related to religious matter, you really need to put the citation at the end of the last sentence, since its very important and sensitive.

Take care! Imoeng 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback. Yes you have reason,but the citation his hidden, if you go to edit section you will see it.-->User:Atenea26 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen that, its on the bottom of the page, citation number 10. What I meant is the second citation, at the last sentence, where a citation is needed. This was taken from the edit page, "However, although Romans had many ways of performing a crucifixion, their law was that once a criminal was hung upon a cross, their body was not to come down until dead, which would be verified by various practices to ensure the crucifixion had in fact been completed.." Yeah, that is the sentence. Okay, good luck! Imoeng 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Atenea62! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. My advice: talk to the editor who removed it and ask him/her to point out the grammatical errors.

Be glad I topped my class in English this term, and topped my level last term! OK, I'm not trying to show off; here are some grammatical errors I spotted:

"develops more his idea" - should be "develops more of his ideas". The word "more" means "idea" should be the plural noun, "ideas".

"According Gerard Messadié" - should be "According to Gerard Messadié".

" survived thanks to an conspiration" - should be " survived due to a conspiracy". The word "thanks" introduces an unencyclopediac tone, so it should be changed to "due". The word "conspiration" does not exist - I think you were looking for the word "conspiracy". Since the word begins with C, a consonant, the article should be "a", not "an".

"supports also" should be "also supports".

"the Jesus" should be "Jesus". "Jesus", as a proper noun, does not need an article.

I need to go. I may return later to look for more grammatical errors. Hopefully others, especially the editor who removed your edit, will help me with the job. Your English could do with some improvement - all the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

TeX font metric

I wrote TeX font metric (all of the non-me edits so far sum up to the addition of an interwiki link to ru:), and recently significantly expanded it by summarizing the file format specification found in Knuth's original source. I'd appreciate someone other than me going over it and seeing if it makes sense even if you haven't been poring over the source materials all day. (And if anyone wants to look over #Soft focus, I'm still interested in feedback on how to expand that article as well.) grendel|khan 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! Its a good article with specific details and very good referencing. However, in my opinion you have used too many technical words. I think, to make a very ultimate good article (although probably I cannot make one) is to think the worst understanding of the potential readers. If you can satisfy the "non-technical" readers, of course all the experts will understand it even more. Also, probably you could include some examples of how TFM can be use in our daily life, as people will think, "ahhh! thats what it means!" Another thing to increase the quality is to have a brief intoduction on the technical words. So probably you could explain what is "big indian" and "DVI" and sort of things, thus, the readers will not have to go back and forth to another article related.

So yeah, that will be all from me, just keep it simple.. :) Take care! Imoeng 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to use needlessly obscure language, but I don't want to end up duplicating content from other articles either. If I wrote it to be understandable to a time traveller brought here from the fifteenth century, it'd be a novel. The best I can do, I think, is to link technical terms, and explain why I'm doing so. (See, for instance, that I rewrote the bit about endianness. Different systems represent multibyte data in different ways; the point is that the TFM format does it in one way consistently across all systems, meaning that you don't have to worry about the endianness of the computer that made the TFM file or the computer that uses it. I think I got that across.) I also tried to separate the more technical content into the "Specification" section; any explanation of the internals of the file format (which, for nearly everyone, will be of academic interest only) would necessarily require a level of understanding above and beyond that of the casual reader; if you're going to read about file format internals, you're already going to know about bits and bytes. I do see your point about what any of this has to do with DVIs, and I've updated the second paragraph to make it clearer where this fits into the TeX workflow. Does the first section, at least, make more sense now? It's more important than the "Specifications" section, since it's of interest to more people. grendel|khan 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, and I think there is nothing much you can do as the subject matter itself is very technical. However, I have looked at your article again and I see you've changed some words of the article. Now the introduction part and some of the "specification" part is clearer. Also, you are right, probably most non-technical people like me (and some non-native english) will stop after the introduction part. So that is why I'm not giving you anymore comment since I'm afraid I'll make the quality even worse, so I will leave it to the more expert mates. Btw, probably you could take a look at thispage, as I think you have capability of doing that..

So, take care! Imoeng 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't mean to sound defensive. If I didn't want criticism, I wouldn't have put the article up for feedback here. I wouldn't have made the changes you'd suggested if I thought they made the article worse; I wouldn't have thought to make those changes in the article if you hadn't mentioned them, and I think they definitely make it clearer. I've added another section just now, about the human-readable equivalent file type (PL, or property list), and I'm not sure where to put it so that it makes the most sense. If I put it above the specification, I can't refer to the internals of the TFM format to contrast the PL format, but if I put it afterwards, it looks like it's an afterthought. grendel|khan 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, grendelkhan! Hildanknight, creator of RFF, here.

I suggest you read articles on other fonts/font metrics. This will give you an idea of the expected structure, style, format and presentation of your article.

I could understand most of the "specification" section. Although fonts aren't my specialist subject, I've used computers since 3. However, I don't know why that section should comprise the majority of the article. Perhaps you could add more sections to offer broader coverage on the font?

Nevertheless, all the best to you, both in real life, and as a Wikipedian! I hope your article becomes a good article, as I'm a member of the Good Articles WikiProject. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Beevers

This is my first go at trying to correctly reference an article ^(changes). I would appreciate some advice on if I have done this the correct way or not. Any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Essexmutant 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it and compared to the pre-edit article. And I also notice that you've given heaps of references, which is excellent. However, I feel like the proportion of the references is like 1:1 compared to the sentences. Probably you could make it better by expanding a sentence with one or two more support sentences, so that the references don't seem very monotone and feels like everywhere, while referencing is extremely good. Another thing that you can do is to put just one link, which is http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=l and make them all into one source, but I think it won't help much and not very clear.

So, thats all from me, the referencing is great but try to add one or two more sentences to before referencing it. Take care! Imoeng 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Essexmutant! You displayed an exemplary use of references, so great job! I suggest you add notes to some of the references. This article is almost ready for a Good Article nomination, although you may wish to send it for Peer Review first. I can't help you much as I'm not good with references. Keep it up, and all the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, both of you. I will add notes to the references and see where a Peer Review takes it. Cheers. Essexmutant 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Root cause

I did a complete rewrite of this entry, as the previous version was incredibly bad (incomplete, disjointed, opinionated, and a little spammy). As I'm not terribly well-versed in wikipedia rules and style guidelines, I'd like to get some overall opinions and suggestions for improvement. Here is a link to the diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_cause&diff=66545259&oldid=66102153

Note... the revision was done from a different IP than this request. Please direct any personal feedback to 72.141.22.69

Thanks! --192.75.48.150 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey mr,72.131.22.69! Why don't you register to Wikipedia so you can contribute and communicate easily? :) So, yeah, about the article, its a fine article for me. You've selected a unique topic and it is good, however, it must be harder to find the sources. Speaking about sources, you really need to make references, if you don't know how to do it, you can take a look at this. Of course, external links are good as well, but sometimes you need to cite a sentence or a paragraph like this one, "One view holds that, in theory, one would have to return to the Big Bang or the point of Creation (theology) to find true root causes". It is a big subject matter and its very important, thus you need to make citation.

The other thing is, probably you could divide the article into some parts. For instance, you could make the first two paragraph as a "Background" and maybe "Purpose" and "Application is Science" or something like that. It is good to divide it into parts so people know what you are talking about, although your explanation is very clear.

Yeah, so good luck on it and take care! Imoeng 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you're an anon, I doubt you'll respond to this, so I'll just point out two things:

The introductory sentence "Problems are caused to happen" is gramatically incorrect. I suggest "Every problem has a cause".

I suggest you add headings and references to the article.

I strongly advise you to create an account to edit on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kânik Language

The Kânik Language is a fictional constructed language created by Jeff Shanley for his debut novel Mathion: Book One, Mavonduri. It is the original language of the Kânín and the Wolven, a high race of Men.

I assume you are Oharion, since the history page is full of your name. And I assume you've made it yourself with just a little help from someone else. And I think, the article is very good, provides details and its very specific. You also have provided examples of the grammar and some words to explain the grammar. However one thing that you've missed is references. Some people may think it is a fictional subject matter, although it is really fictional. So what you can do is to put references. I see you've put the first references in the introduction, but it is better to link the references to the bottom part of the page. To learn about that, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia Footnotes. Seems nothing wrong for me about the article, but probably you can just wait for the others to drop you a feedback. If you want to get more feedback, since your article has already developed well, why don't you try Peer Review.

Excellent work, Oharion! Take care! Imoeng 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Oharion! I got your username from the edit history, but in future, please remember to sign your posts to talk pages (but NOT articles!) by clicking on the signature button (third from right) on the editing toolbar. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are some suggestions for improving the article:

Read other articles on fictional languages, such as Klingon language or Pig Latin. Note the way they are structured, formatted and presented. Having a similar style for related articles increases readibility. If there is a WikiProject on fictional languages, they may be able to help!

I noticed that your article makes sparing use of internal links. Wikipedia thrives on internal links, so use them well (though don't overuse them). Make internal links where relevant to the context, and add internal links to your article from relevant articles. The article does not have any references or external links at all. I'm not good with referencing, but do try to add references when you can. In addition, provide the reader with some external links to websites about the language, for further reading.

If you can find appropriate images to include in the article, great! You may wish to increase exposure to your article by creating a redirect from Kanik language. Keep improving the article further, and after a Peer Review, you may wish to nominate it for Good Article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the article uses bold a lot. Bold is used at Wikipedia only for the introductory use of the name of the article. The other places you are using it seem to be for words in the language and for emphasis of terms. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style tells us to use italics for foreign words and for "words used as words" (e.g., "the term abundance means having a lot"), and to not use it for emphasis except in very rare cases. Likely, many of the terms you've bolded that are not being used as "words as words" can be turned into internal links (even if they haven't got an article yet). — Saxifrage ✎ 07:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Most other articles on languages are titled "Fooish language" rather than just "Fooish," per Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. I would recommend renaming (moving) the article to Kânik language (note lower case). --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cosmic distance ladder

RfF on a major overhaul of Cosmic_distance_ladder from a newbie Wiki contributor. The cumulative differences I introduced are [[5]], but I've replaced nearly everything.

Hey there, it is a very interesting article for me. I also noticed that it is a very specific and technical article, so you really have to be careful on the selection of the words, as many people here, including me, do not have PhD or a high academic level to understand the article. In case of that, you might want to explain some brief explanation of the "technical words" like "spiral galaxies" and "elliptical galaxies". I know that people might want to visit another article, but I think it would be even better if you put some brief explanation there. THe other thing I notice is that there is no any article subheadings. Subheadings are really important to remind people where are they now and to divide the articles into parts. For this article, probably you could divide it into, Introduction, Method, Laws, and sort of things (sorry I cant help for this!). You could also put some images and photos, if you can, but remember about policies and guidelines. Above all, is citation, which I think is one of the most important things on editing. Besides the external links, you do have to put citations on some related paragraphs or sections so that the readers know where did you get that information. To learn about it more, please read Wikipedia Footnotes. Okay, probably that is all from me, if you have other queries, please feel free to contact me on my talk page or post a question on WP:HD the Help Desk. Good luck and take care!! Imoeng 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I've started on this (the beginning of sections are there now), will continue to hack on it for a while. I'll go through my dead tree library for citations. Images ... I don't know ... this topic doesn't lend itself easily to a graphic, and there's always the public-domain requirement. --BSVulturis 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoopfest

Please rate this detailed article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by supershow (talk • contribs)

On a quick browse through the article, I was left with a few questions. Is this a regional thing? Who sponsors these events? Is there a single organization that runs them now? Is the article discussing a specific event or just a kind of basketball tournament? Also, the tournament diagram in the middle looks nifty, but I don't understand what it communicates that the words "single-elimination tournament" don't. The article also might benefit from a careful read-through; the prose could be tightened up a bit. Lastly, you seem to have a lot of small edits made every minute or two in the process of writing up the article; to help us see the development of the article in larger steps, please use the preview button. Hope this helps! grendel|khan 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Betton Hills Preparatory School

This is my first wikipedia entry. I recently made this page for my old middle school. I am not sure if it is considered biased or not, please tag the page if you believe it is. Please leave any other comments too, and check for any spelling errors. I am also having trouble uploading pictures from the internet. I would like to upload their campus pic at http://bettonhills.com/images/campus.jpg and the logo at http://bettonhills.com/images/Betton%20Hills%20logo%20new.jpg. Thanks

Comment:Hey there, thanks for joining and contributing for Wikipedia. The article has a good starting point, so it is very possible to expand it until it gets a Featured Article status. And, it is always a good thing to make an article related to your region, your school and stuff like that. However, I spotted some things that need attention, like the infobox. Did you know about infobox before? You can read it here and learn a little bit about it. So, I've searched and I think this would suit your article. Also, there are some sentences that I concern, like "Betton Hills students have a challenging and unique curriculum, in accordance to the Core Knowledge curriculum" and the "Values" part, because it seems like an advertisement, sorry about that. One of the important thing is NPOV which is Neutral Point Of View, you might want to consider that. Some wikipedians also do not like list, so, probably you can expand the "Classes" part a little bit more. About the pictures, please look at this.

Okay, thats all for now, if you need help, just reach me on my talk page or post on WP:HD. Good luck and take care!! Imoeng 09:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

'Oops, I forgot to mention about citation or references. Besides the external links, you need to put some citations so that the NPOV thing satisfied, please read on Wikipedia Footnotes.

Hello, Scottybo! Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but NOT articles!) by clicking on the signature icon (third from right) on the editing toolbar. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.

To upload the campus pic and logo, save the pictures to your computer, and then upload them to Wikipedia - click on "Upload file" on the left toolbar. Please don't upload copyrighted material unless it's fair-use, though!

The article is quite biased. But that's a natural, common mistake, as you probably wish to tell everyone how great your school is. An example is the statement "It is open to everyone who desires a great education". At least the article does not look like advertising.

Wikipedia has an official policy known as NPOV, which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Fortunately, Wikipedia also offers a tutorial for eliminating bias in articles to help achieve NPOV. I suggest you add a "Controversy" section. If there have been any cases of pupil misconduct which made the newspapers, that's the section to write about them.

Are you sure that the school is notable enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia? If it is, please add information to the article proving how the school is notable. If it's not notable, someone may list the article for deletion - no offense to you. If the school has any notable achievements or won any awards, this information should go into an "Achievements" section.

The article contains some lists, which you should try to convert to prose. I am concerned that some sections, such as "Mission" and "Values", may be copyright violations of the school website. I hope my concerns are unfounded, but if they are, try rewording the sections.

I noticed the article lacks references. Where did you get all the information in the article from? Perhaps you should spend some time finding useful references to add to the article. Referencing is difficult for beginners, and I personally have difficulty with it.

Well, that's all the feedback I have to offer. Please use the feedback to improve your editing skills and the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Time Enough at Last" (The Twilight Zone)

The episode pages for The Twilight Zone were standardized for the most part until I came along, but that standardization included a trivia section, so I'm looking to see what others think of the way this article is laid out. Okay, so I'm also trying to get attention. :) Actually, I was hoping someone familiar with template syntax could help me re-make the current Twilight Zone infobox. The current version (see source code on episode page) is very restrictive compared to other series' pages and would definitely disqualify the page for FA status, although that's not necessarily what I'm aiming for. Just looking to do justice to the series. Moulder 06:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the diff link - I'm pretty sure everyone will agree the elimination of the trivia section is an improvement though. :) And yes, I'm aware WikiProject TV has guidelines - I'm looking for general opinions on my interpretation as well as help on (or opinions about) changing the template. Moulder 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Riesling

As part of Wikipedia WineProject, we would like to get the article on Riesling eventually up to Featured Article status. Any feedback on the weaker parts to tidy up will be appreciated! Agne 09:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Agne27! Thanks for posting your request for feedback. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. I don't think the article is anywhere close to Featured Article standards, which are very high. However, you should consider nominating Riesling for Good Article after you address the following issues:

The article does not have any external links. Please add external links to websites about Riesling, which will offer further reading beyond the scope of the article.

The article also lacks references. Although I'm not good with referencing, I know that any article hoping to pass Featured Article or even Good Article must be well-referenced.

There may be slight POV issues with statements like "wine lovers of all experience can certainly enjoy the elegant complexity of this grape", "Riesling is one of the grape varieties considered to best express the terroir of the place that it is grown", "Several recent vintages of German Riesling have been regarded as exceptionally good" and "Riesling is a very versatile wine to have with food, because of its balance of sugar and notable acidity". I hope my concerns are unfounded, but if they are, you have to work on fixing them.

As a side note, there's a picture of the grape, but what about the wine?

As a member of the Good Articles WikiProject, I'd be happy to see Riesling being promoted to Good Article, after you address the above issues and send the article for Peer Review (in fact, RFF is for new editors to get feedback on their first few articles - PR is for potential FACs). All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought RFF was a step leading up to PR but I'm clear now. Thank you though for the insight. I really appreciate it. I will take this info back to the group. Take care! Agne 10:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Actually, I have to thank you for posting your request for feedback - I created RFF, and I appreciate the traffic. I hope you'll use my feedback to improve the article; as a member of the Good Articles WikiProject, I hope Riesling becomes a good article. All the best!

I need more Wikipedians (preferably those who are experienced and familiar with Wikipedia policy) to regularly respond to requests for feedback. Currently only four users regularly respond to requests: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng. Perhaps you could help me make RFF an integral Wikipedia process!

I'd really appreciate it if you could help me find some Wikipedias who'd regularly respond to requests for feedback. I started a discussion on the village pump on achieving integration with the more established Peer Review - perhaps you'd be interested in giving your input. I also posted some ideas for improving/promoting RFF on RFF's talk page - feel free to comment. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

cavalry tactics

I found this article poorly written and not concerning much off the topic. So I started major rewriting, translating and collecting. It should be the analog of infantry tactics. Currently it gives basic information on several cavalry tactics, concerning especially the Middle Ages and heavy cavalry in Europe. The feedback is required for restructuring it and integrating further information. Wandalstouring 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian arowana to FA status

I am trying to bring Asian arowana to Featured Article status. I would love some outside opinions on what could be done to improve the article. I would also like some outside help simply so that it's the product of more than one major editor. Thanks -- I have added this page to my watchlist so I can return the feedback favor! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ginkgo100. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.

If you wish to get Asian arowana to FA status, I suggest you try the more established Peer Review process, unless a considerable majority of the article content comes from you. RFF is for Wikipedians, particularly newcomers, to get general feedback on new articles they write or major edits they make, and use the feedback to improve their skills as an editor as well as the article in question. Peer Review, on the other hand, is for polishing up "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work".

Please remember that Featured Article standards are very high. I once nominated Neopets, an article I considered excellent, for Featured Article, but the reviewers pointed out problems I have never spotted, such as weasel-wording and lack of referencing. As the article is quite short, I suggest you nominate it for Good Article, where it will have a greater chance of success. Having Good Article status will also help the article when it becomes a Featured Article candidate. As a member of the Good Article WikiProject, I will be happy to see Asian arowana become a good article.

As I cannot find any obvious or significant problems with the article, I think Asian arowana has a good chance of passing Good Article, as it meets the good article criteria. It is well-written and comprehensible to non-speciailist readers (like me); is broad in its coverage and conforms to NPOV; has good structure and formatting; makes good use of references, internal links and external links; is stable and makes good use of images.

Thanks for offering to return the feedback favour. The number of requests for feedback we receive daily is growing, but only 4 Wikipedians regularly respond to requests: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng. We need more experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, to watch this page and regularly respond to requests. I suggest you respond to some of the requests for feedback posted on this page by other users, especially those which have not received any responses. You may be interested in two discussions about RFF on the village pump and on RFF's talk page.

All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Console Classix

I believe a staff person from their own site attempted to create a Wiki article that simply tooted their own horn and caused the article to be deleted. I wanted to create a proper one for the site and you can find it at Console Classix. I was hoping anyone could give me some contructive criticism as to how to improve the article to reflect the business in general... What am I missing? Does this article show any points that got the previous one deleted?

Thanks much for any assistance! Lucavious 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My one nitpick was with the wording of the intro paragraph, but I decided it would be easiest to make the edit myself rather than describe it to you to make. However, please do check because I made an assumption in my edit -- that the site was popularized in the year 2000. You may have meant that illegal downloads were populized in the year 2000. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well they're one and the same I suppose, what I meant was CC was popularized by riding the wave of illegal emulation that swept the internet at the beginning of the year 2000. Lucavious 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)