Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 24
I would appreciate a review of this page. Thanks!
Evertrap (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- A very interesting article, written to a good standard. I've been through and made some slight modifications, mainly to conform the prose to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, as follows:
- The article subject's name needn't be bolded outside of the lead
- Conversely, the other widely-used form of his name (A.R. Harding) did need to be bolded in the lead
- I added lifetime dates (birth and death) immediately after the name in the lead sentence
- The surname alone should normally be used to refer to the individual throughout the article (see WP:MOSNAME) - you usually didn't need the initials as well (as there was usually no ambiguity as to whom the name denoted. I left them in the "family background" section, where ambiguity with similarly-named relatives was possible).
- "founder of Hunter-Trader-Trapper and Fur-Fish-Game Magazine": is this one magazine or two? Also, is "Magazine" part of the title of a publication? If so, it too should be italicized; if not, it should not be capitalized
- "The instant success of the Hunter-Trader-Trapper magazine was due to the instructional nature of the contents on the subjects of hunting and trapping" - this sentence seems a little prescriptive - how do we know it was due to that? Maybe better to say "was attributed to", and then explain which scholars have done the attributing.
- No apostrophe is needed in the names of decades (e.g. use "1930s", not "1930's")
- The section "Pleasure and Profit Books" is rather fragmentary to read. Consider finding a way to link the short sentences detailing each new publication. Best of all would be to combine them into a paragraph that reflects and discusses their relative weight and impact, rather than simply noting that each publication/acquisition took place.
- Use "died", not "passed away" (per WP:EUPHEMISM)
- I also made some fairly trivial copy edits to clarify phrasing throughout
- It would be nice to see a few more third-party sources in the article, though there is enough here to establish notability. Can you find any more books or journal articles about Harding? They might help you to expand several of the sections, some of which cite only one source at the moment. A look through "a+r+harding"&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&ei=ESbITL3qOcaO4QbZvdXlBg Google Books and Google Scholar suggests you should be able to find material there to help with expansion.
- Overall, very nice work. Well done. And on a totally non-constructive note, I am totally charmed by the notion of "bee hunting", which sounds like an incredibly Elmer Fudd pursuit :) Gonzonoir (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a review of this page. Thanks!
Evertrap (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a review of this page. Thanks!
Evertrap (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The comments I've made about Mink Trapping immediately below more or less all apply to this article too. See if you can resolve those issues for this one too and I'll be glad to take another look. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a review of this page. Thanks!
Evertrap (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, taken a look at this one as well:
- Copyright considerations:First thing I wanted to do was establish that the scanned version of the book (and thus the quotes from it that the article includes) are not under copyright. Because the book was published before 1923 (in 1906), I am confident that it is indeed public domain. The same goes for the quoted review, though in general I would like to see quotes (even of public domain sources) make up a smaller proportion of the article's total content than they do here. Some things to keep in mind if you go on to work with later material.
- Notability: The next consideration is whether the article demonstrates the book's notability. The guideline for figuring this out is Wikipedia:Notability (books). The basic condition is that the article must be able to cite substantial critical commentary on the book, independent of the book itself. There are some other criteria that will also get a book to the notability standard - having a very historically significant (not just notable) author, or winning some major awards - but this is the basic condition. Now, the article does cite one book review - but from what I remember from reading your Arthur Robert Harding article, it appears to be from a magazine owned by the book's author. That might test the definition of a critical work independent of the subject. In any case, if the book is going to meet notability criteria, I would expect to see additional reviews/analysis in other sources. As the article stands, it doesn't include sufficient references to third-party critical works that would establish notability. This dearth of critical, evaluating sources gives rise to the third area where I have some concerns:
- Structure: The article essentially describes the book's contents, notes its publication history, and presents several entertaining extracts, but it doesn't include any analysis of the book, or discussion of its legacy. If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, you'll see a recommended structure for an article about a nonfiction book: it recommends sections on " Reviews / Commercial and critical reception / Criticism / Analysis" and "Overview / Themes / Synopsis". The former definitely requires reference to third-party analysis and discussion of the book, which we noted in point two above was currently missing.
- So, here's what I'd suggest as your next steps:
- See if you can find any more third-party sources that discuss the book's impact, its reception, its legacy - this kind of thing.
- If you find them, use them to flesh out the article into a more substantial state. Remember too that you should take care to represent the full range of critical opinion (see WP:NPOV.
- If you can't find much more, don't worry - all is not lost. There's verifiable and valuable material in here such that, even if the book itself cannot be established as notable, could be merged into the "parent" Arthur Robert Harding article without significant loss.
- Do let me know if this prompts any questions. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a review of this page. Thanks!
Evertrap (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really think all the chapters need to be listed, and although the references are good I think you need to maybe try and find a few more - remember there are many useful sources that you can use that are not online - see WP:CITE. I also think you perhaps should add more relevant categories; maybe something to do more with books/book genres themselves rather than the book's content. Chevymontecarlo 12:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Any comments or suggestions before taking this "live" would be appreciated. Thanks.
Rr parker (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- From a formatting/layout perspective I think it is very well developed. Chevymontecarlo 12:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you. Rr parker (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
HELLO! Had feedback from a couple of editors already on this page and I have taken it all on board and *I hope* made the right changes. Grateful if anyone could give this article another look through and let me know if there are any glaring issues / inconsistencies etc! THANKS IN ADVANCE.
Sachab1 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see any immediate issues. Nice job. Chevymontecarlo 12:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Added new article about a bio-inspired six-legged walking robot with a long tradition and I would really appreciate a review of this page. I'm not a native speaker, but i tried to do my best. Thank you!
A roennau (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The only two references are on the first sentence; the rest of the article has no references. All the facts need to be verifiable; where can we check that the information is accurate? Use appropriate reliable sources, and be careful in limiting the use of any primary source. Chzz ► 03:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
First article. Description of play about a Bernie Madoff-inspired Ponzi fraudster. Just making sure it meets criteria. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Realdealtheatre/Swimming_Naked!
Realdealtheatre (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've flagged up on your user page - you'll need to change user name, and beware conflict of interest.
- In addition, note that all articles need inline references - see WP:REFB. Other external links should not appear in the body text - see WP:EL. Chzz ► 03:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to hear your feedback on an article about Finnish mobile TV software vendor Axel Technologies that has created a new technology that will change the way we watch TV. I have kept the content neutral in tone and have used external links to media articles to verify their notability. Please advise on the use of articles as third party references.
HannaManna (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot use Wikipedia itself as references; instead, you link to other articles with wikilinks in the text - for example, you'd put;
solutions support [[DVB-T]], [[DVB-H]], [[DVB-SH]],
...which would make...
solutions support DVB-T, DVB-H, DVB-SH,
However, the most important thing is, you need to add inline references to reliable sources. See WP:REFB. All the facts in the article need a reference, to show where the facts come from.
established in 2003[citation needed] but the core team has been working together since 2000[citation needed]
sales offices in Hong Kong, Taipei, Munich and Santa Clara, USA.[citation needed]
In 2010 Axel Technologies launched Fuugo,[citation needed] which is part of the new Telefusion concept[citation needed]
Fuugo is the first TV application in the world personalsing a content stream[citation needed]
...and so on. Chzz ► 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Information relating to the Principality of Wy, a well recognised Australian micronation that was missing off the micronation main page. I'd appreciate a review of this page. Thank you.
Purpleorb (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Feedback appreciated. Many thanks!
ShirleyChance (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello folks! Please review my article Thanks in advance