Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 June 28
Please review my first article User:Powershelled/Comm100. Thanks.
- I don't see any reliable sources in the article. Has the company been covered by the press? ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Powershelled (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I am finished editing and styling my first Wiki article. Comments, tips and suggestions about compliance to Wikipedia house style would be appreciated. Thank you for your constructive input.
Hypateia (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, your article may need more references for the books listed in bold. Also, wikipedia might consider the introductory paragraph to be too long, so it might be useful to consider shortening it.Lapatronne (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments.
Hypateia (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Andru Bemis has performed his original music in small to medium sized venues all over the US and Canada for more than 10 years. He travels mostly by passenger train and pretty much stays out of the limelight, but he's notable for having a big following throughout the country.
Shavenmi (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey. It would be useful to have more references for his novels/plays that are mentioned in bold
Lapatronne (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the first entry for Glenys Barton. I would welcome any general comments.
CatherineDickinson (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, consider dividing up the article into different sections, because it does not follow the wikipedia layout. To create a section, type: ==(Name of section here)==
Lapatronne (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The article is about a recent book. The book itself is printed and published. The ISBN number is given. Do I need more verifiable references? If yes, what may be those?
Anandkharebsnl (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, yes you do need more verifiable references, such as the author's website, more references on the book (magazines, articles, news journals, websites) so the article won't be deleted. Also, consider revising the introductory paragraph, because the layout is a little bit off. You can reference other wiki articles to have an idea of how yours should/could look like.Lapatronne (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time I've tried to put a post together from scratch, I'm a noob, just wanted a bit of feedback on how to improve it. It's definitely not ready to go live. Should have chosen a company with a bit more research available. I am having trouble adding a logo, not getting the code right, any suggestions?
- I have converted some references to named references to avoid duplication in the reflist. ArcAngel (talk) ) 14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Geelbek (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review this so the banner at the top can be gotten rid of.
86.135.18.43 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article
Mitu2man (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Could someone kindly review my new article and provide feedback? I am generally interested in any improvements so that I can improve.
Thanks
Themansaid (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Reviewed. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the first entry for Valentina Kozlova and my first article as a newbie editor. I would welcome any feedback from experienced editors. If it's good to go, let's take the "unreviewed article" banner off. Thank you.
Nyceditor11 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good, so I removed the unreviewed template. Nice work, especially for a new editor, and thanks for the contribution.--SPhilbrickT 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Americanjoe1776 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review my bio and other paragraphs to make sure it fits requirements.
Katiecoggins (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is my first article. Are my sources done correctly? Any suggestions?
Ryguy104gt (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, you might want to shorten the HISTORY section, or at least divide into different sections because it is too long and might get tagged. Also, consider having more references since the article contains a lot of info. Lapatronne (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review my new article for proper format and content style.
I have one issue of "disambiguation" and that is, when I searched Wikipedia for "ECRS", I was re-directed to a page on Japanese philosophy, entitled "Kaizen", but doesn't mention "ECRS" at all and there were no other references to this particular aspect of ETL/data analysis.
Thank you for your time.
PS Monitoring the comments of other editors on various articles submitted for review, I have made additional cosmetic and formatting changes. This area of Wikipedia is VERY HELPFUL to authors.
PPS Page moved on 08/08/2011
Secmail (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
M&M Tool and Machinery began in 1939 as Electric Motor Supply Company, or EMSCO. Founded by Edmund Neeley, the small business focused on the repair and sale of electric motors. For nearly forty-years, the company continued to grow before being passed down to Edmund Neeley's three sons and before nearly collapsing in the American economic crash of the mid-1970's. With the pressure of a failing economy and the evolution of industrial technology, EMSCO was forced to make significant business changes. After losing their original property and the business savvy of two of the three Neeley sons, EMSCO reclaimed a new identity as M&M Tool and Machinery, a company specializing in power tools, industrial equipment and equipment repair. Now, after 72-years, an economic crash, and an identity revival, M&M Tool and Machinery continues to grow and adapt with the changing technologies and expectations of the industrial community. WoodKiller (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tagged for blatant advertising. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, tag was declined, so here is what I see: To me it reads like an advert, the references need cleaned up a bit, needs wikified, and the text needs broken up into smaller paragraghs (or sections). ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a rough-draft. I am simply hoping for some feedback to make this entry better. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and expertise. WoodKiller (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed the link to the draft so that others can find it
- Reads like an advert. Fails to establish any notability (read WP:CORP for guidance). If this wasn't a userspace draft, it would probably have been speedily deleted by now. Astronaut (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, tag was declined, so here is what I see: To me it reads like an advert, the references need cleaned up a bit, needs wikified, and the text needs broken up into smaller paragraghs (or sections). ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the article is no longer showing on Wikipedia search. They are saying it's orphan. I added a link to it off http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B0%25D1%2581%25D0%25BB%25D1%2583%25D0%25B6%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BD%25D1%258B%25D0%25B9%2B%25D0%25B2%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%25D1%2587%2B%25D1%2580%25D0%25BE%25D1%2581%25D1%2581%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B8%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3Dk2T&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&twu=1&u=http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D0%2597%25D0%25B0%25D1%2581%25D0%25BB%25D1%2583%25D0%25B6%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BD%25D1%258B%25D0%25B5_%25D0%25B2%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%25D1%2587%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25A0%25D0%25A1%25D0%25A4%25D0%25A1%25D0%25A0&usg=ALkJrhiP7zEx-KHE8M_5WuS0a7szRqXPoQ
but it would take it only as external link.
Also, somebody suggested to move this page to articles. I was under assumption that it was in the article section.
Thanks for your advice.
Agvorob (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Based on your username, I would ask are you yourself the subject of the article? ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Eguren Ugarte Just Need A Quick Fact Check And Review On Historical Spanish Vineyard
[edit]All my links and sources have been verified! I read the instructions the first time =)
Typukatch (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not really, heh. You must provide third-party sources (i.e. independent from the subject, like newspapers, books, TV, etc.) in order for it to be reliable and to prove notability. You currently only have two sources, one of which is a primary source. And primary soruces, I'm afraid, does not count as a reliable source. You also need to fix the tone of the article. It must be neutral. Please avoid promotional language.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 17:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)