Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 December 8

< 2010 December 7

2010 December 8

2010 December 9 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

She's_the_First

Hello Again.

I would like to ask for feedback and review on this aricle. This is my first article, so I would gladly appreciate all the feedback, suggestion and the review - making sure it has met the Wikipedia standard and what needs to be done if it hasn't, so the unreviewed article tag can be removed or not.

As a summary, She's the first is a non-profit organization that started as a media campaign.

Thank you all. Haengbokhada (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed, cleaned it up a little per the Manual of Style and removed the tag. Also note that I have tagged the Commons image File:She's the First with girls from the Peruvian Heart orphanage.jpg as having no evidence of permission. Permission from the copyright holder will have to be provided per the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Haengbokhada (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le_Mont_High_School,_Lavasa

Dear All, Please provide your feedback for this article. I would like to know how it can be made better and up to the wikipedia standards. As a summary, Le Mont High is a new school being started in Lavasa (City near Pune), offering students a nurturing and caring learning environment.

Lmhlavasa (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gerrickbrooke/amberley_lobo

Hey guys, first time writer just wondering if i could get some advice on my article. Cheers.

Gerrickbrooke (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krain_Court/ADMAP_GAS

Is this article notible?

Krain Court (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As your question suggests, notability is an issue. We'd like to see multiple references in reliable sources discussing ADMAP GAS. You only have one reference, and it doesn't even mention ADMAP GAS.--SPhilbrick T 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood_Town_Cricket_Club

Can this be approved please?

Sheltster (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the guidelines at WP:CLUB. You will need to find reliable sources to show how or why this club is notable per items 1 and 2 of that section. Generally speaking amateur clubs are not notable as Wikipedia uses that term. – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krain_Court/Copernico

feedback required

Krain Court (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has been deleted--SPhilbrick T 16:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cassiewerber/Reproductive_Health_Matters

I realise that other sources might be necessary, but it is quite a short article. If this is still a criticism I will work on finding more sources. Cassiewerber (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Cassiewerber. For academic journals, we actually do have a writing guide here, which you might find helpful. In general, if you have questions about journal articles, or how to write them, the best place to ask them would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals (and its talk page). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_fax

Added new references and external links, please consider the new article

Iulia e (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uriconian

Please could anyone give me some feedback on the article. I have read all of Wiki's help but as they are notreally versed in specialist subjects I get bored of reading 'reference'. I have referenced the article with some of the most eminent scientists currently working on the geological field and the most comprehensive and accepted text on UK geology. There may not be hundreds of references but that would seem to hide the most relevant references in order to read further. Basically I am asking.... is this ok?

I will be expanding the article to include descriptions of the units of the various geological formations and their gamma ray logs etc. and so on.

Thank you very much for your time.

Russell

81.156.142.183 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in the section below, many of which apply here.--SPhilbrick T 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longmyndian_Supergroup

Hello

This is commensurate with the 'Uriconian' article, please could this be reviewed?

Thank you for your time.

Russell

81.156.142.183 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

Remember that the audience for Wikipedia is the lay public. This doesn't mean to talk down to the audience, nor does it even mean avoiding jargon, but it does mean that terms not generally known tot he public should be wikilinked if the term is covered in Wikipedia, or explained in a footnote. You've done some of this, with sedimentation, but you could do it with fluvial and clastic. The concept of "group" and "supergroup" are probably not known to most readers; some help would be a nice addition.
Consider using online references where available, to make it easier for the reader to check references, or read further. For example:
P. J. Brenchley; Peter Franklin Rawson (1 September 2006). The geology of England and Wales. Geological Society. ISBN 9781862392007. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
Another citation possibly of use to you in both article:
Wes Gibbons; Anthony Leonard Harris (November 1994). A revised correlation of Precambrian rocks in the British Isles. Geological Society. pp. 88–. ISBN 9781897799116. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
Some measure of size would be helpful. I'm not familiar with the borders listed, so I don't know whether this supergroup encompasses a small or large area. A map (if a public domain map exists) would be helpful.--SPhilbrick T 18:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael.logsdon

I would like to request feedback from the Wiki-Community on an article I have been assembling on my user page. I am looking for Wiki-Experts to help with the following:

One Determine if the article subject is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia
Two Determine if the article is objective
Three Determine if editing is required
Four General feedback to help me become a better member of the community
Five If the article does not pass the wiki-test, advice on if/how it might be brought up to grade

The subject matter is "Elevance Renewable Sciences". The company uses a Nobel Prize winning technology to create renewable chemicals. The article I created is well referenced both by outside sources and wikipedia articles as well.

Note: I would like to disclose to the Wiki-Community that I am currently employed by Elevance. My affliation with Elevance is important due to my desire to have Elevance represented on Wikipedia. I understand that I cannot post a page due to a clear conflict of interest. My hope is that the Wiki-Community will consider the relevance of creating an Elevance entry based on the information below, as well as the large volume of independent articles that have been published by many mainstream and industry media sources, such as The Economist, Rueters, BusinessWeek, Crain's, ICIS News and more.

Thank you for your time an dconsideration,
Mike

Michael.logsdon (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have moved the draft text to a user subpage at User:Michael.logsdon/Elevance Renewable Sciences. – ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help moving the page to a more appropriate area Ukexpat. Any guidance on content? Michael.logsdon (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LloopManalog/Lloop

Obviously I have COI, but articles about my band(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28group%29) and bandmate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Olive) already exist. So I thought this would be the most appropriate place to suggest this article. I modeled my article after the two that have been accepted.

LloopManalog (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidABalch/Anyone_Can_Play_Guitar_(film)

Hi, I'd like someone with more editing experience to say if my new article is eligible for moving from my User area to WP proper.

The reason I think it's notable is because the film is a unique document of where many world-renowned bands originate, and the cultural importance of that music community.

There are more articles on the web (e.g. http://www.musicinoxford.co.uk/2010/12/05/musicinoxford-co-uk-interviews-jon-spira/, http://www.indiegogo.com/blog/2010/10/6q-with-jon-spira-of-anyone-can-play-guitar.html), but I guess they're not deemed reliable.

The film hasn't been released yet, so If that's a problem for notability, fair enough.

Cheers, Dave.

DavidABalch (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualink Interoperability Concepts

Posting this on behalf of a new editor.

Proposed title Mutualink Interoperability Concepts

Any feedback would be appreciated

SPhilbrick T 21:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SkyTeam_Development

Good Content and needed more information Mohamed S El-Din 22:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Has been deleted--SPhilbrick T 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NerdChieftain/Sector_(Star_Trek)

I found a missing Wikipedia entry because it had been deleted due to poor information quality. As such, I have tried to condense the large amount of information in the large article found in the Memory Alpha Wiki.

Have a I formatted my references properly? Do I need to have more bibliography information for the Star Trek Encyclopedia (a book)? In general, did I balance brevity with adressing key content points?

I could really use suggestions about linking this within the Wiki, although the fact that multiple pages would link to it as redirects and for content would help.

NerdChieftain (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite interesting, but it strikes me as largely Original Research. You do have some references, but much of the material appears to be conclusions you have drawn from logical inferences and informed speculation.--SPhilbrick T 18:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]