Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 July 3

< 2010 July 2

2010 July 3

2010 July 4 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

User:Tvign/Longest Common Subsequence Problem with Bias

This paper is a special case of the article "Longest common subsequence problem" with regard to Version change inspection and analysis. Please review for errors and omissions.

~~Tvign (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Very good article, and I can tell you put a lot of time in it. I think the only issue is that you need to provide more references. References to other Wikipedia articles aren't enough. If you can provide a few outside, independent references for the article I think it will be ready to go. Good work. :) Pianotech (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tvign, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) might help. Remember that you are writing an encyclopedia article, not an academic paper. It is OK to get a bit technical in places, especially for a specialised subject such as this, but try to make the subject as accessible as possible. Yaris678 (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pianotech and Yaris678 for your suggestions. But I have found some critical errors in my article and need to return to the drawing board. C'est la vie. I will be withdrawing this article for the time being. Thanks again.

User:Hoops78/Guidepoints

Hi here's my latest draft. Could someone please provide feedback. Thank you!

~~Hoops78 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main thought is that it sounds a little bit like an advert for the book. Don’t get me wrong – I have seen a lot worse. Perhaps it would help if you had a look at some other articles about non-fiction books. Try The 100-Mile Diet, Hymns for the Amusement of Children or Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control.

You should also try to provide some links. Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)

Yaris678 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yaris--It's not a book, it's a periodical. A similar type of publication to Guidepoints could be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townsend_Letter. My original draft was formulated after the Townsend letter--just the basics. But then the feedback I received was that I didn't have enough information. So then I added more content and now you're saying it looks like an advert. Fair enough--is there a happy medium in there that would help to get this up onto wikipedia?

as for the links--I have quite a few more on the Guidepoints than the Townsend Letter has on their page. I fear that more links will only make it look more like an advert. your thoughts? thank you ...

Hoops78 (talk), 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case you should definitely say that it is a periodical! The first sentence should probably be "Guidepoints is a periodical publication on the use of acupuncture in addictions and behavioral health treatment settings." Definitely include the two links (to periodical publication and acupuncture).

A good example of an article on a periodical is BMJ.

In terms of making it less like an advert:

Using an infobox like in BMJ will help because you can put the ISSN there.
Reduce the number of words like "international". While it may be true that it publishes articles from all over the world, so do a lot of other periodicals and it just sounds like you are bigging it up.
I don't really know why there is a section called Impact. Is this not just part of the subject matter section?
Remove or seriously cut down the highlights section.

Don't worry is the resulting article is a bit smaller. It will be small but beautiful. It doesn't need to be as big as the article on the BMJ!

Yaris678 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I have just realised that you thought I meant external links when I said links. No... sorry... I meant links to other Wikipedia articles. You do that by putting the name of the article you want to link to and putting double square brackets around them, just like I did in the proposed first sentence above. Yaris678 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yaris,

thanks for the input. this was helpful. the latest draft is now saved. I only list the "Academic ::::Resource Listings" to establish the credibility of Guidepoints. is this section necessary?

Any other thoughts? (talk) Hoops78

A vast improvement. You had a slight problem with the link to the website, which I fixed. I wouldn't include the section "Academic Resource Listing" if I were you. Take a look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would say that you do need to do something to establish the journal's notability but just giving a list of places that mention it as a resource isn't what an encyclopedia is about. You want a statement about Guidepoints that you can cite someone independent of NADA for. Perhaps you will find it in one of these links or perhaps you will find it in a newspaper report or a book.

I have some other minor issues of style, but if you can sort out the notability issue then I would say that the article is ready to be moved to the main space. Yaris678 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lknz4/Ria_van_Dyke

Can I please have help with referencing? I have put in the references, but I am at a loss to know how to have multiple citations to one source. Also, when I try to upload an image, it gives an Unauthorised error. Why is this?

Thanks!

~~Lknz4 (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you were trying to make the multiple cites work for the first reference. The secret is that the name must be all one word. I have done that and it works, so you should be able to do something similar for the other citations. I don't really know about the picture. What does the actual error message say? Yaris678 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days) to upload an image to Wikipedia. You can upload an image to Commons now, but it has to be a free image, not a fair use image. If that doesn't mean much to you, see Wikipedia:Image use policy.--SPhilbrick T 23:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you figured out the answer--SPhilbrick T 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_%E2%80%93_The_Early_Years

~~205.242.95.139 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably wait until the concert DVD is released next month before publishing, so you can describe what it was like to see it and get those sentences out of the future tense: "will be released...", other than that, good article. Jsayre64

Please, do not "describe what it was like to see it" - that would be original research. Instead, wait until there are reviews in reliable sources (newspapers, etc, with a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy') and then reference those, to show the notability. Chzz ► 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mendy

I made this article on the boxer Patrick Mendy Please review it

~~Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. I did some general cleanup. A couple other specific points:

I don't believe "debuter" is a proper word—you used it twice. I didn't fix it as I wasn't sure which word you would prefer.
I converted cquote to quote per WP:MOSQUOTE
You already know about the problem with the image, so I won't pile on
Your references are good, but there aren't very many—it sure would be nice if there were a few more.
I'm not up to speed on the specific notability guidelines for boxers, so I don't know if he qualifies. If he does, great, if not, you probably need more references to meet WP:GNG--SPhilbrick T 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TomHaser/Eakin_Community_Park

This is my first new article so I am seeking general feedback. Thanks.

~~TomHaser (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! :) You have references, which is good; even better would be if you used them inline (think footnotes) so readers of the article will know what facts the references refer to. It's easy to do once you do it a few times; the coding is simple. For good information, have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners. If I can be of any help, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck! :) Pianotech (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It requires independent references - such as books, newspaper articles, etc. Chzz ► 12:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Bell (musician)

I would like help finding external links to confirm the information. The three "musical" sources mostly quote each other and most of the information comes from the musician himself. While he's the most likely to know what records he published, I'd like more about his activities in developing the Canadian folk music scene. I can not spend days on this. Any help would be much appreciated! Monado (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there should be a page for the other half of Muddy York, Anne Lederman, another significant folk singer and musicologist. Monado (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the forum where new editors seek feedback and assistance on writing articles in compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I think your request may be best met by a WikiProject. I would like to invite you to check out our group of editors that work together to create and improve articles about subjects related to music and musicians. You can find the link HERE. As far as the article condition and content, I would welcome you to review Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which should provide assistance with bringing the article into compliance with community guidelines. A review of the article finds that it does not provide clear flow or overview of the content. Much is simply single sentences, which do not present or complete the prose. When listing bands with whom the subject has played, only list notable bands, i.e., those which are notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. You can find the topical notability guidelines for musicians HERE. Overall, the article needs to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional assistance. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]