Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 26
First time creating an article from scratch, for a new documentary I just learned about and really want to make sure is properly represented for Wikipedia users. Would love feedback on how to make it better... Thanks!
DrMel 00:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good article. I can't find anything wrong with it really, except to try and add more reliable references to the article, but every article needs those. Chevymontecarlo 05:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've added further comments on article's talk page. - Kollision (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! DrMel (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've added further comments on article's talk page. - Kollision (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I am having trouble with my hyperlinks. They won't show when I am previewing my page. Is it an error in my coding or because it is being previewed? Any help with this is appreciated. Thank you.
- Oooh, that's because we don't use html tags, we use Wikilinks. -- Ϫ 04:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, to add a Wikilink place [[ ]] around the name of the article you would want to link to - for example [[Loughborough]] creates a link to the Loughborough article. Links are easier to add than URL links and they're also more encouraged by the Wikipedia community. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo 05:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
What more can be done to improve this article?
Dhulfiqar 09:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a new article that I would like to receive feedback on and to publish. I'm new at this and a bit confused about the protocol. I believe it is properly cited. Anson
- Hi there! Good article and off to a very good start! A few suggestions, which are nothing more than my humble opinion. :) If you break the article into actual sections instead of just bolding the subject material, you'll get two benefits: 1, a table of contents will automatically be created, and 2, the article will be easier to read. If you like, I can add a heading for you so you can then see what I did when you go into edit and can do the rest on your own. Just let me know. Adding them is easy: == subject heading text ==
- Another possible suggestion would be to be careful of neutrality. For example, your sentence "The center is poised to become a model for turning urban school closures into positive anchors for low-income neighborhood revitalization" sounds a bit to me more like what I would read in a press release rather than an encyclopedia. Again though, that's just my opinion.
- Good job on it, though! I can tell you've put a lot of work into it. Best of luck with it. Pianotech (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I really appreciate the feedback and so quickly!. Let me try to add the table as you suggested.
- No problem! If I can be of further help, please let me know. I'm by no means an expert and am learning a lot too, mainly due to others helping me. Tip: type four tildes after your comment to add your signature and timestamp. Pianotech (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello - new article I'd like to have reviewed please. I'm not sure why, but it now has a ‘not an article but a draft in userspace’ notice, even though I moved it some weeks ago. Many thanks.
- Hi! The reason why the ‘not an article but a draft in userspace’ tag was present is because of the fact that it has been there ever since you first created the article, and it was never removed since. The template is not automatically removed when you move your article from your userspace to the mainspace; you have to do it yourself. I have removed it since.
- Moving on, nice job with creating your first article - I've gone ahead and made some minor adjustments, but nothing major. Some things I'd like to point out:
- As is commonly said to others, the article could use more reliable sources. Not only is this for the verification of information, but this will help establish notability, which is a common reason why articles are not accepted at Wikipedia.
- You may want to consider reformatting the list of positions located at the bottom of the page, preferably by bulleting each item.. For help with formatting lists, check out Help:List. This will help make the different items on the list more distinguishable than just using commas. You'll also want to distinguish this section from the rest of the article in a way other than just bolding the word "Positions". You can create a section header with the following, which is much more prominent:
==Positions==
- If you want it to be a little less prominent, you can tone it down a level to a section subheader using three equal signs instead of two:
===Positions==-
- However, an even better alternative would be to incorporate all the items on the list into the body of the article itself, as this is typically preferred over simply listing things such as jobs, degrees, etc.
- Other than what I've stated above, article looks pretty good. If you feel like turning it up a notch and expanding the article further, you can consider adding an infobox to it. This is, of course, unecessary, but it's something to do if you want to. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks SuperHamster. (Is this how one replies? I shall discover...) Will have a play with your suggestions on this, or next article! -->~~Grantoneill2010 (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should consider adding more links and categories to the article. You have the references there but it's better if you use inline citations. I see that Chzz gave you an example on your talk page to give you an idea of how it works. I hope you understand! If you have any more questions regarding this, please feel free to send me a message here. Thank you! Chevymontecarlo 12:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I did not quite understand why the article is declined. He is probably the most legendary harmonium that India ever produced. Please advise what needs to be changed to make it work. Thanks.
- Hi Sanjaychitale. To improve the article you should integrate the references into the body of the article. See WP:REFB for more info. There's no need to provide a detailed description of the source, adding the link within <ref> </ref> parameters is sufficient.-Reconsider! 01:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Please check this, I made it from scratch. I also had the help of User:Chzz. He receommended for myself to put it up for review.
Thank you.
- Looks like a controversial topic, judging by the edit history to it so far. I'd say make sure your sources are reliable and thorough, be wary of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. BTW, What happened with the one I userfied for you? User:Thehelpinghand/Brownism I recall it was. I thought you were going to expand that one? -- Ϫ 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please look at this article I created? I want to make sure it's up to code. Thanks!
- The references could use some sprucing up.. perhaps some formatting with citation templates.. but other than that.. looks good! -- Ϫ 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)