Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 November 24
Hello
I noticed a few bullying awareness articles but nothing on Bullying Awareness Week. I was involved in the rallies this year so thought I would add an article. I am looking into what other communities/schools and businesses have done to support Bullying Awareness Week.
Thanks for your time Kate
Plentyspace (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good, I removed the unreviewed template.
- You've done a great done identifying relevant references. However, some of them are bare urls, or simply a title with a link. Please consider looking into full citations. You can find more information about citations templates in footnotes. I personally find it very helpful to use the optional citation gadget. To install, go to "My preferences", select the rightmost tab "Gadgets", the check the box next to refTools (in the Editing gadgets section). Once installed, it will add a new button "Cite" to your editing toolbar. Click on it to add a citation. Makes it much easier.--SPhilbrickT 16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an article explaining the Reformed amillennial view about Armageddon. The article contains ample sources from notable Reformed scholars.
Dvopilgrim (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to say about this article other than it appears to be desperately short of references. I don't know how referencing religious articles works so I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't have thought that the bible counted as an independent source. The best advice I can give you is to contact one of these people who may be able to help.--Ykraps (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm new here, I've written an article about a software program and It says someone else must check it. Anyone can review it and send me some comments? I used transcad article to see how to do it and it seems ok to me. Thanks!
JJULEN92 (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi please review my article about Ahmed Imtiaz Bulbul.
203.223.94.159 (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Some interesting issues here!
- Firstly, the article draft as originally created had a clear, major problem: it was an unreferenced biography of a living person ("BLP"). Wikipedia policy requires all new BLPs to have references or be deleted. (This is intended to avoid damaging untrue material about living subjects being added to the encyclopedia.) If the article had remained without references it would have been eligible for the "BLP" proposed deletion tag, which causes an article to be deleted if no sources are added to it within ten days.
- However, I then went looking for a source I could add myself to help it avoid this fate, and discovered an equally serious problem: the majority of the article's contents are copied verbatim from http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/11/06/d611061401111.htm. The opening paragraph was also copied entirely from http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=15609. That made the entire article a copyright violation, which is also barred by Wikipedia policy (and copyright law). So to solve that problem I have removed all the copyrighted content and replaced it with a few short sentences of original prose.
- That leaves the article as a stub, so let me give you some tips for rebuilding and expanding it:
- The newspaper articles were both written in very glowing terms, which would contravene Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view in all our prose. Try to avoid words like "illustrious", "evergreen", and "renowned" - these are so-called "peacock phrases" that imply a value judgement. In an encyclopedia, we try instead simply to state facts, not opinions.
- The appropriate way to incorporate material from published sources is to summarize and cite it. My redraft of the article includes inline citations - these ensure that every fact claim is sourced to a reliable, third-party source that can be used to verify it. This is, as I said, especially important for BLPs.
- To connect an article to the other content in Wikipedia requires wikilinking the key concepts it contains - I've done this for the article as it stands. This is one of the first steps in making an article look and feel like the rest of Wikipedia's content - a process called wikifying.
- Lastly, a note - you posted this request for feedback from an IP address. I am assuming you are the article's creator, User:Shurerbangla - you should take care to log in before you edit so that all your work can be attributed to you (and to avoid accusations of sockpuppetting.
- So, lots of food for thought there, I guess - if you have questions about any of this, don't hesitate to ask. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, kindly request you to provide any feedback on my article. Thanks!
Bharat.mk (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The article seems fairly well-written, with some professional polish, but the sources are weak and the article tends to read like an advertisement. For example: The Computer Weekly article[1] actually says THBS (1) was hired by O2 to provide services and (2) is using agile programming. Unaccountably, in the first paragraph, this simple bit of information has grown into THBS having "experience in agile methodologies and the global delivery model help facilitate serviceability and cost-effective delivery". Now perhaps all of this is true, but the source doesn't actually say anything at all about whether THBS is cost-effective, and thus it deserves a {{failed verification}} tag.
- The lists of locations and customers targeted by your marketing department should probably be deleted entirely: This is not really encyclopedic information.
- I am a little concerned about whether this business should have a Wikipedia article at all. The sources are either routine (the CMMI database report,[2] the Forrester Wave report[3]), published by the company (corporate website[4]), very brief (a glorified press release[5]), or mostly about someone else (the CW article, which contains a mere three sentences about TBHS). The usual minimum requirement is two WP:Independent sources, at least one of which describes the business at significant length. You may wish to read WP:BFAQ and WP:CORP for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Please review this article. Thanks!
75.146.83.254 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- This article is pretty well written, but I have a few suggestions:
- The first reference, which links to http://www.ncdd.com/, isn't specific enough. Since you used the ref. after the line "In 1999 Oberman was [...] certified as a DUI defense specialist by the National College for DUI Defense", the ref. provided should prove that "In 1999 Oberman was [...] certified as a DUI defense specialist by the National College for DUI Defense". This also applies to a few of the other references.
- You may want to add more detail to the ref. names. This can be done easily with citation templates.
- Fix the section headers to comply with WP:CAPS.
- The infobox in the corner isn't very informative. If there isn't anymore information available to add to the infobox, delete it, since the only information it gives is reinstated in the external links section anyway.
- Good luck. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
[[User:77.205.130.232/Thibaud of Etampes (Theobaldus Stampensis)]
Hi! Please help me to write in better English the article Thibaud of Etampes (Theobaldus Stampensis, and to find the good links.
Gaetan Poix (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this query is redundant to the next one, so please see responses below. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
[[User:77.205.130.232/Thibaud of Etampes (Theobaldus Stampensis)]
Please, help me to write in a better English the article Thibaud of Etampes (Theobaldus Stampensis), for I am French. I have also a technical problem about the picture.
Gaetan Poix (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Gaetan Poix. I've fixed the image issue and carried out a full copy edit of the article at User:Gaetan Poix, which I think should ultimately be moved to the title Theobald of Étampes. There are a few further issues to address, which I'll outline for you to address:
- Though the article has three references, it could use some more. Essentially, every claim in the article needs to have an inline citation to a reliable third-party source. You have some items in your "bibliography" section that don't correspond to any inline citation -- if they are the sources of some of the material in the article, clarifying that with inline citations will help readers to verify the claims in the article. The sources you already have are good; see if you can find some more (especially for the strongest and most potentially controversial claims, such as the argument that he is considered a founder of Oxford University). Conversely, if other scholars have disputed any of these claims, it would be appropriate to add material to the article noting this fact, and including citations to their views: that is essential for creating an article with a neutral point of view that reflects all significant scholarly views on the subject.
- The article is well formatted and uses sections, but it lacks wikilinks. You can add these by placing paired square brackets around the words that you want to turn into links to corresponding Wikipedia articles - so [[Étampes]] gives Étampes.
- This article looks very promising - well done! Gonzonoir (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to submit this article to the Wikipedia Information pool.
It may seem trivial, but when you consider the amount of money involved it isn't.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Csdidier (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- An interesting article but one which lacks references. You appear to have some experience with writing articles and I'm sure you know all about citing sources so it just remains for me to trot out the old mantra: Every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph has to have a reliable, third party source pertaining to it. :) Regards--Ykraps (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback . . . I've put in the appropriate references . . . (citing my sources).Csdidier (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- As a point of fact, WP:Inline citations are not technically required for every paragraph. But most of the best Wikipedians do provide a citation for every paragraph, just to prevent questions later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Willwallace100 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- You need to establish notability. See the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you are able to establish notability then you need to work on your references. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:Inline references to learn how to add these to your article. Hope that helps.--Ykraps (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope I got this right! If I understood your criteria for notability and external references, then all should be ok. It's my first time posting anything here, so everything feels a bit new. Sorry if the article is lacking in any way. :)
Pauley13 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with this article is that it has no references at all. Every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph has to have a reliable, third party source pertaining to it. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:Inline references to learn how to add these sources to your article. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also it might be worth checking this person's achievements against the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to make sure he is notable and thus worthy of inclusion.--Ykraps (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)