Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 12
I just want to get the template removed. I think my coding is fine lol
Bravehrt77 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is not appropriate to copy massive amounts from other websites; see WP:QUOTEFARM Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations and WP:COPYVIO.
- Instead, you need to present facts in your own words, using appropriate independent reliable sources. Chzz ► 11:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
HaloAsia (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please add inline references - see WP:REFB. Chzz ► 10:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Mesut Kurtis
[edit]Suatu (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- This has no references to reliable sources.
This article needs to be reviewed before I get to post it up live. Thanks!
Suci.chin (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- If this was made live, it would be deleted as a blatant advert. It has no independent reliable sources, and is not neutral. See also WP:BFAQ. Chzz ► 10:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Is my article ready to publish?
[edit]Fred, thanks for the prompt feedback. I've included two much shorter reviews now, and I've added specific links and hardcopy reference info. I realize the potential conflict of interest, which is why the description of the book is brief and objective. Please let me know if these changes are sufficient. Thanks
I think my article is ready to publish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pamelakeyes/The_Jumbee Please let me know what my next step is, to make it public. Thanks, Pamela Keyes
Pamela Keyes (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there is a huge conflict of interest issue because you're writing about your own book. Additionally, the reviews seem to be copies of large blocks of text instead of a few, select quotes worked into a prose description of the book. I would say no, it is not ready to go "live" as an article, but it is a good time to get several sets of independent eyes looking at the article and improving it, so hopefully the feedback request does that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is being edited; at the time of writing this, it does not show why the book is notable. Also, some of the external links are not valid - they do not add to understanding of the topic; see WP:EL.
- Overall, I think the best WP:COI advice applies - instead of writing it yourself, wait until someone else writes an article about it...which they will, if indeed it passes the notability requirements (see also WP:BOOK). Chzz ► 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
First article I've written. About a Medical Charity near where I live. I was surprised they didn't have a Wiki page although they do have a good website and so I thought I'd write an article. What do you think? All feedback gratefully received. MusaQala (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)MusaQala
MusaQala (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need a heading == MAGPAS == at the start. When live, the pages title is the topic, so the page should start with a description of what it is all about, with the subject name in '''bold'''...so, something like,
MAGPAS is an Emergency medical services charity which provides medical support in Bedfordshire, England.
Try to sum up exactly what it is, to someone with zero pre-existing knowledge, in the first sentence. See WP:LEDE.
- Make sure the links work - for example, one is http://www.magpas.org.uk/history.asp, which does not, due to the comma on the end. You might find it easier to use citation templates, such as {{Cite web}} or {{citation}}, for example,
now known as MAGPAS Helimedix 24/7.<ref>
{{Citation
| title = Magpas changing its name to Helimedix 24/7
| publisher= Peterborough Evening Telegraph
| date = 13 October 2010
| url = http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/magpas_changing_its_name_to_helimedix_24_7_1_648032
| accessdate = 2010-10-13
}}</ref>
---
now known as MAGPAS Helimedix 24/7.[1]
---
- ^ Magpas changing its name to Helimedix 24/7, Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 13 October 2010, retrieved 2010-10-13
- In the above section - why does it say now know as...? Did they have a previous name? Maybe just remove the word 'now'.
- Also, notice that the reference should come immediately after punctuation. This is a fact.<ref>Ref here%lt;/ref> Next bit. — so, no space before it, and the punctuation before the ref, not after it.
- You don't need to use <p> - just leave a blank line.
- The subsections should be level 2, so just ==History== instead of ===History===
- Be careful (ie don't) make non-neutral claims based on the primary source (the org itself), for example can then be used to improve the quality of care.
In general, it's very good; don't be put off by the above; it's constructive criticism. I suggest making it live ASAP, so that others can ruin ithelp improve it further.
You might want to add an infobox, probably {{Infobox organization}} too; and see WP:DEVELOP. Cheers, Chzz ► 09:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I received this advice when I had asked for feedback; "You need to show Notability by showing that the subject is discussed in multiple reliable sources." So now I've added some reliable external sources as references. Does the article need anything more?
Acprail (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Guinunez/Huarpe Ready to go?
[edit]Added several references and taking care of a little formating. I'm not sure if I need to add more specific data on this indigenous group. Thanks!