Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 September 13
I'm trying to improve the article on Vancouver Island so that the cleanup notice at the top of the article can be removed. I've done a few things so far, but I'm really not sure what precisely is needed. I have read over the style guides a bit, but I would really appreciate it if someone experienced could take a quick glance at the article and give me some pointers.
Thanks, Ewaladel (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey there, I've had a look through the article, and the main problem the article has is the amount of bullet points, as opposed to prose. For an ideal article—and, in this case, for the cleanup issue to be correctly rectified—there will be no bullet points, or the barest amount of bullet points. Essentially, what you need to do before the tag can be removed is get rid of all the bullet points, and write everything out in prose. For example, where you have a list of colleges, you could have:
"Camosun College has over 12,500 full-time and part-time students over two campuses, and North Island College was established in 1975 partially due to an $11,000,000 grant by one of British Columbia's largest shipping companies."
- ...and so on. Obviously it would be ideal if you could flesh that out a bit to give a brief description of the colleges. Once this is done for all the bullet points (and the list of airports), the cleanup tag can probably be removed. If you are determined to get this article to GA status, which I encourage you to try and do, then the whole article could be fleshed out more, and the Geology and Indigenous people need expansion.
- The other thing you need to do if you want to reach GA status with this is that the article needs a lot more references—everything needs to be verifiable. An article of this size probably needs upwards of 50 references, so I encourage you to get down to the library, scour the internet and look all over the place. If you need any help with the article, or have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them at my talk page. Hope this helps, and good luck! WackyWace converse | contribs 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 64 centimetres, use 64 centimetres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 64 centimetres.[?] - Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), harbor (A) (British: harbour), harbour (B) (American: harbor), metre (B) (American: meter), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme).
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ℳono feedback 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I have inserted links that are reliable resources. Because I am adding an article about an author, would it be best to list her bibliography is list form instead of making it part of the narrative? Thank you
RemainingRoberts (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I do not see any references, so I imagine you mean the wikilinks or the authors books?
- Articles need specific references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject - such as newspaper articles, or something. See WP:VRS. For help with how to add them, see WP:CITE.
- Perhaps you could look at some other good articles, and in particular note their referencing. Chzz ► 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please can review my article about the game of Darkleaf Entertainment ??
Thanks
Alieneks (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but it does not meet the notability requirements.
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps after release it will be in newspapers and things, but currently it is not notable. Chzz ► 07:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcoming your feedback on whether notability sufficiently established to add this open access journal to the others listed in Wikipedia. Thank you!
Prism journal (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing that jumps out at me is your username. It appears that your account has been established for the primary purpose of advertising the subject of this article. Accordingly, your account may be appropriately deleted. The priority here is to change your username to something completely independent of any subject or article that you may wish to edit.
- Much of the article is a copy/paste or close paraphrase from the Prism Journal website. This will need to be addressed by rewriting the article from an independent view, while citing the website as a reference.
- Use sentence case in the section headings.
- Watch the spacing between the sections, paragraphs, and external links.
- Remove Twitter from the references. You can add it as an external link. This is generally discouraged per WP:ELNO, but I believe it is applicable to the subject of this article. (Other editors may challenge Twitter as an external link.)
- Bullet the external links, removing the space between each link.
- Remove the empty (redlinked) categories.
- Remove the embedded links and add them as external links.
One more thing... do not move this article to the mainspace before changing your username. Otherwise, you may be quickly blocked. See WP:USERNAME. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
great
Rajece05 (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- This page has been deleted as a hoax. Chzz ► 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I created this article to give details about the company which is in mumbai. please read that give me a feedback. thank you Alshariefbe (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! The current issues involve the lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the highest priority to address. Without this information, the article may be deleted according to a lack of notability. See WP:ORG. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
feedback on your new article. (September 2010) Just created a new work...What do you think of the quality?
Jdwki123 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Article redirected to Hearts of Fire International Ministries. Cindamuse (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I wish to enter the same article plus an external link to its original url (entered later) but have been asked to enter it under a longer version of the same name. This was denied first on grounds of copyright violation (but the same article with the shorter name Durmitor World Heritage Site was accepted and can be seen on Wikipedia0. It was also denied because it had been previously entered as an external link under Wikipedia's article on Durmitor.
Jrsfa (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I want this article to go live, and feel I'm pretty much there. Can you have a look and let me know any initial content or order comments that come to mind? Thanks in advance for any assistance/advice. Jon
Tickton (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jon, welcome to Wikipedia! There are a few concerns.
- The notability of the subject needs to be established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is not currently established.
- The article needs a good cleanup and copyediting.
- The article is written with quite a bit of puffery and peacock terms. It contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of unnoteworthy facts. These need to be removed or replaced. The article is very promotional in nature. See WP:WORDS
- The book information needs to be fleshed out. Publishers and ISBNs will help.
- The article has no lead section, so one should be written. The lede presents the notability of the subject and summarizes the content in the article.
- There are some names in the Reference section, It is not clearly understood why they are there.
- The article needs auditing for compliance with the Manual of Style.
- Watch the spacing between paragraphs and sections.
- The reference section needs a grouping.
That's about it. Hope this helps. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.wikipedia.org/Wireless_Expense_Management - My First Article
[edit]Hello Everyone,
I would be thrilled if anyone could lend their linguistic expertise and let me know where I could improve on this article. Any feedback encouraged!
Penneykh (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please try and add some reliable references to prove the subject's notability. Also, please try and only write statements that you can prove with a reference, otherwise they're likely to just be tagged as having original research or having unverifiable claims, as the two tags at the top of the article says. Chevymontecarlo 05:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Am looking for any feedback on my page. Thank you in advance for your help. Caitlinmcfeely (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- some of it at least is copied or very closely paraphrased from your web site , and that is unacceptable unless you explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials ; but even so, the material still will sound more like a website than an encyclopedia article, and it would be better to rewrite it, DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Checking to make sure it won't get deleted after I make it live. Seeing if the person is considered relevant enough. FootsieWootsie (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are a few issues with the article. The current concerns are a lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While the article includes a list of references and external links, its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. The article also needs auditing for compliance with the Manual of Style. A review of the information on reliable sources and external links will also help in writing the article. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a new page and it was flagged after my first post and before I put in any citations. Will you take a second look and possibly un-flag it. Thanks. Foleylibrarian (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- A few points:
- Consider adding sections to the article, like I have done for the references. This helps make the article easier to read.
- Try not to make the article sound like an advertisement for the library. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral in tone. Phrases like 'It contains a comprehensive collection (300,000 books) of literary volumes and many online databases that support student research' should really be rewritten.
Chevymontecarlo 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- As a 30-year-resident of Spokane with a grandmother that worked at Gonzaga for about the same number of years, I wanted to comment here. The concerns I see include a lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The current references are all primary sources. The lede paragraph also needs rewritten to clearly state the notability of the subject, while summarizing the article overall. If you have a photo of the library or logo that you could add to the article, along with details on the library's holdings, that would be a great asset. I would remove the information about days and times that the library is open. This information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and adds to the promotional nature. Is there any information on the library that can be culled from any of Tom Foley's writing or from the Spokesman? Possibly even something from UW? Hit me back if you need help. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Please review the article. Thankyou =) Anumsuhail (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I find this to be a very confusing article. The article lacks a lede paragraph that presents the notability of the subject, as well as a summary of the article. The article appears to be about AIESEC, but we already have that article at AIESEC. This appears to be an inappropriate fork that may be best merged with the other article. I've read the article three times and find no context to identify what this article is about. What does AIESEC mean? To what does AIESEC refer? Is it a school? What is AIESEC Lahore? How does it differ from AIESEC? Is this the same organization with a different location? What is the purpose of this organization? Why is it notable? Why the list of interns and Executive Body Council? This information is not encyclopedic. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is vital information to establish notability. A lack of notability will result in a deletion of the article. The priority here is to locate these references and add them to the article. See WP:ORG for information to assist in addressing notability for organizations. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made a new article & it needs some reveiwing. I have provided all the necessary references & external links for the article. Please help to see that the article is fine.
Neharaj26 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The article's subject appears to be notable enough but you need extra references to prove this. Do you have an official site or news articles? They are alright references to use. Also, please be careful with the article's tone and language style. It's not supposed to sound like an advertisement for the film. Phrases like 'It’s a pacy action thriller unfolding in one night with multiple layers of troubled love, loyalty, betrayal, indebtedness and above all… making choices' should really be removed. Also, I think the plot section needs to be rewritten - perhaps this needs to just be replaced with a brief sentence or two. Chevymontecarlo 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I wrote my first ever page. I tried to do it to the best of my abilities, but I'm sure there's room for improvement. Any constructive feedback will be welcomed...
Csohier (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- You need to add more reliable, third-party references. Also, I think the article needs to be shortened - too much information can just make it sound like an advertisement. Chevymontecarlo 17:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
New article on digital holographic microscopy (DHM). DHM is digital holography applied to microscopy. Egelberg (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. I've added an appropriate tag on the article for assistance. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A hitherto unrecorded mathematical theorem after Pythagoras is presented - feedback invited.
Extcetc (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Article has already been proposed for deletion, and you've removed the PROD tag. In case you don't understand why this article is problematic, you should probably read WP:NOT#OR and WP:OR. Textorus (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)