Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 19
Please review article: NAACP New Orleans Branch
LALeBan (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a very long article, so I didn't have time to go over it for content, but I did some pretty major format fixes.
- "Categories" are meant to be as specific and granular as possible, not "every possible term related to the issue". I've removed most of your categories, and replaced them with the most applicable, specific categories; please take a look at the cats I've listed at the end of the article.
- As noted in WP:External links, external links are to be kept to a minimum, and again as specific as possible to the issue and as general of interest as possible. So any external links should be very closely linked to the NAACP NOLA, and also of very long-term interest, not just recent news articles. I've deleted most of those, but kept the best ones as "Further reading". "External links" should mainly just have a link to the organisation's official site.
- There were a ton of excess formatting codes. WP registers blank lines, so "br" isn't necessary. Codes like "big" are used in extremely limited circumstances (such as enlarging Arabic fonts which are too small on the English version), not simply to make a point. Likewise, bolding is primarily used just for the first word in the article. If you want to create sub-sections, use three equals signs around the title, vice the two used for section titles.
- The biggest issue you have, and it's too late at night for me to start on this, is an issue of "POV" (point of view). The article takes a very laudatory stance towards the subject, with titles like "Challenging the Status Quo", "A Great Pioneer", etc. Nobody's saying this isn't a good organisation, but WP articles must be as neutral as possible, "just the facts", etc. and leave it up to the reader to provide the opinions. I know this is difficult to do when you're enthused about the subject, but to remove the "POV" tags, etc. the article really needs to be scrubbed of any subjective praise or adulation, and focus on the factual who/what/where/when/why of the organisation. In the big picture, a neutral article gains even more respect for a subject, vice an overly-biased one (regardless of how good the subject) which indicates to the reader that a pure interest in information took a back seat to pushing a viewpoint.
- So, a few comments there, and note I did a pretty extensive cleanup of the article, so it looks a lot more like the standard Wikipedia format, easier to read, neater layout, etc. Let me know if you have any other questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Although Absalom Greeley seems to be thoroughly discreditable kind of guy, I'm trying hard to get the neutral point of view on him. Can you provide comments and let me know if I hit the right note? There isn't much information on him....I gather from what I read, that he has been "shunned" by the Ontario establishment of his time and so forth through history. Thanks so much\ CJ_WeißSchäfer (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
CJ_WeißSchäfer (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
DoneReviewed, looks great. You just need to add {{WikiProject Canada}} to its talk page. I'd also suggest you drop by WP Canada's Talk page and introduce yourself and your article, maybe get a little more feedback from Canada history buffs. So far as NPOV, you seem to have stayed objective; NPOV doesn't mean not saying unpleasant things, it means saying things, positive or negative, unemotionally and based on the facts. Note that other people's opinions are facts themselves, so it's fine to say "MP Smith called him a 'low down guttersnipe' in an 1883 editorial in the Toronto Gazette." So long as the article itself does not pass judgement, but reports the facts and historical attitudes towards the subject, that's totally kosher. No need to water anything down; if a guy was accused of crimes, he was accused of crimes. Really nice work. Note too that you can probably add photos of him due to their being out of copyright due to age; maybe look around the internet, or check a book to scan an image. Even if a book or website used the image, the image itself (unless they somehow modified it or added their own content) can still be out of copyright, and thus open to add to WP. Photos add a lot of personality to articles whenever available. Check in with WP:Canada, and maybe mention there as well that you'd like help getting a photo to upload. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Expansion of current familial DNA heading under DNA Profiling page or new article on Familial DNA Database Searches. This draft could be an expansion of current familial DNA heading under DNA Profiling page or new article on Familial DNA Database Searches. I'd like feedback on a.) read-ability, style of the article b.) should this be a new article? c.) what needs to be added or taken out? d.) any more thoughts/feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Spu2011 (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here we mostly cover formatting and beginner issues (I've tagged the top of your draft with issues you'll need to address if you move forward). For technical issues, I'd contact the Discussion page of WP:WikiProject Science as well as go to the Discussion page of DNA Profiling and ask there whether this content should be added to the main article, a supplementary article split off, or what option is best. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feeback. I was under the impression that I had put in-line citations in but apparently I haven't. I'm a bit confused on why footnotes show up on my userpage draft I posted User:Spu2011 and not under where you put the comments User:Spu2011/Familial DNA Database Searching. And, one more question, several of these citations are journal articles that require someone to buy the PDF from Lexis or another company to read it, though there are lose copies around the internet- is it fair to just link to the site where they can purchase the article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5778/1315.short/)
Thanks Spu2011
- That is odd; the version on your main userpage does indeed have footnotes, but the version on your draft does not. No idea how that happened. The footnotes look pretty good on your Userspace one, my only advice would be to "tuck" the link into the title of the reference. I'll do the first footnote on your Userpage (the one that already has footnotes) as an example of how to code that. Regarding citing for-pay articles: that's not a problem, articles aren't obliged to be online or free, and linking to "lose copies" probably isn't kosher if those happen to be pirated, so I'd just link to the for-pay version, and that way folks can either pay for it or... find it how they find it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Your feedback has been most appreciated as this is a learning process for me. I've also just posted on the WP: WikiProject Genetics page regarding if the page should be part of the main article or posted as a new article. I'll also be sure to double check my spelling a bit more often than I appear to have done above :) Spu2011 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
American author of award winning children's literature. Just wanted to make sure that I am on terra firma with regard to my subject and sources. Also, does my being the subject's (Doris Buchanan Smith) son constitute a conflict of interest? I have an additional paragraph that is biographical, but I do not yet have reliable sources for it, so I'm holding off on that part of the article. Thank you.
Howardrandallsmith (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a CoI, but that doesn't make it totally forbidden. However, I strongly urge you to read WP:COI to understand the implications of writing an article about a family member. Not especially the following:
- Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no rights to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit, and once added will not be deleted just because the author doesn't like it any more. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themselves presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you breach our editing policies or "edit war" in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you are likely to have your editing access removed.In addition, if your article is found to not be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.
- That said, your article currently lacks evidence of notability, so please review WP:Notability (people) for the benchmarks. Basically, an article about a person positively must have multiple independent, neutral, reputable (academic or media) sources to verify its content. This is both to establish the relative importance, and to protect subjects from libel. If you happen to know things personally as her son, but can't verify them through a reputable source, I'd hold off adding them. To put it this way: you wouldn't want random people claiming to be her nephew adding uncited claims and insisting "totally true, I know her personally". So, please read the above policies as you move forward, and ensure you have, bare minimum, two independent, neutral sources footnoted to the article before publishing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Matthew. Very helpful. At your recommendation I read the material concerning COI and have no reservations and wish to continue drafting. I have more reliable sources and cites, but am still in the process of reading and learning how to include them, i.e, as "cites" or as "references," and, what is the difference between the too. Some of my sources are not available online: (1) Contemporary Authors, volume(s) 69-72; (2) Contemporary Authors - Obituary, volume(s) 211; (3) Contemporary Authors New Revision Series, volume(s) 11; (4) Dictionary of Literary Biography, volume(s) 52; (5) Junior Discovering Authors; (6) Major Authors and Illustrators for Children and Young Adults, edition(s) 1, 2; (7) Something about the Author, volume(s) 28, 75; (8) Something about the Author Autobiography Series, volume(s) 10; (9) Something about the Author - Obituary, volume(s) 140; (10) St. James Guide to Young Adult Writers (St. James Press, an imprint of Gale).
Howardrandallsmith (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Sources" and "references" are both non-fixed terms on WP at this point, but a "footnote" is the actual number at the end of a phrase/sentence/paragraph providing specific evidence of the veracity of that statement. For info on how to make footnotes, see WP:Footnotes. Make sure evidentiary footnotes are full author/title/publisher/date citations, and if you have a link to any online sources include that link in the footnote. Do note that for WP:Notability (people) you need at least two substantive references. It's okay to footnote a basic claim like "won the Acme Prize", but if all you have is brief mentions in a list or reference work, that's not yet enough. You want a couple newspaper articles or books that gives at least a few sentences specifically to your subject, not just drops the name amongst many. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
It is a new article that refers to the company i work for. it would seem i need some verification to remove the little box at the top. Thanks
BBGOnline (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good, I've done one or two small things to help. It needs more references from reliable sources, but on the whole it's a good effort; after a quick search I think it's unlikely to be deleted. Oh, you have a potential conflict of interest, but in this case it doesn't seem to be a problem. Be careful to write about the institution factually and not try to promote it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I was as careful as possible not to shout loud and proud about how great we are stuck to the facts, buy hey - this is our 25th year so we deserve a wikipedia page! Thanks for tidying it up for me, adding the contents box etc. Very much appreciate it.
Lewis1991 (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Couple things: you're putting too much work into your wikilinks. You're coding [[Duke_of_York|Duke of York]] when all you need to do is type [[Duke of York]]. The "_" is just how WP processes a space, but if you just leave a space in your link WP reads it as the same thing. Next, your links are bare URLs; you want to fix those to proper citations for clarity, readability, and in case the links ever move. Lastly, the footnotes you provide are pretty patchy as to whether they meet WP:Notability (people). Being listed on a list of nominees is not really "substantive coverage", so if you can find some reputable articles that more in-depth discuss this actor, that will strengthen the case for the article, as right now it's tottering on the edge of approval. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Harringtonjohn (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Another author put the article up for deletion since it does not attempt to meet the standards required at WP:Notability (people). Please read that policy and understand what needs to be done for the article not to be deleted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
First posting. Grateful for any feedback, plus instructions on moving from User draft to live page. Thanks
KevinBillinghurst (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Couple things you need to fix first: your footnotes are all WP:Bare URLs, you want them spelled out as full citations. Take a look at any well-established WP article to see how that's coded. You also need to add WP:Categories. Once those are taken care of, post back here and I'll move it for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like for this article to be reviewed by someone else so that the 'new article template' at the top of the page can be removed. The article is about contemporary art gallery Casey Kaplan gallery in Chelsea in New York City.
Chelseagallerygirl (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I've reviewed and added tags of things that need fixing, so please check those out. For the WP:Bare URLs issue, I've given folks advice on this on today's page and yesterday's, so please check those out (rather than me retype; common problem). Also still have some concerns about Notability; can you dig up any clearer, reputable, news or academic mentions of this gallery? Not just passing mentions on a list, but some more substantive coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks for reviewing! I'll definitely look into these and dig up some better sources. Chelseagallerygirl (talk)
- I fixed your first footnote; check out the format I used and copy that for all your footnotes (plus publisher and publication date if applicable). Also your EL should be displayed just as "Official site" with the link itself hotlinked into that term; it's a given that it's the subject's site, so "Official site" is the WP standard label. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Short article about a rising NY real estate mogul. Needs more sources?
Blplatt (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've tagged it for speedy deletion. There's no assertion of notability here, and precious little material to work with. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new page for an album by Time Berne. Please let me know what you think.
Dan Hewins (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Are my references and categories now ok to go live?
Grandmadge (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your footnote formatting is slighting off. I fixed the first footnote for you, so hit Edit and look at how I typed the coding, so that the link is hidden in the title and makes it clickable. That way you have the link, you have a full citation (both for ease of verification and also in case the original link ever moves), yet the bare URL is tucked neatly into the title so you don't see a long string of "http://www..." all over the place. Suggest you apply that fix to the rest of your footnotes. Same thing for your "External links", tuck the link up into the title. Also, your categories are way too broad; he is not a "football" not a "university". Try Category:Jamaican footballers. Also, you have several of what appear to be good references just chucked into "External links", newspaper articles and the like. Why not check them and see which facts they prove, and footnote and/or add those facts to the article to make it even better-referenced?MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Namibia Heros Jakop Marenga and many others
[edit]My name is Petrus Naftali Indongo, I am the other so publish these wonderful materials for the benefit of cultural exchange and international relations. [[File:[http://www.africana.ru/stars/index1.htm
- Greetings, this is not the place to request that other people write articles for you. This is a place where you write an article, and you can come ask us to help you get it formatted right, copyedited, and published. If you want to create an article about one of these figures, I recommend you use the Wikipedia:Article wizard tool to help you get started writing your first article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note that we already have an article Jacob Morenga, as well as on German (de:Jakobus Morenga and Russian (ru:Моренга, Якоб Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a new page that has already received some feedback while in the draft stages, and I feel it is ready to go live. Any and all comments and suggestions are welcome.
Shatteredeuphoria (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a thought: instead of having media coverage saying "they were profiled in Utne Reader", why not open the article, extract actual facts about the organisation, and footnote those to Utne? You may be able to draw out a good number of subtantiable facts that are far more informative to the reader than "Utne wrote about them". Try that with any of your reputable sources that you don't really use outside the "Media" section. Also your section formatting was off; hit History and the "difference" buttons to see how I fixed this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Biographical article on the founder of residential solar installation company Real Goods needs to be reviewed please.
Hot taters (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I removed your "unreviewed" tag and added "uncat" since you need to add categories (specific categories, not "Environment" or "Business", but "American green businessmen" or whatever the most applicable cats are; check the bios of similar figures to get ideas). I also left a heading tag at John Schaeffer to direct folks to your article if they want your guy and not the athlete. Note also that the "li" formatting for lists is bulky and a pain; instead just type an asterisk at the start of each item you want to list, and it'll automatically bullet it. Nice work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you MatthewVanitas! I appreciate the help. I have fixed Dustin Hoffman's page and I ran a search on google covered for extra information. I think that I have everything covered so far. Again, thank you so much! e Rebecca.k.cha (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been listed as a full article since 5 April (note that on the History tab). I've removed the draft tags, so you're all good to go. The main thing I would do is check the Dustin Hoffman, find her name (or add it) and put wikilinks around it (double brackets) so that it links to your article. You may also want to run a search "lisa hoffman" site:en.wikipedia.org on Google to see if there are any other mentions of her name that you need to link to your article. To see what articles already link to yours, his the "What links here?" button in the Toolbox menu in your left margin. Nice work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Please can you give me feedback and suggestions on how to make the article better. Thanks
93.96.76.84 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did a quickie review, not seeing any problems. By the way, if you have an account please log in when posting conversations; otherwise your question just comes from an anonymous IP and we have no way to get a hold of you if we need to talk to you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've made all the changes that were suggested when I asked for feedback on April 17th. Is this OK now to move from my drafting userspace to the article space? Thanks for your help.
Siztrust (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're close, but not quite there. The main issue you have now is WP:Link rot, also known as WP:Bare URLs. Your footnotes should be full citations (like in a college paper) with an author/title/publisher or publication/date, and the link itself is hyperlinked to the link page. I fixed your first "External link" as an example for how ELs are formatted; same for your footnote #1. Note how much cleaner they look, all the details are immediately visible, and the hyperlink is ready to be clicked. Please do likewise for your other footnotes and ELs. Also note that Enfield goes to a Disambiguation page, and I have no idea which "Enfield" off that long list it was that he was born in; easy fix. After that you should be cleared hot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Booth088 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I asked for feedback yesterday and made all the changes that were mentioned. I'm sure there's more that could be done that I'm not seeing (more categories for instance). Thanks for any advice.
Catemonsterq (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good overall, I'd say go ahead and publish. Let me know if you don't have Move privileges (in the drop-down menu next to the star icon at the top margin of your screen) and I'll move it for you. You could also email her personally to ask if she'll release a photo to Creative Commons (like Public Domain) so that it can be uploaded to WikiCommons and displayed here on your article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)