Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 27
I have written and reviewed this article myself. Other people have read it and said it was good. I'm just looking for professional feedback and suggestions for cleanup.
16bitz (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Need for info about the life and time, articles, his contributions, photo, cleanup
tsc 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, your article is not yet ready to publish, so I've moved it to your userspace here: User:Tscmelaka/Teoh Tiang Chye J.P.. Your article needs categories, your references are not footnoted to make it clear which portions are evidenced by which sources, and your footnotes are unclear as they are just WP:Bare URLs rather than written-out WP:Citations. So not a huge issue, but a few things to work on in draft form before publishing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a small assignment for a class covering a piece by Arvo Pärt not yet covered by Wikipedia. I'm not sure what's wrong with the footnote formatting.
Smallgirlmad (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Done Made some format mods, added some tags. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
As this is the first article I have created, I would hugely appreciate your comments on style and use of sources, as well as notability! Flaneured (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, actually pretty good overall, but your footnotes are awfully heavy on WP:Primary sources. Footnote #5 is no good, it just mentions you in passing and does not at all evidence the claim of "famed for photography." Footnote #6 is, however, dead spot-on, just the kind of thing you want to find more of and add. Check your footnotes, make sure they actually provide evidence to the claim they're appended to, and find at least one more footnote from an independent, reputable source, and you should be good to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Really appreciate the even handed feedback. I have made some amendments in accordance with what you say: original footnote #5 has been replaced, and two new footnotes - #6 amd #7 - have been added. Do these justify notability, and are they reputable independent sources? Flaneured (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, #7 looks good, but #6 doesn't really make it. Of the tripod of sourcing, independent/reputable/substantive, it doesn't really meet the last. It's unaffiliated with Notion (good), it's Reputable (well... the Sun, but still ;) ), but it's just a passing mention "hey we used some Notion pics", so not substantive. Not trying to nitpick you, just to help you reckon how to make the strongest article possible. Iffy coverage is "BTW Notion took some pics", good coverage is "... and here's a paragraph in an article about Lady Gaga where we explain how Notion played a role in her initial popularity." Grasp the differnce with Substantive? Overall, you're doing really strong work, I'm just applying the high standards so you can publish strong. I'd say you're right about at the point of publishing; give a few more tries on coverage, and then we'll go ahead and move it to the articlespace. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
How do you feel about this?
Pdalugoda (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Needs substantial work, so I've left you feedback on your Talk page, and moved the draft to your userpage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This article's had a troubled past and has, per the talk page, undergone a rewrite as a starting point for moving forward. I did the rewrite pretty much. There are other editors who I think will step in and help out with moving it forward now, but I'd appreciate any other comments and/or editors who would be happy to help keep an eye on the article. Thanks
Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I am writing an article about an open source community software - Oxwall. The article contains description of the product, information on its history, community, executive board and developers. I'd love to hear your feedback. It's my first article to Wikipedia, so I definitely could do something wrong on formatting, or adding resources, although I've gone through all the major style and notability guidelines. Thank you in advance guys for taking time and trouble to express your opinion and give a piece of advice! HookAndEye (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Article about Scottish lullaby, "Baloo Baleerie". This is my first article so would appreciate some feedback before going live.
Metabelis (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks great overall; the main things you want to fix are your WP:Bare URLs. Then also put your footnotes after the punctuation marks. I added a category, and listed you for WikiProjects on the article Discussion page. I'd say fix the bare URLs (also called "WP:Link rot"), and go ahead and publish! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody take another look at Baloo Baleerie and remove the "new unreviewed article" box. Thanks. Metabelis (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- [verification needed] Done, and more importantly removed the "noindex" tag. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi I am having a difficult time preparing a Wiki article for a new technology component to surfboards called WaveJet. There are plenty of outside sources I can link to. I will try and rearrange this post in my sandbox, but I feel like I need the advice of an expert to ensure this post makes it into the Wikipedia community. Thank you very much for giving attention to this matter and I appreciate any help or advice you can offer me.
Chadisrael (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dashing off right now, but my main advice: compile your sources and post them here for us to squint at. Take a look at WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources to make sure that both you can prove that independent, reputable sources have written substantial coverage about this issue. Not passing mention in a rewiew "Oh, BTW, this board has WaveJet", and not a blog page or forum posting at "waveridersforum.com" discussing the feature. But a no-kidding paragraph or more in Surf Monthly's "New Tech You Can't Miss", or LA Times article "Surfing Changes With the Times", or whatnot. If there's a full article on this issue in a legit sports magazine, all the better. So no blogs, no Facebook, no forums, but actual coverage from media sources with a reputation to defend and quality standards to maintain. If you have those, you'll have no trouble getting an article published. Please read the policies, see if your sources fit, and you can swing by here to check with us. If it's good, we can walk you through article creation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose this as a replacement for the stub currently on Thamsanqa ("Thami") Mnyele. I would appreciate any comments, advice, and assistance. Thanks
Judy Seidman (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I need help with the references as well as placing this article in the correct place since there is another Charles Billingsley. Thank you.
Iwaskramer (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, you've tried a citation format but not quite gotten it right, thus the Error messages. Try a glance at WP:Citations and you'll probably quickly see how you'll want to format. That aside, you need to add categories (see WP:Categories); not general ones like "Christianity" and "Music", but as specific as possible like "People from Palo Alto", "American faith musicians", etc. Not random keywords either, you have to use the actual names of existing cats so they'll all link in. Best way is probably to pick a famous figure of similar description and see what cats they used. So far as the disambig, your title is good. Since there's another CB, what you do is put a tag at the top of the other article like so: {{for|the American Christian singer|Charles Billingsley (musician}} and that'll fix you right up. Your article is a little light on WP:Reliable sources, can you take a look around the internet and maybe find a couple other news articles about him? Not blogs, Facebook, etc. but legit media. Oh, one more small thing, people are referred to by last name once they're introduced on WP, so thereafter "Billingsley." A few things to tweak, but nice work overall. If you have any way to contact the subject, you can ask him to release an image to the Creative Commons, a form of public domain which allows you to use the image on WikiCommons and display it on his article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Beta ferrite and Hexaferrum
[edit]I have written short articles on two phases of iron that have not been covered by existing articles, beta ferrite and hexaferrum, in April 2011. Beta iron is seldom mentioned in metallurgical literature because it is crystallographically identical to alpha iron, but it has important implications nonetheless, such as in induction heating of steel. Hexagonal close-packed iron is more academic than practical, but no set of articles on iron and steel is complete without mention of it. I have cited several book pages on beta ferrite, and a landmark research paper on hexaferrum in addition to some authoritative books. Metallurgical reviewers, please review these two articles and add your comments.
His Manliness (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Details how the self-righting mechanism has evolved in robot combat. Expanding needed; possible cleanup.
The Master of Mayhem 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Anything wrong with the article?
207.157.121.184 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, though you've done nice work on coding (you made a template already? and a separate discography article?), you really haven't done anything to prove the Notability of the topic. Links to a song do not qualify as footnotes; what you need to prove notability is independent, reputable, substantive coverage of the topic. So we'd need to see news article, reviews, etc. to prove this person is worth writing about. I strongly encourage you to read WP:Notability (music) to see what the standard is. An article about a person/band simply cannot publish without providing references meeting Notability standards.
- On a sidenote, log in when you come to a Talk page. The only reason I know who you are is by guessing you're the writer of that article, so please make it easy on us by logging in so we know who we're answering. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to move the page /Speed The Band to the title "Speed The Band" without the "/" . Even though my original page, Speed The Band was deleted so that I could make the move, I am still getting this message:
"The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."
What am I doing wrong?
Alexanderheld (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I would really appreciate feedback on this new article! Thanks in advance.
Gaebler (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello I have written a page about a Scottish charity. I have a COI (please see discussion)and wanted to ensure that the article met the standards and objectivity required.
Thank you.
Smith2011 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hyperkinesia (neurology) --> Request for feedback before nomination as Good Article
[edit]We are looking to nominate this article to be a Good Article and therefore would like feedback before we go to do that! Thanks in advance!
JCal2011 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see no obvious problems with it. In fact it's quality work, definitely ready for Good Article nomination. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a new article on the USYCA, the national youth cricket organization of the United States, of which I am the president. Knowing the COI guidelines, I have made an extra effort to write with a neutral point of view. I think I've done pretty well with details, citations from reliable sources and technical aspects, but it needs to be reviewed, checked for poor editing and to have the "unreviewed" template removed.
Thanks for your prompt attention.
Jamieumbc (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, as I posted last time you requested: the article still relies far too heavily on USYCA sourcing. The article should be a place to neutrally describe an organisation, not a place for an organisation to present itself to the world. That's what a website is for, not an article. This is especially an issue as you use terms like "We will", etc. which are not taking an objective stance. As mentioned before, you also have too much non-notable information, such as the names of people on the board. This isn't really an issue of interest for an encyclopedia reader, and can be easily found on your organisation's website.
- In short, you're too much writing for the organisation, rather than about it. This is exactly why WP:Conflict of interest is so problematic, so I strongly encourage you to take a step back, and look at it from the perspective of "what does the average reader need to know" as opposed to "what am I excited to tell the world about my organisation". MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive comments. I have removed the Mission Statement (which had all of the "we will's" in it), the names of the people on the board and the photo of the cricket set, which I thought might be of marginal interest. I have also removed about twenty citations from the USYCA website, and added a few from outside sources. Do you think this raises the neutrality sufficiently?
I look forward to your response.
Thanks, Jamie
- Definitely good steps; did you not get my earlier Feedback reply to your previous request, or had you disagreed with the feedback? In any case, the photo of cricket gear is totally fine; a nice photo actually, so good to add back. You still have a few "we" and "our" mixed into the article, so you'll want to double-check to remove those. The main thing that's a bit off-policy is the external link; external links "in-line" (in the main body of the article) are strongly discouraged; if the topic is one we're directing the reader to read more about, link them to the Wiki article, if it has no Wiki article, by WP standards it's not yet Notable enough to external-link to. ELs are fine in the External Link section, but there you want to avoid WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ELs should be very sparing; for your organisation I could see definitely your official site, maybe one for a parent or associated organisation, and that's pretty much it. Lists of local affiliate clubs is more a "directory", and again the kind of thing that an interested party should go to your official website to track down. Hope I didn't come across as snippy above, it's just been a long day, and when I'm tired I'm a bit tetchy about folks who appear to ignore feedback (mine or others) and then ask for it again, so no hard feelings I hope. Definitely a notable topic, some very cool info and photos, it just needed (and still needs a small tad more) some nudging to neutrality to ensure it's about, not for the org. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Jamieumbc (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see your earlier Feedback, sorry. It's ironic because I've been anxiously awaiting some!
I have restored the photo of the cricket gear and removed the external inline links. I have also trimmed the External Links section as suggested. I searched for "we's" and our's" and only found one, which is part of a quote under the National Youth Cricket Day section. If I'm somehow overlooking some, please let me know.
Anything else I can do to make it neutral?
Jamieumbc (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- My bust, I'm almost always good about posting "feedback left" on folks' Talk pages, but I guess I missed yours and just reckoned you hadn't bothered to read it and got snippy. My fault there. So far as further changes, I'm about to go to bed, but if you like sometime in the next few days I can do an NPOV sweep, tighten up some of the verbiage, etc. Just let me know if you'd like that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Luis Gonzalez Gutierrez is a Mexican-American Artist working in the United States. During the 1960's and 1970's Gutierrez garnered national recognition though the inclusion of his workin two prominent national survey shows. He has been exhibited at the SFMOMA, the de Young, and many smaller galleries.
Togonongallery415 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, you have a few format issues to work on, but far more importantly you need to meet the standards laid out at WP:Notability (people). Not "tell us why he's notable", but providing footnotes to independent, reputable, substantive coverage of this person. In order to justify an article on a person, the facts in their article must be substantiated by media or academic coverage to prove the information is correct and published. Please read the Notability guideline, see what you can do to meet it, and post back if you have any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)