Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 29
I've started an article on Patricia Moore. I've just run across her, when she was invited to speak at a nearby design college. Her book, Disguised: A True Story, out of print but available through Amazon, is compared with "Black Like Me". It was made into a CBC (Canadian Brdcsting Co) production titled "Old Like Me", available from NetFlix. She is named by OXO has having made one of two founding contributions to the Good Grips line of kitchen and gardening tools. I'm not sure why there's no article on her, so I started one, with references. Please complete.
RonLichty (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, the article come across as quite promotional at the moment, which Wiki does not permit - you need to account more for her notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Rather than ask others to complete this you should aim to do it yourself, as this type of article normally ends up being nominated for deletion - if the original creator cannot fine ample sources to support its existence, not many others will either, unfortunately. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 09:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I created a new article about Andrzej Bart. I will appreciate all suggestions. Thank you.
Hannagil (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have written all his background into one section, which forms the Lead. You really need to break the info up into sections, then summarise it into a lead afterwards. See WP:LEAD. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 09:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your feedback. I will try to break my page up into sections. Hannagil (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Help with referencing/citations.
41.121.5.130 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Copy-edited article to Wiki layout standards, but this is not the right place for reference support, mainly feedback on article. You need to provide adequate citations for the info/data given in the article for it to be valid. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 09:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I've written a brief article on the Global Migration Group, which is an inter-agency group consisting of UN agencies and a few others working on international migration issues. I would appreaciate a review of the article. Thanks!
Melissamigr (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- As you say, it's brief, and it seems to cover the basics. Given than you've named a dozen members and topics, it might be useful to expand into each ones (or a select few) policies, how they operate, what their objectives are - naturally they have collective goals which you summarised, but how does each work independently to attain those goals? It's that kind of expansion that turns a Stub into a more encyclopedic entry. Of course, any such info would need to be fully cited and referenced - but it depends how much more you want to add to the article. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 10:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt feedback! This is my first attempt to create an article, hence it's a little tentative. I agree the article could be expanded further so will be doing some editing.
Melissamigr (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please help with formatting!
Bhottensen (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Copy-edited. Please see WP:MOS on formatting articles, if you plan to update that or other articles. This article may need more work in terms of WP:NOTABILITY also, to avoid deletion. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
wanting to add or link this to the MPPP article.
Jeremysdemo (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- So what's the problem? Just goto MPPP, click "Edit" and add the info where appropriate into the article. Just make sure anything you add is cited and referenced to prevent it being challenged or removed.. chemistry is complex, so it's just as important to use reliable sources. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just looking for some feedback on a new article. Thanks for helping out!
Newmediamaven (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Written and layout okay, but may need more to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements, as I'm not seeing anything major there in terms of notability, yet. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! I just created a page for the album Tagala Talaga by Filipino artist Regine Velasquez. Could someone please review the article. Thank you very much in advance. :)
Rovheel (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks okay to me. Needed a couple of minor MOS copy-edits, but looks like you have good grasp on it. Only two things really to bear in mind:
- Use the word "and" instead of & unless it's actually used in the name of something.
- Place refs after periods/commas rather than before. So we get: .[1] rather than [1].
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Nsidecolab (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I mention 7 or 8 Scientists plus one satellite in my paper. These are heavyweights, all of them. Do you really need to know who it as who discovered the expansion was speeding up? Or who it was who came up with the Big Bang? Surely, at the size of my idea, these things pale into insignifigance. Everything I say can be checked. I make no preposterous claims. This paper is the result of my deductions, in light of the evidence. I'm actually the only person who agrees with Einstein - that his Cosmological Constant was Of course I am alone - nobody else has ever been here. Of course, this is all new to Wiki, but that's hardly my fault. I have been bandying this theory for a while now, and reactions are definitely favourable. I realise too, that this thinking outside the box is mind-blowing. Not my fault!
I would like my article, ' to be moved to the cosmology section. — Peter Lamont (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is this? An essay? Wiki is an encyclopedia not a library of personal essays.
- The last line on your essay reads "I'm Peter Lamont and I hold the copyright on 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe' from the Library of Congress, Washington DC, USA." All submissions to Wiki must follow this: "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
- There is no "cosmology section", there might be a project on Space, but they will only take articles, not deal with student essays.
- Please explain what it is you want to contribute, as this essay will need to be removed as it stands, because it is not a valid article.
- Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 06:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Article has been speedily-deleted for not being a valid article. Please read Wiki help pages on how to write an article, or contribute material to existing articles. If you wish to use the material you submitted for review, then yes we "do want to know" whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever and however things were discovered, theorised, researched or concluded - it's called referencing, and if you are familiar with the Library of Congress you will be familiar with Citations, sourcing and bibliographies, which are used to verify information, and claims about any and all subjects. Wiki is not a place for advocating ideas or theories, you need to present objective contributions in a neutral manner - thinking outside the box is not encyclopedic. Thanks Ma®©usBritish [talk] 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Among the reasons for deletion, I would include vandalism. Surely you noticed the terrible page widening - you cannot expect anybody to read an article laid out like that. But the real deletion reason is original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- In this case we should assume "good faith" - widening is the result of the way it was submitted, not intentional widening. Even then, widening is not really vandalism, given that it was his own contrib and not an attack on other articles. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Among the reasons for deletion, I would include vandalism. Surely you noticed the terrible page widening - you cannot expect anybody to read an article laid out like that. But the real deletion reason is original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)