Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 31
The Ramakrishna Math Chennai needs a new section, for there are lot of information to know about its History, Ideals, Activities etc
Trishul Trishul31 (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello - I'd like feedback on this article. I want to make sure this article can be published. Thanks
WCroslan (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The above-refrenced article was first created in July 2010. On July 27, 2010, a request for feedback was submitted, but to date, it appears the article has not been reviewed. The article has been updated and somewhat wikified since.
Won't someone please provide feedback so we can proceed with the article and get the various banners removed? Thanks.
02 February 2011 - Thank you so much for the feedback and the information, WikiDao! I will go back in and work on the formatting of the remaining references using your edits as a guide. I'll also look into expanding the article beyond a stub.
Rstowell (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I took down the wikification tag and the "unevaluated" tag and tagged it as a generic-aviation-stub[1]. I didn't consider the content too much, but did format some refs: [2], [3], [4]. It would be a good thing for someone to properly format the other references, too. WikiDao ☯ 18:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Editors,
I was wondering if someone could please review my article on DynaVenture Corp.? It has been up for sometime now, I would appreciate any feedback so the unreviewed article text can be removed from the top of the page.
Advance thanks for your time.
Suzy Huber (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Gaston Amadeo rossi new player for FC Partizan Belgrade on loan from Boca Juniors, adding him to Partizan squad list
Mitosije (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's very short, and needs adding to categories. Also, more references to reliable sources would help.
- Please try to use inline references - that is, numbered footnotes. See WP:REFB. Chzz ► 14:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Mayborn75 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you mean Miskeen Shah.
- It only has one reference; it needs several more. "lutfia.page4.me" is not a reliable source.
Tryout22 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's a really nice article. Without thoroughly scrutinizing your references, it seems like you have the documentation of notability. It reads like obits used to in the papers when they knew how to write them. But...
- You need to (this is the mantra; memorize it) verify your statements with references to reliable sources. See, Wikipedia:Citing sources for more, especially on how to make your references "inline". My suggestion is to use the templates provided at Wikipedia:Citation templates. This is not mandatory, but in my experience makes life a lot easier.
- The kaymills site must stay in "External Links".
- Please come back to "Requests for feedback" after you reference your article. If you want to polish it up a bit first here's some ideas. 1. Do you have a photo? 2. Use an "infobox" (see Template:Infobox person). 3. Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout).Tkotc (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Tryout22 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It only has a single reference - and that one is PR. It needs much better referencing - see WP:V. Also, it is not neutral - please see WP:NPOV. Chzz ► 14:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
St. John's Episcopal Church (Hartford, Connecticut)
[edit]Hello -- My new page has not been visited by an editor. Please take a look and let me know if it has any issues. Thanks!
Titanicman1912 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good! :) I named some of the refs and removed some redundant listing of them[5]. WikiDao ☯ 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I was having a bit of trouble with formatting the citations properly. Another one of my problems: I would like to include some quotes/information from a few notable, published articles by Michael Sekora (director of Project Socrates), but am afraid that this might get my article flagged, since he is a living person... Is this something that I should be concerned about? Any and all feedback greatly appreciated- thanks!
(Here is an example of an article from which I'd like to use info: http://www.tradereform.org/2010/08/mike-sekora-towards-a-technology-based-strategy/)
-Ramona Q Ramona (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I moved some of your refs into the text -- you can move them to the text you meant them to go with, but inline citations are always best.
- Google returns a number of hits on seemingly unrelated things with the same name, so the article may need to be disambiguated at some point.
- I would also recommend including summaries of the five points about the results of the research that Sekora makes here.
- It looks pretty good, though! :) Perhaps just about ready for the move to article mainspace. WikiDao ☯ 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my recent Freeads submission, I was hoping someone could verify that, Freeads has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other."? Once I have got some advice on this, I can set the entry live or make further edits. Thanks - Gordon!
Gtebbutt (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it probably does not, currently, meet that criteria.
- I don't know how much is in those two book sources, but I'd think it probably just a 'passing mention'?
- That leaves 3 refs to the org itself (one archived)- as primary sources, they don't help,
- And then there is a C4 article - but the is not actually about this org. one just has a single link to it, as far as I can see.
- Typically, you'd need 3 or more articles (newspapers, or something) that really are all about the org; substantial coverage.
- So, sorry; if made live as it is, I think it'd be in danger of deletion. Chzz ► 14:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
submission of new article The Sunshine Factory
[edit]This article is ready to be submitted, but must first be reviewed.
Thank you.
Jimrobwriter (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The Sunshine Factory is already live; there are a number of things that need improvement - which have been noted in template messages on the article itself.
- I removed a couple of misplaced links to a blog; I don't think they should be included anyway. A blog is not a reliable source.
- A also removed the link to "thedumbingofamerica.net" which is not a reliable source, and is actually on the Wikipedia 'blacklist', so it cannot be used.
- I added a couple of wikilinks - I put, ...[[psychedelic rock]] band from [[Mobile, Alabama]]... which makes links, like this: ...psychedelic rock band from Mobile, Alabama ...
- See WP:LINKING - please add some more relevent links.
- I'll add some details to the references. Chzz ► 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I think I am finally getting the hang of this. I have deleted some of the information which was unverifiable, and included more references to verify the facts I have stated. I would appreciate feedback on the current draft.
Anikamorshead (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It looks okay. Inline cites, a couple of secondary sources, fairly neutral, fairly notable, not overly self-promoting. I formatted a reference; further information on how to do that properly can be found at WP:CITE (I just use the drop-down menu in the edit window for that, myself). You should also have a look at WP:COI; editing articles in which you have a personal or commercial stake is frowned upon, though tolerated within limits... WikiDao ☯ 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see you have already requested and received feedback here. The editors there seem to have looked into the secondary sources you cite more carefully and have questioned whether notability has been established. Perhaps further coverage in reliable secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY) would help, if you can find any and cite them (properly formatted and as inline citations). WikiDao ☯ 21:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Barkrich/Zelder Paradox
[edit]I am asking for feedback on User:Barkrich/Zelder Paradox before moving it to mainspace. I think I have resolved the issues that two editors have raised. Thanks!
Barkrich (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please be very careful about drawing conclusions - for example, saying The problem is that some marital goods are difficult to trade. - that isn't appropriate encyclopaedic language (saying "the problem is...") and, it appears to be original research, which is not permitted; see also WP:OR.
- There are also unreferenced claims, such as Evidence supporting the Zelder paradox can be found in higher divorce rates for couples with children - again, that looks like original research, unless someone else has published that claim.
Chzz ► 14:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Instead of "the problem is...", how about "In order to be applicable, however, the Coase Theorem requires frictionless trading between parties. In marriage, some goods are difficult to trade. (footnote to Zelder 1993)"
On the second comment, this claim has been published. I meant the Zelder 1993 reference to apply to the whole paragraph. I'll change it to make that clearer.Barkrich (talk)
Is there enough material to support all the claims made here?
EstherLaver (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it is in danger of deletion (for lack of notability).
- There aren't any references for the final paragraph though - ie After the tour, Sarah Hall quit the band and was replaced on bass by Jo Hurst. Greg Van Cook joined Front... - and that is a concern, because that is biographic information, so absolutely must have good reliable sources, or it should be removed. Chzz ► 14:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
See below from Title 39 (US Postal Code) Section 3008
REFERENCE:PROHIBITORY ORDER
The Wikipedia entey on Prohibitory Order (United States Postal Service) states that the sender/mailer is ordered to immediately delete ... and so forth. The statute (PL 90-206) and Postal Code clearly states that the deletion should be made within 30 days after receipt of the Order, so "immediately" though it appears later in the Code, would have to be construed as within thirty days of receipt.
Secondly, Wikipedia refers repeatedly to the recipient but the law essentially refers to the addressee (or in certain cases parent, guardian, custodian thereof). I'd suggest that instead of "recipient" it would be more consistent and readable and understandable to say ADDRESSEE regarding Prohibitory Order.
THANKYOU VERY MUCH - MICHAEL BALDIGO email address removed 24.73.197.194 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
§ 3008. Prohibition of pandering advertisements
(a) Whoever for himself, or by his agents or assigns, mails or causes to be mailed any pandering advertisement which offers for sale matter which the ADDRESSEE (EMPHASIS ADDED) in his sole discretion believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative shall be subject to an order of the Postal Service to refrain from further mailings of such materials TO THE DESIGNATED ADDRESSES (EMPHASIS ADDED) thereof. (b) Upon receipt of notice from an addressee that he has received such mail matter, determined by the addressee in his sole discretion to be of the character described in subsection (a) of this section, the Postal Service shall issue an order, if requested by the addressee, to the sender thereof, directing the sender and his agents or assigns to refrain from further mailings TO THE NAMED ADDRESSES (EMPHASIS ADDED)(c) The order of the Postal Service shall expressly prohibit the sender and his agents or assigns from making any further mailings TO THE DESIGNATED ADDESSES, EFFECTIVE ON THE THIRTIETH CALENDAR DAY AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER (EMPHASIS ADDED). The order shall also direct the sender and his agents or assigns to delete immediately the names of the designated addressees from all mailing lists owned or controlled by the sender or his agents or assigns and, further, shall prohibit the sender and his agents or assigns from the sale, rental, exchange, or other transaction involving mailing lists bearing the names of the designated addressees.
- Not entirely sure but I think you are saying the Prohibitory Order article ought to be changed. That should best be discussed on that article's talk page, here. I will copy the above text there, where it may get further response. WikiDao ☯ 20:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
Hello. I've written an article about The Halo Group. I was hoping to have my references reviewed and make sure the article is structured well as this is my first posting on Wikipedia.
Manaboutkc (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it passes the requirement for "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" - in particular, it uses PR as references. But, that needs to be further discussed in the ongoing deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Halo Group (2nd nomination). Chzz ► 14:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have included references and external links but am getting a message indicating I need to add reliable sources. Is there some other way to do this that I am not seeing? Thanks!
EFEmcasey (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is not that you don't have references, it's that the references may not be to what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources". You might want to look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for an overview, and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples for ... examples.
- In the case of your article, the treatment of the huffingtonpost as a reliable source may be debatable because it is generally considered a "weblog". Weblogs and forums are generally not good sources. The EFEfoundation link belongs in external sources and cannot be used as a "reliable source" on account of conflict of interest considerations. The lighthouse.org link isn't useful because it doesn't discuss the subject of your article. The money.cnn link is promising but it verifies only a small portion of your article.
- One problem the article has is its focus. Is it about Bruder or abour EFE? I don't find the tone of the portion of the article dealing with EFE particularly neutral. And I recommend that you address the question raised on your user/talk page about your potential conflict of interest (this probably arose because of the "EFE" in your username). If you are not associated with the entity, say so on your user page, and if you are associated, just explain how you are connected. Tkotc (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know what you think and what more I can do to get Glenn's wiki Page up, I lookforward to posting more and editing it as information changes, I am his colleague and have all the information you may need.
SHOWTIMEnjb (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are some minor formatting issues. Italics for movie and album titles, quotes for singles titles, put external links in list form (using a "*" in front of each item). You don'r really need his genealogy, but a little educational background always seems pertinent.
- But the big impediment to going forward with your article is that you need to establish notability by inline citations to reliable sources. All of these words are terms of art here on Wikipedia. The critical one is "notability". For the subject of your article, see WP:CREATIVE. The bottom line is that you should be able to reference independent, reliable sources that establish the notability of your subject using the criteria listed there. As someone else parsed the issue once, if he's truly notable, then surely someone has written about him.
- Your subject's own web site and IMDb are probably OK, but only as External links, and not as verification of any facts. The Twitter and Facebook links should probably go, or your article will end up looking like a PR page. Tkotc (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)