Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 March 23
Please assist with reviewing an article thank you
Habitatsun (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any immediate problems - the tone and neutrality of the article seems to be okay, there are plenty of links and overall formatting to make the article easier to read, the sources seem okay, so I think it's a nice job! Well done. Chevymontecarlo 20:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I wrote my first article. It is a new subject. I want to make sure I followed all the rules.
Tcb247sbaby (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- For a first article, you have the details down pretty well! It could use a bit more footnoting, but I'd say it exceeds the minimum benchmarks for a BLP (biography of a living person), so I suggest you go ahead and publish. Just hit the Move button (in the menu to the right of the Watch Page star in the tabs over the article space) and move it out of your User pages into just the article title. One thing you'll also want to do: on the Discussion tab you want to put in a template for any applicable WikiProject. I suggest you look at the Discussion tab for a similar musician and see if there's a "WikiProject Blues" or similar you should be linking the article to. Feel free to write me if any of this is unclear to you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I agree with MatthewVanitas: go ahead and publish! —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate comments. It is intended as a serious discussion of Astronomy references, not a religious discussion.
Thanks. Format / style is something I can change, including removing conclusions. Their other comments I may not be able to change to their satisfaction. I had not considered this to be original research, just definitions. What worries me most, this morning, is that comment about possible copyright violation. I have NO idea what that editor is referring to, but I need to find out.
LBHocraffer (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't sweat the copyvio claims; they were added by an editor who gave no explanation whatsoever. I've removed that copyvio allegation, as it's completely inappropriate to add that without some explanation such as "word-for-word copy of www.ezekielhistory.com" or "seems to be lifted directly from John Smith's 1972 Astronomy and the Prophets." So that's a non-issue. The issue of Original Research is still the key one. Please drop by and check Wikipedia:OR for an explanation of this policy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the main problem is the fact that it reads and is structured more like an essay than an encyclopaedic article. As the proposed deletion tag mentions, it also contains original research, which is not considered suitable for Wikipedia. Chevymontecarlo 20:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
First article. The sources are reliable as I understood the terms. Thank you!
Ilowmusic (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you perhaps should consider adding an infobox, but other than that I think the article is reasonably well written and sourced. The main thing you have to work on with these kinds of articles is the notability of the article's subject; you can help prove the notability and therefore the article's suitability for Wikipedia by using reliable sources. Chevymontecarlo 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback. I'm trying to get the infobox set up now, but I'm having trouble with the image step. Everything else is in place, but I don't quite understand the template provided on the infobox page.
The creator of this page requested some feedback. I have tried making this article neutral and well referenced, but i am not a wiki expert and thought it could get more help here before being moved to an article page.
Mtheletter (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Great! we got some help. Now I'm wondering if it's ready to move to a real article page? Mtheletter (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I have written a short article on the company cXense, trying to be as objective and factual as possible. Still there is a banner stating that "this looks like advertising". What can I do to make it better? Rewrite titles and body text? Add more external links? Anything else?
TeeKayo (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you please remove the templates for unreviewed article and orphan?
87.127.9.42 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I've fixed the page's other issues (pages should be filed by full name, vice acronym, in all but a few very rare cases). The "orphan" tag, however, is added automatically to pages that fit its classification, so even if someone removes it it'll pop right back up in a few days. The only way to fix the "orphan" tag is to de-orphan the article. "Orphan" means that few/no articles link to that page, so you'd need to find pages about boating, trade associations, or what have you, and see if you can (naturally, not forced) work in mention of ICOMIA. See Wikipedia:Orphan for an overall explanation of the issue. Feel free to write if this is unclear. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
New article feedback request.
88.25.111.253 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewed and cleanup up. But someone has to go through and fix the punctuation: the <ref> tag should go after the period, .<ref>, not <ref>. Minor fix, just someone needs to do it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ignatius Pell has been a requested page under Project:Piracy for a long time, so I did some work to dig up as many references as I could to create a well rounded stub on the topic. He's a pirate boatswain who was notable for providing the testimony that convicted Captain Stede Bonnet as well as insight into the crews actities for historical record.
- Main suggestion: you need clearer footnotes, ideally full Chicago Manual of Style notes with author, title, publisher/date, ISBN. If a book you use for a reference is on GoogleBooks, you can use this automatic tool to produce a great footnote using just the link in your address bar: http://reftag.appspot.com/. So I suggest you fix your links, divide into sections using ==Title== or further sub-sections by ===Sub-title===. Then some basi wiki fixes like bolding the first occurrence of the subject's name, and adding categories at the bottom of the page. Feel free to post here or message me if you need help with any of that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've started a new page for a different "David Wexler", and I think I might have named it incorrectly, and also want to get feedback on the layout. Thanks!
Setilston372 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)