Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 12

< 2011 May 11

2011 May 12

2011 May 13 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

Speckled Chub

Jpeterse (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, you need to add WP:Categories (as specific as possible), and turn your WP:Bare URLs into full WP:Citations. Also advise you drop by the Discussion page of WikiProject Fish to get expert fish advice, and introduce yourself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul.Madden123/Ewan Watt

I have created a page for a prominent Australian entrepreneur with as many reliable sources as I can locate at this time. I intend to expand on the information provided when I locate more, reputable sources. Creating a page may assist in this process as other contributors may also have access to reliable sources that I am unaware of.

Paul.Madden123 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged some issues for you and sent you a Welcome message with useful links to policies and guidelines. The main thing you need to worry about is the notability of the subject. You should try and find some more reliable sources that discuss him, and not just repeat his opinions; not all news commentators are considered notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Veterinary Specialists

I am trying to emphasize the notability of the subject without sounding like an advertisement. Would adding more content be helpful?

Katiecoggins (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:Boleyn has already tagged the important things for you. Please note that one of the most important is notability. If a subject is considered not notable enough, it may be deleted. I have sent you a welcome message with links to the most important guidelines and policies to help you get started. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sternwheeler Columbian disaster

Just wondering in general what is thought of the article. I wish I had more sources for additional information (I feel the sources for the information I do have are sufficient). Maybe someone in Canada could go to a library there? Is there a way to contact Canadian editors and ask them?

—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 06:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say my biggest concern is the tone of the article. It does not seem to encyclopedic. For example, "A sheet of flame" seems more journalistic. Also, you may want to take another look at the guide for reliable sources. I'm not sure if they are all reliable. Other than that, it looks pretty good. Beautiful categories. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Canadian editors... I do not know who you could contact (I'm a little far from the True North for the next two years). Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I will continue to work on the article and may ask for further review. I appreciate your time and consideration.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 13:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you're still following this; if so, you might be interested to know that my "beautiful categories" were decimated by another editor who pared them down to the lowest specific category, which apparently is what we do on Wikipedia. I disagree, but won't start a war over it. I think at some point (when I have more time and energy) I may argue the policy as being too limiting and preventing folks from finding things they're looking for or stumbling upon things that are of interest that they weren't necessarily looking for.
The same editor, however, did a good job of cleaning up the lead; I've been working on the other sections and feel they sound more encyclopedic and less journalistic. If you have a chance, you might want to swing by and take a look. I know my sources aren't the best; they're what are available. That's why I'd really like to find someone in Canada with access to a library in Dawson or Whitehorse. Apparently the topic didn't rate an article in the Canadian Encyclopedia, so maybe it shouldn't have one here. I'd hate that, but know that it's always a possibility. Thanks again for your review and response.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 01:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cbyoon90/PSCORE

I have written about PSCORE, People for Successful CORean REunification, a non-governmental organization that operates in Seoul, South Korea. I described the different work and activities that they do. The organization does awareness and advocacy work for North Korean human rights and Korean reunification. I would appreciate any comments and feedback.

Cbyoon90 (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceramic Matrix Composite/User:Leumar01

My third try to get this article on the feed back list of articles (don´t know what I´ve done wrong) and would like to have some feed back on the proper language of this translation of the corresponding German article

Leumar01 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfF is mainly about formatting/layout, and you're spot on there. I suggest you seek out more technical expert advice; perhaps from WP:WikiProject Science? Perhaps post a feedback request there, of the same type. Really nice-looking work, we just don't have anyone here familiar enough with the topic, so best to go to the experts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acquity Group

I'm looking for any feedback before I take this article live. Please let me know if you think there's anything I can do to improve this article. Thanks!

Gaebler (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the delay, understaffed. I'd say you're solid to publish, as you've done a good work demonstrating Notability through 3rd-party sourcing. I'd say publish, and then add the appropriate WP:WikiProjects to the Discussion page, and upload an image of the company logo under WP:Fair use. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Matthew. Gaebler (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Kristinsson

I've just created a page about an Icelandic artist, Thor Kristinsson. This is my first full article and I've tried to do my best in following the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. I would appreciate feedback on the article if there's anything that still needs to be improved.

UBjork (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, my suggestions: remove footnote #3 as redundant and not authoritative. Leave the website as-is in the infobox, but down in External links display it as "Official site". On the Discussion page, add the appropriate sub-project of WP:WikiProject Music and add WP:WikiProject Iceland tags (see main page of each for template coding). Try and add a few more references if you can to substantiate the biographic info. Also, "ref" tags go after the punctuation marks. Nice work overall, and once it publishes I recommend you contact the artist and see if he'll release a photo to WP:Creative Commons for upload, at which point you just need to file a WP:OTRS text to prove the copyright has been eased. Well done, hope you'll stick around, as our Iceland coverage could use some help, especially from a fluent speaker. Also recommend you drop into WP:WikiProject Iceland to introduce yourself and your article, and maybe get some ideas for next articles to write. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:UPittIT/D-Scribe Digital Publishing

Greetings, I work in the IT department at the University of Pittsburgh. We have a resource known as D-Scribe, which provides free and open access to many valuable materials - mostly historical items and journals that have been digitized and cataloged. We simply want to increase the awareness and availability of these resources, which is why we created a Wikipedia page. Since we are not trying to achieve financial gains, I do not believe I possess a conflict of interest.

This is my first time building a Wikipedia page, so I am interested in feedback regarding the construction of the page. Initially my boss wanted me to create a separate Wikipedia page for every single individual collection in our system, but I opted to create one main page listing everything available from D-Scribe. Should I also create separate pages for each collection?

Also, by the nature of this material it is very difficult to find sources confirming what I wrote that exist outside the scope of the University of Pittsburgh. I did, however, attempt to link to other Wikipedia pages whenever possible. If this is not an acceptable method, what suggestions have you for otherwise verifying this highly specialized material?

If there is anything wrong with this page, please just let me know and do not simply delete it. Like I said, I'm new to this. Anything wrong was probably done out of ignorance and not malice.

Thank you for your time,

Jourdan

UPittIT (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this will probably be a rather long reply. I have sent you a welcome message with a list of numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you will find very useful when creating articles. In my opinion, you were correct in assuming that one article would be preferable here.

First and foremost, the General Notability Guidelines prefer independent reliable sources when proving the notability of a subject. Linking exclusively to U of Pittsburgh sites does not prove notability. If there are newspapers (local ones work too) that have covered D-Scribe, that could help.
As you have said, you are a staff member who works with D-Scribe, which is a possible conflict of interest. As such, you have to work extra hard to ensure that you follow guidelines such as being objective and using neutral terms.
Please be careful to avoid copying and pasting information from the U of Pittsburgh website (or any other), which you [seem to have done. Wikipedia uses the Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) which means that it can be used for commercial purposes. U of Pittsburgh does not seem to use the creative commons license. Using text from its website would constitute a copyright violation. If U of Pittsburgh wants to donate the material to Wikipedia, they can read the guidelines here.
Information included may have to be individually verifiable. Some editors will not consider the U of Pittsburgh a good source for information because of the possible conflict of interest.

A little bit of nitpicking now; these are just minor mistakes that are easily fixed.

External links go in a special section at the bottom. External links should not be used in the body of an article.
Don't forget to add categories so that the article can be easily found once in article space.

Overall writing quality and Wikification seems to be pretty good. Sorry if I went on a little long. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:AtionSong/Walt Disney's Riverfront Square

Created this article after reading brief references to this "mythical" Disney Park on other Wikipedia pages. I did some research and tried to assemble a short article about the subject. Looking for feedback on whether the article feels "complete," as well as on the structure of the page. Thanks in advance.

AtionSong (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice work! And an unusual topic. My only suggestions would be to make the image a larger size (see WP:Images), and to add the appropriate WikiProjects to the Discussion page (look at the Discussion page of any related article to know which ones to add). Looking forward to seeing what you work on next! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the sentiment. I am dying to see what you have in store for Wikipedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lalexander2002/Wild Salmon Center

Hello! First created article for an international non-profit I found interesting. I spent a lot of time making sure I had proper/credible sources (seven references for a stub seems appropriate?). One concern is I don't want the article to sound like an advertisement, thus decreasing credibility. I would love some feedback as to what might make this a more successful article, before I submit it to go live. Thanks for your time!

Thanks for the advice! I'll get around to adding those edits, and publish it shortly after.

Lalexander2002 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! The main thing you want to do is add WP:Categories (as specific as possible, check articles on similar groups to get the idea). You also want to code your footnotes so the links are hotlinked to the titles, vice just bare URLs to the right of the cite. At that point, I'd say go ahead and publish, and add appropriate WP:WikiProjects to the Discussion page (WP Fish? WP Ecology?). Also, if the group has a logo, you can upload that image under WP:Fair use. I also suggest you go into related articles like Salmon conservation and add a link to your article so it doesn't auto-generate an WP:Orphan tag (do this after publishing). MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! I'll get around to adding those edits, and publish it shortly after.

Lalexander2002 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC

Glowbug (band)

I'm contemplating making a table system in order to keep all releases from this artist on the main page until there is enough information to create individual pages for each release. Could someone please inform me on a proper way of creating a table to keep all tracklisting and release date information as well as covers for each release in clean order?

I will be finding and tagging sources for this artist and his contributions. 162.106.6.3 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ensure you sign in to your account before posting on Talk pages; otherwise it's hard to tell who we're replying to.

Greetings, you have some issues that should have been addressed before publishing, but moving on. Right now you still have not yet established WP:Notability (music); Facebook is not citeable, and the other pages seem a bit more like fansites. You need to add more footnotes to actual serious/professional media sources, news articles, etc.; right now only What's Up Magazine appear to meet WP:Reliable sources. Next, your footnotes are WP:Bare URLs and need to be turned into proper WP:Citations. Also your article layout for the "Releases" section is off. Go look at the similar section for any high-quality band article on WP, and copy the format they use. WP has a pretty standardised layout for listing band's releases, and the right format will look better, more professional, and avoid display errors. Give those things a shot, and let us know if you have any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made amendments to the page as requested, and all should meet the guidelines stipulated. Please comment further. Mionehymnal (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The_Knowland_Group

Just looking for general feedback on this new article. Thanks!

Megant8 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor formatting issue, move the reference tags so they follow punctuation marks. That way, the superscripts come after the periods.

Gaebler (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Moller

My new article needs to be verified. Anyone to look at, please? a water woman and Stand Up Paddler champion on Maui...plenty of articles about her achievements. Thanks for looking! egaion

Egaion (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, a few formatting issues to work on:

You need to add WP:Categories to the end (specific ones, check an article on someone similar for ideas)
You need to format your "Titles" section in a more standardised way; again check out an article for a similar paddler
Once introduced, people are referred to by last name, so "Moller", not "Andrea"
Your footnotes are WP:Bare URLs, you need them to be full WP:Citations with all the details visible
You also want a few stronger, more general references about her life. Can you find any newspaper or magazine articles on Google that fill in and verify some of the details so you can add footnotes?

Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]