Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Question from a different user

I added a lot of text related to a recent article that provides details on the recent outbreak of S. suis disease in China to the stub on Streptococcus suis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptococcus_suis

I would welcome feedback on my edits and also know what I should have done to create internal Wikipedia links. I understand that stubs are somehow different when it comes to automated linking, but I am not sure how to get around it.

Thanks,

Barbara email address removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaracohen (talk • contribs)

Put two brackets on both sides of the topic you want to link. If the link is red instead of blue, that means there is not yet an article on Wikipedia about that topic. Rather than taking out the link, you should create the article, thereby turning the link blue. --Osbus 18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

I've written an article on an historic church and would like feedback (translation: an editor) to clean the text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Parish_in_Cambridge

First Parish is a noteworthy church within the Unitarian Univeralist tradition. It is also an institution whose influence (governmental, educational, spiritual) dates back 400 years to the beginnning of the American colonies. Please advise.

Thank you

Smac02155 20:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)smac02155

Hi Smac02155! I think The First Parish in Cambridge is pretty good already, it's laid out and written like an encyclopedic article and the text generally flows well. If I were to critique on anything, it might be that there are maybe a few too many redlinks for my taste. Henrik 21:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Everybody loves pictures! --Osbus 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How to wikify my article for submission?

freight interline system —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repent (talk • contribs)

To wikify an article is to add internal links to it. Links should be made to articles that assist a reader in understanding more about the topic. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context has lots of specific information about what and what not to link to. -- Natalya 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

wikify?

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Queensland_Cowboys

I have edited this article as it had a wikify header at the top of the page. I read the links and read over some other club pages such as Brisbane Broncos, Canberra Raiders, Sydney Roosters and looking at their pages believe now that the North Queensland Cowboys page is inline with what was asked. When or how or what needs to be done further to have wikify removed from this page? Thanks from Bradley1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley1956 (talk • contribs)

When the article has been wikified, the tag can be removed. It looks like you've done a good job with it - the only thing is that once you link to an entry once, you shouldn't link to it again everytime it is mentioned. For example, once you link to any of the team names, you don't need to relink everytime they are mentioned. Once the repeat links are removed, you should be good to go. If you want more information, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. -- Natalya 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vaijayanti

Vaijayanti I think this is how to provide a link

The Vaijayanti necklace is an important part of Vaishnava theology, having mystical and cosmological significance.

I'm wondering why the brief article I wrote appears so odd. Is it simply lack of information?

Thanks.

It appears odd because you put spaces at the beginning of each paragraph. I've fixed that.

Something else you might want to read about is the Neutral point of view policy. I don't know enough about Vaishnava theology to fix it, but the beginning paragraph doesn't sound impartial. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

my article

The Kråkerøy Speech this is my first article and first published translation, just looking for a bit of feedback on it. I copied the structure/content from the Norwegian article, so I'm more thinking of the language and linking. My naming of political parties and their acronyms gets kinda confused i think. Thanks. Forgot2follow 12:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)(talk • contribs) .

Is Kråkerøy a city? If so, the article should say "in Kråkerøy" or "at Kråkerøy" rather than "on Kråkerøy". Also the word "amongst" is awkward; better to use "among". Other than that (and a couple missing commas), the translation is excellent. Kaldari 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• The grammar needs some touch-ups...or would that be changing the translation? --Osbus 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Need help with links -- new article posting

I just posted a new article today and thought I had my links down, but I don't. Sorry about that. Can someone help me fix them?

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_asset_management

Proper links:

RFID-Enabled Logistics Asset Management = http://www.trenstar.com/pdfs/RFID-Enabled%20Logistics%20Asset%20Management.pdf

TrenStar = www.trenstar.com

RFID (internal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

Thank you very much,

User: lsmullen 4/21/06

To do an internal link (a link to another Wikipedia article), commonly referred to as a Wikilink, you simply put the article name in square brackets, eg:

• [[RFID]] will produce: RFID
• [[RFID|Radio Frequency Identification]] will produce: Radio Frequency Identification

For external links, one set of brackets are used, eg:

• [http://www.google.com] will produce text that looks like: [1]
• [http://www.google.com Google homepage] will produce text that looks like: Google homepage. The key thing there is the space after the URL, this space ensures that the text following the space is shown on the page, but it will still link to the URL.

As you know, you can also use no brackets at all:

• http://www.google.com will produce: http://www.google.com

The links help page provides a lot of info, it might be worth a look if you want to know more. Hopefully, this will all help, I'll let you fix up the article so you can get some practice. - Akamad 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups

I have written an article on Google Groups, a free groups and mailing list service by Google. Is the article well-written and encyclopediac? Are the pictures appropriate? A previous version seemed like a how-to manual. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Very thorough article, good overall. However, the section that needs cites the most - "Defects" - lacks them, which is a shame. I would suggest you get the sources and cite them the same way you did for some of the other facts. Cheers, Tangotango 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

check NPOV of "criticism", and weasel words. Don't know Google groups personally, but looks informative. Probably add feature list (see Yahoo! article). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 17:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Homerun

I have written an article on Homerun, a Singapore adaptation of the award-winning movie Children of Heaven. Is the article well-written, interesting and encyclopediac? Are the details and information well-presented? Does it have too many internal links? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of red links...also rename or get rid of the Trivia and Funny Scenes section. --Osbus 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed the section to the more common "Trivia". Overall, the article is pretty good - but, as Osbus says, there is an excess of red links. -- Tangotango 13:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Barton-le-Clay

Been working on for a while, but I do not know weather it goes in to to much detail etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated for improving. --Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the article. Obviously a lot of work has gone into it. There's a lot of good information, but there's also a lot of stuff that isn't encyclopedic. The stuff that doesn't belong is the phone-book-like listings of names, addresses, phone numbers, and the like. Ideally, the other information (what age groups the schools serve) would be taken out of the tables and tranformed into prose. The addresses information and other contact information–type stuff should be left out. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory and that should guide you to a better-quality article. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

how to publish articles in this website

how to publish articles in this website

You might try asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk. — Saxifrage ✎ 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Building Biology

Hi,

I've been editing on Wikipedia for about a month now and have got the basics, but want to learn how to improve. Could an expert please review the wikification and clean-up I've done of Building Biology, and suggest further improvements? Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks,

--Djbb2 11:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few tips I can offer from a look-over of your last two edits there. Some of it might be off or not entirely your work, since this edit's diff is confusingly comparing different paragraphs, making it hard to tell what changed.

• When linking to an article you can always use a lowercase letter for the first letter and it will go to the same place. So, you can make a link to volatile organic compounds rather than [[Volatile organic compounds|volatile organic compounds]]. (Article titles are case sensitive except for the first letter to make this work.)
• The reader shouldn't be addressed in the second person ("you"). Rather, the article should talk about people and what people do/can do/etc ("one can't easily look up in most libraries..."), or what is the case relative to the subject of the article ("there is not yet broad academic coverage of building biology...").
  • On that note, external links generally speak for themselves and only very rarely is it warranted to self-referentially mention the article's own external links. If it seems necessary, likely the section needs to be reworded or the reader is being "directed" too much.
• The two sections on criteria (though I realise you just fixed them up with links rather than wrote them) should ideally be rewritten in prose form as part of the ongoing wikification. A bare list, even wikilinked, doesn't inform the reader very much as to the relevance of the items or the rationale for it being in the list. Incidentally, prose form would allow for removing the awkward "title: subtitle" section headings, which are generally avoided.
• Adjectives like hypersensitive should be linked to the noun, as in [[hypersensitivity|hypersensitive]].
• Unless "Building Biology" is a proper noun, it should be moved to Building biology as part of general cleanup.

And if that's not all about your work, then it's still useful tips. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 12:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Saxifrage. I agree with everything you've said, even if most of it wasn't about my work. Will edit more of the article when I can, though I'm no expert on the subject! --Djbb2 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The warrior Nation is a Soccer Supporters Club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soca_Warriors_Supporters_Club_aka_%22The_Warrior_Nation%22

Why isn't my article approved? can someone please help me? do I have to make more corrections?..please let me know what needs to be changed. Thanks btw my friends cant access or search the page on wikipedia. S.W.S.C 00:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by not "approved"? What's wrong? I can see the article there just fine. (Note that the search index does not update automatically, so it won't show up in searches for a few days.) — Saxifrage ✎ 01:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Once you save an article, the changes are immediately recorded in the encyclopedia, and do not require approval. The article may take time to be indexed and appear in search results, though.

I looked at the article. Factually, I can't find any fault with your article, since I don't know anything about the Warrior Nation. However, your article does suffer from formatting problems. For starters, you don't name your article "X aka Y". You pick X to be the article name, and create an article named Y to redirect to X (#R on editing toolbar). In addition, you don't link to the website in the introdcution. For example, the article for the game RuneScape does not start with "RuneScape is an MMORPG". Instead it starts with "RuneScape is an MMORPG" and places a link to RuneScape at the bottom of the article. When writing an article on a soccer team, you probably should look for exisitng articles about soccer teams to get an idea of the expected formatting and layout. Chelsea F.C. Similarly, if you were to write an article about a computer company, you should probably read the Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, AOL and Apple Computer articles to get a feel for the expected layout and formatting. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean Living Movements

I just put in CLEAN LIVING MOVEMENTS along with its definition but it is all on one line. how do I get it to form a tidy paragraph?

Here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLEAN_LIVING_MOVEMENTS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Engsfra (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article was moved to Clean Living Movements. The text was all on one line because of the leading space. A space denotes an area of text that is to be printed as-is, i.e. without wrapping or formatting. -- Tangotango 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some formatting and cleanup. Note that all references go in the References section, even if they're "external links". The external links section is generally used for further reading, which is why many editors prefer to title it "Further reading" to avoid confusion with external links appearing in both sections.

Also note that Wikipedia articles don't have Introduction sections. Wikipedia:Lead is a good guide to how to write the beginning of an article. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Facticity

Facticity

this is one of my first articles. it's on 'facticity', which is a concept discussed by Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre. I'd just like some general feedback . . . Cheers, guvnors . . . Sludgehaichoi 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some formatting and minor cleanup of the article. This is a very good stub. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Saxifrage. It's much improved and I know how to do certain things now. Thee Sludgee Onee 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You did well with your "Further reading" and "See also" links; I neglected them when writing my Google Groups and Homerun articles (which are also awaiting feedback - scroll a page up). Finding references has always been difficult for me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (founder of Requests for Feedback)

Request page - Earnings preannouncement

I saw on the requested page the word "preannounce" as it relates to corporate earnings. I've put up a draft in my user space (because I had to research myself to write it). I'd like comments on my use and citation of references, and whether it is generally ready for prime time. I'll be able to do the move myself once it is ready, but this is my first extensive use of references, so I'm not comfortable with that. GRBerry 21:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the content of the references, not knowing the first thing about the subject. However, I can say your use of references is exemplary for a new article and you needn't be nervous. You're using the <ref></ref> system right and using the appropriate templates to format the citations nicely. Good job! — Saxifrage ✎ 23:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one unrelated note: you have the page at User:GRBerry\preannounce, which is actually the user page of a (non-existent) user named "GRBerry\preannounce". To make a subpage of your own user page, you have to use a forward slash ("/") or the Mediawiki software won't treat it as part of your userspace. This doesn't make any significant difference until the unlikely event of a user with that name registering—the only noticeable difference is that the page lacks the automatic backlink to its parent page that is characteristic of subpages. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just got on and fixed that - and the link above. GRBerry 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Removed from my user space, now up at preannouncement.

Qiu Zhijie

this is an article i've made on one of the most important of the contemporary chinese artists. it got the wikify tag.

Qiu Zhijie

just wondering if anyone could have a butcher's hook at it or tell me whether it's wikified yet. i'm having a bit of trouble with the lone reference in that the reference name appears twice - this is the first time i've referenced! also wondering whether it's necessary.... thanks. Sludgehaichoi 14:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some wikilinks and removed the wikify tag. A reference name is not necessary if the reference is cited just once. (BTW, I believe I did see works of this artist at the Sigg collection's exhibition of contemporary Chinese art in Berne, 2005. Quite interesting.) Sandstein 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting on it and changed the date formating. It looks like it is starting good. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the bu link needs to be directed somewhere. I couldn't decide where (the article may not exist, in which case you could ditch the link, also consider putting the Chinese character in there if bu is a chinese Character, that would be best, especially since its visual art). I also am having a hard time understanding the last paragraph. If the description you are giving is refering to Tattoo 1, you could try to rearrange the sentence structure so that is unambiguous. Right now, the term "Tattoo 1" is in what is called a non-essential clause (I think) which would indicate the description is refering to the exhibit as a whole (which doesn't seem possible). Oh I also don't think we normally link to non-existent articles in the see also section (not much for the readers to see). Maybe the articles could be created. Good work. I also changed the way you linked to the article in your post above and your capitalization in the heading; I hope you don't mind. --Basar 05:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lena Zavaroni

I found Lena Zavaroni's article through clicking on random article and the tragedy in it made me want to make sure the article was half decent. I hope its fairly NPOV. The introduction needs a tiny bit more added to it, along the lines of "she died a tragically early death", but a bit more neutral. I'd also like some comments on the sources. All I know about Zavaroni is in the article and I've used a couple of fan sites as references. Is this acceptable? Any comments/improvements would be welcome! RicDod 18:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My contributions: [2]. Should learn to read instructions! RicDod 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV seems pretty neutral to me. I thought the liberal use of footnotes made the article a little difficult to read, although I appreciate the effort to cite your references. It might read a little easier if you only cite a given footnote once when you've got more than one sentence in a row that refers to it. Given that one of the fan sites is the BBC, I'd say that using them is okay, but you might want an opinion from someone with more WP experience than I have.--Pastafarian Nights 18:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll remove the redundant footnotes when I get a chance. RicDod 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also thought the article was very well improved with very little to none POV. However, perhaps you may still want to attach a clean-up tag to it so that others may continue to improve it. I also thought that the article switched to ideas very quickly and didn't ellaborate enough on certain points. But that's just me. Socom49 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

YARDMARX/METERMARX

Yardmarx/metermarx is my invention. "Yardmarx" is a distance marker on a golf course fairway that may have a number ie 120 depicting the distance to the center of a green. These markers may be located every twenty yards in the centre of the fairway or six on every twenty yard radius radial to the center of the green. These markers may carry advertising on them or the golf club's logo or any message at all. Metermarx-ditto. for more info please see www.yardmarx.bizland.com Charles Eric Jambor [email removed to prevent spam] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tusksofterror (talk • contribs) 11:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you already written an article about this? I tried searching and couldn't find it. If so, could you kindly link to it here so we can take a look? Thanks!

As of now, I'm inclined to believe that your [proposed] article isn't exactly appropriate. (See WP:NOT) There's always a lot of danger when writing articles about original inventions, especially if you are the inventor, because then the article tends to become biased. (Also check out WP:NPOV. However, if you still feel that it deserves to have an article, why not request that one be written by another person? You can do that here (WP:RA) I hope this advice helps you.--Marysunshine 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

El Hatillo Municipality

El Hatillo Municipality is an administrative division located in Miranda State, in Venezuela, and it is one of Caracas' five municipalities (along with Baruta, Chacao, Libertador and Sucre). It is located at the south east area of Caracas. El Hatillo may refer to El Hatillo Municipality, which is the political division or to El Hatillo Town (Spanish: Pueblo de El Hatillo), which is the seat of the municipal government.

I created this article and have been expanding it for more than a month now. I think it covers everything, I just need some feedback to make sure I have been doing the right thinig. I do intend to ask for a peer review once the article gets more completed.

Thanks in advance --Enano275 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, reducing the number of red links in the article will probably help. You can do this by creating the linked articles, or by delinking them entirely. However, this article is surprisingly complete and I think it will receive a good audience at Peer Review, if you submit it there. Cheers, Tangotango 08:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

complexification

I added an example of complexification to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexification. Is this useful in the Wikipedia or are examples generally not recommended? It's a good example but it looks out of place.. ideas? --Blakeops 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)BlakeOPS

No, good work! I think it's great to have an example. Although a long list of examples will probably be unencyclopedic and put the reader off, one well-placed example can only help embetter the article. Cheers, Tangotango 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

length of time for a new article to post?

How long does it take for a new article to be posted? If a new article is written, then saved, does anything else need to be done for it to appear?

As far as I know, it should be active right away. However, it could take a few days to appear in the search. --Enano275 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Your browser may be giving you a cached copy of the page -- if you haven't already tried clicking Reload, give that a shot. Luna Santin 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard III: Weeks of expanding, hand-reared from a stub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_III_%281955_film%29&diff=53817822&oldid=49136146

Richard III (1955 film)

I've done a lot of work on this article, raising it up from being just a stub. I think my additions are pretty obvious, it's pretty much the whole article bar the Johnny Rotten info. I'm trying to get this, eventually to featured article status, but I just need some guidance as to what to do next. Cheers. .... 06:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I've spotted a few things though which could be improved

• Wikilink the historical names in the plot summary
• Olivier instead chose to use VistaVision, and, after a row with them concerning Hamlet, Olivier also utilized Technicolor. I'm not sure what you mean, who did he have a row with?
• Did you know with the footnotes that you could give each footnote a name which simplifies things if you are using the same reference more than once (I had a go with Lena Zavaroni)
• The production section seems to jump around a bit eg the bit about technicolour mentioned above could be moved to the cinematography section. Maybe lose the introduction and have it all under subheadings.

I had a look through the history of the article and I'm very impressed with the amount of work that you've put into this! RicDod 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed that little Technicolour bit, wikilinked those historical names, and I'm going to refine those references. But what else do I need to do to get this to featured article?.... 07:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anybody? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to improve this article to featured status, I recommend that you post a request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review; a (high quality) article there will receive more content-based reviews and edits. Cheers, Tangotango 08:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My Recent Addition to the "Yahweh" page

I recently added a new article to the "Yahweh" page. The article was titled "Yahweh in the Greek New Testament", and it was removed. It is now at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton

The explanation for the removal stated that it was "rather inappropriately prescriptive when it said that Kurios "should" be translated into English as Yahweh." Actually, what I said was that in most cases when Kurios was not accompanied by the definite article (the) it should be translated "Yahweh". When Kurios does have a definite article (ton kurios, o kurios, etc.) then it is translated "Lord". Here is an article with a fuller explanation and three charts showing specific instances.

Is this explanation sufficient to get my article reposted or do you want more?

Elijah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christserf (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please post your comments at the article's associated talk page. Article talk pages are watched by editors involved in editing the article and thus is the best place to enage in discussion about the article. (This applies especially to highly edited articles like Tetragrammaton and Yahweh). Cheers, Tangotango 08:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Beasts of Bourbon

I found Beasts of Bourbon while looking for an article that needed copyediting; it did. I finished cleaning up from a merge, and I'm wondering if the article's current state warrants the stub tag. There are still no references, but there is a fair bit of information. The guidelines at WP:STUB weren't enough to help me make up my mind about it, so I'm asking here.--Pastafarian Nights 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the difference between my edits and the previous revision[3]. (You know, like the instructions say...) Sorry about that.----Pastafarian Nights 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• You did a good job on this. I'd say that given the limited amount of information likely to be available on the topic, I would feel comfortable removing the stub tag. The article seems pretty comprehensive to me, and multi-section articles rarely qualify as stubs.

The one thing you might want to focus on when editing articles like this in the future is removing the unsourced judgements about the band's quality. We can report critical opinions on albums or other works, but we can't just state them as facts; removing them helps create a WP:NPOV article. (Not the specific feedback you requested, I know, but it looks like you've got a good grasp on the basics of article cleanup, so I thought I'd offer you that little pointer.) In any event, good work. --Robth^Talk_Cleanup? 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the feedback, and the suggestion. I appreciate both.--Pastafarian Nights 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a note, if it's incomplete only due to a lack of references, rather than tagging it as a stub when it doesn't seem very stubby, you can add {{unreferenced}} to the top or in an empty References section. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, there's already one there! I'll amend my suggestion and just say that the unreferenced tag is sufficient when only the lack of references makes an article incomplete. And, good job! — Saxifrage ✎ 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the tip and the kind words.  :-) --Pastafarian Nights 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

GunBound and List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks

I've made a major revamp to the GunBound page about a week ago, and I've split it off and created the page "List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks". Is it okay? Freddie 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am no editor pro, I only took a look at the main article and it looks very good. I made some edits to certain parts like stating in the beginning what bunged meant, the term was not defined till later. I also made the point sections more unified throughout the article. All together I like the layout and was a fan of the mentioned Worms title. I havent taken a look at the second article but just from glancing it looks like it could use some words being de-wikilinked. I will take a look at it another time. Very nice work. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of average gasoline prices in the United States

Take a look at User:Messedrocker/List of average gasoline prices in the United States, and tell me what more shouldl be done before it can get put into the main namespace. Note the list on the talk page of what more could be done. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, just lists don't make an encyclopedia article. An article should be informative and, ideally, educational. So, it would help if you added some information... What's the point of the graph? How does it correlate with other curves like inflation? What should we conclude about this data? Is the average price of gasoline in the US below or above inflation? below or above worldwide rate of increase? etc. On the other hand, I'd say be bold wp:bold --- just post it and see what feedback you get... Brian 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)btball

Lightness

Hello world. This is one of my first articles (I've since written more). It's about Lightness, which is a concept in eastern and western philosophy. I wrote it a while ago and it seems to have slipped under the radar and become somewhat stranded. It could be of better quality - I'm an inexperienced wikipedian. So any help would be appreciated. Sludgehaichoi 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Anyone!? Sludgehaichoi 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Possible original research not supported by references. Tagged as appropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

need help fixing references markup

Jang Yeong-sil needs some wikification attention, specifically the references format. one user has put in a lot of work, but this relatively obscure subject is not getting much help with some needed tidying up. thanks. Appleby 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since one book is being referenced many time by page number, the most appropriate citation style is Harvard referencing. I've cleaned up the references using Harvard style. Hopefully the manually-labelled numbered references matched correctly before I converted them. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much. seems obvious if you know what you're doing :-) Appleby 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what we're here for. :-) You're welcome! — Saxifrage ✎ 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Khan Abdul Wali Khan

Hi! I've done some major work in this article and would appreciate feedback before i send it up for featured article. Khan Abdul Wali Khan was a senior opposition leader in Pakistan and pashtun nationalist, he died this year.

I think you should send the article for Wikipedia:Peer review if you plan to nominate it for Featured Article. Requests for feedback focuses more on new articles or major edits by new editors, who wish to get feedback to help them write better. We will usually give new editors general advice after reading their articles. For example, I need to avoid using too many red links, and to cite sources well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, any suggestions would be appreciated though. I am also working on another one Khudai Khidmatgar thats very much a work in progress and advice on that would be a big help --Zak 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

help on infobox template

can someone help with displaying hanja characters properly at Template:Korean subway? as seen in Seoul Subway Line 1, the actual characters are not displaying. this was a request by User:StoM, but it must involve some magical super-meta-inter-wikilinking wizardry beyond my grasp, which is pretty much limited to square brackets. thanks. Appleby 19:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, problem solved. Appleby 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Strip games

"Strip games are variants of board games, card games, sports, or other rule-based recreational activities, usually involving more than one player, where players remove garments when they lose points in the game. A classic example of a strip game is strip poker, the strip variant of the popular card game poker." Please review, expand article - additional examples, copyedit is required, thanks! - (Patrick 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

I did a bunch of minor reformatting and some significant copy editing. For formatting I moved the "Introduction" section's contents into the lead (Wikipedia article don't have Intro sections—that all just goes above the first official section as an intro) and took out some extra blank lines. For copy I massaged the language a bit to make it less formal (while still being formal enough for Wikipedia), and removed or reworded most of the references to strip poker. Where the reference was necessary for contrast I kept it, but where the contrast was only for narrative use rather than actively being useful to illustrate the point, I took it out. The reason being that the reader who's interested will click through the strip poker link and read it, and it cuts down on repetition across articles.

The article does lack references, but this is a significant enough phenomenon that I'm sure references can be found in good time. I added a "References" section and an {{unreferenced}} tag so that people will be encouraged to dig up useful references for the uncited statements. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay Greene

I have just written a new article on Jay Greene, a former NASA flight director. This is my first article for Wikipedia, and I would welcome any feedback or comments. Thanks.

--MLilburne 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the notability of the subject, but the article looks well put together especially for a first article. The only thing that I'm going to change is to use bullets in the References and External links sections, and to use some formatting templates like {{cite web}} and {{imdb title}}. Good job! — Saxifrage ✎ 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for the compliments and the editing help. I'll make note of the formatting templates for future use in other articles. --MLilburne 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Preludes op. 28

Man, I practically and literaly made the "The Preludes" section by myself, and I need some feedback. Is it too POV, does it contain too much original research, or things like that? Please let me know. Thank you, and do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page if any major issue comes up and I need to know. Actually, contact me if there is any issue, big or small. Thanks again. Freddie _Message? 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to the edits you made, or a link to the article in question? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage: I think the article in question is this one — hope that helps. ^talkGiler S 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Freddie _Message?: I've left you a message about this article on your Talk page. ^talkGiler S 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Does nobody want to give me some feedback on my article (see previous section)? Go on — it's only 250 words! ^talkGiler S 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lena Zavaroni

I found Lena Zavaroni's article through clicking on random article and the tragedy in it made me want to make sure the article was half decent. I hope its fairly NPOV. The introduction needs a tiny bit more added to it, along the lines of "she died a tragically early death", but a bit more neutral. I'd also like some comments on the sources. All I know about Zavaroni is in the article and I've used a couple of fan sites as references. Is this acceptable? Any comments/improvements would be welcome! RicDod 18:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My contributions: [4]. Should learn to read instructions! RicDod 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV seems pretty neutral to me. I thought the liberal use of footnotes made the article a little difficult to read, although I appreciate the effort to cite your references. It might read a little easier if you only cite a given footnote once when you've got more than one sentence in a row that refers to it. Given that one of the fan sites is the BBC, I'd say that using them is okay, but you might want an opinion from someone with more WP experience than I have.--Pastafarian Nights 18:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll remove the redundant footnotes when I get a chance. RicDod 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also thought the article was very well improved with very little to none POV. However, perhaps you may still want to attach a clean-up tag to it so that others may continue to improve it. I also thought that the article switched to ideas very quickly and didn't ellaborate enough on certain points. But that's just me. Socom49 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

YARDMARX/METERMARX

Yardmarx/metermarx is my invention. "Yardmarx" is a distance marker on a golf course fairway that may have a number ie 120 depicting the distance to the center of a green. These markers may be located every twenty yards in the centre of the fairway or six on every twenty yard radius radial to the center of the green. These markers may carry advertising on them or the golf club's logo or any message at all. Metermarx-ditto. for more info please see www.yardmarx.bizland.com Charles Eric Jambor [email removed to prevent spam] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tusksofterror (talk • contribs) 11:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you already written an article about this? I tried searching and couldn't find it. If so, could you kindly link to it here so we can take a look? Thanks!

As of now, I'm inclined to believe that your [proposed] article isn't exactly appropriate. (See WP:NOT) There's always a lot of danger when writing articles about original inventions, especially if you are the inventor, because then the article tends to become biased. (Also check out WP:NPOV. However, if you still feel that it deserves to have an article, why not request that one be written by another person? You can do that here (WP:RA) I hope this advice helps you.--Marysunshine 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

El Hatillo Municipality

El Hatillo Municipality is an administrative division located in Miranda State, in Venezuela, and it is one of Caracas' five municipalities (along with Baruta, Chacao, Libertador and Sucre). It is located at the south east area of Caracas. El Hatillo may refer to El Hatillo Municipality, which is the political division or to El Hatillo Town (Spanish: Pueblo de El Hatillo), which is the seat of the municipal government.

I created this article and have been expanding it for more than a month now. I think it covers everything, I just need some feedback to make sure I have been doing the right thinig. I do intend to ask for a peer review once the article gets more completed.

Thanks in advance --Enano275 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, reducing the number of red links in the article will probably help. You can do this by creating the linked articles, or by delinking them entirely. However, this article is surprisingly complete and I think it will receive a good audience at Peer Review, if you submit it there. Cheers, Tangotango 08:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

complexification

I added an example of complexification to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexification. Is this useful in the Wikipedia or are examples generally not recommended? It's a good example but it looks out of place.. ideas? --Blakeops 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)BlakeOPS

No, good work! I think it's great to have an example. Although a long list of examples will probably be unencyclopedic and put the reader off, one well-placed example can only help embetter the article. Cheers, Tangotango 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

length of time for a new article to post?

How long does it take for a new article to be posted? If a new article is written, then saved, does anything else need to be done for it to appear?

As far as I know, it should be active right away. However, it could take a few days to appear in the search. --Enano275 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Your browser may be giving you a cached copy of the page -- if you haven't already tried clicking Reload, give that a shot. Luna Santin 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard III: Weeks of expanding, hand-reared from a stub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_III_%281955_film%29&diff=53817822&oldid=49136146

Richard III (1955 film)

I've done a lot of work on this article, raising it up from being just a stub. I think my additions are pretty obvious, it's pretty much the whole article bar the Johnny Rotten info. I'm trying to get this, eventually to featured article status, but I just need some guidance as to what to do next. Cheers. .... 06:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I've spotted a few things though which could be improved

• Wikilink the historical names in the plot summary
• Olivier instead chose to use VistaVision, and, after a row with them concerning Hamlet, Olivier also utilized Technicolor. I'm not sure what you mean, who did he have a row with?
• Did you know with the footnotes that you could give each footnote a name which simplifies things if you are using the same reference more than once (I had a go with Lena Zavaroni)
• The production section seems to jump around a bit eg the bit about technicolour mentioned above could be moved to the cinematography section. Maybe lose the introduction and have it all under subheadings.

I had a look through the history of the article and I'm very impressed with the amount of work that you've put into this! RicDod 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed that little Technicolour bit, wikilinked those historical names, and I'm going to refine those references. But what else do I need to do to get this to featured article?.... 07:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anybody? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to improve this article to featured status, I recommend that you post a request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review; a (high quality) article there will receive more content-based reviews and edits. Cheers, Tangotango 08:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My Recent Addition to the "Yahweh" page

I recently added a new article to the "Yahweh" page. The article was titled "Yahweh in the Greek New Testament", and it was removed. It is now at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton

The explanation for the removal stated that it was "rather inappropriately prescriptive when it said that Kurios "should" be translated into English as Yahweh." Actually, what I said was that in most cases when Kurios was not accompanied by the definite article (the) it should be translated "Yahweh". When Kurios does have a definite article (ton kurios, o kurios, etc.) then it is translated "Lord". Here is an article with a fuller explanation and three charts showing specific instances.

Is this explanation sufficient to get my article reposted or do you want more?

Elijah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christserf (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please post your comments at the article's associated talk page. Article talk pages are watched by editors involved in editing the article and thus is the best place to enage in discussion about the article. (This applies especially to highly edited articles like Tetragrammaton and Yahweh). Cheers, Tangotango 08:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Beasts of Bourbon

I found Beasts of Bourbon while looking for an article that needed copyediting; it did. I finished cleaning up from a merge, and I'm wondering if the article's current state warrants the stub tag. There are still no references, but there is a fair bit of information. The guidelines at WP:STUB weren't enough to help me make up my mind about it, so I'm asking here.--Pastafarian Nights 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the difference between my edits and the previous revision[5]. (You know, like the instructions say...) Sorry about that.----Pastafarian Nights 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• You did a good job on this. I'd say that given the limited amount of information likely to be available on the topic, I would feel comfortable removing the stub tag. The article seems pretty comprehensive to me, and multi-section articles rarely qualify as stubs.

The one thing you might want to focus on when editing articles like this in the future is removing the unsourced judgements about the band's quality. We can report critical opinions on albums or other works, but we can't just state them as facts; removing them helps create a WP:NPOV article. (Not the specific feedback you requested, I know, but it looks like you've got a good grasp on the basics of article cleanup, so I thought I'd offer you that little pointer.) In any event, good work. --Robth^Talk_Cleanup? 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the feedback, and the suggestion. I appreciate both.--Pastafarian Nights 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a note, if it's incomplete only due to a lack of references, rather than tagging it as a stub when it doesn't seem very stubby, you can add {{unreferenced}} to the top or in an empty References section. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, there's already one there! I'll amend my suggestion and just say that the unreferenced tag is sufficient when only the lack of references makes an article incomplete. And, good job! — Saxifrage ✎ 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the tip and the kind words.  :-) --Pastafarian Nights 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

GunBound and List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks

I've made a major revamp to the GunBound page about a week ago, and I've split it off and created the page "List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks". Is it okay? Freddie 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am no editor pro, I only took a look at the main article and it looks very good. I made some edits to certain parts like stating in the beginning what bunged meant, the term was not defined till later. I also made the point sections more unified throughout the article. All together I like the layout and was a fan of the mentioned Worms title. I havent taken a look at the second article but just from glancing it looks like it could use some words being de-wikilinked. I will take a look at it another time. Very nice work. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of average gasoline prices in the United States

Take a look at User:Messedrocker/List of average gasoline prices in the United States, and tell me what more shouldl be done before it can get put into the main namespace. Note the list on the talk page of what more could be done. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, just lists don't make an encyclopedia article. An article should be informative and, ideally, educational. So, it would help if you added some information... What's the point of the graph? How does it correlate with other curves like inflation? What should we conclude about this data? Is the average price of gasoline in the US below or above inflation? below or above worldwide rate of increase? etc. On the other hand, I'd say be bold wp:bold --- just post it and see what feedback you get... Brian 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)btball

Lightness

Hello world. This is one of my first articles (I've since written more). It's about Lightness, which is a concept in eastern and western philosophy. I wrote it a while ago and it seems to have slipped under the radar and become somewhat stranded. It could be of better quality - I'm an inexperienced wikipedian. So any help would be appreciated. Sludgehaichoi 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Anyone!? Sludgehaichoi 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

need help fixing references markup

Jang Yeong-sil needs some wikification attention, specifically the references format. one user has put in a lot of work, but this relatively obscure subject is not getting much help with some needed tidying up. thanks. Appleby 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since one book is being referenced many time by page number, the most appropriate citation style is Harvard referencing. I've cleaned up the references using Harvard style. Hopefully the manually-labelled numbered references matched correctly before I converted them. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much. seems obvious if you know what you're doing :-) Appleby 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what we're here for. :-) You're welcome! — Saxifrage ✎ 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Khan Abdul Wali Khan

Hi! I've done some major work in this article and would appreciate feedback before i send it up for featured article. Khan Abdul Wali Khan was a senior opposition leader in Pakistan and pashtun nationalist, he died this year.

I think you should send the article for Wikipedia:Peer review if you plan to nominate it for Featured Article. Requests for feedback focuses more on new articles or major edits by new editors, who wish to get feedback to help them write better. We will usually give new editors general advice after reading their articles. For example, I need to avoid using too many red links, and to cite sources well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, any suggestions would be appreciated though. I am also working on another one Khudai Khidmatgar thats very much a work in progress and advice on that would be a big help --Zak 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

help on infobox template

can someone help with displaying hanja characters properly at Template:Korean subway? as seen in Seoul Subway Line 1, the actual characters are not displaying. this was a request by User:StoM, but it must involve some magical super-meta-inter-wikilinking wizardry beyond my grasp, which is pretty much limited to square brackets. thanks. Appleby 19:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, problem solved. Appleby 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Strip games

"Strip games are variants of board games, card games, sports, or other rule-based recreational activities, usually involving more than one player, where players remove garments when they lose points in the game. A classic example of a strip game is strip poker, the strip variant of the popular card game poker." Please review, expand article - additional examples, copyedit is required, thanks! - (Patrick 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

I did a bunch of minor reformatting and some significant copy editing. For formatting I moved the "Introduction" section's contents into the lead (Wikipedia article don't have Intro sections—that all just goes above the first official section as an intro) and took out some extra blank lines. For copy I massaged the language a bit to make it less formal (while still being formal enough for Wikipedia), and removed or reworded most of the references to strip poker. Where the reference was necessary for contrast I kept it, but where the contrast was only for narrative use rather than actively being useful to illustrate the point, I took it out. The reason being that the reader who's interested will click through the strip poker link and read it, and it cuts down on repetition across articles.

The article does lack references, but this is a significant enough phenomenon that I'm sure references can be found in good time. I added a "References" section and an {{unreferenced}} tag so that people will be encouraged to dig up useful references for the uncited statements. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay Greene

I have just written a new article on Jay Greene, a former NASA flight director. This is my first article for Wikipedia, and I would welcome any feedback or comments. Thanks.

--MLilburne 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the notability of the subject, but the article looks well put together especially for a first article. The only thing that I'm going to change is to use bullets in the References and External links sections, and to use some formatting templates like {{cite web}} and {{imdb title}}. Good job! — Saxifrage ✎ 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for the compliments and the editing help. I'll make note of the formatting templates for future use in other articles. --MLilburne 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Preludes op. 28

Man, I practically and literaly made the "The Preludes" section by myself, and I need some feedback. Is it too POV, does it contain too much original research, or things like that? Please let me know. Thank you, and do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page if any major issue comes up and I need to know. Actually, contact me if there is any issue, big or small. Thanks again. Freddie _Message? 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to the edits you made, or a link to the article in question? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage: I think the article in question is this one — hope that helps. ^talkGiler S 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Freddie _Message?: I've left you a message about this article on your Talk page. ^talkGiler S 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Does nobody want to give me some feedback on my article (see previous section)? Go on — it's only 250 words! ^talkGiler S 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Morometii

Hi, I've recently edited a note abour Marin Preda's novel Morometii. I would like it to be read by someone and eventually related to Marin Preda's page (if OK).

Thank you,

Dragos

Hello, Dragosioan. I'm Hildanknight, the user who created the Requests for feedback initiative several months ago. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and posting your feedback request (it increases the activity of RFF).

Since you did not provide any link to the article or "diff", I'm afraid I don't know where to go to read your article or edit. So how could I (or anyone else) give feedback?

If you are seeking feedback on an article you wrote, please provide a link by typing the article name enclosed in double square brackets. For example, here's how to create a link to Google Groups (an article I wrote, pardon the plug): [[Google Groups]]. Or you could type in the name of the article, highlight it, and click the underlined "Ab" button on the editing toolbar. Either way, you'll give me a link to the article, so I (and others) will be able to read it and give feedback.

If you edited an exisitng article (you say you "edited a note"), then please provide a link to the "diff" page. To get this link, go to the article and click on the "history" tab at the top. There will be a list of all edits made to the article. You should find your edit with your username, edit summary and the time the edit was made. Click "(last)" to arrive at the "diff" page. Now copy the URL and paste it here. Enclose the URL in single square brackets. For example, here's a link to the "diff" of an edit in which I expanded the Google Groups article.

Once you provide a link to your article, or the "diff", someone (possibly myself) will soon reply with feedback on your article or edit. Hopefully, the feedback will help you gain insight into your strengths and weaknesses as an editor, and you will use the feedback to improve your editing skills.

As a side note, please remember to sign all your posts. However, do NOT sign your contributions to Wikipedia articles! At the end of the post, click the signature button on the edit toolbar (it's third from the right, to the left of the hyphen and to the right of the W) to sign your post. Here's how it will look like:

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft focus

I just rewrote soft focus (it was significantly factually incorrect, stating that soft focus was the same as out-of-focus) and added illustrative pictures; I'd like some advice on how to improve the article further. grendel|khan 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Since you "rewrote" the article, this means you were not the one who created and wrote the original article. So I don't know which parts of the article were written by you. Could you please provide the URL of the "diff" of your edit? To get the "diff" URL, go to the article, click on History, and look for your edit in the list (it should have the date and your username and edit summary next to it). Then click on "last" next to your edit to arrive at the "diff" page - copy the URL and paste it here. Thanks!

Here's the diff containing the rewrite. Mainly I'm looking for ideas on how to expand it at this point; I've explained what the effect is and how it's achieved (specialized lens, specialized filter, schmutz on the front element), and included illustration. grendel|khan 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick peek at the article, though, and it seems pretty good. It is well written and formatted, and makes good use of links (both internal and external), references and images! However, the article is pretty short. Try and expand it a little further - after a Peer Review, you could nominate it for Good Article. I'm in the Good Articles WikiProject, so I'd be happy to see your article become a Good Article. All the best to you, both in your real life and as a Wikipedian. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much where I'm stuck; I can't think of a direction in which I might expand the article. There's just enough text there to support the images, but obviously if it's to become a good article (in either sense of the term), it should be longer. But what to add? grendel|khan 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this topic, but here are a few questions that you might try to research and answer in your article. Do any well-known photographers use soft focus often in their works? Since you seem to be an expert on this subject, what types of images benefit from soft focus? Which do not? What specific size or type of lens flaw creates soft focus? How are modern-day soft focus lenses constructed to induce soft focus? How much does a decent soft focus lens cost? Also, since you mention that soft focus is popularly used in glamour photography, you might want to illustrate it by adding a glamour-esque photograph taken using soft focus. I hope this helps, and good luck with your article. NigelQuinine ^{Blather• Toil} 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Political criticism

Political criticism is a term simply meaning "commentary on political topics", covering all basic political discussion and propaganda. I wrote the article some time ago and consider it one of my better works but would greatly appreciate some feedback on it. Thank you all in advance. Ben Tibbetts 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overall, the article is very good. There's a few things I saw:
  • "Critics of this philosophy affirm instead that the general public (and, on a more individual basis, the "Average Joe") lacks the resources and capability to conceive opinions that are educated enough to be taken seriously..." This is the basis for the United States Electoral College. That part can be expanded a bit from that article.
  • There's no need to say, "(to use America as an example once more)", for example. Ideally, you could add some examples from outside one particular country to give the article a bit more of a worldwide view. Perhaps some examples from other non-Western cultures would be helpful?
  • Some users (particularily in Latin America) may take offense at saying America === United States, so I'd avoid it if possible.
  • Caricatures are very important methods of political criticism; try to give them a bit more of detail in the article. That can be done by bringing some data from the linked article. You should also make use of {{main}} and its brethen.
  • References. The article could really use some, to verify the verifiability policy. That's the thing that is potentially separating the article from Good article status.
• Overall, very good, so I would be proud of your work if I were you. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Specific Carbohydrate Diet

I was just wondering if it would be possible to get some constructive comments on the page I have done. I know there are a few things which would improve it if I spent maybe 5 more minutes, but I can do that when I do the major over haul.

Thanks SO mcuh for help. It is truly greatly appreciated.

Iheartflutes 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Hildanknight, creator of Requests for feedback. Here are some pointers you may find useful:

In the introductory paragraph, you made good use of internal links. However, there are very few internal links elsewhere in the article. Wikipedia thrives on internal links, so do use more internal links where relevant. In addition, there are no external links or references at all. Although I find referencing difficult, I suggest you add external links to relevant web sites about the Specific Carbohydrate Diet. If you can find some references too, great! Without external links or references, we are not sure whether the diet is notable enough to merit an entry in the encyclopedia.

The style of writing in this article worries me. This article is written like an instruction manual, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or a how-to; therefore, the article should present information about the diet in an encyclopediac way. For example: "Always discuss diet with your doctor before trying anything." Refrain from using "you" to address the reader in articles. In addition, instead of recommending a few book titles (which shouldn't be underlined) in the article, why not list them in a Further Reading section (without letting it get too long)? Otherwise, you may give us the impression that you are trying to sell your books.

Sorry to sound harsh, but I think you will need to do plenty of work during the major overhaul. RFF is a new initiative and hasn't garnered much traffic, but I hope another Wikipedian will drop by and offer you more feedback. Nevertheless, all the best to you, both in your real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iheartflutes, great job putting that article together. Here's some more detailed feedback:

1. One of the main guidelines we try to follow on Wikipedia is that articles are written with a neutral point of view; meaning we don't support one side or the other in an argument, but only present the facts. Your article does a very good job of presenting only the facts of the diet, but it doesn't talk at all any facts against the diet. Are their nutritians who disagree with Elaine Gottschall's book? Has any research been done to support or refute the claims of the diet? These are the types of questions that I have after reading your article. (See WP:NPOV for more information).
2. All articles on Wikipedia try to be as similar as possible in terms of style and structure, so that our readers know what to expect once they get used to it. The way we work together to achieve this similarity is by using the Wikipedia manual of style. It's absolutely full of guidelines for language, article headings, grammar... anything you can think of is in there! They're not rules, just advice that the editors of Wikipedia have agreed makes for the best articles.

I hope you find that helpful; if you have any questions about what I've said (or anything else!), please feel free to ask on my talk page. --jwanders^Talk 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your ideas and suggestions. They are really great. Sorry the page sucks so much, but thanks to what you have said, I now have some really great ideas to keep going. Thank you SO much!!! Iheartflutes 08:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! So get going! I'm just a 14-year-old with lots of time to waste and a talent for writing, so I decided to "waste my time" helping you. I just had a look at the article, and it's much better! However, please don't add comments like "I have more to say and will return to this section tomorrow night, but right now it is rather late for me!" or "(Can someone get this to work please!!!!!)" in articles. You can leave them in HTML comments, the edit summary or the talk page. And since you asked for help on how to make external links work, the format is an opening square bracket, followed by the URL, then the anchor text, and concluding it with a closing square bracket. Hope that helps! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Erotic Engineer

can't find my page in search?????????????

That is strange cause I can find it.. Erotic Engineer. Do you want any feedback or something? Imoeng 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It will take some time for a new page to appear in search results. Imoeng, I think you clicked "Go" instead of "Search". I entered "erotic engineer", clicked "Search", and could not find the article (although I found it clicking "Go"). The first search result was a link to an AfD debate on the article Erotic engineering, which was deleted. Therefore, I'm not sure if Erotic Engineer (which should be moved to Erotic engineer) is notable enough to merit an entry in the encyclopedia. JoDiva, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but NOT your contributions to articles!) by clicking on the signature button (third from right in the editing toolbar). All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The search uses a index that is separate from the main database to find pages. It is updated on a schedule, so there is often a delay between creating an article and it appearing in search results. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ibanez JEM

After a good response from all of you guys, I decided to request another feedback for an article I've just created. Thank you for your time!! :) -- Imoeng 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice use of images and links (including references)! You've improved a lot, so keep it up! I did spot a couple of minor issues, though no one is perfect:

I noticed minor writing style problems in the "Ibanez and Steve Vai" and "Design and production" sections. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia, so articles are expected to have encyclopediac tone.

Wikipedia doesn't like lists. The list I'm referring to is the list of guitar models. Only the first 3 sections of models have prose; what about the other 5 sections of models? If you think too much detail would make the articles long, you could provide a summary while offering a more comprehensive coverage in a sub-article.

That I had to search hard for faults to find suggests your article is pretty good. I wonder if another reviewer will come and disillusion you, spotting problems that escaped me. If not, try getting your article to Good Article status. It's probably a good idea to Peer Review the article before nominating it for Good Article, though.

Before I forgot, Imoeng, thanks a lot for your barnstar! It's the first barnstar I ever received, so it means a lot. When I first stumbled across the barnstars page, I thought that if I got a barnstar, it would probably be because of my writing skills - I never expected a Random Acts of Kindness barnstar. Perhaps if we discovered a common interest, and collaborated on articles on that interest, we could become Wikifriends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ReplyThanks again Hildanknight! Just one question from me, what do you mean about "encyclopediac tone"? I don't know because I've never read the real encyclopedia anyway. hahahha. So probably it'll be very useful if you could tell me.

About the barnstar, that is alright, don't thank me, but thank yourself! :) You deserve it. --Imoeng 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Basketball (ball)

Please leave feedback for my latest article Basketball (ball).--Showmanship is the key 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article, its a very good article, I reckon. The good thing about it is you have explained in details about the topic, and the topic is also very specific, which is good. To make it even better, I think you should include the specifications of the ball, like, the diameter, weight, pressure, and stuff like that. Of course you can also relate that to a particular organization like NBA for example.

And I see you are already good at referencing, and why dont you try this link and see "Multiple uses of the same footnote", so people can easily see you references.

You could also put some images, but be carefull with the policy and guidelines, just make sure you have the rights to publish it. So yeah, thats it from me, I like the article and its a good one. Take care! -- Imoeng 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Supershow. Did you write the whole article? If so, great job! Here's my feedback:

There's a problem with the footnotes - they seem to be invisible! All I see are bullets and daggers with no text next to them. I viewed the page in Opera 9 (my favourite browser) and Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7., so it isn't a problem with my browser. I don't think External Links should be formatted as a bulleted, numbered list.

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia's guideline to make internal links relevant to the context. For example, you added internal links to several colours, but failed to add internal links to several technical terms and proper names.

I noticed minor writing style problems in the article; for example, read the "Reinvention" section. In addition, I don't think you should add a section on notable basketball sellers; Wikipedians may mistake that for advertising or spamming, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia!

You may wish to add images where useful. Once you address these issues, I suggest you nominate the article for Good Article, though it's probably a good idea to Peer Review the article first, before nominating it for Good Article.

Hope that helps. All the best to you, both in your life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus. Was Jesus' death at the cross?

Recently I added a contribution in Historical_Jesus but other editor deleted it due to grammar errors. Can you check if there is some grammar error and correct it?

Ok there is the text:

"Gerard Messadié develops more his idea in his novel L'Affaire Marie Magdalene . According Gerard Messadié, Jesus survived thanks to an conspiration . Messadié supports also the idea of survival basing himself on the Jesus' irregular crucifixion. The crucifixion was a slow martyrdom that took several days,. The death at the cross was slow because was usually due to asphyxia caused by the parallelization of thoracic muscles due to immobilization that caused that posture. Surprisingly Jesus was a little time in the cross (approximately three hours, according the gospels). If the prisoner was death, the tibias were broken. Jesus tibias don't were broken, instead, Jesus was wounded by a lance in the side (not a mortal wound).

Besides, the corpse which suffered crucifixion was buried in a common grave but Jesus was buried in a new tomb, according Mattew gospel. (At least Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemos were part of the conspiration, since they deposit the corpse). Besides the shroud that was used to bury jesus wasn't sewed "

User:Atenea26 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Atenea26, sorry cause I didnt read it at the first time, because I am a muslim and I dont know whether I can give a good feedback to you. However I tried to prioritise the sake of wikipedia good articles and decided to give you some feedback! :) From my english point of view (just one level above you on the userbox :)), there is no any grammatical error. Just one thing though, since its related to religious matter, you really need to put the citation at the end of the last sentence, since its very important and sensitive.

Take care! Imoeng 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback. Yes you have reason,but the citation his hidden, if you go to edit section you will see it.-->User:Atenea26 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen that, its on the bottom of the page, citation number 10. What I meant is the second citation, at the last sentence, where a citation is needed. This was taken from the edit page, "However, although Romans had many ways of performing a crucifixion, their law was that once a criminal was hung upon a cross, their body was not to come down until dead, which would be verified by various practices to ensure the crucifixion had in fact been completed.." Yeah, that is the sentence. Okay, good luck! Imoeng 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Atenea62! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. My advice: talk to the editor who removed it and ask him/her to point out the grammatical errors.

Be glad I topped my class in English this term, and topped my level last term! OK, I'm not trying to show off; here are some grammatical errors I spotted:

"develops more his idea" - should be "develops more of his ideas". The word "more" means "idea" should be the plural noun, "ideas".

"According Gerard Messadié" - should be "According to Gerard Messadié".

" survived thanks to an conspiration" - should be " survived due to a conspiracy". The word "thanks" introduces an unencyclopediac tone, so it should be changed to "due". The word "conspiration" does not exist - I think you were looking for the word "conspiracy". Since the word begins with C, a consonant, the article should be "a", not "an".

"supports also" should be "also supports".

"the Jesus" should be "Jesus". "Jesus", as a proper noun, does not need an article.

I need to go. I may return later to look for more grammatical errors. Hopefully others, especially the editor who removed your edit, will help me with the job. Your English could do with some improvement - all the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the entire section a bit. The Messadié novel could be put into a citation using <cite> format. I will leave that for someone else to do. --Richard 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Richard I would comment it on the article disscusion page.--> User:Atenea26, 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Contrary to an earlier comment, there is an English word "conspiration," but you should determine if this is the word you really want. The sentence "If the prisoner was death, the tibias were broken" is garbled. "Jesus tibias don't were broken" is garbled in two ways. First, an apostrophe is missing at the end of the subject's name, and second, "don't were" should be "were not." Anomalocaris 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you point another grammar errors? User:Atenea26, 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"according Mattew gospel" should be "according to the gospel of Matthew". Kaldari 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

TeX font metric

I wrote TeX font metric (all of the non-me edits so far sum up to the addition of an interwiki link to ru:), and recently significantly expanded it by summarizing the file format specification found in Knuth's original source. I'd appreciate someone other than me going over it and seeing if it makes sense even if you haven't been poring over the source materials all day. (And if anyone wants to look over #Soft focus, I'm still interested in feedback on how to expand that article as well.) grendel|khan 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! Its a good article with specific details and very good referencing. However, in my opinion you have used too many technical words. I think, to make a very ultimate good article (although probably I cannot make one) is to think the worst understanding of the potential readers. If you can satisfy the "non-technical" readers, of course all the experts will understand it even more. Also, probably you could include some examples of how TFM can be use in our daily life, as people will think, "ahhh! thats what it means!" Another thing to increase the quality is to have a brief intoduction on the technical words. So probably you could explain what is "big indian" and "DVI" and sort of things, thus, the readers will not have to go back and forth to another article related.

So yeah, that will be all from me, just keep it simple.. :) Take care! Imoeng 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to use needlessly obscure language, but I don't want to end up duplicating content from other articles either. If I wrote it to be understandable to a time traveller brought here from the fifteenth century, it'd be a novel. The best I can do, I think, is to link technical terms, and explain why I'm doing so. (See, for instance, that I rewrote the bit about endianness. Different systems represent multibyte data in different ways; the point is that the TFM format does it in one way consistently across all systems, meaning that you don't have to worry about the endianness of the computer that made the TFM file or the computer that uses it. I think I got that across.) I also tried to separate the more technical content into the "Specification" section; any explanation of the internals of the file format (which, for nearly everyone, will be of academic interest only) would necessarily require a level of understanding above and beyond that of the casual reader; if you're going to read about file format internals, you're already going to know about bits and bytes. I do see your point about what any of this has to do with DVIs, and I've updated the second paragraph to make it clearer where this fits into the TeX workflow. Does the first section, at least, make more sense now? It's more important than the "Specifications" section, since it's of interest to more people. grendel|khan 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, and I think there is nothing much you can do as the subject matter itself is very technical. However, I have looked at your article again and I see you've changed some words of the article. Now the introduction part and some of the "specification" part is clearer. Also, you are right, probably most non-technical people like me (and some non-native english) will stop after the introduction part. So that is why I'm not giving you anymore comment since I'm afraid I'll make the quality even worse, so I will leave it to the more expert mates. Btw, probably you could take a look at thispage, as I think you have capability of doing that..

So, take care! Imoeng 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't mean to sound defensive. If I didn't want criticism, I wouldn't have put the article up for feedback here. I wouldn't have made the changes you'd suggested if I thought they made the article worse; I wouldn't have thought to make those changes in the article if you hadn't mentioned them, and I think they definitely make it clearer. I've added another section just now, about the human-readable equivalent file type (PL, or property list), and I'm not sure where to put it so that it makes the most sense. If I put it above the specification, I can't refer to the internals of the TFM format to contrast the PL format, but if I put it afterwards, it looks like it's an afterthought. grendel|khan 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, grendelkhan! Hildanknight, creator of RFF, here.

I suggest you read articles on other fonts/font metrics. This will give you an idea of the expected structure, style, format and presentation of your article.

I could understand most of the "specification" section. Although fonts aren't my specialist subject, I've used computers since 3. However, I don't know why that section should comprise the majority of the article. Perhaps you could add more sections to offer broader coverage on the font?

Nevertheless, all the best to you, both in real life, and as a Wikipedian! I hope your article becomes a good article, as I'm a member of the Good Articles WikiProject. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Beevers

This is my first go at trying to correctly reference an article ^(changes). I would appreciate some advice on if I have done this the correct way or not. Any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Essexmutant 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it and compared to the pre-edit article. And I also notice that you've given heaps of references, which is excellent. However, I feel like the proportion of the references is like 1:1 compared to the sentences. Probably you could make it better by expanding a sentence with one or two more support sentences, so that the references don't seem very monotone and feels like everywhere, while referencing is extremely good. Another thing that you can do is to put just one link, which is http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=l and make them all into one source, but I think it won't help much and not very clear.

So, thats all from me, the referencing is great but try to add one or two more sentences to before referencing it. Take care! Imoeng 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Essexmutant! You displayed an exemplary use of references, so great job! I suggest you add notes to some of the references. This article is almost ready for a Good Article nomination, although you may wish to send it for Peer Review first. I can't help you much as I'm not good with references. Keep it up, and all the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, both of you. I will add notes to the references and see where a Peer Review takes it. Cheers. Essexmutant 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)