Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company

Because of my own time constraints, and the difficulty obtaining proper form in this article, I am requesting feedback on the article American Mutoscope and Biograph Company.

Thank you,

--Roger the red 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Roger the red! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. I must commend your excellent use of references; I'd never be able to write an article with 24 references! However, I noticed that some of the references (as of time of writing: 3, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23 and 24) are simple links with no extra information. For these references, you should provide additional information, preferably using the {{cite web}} format.
The article's main weakness is in structure and organization. Here are several suggestions for improving the structure and organization of the article:
  • The lead section is quite weak, and needs improvement. You may wish to read Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections. The lead section should state what American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is (which it does), establish its notability and summarize the entire article. In addition, you may wish to add an infobox at the top of the article.
  • I think the article focuses too much on the history of the movie studio. Therefore, it fails to provide "broad coverage", one of the good article criteria. You should create a "History" section, and make "Founding", "D.W. Griffith" and "Decline" sections subsections of the History section. For broad coverage, please provide information about other aspects of the company. For example: What were its most notable productions? What did critics say about the company and its productions? How was the company organized?
  • There are no images in the article. Although images are not required, it would be useful to have some images in the article. As they say, an article without images is like an emperor without clothes. To upload an image to Wikipedia, click on "Upload file" on the left menu, and follow the instructions. To include the image in the article, add [[Image:FILENAME.EXT]] to the article (where FILENAME.EXT is the image's filename) where you want the image to go. Please be careful about uploading copyrighted images, though, unless they are fair use.
Once these concerns are addressed, I believe American Mutoscope and Biograph Company will be close to Good Article standards. When you have addressed these issues, before nominating the article, please review the Good Article criteria and send the article for peer review. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Laura Spence Affair

This is an article about the political row known as the "Laura Spence Affair" that broke out in the UK in 2000 over alleged elitism in Oxford University admissions

Is this article NPOV enough and is it OK that I have only so far used sources from BBC News?If not, what should I add in? Smeddlesboy 12:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Smeddlesboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
I did not spot any obvious POV problems in the article. However, there may be some subtle POV problems that escaped my eyes. For example, in the first paragraph of the "After the Row" section, please be careful with weasel words such as "arguably". You may wish to read the NPOV tutorial for advice on writing in an NPOV manner.
As the BBC is a reliable source, I see nothing wrong with entirely relying on it for sources. Of course, using a wide range of sources is good, as long as they are reliable. In addition, I suggest you format your references using the <ref>...</ref> method. Wikipedia offers a guide on formatting references, but in a nutshell: enclose all the reference URLs in <ref>...</ref> tags, and create a References section, plaving only a single tag - <references/> - in the section.
I hope this answers your questions, and you have found my feedback useful. If you have more questions or need further feedback or clarifications, please feel free to post your request here. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)

This article presents information about U2's 1983 protest song and single.It achieved good article status in June.Since then quite a bit has changed (diff), and while it might be ready for a peer review, I'd like to test the waters here first.Some questions I have for general editors who might not be self-proclaimed U2 experts (as most of the editors of the article to this point have been):

  • The lead section.I've read over Wikipedia's advice on what an appropriate one looks like, and done my best to adapt the intro, but it still needs some work.
  • Images.Are enough used?Are they appropriate?Do they all qualify as fair use?
  • References.There are quite a few, but I'm certain more are needed.Where?
  • General layout and prose.I've compared the layout to other featured articles on individual singles, and I think they're fairly close.Is the information interesting and compelling?What still needs to be addressed?What parts of the article shouldn't be there?

Basically, I think it's pretty good, but it's been combed only by a group of U2 fans.I'm looking for the opinions of outside Wikipedians, I suppose.Thanks! McMillin24 contribstalk 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, McMillin24! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Since this article has achieved Good Article status, I think you should go ahead and send the article for peer review. RFF is generally for new or underdeveloped articles, which are likely to have glaring issues that need to be fixed, such as stylistic problems or lack of references. It also aims to offer guidance to new contributors, regarding their strengths and weaknesses as an editor. An article that has achieved Good Article status is unlikely to benefit from the feedback we tend to give at RFF. However, you are welcome to request feedback on other articles which you are trying to fix glaring issues or improve to Good Article status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a request for feedback on Wikipedia:Contents and related pages, most of which should be listed at Category:WikiProject Reference pages. The purpose of this "project" is to develop a set of comprehensive yet highly usable "Wikipedia Contents" pages suitable for the Main Page and sidebar. Please give feedback related to topics such as content, usability, and presentation. Think about what should be added, deleted or rearranged on the main page, supporting pages, and the header and footer navigation templates.Also, more contributing editors are very welcome to dig in and help spruce things up. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Rfrisbie! Unfortunately, your request is beyond the scope of RFF. RFF is for requesting feedback to encyclopedia articles you have created, or edits you have made to articles. We cannot give feedback on talk pages, or pages in the Wikipedia namespace. I am not aware of any process for getting feedback on non-article pages; perhaps you may wish to create such a process. I am considering creating such a process, as we have recently been receiving several feedback requests regarding non-articles. In the meantime, you may wish to ask at the village pump. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Any Wikipedians who are interested in Wikipedia:Contents are more than welcome to go there and throw in their two-cents-worth.No project is needed to do that!

Rfrisbietalk 15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear J.L.W.S.,
Even though some of these pages are in the Wikipedia namespace (the rest are in article space, except for the one which is in portal space), they all pertain directly to the content of the encyclopedia.The pages in this set which are in the Wikipedia namespace are there only because they include self-references, but they are in fact part of the encyclopedia proper.(All encyclopedias have tables of contents and indices.Well, that's what these are!) --The Transhumanist 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody!We could sure use your comments on Wikipedia's various contents pages.There's a lot to be done, and it would take the 3 of us who have been working on this section of Wikipedia years to complete it by our lonesomes.Plus we don't even know if anyone really likes what we are creating.So come by Wikipedia:Contents and take a look!!!!!Thanks. --The Transhumanist 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tables of contents

Note: since the following pages pertain directly to the content of the encyclopedia, there is no better place than this venue for requesting feedback.Thank you.--The Transhumanist 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this navigation bar...

All of the pages on that bar need your feedback.There's just 3 of us doing almost all of the work, and we could sure use some help.HEEEEEEEELP!!!!!!!!

First of all, do you like the bar?
Is there anything essential missing from the bar?
If so, what needs to be added?
Are there too many links on the bar?
If so, what should be removed?
How did you learn about the bar?
Do you make much use of the bar?
Do you like the colors selected for each of the pages listed on the bar?
Do you like the color distribution amongst the pages on the bar?
Would you rather they all be in greyscale?
Would you rather they all be the same color (as each other)?
Would you rather they all be different colors (than each other)?
Do you like the pages colored just the way they are?
Do you like the icons on those pages?
Keep them?
Get rid of them?
Find better ones?
Except for...?
Do you like the coverage of each page?
Are there enough links provided?
Are there too many links?
Are there gaps in coverage?What did we miss?
What else do you love about any of those pages?
What else do you hate about any of those pages?
Which of those pages do you make the most use of?
Which of those pages do you never use at all?
Is there anything we've overlooked?

Religion in Indonesia

Two weeks ago, this article was an Indonesian collaboration article, but it had not improved significantly. So since last week, I have tried to expand the article, of course with some other editors. I'd like people to comment on the flow and the content, as well as the quality of English used. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very good article already, I was going to suggest more about some of the religions (mainly Islam because it's the largest) but then I realised there was a whole separate article. The only advice I can offer is to improve them (Islam in Indonesia, Catholicism in Indonesia, Buddhism in Indonesia). Ha, you ask for advice on this article and I tell you to go fix something else, sorry about that but the main one you have edited is already very good. Perhaps someone else can advise better. When I read it for quality of English and flow it seemed fine, I changed the grammar in a few phrases slightly but it is a fine article. James086 Talk | Contribs 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

masonic architects

I am requesting reviews and further information for the articlemasonic architects with external limks a priority. thanks signed by bamboo dragon 17/10/2006

Hello, bamboodragon! You can sign your posts by typing two dashes and four tildes, like this: --~~~~.
I'm glad to see the article has a "See also" section, and a list of books which were used as references. However, you may wish to add several external links to websites where readers can find information about Masonic architects that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.
All the information in this article is lumped into one big paragraph. Please divide this huge paragraph into sections and smaller paragraphs for better structure and organization. In addition, the article desperately needs a copyedit; it is replete with grammatical and punctuation errors.
In fact, I am not sure whether this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Please read what Wikipedia is not. Your article may be nominated for deletion if it is deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia.
However, please don't get discouraged. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and make better contributions. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about references

Hi. I am working on Swedish literature, trying to bring it to featured status. I still have a lot of work to do about contents, language, and the lead section, but I'd like to ask Wikipedia's experienced contributors about references.

I am worried about the inline references being to plenty and distorting the view of the article as a whole. Is this an issue, and if so, what can I do about it? Last time I was trying to write an FA i was told I should use inline references. But now when I compare Swedish literature to other FAs I see that they don't use inline references to nearly the extent I am. Can someone clarify this to me?

Fred-Chess 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fred, how are you? I have to admit that although there is a clear standard for FA articles, the nomination of an article goes back to each individual reviewer. Plenty references is not a bad thing, and I reckon, the more references you have, the better the article is, because it will satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and many other WPs :P. I just want to give one suggestion, that you might want to consider using WP:CITET although it seems too late to change the whole citations. But I and the other editors made it, we have changed the whole citations using WP:CITET. Also, if you feel a certain article should denominated from it's FA status, you can put the article at WP:FAR. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the more references the better, the ref numbers (superscript links to the end of the page) are small and provided they don't interrupt sentences I think they are fine (they should always go at the end of a sentence). If there are lots of references then it shows that the article is well sourced, some articles have TONS of references at the bottom, so many that it almost constitutes its own page! The article already looks pretty good I think, but if you feel you want to add more that's great. Bear in mind that you said you came here to ask experienced editors, I have only been here since June so I'm not really experienced, but I hope it helped anyway. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. / Fred-Chess 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Add-on domain article - may be innaccurate

Hi, I recently created an article on Add-on domains - I wanted to check my understanding of them was accurate. Thanks, Thomas Ash 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad Holland

Please editors post your comments on this article. IMO, it is a well writen article, with good references and is written in NPOV. If you can do anything to bump this to GA status, please inform me. Showmanship is the key 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Showmanship is the key, how are you? It is a well written article, but I hardly can see any direct citation (with the correct formatting). Although references section is highly important, you also have to provide inline citations, and of course the reviewer at WP:GA will ask for it. You also need to format the references using an appropriate formatting, maybe you will find it easy after you read WP:CITE. The lead section mentioned that he was a basketball player, but the information throughout the article is mostly about coaching career, maybe you should mention about coaching in the lead section as well. You might want to read lead section guideline. Last, but not least, is the presence of pictures, which is also very very important, and demanding at the same time. However you have to be careful to upload the image with permission. Maybe that is all from me. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

This article on James Robert Baker is the first I have written on Wiki, and I know it can be improved. I just don't know how to do it. Firstly, I haven't posted any sources, though I do have them. I just don't know how. Also, I cannot think of any more articles that can link to the one I wrote.

Any assistance would be appreciated.Jeffpw 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jeffpw, welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, let me give you some pages to look at.
There are actually millions other pages, but those will do :D. So, about the article, it is good that you have got enough information, which you will need to make the article fatter. By the way, have you tried Wikipedia:Notability (people)? This person must suit the policy, if not, I am afraid that it will be deleted. Another thing to remember, and very important, is citation. I see you've got them but you can't put them in. Please read Cite sources and footnotes for inline citations. Since I joined Wikipedia, I found that inline citations are highly important, maybe more important than anything, because you will satisty no original research and verifiability. Last but not least, is images, or pictures, as I really want to see this person's face! :P. Okay, maybe that is all for now, if you want, please put the article back here again after you improve it. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page, or go to the help desk. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now added footnotes to everything that I felt needed a source attribute. The page is now also linked from 9 other wiki pages and has a picture of the subject. Could somebody please read the article, and let me know if I need to source any other information, and if it needs to be lengthened?Jeffpw 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the new Christian Potenza article a couple of days ago

Hello

I created the new Christian Potenza article a few days ago. I'm sure you have seen Potenza on television before, probably in a commercial.

Please edit this article however you can, expand on it if you can, and encourage others to expand on it. Potenza is, in my eyes, a very good actor and deserving of a strong Wikipedia entry. Please do as you see fit.

-Kowalchuk

Hi, Kowalchuk, welcome to Wikipedia. Firstly why not make an account? It makes signing your name easy, you simply write four tidles (~~~~) and it allows you to actually start new articles. These are the main points of improvement that this article could use:
  • This article could use a picture, especially if it is about someone frequently seen in television commercials. Remember though that the picture must be free and not under copyright for it's use on Wikipedia. See WP:Images for more info.
  • The article is very brief, it should have more about him, his family, his history (see Wikipedia: Biographies).
  • Another thing is that it has no sources. The external links section is for websites that will be useful (usually only official websites, not fan sites). You can find out how to do this at WP:CITE and the preferred method is using the citation template available here: (WP:CITET). This gives nice organised citations that don't take up much room and make it clear what each citation is related to (with a summary at the bottom of the page).

If you want an example of an excellent article (the best of Wikipedia see a Featured Article, there is new one on the main page each day. These will have the citation template, be well structured and have loads of pictures. It may seem daunting but you don't have to add a lot each time you edit an article. I edited the article a bit, adding some info, references and the references section. James086 Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review! 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gimli animal shelter

If there is anyone out there who can expand on the Gimli animal shelter article, please do so... as well as editing it please. Even regular animal shelter policies or information from the Gimli Animal Shelter site would be appreciated. I would just like to see a larger article here. Finally, please link other articles to this one. I do not think there is enough of this.

-Thank you

GAS official site

Hello. Please post at Requests for expansion if you want someone else to contribute to the article. RFF is for seeking feedback on your own contributions to an article. I encourage you to be bold and sign up for a Wikipedia account, and contribute to the article, after which you may request feedback on your contributions here. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Middlewich

I would be interest in how this article could be improved, with the final intent being to put it forward as a possible good article. Salinae 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cúcuta

I wrote an article about Cúcuta, a colombian city and I need your feedback. I think my english is not good and the article needs a clean up..

Thanks!

Ricardoramirezj ✍ 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ricardoramirez, how are you? Sorry for the late reply! Btw, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy it. So, about the article, it is looking good already, with good amout of information and images. You also have backed up some statements with references, which is great. I also like the gallery section, good on you who have gathered the images. Here are some possible improvements.
  • I noticed some sections do not have much information, such as the History section. You might want to get rid of the subheadings and merge the information under a heading.
  • When you put inline citations, please consider using citation templates, so the formatting looks better. Also, try to read WP:FOOT (sorry if you have). It says that you need to put citations after punctuations.
  • Under the demographics section, probably you need to put more words, not just images. If you have had some more "written" information, you might want to resize the image to become smaller.
Maybe that is all for now, but you can tell me when it is ready for another review. Or you can put it on peer review. But I am sorry, I cannot help you with the English, as mine is not better than yours. In case of that, I will ask someone to review the English for you, alright? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers -- Imoeng 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Design_Patterns

I have added substantially to this article based on my notes from a recent teaching stint at Upenn.In particular, I reworded the opening and added a summary of Chapter 1, which contains an intricate discussion about object-oriented design that has had a lot of influence over time, but which few people have actually taken the time to read in detail.

I also tried to embed appropriate links to related pages.

I feel this was worth doing since a lot of other pages link back to this one, which indicates how well-known the book has become.

I did quite knowingly make one "judgemental" statement which seems to be true based on my experience, which is that people find the book somewhat difficult reading and hence many more recent books covering almost exactly the same information have found a thriving market (I didn't say it exactly like this).I hope that is OK in this case since it does impart information that helps put the book into perspective.

It seemed to me that the person who originally posted this article had not actually read the book (all too common, I'm afraid, in people who like to talk about design patterns).

Anyway, I'm a relatively new contributor and I'm trying to find my sea legs so I thought I had better ask for feedback before doing a lot of this kind of thing.Harborsparrow 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

An image of the cover (under fair use guidelines) would be nice. Twinxor t 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion.I just did that.Harborsparrow 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Camus' The Fall

I've recently made some rather extensive edits to this former stub article. More specifically, I've rephrased some of the introductory material, added the novel infobox, written a brief section on the setting and its thematic importance, and included a complete synopsis of the novel.

With regard to feedback, I'm concerned that the synopsis may be too lengthy and/or detailed; however all of the details I've included would seem to be useful for any "Philosophy" or "Themes" section -- which clearly will be necessary -- so I don't see where material can be cut or even if it should be. Finally, while I've been hanging around Wikipedia for a while, until now I've only made more-or-less minor changes or additions to articles; certainly nothing on this scale. So, some feedback on the general writing and tone of the article would therefore be much appreciated. Thanks! --Todeswalzer | Talk 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Smith Taylor

I've written this article from scratch as footnote to a larger article. Any feedback on needed improvements most welcome. --meatclerk 06:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things:-
Also, as another option, consider also reading this and especially this. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nurit Peled-Elhanan

As I am somewhat unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia, I would appreciate some feedback about any aspect of this article. Tidaress 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tidaress. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. After briefly reading through the article, here's the feedback I have to offer:
You have done a good job finding and formatting references for this article. In addition, you have found a photo of her. Well done! (You may wish to add a caption for the photo, though.)
However, the article focuses too much on Elhanan's opinions. According to the good article criteria, articles should offer broad coverage of their subject. The information in the sections "On Israel", "On the USA and Great Britain" and "Quotes" should become subsections of a new "Opinions" section.
If you have sufficient information and references, try writing sections on:
  • Elhanan's history. Where did she grow up? What type of education did she receive? What significant events were there in her life? (Name this section "Biography".)
  • Elhanan's personal life. What does she do in her spare time? What is her family like? (Name this section "Personal life".)
  • Criticism of Elhanan. How did others react to Elhanan? What did they say about her? (Name this section "Criticism".)
As Elhanan appears to be controversial, when contributing to her article, please bear in mind that Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The NPOV tutorial offers some advice on ensuring NPOV in articles. In addition, the article should establish how Elhanan is notable, or the article may be nominated for deletion.
Hope this helps. Please use my feedback to improve this article and your skills as a Wikipedian. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I will add information to the article as it becomes available to me. Tidaress 08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Double Bind

Hi, I recently made some major changes to the double bind article and would like some feedback as to their quality.Thanks! Itistoday 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pipil grammar and Miskito grammar

I have just posted a new article on Miskito grammar. This is my second effort to write an article of this same general type: four weeks ago I also posted Pipil grammar. As a linguist specialising in grammatical descriptions and minority/endangered languages, I would like to continue to contribute such grammar sketches of other little-known languages to Wikipedia. It follows from this that in some sense the Pipil and Miskito grammars represent prototypes for articles of this kind. Because of their potential value as prototypes, I am particularly interested in "getting it right" with them, producing good articles to serve as future models.

There already exist several grammar sketches of languages in Wikipedia, and indeed a category Grammars of specific languages to which these belong. There is no single model followed by all of these, and as would be expected, they vary quite widely in structure and quality. I am aware of general issues about quality of language descriptions and the particular range of problems posed by descriptions of specific languages, and have made it a point to work towards and exemplify a "good" and "robust" model in my grammar sketches that might be worthy of emulation and as a guide to authors of future (or editors of existing) descriptions.

I will close my request for feedback with a few disclaimers and pleas.

First, I am new to Wikipedia (I started a couple of months ago), and may be guilty of a novice's errors. Secondly, the nature of the articles in question may justify some readjustment of usual criteria.

For example: both these articles are scratching the upper limit recommended for article length. I do realise that. I have also made strenuous efforts to reduce article length to the minimum compatible with the needs of articles of their kind and purpose. In my own judgment, the resulting length is right for the kind of subject. It would also in my opinion not be a good idea to try breaking up these articles in order to achieve shorter ones because they do each form a coherent whole. On the other hand, I also believe the articles to be short and synthetic enough to be regarded as bonafide encyclopedia articles, and as such I have written them. They are grammar sketches, not grammars in the habitual sense (which are normally expected to be of book length and much more specific and detailed), yet they do attempt, within these self-imposed limits, to provide the non-specialist reader with an accessible and balanced overview of the structure of a specific language. (See also next point...)

Those are some of my quandaries as a new Wikipedian trying to understand and comply with policy regulations. The two grammar articles cited above represent practical attempts to work through or around these and "get it right". Could I have some feedback to let me know if you think I have done so? --A R King 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources and references

(Re the Miskito grammar article) I am slightly concerned about some aspects of the use of references and the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policies; this may be because I am a novice. On the one hand, all sources are to be acknowledged. That is not generally a problem, except in particular situations such as I have encountered in the Miskito case, where I obtained material by saving a copy of a website from the internet, only to find at a later time that the material is no longer on the internet, leaving me with no obvious way of referencing it any longer. Suggestions? On the other hand, original research is not to be presented. Does this literally mean that I should not cite my own published work? How about my own unpublished work? Assuming I manage not to do that, so that I only cite other people's work, it is not always easy in the case of content such as this to see how to make use of others' work without "copying" any of their content. In the case of descriptive information, presumably this is okay provided the information is "reworked" in one's article (which it normally will be). But too much reworking might be seen as original work, so there is another pitfall to avoid! But a good grammatical description absolutely must make use of examples, and here there seem to be only two options: borrow examples from other work (linguists do this all the time), or make up new (original) examples (for many languages this requires more knowledge than your average Wikipedian is likely to possess, unless (s)he is a specialist in the field, potentially "guilty" of original research...). Incidentally, in the case of Pipil I am a specialist on the language in question, while in the case of Miskito I am not and have drawn more heavily on the available sources (including the disappearing websites mentioned above). --A R King 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm young to Wikipedia too, but I've been teaching quite a while, and I feel that web pages alone are seldom adequate as a reference for the reason you gave (they may disappear).Links to web pages should, in my opinion, only be used if they reflect material that is also written somewhere, or material that is likely to be stable because it is on the official website of a stable organization.Even news organizations sometimes cycle their articles out so they become unavailable after a relatively short time.Harborsparrow 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's more complicated than that. The materials in question (two items, actually) are of such a nature as to obviously represent either published (probably) or perfectly publishable items of literature. They are manifestly products of serious scholarship, whose contents seem as reliable as a published work would be (which they probably are anyway). At one time they were on the internet, presumably intended for access by the public, and it was then legitimate to cite them as web sources. They are now off the internet, as far as I can tell, but that doesn't mean they are no longer good sources, and surely it doesn't mean they can no longer be quoted; what it does mean is that, unless when they were on-line I had also found, copied and still have a non-internet reference provided for these items, or else I can dig one up now (probably available somewhere in a library I personally cannot currently access), I don't know how to formally identify the source. If the upshot of all this is that web sources cannot be used as part of academic research or referred to in serious writing (including Wikipedia!), then the whole "internet revolution" would seem to have shot itself in the foot. I can't believe that's the answer. What is then? In the case of the Miskito article, the two materials in question provide most of my source information (since I don't have access to an academic library where I am). --A R King 15:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alan, some comments/responses re your concerns, above.
Firstly, the No Original Research policy is (by my reading) intended more to dissuade the general wikipedia contributor from inserting their own uncorroborated opinions, speculations, pet theories etc, particularly where there is no independent way or basis for verifying either notability or reliability. This is sensible enough. However, in the case (such as yours) where a contributor has notably-published work in some field or other, then that's a different matter, and it should generally be ok to cite such works. It's probably better that your work is not the sole or main source of information for the article, and that at least other notable references are provided which could be used to assess the relative merits and standing.
Also, the higher the "grade" of the work's verifiability the better (eg peer-reviewed vs. self-published), since any statement or associated source may be open to challenge on the basis of WP:RS, WP:V or WP:CITE regardless of whether it comes from a contributor or third-party source. This is generally only a problem if the information can be seen as contentious, implausible, or unduly opinionated. I don't think that's the case here.
Re the use of any unpublished MS. of yours, or your own set of illustrative linguistic examples- generally this should be ok too if there is no alternative, with the proviso that you can (as you have done) establish your credentials in the field and provide accompanying reference works from others to back these up.
For other materials unpublished or no longer readily available, again it should be ok to use these where there is no alternative, or in addition to more readily-accessible sources. As long as these are clearly marked as such so the reader may decide for themselves how reliable or otherwise the source may be, then some citation is better than none at all, which is all too-frequently seen. In any event, if some other editor has a problem with the added info they'll raise the issue, and it can be worked out. Just my interpretation, others may have differing takes on it. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out. This advice will also be useful for future work! --A R King 06:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ye Antientist Burial Ground, New London

Newly created article on local landmark with regional historic importance.

  • Is tone "encyclopedic" enough?
  • Are references and citations sufficient and appropriate?
  • Is photo properly cited and tagged?
  • Other(?)

I am a local history buff and this is my first Wikipedia article. This is a "pilot" and I intend to do more in this vein. What I learn here I shall use in my subsequent writing.

Thanks. --RalphThayer 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice article, your knowledge of this remote place is impressive.Please don't consider my suggestions anywhere even close to comprehensive, but from just skimming over it
  • Some of the sentences are very long, run-on sentences that are difficult to follow
  • Most wiki articles don't put a horizontal rule to separate the table of contents, to keep with uniformity and style I'd remove it
  • Parts of it read like a mystery novel and not an encyclopedia entry, for example, I'd remove the word stark from here: "In this stark and isolated corner of early colonial Connecticut"
  • Just before the table of contents there seems to be a broken quote
  • Don't forget that the Notes section can be used as a place for references as well
  • The See Also section should point to internal wikis, so since all of those links point to other websites you should rename it "External Links"
Otherwise, good job, your knowledge is impressive, the amount of citations is fine, and the page looks good, but remember, one of the best ways to learn how write good articles is to look at the featured articles. -- itistoday (Talk) 08:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Apachean ca.18-century.png

this is an invitation to comment on the map. – ishwar  (speak) 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to add a key to the bottom-left corner of the map. This means it can be understood even without the image page. Otherwise, nice! Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epic of Evolution

I posted the original article yesterday. (This was my first posting, and it was a very enjoyable experience.) Today I saw a NPOV notice on it with some changes. I was amazed at the quick response. Later today, I updated this article (stub) with additional content.Have I addressed the NPOV issue? Any other suggestions? Thank you in advance for help.

Best Wishes, Cathy Momosean 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV issues may stem from the article treating evolution as a fact and that people who don't agree with evolution are misunderstanding it. While I am completely in agreement with this, and am quite the strict anti-creationist, we have to stay NPOV. Some more information on what is meant by the "Epic of Evolution" (I believe you mean the concept of the universe as a perpetual "story" by "epic", as in a literary "epic", this might be misunderstood, make sure to let readers know this in some way!). As I'm not really a policy guy I can't comment further, but that's what I've seen so far. Best of luck. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am fully aware that this is not the proper place to debate the issue, so I'll keep my comments brief and to the point. I'm not entirely sure what Wooty's position is above, whether evolution should be treated from a "neutral" point of view or stated as a fact; but regardless of that, I can't see stating evolution as a fact as being an NPOV issue for the very reason that evolution is a proven scientific fact: to state it as such is no more POV than saying the sky is blue or that birds have wings. Making the point any other way would be irresponsible and unbecoming of an encyclopaedia.
But perhaps more to the point, having read the article I'm still unsure exactly what it's about -- what is the "Epic of Evolution"? Is it a book? A religious idea? Etc. etc. etc. This should be stated clearly and unequivocally in the lead section. --Todeswalzer|Talk 04:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese aborigines

Taiwanese aborigines.Compare to the [pre-edit version]. --Ling.Nut 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm looking for another round of input from outside eyes before I make an attempt to go for GA. Color me nervous. --Ling.Nut 11:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Skip it. Thanks. --Ling.Nut 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Carroll diagram

I've written this article almost on my own and it's a bit short. Can anyone comment on it or make it a little longer?--CarrotMan 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

which may, or may not, inspire you.Since my math skills start at (minus) it is all I can contribute.Good luck. MissionCreek

Sonija Kwok

Biography of a Hong Kong actress. I would also like to request for a rating of this biography. Thanks.--Tdxiang 10:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rated this a start-class biography. It has no references, which it needs to fufill Wikipedia's policy on verifying content. Other than that, there is no reason to bold the awards she recieves in the #Pageant Career section - bolding, as stated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, is for the subject's name and any other alternate names for the subject. The prose also needs some work - saying "Note: [text]" is not preferable, and it should somehow be avoided (eg. "It should be noted that..."). The same can be said for the phrase "Anyway, after her winning...", which is unencyclopedia in its' tone of voice.
Another glaring problem is the image - the license currently under is not permitted withing Wikipedia's policy on images, as stated in WP:FU. Please provide evidence that this is from a promotional photo kit, or else it will be deleted. Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Methyl tert-butyl ether

The clean up cost estimates are incorrect.Under "Legislation and Litigation", a figure of 1 to 30 billion in clean up costs is cited.The $30 billion value comes from a USGS report that indicates the amount (and value) of MTBE produced worth $30 billion.This is NOT the same as estimated clean up costs.

Hi. I think you're in the wrong place - this is for requests for feedback on articles. Because Wikipedia is, well, a wiki, you can be bold and edit/fix the article yourself. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My Opera Community

A couple weeks ago I created the My Opera Community article.Since then it has been sited as not listing its importance.I have been working on it but would like some advice as to how to best achieve it.I know that it could use more third party sources and editors.Any other advice would also be gladly appreciated. Kc4 04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Vilnius Castle Complex

Hello, before some time I crated Vilnius Castle Complex article and gradually expanded it, with help of other contributors improved spelling. AndI thinking about WP:GA now, but before this, it would be wise to receive some feedback about it, starting from layout ending with enunciation. Please share your thoughts. M.K. 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've had a read of your article, and it is very good. However, a couple of things struck me:
  • The Teutonic Knights burning sentence in the lead could do with a reference.
  • Ditto above with the "attacked several times" sentence directly below it.
  • A lot of the #History of the Upper Castle section requires references, which are a basic requirement for GA and FA status. Although there is a little bit of leeway with what needs to be referenced, dates and figures are things that really require references to ensure accuracy.
  • Similarily, the #The Castle Arsenals section requires some references for the dates towards the end of the first paragraph.
  • A "see also" section, if applicable, wouldn't hurt.
  • No real problems with the prose, however there seems to be places where there are no internal links, especially in the middle sections of #History of the Upper Castle. Knowing little of what is notable in Lithuania, I can't hazzard a guess as to whether any of the potential links I'm thinking of would be applicable, however another review of this area may be handy.
  • Nice image selection, however as you have occasionally had images on the left side of the page, those in the #The Royal Palace section may be better if there is one or two left-aligned.
Otherwise, very nice! A very interesting compilation, which I enjoyed reading. Best of luck, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 08:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I will try to fix these problems ASAP. Thanks again! M.K. 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No problems :) Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Elias Fund

Hello, I am hoping so see if I could get some feedback on the Elias Fund article.I have been building it up for a while with a few others and was hoping for some input and feedback!

Thanks for your help. --Thefirechild 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Thefirechild! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Let's have a look at the article:
Firstly, is the Elias Fund notable enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia? If so, the article should establish its notability, or the article may be nominated for deletion. Note that some parts of the article read like an advertisement. For example: "For more information on starting an Elias Club at your Highschool or College contact info@eliasfund.org" and "A tax deductible donation can be made by two means".
The article does not have any references. In order to satisfy Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, please try to find and include references from reliable sources. If you need help formatting references, you may wish to read Wikipedia's referencing guide.
You should add a lead section to the article, encompassing some information from the Overview section.
All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Millwall brick

Before submitting the article Millwall brick to peer review, I would like receive feedback.Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a nice article given the slightly weird topic :) A couple of things:
  • Any chance you could get a picture of a brick in a generic position for the infobox - it may be more descriptive.
  • The lead needs references - "...was allegedly used as a stealth weapon..." etc.
  • Dunno if it would be possible, but the #Design section needs references (otherwise it could be considered OR).
  • The #References in popular culture section could do with a beefing-up, to explain th subject more in-depth.
Otherwise, nice article! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.I'll begin to work on implementing your suggestions.--Jreferee 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No problems :) Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Breakfast Club

Hi, I have made a major change on reorganizing the lists of the Cultural Impact. Some of them are compiled into paragraphs for the lead section, and the rest are too diversely specific for me to make them into prose. Any feedback will be great. Thanks, Vic226 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Hey all, I'm a new ed but a pro journalist who uses Wikipedia every single day. I posted my first entry, and wanted a little feedback on it. I chose a subject I knew well, but one that was esoteric enough to have no previous description. As such, I cited two of my past interviews with the subject, Pinback and Three Mile Pilot bassist/vocalist Armistead Burwell Smith IV, in the References section, along with another insightful interview and his bands'official sites. I kept it short, but will be happy to expand on the piece if everyone feels that the references used are legitimate and non-vanity. I wanted to understand the nuances of using my own past research, which I cannot separate from my overall knowledge on the subject, for support. Of course, I plan on covering a variety of subjects for which I haven't interviewed anyone, but I figured I'd start with this thorny issue first to better understand how Wikiquette applies to it. I can't thank you enough for opensourcing this encyclopedia, and for bringing knowledge to the world for free. It's amazing.

I have done a copy edit for you. Correct anything if I have mistakenly changd the facts. Since the feature seems to be his playing style can you describe this further beyond "fret work"? Do the references relate to specific sentences? You could extend teh article with a discography --Just nigel 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

West Country Carnival

In the hope of starting the push towards featured article status, I request a review of the article West Country Carnival. I was the editor who started the article, but asking for a review for something which is "visual" up until this point was, quite frankly - pointless! I have now added various pictures to the article, and while waiting for the images have with other editors considerably improved the original text. All feedback gratefully received! Rgds, - Trident13 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are great. It was good to read about this. Well done.
There are a couple of grammar errors in your first sentance. "The West Country Carnivals are a parade celebration with floats (termed "carts" locally), based in the English West Country; that goes back 400 years to the Gun Powder Plot of 1605." Try "The West Country Carnival is an annual celebration featuring a parade of illuminated floats (called "carts"), in the English West Country. The celebration dates back to the Gun Powder Plot of 1605." --Just nigel 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanx! I have made the suggested changes Rgds, - Trident13 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The Masters of Choy Lee Fut section needs a little cleaning up to do.

MIT

I have added or revised substantial parts (History, Research & Faculty, Alumni) of the MIT article over the past several weeks. There are currently legitimate concerns about academic boosterism & length of the article (~70kb). I don't want a formal peer review (yet), just some new sets of eyes to read it over. Suggestions welcome on topics to be cut, expanded, merged, reformed. Madcoverboy 07:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Madcoverboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here's my feedback after speed-reading the article twice:
Your concerns about academic boosterism are valid. For example, the "Notable alumni" section, with over a hundred people in the list, is completely overkill. There is also a long list in the "Faculty and research" section. Try trimming these lists down - that should do the trick. For general advice, you may wish to read Avoid academic boosterism and the NPOV tutorial.
In the three sections "Culture and student life", "Faculty and research" and "Academics", I noted some overlapping information and fancruft. The "Campus" section appears to be too long. In addition, I spotted excessive external links in several sections, particularly "Organization".
Overall, MIT appears to be an excellent, well-referenced article, and after some trimming of fancruft and lists, do consider nominating it for Good Article status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

•Agreement with several other comments posted here, there is editing that needs to be done to eliminate overlaps and remove language that may be more appropriate to an institution recruiting brochure or Annual Report. Academic boosterism is very apparent, and a little disorganized. There are so many external links that it is confusing because some do not seem related to the core subject "all about MIT".This makes it difficult to track through history and relate it to major (departments) (schools) within the institution.I am sure it was difficult to get all the parties to contribute and to collate the information in the first place.I think a laser editing job would be in order, and then add back when the screaming begins. But, all in all, an overly informative piece. MissionCreek 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One (word)

Should this be an article at all? Is it Wikipedia policy to have articles on words themselves (the only thing new here is a paragraph on the history of the word's pronunciation)? Fagstein 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, this is not a Wikipedia topic. Possibly as an art or language form, attached to some other article. MissionCreek 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pandanus spiralis and Pandanus utilis

I recently started these two articles about tropical trees to compliment Red Fruit. They're referenced as well as I could make them, but it's surprising how short of an article a half hour's research can produce. Does anyone have suggestions on how to expand, or otherwise improve, them? (Unfortunately,) they're the most extensive articles I've started (though I have done a longer rewrite or two) without outside intervention. --Gray Porpoise 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing that you could do would be to do the references using the {{cite}} family of templates. That improves the article by giving the reader a list of the references. I've done the first two in Pandanus spiralis for you (on the theory that you'd like to be doing this yourself!). Waitak 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gray Porpoise 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That task has been completed. Are there any other ways that these can be improved (e.g. any type of information that needs to be added)? --Gray Porpoise 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

HHNO and HHNH

I have been working on splitting Halloween Horror Nights into the two component articles listed above. From my talk page, you can access the subpages I used to help during the split. I would just like general feedback on how it went and any suggestions on improving the articles themselves.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

8 Foot Sativa

Over the last couple of months, I have been working on updating the 8 Foot Sativa entry. It has developed majorly, from what it was (really was just a stub). Just reading through the text I have written it doesn't seem to flow as well as I like, so just want some peoples view on that, and any suggestions of changes to make the article better.

Thank you JohnstonDJ 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Forgot to sign. JohnstonDJ 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to requests for feedback. Nice looking article!
  • One problem I can see is a lack of references - for example, in Sections 1.2 to 1.5 inclusive, there's no references (I see you've done it for the other sections I didn't mention, which is a good start). See WP:RS for any further information you need on this.
  • It would also be good if you could find/get permission for a free image for this article. Currently, every picture is a fair use image, which is something Wikipedia wants to avoid. Further information on this can be found at WP:IMAGES.
  • Another thing that would be good would be a "See Also" section, for pages closely related to the band. Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style is always a good read - I noticed you bolded the album in the first paragraph (also known as the lead)), a thing which is discouraged by the Manual of Style.
  • Finally, I also noticed that a lot of albums aren't in italics. Generally they are placed in italics, per the Manual of Style. This is a pretty easy fix, though :)
Cheers, and good luck, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

AdventureQuest

Since 1 September 2006, I did an extensive and complete rewrite of this article.

Compare:

I would appreciate any constructive feedback you have to offer, and suggestions for improving the article.

I hope to improve this article to at least "Unreferenced GA" standard. Note that despite the game's notability being established in an AFD, a quick Google search yielded no reliable third-party references. If you have any suggestions for finding such references, I would like to hear/read them.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (creator of RFF)

I found [1] and [2]. I am not sure how good these are, but most of the things I get for AQ are travel or cheat sites. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey :) A few things I noticed, in no particular order of importance etc.
  • There seems to be a lack of internal links throughout many sections of the article.
  • A "See also" section with similar games may be good.
  • There's one or two occasions where "AdventureQuest" isn't in italics.
  • The "Criticism" section especially needs references, preferably in-line citations.
  • Double-check all the links are going to the right spot, as opposed to disambiguation pages - I seem to recall when I wrote a CVG article that a number of generic terms went to pages that were not what I wanted.
  • Is there a portal related (CVG, Computers etc.)? If so, {{Portal}} (see instructions by clicking the link) can be added to the "See also" section.
  • Ensure that the prose reads well and is interesting, and avoid saying stuff like "It should be noted..." etc. - see WP:GTWBA.
On the whole, a very nice article :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stillwater Area High School Feedback Request

Stillwater Area High School

I'd like to get some feed back on this page...If you could post comments/suggestions/problems etc. on the talk page that'd be much appreciated. Mientkiewicz5508 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Web_document (article) Feedback Request

The Web_document article was contested about original research. All other possible problems on Talk:Web_document. -- Krauss 22:09, 23 November 2006

Mary-Claire King

I developed the article on Mary-Claire King.I'd like some feedback rating the biography and general commentary. --LQ 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Brightman

I've been working on this for quite some time now but I don't think it's quite ready for peer review. Anything you can offer in the way of help would be great. My main concerns include:

  • Sources. I'm having a bit of trouble finding external sources (i.e. not official.) I know they're out there. They have to be. Lately since she released her album she's done a lot of radio appearances. Looking for transcripts with mixed results.
  • Photos. Currently we've got one photograph, a fair-use screenshot from a concert recording. Doesn't quite cut it. I've been trying to find photos but to no avail.
  • The article is still rather listy at the moment.

Thanks in advance to all who have suggestions. Crystallina 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

eletrical

How three phase system can change into two phase system by capacitors?

Galaxy

IMO this is a core topic in astronomy and the article is fairly well developed. I'd like to bring this up to GA, if not FA quality. Apart from the need for references, could you let me know what else needs to be added to make this article a comprehensive write-up on the topic? Are there any changes needed to the format or content? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(new section)

Hi, my name is Bill Kendall, and I am an accomplished portrait artist and aspiring writer at 52 the ripe old age of 52.I recently joined WikipediA as a contributing writer/editor, because I am very impressed with what you are doing with this site.This is a good example of emergence theory using positive feedback as well as negative feedback to create a more sentient site -- than most of the other sites you find on the web.I want to know if you will allow me to contribute an autobiography of an Artist/Writer: me.I would like to submit multiple drawings and paintings some times for illustration purposes; at other times I will contribute single ones with write-ups explaining techniques or brief histories.I would like to start an autobiography "One Artist's Sketch Pad" as an on going serial developmental fashion.Can this be done?I need to learn how to delete my duplicate ones (contributed artwork) and get all of them linked together as well as to other sites that are in your WikipediA network, that might be interested in seeing: the developmental stages of an Artist/Writer from the time I started at about 12 years old tell now.I would appreciate your attention to this matter and I look forward to working with you all.Please check out my artwork and make sure it meets your high standards, if not, please let me know.thanks, once again.Until next time...I await your kind replies,

bk

--FarroRavenKnight 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill, first of all, if you want your images to be global to all Wikipedias, and other sister projects on the Wikimedia network, I suggest you upload the images on the Commons, the shared media repository. Secondly, your work on Wikipedia has to be encyclopedic, and not autobiographical; Wikipedia is not a personal webhost, so you might want to start your own personal wiki, which is pretty easy nowadays. Cheers! --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 14:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English

Please help bringing the Al Jazeera English article up to featured status.

However, considering the US regime's long-running smear campaign against Al Jazeera, I have one earnest request:

Before editing the article, go and actually watch the channel. That should be a requirement for anyone editing the article. The link for free online watching is in the article, so most users shouldn't have a problem doing that. 139.30.24.34 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to improve an article to featured status, consider requesting a peer review instead. RFF is more appropriate for newer, less developed articles. However, Al Jazeera English does not appear to be anywhere near featured status, so consider aiming for Good Article status instead. You may wish to consult a relevant WikiProject, where you may find useful resources and other Wikipedians willing to help you improve the article. I hope you succeed in bringing Al Jazeera English to good or featured status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A good Wikiproject to bring to attention on this article is Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, or a sub-project thereof. ~ crazytales-Stalk My Contribs!!!- 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Princess of the Stars

I would love it if I could get some feedback about this article. The Princess of the Stars is an opera by Raymond Murray Schafer. Thanks for your advise on what needs work! S.dedalus 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad start at all. A few suggestions:
  • First of all, it's always best to copyedit before submitting. There were some spelling/grammar issues that I caught in a quick once-over; possibly more I didn't see.
  • If possible, it would be improved by some critical sources; reviews, etc. Did any notable actors participate in the performances? If so, this could be mentioned.
  • The "See Also" section isn't needed; most of the links there are already wikilinked in the article's text.
If I think of anything else I'll add it. Crystallina 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm on it. S.dedalus 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Fox

The article on red foxes need a bit of layout work.A few of the pics posted are blocking text and creating unsightly blank spots.

Seems to have been fixed. —Seqsea (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I Not Stupid for GA

I don't wish to increase the backlog of my process, but I created it to use it, and I'm using it again.

Since 9 September, I did an extensive rewrite to this article, on my favourite movie. Several SGpedians and I agree that it is close to GA status, which I am aiming for.

Before nominating the article, I need to address two concerns:

  • The "Political satire" section. This section is unreferenced. Should it be removed? Is it needed to satisfy the "broad coverage" section of the GA criteria?
  • The "Production" section. The lack of coverage on Singaporean movies has made research very difficult. What information needs to be included in the Production section?

I would appreciate other feedback or suggestions for improving the article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Doodlebug

Can someone please reconsider including our article for doodleBug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doodlebug

Our original article was removed, but we feel if someone would actually take the time to look at what we have posted in talk regarding it's removal, it would be considered legit.

Thanks so much for your time and help.

(Please forgive me if I have posted here in error, and give a solid redirect if needed.)

RedSodaPop - Artist and Member of http://doodleBug.desktopcreatures.com

Please see this policy; your website does not meet the notability guidelines as set out in the aforementioned policy, and hence has been deleted. In plain words, your website is not noteworthy enough to have an article on Wikipedia. --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like some feedback for this article please. Here's my version and here's what it looked like before I made several major edits. Edvid 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The other works section can probably be be absorbed into the main prose.Other wise it looks good to me.Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions)(Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. By the way, what would the article need to reach GA status? Edvid 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate some advice on how to improve this article, which I think is good enough for Start-Class requirements, although it hasn't been assessed yet. It was created in April 2006 but hasn't changed significantly since then. Edvid 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first thing I notice looking at the article is the future stuff.Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.What it is intended to serve or function as should perhaps be incorporated into the main prose, while more speculative future content should be avoided.That's one thing you can do to improve, anywho.Hope it helps!Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions)(Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. With respect to the crystal ball comment, would some additional referencing be enough? As far as I can see, most of the speculation is documented in some of the referenced links anyway - nevertheless I'll take your comment on board. Edvid 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Georgia General Assembly

I have been trying to re-do the Georgia General Assembly article. The original was a stub, basically a paragraph long. I was hoping for some feedback on the article and suggestions to make it better. I have to admit I was inspired a lot by the U.S. Congress article and adapted that format in the expansion of Georgia General Assembly. One problem I can already see is that the Capitol Building pic is rather small in the infobox, but I don't know how to make it larger on here.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Reb 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Furl

"Furl is a free social bookmarking website that allows members to store searchable copies of webpages and share them with others."
This article was a stub and I've attempted to expand it. This is my first Wikipedia contribution, so I'm very unsure of the quality of my content. It also still looks a little small, but I don't really know what else to add. Here is the diff between the previous version and my edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furl&diff=92021142&oldid=74564163

Arungoodboy 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arungoodboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are a few pointers; I hope you find them useful:
Are you sure that Furl is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? http://furl.net has an Alexa ranking of 2,247. If Furl is notable, the article should establish its notability. If Furl is not notable, or the article is suspected to be spam/advertising for Furl, it may be deleted.
The Furl article focuses too much on the features of the website. One of the good article criteria is "broad coverage" of the article's topic. To achieve broad coverage, I suggest you add sections about the history of Furl, and any notable reviews or criticisms of the site.
I noted that the article lacks references. To ensure verifiability, I suggest that you find and add some references to the article. Formatting references may look difficult, but you simply have to enclose the reference's URL in <ref>...</ref> tags, and add a "References" section, which should only consist of a <references/> tag.
Once these issues have been addressed, feel free to return and request more feedback. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Twelve articles on aspects of downstream processing are in preparation as part of a student project.The students, mostly seniors in Cornell's Biological Engineering program, are all first-time editors and reviewers, learning as they go - as am I, the instructor.The students and I would very much appreciate peer review, human or javascripted, on any of the articles listed here.

Already open for review:

Thank you! susato 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

National Civil Defence Cadet Corps

Request for feedback on content that could be added into or edited in article

Add in things like Activities the corps does, Uniform and Insignia, Membership. Does the corps offer any Courses members can addend. Any Competitions ? Brian | (Talk) 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

plato

who was plato in the story allegor of the cave?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Courtney 15 (talk • contribs).

This page is for requests for feedback on articles. You might try the Reference Desk, though note they won't do your homework for you. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Victor Hugo" painting letters v.h. help please!

VICTOR HUGO] how would i know who to contack, too show a picture of a painting, that may have been done by victor hugo? can anyone help me! I have a painting mid 1800s signed V.H.I CAN NOT SEE HIS AUTO-GRAPHS TO COMPARE? THIS PAINTING I HAVE; I WAS TOLD IT may have been done by VICTOR HUGO!? IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT MAY OR COULD HELP ME! MY EMAIL IS <redacted> i would like to send a few pictures, if you have a hard time contacking me my <redacted>, im from gray maine! thank you gary vickerson. <redacted> I TRIED TO SEARCH THROUGH THIS SITE BUT ITS A LITTLE TOO MUCH FOR ME TOO, FIND WHAT IM LOOKING FOR! SO IM ASKING FO RSOME HELP, ANY TYPE OF HELP!

I've also removed your contact details to avoid you being spammed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hempfield High School

My concerns are posted in the discussion page of the article.

I don't see anything of interest on the talk page. However, when reading the article, I noticed that it suffers from academic boosterism. This means that it places too much emphasis on the school's achievements, and is thus biased. Wikipedia has a policy stating that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view - I suggest you read the NPOV tutorial for suggestions on how to achieve this. If the school's notability is contested, its article may be viewed as advertising, and may be deleted. It would be great if you could find and add some references to the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl Mindell

Biased?

Huh? Are you asking us whether an article you wrote, Earl Mindell, conforms to Wikipedia's NPOV policy? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so (I don't think that's what s/he's asking). However, I redid the article (such as it is). It's no longer POV. I'll watchlist it and expand as I can. Anchoress 09:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamersley, Western Australia

Hi, I'm looking for someone to review the above article for me - it's almost entirely been contributed by myself. Problem is I'm too close to it to see the forest for the trees and would appreciate any feedback on how I can improve this article, hopefully towards Good Article status. I requested a peer review at WP Australia but received no response. Orderinchaos78 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a couple very minor grammar issues, but other than that I see very few problems with the article; it's quite well-written.I'm inclined to say that this is more suitable for Peer Review, simply because it is quite fleshed out and needs a bit closer inspection.
My only piece of advice is to improve the organization and flow.Sometimes, paragraphs jump around a bit, giving the impression that parts of it were written as an afterthought or that you didn't know where to put that piece of information.Leading on that point, the flow is interrupted by such sentences, so there isn't as much intuitive reading as there could be. Overall, very well done. —Keakealani 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ThinkGeek

Hi, a while ago I made an enormous article expansion on a popular e-commerce website called ThinkGeek, the page has since been edited but a large-scale edit was made to the article regardless. I managed to find a lot of information about the website which wasn't already available (the slogan, the year it was founded, a few t-shirts they sell, and so on). What I'd like to know is what could I have done to push this article into more of a good article status? My biggest concerns are perhaps perhaps the software and hardware sections, but I made do with the information that was there. Then there's the Products list, perhaps I can go into more detail into what was being sold? The Geek Points category I'm very proud of, but a majority of the text was copied and incorporated into the article, styled to the specifications of the encyclopaedia. What could I do next? Here's a link right here... oh wait... I mean HERE! =P Druss666uk 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article seems fairly sparse. I think I'd like to see more information referenced from third party reviewers. Do you have anything on their business model? Are they privately held, or do they have stock? Are they affiliated with any other businesses? Do they have a development group that comes up with their merchandise, or are they just a VAR? Who were the four founders? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold and created this article to document a template that I created to addresses a limitation of the current wiki software. I believe that the template is useful and well coded. What are the thoughts of experienced wikipedians? BBilge 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but RFF should only be used to seek feedback on articles in the main namespace. I don't know any place for seeking feedback on pages in the Wikipedia namespace, but you could try the village pump. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, though the enquiry was really about the suitability of the template that the article is about rather than the article itself. --Bilge [TC] 21:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii Youth Opera Chorus

I've been steadily cleaning this article up, but I am at a loss for how I can better inprove the article, although I know it has a long way to go.I'm having problems with some of the phrasing, so I would be very grateful if someone could make a suggestion.Thank you in advanced, and happy editing! —Keakealani 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article could use some external sources to indicate the notability of the choir. I'm not sure if there exists any specific notability requirements for choirs, but at present the article doesn't say much, other than this being a choir based at the University of Hawaii (which isn't really any indication of notability). Bjelleklang-talk 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall certainly do so.I'm sure I can find an article about the China tour, at least.

Ford BA Falcon

Hi, I have checked this article myself and others but it still lacks something. I need some comments on what could be fixed.Senators 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on cars, but I think it looks great! The only thing I could think of would have to be a quick overview of the sales, and some mention if the car is based on a previous model, or if a newer model is based on this one. Bjelleklang-talk 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex tourism

Would need an experienced and trustworhy editor as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop#interim state editor revision for duration of the arbitration, to write the article in a decent state during the ongoing arbitration. Most importantly to decide whether a link toSly Traveler is acceptable or not. / Fred-Chess 11:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Information Sharing and Customer Outreach

Is this NPOV enough? I've attempted to improve the quality of the article overall and would appreciate any feedback.Thanks in advance --Tom 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution

I've tried using peer review twice. No one seems to be interested in commenting and suggesting corrections for this article. I've been trying to bring it to FA. All and any comments apprieciated. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you'll have to send it for a third peer review, and hope someone responds. Try posting at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject to get reviewers. RFF caters to newer, less-developed articles, and an article which has already achieved Good Article status is unlikely to benefit from the RFF process. There were several concerns raised in the failed Featured Article nomination - have you addressed them yet? All the best to you in your quest to improve New Jersey State Constitution to featured status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Overall it seemed fine to me. There were a few paragraphs that were overly long and could do with judicious splits to make the reading less taxing (so to speak). It can be difficult to get feedback on the 2nd and later PR reviews, especially on less than exciting topics (no offense intended); I don't really have any suggestions on that score. But if the failed FAC issues have been addressed and there was no PR feedback, I'd try for another FAC. They seem more motivated to find flaws in an article. — RJH (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If an article in PR is not getting reviewed at all, after a couple of week it might helpful to bump the PR template to the top of the stack. I.e. edit the PR page and move your entry back up to the top so that people who might be interested will notice it right away as they scan down the page. (Not that I would encourage this widely, of course, but it's helpful on occasion.) Also, tactically, it seems to help when the poster tries to sell the article a little in the description by saying something interesting about it (rather than just saying it's the 2nd or 3rd PR, for example.) — RJH (talk)
I think the writing quality could be improved. I've started to edit the prose, but it could take a while to finish. You'll get the idea from my first few edits, though. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Semen

The quality of this article, especially the illustrations, is hotly debated.Please comment on the talk page. Rockules318 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Silver State Classic Challenge

I've driven this open road rally in Nevada a couple of times. I've been working on this article for about two months, and I'd appreciate some guidance on what I should do next.In particular, I don't know if I've given too much detail on rules.NNH 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not experienced with the subject matter, but I'd not consider the ‘notable cars’ notable in the sense of Wikipedia. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Money No Enough

I wrote an article on Money No Enough, Singapore's all-time highest-grossing movie. As of 27 December 2006, 11.30pm Singapore time, the article is one of six listed in the Did you know? section of the main page. Wisekwai gave the article a Start-Class rating. I would appreciate any feedback, or suggestions for improving the article to B-Class (and, if possible, GA status). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In terms of language and structure, looking at other movie pages like, say, The Matrix, might give you some ideas. A proper Principal Cast table would be nice... perhaps also a subtle edit of the Plot Summary. Its actually fairly well-written, except for the first paragraph which lists the main characters. I prefer the style of other movie pages, which Ive noticed tend to avoid "third person" words like "main characters" and simply delve directly into the plot, describing the characters as they are mentioned. Otherwise, nice article! Metao 09:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Janjua

As I stated on the Talk page for this article, the list of "famous people" keeps growing. None of these people are Wikilinked, and Id like to delete the section as the first step towards cleaning up the entire thing. I requested a consensus on the Talk page, but no responses as yet... perhaps this is not the forum for such a request to be made more public (if so, please direct me to the right place on my Talk page) but Id certainly like a couple more eyes to look over the article and add their comments. Metao 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have gotten no response, be bold and edit as you see fit :) Bjelleklang-talk 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fleet Command

New article and first time, looking for input. Mike D 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay, but needs more sources, especially for the section on realism. It is very important that articles remain verifiable, and as such, any claims in an article must be backed up with a source. The article also needs information on the notability on the game; how many units sold, critical reception, etc. Bjelleklang-talk 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinkerton Academy

I've made many edits over the month and recently created the Academics and Extra-curricular sections. I've also added many of the notable alumni (though I think some of them are not notable enough). I've uploaded a picture using a fair use rationale but I think it may not fit the fair use policy. I need feedback and suggestions on how to expand the article.--EvaGears 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, but could probably do with some sources for the history section. Great work on the section on notable alumni, wish all articles had as good references... ;) Bjelleklang-talk 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SynchronX and Moo Mapper

Hello, everyone. Could someone please take a look at those articles? I just want to know if that style of writing is suitable for general Wikipedia editing and whether or not I should change my writing style. Comments would be appreciated; thank you! Matt489Talk 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both looks like they could be good given a little more work. First of all, you need to indicate the notability of both applications; the articles doesn't say anything about their importance, user/industry feedback, or spinoffs/similar. This needs to be added, if not you can risk that the articles will be deleted for not passing Wikipedia's notability requirements. Bjelleklang-talk 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Archive_3&oldid=1190096310"