Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 July 7
Have been working on improving the article (standardizing references, fixing links etc.) since a fact from the article made it into "DYK?" on June 21st. Would appreciate feedback on changes. Thanks!
~~Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hello there! Very nice article; I can see you've put a lot of work into it, and it is referenced well. Nice work! :) The only thing I suggest to improve it is to be careful with "weasel words." See WP:Weasel for more information. Statements like "The reading lists now known by many present university undergraduates" are vague and hard to verify. Kind of like saying "experts agree," "most users say," etc. But overall a really good effort! Best, Pianotech (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - fixed that problematic sentence. Were there any other tone/weasel issues? Shearonink (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, glad I could help! :) I'll read through again. Pianotech (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Please can someone qualified help to finalise this article on a noteworthy and influential contemporary philosopher?
- I assume that the poster above(^) has worked on the article? Please remember to put four tildes (these things -> ~ ) at the end of your Talk and Feedback posts, so folks will know who they're talking to :-).
- Anyway, someone has obviously put a lot of work/time into this article, but I do see some issues with it.
- The general tone is probably a little too referential for an encyclopedia article (example: "the world's most prestigious fellowship"). Consult Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for additional info.
- Some of the terms used within the article should probably be defined ("ontological phenomenology") more in lay-people's terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Explain_jargon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify).
- Additional citations are needed throughout the article in both the Biography section (example: the first paragraph delineating Macann's childhood + the last sentence saying how/where Macann lives) and the Works section (example: "Macann is best-known for..." and "he is convinced that the greatest task awaiting philosophy...") to back-up asserted facts. Verifiability will help you in this regard.
- Since the article is a biography of a living person, also take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which has the Verifiability, Neutral point of view and No original research concerns all in one convenient Wiki-place.
- Shearonink (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is my first wiki article and i want to know if its ready for publishing. Any help is much appreciated, thanks!
- A couple of points:
- Add names to references- Like this - [http://www.apple.com|Apple official site]
- Grammar corrections - Normally it's 'genres', not 'genre's'. The apostrophe is only supposed to be used when it belongs to something, for example 'Bob's pencil case'.
Hope these are useful. Chevymontecarlo 15:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please review the article I wrote about the sports agent Bob LaMonte.
~~Selanne8kariya9 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Good article. An infobox or photo might add a nice touch, but I think it's fine the way it is too. :) If you do decide to add a photo, be sure the photo's copyright restrictions permit you to upload. Nice work on the article! Pianotech (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chellrey/Kirstie_Joan_Babor
Hello! this is in respond to Chevymontecarlo: thank you so much for the reply, and thank you so much also for the suggestion about adding an infobox person! =) i have made the changes. =D
I hope to request for a new feedback for this updated information / article. =) Hope this is all ready now and okay to go live. thank you so, so much again. Good day and take care. =)
oh yeay! thank you so much! =D
~~Chellrey (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have written a new article and would appreciate suggestions for improvement.
Over time I plan to increase the depth of the article, in a structured way so as to provide an encyclopedic treatment of the subject.
Thanks for reading :-)
~~Wicked Maven (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good start. The article needs a definition of what a "PCR instrument" is. Shearonink (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, excellent point! Which I hope that I have just addressed :-) Wicked Maven (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks :-)Wicked Maven (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an addition to the genealogy of the Princes of Powys
- I never had heard about the Kingdom of Powys before - very interesting. You do need more than your two listed references, though. The article right now is a stub. The external link is invalid and should probably be removed. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I have removed the external link and will look at finding more sources, although with this subject there is always a paucity of reference material.
- Interesting article, nice job on the layout and integrating the graphics. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Notability & What Wikipedia is not. I think the article needs independent sources citations, 4 of the sources referenced are from the company itself and the tone is problematic (maybe too much like advertising?). Also, I see from Wikipedia Commons that you are the creator of the Zenith Provecta logo used in the article - you might need permission of the company to use that logo since it (or a reasonable facsimile) already appears on the company's website. If you haven't already, ask for direct help/feedback on the Wikipedia IRC help-channel: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help, it's usually full of experienced editors/admins. Shearonink (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on editing this article for a while now. Please provide any feedback, comments or suggestions deemed necessary. Thank you!
~~2008 Flood (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Very impressive-looking! I haven't had time to read the complete article, but so far everything looks pretty good. Plenty of documentation, sources are appropriate to Wiki-MOS, layout is clear and easy-to-navigate. The only caveat I have about the article is perhaps the tone, especially in the "Success stories" section. While the 'house blessings' might be important to you (as the article's creator), I am not sure their repeated mention is appropriate to a Wikipedia article. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
--2008 Flood (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input! I have taken you advice and changed some of the wording in the "Sucess Stories" area: I have renamed the section, and also took out the redundant mention of the term, "house blessing." However, I am not sure I want to delete it completely, because the blessings signify the completion of a sometimes yearlong project - I want to be able to show the progress made so far. Any suggestions on how to do this without it being "too much"? Also, once the page has been reviewed, when does it appear on search engines? I'm new to this process, so I am unsure. Thank you in advance for your help.
Took another look at it. The general tenor of the "Progress section" is improved, and with the house blessings...well, they did happen and the way you've re-written it everything is much more matter-of-fact. I do think it is still a little repetitive. Perhaps you could use some synonyms like 'ceremony' interchangeably with blessing/house blessing? I did spot a 'several weeks ago' phrase in the first paragraph of 'Progress'. You need to change that to an actual time-frame, just something less confusing...because after all "several weeks ago" is a constantly changing concept.
I've removed the Unreviewed tag from the article. Oh, & remember to always sign your Talkpage/Feedback posts with four "~". As to when the article will appear in search engines? I just did a search for it and it's in the first page of hits from Google. 10:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to sign my above comments from earlier today. Sorry Shearonink (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made the changes suggested, and fixed the time issue regarding the "Progress" section. Thank you for your input and help, it is very much appreciated!!--2008 Flood (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking for a review and feedback since this is my first article from scratch.
- Congratulations on your first article. The main issue right now is that all the listed references/sources for the article are from the organization being profiled. You need to find more information from outside sources. Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I decided to create this article on a business I read about in a defense trade magazine. I am looking for any pointers on establishing notability and a non-advertising sort of tone as I do not work for this company and do not ultimately care whether its sales are boosted or decreased from this article. They are the only distributors of sights for the 777 howitzer, distribute many of the star projectors in science centers around the US and are the largest survey equipment dealer in the midwest (I made sure not to phrase this with such grandeosity in the article, but from what I have seen it is the case) so I thought an article on it would fill a little niche. Thanks for your feedback.
Sorry about the typo, just fixed it. Thanks.
- The link at the top here has no article yet, so I looked at the one in your user space. It looks good, try to avoid using terms like 'most notable' as is begins to push into WP:NPOV. It currently still looks light on information, but this is the nice thing about Wikipedia, everyone can help. Some of the statements are unreferenced for example the last line in the history section you have a reference about how the company started but not one for the direction now, which could construed as original research. This is a great start and would love to see more about this company. If I looked at the wrong article please let me have the proper link and I will look again. Mcmatter (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Me again fixed the link up top. One thing which makes articles better like this, I forgot to mention, is an infobox. Mcmatter (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments and the link fix. I will change the wording/citation as soon as possible and look for a little more information. I like the infobox suggestion too. Thanks.
It says I need the article to be reviewed...what do you think? Do I have enough info? Thanks!
I need just general feedback on this article. I realize it probably needs more sources but I am not sure where to find more sources.
~~JackieBelding (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is my first new article submission and would appreciate any feedback. Thank you.
~~Robertwilde (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your first article! It's very well-written and I can see you put a lot of work into it. I'd say right now what it is lacking is more references, as you've only listed one. I would definitely work on adding a minimum of three more independent sources. Good luck, you are off to a great start! :) Pianotech (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to be completely unbiased writing about Sahy Uhns. I have sources and more are on the way. How does this article stack up as far as launching on wikipedia live?
~~LABeatScene (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no link to the article you wish us to review. Mcmatter (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey! So I just wrote my first wikipedia article and I wanted to see if anybody could give me some general feedback: how's my formatting, citing, writing, etc? Any advice or suggestions would be totally welcome. Thanks for your time! Joyfulgrrrrl (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey! So I just wrote my first wikipedia article and I would like feedback: how's my formatting, citing, writing, etc? Any advice or suggestions would be totally welcome. Thanks, I appreciate the help!Malke2010 04:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
~~