Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 17
Evrika7 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- He seems notable, and I really like that you've included some of his work in the article. I do however think the article could benefit from an infobox and the references displayed using inline citations. Chevymontecarlo 16:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vickisvision/Margaret_J._Gamper&oldid=408339873[edit]
Margaret J. Gamper first female prenatal instructor
Vickisvision (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I think the article's references are a bit poor; see WP:VRS and WP:Reliable references for more information on how to improve your article's sources. I think the article is also lacking some sections as well; please try and add some if you can. Chevymontecarlo 16:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please view my article, it's been about 2 months since I posted a request and nothing happens
Albina Bulatova (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear about your delay in receiving any kind of feedback from this page; we are all real people working as volunteers on the site so we are obviously not available all the time. That said there is often a backlog here because there is almost always more requests than editors available to review articles. As to your article, I think the references need some work - they don't really make the article's subject that notable and therefore suitable as a Wikipedia article. I also think there are some minor tone and POV problems, so that might be something you might want to look into when improving the article. Good luck. Chevymontecarlo 16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
This is a request for feedback on a subdiscipline article in Geoscience. Thanks !
Gcaumon (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm surprised there isn't some sort of article about this already on Wikipedia. Are you sure you have checked? That said, if the existing article is poor you could always replace that with your draft article. As to some comments/feedback, I do think perhaps you might want to find some web-based sources for your article. Chevymontecarlo 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, While I did get some feedback before, and made the updates, it looks like I need some more to get the banner about feedback removed. Your advice on my article is more appreciated!
Susan Miller 15:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the unreviewed tag from the article. I think it is quite well-written and thorough but I think you could improve the article's notability by adding more reliable sources. Chevymontecarlo 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Please review.
Charles Pritzl 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Just seeking review to get the "new unreviewed article" box removed. Thanks!
Indyweek (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This is another attempt at providing a missing article for a Gutenberg Author. Comments welcomed.
Tkotc (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Flintprice/Thing_of_the_Day[edit]
Just need some feedback, i guess. i've ever done this
Flintprice (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Flintprice, welcome to wikipedia! Your "Thing_of_the_Day" article can't be a wikipedia article as it doesn't seem to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, you're welcome to carry on experimenting in your userspace to learn how editing works. Regards, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I request review of this article for general formatting and organization feedback. Specifically, I would like to know how specific the references need to be. I list "Sources" rather than "References." Much of it is statistical information that is listed in multiple sources as well as anecdotal information that is not unique to any specific source. All information can be verified through consultation of the sources. Should I footnote information to show what information is available from each source?
134.82.36.40 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Slackalicefilms (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm new at this, and I want to get this page up ASAP. This is because I think that RWJ should have a Wikipedia page. I know everyone is screaming for sources and I only used the 2 most reliable ones I could find. Thanks for reviewing!!!
Timator55 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi and welcome. Have a look at the WP:Notability guideline if you haven't already. If RWJ is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia, there will be reliable, secondary sources out there which discuss him. Things like http://www.businessinsider.com/most-watched-videos-of-september-2010-9# but lots more of them. You'll find it pretty hard to get accepted though, looks like its been deleted a lot of times already. Have a read of this deletion discussion so you don't make the same mistakes. It's best to ask here again when you think your article is ready to move to the mainspace, to get more feedback before moving it.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Biography Colonel Richard Thomas Curry, edit review and format, also how to add pictures.[edit]
I need an edit review on the article.
Additionally how do I add pictures?
RTCurry (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This article about Tehama County helps to keep people in touch on what's happening in Tehama County. I need an edit review on my article.
Storytyty (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have wrote an article on the Work Personality Index. A Canadian made personality assessment designed to be used for pre-employment testing and development applications. Please review to add information you think would be helpful.
Thanks,
DanCostigan (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)