Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 9
This is my first article and I would appreciate any feedback - especially about things that would cause it to be deleted. About sources: I continue to look but the subject is a small church in a small town. There is not a lot of material out there and the local paper does not have an open archive of past editions. Any suggestions in this area would be helpful. Thanks.
529Fourth (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I made a minor copyedit to align the image to the right and to bold the opening sentence. It looks like a fairly good start-class article and I dont think it would get deleted quickly, but you may want to improve the references and inline citations if you can. The stronger the citations, the stronger its notability will appear.--v/r - TP 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can ask a contact at the diocese for help with references for citations or confirmation of claims made in the article. I'm sure if you explain your work, someone there would be open to help out. Kjmonkey (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, to comply wikipedia policy you'll have to seek secondary sources like news articles or books. Listing an interview with someone for information on the subject would be considered a primary source and be scrutinized under WP:NOR. Good Luck!Kjmonkey (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Would like to get feedback and suggestions on the page I created: Jonathan Tyler and the Northern Lights
Musicjunkie85 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
PLACE A LINK TOhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ferretchristie/Enter_your_new_article_name_here YOUR ARTICLE HERE[edit]
Hello - I can't seem to give a title to my article
Ferretchristie (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Done User:Ferretchristie/Australasian_Radiation_Oncology_Group--v/r - TP 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
An extremely popular blogger and philanthropist. One of the top mommy bloggers in the world.
Stolafrosie (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have created an article about the London watchmaker Edward Daniel Johnson. Feedback and suggestions welcome.
82.7.160.42 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nice article with good pictures :) The paragraph "In June 1873 the British Horological Institute ran an essay competition, sponsored by Baroness Burdett-Couttes. Johnson was involved with this, the title of which was "The Compensation Balance and its Adjustment in Chronometers and Watches." is a bit confusing - did johnson enter the competition or organise it? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Just need someone else to review and add suggestions/changes so it can be official.
It's my first article so there may be errors, especially in the format of the references.
Thank you very much.
Littlemslawandorder (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an article at this page. Is it somewhere else? Maybe it was deleted? If so, next time you could try creating articles in a userspace draft, and then get feedback here before putting them on the live wikipedia. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Found it! At [[1]] The final full stop makes all the difference! Loads of information here, which is good. However, at the moment it reads too much like an advert - the article should be impartial, encyclopaedic. Is there any independant reporting on the company? Any criticisms? These should be included.
- I see you've tried to add sources, but you need to link to the exact pages where the information is given, rather than just giving the names of the websites. This is so that other editors can verify the information: see here for more information. Good luck. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, is there a way to take the template off at the top of the page?? Hmm, does it just sound like an article because there is nothing negative? I have read many articles that don't have negativity, especially since I have yet to find criticisms. I would think it is impartial since the reporting is strictly factual findings and it is free from "puffery." In what way specifically do you think this could be improved upon?
Will definitely work on the website links for references.
Littlemslawandorder (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not blatant advertising, it just gave me that impression slightly. (Of course, I could be wrong.) I guess I'd prefer a wider perspective on the company, to make it more encyclopeadic. If there are no critisicms, perhaps there sources that could provide something on the history of the company, or how the company compares with others in that market.
- WP:COMPANY and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) might be of interest to you. Let me know if you want help redirecting alternative names to the right page.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- So if I understand this correctly, you redirect US Ord or US Ordnance, etc to the U.S. Ordnance, Inc. page? I read the part about not necessarily needing the Inc. or even the U.S. perhaps, so the options would be redirecting alternate names. What are your suggestions on how to do that? Also I will continue looking for more unbiased information reporting on the company elsewhere, as it seems I have exhausted google search capabilities. Thanks again, Littlemslawandorder (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)