Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 11
Could someone please review and let me know if it be taken off the "unreviewed category"? Thanks.
Made the changes, appreciate the help. Let me know if this is right. Thanks.
Blastjacket (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Done No worries, we're just a little short-handed. You're getting very close, just a few things to fix:
- You have WP:Bare URLs, risking WP:Link rot, so convert your footnotes to WP:Citations. (nice work overall on sourcing though; a lot of band articles get deleted for poor sourcing, but you're rock solid).
- Footnote tags belong after puncutation marks; minor fix that makes it look prettier.
- If you can contact the band and get them to release a photo to WP:Creative Commons (then you just file a WP:OTRS tag to prove its release), that would be awesome.
- On its Talk page, add a tag for the proper sub-project of WP:WikiProject Music, and maybe drop by that Project and introduce yourself and your article.
- You have some "tone" issues, in that a few phrases, "the likes of", "seem to be mainstays" aren't really encyclopedic phrasings and sound more like an album review. Try to smooth out the language a bit; Wiki writing is a bit deliberately blunt and ineloquent... which is pretty much what encyclopedias are.
- Overall, nice work, looking forward to seeing the end result, and hope you'll stick around to write some more articles now that you have the technique down. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a short intro, which will hopefully be expanded by other contributors, too. Please give a feedback and remove the "unreviewed page" label. Thanks a lot. Repep (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Repep (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done Format looks good; content is way beyond me. Advise you add an applicable Wikipedia:WikiProject, maybe drop in to that project's Discussion page for some more expert content feedback. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the lightning speed and the useful advice! Repep (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
What is missing? Hows it look? Scottgaem (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should read the guidelines on notability and verifiability, specifically the guidelines for actors. With the sources you have, you have not proven that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia; you should try and find reliable, independent sources that deal mainly with the subject of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is adapted from the current factsheet of the hotel.
Ghc.cecilia (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Restaurants are not often considered notable. Before continuing this article or starting a new one, I suggest you read the general notability guidelines, as well as understand verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. Right now the article is written like an advertisement, cites no reliable, independent sources, and seems to be a copyright violation. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your article was deleted for lack of proven Notability; note you can file at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion asking that is be "userified" to your drafting space where you can work on it at your leisure. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please look into the article and suggest if any changes required or improvement needed
Pranab saikia2010 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia writing and want to start a small and concise article about this Welsh classical chamber ensemble. I hope this start is fine, I have referenced from the BBC website and the Ensembles website. I want to add more detail but will wait to see if this is acceptable first. Thank you your feedback will be much appriciated.
EnsembleCymru (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should take a look at Wikipedia's policy on possible conflicts of interest. That may help you reconsider whether or not you should write the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Article tagged with cleanup to-do. Please note, and check the linked policies in the templates if you're unsure how to address. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey everybody, it would be amazing if you could review this article! Have a wonderful day!
DeGiAlive (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at it for you and tagged the most important things. You should specifically look at this essay, which documents specific notability guidelines for academic journals. Also, please note that it is preferable to independent, reliable sources than primary sources. Other than those problems, everything looks good; good categories, good infobox, good wikification, and you have used the footnotes correctly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Crisco 1492, thank you sooo much for your quick and helpful response and sorry for forgetting my signature before, I'm a Wikipedia-Newie ;-) But I promise to be better from now on! Thanks again for your feedback, have a wonderful Wednesday, sunny greetings from Germany :-) --DeGiAlive (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Good afternoon dear Wikipedia-community, this is my second article, would be amazing if someone could review and feedback it! :-) have a wonderful Wednesday!!--DeGiAlive (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
DeGiAlive (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, en.wiki is for English articles; you want instead to publish this article at http//:de.wikipedia.org , which is for German articles. It's part of the same organistaion, just each language has its own sub-site, and you want to be on the Deutch one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh I'm soo sorry for confusing this, I'm totally moving in to the German one now! Thank you and have a great Tuesday! --DeGiAlive (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is the second request for feedback. (Last RFF was April 30, 2011)
Is this article suitable to be added to WP?
Vjhamilton (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, you need a bit more third-party coverage to establish Wikipedia:Notability (published works) ([[WP:Notability (books) might have useful content too; we don't have a precise magazine N-policy). In order to avoid the bias of "the subject describes itself", we need to have evidence that other third-parties have discussed the subject, its important/role/influence/affairs/etc. So please dig about, maybe find some coverage in academic journals (ideally not passing mention, but actual substantive discussion) or in the media. Once you add that, you should be good to go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks, MatthewVanitas! I have tracked down some other references, most noticeably to the Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature, the Windsor Star and Toronto Star (two daily newspapers) as well as Eugene McNamara's memoirs. Will this suffice?
Vjhamilton (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Article is looking good; you have one WP:Bare URL in your footnotes, so just turn that into a full citation and you should be good to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, fixed the bare URL. Now I see someone (Melesse) is trying to delete the JPEG that I uploaded since it does not belong to a published article. (yet!) Any advice?Vjhamilton (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A page about The Harley Gallery and Foundation - it's place within the history of the Welbeck Estate and activities to encourage creativity.
As an employee of the Foundation, I'm concerned that this page is a conflict of interest. I hope that I've made it neatral and that the information in it is seen as a useful contribution.
It's my first wiki page, so any feedback would be gratefully appreciated.
Rebeccawombell (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am trying to write an article about this website on EU policy developments. Its rather a new approach to other EU Media, because it solely focuses on video interviews which made it interesting for me to use this source as an EU studies student. However, I am not very familiar with wikipedia and if I have everything needed to place this article. If someone could have a look that would be great and very much appreciated!! Many thanks. Cheers
Squareambiorix (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I did some minor format fixes, and added maintenance tags to give you an idea of what to refine. I think you're on a good track, and great use of the crucial third party sources describing it. Too many new editors think it's sufficient to just quote the subject talking about itself, but, as you used, we must have independent academics/journalists/etc. commenting about the subject, its importance, its impact, etc. I would just fix the issues mentioned in your tags, including adding more footnotes to the main body of the text. It is okay to cite the subject itself for some basic self-description (citing their mission statement), etc. but the more independent sources examining/discussing the subject, the better. Nice work! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Matthew!! This is already great feedback from your side and thanks for a very swift reply. I will edit the missing bits and pieces and get an academic to have a look at it as well. Maybe one last thing, at what stage will the article be picked up by wikipedia, when all the tags are fixed??
Many thanks!!
- Fix the tags, then check back in here, and if it's look good we can launch it. The point here isn't to delay you, it's to set you up for success. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm putting together an article for a local record label and wanted to know how the format looked and if there's is any information that people think I should try to add. Thanks in advance for your feedback!
Reallybadreverb (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is still a userspace draft, and I was hoping someone would be able to take a quick look and let me know what they think. It's pretty short, so it wouldn't take long. Thanks in advance!
Gaebler (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please review my page for me quick!
Mrichlen (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I would like receive feedback on this page. I noticed it was deleted, so I would like to provide more information on it. My article is about a company that has a great presence in the physical security market. They have been recognized as product of the year at many symposium and recognized for innovation in published works. Also this company jsut announced a major partnership with EMC Corporation and HP. I believe the previous article did not cite properly, and seemed to have copy pasted information from their website. Please review my talk page for my proposed Wikipedia page. Also, comments are welcome!!
Cbroomhead (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Conflict of interest. Once you feel good on those, you can file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to have your article "userified", that is, to have the former text of the article moved to your userpage for drafting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Jesse.lorenz/Growth_Mindset Request for structural feedback[edit]
I'd like to get feedback on the overall structure of the article. I've attempted to follow the instructions outlined in Writing better articles, but I'm having a hard time detecting additional flaws. I think a second set of eyes would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Jesse.lorenz (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Any grammar, structure or cadence errors?
99.233.36.199 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)