Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 March 16: Difference between revisions

References and links. First, although I corrected this, references should come after the fact being verified with the reference -- you put many of your references before the fact. Second, if you have a link to a non-Wikipedia site that you want to include, but it doesn't verify a fact you noted in your article, it is probably better to put the link itself in "External links". Some of your links to record companies fall into this category. You can name the company in the article and put its link below. The "CEO Chicago Sessions" and "CEO Moonjune" references still in the article may be this same kind of link. Also, the CEO Moonjune reference seems out of place.

Some miscellaneous points. (1) The headings are too long. Don't start the one with "with". (2) There are too many facts included in parentheses. Rewrite these areas and remove parentheses if at all possible. Sometimes just setting off a phrase with a comma will do. (3) Paragraph 1: self-titled album? Just use the actual title. Do you mean "eponymously" -- but who needs a fifty-cent word. (4) The numerous sites bulleted under "References" should be under "External links". (5) The tone of the article in many places is too promotional. This is an encyclopedia, not a review site. Go back and look for words and phrases that are there simply to compliment the group and don't otherwise inform. Tkotc (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neilncdonald/Stonerun

Hi this is the first time I have done any Wiki stuff, so am writing about a local band here in Sheffield. Any tips or advice would be good.

Neilncdonald (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All facts need reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, magazines. See WP:VRS and WP:FIRST.

Specific to this article, see WP:BAND. Chzz ► 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chipotle32/Cooperstown_cocktail

This is my first article. It is a short scientific definition related to the field of clinical pharmacology. ?suitable to go live

Chipotle32 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article! I've moved it live for you. One improvement would be to add a bit more of an explanation in for laymen in the first paragraph, as the article is pretty technical. All the best, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wendyroseberry/brianwhelan

Wendyroseberry (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Hill Colliery

This is a new article- can someone look at it with a view to removing the 'unreviewed' tag please?

Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff's March (Sheriff Hill)

Can someone look at this new article with a view to removing the new article tag please? Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of School Superintendents

I seeking input on the content and format of my draft article. I appreciate all input. Thank you very much.

Drdaem (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void

Hi Wiki-friends! I'm new here, and just looking for some feedback on the article I created. My main concerns are the length (short, I know), and neutrality. Thanks!

Elinacre (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty good. The problem I see is that you have two classes of references/sources that need to be carefully segregated. First are those sources that are called "reliable sources" in Wikipedia Land: third party sources with no conflict of interest (nothing to be gained by saying good things about the book). Sources that are "reliable" you can use without hesitation in the body of your article. Others need to go in "External links" or the like. Amazon has a conflict of interest, so I think your first reference needs to go. Link to that "Amazon Best Books" stuff in the "Reviews" section. You have three "reliable source" type links so your article should be ok without it. Try to find a way to link the USA Today and Kirkus articles into the body of the article as references. The author's site is also not a "reliable source". Put the "Reviews" page from her site into the "Reviews" section. Tkotc (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley S Jacobs

Hi,

Would appreciate feedback on this biography. Thanks.

NathanBermann (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley S Jacobs

Hi, would appreciate feedback on this biography. Thanks

NathanBermann (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 <!-- ...but don't type after this line!
                             Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:Cohenleon|Cohenleon]] ([[User talk:Cohenleon|talk]]) 08:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+:Pretty thorough job. Nice to see a lot of references too. I have some problems with a few things, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
+:'''References and links'''. First, although I corrected this, references should come after the fact being verified with the reference -- you put many of your references before the fact. Second, if you have a link to a non-Wikipedia site that you want to include, but it doesn't verify a fact you noted in your article, it is probably better to put the link itself in "External links". Some of your links to record companies fall into this category. You can name the company in the article and put its link below. The "CEO Chicago Sessions" and "CEO Moonjune" references still in the article may be this same kind of link. Also, the CEO Moonjune reference seems out of place.
+:'''Some miscellaneous points'''. (1) The headings are too long. Don't start the one with "with". (2) There are too many facts included in parentheses. Rewrite these areas and remove parentheses if at all possible. Sometimes just setting off a phrase with a comma will do. (3) Paragraph 1: self-titled album? Just use the actual title. Do you mean "eponymously" -- but who needs a fifty-cent word. (4) The numerous sites bulleted under "References" should be under "External links". (5) The tone of the article in many places is too promotional. This is an encyclopedia, not a review site. Go back and look for words and phrases that are there simply to compliment the group and don't otherwise inform. [[User:Tkotc|Tkotc]] ([[User talk:Tkotc|talk]]) 18:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 == [[User:Neilncdonald/Stonerun]] ==
@@ Line 44: / Line 49: @@
 <!-- ...but don't type after this line!
                             Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:Neilncdonald|Neilncdonald]] ([[User talk:Neilncdonald|talk]]) 11:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+All facts need reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, magazines. See [[WP:VRS]] and [[WP:FIRST]].
+Specific to this article, see [[WP:BAND]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 == [[User:Chipotle32/Cooperstown_cocktail]]  ==
@@ Line 54: / Line 63: @@
 <!-- ...but don't type after this line!
                             Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:Chipotle32|Chipotle32]] ([[User talk:Chipotle32|talk]]) 12:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+:Excellent article! I've moved it live for you. One improvement would be to add a bit more of an explanation in for laymen in the first paragraph, as the article is pretty technical. All the best, --[[User:Physics is all gnomes|Physics is all gnomes]] ([[User talk:Physics is all gnomes|talk]]) 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
+== [[wendyroseberry/brianwhelan]] ==
+<!-- Hi, I'm ready to put this up on wikipedia...but all of a sudden there is too much space between the paras and fotos. It looked fine before, and in my edit mode it looks okay. Grateful if you could tell me why I have so muh space. Thanks! -->
+<!-- ...but don't type after this line!
+                            Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:Wendyroseberry|Wendyroseberry]] ([[User talk:Wendyroseberry|talk]]) 12:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+== [[Sheriff Hill Colliery]]  ==
+<!-- Type your question or comment under this line... -->
+This is a new article- can someone look at it with a view to removing the 'unreviewed' tag please?
+<!-- ...but don't type after this line!
+                            Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:Meetthefeebles|Meetthefeebles]] ([[User talk:Meetthefeebles|talk]]) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+== [[Sheriff's March (Sheriff Hill)]]  ==
+Can someone look at this new article with a view to removing the new article tag please? [[User:Meetthefeebles|Meetthefeebles]] ([[User talk:Meetthefeebles|talk]]) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+== [[National Association of School Superintendents]] ==
+<!-- Type your question or comment under this line... -->
+I seeking input on the content and format of my draft article. I appreciate all input.  Thank you very much.
+<!-- ...but don't type after this line!
+                            Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:Drdaem|Drdaem]] ([[User talk:Drdaem|talk]]) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+== [[Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void]] ==
+<!-- Type your question or comment under this line... -->
+Hi Wiki-friends!  I'm new here, and just looking for some feedback on the article I created.  My main concerns are the length (short, I know), and neutrality.  Thanks!
+<!-- ...but don't type after this line!
+                            Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:Elinacre|Elinacre]] ([[User talk:Elinacre|talk]]) 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+:The article is pretty good. The problem I see is that you have two classes of references/sources that need to be carefully segregated. First are those sources that are called "reliable sources" in Wikipedia Land: third party sources with no conflict of interest (nothing to be gained by saying good things about the book). Sources that are "reliable" you can use without hesitation in the body of your article. Others need to go in "External links" or the like. Amazon has a conflict of interest, so I think your first reference needs to go. Link to that "Amazon Best Books" stuff in the "Reviews" section. You have three "reliable source" type links so your article should be ok without it. Try to find a way to link the USA Today and Kirkus articles into the body of the article as references. The author's site is also not a "reliable source". Put the "Reviews" page from her site into the "Reviews" section. [[User:Tkotc|Tkotc]] ([[User talk:Tkotc|talk]]) 03:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
+== [[Bradley S Jacobs]] ==
+<!-- Type your question or comment under this line... -->
+Hi,
+Would appreciate feedback on this biography. Thanks.
+<!-- ...but don't type after this line!
+                            Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:NathanBermann|NathanBermann]] ([[User talk:NathanBermann|talk]]) 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+== [[Bradley S Jacobs]] ==
+<!-- Type your question or comment under this line... -->
+Hi, would appreciate feedback on this biography. Thanks
+<!-- ...but don't type after this line!
+                            Your signature has already been added! -->[[User:NathanBermann|NathanBermann]] ([[User talk:NathanBermann|talk]]) 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)