Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 15
This is my first article, could use any feedback, especially from architect or art history-contributors
EdgarPriestly (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just reviewed it from the format side; just needed a category and some minor format tweaks. I say you're good to go and move it out of drafting into the article space; or let me know to do it for you if you don't know how. I see you tried unsuccessfully to add images; maybe check out WP:Images for instructions? For advice on the technical side, you can drop into the Discussion page of WP:WikiProject Architecture. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review Matthew! I just uploaded some images. I have been looking for a way to move the page into article space, but haven't been able to find a way. Do you mind helping me? Thanks! Edgar
This is a new article moved to mainspace and request some feedback. Thanks
MangoTime (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks really well-formatted overall; the one thing I'd suggest is to check out Category:Sydney and see if there is any good subcategory for "Events held in Sydney" or similar. Probably in the "Culture" or "Society" sub-category if there is one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a new article about a movie called La casa muda. This is my first article. I judged this movie to be notable because it is one of the only feature films to be shot in a single camera take.
Jwschind (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks really good, except for the fact it's missing catgories. Note that Wikipedia "Notability" is not the same thing as literal "notability", it's a policy guideline: WP:Notability (film). It's a not a judgement of how good/interesting a film is, it's whether established sources have written about it. Fortunately, you appear to meet the latter, with a Guardian review and an article at what appears to be a reputable online film magazine. Fix the categories, and then I'd say you're clear to publish. Note that you can also upload one low-res cover, poster, or title shot to represent the film per WP:Fair use. Just make sure you carefully source the image, select the proper Fair Use criteria from the drop-down menu, and upload it directly to en.wikipedia rather than to WikiCommmons (which is for truly Public Domain images). MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, and thank you. I was hoping someone could please give me some feedback to make sure my page meets the wikipedia high standards for professional layout. Thank you again.
OH001 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- In a rush, but quick note: in your footnotes (which are good overall), you can tidy them up by tucking the link into the title, using single brackets like so: [http://www.monkeynews.com ''New Queensland Bannanas Out'']. Monkey News, 14 April 2011]. This will display as "New Queensland Bannanas Out. Monkey News, 14 April 2011" with a clickable blue link, but the original link will still be visible in editing so it won't get lost. Looks a lot cleaner, no? Also you need to add Categories, but while the page is in draft form make sure to disarm your categories by adding a colon after the intial brackets: [[:Category:Fruit]]. Read WP:Categories if you're unsure how categorisation works, ensure the categories you add are functioning (shown as blue links), and use the most specific categories possible. So not "Hospitals", "Australia", but "Pediatric hospitals in Sydney" or whatever existing categories are most specific to your page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a new editor tyring my best, I hope my article medaid4kids is fine, please advise.
Tommyxx (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) you need at least two footnotes sources which are unbiased and unrelated to the subject. The BBC article is a good start, but can you find at least a few more? I've also tagged your article as needing more WP:wikilinks to other pages (not common nouns or locations, but technical terms or concepts, or lesser-known locations and people). You're also missing categories, see WP:Categories for how to select and add the most specific categories possible, as in "Ireland" and "Medicine" are too broad, but whatever cats are something like "Medical associations in Ireland", "Charitable associations in Northern Ireland", "Organisations established in 1993", etc. Try looking at some well-established pages for similar organisations to see what cats they have. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is my first post - please check for formatting and content mistakes and also any rookie errors I might have made!
Becca0706 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Couple things: you want to format your footnotes and External links so that they're full citations with clickable links. Check out any long-established WP article to see how clean footnotes are done, and/or read WP:Footnotes. Also, you may want to check around the categories used for surveys/censuses and see if you can find some good, specific categories where other Cost of Living indices are groups together. Maybe somewhere in Category:Index numbers or Category:Price indices? Further, all your footnotes thus far are government sources; try and find a few uninvolved/neutral descriptions of the program, its pros and cons, etc. in academic or news publications online (check GoogleBooks as well). Finally, your intro needs to make the where/when more explicit, as it isn't until the end of the sentence that a reader sees this is for the UK (and don't abbreviate "UK" in articles ;) ). Fix those and you should be set. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is my first article, please check for any newbie errors I might have made. Thank You.
Gaurang85 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Overall solid content, but format needs work. I've tagged the top of the article with things you need to fix; note they have links to the instruction guidelines for fixing them. The main issue is that you want to footnote specific passages of the article to verify that the statement is based in a reputable source. See WP:Footnotes on how/why to do this. Note also that you're working too hard to link to other WP article; rather than a full http://www... link, just type double-brackets to link to a WP article: [[Germany]] --> Germany. Check my tags, make those fixes, check back in here at this same section (even if it's days later) and you'll be ready to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am just wondering if anyone can offer specific help on how I can improve this article. I would like to add more sections, but am unsure what else to write about. Thanks
Julietabulie (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- You've done really nice work, but I'm not a topic expert, and I see you've already contacted WP:WikiProject Cannabis, which is a good call. Since you've done those, all you really can do is maybe look at the History tabs of some major articles on cannabis and cannabis law, see which editors are heavily involved in those, and paste a "hey, can you check out my page?" message onto their Talk page to ask for their individual help. You could also ask for help on any serious marihuana enthusiast internet forum you may belong to, but that could be a real risk as you might get totally non wiki-savvy people coming in trying to "help" and just messing up your format, adding uncited content, or POV editorial comments like "EVERYBODY GET OUT AND VOTE FOR THIS ON 8 SEPTEMBER!!!! THIS YEAR WE GOT IT!!!" So, just a few options, ranging from most conservative to most edgy. You're definitely beyond the need for technical feedback from generic RfF volunteers, you just need to find a few more expert collaborators. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the advice! Julietabulie (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for some help to verify this article and ensure it gets pushed to the main site. This is my first Wiki post. Thanks Exceptional Records UK
Exceptionalrecordsuk (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Not done Not ready for publication yet. The format is quite far from Wikipedia format; take a glance at a few other well-established articles, note how WP articles have a "lede" (intro), are divided into sections, etc. It's a good practice to look at another article and hit "Edit" just to see how they coded in their formatting. Even larger than that issue though is that you have not documented Notability; that is, proof that the wider world cares about this band. Read WP:Notability (music) for guidelines. Your footnoting is also off: first off, you don't footnote other Wikipedia articles, you just put double-brackets around them to create an internal link. Secondly, MySpace, YouTube, etc. aren't footnotable since they're user-generated content which doesn't go through any vetting; same for blogs (unless officical government/business/media announcement blogs), forums, etc. Next, several of your footnotes don't actually provide evidence, they just note that the Favela Chic club happens to exist and have a website; not at all the same thing as documenting that the band played a show there. So, overall you need to bring the format up to Wikipedia standards, and you need to meet Notability by providing footnotes to reliable, vetted sources (online newspapers, major music industry websites, reviews, books, etc.). Until then the article can't go live; if it does, it'll meet Speedy Deletion criteria for "band with no Notability evidenced" and disappear. Feel free to post back here for discussion or further questions; you don't need to start a new RfF unless many days have gone by. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
New article - please review. Please do bear in mind the difficulty of finding references which are in English and not in Arabic. Many thanks.
Clausvonb (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's totally fine to use Arabic references; to some degree, it can actually be a positive in countering the WP:Systemic bias we're vulnerable to when using all-English sources. Ideally, you want to use at least a few English sources, but it's fine to further develop with Arabic or any other language. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking for assistance for a review of this new article. Thank you in advance.
Michelle ruane (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i'm requesting some help on finishing this article about the browser based soccer management game, similar to Hattrick which already has an entry here [[1]]. I hope someone can help me get this entry together, thanks for your help, and time.
Iagaddict4400 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I seem to be the main guy holding down the fort today, and I'm not really a sports guy. You may want to double-tap over on the Discussion pages of WP:WikiProject Football (soccer) or WP:WikiProject Sports, where folks have more familiarity with the subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I made several edits to the National Tradesmen Day page in attempt to get the "This article is written like an advertisement" warning removed. Can you please review the current post and if it meets the requirements, remove the warning banner and publish it publicly. If more changes are necessary, please let me know what I can do in order to comply to the Wikipedia standards.
Abaker1067 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note the page has been "userified", moved to a drafting space on your Userpage: User:Abaker1067/National Tradesmen Day. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- The article is nowhere near to being rendered in neutral, objetive prose. For example: "Tradesmen contribute so meaningfully to our lives in so many ways. From building our homes, schools, and churches; to keeping our cars running; to keeping our lights on and keeping us warm; to fixing our leaky pipes – America’s professional tradesmen are the backbone of our nation." This is not stating basic facts, this is working to convince the reader of a given perspective. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for an overview of how neutrality is employed on WP. The other issue to deal with is that your only Reference is to a site promoting the event; per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (also worth reading), you have to have at bare minimum two sources from mainstream books, news articles, etc. which are unaffiliated with the subject but discuss it. If you can find, say, an LA Times article discussing the planned event, that would work. Not press releases, not fansites, not forums, blogs, Facebook, etc. Please read the two main policies linked, and that'll give you a feel for what has to change for your article to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be cool if somebody reviewed my new article about Laura X. Thanks.
- I tagged the top: the main issue you have is WP:Link rot. Your links are all "http://www..."; you want them to be spelled-out citations. Check the LR guideline, and/or WP:Footnotes for how to fix that. Other than that, looking decent overall. A bit more clarity on timeline, and a few additional highly specific categories could help, as would a birthdate/year. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Dante8 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Article about 'The Other Guys', an a cappella group from St Andrews University who have recently posted a video of "Royal Romance" on YouTube and is on the verge of going viral. The group have subsequently been on various different news programmes in the UK.
This is my first article and any feedback would be much appreciated!
MrMarkBGregory (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I wrote an article about y-fast tries, a data structure for bounded universes that improves on x-fast tries. Any and all constructive feedback is appreciated.
Rf insane (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Format-wise it looks great. I've fixed the category link at the bottom. I don't know enough about computer science to review the content, but if you have no luck here you could try asking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear user MatthewVanitas - thank you for your wonderful suggestion with my reference URLS and categories. I have completed these suggestions.
I was hoping you could please tell me if you have anymore feedback? I'd like to see the two nasty boxes at the top of the page disappear, so I am happy to comply with your recommendations if you have any more.
Thank you again for your assistance. I appreciate it.
Best regards.
OH001 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Two things: footnotes go after the punctuation, and also don't bold section/sub-section titles; they automatically format to the right size. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)