Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 14
I do not know if I posted this question in the correct forum. It would be greatly appreciated if someone has the time for an editor review, mostly for read-ability and content and not so much style. The indication is that it reads too much like an advertisement and I would like to work on that when editing the parts the need attention.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance, however little or much that may be.
Boggle987 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I've added the "no footnotes" tag, as though you do literally have footnotes, they're not actually serving as footnotes. That is, your footnotes just explain where the pictures come from, which is unnecessary because when you click the image there's a whole display of all the picture data (sources, etc), and anything additional to that you can just put in the caption.
- What you want to do instead is take a look at that long list of books/articles used to write the WP article, and footnote individual sentences of the WP article to the source which proves that statement. Footnotes on WP aren't for "by the way, here's an interesting point", they're academic-style footnotes for "here is where the above statement comes from". See WP:Footnotes for the whole policy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Request "New Article" tag removal. Thanks.
Airborne84 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Format-wise, the main thing you need is to add categories. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I was lazy... Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Request "New Article" tag removal. Thanks!
Airborne84 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I have now made correction suggested by you. As you said, the article looks more tidy now! Thanks once again for your meticulous suggestions.
As regards the photo, I am trying to acquire a good photograph of his; I should get it in a couple of days. I will upload once the article gets published.
Goks277 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the tags, you're good to publish. You can select the "Move" button (in the drop-down menu to the right of the star icon at the top of the screen) to move it. Let me know if you have any trouble with it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
Cannot find it! Any other way to move? Thanx! Goks277
- Done. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanx! Goks277
This is my first submission to Wikipedia and I would like to have some feedback on it. Thanks!
Edwinculp (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am happy with the content of the article 'Louise Bawden' but am struggling with references and external links. Could I please obtain some feedback.
Thanks
Clbawden (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I've got to get to bed, but I've made some minor format upgrades, added maintenance tags (they're not criticism, they're for your reference as to things to work on), etc.
- So far as footnoting: please try briefly reading WP:Footnotes and see if that helps you understand the concept and coding for them. If not, post back here as to what troubles you're having, and I'll help you tomorrow (US East Coast). In the meantime, the main thing any biography article needs is several references from established books/media/news discussing the person's achievements. You have one good one from an Aussie newspaper, so please find a few more links like it to help build your case. Will check back in in about 12hrs or so, so please read the Footnote guidelines and see if that helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I need some input on the references - I am not sure that I got it right. I have listed the sources used to create the article, but these are not "references" in the true sense of the word. How does one list "sources" as apposed to "references"?
MichelleCla (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- On WP, "sources" and "references" are basically the same thing in terms of footnotes. Some people use "sources" to mean "books/articles I used holisitically, but that I'm not using to prove individual sentnces" and "references" to mean "I'm footnoting this book/article because it evidences the specific sentence I'm footnoting with this footnote." MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you did; you manually typed citations that look like footnotes, but they're not actually footnoted to anything. Maybe take a glance at WP:Footnotes to see how footnotes can be automatically programmed into your article? The problem right now is that you have a bunch of text, and then a list of books/articles, but no clear link between them since you don't say which facts are derived from which sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
MichelleCla (talk)Thanks! - It now makes more sense - I will try adding the references correctly over the weekend, and perhaps list sources I used for the article as a whole under "Bibliography".
This person is a doctor, scientist, inventor, author and fashion socialite. About to be founder and co-head of a centre for engineering surgical products, and Assoc. Professor. Is this sufficiently notable?
John Frost (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Few quick things: you should have "sections" (2 equals signs) before making sub-sections (3 equals signs). Your sourcing looks decent at a glance, but it's bare URLs ("http://www...") and needs to be turned into actual citations with clickable links; take a glance at any long-established article to see the usual format. Also a few of your footnotes appear to be just general-interest links, like "World Glaucoma Association"; footnotes should be specifically providing evidence of the statement you put the footnote at the end of. If the front-page of the WGA doesn't explicitly say "we gave Wong an award", you shouldn't have a footnote there at the end of the sentence "in 1998, the WGA gave Wong an award." Minor thing: people are usually referred to by just last name once their full name is first used, so thereafter simply "Wong" unless there happens to be another Wong in the sentence who needs to be told apart. You also need to add a few more categories, but specific as possible, not huge ones like "Singapore", but precise like "Singaporean medical researchers", etc. Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
My first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia. Article on retired (still living) Vice Admiral Lambert Jackson "Woody" Woodburne who is a former Chief of the South African Navy and one of the most decorated members of the SA Defence Force. My father served with him on SAS Emily Hobhouse 1972-74. I look forward to any comments and tips. Haven't uploaded photos as yet. Many thanks.
HoneybadgerWIKI (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added a few "tags" at the top to suggest improvements, but the main thing that would really help is if you apply footnotes to indicate which references prove/verify which statements made in the article: "John Smith graduated from university in 1948 with a BA in anthropology.<ref>Ed Adams. ''Life of John Smith''. Acme Press, 1973. ISBN 123-456-7890</ref>". Have you tried checking on GoogleBooks for any good materials you can use as evidence? Note you can use http://reftag.appspot.com to automatically generate full citations from GoogleBooks links. Regarding photos: please very carefully read the upload form when uploading photos; easily 80% of first-timers mess up the sourcing and copyright information, get their images automatically deleted, and then either give up in frustration or do it over multiple times until they figure out how to fill out the form. It's spelled out in the guideline, but it's not terribly intuitive. Looking forward to seeing the photos though. You may also want to check in at the discussion page of WP:WikiProject Military History to let folks know about your draft article, solicit specialist feedback. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Have rewritten page in an effort remove advertisement notice. Request an administrator to review and hopefully remove the tag. Thank you.
Glennmad1 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This organization (Eisenhower Fellowships) has been around for 58 years and many of the alumni Fellows mention this organization in their Wikipedia entries and I feel like there needs to be a main page to link their entries to.
Hollylogan (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I would appreciate feedback for my new article. It was poorly written so I rewrote the entire article and provided valid references. I also would like to see if it is ready to go live.
Ashleyjonesme (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently an intern at HMV Canada and was asked to recreate this article because of a lack of reliable, significant sources, as well as being too promotional, I think that it is ready for another edit, please let me know what else I can change/ add! Thanks :)
Adriandandrea25 (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, thanks for being up-front about your affiliation. It is not flat prohibited for affiliated people to write, but they have to be extremely careful to be neutral, and business articles are held to a very high neutrality standard to avoid WP becoming a "advertise yourself here" site. Have you read WP:Conflict of interest? It would be most helpful if you could post on the Talk page of said article to indicate your affiliation with the company, awareness of COI policy, and assertion that you're working to keep the article neutral, understand that HMV does not "own" the page, and that you will not contest sourced/footnoted criticism/negativity, but will instead request an uninvolved editor review such content if you feel the negative addition is properly sourced yet is not being presented accurately or neutrally. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Suggestion: I can wade into the article and "chop", that is, just hack out anything that's remotely gray-area CoI/advert. That will remove a lot of stuff, but it stands a good chance of bringing the article up to code. If you want that, let me know, but be aware that if the article drifts back into re-adding that promotional content after a chop, Speedy Deletion is likely. Don't look at this as "a compromise to get published now, and I'll add it back later" so much as "direct route to neutrality". I would highly recommend that, following a chop and publish, that HMV personnel refrain from editing the page, instead posting to Talk if there are things you think are honestly encylcopedically noteworthy and worth adding (a major article in the Vancouver Sun about the business angle), or to post to an alert board if you feel the article is being vandalised or adding unreferenced material. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That would be great! My whole problem to begin with was not really understanding that from the start, if you could chop at it to put it online that would be fantastic, and if any additions are needed in the future we'll just post to Talk. Thanks again!
- Chopped and published. One thing you can do to neaten it up and save me time, and which would not involve COI, is to fix the "link rot". The footnotes are mostly just "http://www...", but they should be proper citations with the title linked. Check out any other well-established WP article (hit the Edit button to see the coding) to see how to type that in. It will make the footnotes look a lot more polished. Again, if HMV people continue to come into the article and try and wholesale insert corporate announcements, minutiae about how many points it takes to get a photo signed by Justin Bieber, etc. it could get the article locked or deleted as a nuisance. If there are legitimate concerns about the article, or things that should really be added, use the Discussion page to bring them up, and if necessary ask for a neutral editor to come help at any of WP's many help pages. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Request "New Article" feedback and tag removal. Thanks.
Blackrock01 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: at first glance, your first sentence is confusing: "is the mechanism or process that makes a city intelligent or smart". Since at that point you have not yet defined these technical terms, it's not clear that you mean smart city and not just the dictionary definition "smart, clever". Recommend you kind of squish part of sentence two into sentence one to make the technical concepts a little clearer. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have made all of the necessary fixes. Let me know if this is ready to make public... thanks!
Alexanderheld (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sourcing meets par; a few minor format tweaks and you'll be good to go. You need to capitalise "Partridge Family" since that's actually the name of a band; unless the quote itself is wrong, in which case a "[sic]" at the end to say "I know the original writer messed it up" would help. You also need to unify your duplicate footnotes so that instead of the OC article being #1, #3, #7 it's "#1a,b,c". Fortunately, there's an easy automatic way to do this, just read the short WP:REFNAME. Also, footnotes go immediately following the punctuation (period, comma) of the sentence/phrase, no space between, no space between footnotes, and one space between the end of the footnote and the start of the new sentence. Don't abbreviate US state names, many of our readers aren't American don't know what "HI" means; editors from India are equally bad about using "UP" for Uttar Pradesh, etc., which confuses even me. Lastly, and very importantly, your categories are showing up in red because they're non-existent categories; you need to add categories that actually exist. Go to the big Category:Musical groups and start following the rabbit-hole down to get an idea for which sub-sub-sub categories to add. There are probably categories like "Musical groups from Hawaii", "Folk-rock musical groups" etc., but you just have to look and see what's out there. After that, you'll be ready to publish; good work on meeting Notability through right footnoting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A article about the building in Reading. Please give feedback.
Water14 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Check the tags I added; you want to add footnotes to sites other than The Blade's own site. Can you find mention of it on GoogleBooks, or in online news articles? Extract some more facts from those and add them with evidentiary footnotes. Also, your footnotes are "bare URLs" ("http://www..."), but you want them spelled out as full citations. Take a look at Willis Tower's footnotes for examples of proper spelled-out citations. This is vital, since you want to be able to find the article/book by name/publisher/date even if the website moves or becomes defunct. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Water14 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Would greatly appreciate any feedback on the work-in-progress page. Is there any reason I should not move it into the main space just yet? Thanks!
Jennifer.Marie.Hoff (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Setting aside content for now, you have a few major format issues. 1) do not use "Ibid" in footnotes. If somebody inserts a footnote between #3 and #4, now all of a sudden your #5 is "Ibiding" to #4 rather than the #3 it was supposed to. Instead employ WP:REFNAME. 2) Your categories are showing up in red because they don't exist; see WP:Categories on how to add working categories, and note categories should be specific as possible. So not "Singapore", "Medicine", but "Medical researchers in Singapore". Only the broadest articles should fall immediately under the broadest cats. I'll leave someone else to cover the content review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks- though now I don't see how to edit the top two paragraphs. Can you tell me how you changed it, and how I can edit those top two paragraphs? --Jennifer.Marie.Hoff (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)User:Jennifer.Marie.Hoff
- The big Edit tab at the very top (next to History) opens Editing for the entire page; the little (edit) buttons next to sub-sections are if you just want to edit that one area and don't want to scroll down a lot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Please help Reflist?
Thanks!
Vl
Vleit (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I made some initial formatting fixes; hit the article's "History" tab and use the "difference" buttons to see what changed from your draft to mine. Please continue to make the changes I did (unbracketing links, bulleting lists with an asterisk, etc). Note also you need to add categories (WP:Categories), and that your footnotes are "bare URLs" (http://www...) and need to be spelled out as full citations. See WP:Footnotes for info on how to properly prep footnotes. Note also that footnotes fall after the punctuation marks of a sentence/phrase (looks tidier). MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Created a page for the word 'Anogen', which is a trade name of a company named yes biotech labs. This is my first new page. Please take a look, and see if anything need to be changed. Thank you in advance for your reviews.
Marqueezhang (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)