Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

John F. Kennedy Library

Hello, I've reworked this article (diff) and was wondering how it can be further improved and promoted from start class. Most of my contributions went into creating the sections on the background of the site. Thank you =) Louis Waweru  Talk  14:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking good already, you seem to have things in hand. The only reason it is "Start", is that none of the protects have reassessed it. Click on the project banner templates on the talk page and look for their "assessments" pages. Most will have a list you can add the article to ask for a reassessment. I would be very suprised if any rate it less than B. Might be worth going directly to Good article nomination - some reviewers would pass it, and if not, they should give specific reason why not that you can then fix.Yobmod (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time, Yobmod. I will give it a shot on Wikipedia:GAN (partly because I can't figure out how to request a reassessment on the WikiProject pages, hahah). Louis Waweru  Talk  09:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Need help to review this subpage before making it live.

Hi,

I am a wiki newbie. I have written a subpage http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Latbsol/newszz_of_subpage. I would appreciate if you can review and provide comments on if something needs to be changed. I particularly had difficulty with references, since some references have been repeated more than once in the article and it shows up as duplicates under the references section.

I would very much like to have your comments and make required changes before I can publish the page.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latbsol (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the referencing (change ref to ref name=xxx to make duplicate refs). However, i strongly advise not posting this to mainspace yet - it would certainly be deleted. The problem is "notability": the references to Newzz.com can be used to show it exists, and prove some things about the site, but only independant reliable sources can show notability. As it is such a new website, these may not exist yet: you need articles from newspapers/magazines/respectedwebsites (not blogs) that discuss Newzz.com.

Posting it now and having it deleted will make it liook like advertising, and damage it's future chances fof recreation if it becomes more well-known.Yobmod (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion:NPOV and FRINGE?

There is a persistant debate going on as to the neutrailty, refrence accurace, and recent/history balance. It seems that the main issue has been between ScienceApologist and Pcarbonn. It has already been through mediation and has yet to come to a consensus. The issue at heart is question of neutrality and fringe issues. this should have high priority and idealy should be looked at in less than 12 hours from this posting.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems the NPOV problems are being upheld at the GA review, so the tags seem appropriate at this time. My brief reading showed the article to be very much slanted towards cold fusion being true, which i'm guessing is causing the problems.
The changes needed are to large for the scope of WP:FEED, sorry!.Yobmod (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rectilinear Research Corporation

Rectilinear Research Corporation was a leading manufacturer of high fidelity loudspeakers from approx. 1966 to 1977, and the brand received many positive reviews from the press and users. Their products are still in high demand.

I am requesting input on whether this is a subject matter that meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and if so, if there are any obvious problems or issues with the formatting or content of the article.

Thank you!

--Njord Noatun (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

quick notes:

Citation should go at the end of the sentences, or after the next convenient punctuation (unless you are citing the use of a specific word)

The problem this article will face is the notability issues, it needs a source that speak about the company in detail. The current sources are useful, but show limited notability for the products and not the company itself. A company of this size must have sources about it's founding / closure in newspapers, they would be perfect. Without these sources, it is a possible deletion candidate, although it might survive by implied notability due to it's large product range.

The quote boxes about specific products make it look far to like an advertisment. I would severly shorten them, convert to paraphrasing (ie, Revews said it was xxx ynd yyy) and incorperate into the text. Advertising is likely to annoy editors and push them toward deletion (if the company no longer exists, this will be less of a problem).

Avoid using "We" as in "We believe". Either the fact is true, or it should be re-written to match the source. If the source is just that they stopped making products, rewrite as "the last product was xxx in 1977, the company closed shortly thereafter". (Still needs a cite, but sounds better)

Thanks for yout constructive and useful feedback. I will certainly edit the entry to reflect your comments as far as I can (citation format, quote boxes). The one thing I cannot do is to provide "better" sources, at least not at this point: All history about this company is, or is about to get, lost - there is very little printed information about this company (beyond manuals, ads and reviews - which hardly can be seen as commercial content as the company has been defunct for over 30 years) known to exist. As there is nothing left than brochures, manuals, reviews and ad scans from a company's operations, isn't it better to use it than to not have any sources at all?

A quick Google search will reveal that there is very little independent, quality information available (and 90% of what is is probably referenced to my work posted elsewhere). I chose to place the independent review quotes in boxes to keep them separate from the more "neutral" text, but because it was independent evidence of notoriety, I wanted to have it included in some detail.

This Wikepedia article is probably the most authoritative article on this company anywhere: If it gets deleted, it will get lost, perhaps forever: Hopefully, once I have edited it according to your comments, the risk is reduced that this will happen.

Thank you.

--Njord Noatun (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes sources are difficult to find, but wouldn't local papers have at least something on the founding and closure? If they are a notable company, the local community would have nbeen effectedn no?Yobmod (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will cast my source search "net" more widely to come up with a wider variety of sources, and amend the entry accordingly. Thanks for the feedback.

--Njord Noatun (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Wornum, Wm. Knabe & Co., Timothy Gilbert, Frederick Mathushek

I think these articles I wrote about 19th century piano manufacturers are more or less complete at this point, but they include brief descriptions of technical details and so might benefit from attention from someone not as familiar with the subject. - Mireut (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Boys in Red Tragedy

Hi. I am a rather inexperienced editor here on Wikipedia and this is the first article I have done major expansion too. I was wondering if I could get some pointers/comments on a few things.

  1. Writing - This tends to be me weak point. I would much appreciate feedback on my writing style and the flurry of grammar and spelling mistakes in the article!
  2. Referencing - Am I referencing everything correctly, are some of my references not reliable?
  3. Images - Is the Image:2008 Bathurst Crash.PNG free to use? What is the status on images created by the Canadian government?
  4. Name - Is the name of the article appropriate or should it be changed back to 2008 Bathurst van collision?

Thanks in advance. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the difficulty of the subject matter, you've succeeded in several respects. The overall result is hardly one that will draw serious editorial criticism.
  • 1) Most of the writing comments would relate to small matters, such as using "October" in one place and "Oct." in another, a hyphen in one place, and an en-dash in another. I.e., things so trivial they might not be noticed.
  • 2) The references are complete enough in detail and in whole. The reputability of the sources is fine.
  • 3) I'm not an expert on TV image copyright, however I think your suspicion is correct, that photo is not available for free use. The justification doesn't seem strong, or correctly couched. This is worth mentioning, because your justifications for your own photos might excite some attention as well because, for example, they lack a description. It's worth knowing that there is a group in Wikipedia that feels many existing photos should be removed; for their sake, if nothing else, it's worth following the "letter of the law" as closely as possible. I don't know that my justification for this photo is perfect [1], but to this point, I've never had my photo uploads challenged.
  • 4) The article name is fine. If there is another common name people use to search for it, a redirect link can be created.
There are two other somewhat important issues with the article. Although this article neatly ties in accident data, social implications, and legislative responses, there are still places where it reads like a memorial piece, and this generally unsuitable for Wikipedia. (Consult with WP:NOT.) An encyclopedia is not a suitable place to express one's grief. Although they read well, sentences such as "Cleland's parents stated that the boys were laughing and having a good time." are questionable (unless somehow, the boys' state was related to the cause of the accident, for example). The details of the funeral are similar. The tributes on Facebook and YouTube are also pretty much out-of-place in Wiki, in part because issues can arise with Facebook and YouTube links. The External Link to the Facebook tribute is not correct and should be deleted, for several reasons described in WP:LINKSTOAVOID.
The other comment is easy to fix, and you'll probably find it to your convenience if you do much Wiki editing, which is that it's better to make several changes to an article, then "save" once. [2] Otherwise it creates a complicated editing history that is difficult for later editors to work with. On Oct. 30, for example you made a couple dozen changes in about an hour. When I have changes that complicated, I use "Show preview" -- and also cut-and-paste a copy of my work-in-process to my computer, in case something goes wrong with the edit.
But all-in-all, it's a worthwhile article. Except for the last point, if you hadn't mentioned you were an inexperienced editor, I wouldn't have guessed it. Hope to see more of your work! Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll try to fix up some of the typing errors in the article as well as figure out the copyright status of the first image. As for the reading like a memorial section Il try to change the wording all together or simply remove it. Thanks again. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations and Permissions.

If quoting or referencing (and having properly cited it) a source (for example, a book or newspaper), is it necessary to obtain explicit permission from the author or publisher in order to include a quote or reference to it in the Wikipedia article? I am thinking NO, but if so, why not? Can someone point me to a Wiki link detailing what is required in terms of permissions in the context of quotes?

Thanks.

--Njord Noatun (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Non-free content. Basically, due to Wikipedia's own copyright, it is necessary for the bulk text of an article to be freely reproducable. Small quotes for illustrating an opinion or a point are OK, but not large quotes. The policy goes into more detail, but even US law is pretty hazy on this point. So, if you actually needed to get an author's permission, it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia (unless that permission came by releasing it into the public domain or under a free license). The policy I cited goes into reason for this system. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks! So if I write in an article: "W.A. Mozart was born in Salzburg, Austria in 1756", and quote the source for these facts, there is no requirement on me having acquired the specific permission from the author for having used this information for my article?

--Njord Noatun (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first recognize there is a difference between quoting a source and citing a source. Quoting a source is when you copy exactly what the source said. Citing a source is when you include a citation to back up a piece of information. Neither requires requires permission from the author, unless you're trying to quote an entire page of a book! Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Adecco

Hello

I have up-dated the adecco content. Can someomen check it and make it then availabel for all?

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CorpComOnline (talk • contribs) September 29, 2008

First there appears to be a conflict of interest by some of the authors because it is written in a somewhat overly promotional tone (worldwide leader in human resources), and some of the material reads like a prospectus. I would also recommend converting all of the timeline information to prose from a list style. Write the history of the company as full paragraphs instead of just simple bullets. You should also request deletion of Image:Revenue.JPG as the pie chart doesn't really show much, is largely composed of the legend, should be in SVG format, and because the image lacks a title and has a vague general name could get easily lost were it to become disconnected from the article. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Feed back on Doug Sutherland (American politician) article

Hi, I would just like some feedback on the editing going on with the Doug Sutherland (American politician) page. There is currently some debate about the "career" portion of this article, and removal of verifiable information. I am pretty new to Wikipedia, but I have tried to correctly cite information from multiple sources, and avoid adjectives or vague terms. There is some dispute over whether or not the information presented is appropriate for this section. Any feedback on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babetheazurezebu (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be a content dispute and should be taken to dispute resolution. لennavecia 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Would like some feedback on Christine Dean (British psychiatrist) article

Hi all, this is my first larger contribution, so I want to make sure I have all the references etc right: User:Mediatoad/Draft_Christine_Dean. Any feedback welcome. Thanks --Mediatoad (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the cosmetic side of things, references should come after the punctuation and should be formatted as noted at WP:CIT, which is a page that provides templates to assist in the formatting, however you don't have to use these templates, but the page still does well to show how the finished refs should be formatted. Also, check out WP:LAYOUT. The article should be split into sections. لennavecia 19:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Civitan International

Over the past 5 or 6 months, I have been expanding the Civitan International article (a before and after is here). I would like some feedback about what else the article needs, so that it can at least be moved up to a B-class article. I think it could use more reliable sources (the organization is notable, but not huge like Rotary International or Lions Clubs International, so it is hard to find lots of published material). I would also like to add a few more modern photos, like a picture of the Civitan International Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham that studies developmental disabilities. Please let me know any other suggestions. SU Linguist (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely a B-class article, in my opinion. With a bit of work, it could be a Good Article. A few more sources and some tightening of the prose and it would be set. لennavecia 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback Regarding New Article...

I would like to construct an article about a non-profit organization with which I am affiliated. I have read the new user guidelines and have also examined the COI information. Unfortunately, this information was not very clear to me. Would I, as a member of the board of directors of said non-profit, be able to write the prospective article without a COI as I am not, could not and will not personally benefit from the prospective article?

Many thanks..

Mrt7733 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can write it as long as you do so within our policies and guidelines, paying particular attention to WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. We call that alphabet soup :P. Basically, in that order, it means that the organization must be notable, as established with reliable third-party sources, unrelated to the organization; all claims likely to be challenged as well as all statistics and related information must be verifiable; and we do not allow any original research, meaning if it has not already been published by a reliable source, we do not publish it, even if you know it to be true. For Wikipedia, it's about verifiability, not truth. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, the help desk or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page with your question(s) below it. Regards, لennavecia 19:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack O'Connell (actor)

I've significantly expanded and referenced the article for Jack O'Connell (actor), but am not sure what to do next to improve it. Any feedback would be hugely helpful. PretzelsTalk! 02:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be expanded with any available information on his early/personal life. Any available information on critical acclaim or criticism. And then the lead needs to be expanded to cover all of it. لennavecia 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That's fantastic Jennavecia, thanks for the advice. PretzelsTalk! 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I "broadcast" my article so that I can get others to see it/ develop it further?

Any ideas? My new submission (and I'm not an expert at this, a newbie) is "postpartisan"...is there a way to "promote" the topic to users or is that at the discretion of randomness? Thanks. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Postpartisan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 333dreamer (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a cleanup tag to it. That puts it in a category that alerts other editors to its need for cleanup. I also made a couple little fixes. لennavecia 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Linking other articles to your new submission will also direct people to it. I added one to National Agenda Document Project, which seemed to be the only place where the term is currently used on Wikipedia. SU Linguist (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your antidiscrimination policy for business listings?

Hello,

What policy to you use to decide why to allow certain businesses or products to be listed on Wikipedia, and not others?

We are a small company who's product listing was just rejected "because Wikipedia is not a directory," but we see listings for similar products in Wikipedia, such as: Adobe Captivate Camtasia Studio

It feels like we are being discrimitated against because we are a small company. Otherwise, the moderator's comment in rejection was either invalid or incomplete.

Can we speak with a moderator who can work with us on this? If it's a "style and tone" issue, we are more than willing to make any necessary changes.

We don't want to feel like we're being unfairly excluded from Wikipedia due to our small size.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

Chris Peterson chris@morsebest.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.146.163 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this. I will respond on user's talk page. لennavecia 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Concept album

I have not made any major changes to this article because it is such a mess I'm not sure where to begin. Most of the article is taken up by a prose list of concept albums and much of the rest reads like original research. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I have attempted to start a dialog on the article's talk page. I also mentioned it at the WPP:MUSIC noticeboard but in the past I haven't gotten much participation from posting there. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Probability amplitude

I think I have improved this article quite a bit, and cleaned it up considerably, but I am worried that some people might find it hard to understand, though I have tried my best to make it clear and easy. This is an extremely important idea, and I was aiming to give a good understandable definition at the top, and a couple of clear and relevant examples below. Could I have some comment on how it needs to improve? —Kan8eDie (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to AaCBrown, who has now reviewed the article and commented on my talk page (now moved to the article page). The couple of edits and comments since my rewrite have been very helpful in resolving issues with the lead, so I am grateful for all the help. —Kan8eDie (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IRS Article Edit

I edited the IRS article several days ago and now my entire edit is gone...I was wondering why? The edit was in the section "Legal Status and Authority" I was my first edit as a new contributor so perhaps I missed something.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remembrancenow (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! It is good to have new contributors, so keep coming back. Your edit was interesting, but I could not quite work out what it was trying to say; it seems that I was not alone in this, as someone else moved the edit. At the top of each page, there is a tab for 'discussion' on the article; your edit was placed there: the system here is that when someone disputes your edits, you can have a discussion about the material; the article will then ultimately be edited in response to that. The talk thread for your edit is here. We try not to bite newcomers, but your edit might still not be accepted even if you do try defending it; in this case, don't be discouraged, since there is probably all sorts of good stuff you do to help which would be greatly appreciated. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Official (tennis)

I wrote most of this article last December. It was my first foray into starting a stand alone article from scratch. I have toyed with it from time to time since, but I lack the experience to know what to do to really bring it to the next level. Being a tennis official myself, it is hard for me to gauge which parts need more development and which need less.

In short I would like some guidance into how this article should be fleshed out. --Greenguy1090 (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is good. It lacks a bit of polish, so maybe a copy-edit would help it a bit, but the facts are all there with suitable references, and it looks like a sufficiently broad coverage to be useful to someone interested in tennis officials. Well done, and thanks for the good article. I can't think of anything beyond a bit of tweaking of what is already there. —Kan8eDie (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request that said article exist in wikipedia

That C B Tempest's book exists! It exists on the Waterstone's computer database and so Amazon's as `Trouble: the King's Cross Journals'. Could an administrator please okay this, my name, for Wikipedia.Chaztempest (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Requested articles, also note that merely existing is not enough for inclusion in wikipedia. You need to provide enough sources so that someone could write a neutral, verifiable article. See also Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?, and finally Wikipedia:Username policy, because unless you are the author then you can't use that name. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism

I have been editing this article since I joined Wikipedia. I've noticed an editing war is going on. I've managed to get some of my edits to stay. Yet I'm quite frustrated. I would really appreciate someone with more experience reviewing my edits and, if possible, giving me some tips on effective methods of editing controversial articles. Thanks. LombrizFeliz (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally i find the best way to approach controvertial articles is to act overly reasonable and make all edits in small amounts. So tagging uncited sentences, making the case for them needing cites on the talk page using non-confrontational language, and waiting a few days before removing. Most edit wars disappear when the editors don't feel they have something to "win".

It might take a few weeks to get rid of all the OR, but the article will then be stable, and it is then much easier to make bigger changes. Using lots of "Added cite tags, please see talk" and "Rmvd uncited material per talk page" in edit summaries also seems to attract a better class of editors - eventually the number removing OR vastly outnumbers those that want it there.

I'll watch list the page for the next few days and add my opinions to any edits that get reverted. See you on the talk page!Yobmod (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I may request or feedback to wiki team that add a new search bar on every topics or articals ,,,, cause this search bar willbe good for search about the topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeelgilgity (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a place to discuss that. I'll leave a message on user's talk. Killiondude (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
And there is a search bar to the left (<---), that works from whichever article you are looking at.Yobmod (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Community Acupuncture Network (userspace)

I'd like a suggestion for what would make this article more publish-worthy.

The article seeks to describe/note the fastest growing public acupuncture organization in the world. (as of the writing of this request)

The Community Acupuncture Network is noteworthy for its advocating of vast reduction of industry market rates for acupuncture treatments, for the purpose of greater access to care. All while creating a large number of viable acupuncture clinics and jobs for under-employed practitioners within a very short period of time (2 years).

Several well-known independent sources have written/filmed/recorded programs about this burgeoning movement, including NPR radio, Utne reader magazine, YES magazine and WMUR TV in Manchester, NH.

Regards,

Canboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canboard (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  • This looks like a good start to the article, but there are a few issues as well as good points. Firstly, your sources are very good for an article of such a length, and very credibly demonstrate notability. The article however does read somewhat like an advertisement, and your username strongly suggests that you work for the organisation, which is a problem. Given the good news coverage, I suggest you put the article up with the {{advertisement|article}} tag to alert readers, then change your username so it is clear that you are only representing yourself, not your organisation. To improve the article, using the <ref> system to put inline citations to the news sources would be helpful, to make it clear that the claims made are not purely written by the organisation itself.
    Just out of interest, I am guessing that you added the news sources after the speedy deletion?
    —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

StrawberryNET

Hi, It's Mandy. I have joined wikipedia this month(October 2008)and do not very familar with the wiki editing user application. But I often use Wikipedia for doing projects and assignments when I was in college; and find the meaning of unknown terms when I works. haha I would like write an article about my company, StrawberryNET.com. It is an online cosmetics company in Hong Kong. Here is the draft

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Mandyngan/draft_of_my_article

ThanksMandy (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a good start for an article, but you need to get more sources together before spending more time on it. The problem is that at the moment you have some statements from the company (the Companies Knowledge and Ethical Business Bureau entries are clearly written by StrawberryNET) along with a couple of random blog posts. Essentially, there are strong guidelines on Wikipedia regarding what topics are considered notable enough to be covered, and these hinge on having good, impartial sources ready to attest that the brand is indeed not only well-known, but also significant in some way. So, the first priority before you can put this up is to get a couple (or maybe even just one) significant mention in a reliable source. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodland, California

I did major work on this article in the latter part of the summer. At that point, I didn't know how I could get input from other editors as to how to improve upon the article. I have been tinkering with it in little bits since then. I just found this "Requests for feedback" page right now, and I thought this would be an appropriate place for me to see what else could be added to make it more substantive. I'd like to get this to a B-class at least. Perhaps even to a Good Article status. Any input would be appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently reviewed WP:BCLASS and felt that Woodland, California met each of the six criteria to be listed as B-Class. However, I would still appreciate any feedback on the article, and ways to improve it. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Definitely B-Class (but not GA). It is a very solid article though, with some good sources, and plenty of information and data, nicely organised. Stylistically, the biggest problem is the lead, which has a lot of very short sentences. For the paragraph to flow, there should be a logical grouping of facts or train of thought, which is brought out by connecting clauses. Joining sentences discussing similar ideas, and carefully considering the order of ideas, which should be based on priority, not convenience, should help you to work on this. I am not saying the lead section is bad, but simply not as good as it could be.
The rest of the article is good, with (as far as I thoroughly read) the first few sections being sufficiently sourced. However, one thing I noticed was that there seems to be a lot of duplication of some data. For example, the co-ordinates of the city are given in three places, and the area at least twice, so the whole section 'Geography' could perhaps be cut out.
So, overall, well done on a great article. The information there should be enough to get it to a 'good article', but little copyedits like these would be needed. —Kan8eDie (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving some feedback. Its nice to have another's perspective. I'll work on the things you listed. Thanks again! Killiondude (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Day of the Imprisoned Writer

Day of the Imprisoned Writer

Any ideas what the next step for article might be? Thanks! JohnRussell (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the list of honoured writers? If it is a subpage of the source in the references, then would be better to cite it directly after each entry, or each year.
How are the writers chosen? Who does the choosing? Do the sources say? What do they get, just a name on a piece of paper, or an award or prize? Does the list get notice in Newspapers etc, each year? If so, i would guess that they might have spokesmen commenting from the various countries - are any of the honourees controversial?
If there are few sources, it may be an idea to tabulate the list and it could become a featured list, otherwise the sources should be used to expand the prose part, and sections made once it becomes much longer.

Check out the featured lists for how award type lists can be set out. EgList of Academy Award-winning foreign language films or Lambda Literary Awards winners and nominees for science fiction, fantasy and horror. Let me know if you want help with formatting.Yobmod (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity

I came to post a bio on a government official but got to looking around...

I posted an article for consideration here a couple years ago (I don't remember my account) about a person I interviewed for a trade. He's released 12 albums in the past 30 years, has had songs on television and radio, has been listed in Marquis Who's Who of Entertainment, World, America, Finance and Industry, and in the West (as well as other publishers); has been published several times for that matter, but I didn't include that; and has a list of awards.

He came out of retirement (retired at 34) under a different stage name, started a record label, and has been successfully touring the past 4 years (well 2 at the time).

I thought it pretty much fell in your guidelines covering credibility, public interest, etc., but I came to look and its nowhere to be found; but yet you have listings on people who are, comparatively, nobodies.

I find this a curiosity and have changed my mind about future contributions.


R. Montana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.232.84 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • This definitely sounds like an article we would want to keep. If you tell us its name, we can check back over the deletion logs and see why it was deleted. Perhaps there was just some small infraction of policy that caused the policy, and the article would have stayed if you had been there to defend it. It is never too late to restore your work, if there was no reason for deleting it that still holds.
    Any worthwhile contributions are always appreciated, so do stay and help, but be aware that sometimes you do have keep watching articles you have created to ensure that steady modifications by others don't degrade the quality of the article down to nothing. Vandalism and well-meaning but incompetent editing is sadly common, and it is a slow and continual little task to remove it.
    On the plus side, we allow everyone to edit because of the valuable articles people create, and we would certainly want to investigate your first article if you tell us its name, and encourage you to sign up with an account and make more. —Kan8eDie (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidhblair/San Francisco Contemporary Music Players

This is my first article for Wikipedia. What more should I do to make it ready for submission? Davidhblair (talk)

Very good start! A few links to check out: read about our lead sections and wikilinking. If you have the sources in hand, page numbers for the print sources would be great. Always include all available information as seen at WP:CIT, which also provides helpful templates, if you should feel so inclined to use them.
Also, include some information from recent sources. The addition of a critical acclaim section could be filled with info from this review as well as any others you may find. Here's an update about Adam Frey leaving. This may or may not be something to mention. Lastly, for the use of their website, I realize that the url does not change regardless of where you go on the site, as they use FLASH, however, some navigational information regarding where you pulled information from is needed to direct users to the content. :) لennavecia 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Survival Project

I rewrote the summary but now I am completely clueless as to what to do next. Also if anyone could help me with consistent formatting, that would help too. Thanks! →Kyosuke Aoki∙♫talk∙contribs♪ 07:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Video gaming for some ideas on what the basic article structure should, what content is expected out of a featured video game article. I'm not sure what an example of a recent featured article but following StarCraft having brief sections for Gameplay and a Synopsis seem reasonable, and definitely the development of the game and any adaptations made, and cultural impact if available. Try to find additional sources for all of that material and just read whatever you can about it and post as much reliable sourced information as you can. I also recommend you format all of the weblinks you provided using WP:Citation templates. You should also consider taking this to WP:WikiProject Video games and see what their members suggest. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nose (short story)

Just wanted thoughts on the article... obviously. Scapler (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to link my website to the "external links" section of pages regarding the Maya, Mayan Studies, Mesoamerican Calendar etc. It is my desire to add my external link where ever applicable. I was prevented by automatic response. I think it says I have to sign on with an account before this is allowed. Is this true? Here is my website for your review. http://2012mayancalendar.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.185.80 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The site is interesting, but seems more geared towards selling calendars than serving as a good encyclopaedic source. I think most editors would agree that it might not be useful for most readers, so I suggest at the moment you follow the tool's advice and leave off with the links. In general though you are free to edit nearly all articles without an account, and if you have good contributions to make, particularly adding new content to the article or improving current text, do feel free to contribute.— Kan8eDie (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Harbec plastics

I have created and edited so many versions of this article- Harbec Plastics all of which have been deleted (speedily). My latest version is on my own page User:kateetak. I have seen numerous companies on Wikipedia and have tried to model the article after them. This company has a lot of merit and should be recognized for it's actions. I understand Wikipedia's concerns with copyright/spam and am trying hard to format the article with all of those things in mind. I am greatful for any insight. Kateetak (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like you should be able to get the article to stay, but there are a few problems to look at. I guess that the most urgent problem from the admins' point of view is the copy-and-paste you have done. While it shows an admirable desire to stay close to sources, we aren't allowed to do that, so I have taken the liberty of editing your page to remove some of the more blatant paragraphs, but if there are more, do remove them, or restate in your own words. The article as such seems to be mainly based off two sources, the plasticstoday.com article and the SCORE one, which are good. Using those, you should be able to put together a quick summary of the company and have another go at putting it up. Any more newspaper articles you can find that give it significant mention would also be very good. This is a good start, and I hope you can get your contributions accepted.— Kan8eDie (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Brainerd

I have a couple questions.

1. I cannot figure out how to upload an image to my wiki entry. Can someone please explain it to me?

2. How do I add that box on the right side of my page with small links and info in it?

3. I seem to be unable to edit the first line of text. When I go to the edit page it disappears. How can I edit that?

4. I hope I'm doing this correctly. Does everything look alright? Is there enough info?

Thank you so much for your help and insite.

Blackanguskhan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

one more question, how do I get the title BRAINERD to go at the top of the page. THANKS!

96.42.3.221 (talk)

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not indiscriminate. Unless your band satisfies our minimum criteria for notability (found here), it will not be allowed to be put up. The rules are that if you put up the article without making any attempt to satisfy any of the twelve points on the list (which could be done for example by citing two or three newspaper articles about to the band), then it will be speedily deleted. I am sorry if this happens, but if you don't think you will be able to satisfy the criteria, I suggest you hold off spending too much time on this.
    From Q3, it seems that you may not have quite realised that you are editing the current version in your 'userspace', an area that belongs to you and is not part of the main encyclopaedia. The top line gives the title of the article and is automatically generated; if you were to 'put the article up' (move it into the main space), then that would change automatically to the name you had given the article.
    I general, it looks like you have a good interest in improving WP, so if you plan to get more involved, you might want to have a read around WP:Help and WP:Welcome, where your questions are answered.— Kan8eDie (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help. Makes sense. According to the worthy content section I beleive we're OK. Because Brainerd released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). So that's OK. I can't upload an image because my account is too new (4-day rule.) So I'll have to wait for that. My one question here is how do I post the box with info in it on the page? I'll keep looking. Thanks!

Blackanguskhan (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

List of improvisational theatre companies

So, I'm new to Wikipedia, but have decided to take it upon myself to clean up and dusty little niche here: Improvisational comedy. One of the things I'd like to do is make a usable list of notable improv organizations around the world. However, a terrible, terrible list aleady exists. There are a few reasons why I think it is a bad article (not wikified, full of external and red links, missing many notable troupes included in Wikipedia already, etc), but most importantly, I think that the list being divided by geography is utterly useless. Most of the troupes are concentrated in a few states, and it just doesn't seem very helpful at all. I think it would be much better if the groups were divided by type of troupe (major professional, professional, collegiate, guerilla, other, etc). I suppose my question is if it would be breaking any formatting guidelines if I reordered them this way? Does anyone have any guidance? SMSpivey (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One great way to organize them would be in a wikitable. If you take a look at, say, List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama, which happens to be a Featured List candidate, one can see that the table is great for laying out information. You could change the columns to whatever you'd like (name, location, type of troupe, and so on). It would be a lot of work, but you could do that for the list you have asked about. For example, in the Alabama list you can click on any column header and it will sort the information in alphabetical order based on what you've clicked. If you did group each section in the List of improvisational theatre companies into a wikitable, then each table could be sorted however the person wants to sort it (by type of troupe, location, etc.). I'm tired, and I think that suggestion may have been confusing. Hopefully you get what I was trying to say. Killiondude (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Brainerd

Please look over the page I've put together on my user space and let me know what I need to do make it "proper" for Wikipedia. Thanks for your time!

Blackanguskhan (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters please see WP:Notability (music) for what criteria your band needs to have in order to have their own article. If the band does meet the criteria, references have to be included to prove that they meet notability standards for Wikipedia. A quick glance at what you've written on your user page shows that the lead paragraph is very promotional in tone and Wikipedia isn't about advertising. Also you seem to have overlinked a lot of words. Simple nouns like "cars", "guitars", "vocals" (etc.) don't have to be linked a thousand times, (in the case of "cars", it shouldn't have a wikilink at all because it has no relevance to the main topic of the article).
I would also say (if your band meets notability requirements, and this actually ends up being an article) that you should remove a lot of the extraneous info from the history section. You don't need a new subsection for each year your band has been active. Killiondude (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Brainerd is a "notable" band because we've had two records put out on larger indie labels of credibility. I've deleted most of the extemporaneous material. Please look it over and let me know if you think it's ready. Thanks very much for your assistance!! (is the link to each record label with our album reference enough?)

Blackanguskhan (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It still needs reliable, published sources from third parties. So please provide references for all the info in it. One other thing of concern is that it includes a lot of external links in the article portion. Perhaps you could find Wikipedia articles on those subjects, and replace the external link with an "internal" wikilink. See WP:MUSTARD (MUsic STAndaRDs) for more info on how to format the article correctly. Killiondude (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, the section "Name" could go to just a sentence in the history paragraph.— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to move the page to Brainerd and need an admin to do so. Apparently, because I am an imperfect human being, I moved the page to "braienrd" which is incorrect. I would like the page to link to the pre-existing Brainerd pages. Who should I contact for this move? Blackanguskhan (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody already has. See Brainerd (band). The typo page is now a redirect to the propertly titled article. Killiondude (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's UP! Cool! Thanks a lot for all your help and insite. I've learned a lot and plan on doing more wiki things. Don't be surprised if you see articles for everything on our page soon. Thanks again!!

Blackanguskhan (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lake Ralphine, Santa Rosa, Ca.

This lake is named after Ralphine North, wife to Mark McDonald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.147.113 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -Optigan13 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Monroe Doctrine

I have added and updated some 20-odd links (also discussed in the discussion page). Added several links to the sources and where possible a boggle books link to the exact page in question (especially in quotations in the text). Also changed the text of the 'Criticism Section' as the criticisms offered were not verifiable or referenced. Instead I re-wrote the sentence to exclude authors that were not referenced and only left the authors that were and added correct references to the texts. See also comparative layout of the change in question: Page Comparison So, I think the article is now ready to be released with the disclaimer on the top as it should have the required standard of factual verification. Ssoulakiotis (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and added specific inline fact and weasel tags for where clarification or citations are needed and removed the less specific header level tag. I would try to move away from the Britannica sources where possible because Wikipedia shouldn't reuse another encyclopedia. I think this is also why it has some weasel words where it says critics, but doesn't specify who they are or any publications critical of the Monroe Doctrine. I've added fact tags for where presidents and other US officials invoked the Doctrine as there should be something where they pretty much specifically invoke the Doctrine. The whole paragraph around América para los americanos needs some kind of citation. There are several books listed in the further reading which I'm guessing could be used to back a lot of the text, and that is likely the next logical step is to integrate those books with inline citations. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wildfire

I've spent a few months and have over 300 edits on this article. I'm getting close to the end but would like to know if I'm going in the right direction. Thanks. MrBell (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • First off is yes the article is in a good state, but as I'm sure you know it's tough to get an important topic like this to meet all of the needs of a global encyclopedia. I didn't even try to address the globalization tag as I'm from California so I would likely overemphasize California and US wildfires.
  • I've tried to trim the images down a bit to avoid image stack-ups and to limit it to images that explain the concepts in the text. I would also trim the external links to what is necessary as it is currently a link farm. My guess is only some of the educational and research ones would hang around (WP:EL). The hard part is likely cleaning up the two sections (Wildfire#Detection and Wildfire#Goals) which have reference tagging. Detection looks like it came from some kind of published research or guidelines and needs to be cited. In the same detection section, do you mean disabled in geostationary orbits, when the article says "desabiled in geostationary orbits"? In addition to more references, Detection and Goals could also use some wikification to make sure the right concepts are linked.
  • I would integrate the fast attack section into the more general direct attack section and remove the fast attack heading to keep the heading levels somewhat reasonable.
  • This is the first time I've seen the {{rp}} template, and personally I prefer the notes, citations, bibliography style like in the recent Harvey Milk FA, but switching those citations around can wait until you take this to WP:Peer Review. Although there is an external link in Wildfire#Control lines which needs a citation template.
  • With the Notable fires section, I would remove it outright and just leave the link to the list article. You should try to integrate as many of the links from the see also into the main article, and then look into either removing the links altogether or creating a navigation template for all the articles linked and what the scope they all fall under for.
  • After you've addressed the referencing in the sections, the image layout, and wikification; I would recommend setting aside some time and taking this to WP:Peer review for a much more lengthy and involved review of this article which is probably what is required at this stage in the article's development. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Morello discography

I would like to get some feedback on this discography article, mainly on the 'As The Nightwatchman' and the 'Other apperences' section. Roger Workman (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearances was misspelled so I corrected that(missing an a), I also did some formatting on that table. With respect to the intro a lot of his earlier career info doesn't have references, especially going to school with members of Tool and his early RATM bandmates. Linking to a wiktionary is a bit unusual, but that's an easy change if it comes up at FL nomination. The album names are unevenly linked in that section and I'm thinking some of them are singles and not full blown albums. I would take this to WP:WikiProject Music and have them help with an additional review of the material as they would be more familiar with discography work. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

International Chinese Martial Arts Championship (ICMAC)

My first article...User:Kungfulist/ICMAC I'm asking for feedback. I haven't rounded up my references yet, and I still have to cross link to other pages (and fix some that are already cross linked). Other than that, am I headed in the right direction? Thanks. Kungfulist (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on your first article! There are a few things that I would suggest. References help establish notability which is what determines if something should be included in Wikipedia or not. So before you do any more work, perhaps find some sources. Beyond that, I think that some of the short paragraphs (of 1-2 sentences) could be combined to form a more flowing piece of writing. The section titled "Reaction Skilled Competitions" probably shouldn't have each of the skills as a subsection. Instead you could write it out in normal prose, wikilinking the skills as well as providing a concise definition for each one. Actually, you might want to cut down on all the subsections that don't have more than a few sentences in each. The article would be formatted better, and read more smoothly if things were more together instead of different sections. You might also want to check out WP:Martial arts, the Martial Arts WikiProject that has guidelines for everything about martial arts on Wikipedia. I skimmed through some of the WikiProject, and it says to place {{Chinese martial arts}} on every page dealing with Chinese martial arts (which your new article falls into that category). I think you've done a pretty good job for this being your first article, however. If anybody else has feedback for this article (I may have missed something), then please feel free to add. Killiondude (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles Police Department

I have made many improvements to this page over the past few months (as documented on the page's historybut can't seem to bring it up to where it can be considered a feasible good article candidate. I would like some advice on how to improve it (especially the intro). Thanks. Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

I have not had time to read it thoroughly, but a few things jump out at me:
  • There are lots of short (tiny) sections, particularly under 'Organisation'. The text-to-heading ratio in, for example, 3 and 4 is much better.
  • The sources are extremely biased: virtually every citation is from the LAPD website or other government sites. These are good to have, but should be balanced by much more other material.
  • To get a good lead, think about what the article is trying to say, then summarise that. Your first paragraph in particular should talk about the LAPD itself, while your writing suggests that readers are more interested in the New York City Police Department, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Chicago Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In other words, lists like this draw focus from the subject of the article and should go later in the article. Consider adding a couple more paragraphs; certainly one on what the police department actually does would be good there: do they have lots of murders to deal with? Or is their biggest problem theft? What duties and crimes actually occupy the police force's time? This is important, and should be covered, as well as perhaps something on public perception (bear in mind that evaluations are very hard to write neutrally). I, as a reader, would want to know whether, for example, they were an extremely efficient police force, or had a reputation for a very low success rate.
  • Section 6 (awards) is a bit long. If you can't slim it down somehow (perhaps columns, or a table), then consider a breakout list. Also, I know virtually nothing about American police, but I find it surprising that each city would have its own set of awards (6) and rank structure (2.11). If this is shared with any other districts, moving that into a more general article would be good.
  • Section 7 has a lot of long lists where each item on the list is given very little discussion. I can't think right now exactly what the best thing to do there would be, but a re-organisation of some sort is called for.
This is a long list of rather demanding stuff to spit out like that, so I should emphasise that it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this, and there are several really good sections with some great writing. This is looking like it could turn out great, but I can't hide the fact that GA status is more than a couple of quick edits away. If you need more help or comments, do ask; when we dash off long daunting lists like this one, we are prepared here to give more guidance to follow up our own suggestions. Good luck!— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The streets at metcalf

I have written a small article, The streets at metcalf, and have included references. When I see my article, however, the references do not work. I realize that references are key to the success of Wikipedia, and this article will be unacceptable until the references are corrected. How do I make them work? I cannot find an edit link on the article page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Molsen91 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 January 2009

  • I have fixed a few problems with the article so that you can see how it is done, but it will take more than a single 2-minute reference on a local news channel to establish notability. If you have questions on how to go about finding more, do ask, but I should warn you that hardly any local malls are considered notable enough to have an article, so unless yours is doing something particularly specially in its redevelopment, you might find it very hard to find the sources needed. Good luck though! (To answer your last question, the edit link is displayed as a little tab at the top, and you can sign comments using ~~~~).— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comodo

Would very much appreciate feedback on page [Comodo]http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Comodo. I am a Comodo employee. Question 1: Someone has recently appended a section about a recent episode with one of our resellers issuing an invalid product. My boss, naturally, would like to see that section removed from the page. I question the motives of the person who posted it. What is the best way to proceed? Question 2: I referred question #1 to my sponsor. He posted a "conflict of interest" banner on the page. I would be delighted if non-employees updated the page and removed the whiff of conflict. How do I get them to do that? Question 3: If you go to the talk page of the Comodo entry, you see that this subject falls under the computing wikiproject. When I went to the computing wikiproject page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing I could not figure out what I should do first: request peer review? Destubbification? Do you have any suggestions? Katharine908 (talk)Katharine908 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and answer some of your questions, in the order you asked them.
  • The first thing that came to mind is the policy that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising". Which doesn't mean news about your company can't be reported, it just has to be in a neutral point of view. That being said, the same "neutral point of view" can be applied towards what your boss would like. We can't remove something from the article because it may "look bad" to Wikipedia readers... It does appear that the section you are referring to has been edited to provide more neutrality (as seen in this edit summary). The person who originally posted the content is an IP user, with no (from my quick scan of their contributions) past blocks or vandalism. However, IP addresses can rotate from time to time, so it could be another person who now has that number. The sources for the CertStar section are extremely questionable (a Google Group forum), but I did find a valid news article here about it.
  • I don't really see a conflict of interest in the article now. Originally posted, the CertStar section could be seen as one sided, but now the writing doesn't seem to portray your company in a negative fashion. You can be bold and add to the page yourself, as long as you keep the article neutral
  • I don't really know what you are asking in your third question. Are you trying to find somebody to add to the article? I've placed it "expand" tag onto it (asking for people to expand it), but the best option would be if you did it yourself. I could also lend a hand in bettering the article. Peer reviews are generally requested once the article has a substantive amount of content, which is not the case here. Destubbification basically places the article in a more specific category (articles on Wikipedia are placed in different categories for organizational reasons). Killiondude (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response Katharine908 (talk) I appreciate all your feedback. Of course I realize that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I also realize that with the unemployment rate at 6% in New Jersey it behooves me to find out if I can accomplish what my boss wants. I'm pretty sure you would, too. As I read Killiondude's comments, it is ok for me to expand the article myself as long as I keep the it neutral. I'll work on that today 01/02 and put edits on my talk page. If you check in there and have any helpful comments I will be very grateful. Happy new year. Katharine908 (talk)14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

StrawberryNET.com

Hi, I have rewritten the article after reading the wikipedia policy about Reliable Resources. The link of the secondary sources are also quoted in the article. Please review in the following links. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Mandyngan/draft_of_my_article Thanks Mandy (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We still have a problem: there are no secondary sources. Bizrate reviews are unsuitable, and the other two links at the bottom point to releases from the company, not independent writing. One mention on CNN is not enough to assure notability. This is better than the last try, but much more needs to be done before putting this up. Have they been featured in any fashion magazines? That might be somewhere you could look.— Kan8eDie (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Benchmark Electronics

I have created a new article about Benchmark Electronics, Inc. I am an employee of Benchmark Electronics, and I am trying to have the article reviewed for notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Because I have an obvious conflict of interest, I am trying to follow the guidelines from Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization page. I am confused about where I should post this for review. I posted it for review on the Drawing_board but then found this page as well. Where should I be posting this for review? What about for creation? Your help is appreciated. Thank you.TanKaram (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The article is a very good start. Unlike many first-time articles, you have started off without any junk, so from here on you just have to add, not look to take away any 'unencyclopaedic' material. The company is very large, so there should be no problems at all with notability. The first thing to do therefore is to get together a couple more references. Finding newspaper articles (solely on Benchmark, not just mentions) should be doable (paper is as good, if not better than, online). After that, I think the content that would interest me most would be expanded information on what exactly you make, any famous products or deals in the past, and a more comprehensive customer list.
    At this stage, I think it would make good sense to move straight into the main article space straight off, as this is a good enough article already (once the one to two more refs. are there).— Kan8eDie (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Dang it. Kan8eDie got to it first. Oh well :-) The only thing I would add, is that normally the references section is placed above the external links section. Just a minor formatting issue that can quickly be taken care of. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Kan8eDie and Killiondude, thanks for your feedback. I'll check for some paper references. I started out with some google research, but I guess I need to delve in a little deeper. Thanks again! TanKaram (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added a bit of information about Benchmark Electronics' customers to the article as well as expanded the references. Because of Killiondude's and Kan8eDie's comments, I am now looking for someone to move the article to the main article space. My understanding is that it is not a good idea for me to do this since I have a stated conflict of interest. I guess I will continue to contribute to the article through the talk page once it is moved. Is that the best way to proceed? TanKaram (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It should be fine, but I have done it anyway. It is a bad idea to have orphaned articles on WP as well, so if you can think of any pertinent links to add to the page, that would be useful. Regarding your conflict of interest, you have kept neutral so far, and it is stated up front on you userpage, so I would not worry about it; just keep editing as you have been (though use of the preview button to cut down on quite so many entries in the edit history would be useful, as well as occasional use of edit summaries).— Kan8eDie (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your help Kan8eDie. I found an article on using edit summaries. I'll also start using the preview :). As far as orphaned articles go, can you point me to a resource on that? What constitutes an orphaned article? Is it the categories it belongs to? Where can I read up on this? I was thinking of adding Benchmark Electronics to the Template:IT_giants template (under the Electronics manufacturers label), but reading the discussion for the template didn't make it clear what the criteria for inclusion were. TanKaram (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Jxc5/Charles_Lockwood

Please take a look at the article I created on my user space, regarding a historian, journalist - Charles Lockwood who's now known to be a Corporate Sustainability Strategist. I've tried to round up some references like newspaper articles and links. I'm not so sure if I'm headed in the right direction, or it would be approved for posting. Help please. I would truly appreciate your feedbacks. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxc5 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

--Maddali raghavarao (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)--Maddali raghavarao (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Chimakurthy


Chimakutrhy is near to Ongole,headquarters of prakasam district of Andhrapradesh. It is on the routemap of Ongole to kurnool .the route'is very busy one now. From ongole to chimakurthy distance is 22kms only. The chimakurth is mandalheadquarter.

Now the chimakurthy is recognised for its granitequarries in he world. From the 80's onwords the small village changed to multilevelled town. Now the chimakurthy is filled with metro culture.Now the people are belongs to various states and various districts. Here the Galaxy granite stone is main item which is exported to forien countries. Galaxy stones are available only in the area only. so that alloverworld so many people are visiting this aea on their business. 

Chimakurthy Seshagirirao is famous educationalist and freedom fighter of this village who is great author of many books. Chimakurthy is also famous for service to people. Here main service rendered by Lionsclub of chimakurthy which is inaugurated on 13/2/1990.The club started by eminent people.Dr.B.jawahar as chartered president and Maddali raghavarao as chartered secretary the club started. 
the chimakurthy is famous for not only Galaxy granites and also temples. Near to chimakurthy there is a temple at Ramatheertham .

Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

Please look at the article I created on my user space regarding this Polish family of immemorial nobility, Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan, which in the 18th century immemorial nobility represented only 5% of the noble population as a whole. Are there notability concerns with it? I referenced and sourced the material I found on the family for verification purposes. The are three known notable members of the family, and the article was written so each member's family and social background would not need to be redundantly explained in each article, as a link would be provided to this article.

Thank you for your time and any feedback. -- Exxess (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Would that page have anything to do with this lengthy AFD? And you seem to have posted your request above after posting a request here on the Drawing Board page for the same article in question. This sort of behavior is very indicative of forum shopping (as the user's response to you on the Drawing Board said). I also agree with the response given there in that you should submit this at Deletion Review, not on this page. Killiondude (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Jxc5/Charles_Lockwood

(Re-posting request) Please take a look at the article I created on my user space, regarding a historian, journalist - Charles Lockwood who's now known to be a Corporate Sustainability Strategist. I've tried to round up some references like newspaper articles, or other publications he's quoted on and links for notability purposes. I'm not really sure though if I'm headed in the right direction, or it would be approved for posting. Help please. I would truly appreciate your feedback. Thank you so much. Jxc5 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got a lot of information on that page! Nice. I think it needs to be organized a little more clearly though. A method I always use (on Wikipedia) is to find another topically close article to use as a model for whatever I'm writing about. I don't know any other "sustainability strategist" but I was looking at Ann Coulter's page (a political writer/columnist) to compare yours with. You might want to take a look at how the information on that page is ordered, and try to apply that to the article you're writing. You could pick any biography author biography about an author (is what I meant) to compare to--I just glanced at Coulter's real quick. I can give you a few pointers though...
  • You might want to try and shorten the titles (and subtitles) of sections. When section titles are long, it makes the table of contents look jumbled (the first thing I noticed when I came to the page).
  • More background information about his early life and personal life would add a lot to the article. The article presents a lot more information about his professional career than anything else as of right now.
  • I don't think you need a subsection for each work he's written. It'd be better to format the prose in a flowing manner.
  • Things need to flow a little more in the article. Writing things out in prose versus listing things.
  • The "Research Projects and Articles" section is a bit lengthy... I know that Ann Coulter's page gives a "Bibliography" section, but this one on Lockwood's page seems a bit lengthy. It could be alright, but I'm just a little unsure if it should be included.
  • Good job on providing many inline references. I'm not really sure what the "Secondary References" section is for. Did you use information from those sources in the article? If so, you should probably cite them. If its not information you used, you might want to remove those.
Overall good job. I think it needs a little more work until you move it into the mainspace as an article, but it won't take long at this point. You might want to check out "Your First Article" and "Writing Better Articles" to aid you. Killiondude (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Killiondude, thank you so much for your feedbacks. Very helpful! =) I've also sent a reply to your talkpage, requesting for some assistance with one problem I'm currently facing. =( Your extra help would truly be appreciated.Jxc5 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding a company to a city list and poroviding their contact info

I am trying to find a way to add a company to the city of Houston Texas, I thought I did it but when I finsihed it was deleted. Please direct me to how I can add the company to a city list and add their description.

Many Thanks....Oldcommguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldcommguy (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page. This feedback page is a forum to request and give feedback on articles. Killiondude (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a common misconception that because it's free-of-charge to edit on Wikipedia, that a business can add links to itself wherever it likes. Actually, Wikipedia is owned by a group that forbids external links to businesses in many cases. From your editing history, adding links to www.xangati.com and www.lovemytool.com to many articles, you are doing precisely what Wikipedia disallows. I understand this may be a disappointment, but Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. I notice most of your edits have been reverted. What you should not do at this point is continue to add those external links. Instead, consider other ways you might contribute to the encyclopedia. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Redgrave and Lopham Fen

Over the last month I have heavily edited this article. As this is the first article I have been a major contributor towards I would appreciate any advice on how to improve it. Thanks. HelioSmith (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What you added is interesting and well-written. My concern that you might be using Wikipedia to further a political agenda, however, was strengthened by your heavy use of www.suffolkwildlife.com as a reference. This leaves the material open to getting an WP:NPOV tag, or perhaps even being deleted entirely by someone who disagrees. Since being neutral is one of Wikipedia's three core content polities, it would be better to recast some of your language slightly so that it is clear that the text is expressing a particular (perhaps very common) point-of-view.
This sentence is a example of *beginning* to depart from Wiki guidelines: "In 1961 the Suffolk Wildlife Trust gained control of the site but limited resources meant the large scale work required couldn't be carried out." If I was a detractor of the Trust, I'd question what "limited resources" meant, and especially what "large scale work required" meant. Required to accomplish what goal? Is there any upper limit for how much money the Trust would be willing to spend? Do all the locals agree about the goals?
Again, just a tad more caution would be appropriate. Overall, yours seems like a very worthwhile contribution. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Auburn Tigers swimming and diving

I created this page a while ago and have been expanding it and editing from time to time. It'd like to improve it and at least get it past "Start Class" but would like outside input. Further, someone put a NPOV tag on it, but would not explain their reasoning behind it on the talk page. Any input would be appreciated. AUburnTiger (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice article! An anon IP put that tag there almost a year ago (from the history log). I think it is safe to remove it since they didn't post any reason why on the talk page. The article is probably very close to C-Class per WP:ASSESS. I have a few pointers for the article that will definitely get it there, and probably closer to B-Class.
  • The lead needs to be expanded as well as referenced. If you have references for that information later on in the article (which it should, because the lead is supposed to just summarize the article), it'd be easy to fix this. See WP:LEAD if you haven't already.
  • A good rule of thumb is to have at least one reference for each paragraph. I noticed that in the history section, there is only one reference in the whole section (and its closer to the end of the section). If all that info comes from that one source, just reference each paragraph to it. Also, more referencing throughout the article is probably needed. If all the info comes from the references already given, it should probably reflect that then.
  • The article needs a little more wikilinking in general. I might help out a little with this if I get more time.
  • Under the table in the "Summer Olympic Games Beijing 2008" section there is a reference, but it is all by itself. I'm guessing this is for the table? I don't really know a lot about working with wikitables, but I know that reference looks a little funny all by itself. List of National Historic Landmarks in California has the reference at the top of a column that just has numbers there, check that out and maybe a few other "List" pages to see how they include references in tables. Also, in that same table, for Mark Gangloff there is a ")" under the "Silver(s)" column. Just a typo :-)
  • In the table titled "Auburn Tiger Team NCAA National Championships", the color might be a little too dark (it may be difficult to read for some viewers).
Don't be daunted by the list I just made. No article is ever completely perfect (see the last bullet in WP:PERFECT). All in all, there's a lot of valuable information in the page. Nice job on it. Killiondude (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I did a lot of your suggestions. AUburnTiger (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

how do i get this published so my family can search for it and find it?

William Sorenson. Bill Sorenson.

linkedin, geocities, myspace, facebook.

The Great Seattle Snow Storm of 2008 is no match for the Minnesota Snow Storm of 1980/81. All you need is cable chains and you can get anywhere.

The Great Seattle Snow Storm of 2004 doesn't compare the the Minnesota Snow Storm of 1980/81....(-)57 degrees below zero.

Two Red-Winged Blackbirds We, Nestling In A Nearby Tree, Oh How Happy We Will Be, Chee, Chee, Chee. (From a Plaque in Magnesun Park at Sandpoint, in Seattle)

Love; Listen...to each other, Overlook...the faults, Value...each other, Encourage...each other.

Love is when you know what will hurt someone, but instead of doing that you do what will please them.

Be careful of your thoughts, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful of your deeds, for your deeds become your habits. Be careful of your habits, for your habits become your character. Be careful of your character, for your character becomes your destiny.

As good as I can, as long as I can, to the best of my abilities.

http://www.geocities.com/wtsorenson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtsyes (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and as such we keep only encyclopedic information. There are many wikis elsewhere that hold many different kinds of things. You should try searching for those if you'd like to "publish" something like what you've written above, because Wikipedia is not a web host. Killiondude (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I post an article

I have written an article and cannot find a set of instructions that implicitly state how to submit an article. Here is the article text:

I'm going to move all that to Joe Graham. He should meet notability requirements. Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


If you can provide any assistance as to the specific URLs I need to use or the process involved, I'd greatly appreciate it. A search of Wikipedia provides lots of hints but no concrete results.

Thank You

US Cable News

I created this article from scratch. It's my first created article. I know I made a lot of mistakes. I would appreciate some contructive criticism. Thanks. --Mapple001 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Infrastructure

I've made several new additions to this article over the past month, but have little feedback. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia AlexPlante (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Foundation for Music and Healing

The Foundation for Music and Healing, Inc.

The Foundation for Music and Healing, Inc., is a charitable, voluntary, non-profit organization. It was founded by Chris Robinson, a private piano instructor in South Bend, Indiana. The motto of the Foundation is bringing the benefits of music to those who never thought it possible. Its mission is to serve exceptional individuals who have special needs. The Foundation provides a safe place where students and their families may experience the joy and comfort of music. This promotes mental and psychological well-being and physical wellness. Instruction in piano, voice, dance movement, guitar and general music activities is provided on a weekly basis to scores of students who range in age from toddlers to adults. Unique environments allow students to demonstrate their personal strengths and gifts in music and song. Families are welcome to participate in and experience the fun and practical value of learning music-making techniques. An innovative mix of broad social and psychological principles is combined with the best of traditional instruction. Individuals are encouraged to expand their range of expression and to further develop their creative talents. Distinct from music therapy, services developed by the Foundation for Music and Healing, Inc. are created on an individualized basis. This approach encourages each participant to build “a house of music and movement” in which they can dwell to more successfully meet challenges of everyday life. A group of experts are available for consultation to assist individual cases. The Foundation makes programs and services available to a wide range of people throughout the community who have challenging circumstances. Served are exceptional students with special needs. Individual instruction is open to students of all ages who have disabilities or special needs which range from mild to severe. Categories addressed include, (but are not limited to) autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, blindness and visual impaired, cerebral palsy, cognitive disorders, deafness, Down Syndrome, emotional and/or physical trauma, epilepsy and learning disorders. Also, mental retardation, pervasive developmental disorder, physical impairments, speech and hearing disorders, seizures, Spina Bifida, Williams Syndrome and stroke. Many individuals experience multiple challenges. Initial organizing documents to incorporate the Foundation for Music and Healing, Inc. were filed with the Secretary of State in Indiana in December 2003. Prior to this time, no music or fine arts instruction designed on an organized basis specifically for individuals with special needs was offered in the northern Indiana or southwestern Michigan area. An exploratory committee was formed and input was sought from a broad spectrum of community leaders. A newly elected Board of Directors applied to the Internal Revenue Service for non-profit, tax-exempt status, which was officially granted in October 2004. Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame, is Founding Member of the Board of Directors. Other Directors represent a broad cross-section of the community, including business, healthcare, education and the arts. From a single facility, the number of music studios, instructors and students has continued to multiply. Local colleges and universities have participated through a series of programs called Music Masters SM, intended to involve faculty, staff and students. Regular music festivals are conducted in various community sites each year to highlight student accomplishments. Inquiries regarding the Foundation’s services have been received from throughout the United States. The Foundation has assumed the added mission of researching and developing innovative instructional techniques that benefit regular pupils as well as students who have special needs. Books, blogs and other resources designed to enhance teaching techniques are regularly made available to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicandhealing (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Archive_11&oldid=1190124543"