Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 31

I am new to writing wikipedia articles. I am looking for a review of my article to be sure that the layout & content is acceptable under wikipedia terms. I have a new article to write about another living person & want to be sure that I am doing this correctly. Thank you!

On the same wavelength (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, this looks pretty good at glance. I'm going to compare this article to Steven Speilberg for layout, not achievement, purposes, given the similar professions, as on Wiki it's useful to use articles of people with long-standing pages for pointers.
  • Use of an infobox would be good - that's on the the top-right side and you can find more on it, here: {{Infobox person}}. With that you'll be able to enter a few details, like age, nationality, etc, so people can get an "at a glance" overview of Goldstein without having to read the full article. You don't need to include as much info as Spielberg's if you don't want to or don't have all that info.
  • Do you have his date of birth to put (born month day, year) after his name in the lead (and infobox)?
  • You might want to split "Biography and career" into two sections, "Early life" and "Career" - although that's going to leave a very short Early life section, which might not work, having just read it and realised how soon it gets into his career - so unless you can bulk out his early years a bit that's just a thought, not a recommendation.
  • Filmography looks good - might need a couple of ndashes in there to replace hyphens between date ranges, which I'll fix, but otherwise a neat list. No need to put them in a separate page like Spieleberg's as it is more manageable.
  • References - my only point of concern for a couple of reasons:
    • New York Times: At first that sounds good, big paper cover - but once you go over to it.. it's virtually blank. At this point you need to look for something as strong as the NYT to account for notability, but complete - independent reviews, reports, documentaries, etc, are good sources but as I said, need to actually cover the man's life and achievements rather than empty headings.
    • The 2 Naples News articles seem good. Any more stories like that from other sources would be very useful here, because NYT is a bit of a flop.
    • Few external links, good - IMDB is useful for supporting Filmography, but because it also relies on user contribution is not considered a highly reliable source for biographical background. Which brings me onto my second concern:
    • Lack of in-line citations. There is no referencing to any of the comments, claims, data in the article. It is important that things are cited, and supported with reliable sources. No original research, only verifiable sources should be used. A few wiki help pages cover these: WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:OR, and as this is a biography about a living person read WP:BLP which covers all the requirements and legalities of writing about living people carefully.
  • I've removed the unreviewed banner and put a couple of cleanup tags atop - will leave it to you to look into adding citations and get back to me to review it again - you can remove the top "undergoing construction" tag if you need to, I can remove the other. These just prevent another editor coming along and flagging the article for deletion for lack of refs - I know they're ugly.. but can be removed soon enough, so don't worry about them too much.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 07:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is to review the activities of the non-profit organization Creative Crew (Singapore). Since I am the President of the organization, I would like to have a sincere feedback on what i wrote. In particular, I have kept quite short the initial description because I was afraid of overwriting. On the other hand, I have started listing all the previous events held.

Stefano Virgilli (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment, as it stands, it is far too promotional - you have session dates, times, places, tutors, etc all listed like a schedule from a promo leaflet - per WP:NOTPROMOTION wiki does not allow that type of content. You need to remain objective - the organisation must be notable, with reliable, third-party, independent sources cited and referenced to have its own article. Advertising events and such is not what wiki is about though, being an encyclopedia. At the moment I recommend you don't more it into the mainspace, as it will likely be deleted very quickly once partolled and determined to violate wiki policy on self-promotion.

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Marcus, thank you for your feedback. I see your point.

On the other hand there are 3 points I'd like to highlight.

1) Creative Crew is a Nonprofit organization which activity is free meetings. According to the Promotion_(marketing) definition: "It is the communication link between sellers and buyers for the purpose of influencing, informing, or persuading a potential buyer's purchasing decision.", Creative Crew does neither have clients nor is a seller. Also, Creative Crew does not aim to influence any potential purchasing decision, as all the events listed are backdated.

2) The events listed have already happened, so nobody can enroll to an event happened in the past. I compare this case to Elephant_Parade. This is a similar case, as they list all the previous event. In the Elephant Parade case though, the elephants are sold at the end of the event. So, if your promotion concept applies to Creative Crew I don't see why does not apply to Elephant Parade.

3) If the issue is that I am the President of the Organization and I should not write about it because of self-promotion, then I could ask one of our 1000 users to copy and paste the same article under their own account. Would it then qualify to be published?

To conclude, what do you think would be the real problem?

1) That Creative Crew is Nonprofit?

2) That the events are backdated and they were all free?

3) That I am the President of the Organization?

--Stefano Virgilli (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Stefano Virgilli (talk)[reply]

• None of the above. 3 is a problem in terms of WP:COI but as long as you remain open about it, accept that articles must be written ina neutral, unbiased, non-promotional tone - to the point of other editors rewording and snipping bits that are too "avertisey" then you will avoid conflicts and find most editors happy to work with you to create a factual encyclopedic entry. It is generally advised that business-owners do not write their own articles to avoid COI, but many do, are open about it, keep an open mind about what Wiki is and is not, and avoid war editing. You may correct/revert/remove factual errors contributed about your business, but always know the difference between vandalism and a good faith edit which is not truthful. If you feel someone is attacking your company through the article, there are ways to dealing with it.

• Free, charity, profit-making, small business, large business, multi-million dollar company - it's all the same - "an organisation". You should have a read of WP:CORP which deals with everything that falls under this term. The "real problem" is that you have to establish notability - above all else. If you raise $1m for charity but no-one ever writes about it independently, well done, but it's not considered notable because we can't verity it. So third-party, independent, reliable sources are a must. All explained in the WP:CORP link, and WP:RS. There's more here on WP:NOTABILITY in general, if it helps, but that's more for 'people' than 'organisations'.

• If the events are all in the past, I would recommend you boil it all down into a neat objective paragraph, forget the specific dates, times, places.. something more like "Between X-date and Y-date we held events in/across A-Z-places, teaching Y-types-of audiences in Adobe software, including, Photoshop, Lightroom, and Premiere (just a few examples are needed here to get the picture) amongst others. We attracted #-number of participants/students, over the period." Something like that just to explain what happened and the level of success is more readable, less promotional, but to the point - we don't really need a verbose timetable that has run its course. Even if it has happened it may still look promotional, in terms of a "we did this last year, we're doing it again this year" approach - so best to avoid specifics and play safe.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Have a scan through the pages I linked, you might spot a few things I missed, get some ideas in mind on your approach. Identify sources to cite, that look good but not promo material, and you will have a stronger case.

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 07:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcus, I have edited the article. Could you please take a look again and give me your opinion about impartiality? --Stefano Virgilli (talk) --Stefano Virgilli (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Stefano Virgilli (talk)[reply]

Hey, Warner Brothers Lonney Tunes fans. I just started a new article on the 1954 film "Gone Batty". Please critique and comment on the item in question here.

NoseNuggets (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have the "Looney Tunes Golden Collections" sets, 1 to 5 so far, 6 is due out on 11th of Sept - but I don't recall this one. Baseball Bugs sounds familiar. Anyway, to review:

• Some of the red links in the main prose can be removed (un-wikilink) and just leave the ones in the side info bar red, for reference, rather than doubling up the red links.
• Any chance of citing some of the claims, eg "Voices were provided by Mel Blanc and an uncredited Robert C. Bruce as a play-by-play announcer."?
• End of this sentence does not make sense: "This gag was a reversal of a Gashouse Gorilla player in Baseball Bugs when was strike was recalled a as a ball." - "when was", and "a as a".

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 11:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this enough info to start off an article?

Veronica Brandt (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough to be considered a stub article, I believe.
• As the article refers to an English publication, I have changed the spelling to British-English, on a word using American-English (authorized -> authorised) per WP:ENGVAR.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 11:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Veronica

Thank you for reviewing this. It is my first article and I just want to make sure it's alright. Most sources are in German...hope that's not an issue.

Hhf2 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Headers need properly formatting, see MOS:HEAD - top two should be primary headings, with pros/cons as sub-headings.
• Use "and" not the "&" sign.
• <ref> tags should go after commas and periods, with no space before it. eg ,^[2]
• Remove citations self-referencing Wiki, as it is not a reliable source.
• Info on non-English sources can be found here: WP:NONENG.
• I haven't looked through your refs, at the moment, but if you haven't already, you need to read WP:CORP and be sure they can account for the notability of the project/strategy described, to be an acceptable wiki article.
• Links should be fully cited to avoid link rot, with something like {{cite web}}.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 14:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise if this drafted article has enough information to go live.

KC WLT (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say its okay in length but lacks enough information to account for notability, just yet, per WP:CORP - the MVP award goes a little way towards recognition, but is also fairly routine, as it comes from a partner, and is promoting the company for its service. What you need, for an article this size, are a couple more notable references from independent sources, as explained in the CORP link.
• Twitter is not considered a reliable source due to self-published content, so is best not cited, but can be used in an "External links" section below References.
• Logo isn't working - need to check your upload, or that the filename is correctly given.
• Couple of typos and stray punctuation in there, needs proof-reading, eg "turcks".
• Some redlinks in the lead, probably do have articles and need properly wikilinking to work.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikart 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Notability? WP:NOTABILITY
• References? In-line citations? WP:REF

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having moved this article out of userspace, I am again requesting feedback on it so that the "new article" template can be removed. I have reworked the article to address some of my previous concerns, but some remain. The article is based on translations of the articles on Robert Sténuit in the French and Romanian Wikipedias (especially the more detailed latter). I have still not been able to consult the Subaqua article or the Sténuit book translated into Romanian (Lumile tainice în care m-am scufundat, presumably a translation of Ces mondes secrets où j'ai plongé) which were apparently used as sources by the author of the Romanian article. Several of the English titles of Sténuit's books are Google translations of the French titles, and are probably inaccurate (The swallowed flute??).

The external link about Harry Reiseberg is there because there is as yet no Wikipedia article on him (or any other mention of him on Wikipedia, for that matter). I also can't tell if the "Librairie Hachette" which published Merveillieux monde souterrain is Hachette (publisher) or Hachette Filipacchi Médias, so there's no blue link to the publisher's article. I appreciate the help that anyone can give.

Gildir (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I work for a public relations company and would like to write an article about one of our clients, United Coffee. I read Wikipedia's conflict of interest section carefully, knowing that it is the purpose of this encyclopedia to provide neutral articles; that is also the reason why I wish to declare openly that the article in question is for one of our clients. This being said, I tried my best to comply with the justified demand for unbiased content and style. I also compared entries for similar companies, already featured on Wikipedia, and came to the conclusion that it should be perfectly legitimate to add a new article about the company United Coffee, which employs almost 1000 people in several European countries, and is therefore of no less importance than these comparable entries.

However, in order to make this as good of an article as possible, I would appreciate your feedback on the following points:

- Would you agree that the sources in question are reliable? They are from two of the top ten Swiss newspapers, but unfortunately in French and German only. - I understand this seems to be a bit of a standard question, but still: Are there enough sources quoted to prove the reliability of the content? I find the number to be in line with similar entries, but willing to add more.

Thank you very much for your help!

DiagramBeFun (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, WP:NONENG covers wiki policy on non-English sources, and how to deal with them. Regardless of language they should still be reliable sources, per WP:RS. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, thanks a lot for the link. The sources are reliable, but I will check again. Best, DiagramBeFun (talk)
• I added two independent sources in English to show that the subject of the article is notable. Thank you very much for any feedback on my draft. DiagramBeFun (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but I'd be wary of using the ADP News one which goes to highbeam.com - as it requires subscription, and payment after a trial period, which poses accessibility problems under WP:PAYWALL. Anything open/free to all would be much better, as it is easier to verify open sources. It only shows a snippet of the full story pre-registration, and many people are distrustful of joining chargeable sites. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks again, I completely forgot about that. DiagramBeFun (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, I just added another public source to corroborate the article. It is an interview with the company's CEO from British newspaper The Independent. Any comments welcome - I am planning on taking the article online by the end of the day. Thanks, DiagramBeFun (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've wrote this page for the non-profit organization Chinese-American Planning Council, Inc. and only used the brochure and webpage as references. Also I added the CPC logo, but currently it's been flagged to be deleted because it wasn't being used in any article, so if possible I would like to have that changed because I originally uploaded the logo for this article, but since it wasn't complete and live to everyone to see it's going to be deleted. Now that I moved the page and have completed the article, I hope the logo can be reinstated so It will be shown on the CPC article page.

Thank you.

CPC-NYC-VIP (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Logo issue fixed.
• Article copy-edited.
• Article needs more third-part, independent, reliable sources to account for its notability - at the moment there is a lot of info, but as it is all self-published presents a conflict of interest issue. See WP:NONPROFIT. Just need some more coverage to strengthen the article a lot more.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged whilst awaiting further sources. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm done to optimize the article, and at the time of the move the page tells me: "Unable to proceed From Wikipedia, You can not move pages Because your account is too new or is blocked from editing. If you Would like a page to be moved and You are not blocked, you can list it at Wikipedia: Requested moves. " Now I do not know what to do, I do not understand who I should ask, I went to "Wikipedia: Requested moves" but I did not understand well what I do.

thanks

ODigitali (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You account is not autoconfirmed yet: accounts that are both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. You've been here 4+ days but have less than 10 edits. Nothing to worry about.

• You don't want to be moving the article yet anyway, or it may be deleted - you haven't referenced it with any in-line citations yet, per my review yesterday: Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_30#User:ODigitali.2FIGD_-_Immobiliare_Grande_Distribuzione_SIIQ_SPA

• Once you work the page into a valid article, per wiki policies, you'll be at that 10+ needed.

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existing article on USS Harmon does not have existing link to Leonard Roy Harmon.

Hippypaul (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new at posting and am looking for feedback on my article.

Many thanks in advance. Wikicontribute17 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

• Article looks good and clear, but will need a bit of copy-editing to get it in tip-top order, I'll be glad to do that for you shortly after this review.
• References look good, lots of newspapers, local and national settles any question of notability, so thumbs up there.
• Logo cleared for use through OTRS, though the 3 photos have messages on them about getting them cleared - I'm not familiar with this method, but if you know what it all means, suits me.
• I think the sections might need moving around a little, the logic seems a little unusual - not flowing in an order you'd expect from an article, reordering might make it less promotional looking - again, will sort when copy-editing.
• If possible, I would advise you cite the "History" section to support the info given regarding founding, funding and charity status, as these are claims that may be challenged - so best to cover it from the start and prevent ^{[citation needed]} tags from appearing later.

Regards, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! What kind of citing would you recommend for the History section to support the founding? Perhaps add our charity number? I have resubmitted the photos for clearance. I have written letters identifying our ownership so I hope to have those cleared as quickly as Wiki cleared our logo image. Thanks again for this help.

Best, Wikicontribute17 (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a public website that has a database of reg. charity numbers you can cite, perhaps - something independent would be best? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I just created a template for the Filipino artist/singer Regine Velasquez. Could someone please review the template. Thank you very much in advance. :)

Rovheel (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a look at a couple of other solo artists and edited the bottom "below" row similar to theirs; other than that, all good!

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also posted this article and would appreciate any review/feedback. I'm grateful for any suggestions and help as I'm quite new to this!

Thanks, Wikicontribute17 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done via talkpage request. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF]

Request for review and help moving an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KellieFlan/Enter_your_new_article_name_here

Hello, and thank you again in advance for your assistance.

I have made the requested changes per MarcusBritish (including headers, format and specifying citations to avoid linkrot) to the article that I wish to be titled Colm Howard-Lloyd, a bio for the named individual which includes information as follows:

Colm Howard-Lloyd (born 28 September 1977) is an English LGBT activist, communicator, consultant and well-known member of the Conservative Party. Currently on the Board of Pride London as Vice Chair, Communications, Howard-Lloyd serves additionally as Trustee on the Management Committee for the organization The Food Chain. Having worked in the political sector as a speechwriter and communications expert, Howard-Lloyd is both a freelance journalist and public relations expert.

...Can someone please help me move this article? Perhaps because I am new, I am unable to do so?

Thank you again for your time and consideration!

KellieFlan (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your account is not autoconfirmed yet: accounts that are both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. You've not been here 4+ days yet, but do have more than 10 edits. Nothing to worry about, it'll kick in soon.
• Page moved: Colm Howard-Lloyd.
• Unreviewed banner removed.

Welcome to Wiki. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that there was a lack of an article on SciGirls, a television show currently airing in the United States on PBS Kids. The show is about to go into production of a second season and it's first was recently honored with a Daytime Emmy. As such, it sounds like a perfect entry to me. I have noticed that there may have been previous attempts to write an article about this show in late 2010, but they appear to have been removed. I am currently trying to make sure I have paraphrased and rewriting the article correctly, so as to avoid any potential plagiarism or copyright issues. If anyone is able to look over my work I would really appreciate it!

Thanks.

Pemling (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know if I'm heading in the right direction on my first article. I'd like to include more information but don't want to run in to problems with copyright of my own information. Suggestions please....

Outoftheshadowofpink (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to be honest there's not a lot to go on yet.. just keep it going, you're best asking for a review when you have a first draft than needs looking over. To avoid copyright make sure you simply need to avoid using images/text without permission. Cite anything you quote, don't copy/paste blocks of text from other sources, don't "steal" logos/photos - all that. Covered in WP:COPY for full info. 4 inline citations in 3 lines of text is good, as long as you don't overdo it, but don't underdo it - the key is to cite anything that can be challenged, anything that is claimed, quoted, given as a fact or figure, dates, actions, etc - cite where the info is from and can be verified.
• In terms of charity events, if there is an organisation overseeing the event, look at WP:CORP on how to write about it non-promotionally, and how to account for notability of the event/organisation from independent, reliable sources. Avoid too much self-published material, as it affects conflict of interest issues.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]