Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

This article describes The Employment Guide and employmentguide.com. I would just like some feedback as to how this article looks so far before I go any farther. Thanks! ---mharr066- 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you use a sub-page for online works in progress, because this gets in the way of people using your talk page. Move it to somewhere like User:Mharr066/Drafts Your draft is quite "advertorial" at the moment and it needs some wikification. You're probably aware of the MoS by now, but have a read of its pages if you have not seen them before. They're very useful. Some more secondary sources would be advantageous because a primary source should not be your primary source, if you see what I mean. Adrian M. H. 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP EXPAND THE Religion and mythology ARTICLE!!! When I came upon it, it had almost no in-text citations. I did some editing, but it still needs a lot of work. Please help add citations and/or remove uncited material.

The article before I started editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_mythology&oldid=135364133

The article after my initial bout of editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_mythology&oldid=135420540

The article now: Religion and mythology --Phatius McBluff 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When I came across this article, it had no references. I deleted everything I couldn't find a reference for, and added some stuff I did have references for. Please look it over and leave feedback on the article's talk page.

The article before my revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishtar&oldid=135433913

The article as of this posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishtar&oldid=135475853

The article now: Ishtar --Phatius McBluff 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I should probably mention this article as well. When I found it, it was a stub. I expanded the article, adding sections and references. Please take a look at it and leave feedback on its talk page.

Article's condition when I found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hina&oldid=132249612

Article's condition after my additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hina&oldid=133345911

Article's current condition: Hina

--Phatius McBluff 05:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person. Wanted to get your expert opinion if the article meets Wikipedia standards and what can be done to improve the article.

Thanks! Maoster 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Per BLP, I have concerns about the relative paucity of references; just a few inline URLs and a few footnotes are not really enough to satisfy sourcing requirements for any article of that length, but particularly a BLP. Also, you might want to sort your <small> tags; you have no closing tags, which is playing havoc with the final few sections. The lead section should be trimmed and needs a degree of cleanup. It has a slight hint of POV and some of those peacock terms could be toned down a bit. Apart from that, not a bad effort. Adrian M. H. 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a "belting prowess"? A few of the paragraphs seem too long; you may want to split them to make it easier to read. There are also some single sentence paragraphs in the second half that need expanding or merging. Also "Jill of All Trades" should be converted to prose. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! These comments are really helpful. I really appreciate that. There are many editors/contributors on this article which is why its not coherent and I don't have full control. Some people unknowingly damage the format when the make their changes. I will re-edit the article and let you guys see the changes. My problem with the references is that most of the sources are video interviews and are not usually in print. Some sources are from online pages like YouTube which is very volatile. Some sources can suddenly disappear.

Belting prowess or ability, is when you are singing and you sustain or hold a note of a song(usually a high note) for a 5 - 10 seconds. This technique is used by singers of all genre. See Belting. It seems like there's a lot of work to do. I'll keep you guys posted. Maoster 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on a new version of the text in my userspace for quite some time now, and I finally moved it over to the article earlier today. It still needs a little work before I take it to peer review, but I'd certainly appreciate any comments in the meantime. To compare my efforts with how the article used to look, see [1].

Thanks in advance! PC78 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have only given it a quick scan, would say that it is virtually ready for a GA review. That is some good work there. Well sourced, well structured, neutral. It could benefit from a few small tweaks in the text, but nothing significant. The most obvious of those minor tweaks is the text in the "Filmography" section. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "notes" section of the filmography? Should it be using proper sentences? PC78 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should. Capitals where necessary, too. Actually, I'm in two minds about whether the use of tables is the best choice altogether. Tables can look a bit out of place whenever they are not necessary, and they are not normally used in "---ography" sections. Adrian M. H. 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at that then. I'm going to keep the tables though, since there are plenty of other actor bios that follow this style (see Eric Bana or Angelina Jolie, for example). I think it's necessary if you want the filmography to be more than a simple list of films. PC78 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture gallery of the albums sections violates the fair use policy. These pictures have to be removed, which leaves very little in this section. So I would suggest fixing this first before you go for a GA review. Errabee 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm currently working on a revised discography section. That's the main thing I want to do before I take it to peer or GA review. PC78 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments, hopefully the filmography and discography sections look a bit better. I've now requested a peer review for further comment before I nominate it for GA status. PC78 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, this is my first article. It has a lot of tags re "unverified sources" and "controversial" etc so I have rewritten it to show the sources more clearly. Please tell me if this looks more suitable or if not, what I should do.

Also, For some reason the layout has changed and looks different from in the writing box. Why is this?

Does this count as a talk page - should lI sign it? ArtLit 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should always sign and date all comments. I wikilinked the title for you. I see that this is not only your first article, but your first contribution, so you deserve some marks for getting further than many newbies. For a start, it is referenced! However, the article is currently tagged with some significant issues: the possibility of COI and inaccuracies. These issues need to be discussed, and if I were the editor who tagged it, I would have opened a dialogue on the talk page. I fixed the layout for you: you had a simple markup error, which you will see in the diffs. I will take the time to study the article in depth when I have more time and if I have any further comments, I will let you know. Adrian M. H. 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor that tagged the article, pehaps in a reactive fashion towards a newbie. Yes, I should have opened a dialog on the talk page, and for that I'm sorry. I hope my tagging it eventually improves it. Thank you for your assistance. Bearian 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this page from my talk page and made some minor adjustments. After reading the MoS Guide, I'm still a bit puzzled as to how to make this article less "advertorial" (as the previous reviewer stated." Any advice/help would be greatly appreciated. -mharr066- 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is because good quality encyclopædic writing cannot easily be summarised into a guideline. My MoS suggestion was in reference to the need for wikification. It is a mix of instinctive ability and experience. At this time, your article is biased towards promoting the company and its product – you even have a trademark symbol, for example! – which I can appreciate is probably unintentional in this instance. You start by describing who the company targets and what it offers, and you give undue weight to it. This is advertorial, and makes it look like you just made a précis of some website content. I think you should look at some equivalent articles at GA and see what balance they strike. Adrian M. H. 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for the advice. I'm going to keep working on this and hopefully I can improve the content and style. I've already made a few minor changes. Thanks too for your patience with me because (as I'm sure you know) it takes a while to get the hang of how things work here. I hope to get your input again when I post the next revision! -mharr066- 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been much research and changes into the approach to type 1 diabetes. namely it has been discovered there are links to depression and diabetes 1, and that depression can have an adverse affect on diabetic control, if it is not treated. This is the first time that Diabetes has been linked to psychology, however shows how mind states can have an affect on a medical condition.

There are virtually no references in this article making the article, IMO, a stub. Lots of work needed to cite everything. Demantos 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This request really needs to be made at WikiProject Medicine, not here, as it requires specialist knowledge only the participants there are likely to have — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Article about an old time baseball player.

Any feedback is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 June 2007

See my reply below about references, because the same applies here. A couple of external links are not enough to reference your material. It really needs wikification as well. See WP:MoS, WP:LEAD and WP:IA for info. Another issue is the prose, which is not formal enough for an encyclopædia. As an example, a phrase such as "but the rheumatism got so bad he had to call his playing days quits" would be better as something like "but he was forced to retire from the field due to worsening rheumatism". Also, I wondered about the name; presumably, it wasn't Homer Vernon Smoot "Doc" Smoot with two "Smoots", but I opted not to change it unilaterally, as it might just be correct! Adrian M. H. 13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd very strongly advise cross posting this request to Wikiproject Baseball, which is one of the more active WikiProjects. People with the knowledge to add to this are more likely to be lurking there than here — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A prehistoric mammal article begging to be done as it was initially just a redirect to chalicothere. Quite probably I got something wrong in there; care to give a look? Dracontes 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend standardizing the reverences using this tool http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=isbn Formats citations correctly for books and webpages. Demantos 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend, if you haven't already, posting similar requests to WikiProject Mammals and WikiProject Extinction, as people there are most likely to have specialist knowledge to add to the article — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the above - I can see you already have... — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I have created an article John Oxley (ship), and would greatly appreciate feedback and constructive critisism on what's needed to enhance the quality of this article. It is still WIP, as I'm still researching and adding to the article. Thanks. Dreadnaught 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the most important problem; the article is unreferenced. You need to cite your sources for key statements, preferably using footnotes. Layouts for which can be seen here. There is a precis of the process on my talk page if you're interested. There are a few too many red links, particularly in the lead; you may find that some of these subjects can be found under slightly different titles. No other issues that jump out. Quite a good effort. It has some potential, so you might like to browse through the GA articles and consider whether this article could reach that standard. Adrian M. H. 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) On an unrelated note, you should use edit summaries more regularly.

Thank you for your input. I've corrected those errors, and added footnotes. Unfortunately, several of the links which are red like "Australian Heritage Fleet" (An organization) and "Coastal steamship" (something that should have an artcle but doesn't, and doesn't have any similiar substitutes) would require entire articles written. I have changed as many as I can, though. If there are any other issues that need correcting, please let me know. Thanks again for you assistance. Dreadnaught 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Something which isn't a problem yet, but soon will be, is that the images which illustrate it (Image:John Oxley10.jpg and Image:John Oxley0102.jpg) appears to be blatant (albeit good faith) copyright violations and will almost certainly be deleted. I believe (but double check this!) that Australian copyright law, as it's based on English law, allows an exemption for self-published photographs of works on display to the public, so you would be within your rights to release a photograph you'd taken yourself, but at present this appears to fall into "replaceable fair use" (non-free images which could potentially be replaced by free ones). As neither image is essential to the article, I don't think a fair use defence will stand up. (It may be that the Australian government has released the photos into the public domain, but if so this has to be documented on the image's page.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Unfortunately, there are no free/public domain pictures that exist of the John Oxley that exist that I know of. For now, I'll be forced to simply continue to improve and expand on the textual content of the article, and hopefully, a Wikipedia user in Sydney will take a photgraph of the subject vessel. Thank you for your feedback. Dreadnaught 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernie Dowling, born 1954, is an Australian journalist and author of the post-modern novel Iraqi Icicle.

The novel is written in a style of the private detective thriller. It explores the intersection of geopolitics and national identity as defined by popular entertainment such as music.

The novel is written in a racy humorous style hiding deep themes such as the impact of personal computers and mobile phones which came to Australia and boomed between 1986 and 1992, the years in which the novel is set. Independent bands including R.E.M., The Smiths and the Go-Betweens have a place in the novel alongside the American invasion of Panama and the first Iraq War. The novel also has anti-war themes and Bernie Dowling is the brother of anti-war activist Jim Dowling who was arrested for ``invading’’ the joint US-Australian spy base Pine Gap in 2005. In the early 1990s, Bernie Dowling was the first Australian journalist to break the story of the forced evacuation of the Logan City suburb of Kingston which was built above a toxic waste site. Dowling writes for two Australian newspapers, the Pine Rivers Press and the Northern Times where he supplements news reporting with a weekly humorous column.

The above article is about myself and I wouldm also like to submit one about Iraqi Icicle. I read the comments about thinking twice about submitting stuff about yourself so I thought ask for feedback.

Below is the submission for Iraqi Icicle:

Iraqi Icicle is the title of a post-modern novel by Australian journalist Bernie Dowling

The novel is written in a style of the private detective thriller. It explores the intersection of geopolitics and national identity as defined by popular entertainment such as music.

The novel is written in a racy humorous style hiding deep themes such as the impact of personal computers and mobile phones which came to Australia and boomed between 1986 and 1992, the years in which the novel is set.

Independent bands including R.E.M., The Smiths and the Go-Betweens have a place in the novel alongside the American invasion of Panama and the first Iraq War. The novel also has anti-war themes and Bernie Dowling is the brother of anti-war activist Jim Dowling who was arrested for ``invading’’ the joint US-Australian spy base Pine Gap in 2005.

You may want to be careful about this. Wikipedia policy has generally been to discourage writing articles about yourself. (C.f. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.) But I believe it is acceptible to post an autobiography in the user space. In addition, if your credentials satisfy WP:BIO, you could also add your name to the Wikipedia:Requested articles page. Those requests are usually satisfied within a few years if there are neutral sources available. — RJH (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just don't post it on your user page unless you want it to be speedied. Adrian M. H. 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, both articles would be speedily deleted as {{db-advert}} if they went live. It's fine to have articles on books, authors etc if they are referenced to independent, not trivial sources - eg, press coverage of yourself or the book - but not if they're personal opinion. They also need to be neutral, which neither of the above currently is. While it's not forbidden, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged because it's so hard to be neutral - you might want to have a read of WP:COI which goes into more detail — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A short summary of both topics (Bio and Book) may be appropriate for a user page. Bearian 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I could use a fresh pair of eyes on my first major article Hill City, South Dakota which is about a small tourist town in the Black Hills of South Dakota. I need help knowing what needs to be sourced and what doesn't. I have a web based references. Also let me know what sounds POV - the town's economy is mostly based on tourism. What needs to be expanded or removed? There was a Points of Interest section when I first started editing this page, and am thinking of taking it out. Let me know what you think. I am currently working on getting some public domain or free use photo for this article. Lmielke359 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On a skim through, I'd take the bit about athletics, fishing etc out of the lead section - the dogsledding is unusual enough to be of interest, but the rest could apply to pretty much any town. There's also a potentially serious BLP violation ("the president of the institute was convicted on two counts customs violations for which he served two years in federal prison"); if you're going to make a claim like this, it has to be sourced which it currently isn't, and the Wikipedia article on the man in question makes no mention of any such incident. Other than that, it seems fine, although it could do with a minor copyedit as some of the sentences are a little long — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just thought of another point - my SD geography's hazy, but from the map it seems presumably the town's smack in the middle of traditional Lakota territory, but from the article noone lived there before 1876 - if anything happened in pre-settlement times it's probably worth mentioning. (And there's got to be a better term to use than "white settlement", but I can't think of what it is) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK removed non-notible info from lead, as for the BLP reference - it is cited #12 on my list - the citation occurs at the end of the paragraph. I updated the history to include a Native American backdrop to the Black Hills - and changed "white settlement" to "American settlement" however, as you mentioned there is just not a good way to say this. Thanks for looking at this article.

By the way do you think that a town with 780 people could ever be a FA. Lmielke359 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it could, if there is enough verifiable material to write about. The FA selection has plenty of comparatively obscure subjects. Adrian M. H. 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Something else that occurs to me - particularly if you're aiming to take it to GA/FA status - is to add some images. If you're in the town or know someone there, it would be a good idea to take some photos & upload them, to give readers a feel for the town and to break up the large blocks of text. Have a look at what I've done with the highly unphotogenic Broadwater Farm and A1 road (London), for example - although don't take them as a model to follow if you're aiming for FA status as they both (deliberately) breach the Manual of Style in many places. There is an issue you need to be aware of here in that, while in English law it's legal to publish photographs of buildings, in much of the US it can be taken as breach of the architect's copyright, and I've no idea what the SD situation is. Pre-1923 archive photos/drawings of the town are automatically in the public domain if you can dig some out — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I am working on some getting some public domain historic photos through a Historian in Hill City. I may also contact the Chamber of Commerce and the local newspaper to see if I can get some snapshots that could be put into the public domain or attributed through a creative commons licence. Good point about the legality of publishing photos of buildings - I will have to look into that. I wish I still lived in Hill City - I could just take some photos myself! Lmielke359 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Started the article a few weeks ago after a request from another editor to resolve a NPOV conflict by collaborating all of the information about digital radio broadcasting in the United Kingdom into one article. I have made up the bulk of the work and I think I have covered everything notable. I think it should be heading towards B-class, though it has only been rated as a stub! Feedback, suggestions and even improvements would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --tgheretford (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that someone probably entered the wrong class in error, because no one would mistake that for a stub. You are free to go ahead and change it. I have only given it a quick skim over, but it looks good; nicely written, fact-driven, well sourced, with balanced points of view. Some of the sections may need a bit of expansion (where possible), but you are on the right track. Adrian M. H. 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have reassessed the article carefully and re-rated it accordingly. I don't think it is quite up to good article status yet, but I believe it is getting there, maybe even almost there. --tgheretford (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could probably go for a GA review soon. When I have asked for GAs in the past, I have tended to give myself a week or so to look it over and make little tweaks as needed. Seems to work well. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While I won't review it as it's a specialist field I don't know enough about to judge validity, in principle I'd (weakly) pass it as a WP:GA as it stands with only a couple of modifications. My personal concerns are; a lack of images - it's very text heavy at the moment (I think a graph of DAB takeup, possibly in comparison to DTTV, would be a good thing, and even 'generic' photos of transmitters, radio broadcasters' studios etc would break up the text); the long lists, while possibly necessary, swamp the article towards the end; and a possible (inadvertent) non-NPOV in that the "Criticisms of..." section is relatively large while there's no "Advantages of..." section. I'm also not convinced by the "58% of the population listen to" claim in the lead; on reading the source article, it seems to be "58% of the population have access to" not "58% listen to" (I am able to access, for example, French-language channels on my TV, but I don't do so.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have made some changes as you suggested, I managed to get a table uploaded detailing the share of digital radio listening as per figures at RAJAR, and I have made the change from "listen to" to "access to". I'll implement the other suggestions once I can source references. The only problem with DAB is that there is a lot more media coverage of its criticism than of its advantages (without it sounding like WP:SPAM anyway). I'll also see if I can add some free use images to the article as well. --tgheretford (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have access to back issues of IT magazines, you should be able to find some articles that go through the upsides as well as the downsides. Adrian M. H. 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added some benefits of DAB with references and added another picture, how does it look now? --tgheretford (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks really good. Definitely near to GA now, and enough to initiate a review (which takes a few weeks due to the perpetual backlog). Adrian M. H. 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --tgheretford (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've just rebuilt this page, and am looking for any feedback people might have. Thank you. Macktheknifeau 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a very good effort, and a promising start. However, the greatest fault with the article that I can see is the lack of references. Also, a few more internal links throughout would benefit the content. Dreadnaught 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a bit of trouble.

Made an edit re: a footnoted reference. But only the footnote shows (#1 after 'fled to the United States') ...not the reference below.

Also, most army docs of that time were burned in the '73 fires, so I may not be able to find specific references (more than word of mouth) re: Schwarzkopf's personal history; however, there are many references to the different battles, pathfinders, and Camp King (the camp near Oberursel), where much of the surveillance of ss officers took place. Would those more general footnotes be acceptable or not to bother?

Finally, since a reference has been made can the top citation be removed. This article does not cite any references or sources.

Thanks so much for your help!Nomoreworldwar 10:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You could easily have swapped {{unsourced}} for {{refimprove}}, but I went ahead and did so for you. It is up to any editor to make appropriate changes to an article's tag status. I also fixed a pretty fundamental issue with the ref display, in that you had no References section! You should have a read of WP:FN and/or the first question on my talk page (be quick before I archive it). You should correct the layout of your ref and include more data (again, see that talk page question); it is not sufficient as it is now because it gives very little specific data about the source. Do you best with what sources you have, but stick to the requirements of WP:ATT, WP:REF and WP:RS. Adrian M. H. 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot. WP:BLP. That one is really important. Adrian M. H. 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have a review of an article I extensively updated laennec. Also, I wrote a new article Charles Eric Maine.

Thank you very much. Queequeg804 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the article titles in the heading, which is good practice with this page. It makes particular sections much easier to find at a glance. I see that René Laennec has a cleanup tag; if you want to improve the article, your first priority would be to address all of its formatting shortcomings. Next, it needs to be referenced properly; it is very messy at the moment, with a couple of inline URLs and a motley bunch of reference sources in different layouts (none of which are correct). I will have a look at Charles Eric Maine later. Adrian M. H. 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I created an article about the Saskatoon Youth Orchestra, and was wondering on how to label it as a stub, or if that would even be acceptable in this situation. Here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_Youth_Orchestra Much thanks in advance. Tynedanu 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The "stub" classification wouldn't be necessary in this case, as the article is larger than a stub. See Wikipedia:Stub for details if you haven't already. Dreadnaught 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tynedanu 05:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article could use feedback on overall clarity and comprehension. For example,

• Is the order of events clear?
• Can some sections be split off, which? Do some fall beyond the article's scope?
• Other comments are welcome. --Riurik^(discuss) 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a long article, so I will read it in full when I have the time to do it justice and give you some feedback then. It looks very good at first glance. Adrian M. H. 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too long and I want to make it more slender. There is no rush on it, but your comments will be very appreciated, either on the entire entry or a couple of sections. --Riurik^(discuss) 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

El escritor F. G. Haghenbeck nació en la ciudad de México. Creció entre misas y nopales en Tehuacán, Puebla. Estudió arquitectura. Trabajó en museos, publicidad y televisión, para al final dedicarse a escribir comics: Crimson (Wildstorm); Alternation (Image Comics): Y aun no sabe si es un orgullo ó algo que esconder, junto con Oscar Pinto, es el único escritor mexicano en Superman (DC Comics).

Su novela policíaca TRAGO AMARGO (Joaquín Mortíz,Planeta ISBN: 968-27-1043-X) ganó el premio VUELTA A LA TUERCA 2006 . Un día lo nominaron a un MTV Award; Ganó algo en el Premio Nacional de cuento policíaco 2007,el Julio Verne 2005 y Mano Obra 2006 (ISBN: 970-985-418-6); escribió un cuento infantil llamado NIÑA MAR; y su personaje Acrata apareció en la serie Smallville, pero no se lo dice a nadie.

Vive en Puerto Vallarta con una hermosa chef, su perra Brandy, el fantasma de John Huston, y es amigo de un espía de la guerra fría al que prometido no delatarlo.

Me hablo no Español, señor. http://es.wikipedia.org/ Adrian M. H. 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please, what do you guys make of those two articles? Miniature Ingestible Capsule and Wireless capsule endoscopy. The articles look confusing, but I lack the necessary expertise. Thanks in advance.Stellatomailing 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wireless capsule endoscopy needs a complete rewrite and wiki formatting and it needs many more (and better) sources. It currently fails WP:RS and WP:ATT. I have tagged it accordingly, but if it remains unchanged, it may find get an AFD nomination. Miniature Ingestible Capsule is even worse; it is not much more than corporate advertorial, so is almost certainly an AFD candidate. I won't nominate it just yet, but I don't really think that it is redeemable in any way. Adrian M. H. 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if folks would mind taking a look at this article. I nominated it for deletion when it had no sources, but some have been added so it may well be kept, but I'm still concerned that the current state of the article remains poor. Since I don't have confidence my concerns will be listened to with an open mind, I was hoping to get some opinions from folks elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The big chunk of text that was lifted from the minutes should be rewritten in an original form. That's the one thing that really jumps out. It is moderately well sourced, but notability is a bit borderline. See if someone involved in Wikiproject Chess is willing to assist with its improvement. Adrian M. H. 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done a complete re-write of this, and though alot more work needs to be done I'd appreciate some feedback regarding the general format of the article, specifically:

• Readability - do your eyes get droopy reading all the technical stuff?
• Length - I'm considering starting to spin-off sections into sub-articles and expanding them slightly

Thanks, Lipsticked Pig

Readability: no, no issues there.

Length: Don't split it off into sub-articles. No need to cater for ADD type that might not be able to read through 40k of real text (excluding references, markup etc)

Other comments: Convert the "TWA 800 in the media" section into prose, rather than a list. Better yet, integrate it into the rest of the text somehow. ATM it looks like a disconnected series of facts, standing apart rather uncomfortably from the rest of the text (which is of rather good quality, IMHO). Not sure if the "Accident sequence" section is necessary enough to set up a stub section. It may (and only may) be in the "nice if we had it but not necessary" category. Maybe more wikilinks in the text would be nice.

Apart from that, excellent work. I'm quite sure this article could at least make good article with the above changes. :) Well done on your rewrite. Lewis Collard! (natter) 12:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I posted this article on June 7, 2007 without having thoroughly absorbed Wikipedia markup and format requirements. Article has been posted at this url with comments to that effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Essex_to_Cutty_Sark_to_Wyoming_-_a_History_of_Full_Rigged_Ships

Significant edits as to typos, grammar, syntax, Wikified and format were made during the following several days ending on June 13, 2007. First and last drafts/edits can be compared at this url.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=From_Essex_to_Cutty_Sark_to_Wyoming_-_a_History_of_Full_Rigged_Ships&diff=137919433&oldid=137218484

My question is this. When do Wikipedia editors look at an edited page, comment as to progress, -indicate further changes needed, and possibly remove the Comment Boxes at the top of the article page as to editing needed ?

Anyone who wishes to further tighten up format/markup re Wikipedia guidelines and requirements is welcome to do so.

With thanks for guidance and information ..

kind regards,

Merlynne6 09:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (do I also type user name following tildes?)

Looking at that article, I'm seeing zero Wikilinks, and a lot of external links. While external links are acceptable, exclusively being external links is a problem. It also reads more like an essay than an article. you may want to look at full-rigged ship for an example of covering this subject in a more encyclopedic fashion. I'm not even sure the title is appropriate for Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (Ooops, I forgot to sign)

With many thanks for your comment and advice, I will soon add several Wikilinks to take care of that deficiency. I did look at full-rigged ship. At the end of the day, do you think that an article such as 'From Essex to Cutty Sark to Wyoming - a History of Full Rigged Ships' is too wide ranging for Wikipedia, as you note it could be categorized as an essay ? Merlynne6 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the title is a bit too wordy for an Wikipedia article, and I suggest maybe covering the history of full-rigged ships within that article. It certainly does need some improvements, and would be the most likely search term. FrozenPurpleCube 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again Mr. Manticore - Latest edits as you've seen are minor text and format changes and the addition of internal links to Wikipedia articles. I assume that to change the title, I must delete this article and resubmit anew with new title ? I do not see any option to change title, which of course would also change page url. I would like to amend title to "History of Full Rigged Ships" per your suggestion.

My goal is to finalize this article's format to the extent that the notices across the top of the page as to deficiencies will be removed and/or replaced by remarks that have less design emphasis. Do you think that is possible and can you indicate how and when Wikipedia reviews for this change? Might I ask if you are a Wikipedia editor/administrator and/or marine historian ?

My thanks again for your time and consideration with these edits. Merlynne6 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is an editor and some 1200-odd editors are also admins, but that makes no difference to an editor's credibility, in case that was what you were asking. We don't wear our professional credentials on our sleeves, either. If you want to rename an article, you MOVE it, but a MERGE might be more appropriate if you have a content fork. I'll leave that up to you, but bear in mind that content forks often go to AFD and get consensus to be merged, which could just have happened anyway without the strain on AFD. I think that Full rigged ship is worth improving and you may be well-placed to do it. Adrian M. H. 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian - Tonight's editing .. Following your good suggestions, I've renamed the article to 'History of Full Rigged Ships' and Moved it accordingly. No problems noted afterwards, no double redirects etc see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Full_Rigged_Ships.

My next questions are this: What next edits/changes are needed to remove, modify and/or reduce in size these two notices at the top of the article page:

This article (or section) may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article, especially its section layout, and relevant internal links. (help)This article has been tagged since June 2007.

This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available, as is general documentation. This article has been tagged since June 2007.

Can you make such a decision alone as an Editor ? Or do you need to confer or 'meet with' several other editors to obtain a group consensus?

Please understand that my question about your precise position with Wikipedia was in no way intended to be critical. I was merely curious having volunteered as a copy editor for an academic, anthropology journal many years ago in which articles were peer reviewed. Writing for the readership of Wikipedia is a very different universe which I intend to learn as quickly as possible.

Again my thanks and appreciation for your time and guidance. Ben B.

Merlynne6 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work with the move (checking for double redirects). Tags can be removed by anyone as long as the removal is justified – unjustified removals (where a shortcoming genuinely exists but has not been remedied) should be reverted. So the ideal way to deal with tags is to fix the shortcoming. Let's take wiki formatting first; I will list some of the most obvious problems that I can see at a glance:

1. URLs in body text. Use wikilinks.
2. External links in body text.
3. No lead section.
4. Inappropriate use of bold text.
5. Badly positioned image gallery.
6. Lengthy section headings.
7. Non-standard headings for standard sections.

And a major issue – tangentially related to wiki formatting – no references! Material has to be attributed to reliable independent sources through the use of citations (preferably footnotes). Two links in that last bit because they are both important. See the first question at the top of my talk page.

Now, the copyediting. I would probably have been more specific had I been the one to tag it, and opted for {{essay}}. It reads like an essay, but it should read like an encyclopædic article. Have a look at FAs because they set the standard, and read guidelines such as the MoS and article development. Adrian M. H. 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian,

With thanks for your formatting guidelines. Questions for your next comments - - I typically reference in body text what in my opionion is the best site or url for the item, and choose to do so in this article whether or not link was external or Wiki. Does Wiki require that all links in Body Text be wikilinks? I can easily do so if required. - I am struggling to reposition image gallery ..:) - Will work on rephrasing section headings.. - Can you explain a bit further 'non-standard headings for standard sections'? - I can also easily add reference section at end and will do so in next edits. Is it required to have some references to print media, even when digital edition is not available, and/or paper edition is not free - must be purchased. In the latter case, is a link to book page at amazon.com. questia or abc books permitted? - I will look at essay definition, requirements vrs article as you suggest.

Next edits will develop slower than the past week, schedule here now is very busy...

best regards,

Ben Merlynne6 09:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You should not be using any external links in text, for two reasons; firstly, it looks an eyesore and contradicts the accepted Wikipedia article style and secondly, it makes it harder for editors to enforce (for want of a better word) the EL and SPAM guidelines. On that note, there are many established practices and preferences for which a written guideline is not always deemed necessary. Editors are encouraged to follow the styles and conventions of the best articles. For standard section headings, see WP:HEAD. An external links section should be titled External links or, if it happens to coincide with your most used sources (in addition to refs), call it Resources. Remember that you do not have to have any external links, and less is better. My earlier footnote links (specifically the template page) and WP:RS (read that and WP:ATT in full) indicate what sort of sources you are likely to use. Bookshops are not generally among them, and I am not sure what information you might expect to get from them unless you need a synopsis. Printed or online does not matter much, as long as it is reliable (has some editorial oversight); not a weblog or forum; independent of the subject; etc, etc. That's just skimming the surface of the subject. I might chip in with a few formatting edits later to help you out. Adrian M. H. 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian -

The continual link references to the Wiki style manual and related pages are much appreciated.

Found some unexpected time for further editing tonight but before going into those specifics, two other questions for you. 1) More than once you have remarked that this 'article' is more of an essay, than what Wikipedia defines as an article for the encyclopedia. While editing including some rewriting continues, I don't forsee a major new approach to this material. At the end of the day, am I fighting an 'uphill battle', i.e. this 'piece' cannot be accepted as a good article because it will be forever categorized as an 'essay'. Tell me true, aboslutely no hard feelings whatever you might say. 2) Last night you said "And a major issue – tangentially related to wiki formatting – no references! Material has to be attributed to reliable independent sources through the use of citations (preferably footnotes)." I found this confusing as there were several external links to authorative material in the text (soon to be removed per Wiki style guidelines), and there are more than 15 internal wiki links in the text as well. Are such 'Wiki article links' not counted as 'references'? Are some footnotes required or at author's discretion, but then only to Wiki articles? Brief thought to use a few book shop links has been cancelled :)

As you've seen, tonight's edits include: a) reorganization and expansion of TOC, leading section created and section headings rewritten/expanded; b) removable of inappropriate bolding of words for emphasis, c) centering of six masted schooner photo; and d) reorganization/edit of External Links section.

Next in line edits include removing of all external links from text - wiki links only henceforth - altho I notice the style manual states that text may include some external links. ??

I understand the need of editors to rigorously oversee external links so that nonsense, non authorative writing etc do not appear in articles. Certainly that is paramount for today's explosive web.

By all means chip in with some formatting edits at any time, that would be great!

With many thanks,

best regards, Ben Merlynne6 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll deal with the refs first. Material must be cited, and external links – whether in the proper section or bunged in the text – cannot be counted as refs. Not least because how can the reader know, without doing a lot of unnecessary reading, what material is cited by which link and whether the writer was actually doing his research properly anyway? We sometimes see refs that do not support the material to which they relate. You might have used some or all of them as sources, but that needs to be demonstrated in one of two ways. I'll explain the cheap, lazy, bad way first: Embedded citations via numbered URLs like this.[2] This looks ugly and lacks important at-a-glance information, such as the title, source, publishing date and retrieval date. It is also useless for offline material, of course. Now the proper way: footnotes. The best way to do that is to use linked notes, as explained in detail on my talk page and at WP:FN. There is also a similar form called Harvard referencing. Again, any FA will use proper refs in an appropriate layout and quantity, and you can bet the requisite peer review that awarded FA status would have checked those sources. They do the same for GA, even though each article is reviewed by a single editor.

Now the essay issue. I believe that this subject can be written about in a proper style without any hint of an essay. How to do that is up to you. It can come naturally to some and with practice to others. There are plenty of poorly written articles on Wikipedia, but fortunately some really excellent articles as well. Maybe you can take some inspiration from them. I'm reticent to do any rewriting for you for two reasons. Firstly, I believe in learning by doing (it has always worked for me) and secondly, I would have to rip a lot material out of the article and pair it back to the bare bones. Which actually might not be a bad idea, now that I think of it; if you try that, you might find it easier to rebuild the article in a new style.

On another note, you might need to get more accustomed to wiki formatting; when I edited the article yesterday, I was surprised to see that you had attempted to use HTML markup to format paragraphs and I was terribly disappointed to see that it was not valid! ;) You don't need any HTML markup except a small number of tags that are available from the editing toolbar, such as the small tags that I just used. We use divs and style declarations for certain purposes (not normally in articles) but everything else is wikitext. Adrian M. H. 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at the article. You still need a lead section in there, which is important, and the photo gallery belongs further down towards the bottom. These were part of the changes that I made yesterday, though I stopped short of rewriting the first paragraphs to form a proper lead. It would be better still, actually, to spread the gallery images throughout the article, alternating left and right. See WP:PIC and WP:LEAD for help with these improvements. Adrian M. H. 15:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian,

Yes certainly you should not have to rewrite to any extent, that is my responsibility as author and as you say one learns best by 'doing'. All html tags should be long gone, a few were in early drafts. I don't see the the new lead section and repositioning of photo gallery that you mention, but no matter.. I will attend to that.

Footnotes as linked notes, yes.. that will come in next edits. I see many Wikipedia articles using Embedded citations via numbered URLs, that approach seems common but inferior as you describe. Confident in my own ability to screen references, writing and research for rigor and professionalism, I often forget that an editor is 'running blind' and cannot assume that experience with any new, unknown author.

Overly busy with other commitments these two days, will get back to editing in a day or two.

Thanks as always, best regards,

Ben Merlynne6 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You can see the changes that I made in this version, but they were either undone or overwritten inadvertently. Not an issue, though. If you have any more questions, you're welcome to post on my talk page as this thread is getting very long now. Regards, Adrian M. H. 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Adian,

Thanks for the comprehensive writing/editing links on my User Talk page and your Welcome. Saved your June 20 edit. Yes, I'll switch over to your talk page, hopefully our lengthy discussion had some useful tidbits for other writers. Back in a few days after a revised proper approach to links and references is in places. With appreciation as always. Ben Merlynne6 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trevor is a fictional character from the Castlevania video game series. I did some heavy revisions to the original article, which was flagged for in-universe POV. I tried to fix that, and added quite a bit of information. [3]

I'd like to get this article ready to post on the Peer review section, and see if I can get it on its way to becoming featured. Or at least good, I don't know if it is extensive or big enough to be featured.

I want to know what is confusing, what still sounds too "in-universy," if I went overboard on citations for some of the plot summaries, and if any information should be omitted or expanded upon. Any suggestions or comments on any of those would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance, KristenDArgyle 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)KristenDArgyle

With an eye toward guiding this article to FA status, I'd appreciate comments on the article's main deficiencies. Much of the copy was originally to be found on the Enron Corp wiki page, but I spun the scandal of 2001 topic into its own page for length reasons. I myself have more or less written the copy you see now from the start all the way to the section "aftermath" -- which is to say more or less to where the citations die off. Cheers for any comments. Pablosecca 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I wonder if I might get some feedback on the article horseradish that I've been editing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horseradish&diff=141905695&oldid=140246347

I started editing it because I came here looking for some information on cultivation of Horseradish which wasn't included in the article as I found it, and when I looked at the discussion pages I saw that it was classified as a high-importance article in WikiProject Plants that was only classified as being of start-class status both in WikiProject Plants and WikiProject Food & Drink. I added a section on cultivation, then just sort of segued into editing/annotating the rest of the article. I've never done any major edit before, so I thought I'd better check in.

Thanks for any help! Valereee 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted someone to look at these articles. They were created by a single user who used an AP sample test as the source. These articles consist of a one sentence summary and a quote. They just seemed odd to me, and I don't know what to do. I do not believe they are copyvios because the copied, quoted text is hundreds of years old. I'm not sure what I think about using a sample test as a source, and if it is reliable. Anyway, just wanted another pair of eyes to look at these 3 articles and see what can be done, if anything. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are really half-hearted efforts, certainly, but such very short stubs are quite common. The quotes are given undue weight by percentage of content (used as fillers, I suppose) but, being quotes, they have no copyright issues. If you are familiar with the subjects, there is probably plenty that could be done to expand and improve them. Adrian M. H. 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned that wikipedia is not a primary source, and that we should devote that much percent of an article to quotes, although these are short stubs. Also the source seemed odd. Anyway, I do not know anything about these topics, I just came across them while sorting categories. Hopefully someone will see this and be inspired to work on these articles. If not, I may try to do some research myself. Thanks for your comment.-Andrew c 03:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I made several edits on CNR (software) that really changed the article (Diff) (note: my first edit on the page was done by IP address).  Tcrow777  talk  04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. For the most part, it avoids any suggestion of advertorial, although it lacks a certain balance that would be afforded by covering the history and development of the software. I'm not too keen on seeing prices quoted; there is a guide somewhere that discourages that. The weakest aspect is the references; you have two refs to Wikipedia articles and the rest amount to what are basically first party sources. This fails WP:V, which requires that secondary sources (that contain non-trivial treatments) are used first and foremost. I would be quite surprised if there are not more suitable sources available. Adrian M. H. 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been studying CNR for a very long time, what you say makes a lot of sense, I will look into all of it.  Tcrow777  talk  22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like some feedback. Blackcat52 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You have given a lot of undue weight to the plot with no encyclopædic content other than that found in the short lead. It is also unreferenced. I recommend that you start by rewriting and restructuring the article in a proper encyclopædic form with facts, such as the background to the series and details of its creators. Find reliable independent sources with which you can cite all your material via footnotes. Adrian M. H. 17:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many uses for hydroflouric acid(HF). Hydroflouric Acid is manufactured by feeding flourispar(Spar), which is mined in Mexico and China, that will create a waste product called calcium flouride at the end of the process. A strong grade of sulfuic acid and oleum, which has a negative water, is then fed into furnaces at about a 90% strength. Heat is applied on the external skin of the furnaces. The end result after condensing the product is called commercial grade HF. (98% HF). It is sent to storage and reprocessed to be stripped of water, SO2 and NVA(Non volatile acid). The end product is a 99.99% strength of Hydroflouic Acid. This product can be stored in carbon steel storages as well as pipe and rail cars/trailers for shipment. However, when water is added at a controlled rate(slowly injected to eliminate the heat associated with 2 added hyrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (H2O), it must be stored in rubber lined vessels and storages due to its corrosive properties. (Aqueous HF). There are many uses for aqueous HF and etching glass is one of them. Complete PPE is required for handling, sampling and loading this product(HF or Aqueous grade). Monsodium Gluconate is injected into the infected body parts to eliminate further distruction of the infected parts.Hf attachs calcium so it travels to the bone. It is painful and death can occur within minutes if treatment is not properly cared for in a timely manner. Of course where the burns are located can speed up death. Proper handling is very important in handling this product. There are many uses of HF. For instance when you turn on your air conditioner at home you can thank HF for the creation of ozone friendly refrigerant that gives you the cool in your home and auto. HF and perchloroethylene stoicametrically mixed and vapored through aluminum oxide catalyst produces the refrigerants for commercial and residential applications. Blown-in insulation is manufactured using HF.

68.106.164.116 12:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)—≥≥×←

To which article are you referring? Adrian M. H. 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an article on realcrimes.com concerning my son's murder case. I would like to get responses on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.195.207 (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2007

This project is intended to provide feedback about work that editors have done towards Wikipedia articles. Adrian M. H. 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In the articles I have placed recently "UNDO" appeared in the history. Why? What is wrong? The articles are: Fluid physics and Nucleate boiling. Please answer on my talk page. Thank you. --LidiaFourdraine 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothings wrong, an (undo) link is now available for each edit on page histories, without going via the (diff) link first. (r23771, bug 1783). This applies to the history of every article on Wikipedia, not just the one's you've edited. So, no worries! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing should be placed at the HD, or NCH if you are new to WP. RFF is specifically for feedback about a user's work on an article. Adrian M. H. 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently created this article on the agriculture of China, and I need suggestions on what improvements might be made. Specifically, are there any important segments of information anyone feels I've left out or need expanding? Are there any statements in dire need of citations? How could the article be improved graphically? Thanks! johnpseudo 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very nice article! It's well organized into sections and is well written in an easy to read style. You are right in that some additional citations could be used. There are several entire sections that don't have a single citation, including the introduction, Communism in China, and Major agricultural products. You might want to use citation templates for your references since the simple links provided for your online sources aren't very informative of what the sources are. Also, the images should all be related to the content of the article and they all should be captioned. For example, it would be more appropriate to have a climatological map rather than a political map of the country (if you can find or get someone to make a agricultural map, that would be even better), and the image of terraced fields should be related to something in the text regarding the use of terraces in Chinese agriculture. Overall it's a very nice article. Thanks for posting and happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have recently uploaded this article and there was a note on it to say that it did not contain references. I have now edited the article and it contains references, but the message is still there. I'm not sure what needs to be done to the article in terms of more references in order to have the message removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Regina Skrapac (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 July 2007

Hello and thanks for your post. Maintainence tags such as {{Unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} may be removed by any editor once the problem has been addressed, however in this case the problems have yet to be fixed. The problem is that using the company's own website as a reference is insufficient. For inclusion in the encyclopedia a subject has to meet the relevant notability criteria; in general it has to have been non-trivially mentioned in multiple, secondary, reliable sources that can be cited in the article to verify the information. In other words, you need to find sources that aren't associated with the company itself. Newspaper or magazine articles (not advertisements!), books etc. would all be good sources for your article. Read the policies and guidelines I have linked to here (they're also linked to from the maintainence tags on the article) to get more details. Thanks again for your post and good luck! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy -- I just made this article, and I was wondering what you guys though could be improved/expanded. I was thinking that I could write a "pre-history" section, and explain the First Nations history of the site, rather than making an article on Kosapsom -- however, I'm not sure. What do you like/not like about the article? What you would like to see more/less of? Haemo 23:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent article, and I hope you enjoyed your time on the DYK today! A pre-history section might not be a bad idea since I did wonder about that when I read about the three distinct periods/types of human habitation. Beyond that I don't have much to add. Kudos to you on such a nice article! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I added an "early history" section (since pre-history is ethnocentric, in retrospect), and another picture, which I'm not 100% happy about. --Haemo 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'd like feedback on this page please. COMAC - Chinese Overseas Movement of Advanced Culture I'm new so not very experienced. TIA Gordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkinGordonAtwell (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 July 2007

The article has some issues that need to be fixed, particularly the absence of references. It fails WP:V, which makes it a potential AFD candidate. It is not very well written at the moment, suffering to some degree from a non-neutral advertorial tone in places. It also needs to be formatted properly. See the comment and links on its talk page and the template on your user talk page. I don't want to discourage you, but it is only fair to be honest about its current shortcomings, all of which are quite easily fixable. Adrian M. H. 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Adrian M. H. I will fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkinGordonAtwell (talk • contribs)

I need help inserting pictures and more text to the International Armoring Corporation article. The company has many references and news feeds (www.internationalarmoringcorporation.com). Just need more feed back on how to expand the article and help it be a little more polished. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IACarmormax (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 July 2007

It needs some cleanup. There are issues with URLs in the lead, missing/malformed headings, an example image gallery, and so on. There is a significant non-neutral advertorial issue, too, with lines like:It also needs more/better refs for some of its statements (and to better establish notability). Adrian M. H. 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently made some major expansions to the hylomorphism article. Feedback is appreciated. (I want to be sure I got Aristotle right.)

Oops. Forgot signature. --Phatius McBluff 18:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From the article on "mammal-like reptiles:" "It has been suggested that this article [Mammal-like reptiles] or section be merged with Synapsida." This is a common point of view of someone who is conversant with a subject. However, not everyone is so familiar with this topic as to associate mammal-like reptiles with sinapsida; that's why they look up "mammal-like reptiles" in an encyclopedia. These points are true in general as well. By all means, incorporate the information in this article in Synapsia, but leave "mammal-like reptiles" as a separate, searchable topic. A short paragraph in "mammal-like reptiles" detailing their relationship to synapsida and a link to Synapsida would suffice.

Mike Sarles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.225.73 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2007

You may wish to post this at a more appropriate project page, such as VPM, or leave a message at a relevant WikiProject. RFF is for feedback about your contributions to a specified article. Adrian M. H. 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone create a new page for this topic? This is a school assignment and I need HELP! Please don't send me to yet another page of useless information. Thank you.

69.19.14.17 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)ehsoutlaw

Wikipedia's editors are not here to do your work for you. And RFF would not be the place for such requests anyway. Adrian M. H. 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello ppl,
i have translated the Abidjan page from the french to the english version as there was a request for translation on it, the user who requested it felt that the english version we currently have was not informative enough, i found the same opinion reflected on the current article's talk page as well.

being new to wikipedia however, i have actually created it as a user:subpage @ User:Mayalekhni/Abidjan instead of in the main namespace. as you will notice, i have not yet wikified it in terms of links, pictures etc, as what i am looking for at the moment is your opinion of whether it is indeed better than the current english version. if this is the case, i can work on creating the links and adding in the images etc.

please advice as soon as possible, thanks! --Mayalekhni 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now updated the englis version as well, please look at the article at Abidjan. your feedback would be appreciated! Thanks.--Mayalekhni 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, Oak Park is a lovely, historic town, and I feel that the article doesn't entirely do it justice. I've done a bit of work, but I'd love some experienced editors to take a look. I plan to include a section soon about how Oak Park is very socially progressive, being one of the first towns in the country to approve domestic partnerships. Please help me improve the article to at least Good status, and hey, maybe we could have it featured one day! Thanks in advance! GlassCobra 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the author of this section which was created in the last week. I believe there are big copyediting and grammar issues (fragmented sentences), and POV issues (where religious opinion are being stated as fact). I have a bad history with the editor who made these edits, and I do not want another run in. So I am asking if an uninvolved third party could just look over this section for grammar and POV issues. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew c! RFF is for editors, particularly newcomers, to seek feedback on articles they have written (or major edits they have made to existing articles). As an administrator, I presume you are familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which you should use - starting with mediation or an RFC. I hope you successfully resolve your dispute. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not currently in a dispute. There is just "bad blood" between LM and myself, and I do not want to confront that user. I was just seeing if someone could give that new addition a once over. Sorry if this was the wrong place for that. I am asking for feedback on a newly written section of an article. If it matters that I didn't write the section in question, then forgive me. If not, would you, or anyone else, looking it over for copy editing at the very least. Look at the last paragraph. Starts off with two sentence fragments. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, RFF is for feedback about your own contribution to a specified article, whatever it may be. That said, I took a quick look at your request back on the 9th. I opted not to reply, though (I avoid religion on WP, as I do in real life). My view of that paragraph, purely from an encyclopædic angle, is that it seems to be very preachy, unverified (unverifiable?), unencyclopædic, and biased. It reads like a sermon or something. But like I say, just my opinion. Adrian M. H. 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I've had a bit of a go at keeping the important meaning while cleaning up the grammar and NPOV-ifying. I might have subtly twisted some of the meaning, I'm not sure, but I don't think I have. It was a little impenetrable... SamBC 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote the entire article for Green Day's third album, Dookie. I would like some feedback, and some help or something telling me what to do, fix, etc. to make it better. Thanks! Xihix 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty good article, on the whole. I have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb to improve the grammar in certain places, fix some inconsistency and errors in punctuation, and correctly position some footnotes (after punctuation). I have also made one citation request. With just a little more work, this could be put forward as a candidate for GA, and much of any polishing that may be required will be raised for your attention during the review. Adrian M. H. 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot man! I added a citation that you requested, too. I'll try to see if there is anything else I can do, and request for it to be a candidate for GA. Xihix 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's nice when the feedback gets feedback. Good luck with GA. It can take a while bacause of the perpetual backlog, so nominate it soon. Adrian M. H. 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It obtained a GA late last night. I have also found another dedicated editor, who also likes the album, who says he will contribute significantly. Thanks a lot for what you did earlier! Xihix 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, well done! Adrian M. H. 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

May anyone give a check, and maybe correct, this new article I've translated from Catalan? Thanks in advance!--Paco ✉ 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed up some of the spelling and translating mistakes - I've also copyedited and rewritten other parts of it, so the article looks quite good now. Hope you like what I've done! Cheers, Spawn Man 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have expanded this article Angloromani language considerably, please review and remove from stub status if ok. Please provide any feedback/suggestions on my talk page, if possible, thank you!--Mayalekhni 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a stub. In future, you can use your judgment and change status and tags as required (within reason). I removed the stub tags for you. Adrian M. H. 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is clearly more of a start or B class article. Spawn Man 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added {{WP Languages}} to the talk page. Adrian M. H. 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! When I took up expanding it it was a One paragraph explanatin of what anglo romani means. I expanded it to its current length, but was not too sure whether i can remove the stub status or does it need to be done by admin (or someone!). Thanks, once again.--Mayalekhni 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrid Young is a singer/songwriter, and player of many instruments (and, coincidentally, my very first article). I think it might be done enough to remove the stub tag, but I still know that it could be better. I already know I need to get a good free use image for her, but what else could I do to groom this into at least a Category:B-Class_biography_articles ?? --Spazure 08:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations should go before punctuation - It's late, so I haven't looked through the article fully, but that's just a minor thing which can be easily fixed from glancing at it... Spawn Man 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they have to be positioned after punctuation. Adrian M. H. 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry - it was late & I put before instead of after lol.... Spawn Man 23:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that in the manual of style. I thought I put them all after, but I'll look it back over to make sure. I may have written part of it before I read the manual, so that may be all that happened. Thanks for the keen eye! Spazure 04:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Islam, but I knew the Islamic mythology article needed to be expanded. So I added to it what I knew about Islam pertaining to the subject of mythology. I realize that, because I'm not terribly familiar with Islamic tradition, I may have put undue weight on certain topics while not even mentioning other important ones. Any feedback is appreciated. --Phatius McBluff 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody fix the Royal Rife article. The article has become an embarrassment to Wikipedia: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/this_is_why_you_should_never_s_1.php

The previous version of the article had neutrality, original research and unverified tags. But, all these tags were removed later. These tags have been put back, after scienceblogs.com post received widespread attention among the science bloggers, the Wikipedia critics and others. 202.54.176.51 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RFF is intended to provide feedback about contributions to a specified article. If you wish to draw an issue to the attention of other editors, you can use the appropriate section of the Village Pump (Assistance in this case). Adrian M. H. 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi As it is my first go at contributing, I'm not sure if I used the most user-friendly format [PDF] and also how long it will take before it appears on the site. [I tried "Loop Cards" as a search item just now and it did not come up!] Cheers Adrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdriPinel (talk • contribs) 12:44, 24 July 2007

There is no article at Loop Cards, but I see from your contribs that you have uploaded a PDF file to the server. Uploads are for images, sounds and video clips (where strictly appropriate) for use in articles; not for documents. To begin learning how to contribute, please view the links on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

After contributing the Light Children article, it was tagged as needing to be wikified. I am not certain what needs to be done to make the article compliant with Wiki standards. Can anybody help? There have been several articles written about the 'Light Children' graphic novel project in internationally published magazines. The facts presented in its Wiki entry are clear, unbiased, and brief. However, because I am the artist hired to produce the art in the book, I believe that the entry is being flagged as self promotional. Since the information presented is non-biased and does not use any promotional language, I am concerned that this flagging is unfair. I have repeatedly edited the entry to try and make it 100% neutral in content and I have cited the references necessary to validate the information presented. Please help me to understand how to correct this problem.

Thank you for your time and consideration, Kyletw 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kyletw! Wikifying means addding wikilinks and formatting. To add a wikilink, enclose the text in double square brackets. For example, [[I Not Stupid]] produces I Not Stupid. If the text you wish to wikilink differs from the name of the article you are linking to, in between the double square brackets, type the name of the article you are linking to, followed by a pipe (|), and the text you wish to wikilink. For example, [[I Not Stupid|a Singaporean movie]] produces the text a Singaporean movie, but clicking on the wikilink takes you to an article entitled I Not Stupid. However, remember to only make links that are relevant to the context.

Formatting an article requires knowledge of wiki markup, which can be quite difficult to learn. Don't worry, though - we have several useful guides to help you get started. Moreover, you may wish to add relevant categories to the article, to make it easier to find.

As the artist hired to produce the art in the book, you have a conflict of interest. Is Light Children notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article? If not, the article may be nominated for deletion. The best way to establish Light Children's notability is by providing references to reliable sources. You may also find Wikipedia's guide keepng articles unbiased useful.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:NCH. Adrian M. H. 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Laurie Halse Anderson, I believe, is now ready for peer review. I completely revamped it, removing all non-neutral comments and wikifying and citing references for everything on the page. I was referred to her biography's page thanks to an editing bot...and it was barely a suitable wiki page, in my opinion, of course, and meaning no offense. But now, it has, I think, all the elements of a proper biography (Writer Infobox, References section, etc.), and so is now ready to be reviewed and scored. Thank you! --Carla Hufstedler 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things need attention:

• After the lead, there is nothing but lists. It really needs to be structured like a proper article, making better use of the lead.
• Most of the refs are primary, which fails WP:V. Primary sources should come second to secondary sources and cannot be relied upon solely or primarily for either verification or the establishment of notability. They also need more fields, akin to those at WP:CITET. (Note: The templates are entirely optional, but should be viewed to inform your layout).
• Ref #4 should be changed for a more reliable source; the IMDB is not considered reliable (see WT:RS).
• Too many red links. Consider seriously whether these items actually deserve articles; if they do not, then the red link is forever redundant. Remember that notability is not inherited.
• The Genre links in the infobox need to be corrected. I suspect that you intended to link to each genre.

Adrian M. H. 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback, Adrian. I'll go down your list and make these updates/changes ASAP. I really appreciate the advice and help!

Carla Hufstedler 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Post on my talk page if you have any further questions. Adrian M. H. 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

I edited a section of an article under the 'definition of philosophy'. The article origionaly stated that philosophy's definition as 'Love of Wisdom' was "Not much help", but on the contrary, that is philosophy's translation from latin, and in the history of philosophy, philosophers have defended wisdom, Plato refuted the sophists, cartisians addressed skepticism.. Philosophers throughout history have loved wisdom, defended knowledge, against reletivist, skeptics and sophists.

i didint say all that, on the page.. but there is something relevent to the definition 'love of wisdom' that's worth noting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiescotty (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2007 July 24

Based on what you wrote here, it's fortunate that you aren't advocating "philosophy" to mean "love of proofreading." I wonder if your comments about philosophy might be better received if what is easy to understand at a glance - namely, spelling and punctuation - are all clearly correct. VisitorTalk 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can this obsolete, poorly written and one-sided OR POV (claims relativists, skeptics, and sophists are not philosophers) entry be removed from the feedback page now? VisitorTalk 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Is this even a request for feedback? It looks like it would be more appropriately moved to the talk page for the article concerned. DMcMPO11AAUK 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pasted from EA/R:

Hi there, i've not long started doing edits for Wikipedia, but i just need someone to check over the first article i made. It's at National Sleepy Head Day. I know it's only a stub but any constructive criticism would help as i'm looking to start a requested article that is likely to be much more in-depth. Thanks Bizzmag 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a good start. Neutral, factual, trimmed of all fluff, suitably referenced per V, OR and RS. Meets WP:N. I made a few MoS edits, such as the wikilinked date to trigger user prefs and the section heading for the footnotes. The footnotes themselves are now better formatted per CITET. Just needs expansion now! Adrian M. H. 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pasted from my talk page:

thanks a lot for your help, i will keep trying to expand it but there doesn't seem to be very much of it about on the internet. I guess i'll just have to dig a bit deeper. Anyway yeah, thanks! Bizzmag 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can bring the article to the attention of a Finnish editor (there are quite a few) who may know of some offline sources. I can imagine that there won't be very many such sources available in your locale. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have created this stub, would be useful if someone could just scan it and see if its ok. Thanks. Bizzmag 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a pretty good little stub. Most of my comments about the above article are relevant here also. My only concern is that this could be an inadvertent content fork that duplicates information from another, more comprehensive cricketing article. Or is at least a candidate for a merger into such an article. I'm no expert when it comes to cricket, but there is WikiProject Cricket, so that's a good place to visit for info and assistance. I have added {{WikiProject Cricket}} to this article's talk page. Adrian M. H. 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Article has been {{prod}}ed. Reasons are there. For further discussion, I suggest you take it to WT:CRIC. —Moondyne 10:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done some major housekeeping on this article and tried to remove a lot of POV statements so that maybe we can get rid of the "Reads like a Resume" tag. Can somebody check it out for me? --Deptstoremook 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the article (diff) and listed it here, hoping to get some advice on how to improve it. Pants^(T) 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is being worked upon, it is currently being nominated as a Article Creation and Improvement Drive article However, it has been dinged with error templates: Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 and All articles with unsourced statements . I have tried to add sources/references to statements/sections, but I don't know if they are adequate, enough, and how to discuss, review the template or who posted the template or if a bot posted the template. How do I request the template removal? I have also tried to do a DYK as it has expanded fivefold in five days, but these templates regarding souces/references should be addressed, but how??? Whom do I talk to . SriMesh | talk 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would put your comments on the talk page for that article. If the person posting the template has that page on their watch list they should see the change and be able to reply. If it's not on their watch list and you don't get any negative feedback from other parties, then, personally, I'd feel free to remove the template and say something like "Removing template per talk page" in the edit summary. — RJH (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The reference tag issue has been resolved, and the article is still growing and reaching forward to feature status. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)