Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

non-Orthodox Jewish views on Resurrection

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=60451581&oldid=60150198 Someone with knowledge of the Conservative Jewish spectrum of opinion could please weigh in and see if my update is NPOV and accurate

David_Galenson

I'm not sure if this belongs here or at Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion. I created this article when I found nothing about this economist on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much information about him on the internet, so there could be Copyright and Original Research problems with the article. I would appreciate any comments. Phelan talk 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Listing it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion wouldn't go amiss if you don't intend to do any further work on it yourself. Some expansion of his study of artistic innovation would add interest to the article It needs some citations to support some of the claims - particularly "He has become famous..." which would be preferable if it was reworded ("His areas of study include..." possibly). Yomanganitalk 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva

I recently rewrote the Gilberto Silva article. Here is the big change: [1]

Specifically, I'd like to know if I have cited enough sources throughout the article, and if I've kept the 'Arsenal Career' section NPOV enough.

Also, how far off Good Article Status is the article? What can I change/add to get it up to Good Article Status?

Denis Law is an FA-rated football player bio (it's useful to see an example of what the perfect player bio page looks like).

Thanks for any feedback (and especially criticisms/suggestions), -GilbertoSilvaFan 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Flows quite well and isn't that far off the standard of the Denis Law article. Using dates in the sub-headings is probably not a good idea, at least until his playing career is over ("2002-present" could be wrong by tomorrow). Both the "Praise and Criticism" and "Trivia" sections would be better worked into the text - it will give it some life and remove these sections as point of view targets and places for dumping information without thought. Some of the sections are a little short to warrant splitting off, consider dropping some of the sub-headings. Also there is a real lack of references for important statements, such as "It was Gilberto's performance in this tournament which led to him being classed as one of the top defensive midfielders in the world" and "proving he was not just a watercarrier for the team" (the latter needs sources for why that was expected to be the case as well as some explanation). Yomanganitalk 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Voulet-Chanoine Mission

I've just finished writing Voulet-Chanoine Mission, and would like to hear some suggestions. Any advice or criticism would be immensely appreciated. The article took me considerable time, but as common with Africa-related topics, you often have to work in solitude, even when the argument treated is of considerable relevance (one of the greatest French colonial scandals).--Aldux 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and have a better look tomorrow, but from a very quick look I can see it needs at least copy editing for English usage. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Aldux! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. I applaud your use of references; here are some suggestions for improving the article:
Firstly, you may wish to add several images to the article, where it is appropriate to do so. To upload an image to Wikipedia, click on "Upload file" on the left toolbar, and follow the instructions. To make it appear in the article, add [[Image:FILENAME]], where FILENAME is the name of the image file, including the extension.
As Yomangani pointed out, the prose in the article needs some work. Spelling and grammatical errors must be fixed, and the article must maintain an encyclopediac tone. You may wish to check the article for spelling and grammatical errors, and fix them.
I think you could improve the structure of the article. The lead section must concisely summarize the article. In addition, headings like "The mission starts" and "Voulet's arrest is ordered" do not seem encyclopediac. I suggest you read articles on other military conflicts to get a feel of the expected structure of such articles.
I hope you will find this feedback useful. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the advice; I understand that the English is the main problem, but there's little there I can do, sadly, as I'm not a native speaker. The lead is an incredible blunder; thanks for remembering me. The sections titles are a disaster, I agree, but with all the time in wikipedia I still seem unable to decently partition an article of medium length. Thanks again,--Aldux 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Henry III of England

He was a King in England. Could you give ways that I could further improve this article? I am working on finding more sources. 0L1 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The section headings are a little strange - don't feel you have to have subheadings for every minor incident when there isn't enough text to support them. Take a look at Edward III of England and try and duplicate the structure in your article to some extent. The lead section needs to give a summary of the article, so the current version needs filling out (see WP:LEAD). Yomanganitalk 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Great - thanks for the advice. 0L1 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It could do with a longer introduction. Also, line citations would be a great thing. Durova 02:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Constitution of Thailand

I created an article on Constitution of Thailand and have brought it to a level which I think is acceptable in terms of comprehensiveness, references, and NPOV. I've tried to strike a good balance between having sufficient detail about specific constitutions and not trying to cover every single constitution in Thailand's history. I'd appreciate it if others could review this balance and suggest whether the article is either too detailed or not detailed engough. Thanks! Patiwat

  • It is well-balanced and mostly neutral in tone. I dislike the use of bolding terms which you think are important though - if you think the reader will miss the importance of these terms then explain them in more depth. You also don't need the controversy, key features and praise and criticism headings - working these into the text (for the most part this just means removing the headings) will make it flow better and reduce the appearence of bias. I think you done a good job in picking out some of the major changes, but some coverage of the "minor" constitutions would help to explain why the others have been singled out - perhaps you could dedicate a line or two to each in the list at the beginning. As a minor issue: the lead overuses "stipulates". Hope this helps Yomanganitalk 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! The controversy, key features, etc. headings were there to give readers breathers, since otherwise I was concerned some of the sections would seem to be too long. I'll take them out and add some detail about the minor constitutions as well. Your suggestions are greatl appreciated. XKMasada 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Rapid Plasma Reagin

I've expanded an article on the Rapid Plasma Reagin test used to screen for syphilis. I'd like to get feedback from a few people outside the medical community to see if it is readable to a lay person, while still offering something to a person with a medical background. Thanks.--Jfurr1981 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear. You might want to move "(Treponema pallidum)" from behind "syphilis" to behind "organism" to make it obvious that this is the organism and not the latin name for syphilis. Yomanganitalk 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a 14-year-old who did not study Biology, and I understand it perfectly. It's much easier to understand than many other Wikipedia articles on similar topics. I suggest you add internal links for related medical terms (such as bacterium). You've done a good job - keep it up! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


request for feedback on new article

Hi,

I wrote a new article called menstrual extraction, about a self-help technique developed by women before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Any advice/criticisms about how to improve it would be very welcome. (is it long enough? NPOV enough? Is it missing anything?)

Thanks, Cindery 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Good article. I've made some suggestions on the Discussion page. XKMasada 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some quick comments:
    • You should explain what it is in the lead - comparing it to another technique doesn't really help. At the moment it is necessary to read half the article before it is defined.
    • Try to use one style of citation - there is a Harvard style reference in the midst of the footnotes - and either remove the spaces between the punctuation and citations or include it consistantly
    • The discovery of the yoghurt is presented as being used by the police as evidence of a criminal act - this needs explaining since possession of yoghurt is not a crime. What justification did the police use to present this as evidence? Without that explanation the article becomes POV.
    • Although you mention other countries in the last paragraph the article is very US-centric. If you have little information about other countries you should still endeavour to make it clear when you are talking about the US. For example Wade v Roe didn't make abortion legal in other countries, so don't present it as a blanket statement.
    • Although pictures are normally requested to increase an article's appeal, I think you can give that a miss. Yomanganitalk 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Cindery! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
While the article has plenty of references and footnotes (which is good), it lacks an External Links section. You should create an external links section and add some links to websites about menstrual extraction. In addition, some words/phrases which should have internal links do not.
Perhaps some restructuring is in order. The main body of the article (which excludes the lead section, and notes/references/external links section) could comprise three sections: one about the technical details of menstrual extraction, one about how it is used (as an alternative to abortion), and a section about reception to menstrual extraction (I'm sure an alternative method of abortion would be controversial).
You may wish to add an image to the article, where appropriate.
Hope this helps. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

...thanks for the feedback, you guys! that was really helpful. i have started work fixing things per your suggestions already, and i put your report on the menstrual extraction talkpage for future reference for me and other editors while the rest of the work is done. thanks again! Cindery 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment about photographs. Obviously a photo of a procedure in progress would not be appropriate, but a picture of the machine would be exceedingly informative, and would add a great deal (especially to the section detailing the differences between the extractor and other types of vacuum extractors). Anchoress 04:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

..thanks. i think a visual could make the difference between MVA and ME clearer too. there actually is a little picture of the device under the first link in reference section--Janice Cortese (with a note saying:"includes picture of Del Em") but it's hidden away, and I couldn't use it because it is under copyright :-( Cindery 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Mifepristone

...I hate to be a "feedback hog,":-) but you gave such good advice I wanted to ask about this one too. (I put a lot of work into it, but so did other editors; I didn't start it.) It still needs some refs in the history section I think, and the "Use outside United States" should be expanded, I know...but how does it read overall for general reader, do you think? Does it have too many technical/medical terms? Should the product insert not be quoted verbatim in small type? Is it missing anything/NPOV enough? Does it go into too much detail about the fatalities? All criticism about how to improve it wanted and welcome. Thanks in advance, Cindery 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Quite comprehensive but there are few problems:
    • It is US-centric - FDA is not linked or explained; nearly all the statistics and data are US information; in the lead it is said it was initially available in France, but this is not mentioned again until late in the article - the history section should come before controversy to help balance this out.
    • I would put "Other possible uses" before controversy as well - since the controversy section is such a large part of the article it looks biased to have it so close to the beginning of the article.
    • The lead states "it is useful in humans an abortifacient...", this should be rephrased with a more neutral tone ("its uses are...") as "useful" suggests a POV.
    • Its uses for the treatment of endocrine conditions receives little further coverage after the lead.
    • Citation styles are mixed with footnotes and external links right next to each other
    • There are incidences of "US" and "U.S." right next to each other, and 60-mg,200mg and 200 mg (the manual of style recommends value then a space then the unit).
    • The clinical trials section needs more information: what dosages were the women on, what symptoms were they being treated for, what was the sample size?
    • The quoting of the packaging label is awkward after the contraindications have been listed above (and the quotes aren't closed anyway) - I'd list this information in the same way you handled the information above it.
    • There are a lot of medical opinions on its immunosuppressant effects and not many for the opposing view, but the section isn't badly balanced considering, and that may just be all the information there is available.
    • The "History" and "Politics and use outside the United States" sections are confused. History should probably only cover the point up to launch.
    • It needs more references as it is an emotive subject that is liable to be challenged if references are not provided (and probably even then).
    • Further wikilinking of some medical terms would be beneficial if the articles exist. Yomanganitalk 22:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Those are all excellent criticisms--I have begun adopting them already, and I archived your report on the talkpage for other editors to consult.

Cindery 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Foundation for Equal Families

This is my first article I have written, so any suggestions would be greatly appreaciated. Thanks. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Quite clear and well structured but lacking a little in substance. It overuses subheadings and underuses wikilinks to other articles.
    • There are a lot of terms and events that need further explanation, for example, what did Bill 167 propose exactly and why was it defeated? What is an intervener? What were the arguments and outcomes in the cases mentioned (links to external websites don't make for a good article, as if the site is removed so is the article content)?
    • There is no explanation of the actions or results in any of the activities the group undertook. Why did the government settle? Was the new bill a concession to the demands made by the group?
    • The education section claims that "The education portion of the mandate was achieved...", yet the mandate stated in the lead does not mention education.
    • The group is stated to be dormant in the lead, yet no mention of this is made later on.
    • The lead should be an introduction and summary (see WP:LEAD), so the information in the lead should be re-covered in greater depth in the body of the article.
Hope this helps Yomanganitalk 23:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Gay Cdn! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are some issues with the article:
The article is poorly structured. You should use ==second-level headings==, not ===third-level headings===. Third-level headings are used for further organization of content in second-level headings. You should use second-level headings for broad categorization of information: for example, a section on the history and founding of the organization, another section on the people behind the organization, a section on its activities, and a section on controversies it has been involved in, and so on. Good layout, structure and organization will make the article easier to read, and will help the article achieve broad coverage of the organization, which is one of the Good Article criteria.
The article also lacks internal links. Try adding internal links to articles on related topics. To make a phrase an internal link, enclose it in [[square brackets]]. The "Also see" section should be renamed "See also". In addition, I noticed that the article does not have references, unless the links such as "Vriend v. Alberta - Supreme Court of Canada" could be used as references; in that case, add them to a References section.
I hope you find my feedback useful. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I Not Stupid

While I have previously written two articles, Google Groups and Homerun (film), this is my first attempt at completely rewriting an existing article. When I found this article on one of Singapore's most notable movies, it was a total mess and full of fancruft. Over a week, I completely rewrote the article, and all the prose (though not all the information) in the article was written by me.

I am trying to improve I Not Stupid to Good Article status. While I appreciate all forms of feedback, here are some areas where feedback is most needed:

  • I always have difficulty with referencing: both with finding references and formatting them. Unlike the two articles I wrote, when rewriting this article, I made a genuine attempt to find some good references. Which parts of the article need more references? Do you have any suggestions for finding more good references, particularly for sections which lack references?
  • Parts of the article were written in a hurry late at night. Which areas need copy-editing, and are there any specific recurring mistakes that I should correct with my copy-editing? (In a past RFF for Homerun (film), someone pointed out that I kept repeating the word "shoes".)
  • Is the article "broad in its coverage" of I Not Stupid (this is part of the good article criteria)? If not, what areas do I need to write about to achieve broad coverage? (I don't expect to achieve the comprehensiveness of a featured article.)

I hope the Requests for feedback system I created will be useful in helping me get feedback on one of my articles! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It's quite comprehensive, so I don't think you need to worry about the broad coverage aspect, although critical reception could stand expanding with some actual opinions from critics. The political satire section is unreferenced (having none). You can nearly always find the original or alternative sources in English on Google by feeding it variations on the statements you need to source, but I'm not sure how expansive the Singporean web is. The prose is better than it was in Homerun, with less repetition and over explanation, but there were still a couple of examples. I found the plot section a little disjointed - this section in Homerun had a good flow to it, but here it is choppy and there are places where the paragraphs contain unconnected events. Some more specific comments on the text:
    • "Terry provides voice-over narration throughout the movie, particularly to introduce the characters at the beginning of the movie." - if it is throughout the movie how can it be particularly at the beginning?
    • "Boon Hock comes from a poor family...nevertheless he is loyal" - no reason to assume poor people wouldn't be loyal.
    • "The company Mr Liu works for hires an American, John, as Creative Director, and promotes Mr Liu's friend, Ben, to Creative Group Head." - there's no context for this. Why did they do it?
    • "Just before he jumps off the flat" - jumps from the flat window? jumps off the flats' roof?
    • "After Mrs Khoo and Selena thrash things out..." do they have an argument? "Thrash things out" can also mean plan something or resolve matters.
    • "When it was released, Money No Enough was the only Singaporean film with higher earnings than I Not Stupid." - this isn't clear. Which came first?
    • With earnings of over S$4 million, I Not Stupid Too overtook the original film as the all-time second highest grossing movie in Singapore. - this is repeated.
    • I'm not sure you need the "See Also" section - I Not Stupid Too is linked in the text.
Hope this helps, Yomanganitalk 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Texture filtering

I just did a major rewrite of the article on texture filtering. As this is my first big wikipedia contribution I was hoping I could get some feedback on it, particularly with regards to encyclopedic style, layout, etc. Here's the link to the diff page. Thanks! - Valarauka 13:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Your changes make it much clearer; the structure and layout are mostly OK (see below) and the style and tone are fine. The problems I see with the article at the moment are:
    • It does not cite any sources, so appears to be original research (which is against policy)
    • The intro is more of a definition than a summary of the article. Please look at WP:LEAD to see what the purpose and structure of the lead should be.
    • The article doesn't really tell us why we need texture filtering - this should be stated in the lead, and explained further in the "Need for filtering" section. Although you've linked to artifacts, a sentence on why they are and why they are undesirable would make this clearer to a novice.
    • The second and third paragraphs of the "Need for filtering" section discuss general theory of texture mapping rather than the need for it. Perhaps split them off into their own section?
Hope this helps. Yomanganitalk 09:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate your comments. I'd already figured it needed some citations, will dig up something from a graphics text or whitepaper. The rest of it is all valid, I'll see what I can do. Thanks! Valarauka 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article on W.E.Jones

I gather it may be unaccepted. Ok. I need help - I'm new and confused. May have to give-up! Osborne.

I think the problem with the Eifion Jones article is that it does not establish notability. In order for an article to merit inclusion on Wikipedia there must be some assertion that the subject is worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. You can establish this in the article by giving references from third party works that prove that he is recognised as an expert in his field. In addition the article has several point of view statements such as "He was a well-liked lecturer and his enthusiasm was imparted to students". All wikipedia articles should written from a neutral point of view so this type of expression is discouraged. Yomanganitalk 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Beat (film)

I've revised this several times. Having trouble understanding how to make things link and the following words show purple not blue in my attempt - genre, Protagonist, Action film, Drama film, sequence, The Shawshank Redemption.

A beat, in film is an Event, Decision or Discovery that significantly alters the way the Protagonist pursues their Goal. Beats are specific, measured and spaced to create a pacing element that moves the progress of the story forward. Uneven or erratic beats will be felt by the audience as either slow-usually the most forgettable or often tedious parts of a film-or stretches of film that jolt the audience unnecessarily.

Every cinematic genre has a beat that is specific to it’s development. Action film has significantly more Beats (usually Events) while Drama film has fewer beats (usually Protagonist Decisions or Discovery). Between each beat a sequence occurs. The sequence is often a series of scenes that relates to the last beat and leads up to the next beat.

In most American films the beat will fall approximately every five minutes. Following is a beat example from The Shawshank Redemption:

At 25 minutes: Andy talk to Red and asks for rock hammer. - Decision

At 30 minutes: Andy gets rock hammer. - Event

At 35 minutes: Andy risks his life to offers financial advice to Mr. Hadley. - Decision

At 40 minutes: Andy notes ease of carving his name in the wall. - Discovery

At 45 minutes: Mr. Hadley beats Bogs severely. Event

After each beat above a significant series of results takes place in the form of the sequence, but what most people remember are the beats, the moment something takes place with the [Protagonist]. More information on Beat Structure is provided in Anatomy of A Screenplay, Dan Decker.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28film%29"

  • They show as purple rather than blue because you have visited the links previously (they show as blue for me). The links are fine in the article, but you do need to do is provide some evidence that this article is is not original research (which is not permitted on Wikipedia). I've listed the book you referred to as a reference, but you should give some more details about it such as publisher, date and ISBN number. You should also add any other material you used as sources for the article under the "References section". Yomanganitalk 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

the city of vianen in the netherlaNDS- location!!

hI,

AS I WAS BORN IN THE CITY OF VIANEN, IN THE NETHERLANDS.. I WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT VIKIPEADIA MOOVED MY CIRY OF BIRTH FROM ZUIDHOLLAND PROVINCE TO UTRECHT PROVINCE....

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nl-zh-va.html

MY PAS WORD SAYS vIANEN....ZUIDHOLLAND , AS PLACE OF BIRTH NOT UTRECHT..

I HOPE SOME ONE WIL READ THIS AND SET THINGS RIGHT,


<email removed>

Wim Verdoold.

Vianen was transferred from Zuid-Holland to Utrecht on 1 January 2002. See here. The information in Wikipedia is therefore correct. Errabee 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bandung

Bandung is a city in Indonesia. I found this article and have had contributed a major editing. Yesterday (21/08/2006), I've put this article in the WP:GA nominee list. In just a few hours, it was delisted and tagged as having WP:NPOV in dispute. As far as my concern, there is no dispute about its neutrality. In the talk page, the reason of having NPOV in dispute because the article looks like a travel agent brochure and there is no mention of events that I don't know about it. I need a feedback from independent readers here, whether the article has NPOV enough. Does the article look like a travel agent brochure? Thank you very much in advance for your responses. This is the last diff page that I remember before I edited to the current page [2]. Cheers. — Indon 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

project the dears, next season

Dear sir,

I am new user on your system, I try many ways to e-mail my question over the wide web, but kept getting blocked walls. I didn't want to join your system has a user. I just wanted to post this this Question: are you or any of your staff going to make the next season of the DearS for contact 5 thru 8 in the dvds set. has are now, they in book novels only. I would love to have them in dvd set, to add to my library set..I've enjoy the DearS program in dvd setting, i wish to see more of the same. I am only a veiwer of your program shows. And wish to see more of the same, I been veiwing your dvd show over a web site called Http://www.Netflix.com and buy soon dvd program on web site, to add to my library listing.. so keep up with your good work, in these program.

New user pmadams_98

ps, i am not sure what i am to do now in your system, I just wanted to leave feedback here..and hope to see more of your funny program, they have me in tears when i watch them.. and have enjoy them alot, thanks.

One other thing! i know nothing about program or how to write about your story here, I am just a veiwer. i am just going to save the page

Are you trying to get into Unusual requests? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

TOV E. Rose, Celebrity Chaplain

Note: The entire article was posted here, minutes before it was speedy deleted for being non-notable. I've removed it (we can always put it back from history) and asked Toviaheli what feedback they wanted. Yomanganitalk 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite good

Wikipedia is going quite good as it is a free encyclopedia. Everybody should be greatful that it is free and shouldn't criticize it alot. Well, Wikipedia does have some errors but don't everyone make mistakes. it is a good effort for Wikipedia to exist on our internet.

Ummm, I think you posted this is the wrong place. This is an area to discuss and review edits to articles and possible imiprovements, not to discuss the pros and cons of Wikipedia. You may find the article on Wikipedia of interest. 0L1 14:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtua Tennis

I hoping to improve this article, but I would like to know in what ways it could improve. Thankyou for any help that you can offer. 0L1 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It needs expanding with some details on the gameplay, development and more on the characters and critical reception. Take a look at the recently promoted Featured Article Shadow of the Colossus for an example of how you could expand the article. Yomanganitalk 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Telephone_federal_excise_tax

This is a significant “current event”, after all, its not every day that the US Government throws in the towel on collecting a tax and admits that it has been unlawfully collecting it for the past hundred or so years. I would like to eventually work this article up to featured status by the time tax time comes around next year, as that would be both timely and relevant. Any feedback that can be provided would be appreciated, specifically on what additional information could be added and any additional sections that should be added, and also your suggestions on the use of "Effective partial repeal" (see talk page for history) for a header, or if there would be a more eloquent term to describe the situation. --Shortfuse 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Shortfuse! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Please note that Featured Article standards are very high, and it will be very difficult to get your article to featured status. I suggest you aim for Good Article status instead; You may wish to read the good article criteria and send the article for peer review.
Thanks for the suggestions. Do you have a paticularly well formated artical you could point me to as an example? I have put it in for a Peer Review as well. --Shortfuse 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read other articles on similar topics (laws that have been repealed) to get an idea on how such articles should be structured. The article needs more information on why the US government considered repealing the law, and the reactions to the law being repealed.
I'm sorry I couldn't give more useful feedback - I'm short of time. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, I have made a note of them and will try to include them in a revision! --Shortfuse 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

St. George's School, Ascot

St George's School, Ascot is a independent boarding and day school in Ascot, Berkshire, England. It is a single-sex girls school, which selects all of its incoming students on the basis of examined ability, usually at age 11, with a few entrants at 13 and 16. Carole Jordan is the current headmistress of the school.

Hey there, I assume this is Cowarth, as this person edited the most on the article. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia, though it seems you've been around since September the 5th. Before going to the article, I just want you to know (or read) WP:NOTABLE to understand which topics are notable and which ones are not. However it seems the school topic is in progress :P. For the article itself, it is a really good start, with good content and outline. Also, I like that you've included references, as it will satisfy WP:OR and WP:V (sorry about the shortcuts! :P). However, according to WP:MOS, the subheadings should be in lowercase, except the first letter of course. But if its a particular name, you shouldn't be worry about it. And also try to make the flow of the article looks nice by re-organising the subheadings, like, The Grounds and Hall could be under one subheadings called Places or something like that. I noticed the Old girls part and I don't really understand what that means, of course it wouldn't be really nice if you call someone "old" heheheh. Moreover, some pictures could improve the quality of the article, but ensure you've got the right to publish it. Last but not least, try using WP:CITET for references. Actually I'm learning about it as well, so lets learn together! Finally, happy editing! If you have something to ask, don't hesitate to post it on my talk page. Cheers -- Imoeng 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Referencing

Please see a request in the Discussion/talk currently at the top of the page

(MacAuslan 10:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In particular, it's about how to use the 'Harvard' (better known, in my view, as (author-date) sytem) system of referencing in the article on Harvard Referencing...

Of course, I'd be grateful for feedback...

MacAuslan 11:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, MacAuslan. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Please ask any questions about Harvard referencing at the Help desk, and read Wikipedia's help page on Harvard referencing. If you are seeking feedback on an article, please include a link to that article. To add a link to an article, enclose the article name in double square brackets. For example, [[Google Groups]] links to the Google Groups article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles

I submitted an article "First Aerial Victory by the US military." It was my first submission, and it was apparently deleted. I can't find how to go to Recently Deleted Articles and I want to know why it was deleted.

                                 Bobby Jim

Follow this link: [3] (although there has been nothing deleted with that exact name). Yomanganitalk 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

a poem written by Milton Vishnu Williams - fair heart wounded

I was a friend of Milton and his wife Dorothy some years back, he wrote this poem for me about me and although i did have a morden tower book containing this poem, i have misplaced it as the years have passed - i would like to know if anyone has a copy of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elle-crossley (talk • contribs).

I've edited your comment so it doesn't stretch the page, FYI.
At any rate, I think this question might be more appropriate for the reference desk which specializes in knowledge questions and the like. Also, did you try searching? You are editing an encyclopædia after all. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hide&Reason 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura

[4] (My most recent edit cf. the version before my first)

Spent the last few days fiddling. Here's what I've done:

  • Revised sections:
    • Intro--More than just an opening line needed, perhaps?
    • Gameplay--Talking about the gameplay's dichotomy and then explaining the two sides of the combat system seems like a logical way of doing it. Keeps a good flow to the article.
    • Trivia--Disorganised and, like most of the page, was pivoted around Fallout. Bulletpoint is beautiful.
    • Half-ogre Island conspiracy--Discussion consensus was that it was far too large. Cut down and rewritten for general readership.
  • My additions:
    • Development--Slim pickings, I'm afraid. There's just an all-round scarcity of data for the game, unforunately.
    • Reception--I'm new to WP's referencing system. Tell me if I've made a mistake.
    • Soundtrack--I hope there's no copyvio as regards the embedded link. I figured that if major distributors are giving you the OST, it must be legit.

As for the Locations and Races info, I'm undecided about whether to cull them, or remove them to a separate article altogether. I've really just (partially) wikified it and tightened up the language. They make the menu irritatingly long, frankly.

Glad to hear anything you've got. Hide&Reason 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about article creation

Dear friends at Wikipedia,

Am I able to post a putative hypothesis of the creation of the universe, that offers a different explaination of the creation of the universe other than the currently accepted big bang?

Kind regards, Mick <email removed>

You probably would have wanted to ask this at the Help Desk, but since you're here I'll answer you anyway. In short, the answer is no, unless you have some way of verifying that this "theory" is verifiable and not Original Research, which it sure sounds like. In general, you should try to cite reliable academic publications discussing the validity of the theory in your article, or it is unlikely it will stay. —Keakealani 07:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Minamata disease

I'd like to get some feedback on the Minamata disease article that I've been editing for the past few months now. I've been working mainly on the History section to explain how the disease was discovered and handled afterwards. I'm planning to edit and reference the Compensation and Democratizing effects sections soon and also add a section about the way the disaster was handled by the local and national government. Any comments big or small would be most welcome! Bobo12345 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very well written if you ask me, but citation no 2 is used too much, so maybe some more sources are needed? Still, bravo from me, that should be a WP:GA some time soon. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

India Christian Mission Church ( 1897 AD )

Dear Sir,

Greetings.

Our Church should also be enlisted in the Churches of India. The name of our founder The Revd.Arthur Stephen Paynter ( England) may also be included in the list of Missionaries to India.

The name of our Bishops : The Most Revd.N.Victor Amrutha Rao and the Rt.Revd.Dr.N.JOHN SD Raju may also be added in the list of Bishops in India.

Please visit us at : http://heal.up.to

Mr.A.R.Lawrence, Diocesan Secretary, Diocese of Krishna Godavary

You may edit these articles yourself, see Editing Wikipedia for details. Yomanganitalk 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Arthur Stephen Paynter is now a stub. Talskiddy 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Brain-computer interface

Hi, over the past month, I've made what I hope are substantial improvements to Brain-computer interface and wanted to please request some feedback about what needs to be done to get it up to good article status. Several months ago the article failed to receive 0.5 wiki status, and since I've begun editing I've been working through a list of things I thought needed doing (see Talk:Brain-computer_interface#Addressing issues outlined in 0.5 Nom). I think the article still has some way to go before reaching good status but I'd really like to know what the top priorities should be for future edits. NB: I haven't provided before and after comparisons because the highh volume of edits. Thanks Saganaki- 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Saganaki, how are you? You seem like a very good editor, I can see it on your article. For me, it is a good article, and I am sure it will pass WP:GA soon. You have plenty of inline citations, which is great, reasonable length of introduction and I really like your headings style. To improve it, I think you should get rid off the red links. If you can, it would be awesome if you make stubs, or else, try to reduce the red links. Also, try to add more images, like, BCI in human, if you can. Images are good to visualise what you are saying. One last thing is the portal link, I usually put that under "See also" section. Apart from those things, the article rocks! Way to go!! Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Imoeng, that a steer in the right direction --Saganaki- 06:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary McSheffery

Could people give me feedback on the article what needs to be changed etc?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathan Hoey (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, umm, Nathan Hoey, how are you? Strangely I couldn't seem to see your edit on the article, but that is alright. You've got a good start with the article, with infobox template, good lead section and enough wikilinks. However I cannot comment much on this article since there is not much information at present. So, you can put {{footybio-stub}} to tag the article as a stub. Stub doesn't mean "bad", it means it needs some major expansion, which I'm sure you'll find it easy. Another thing is references, try look at WP:REF for references. It is important to avoid original research and neutral point of view. Moreover, inline citations are extremely important, which you'll need for WP:GA and WP:FA. Try using citation templates. Lastly, you can put his photo on the article. Okay, maybe that will be all for now, if you have any question, don't hesitate to ask me or go to the help desk. Good luck, take care -- Imoeng 20:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie Battles

Heya,

I'd like to get some feedback on the above page. It started out very how-toy, and I think I've dealt with a lot of it, and I'm planning to do even more, but what else needs to be changed? Does it need more pictures? Wooty 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Heya too, Wooty, how are you? I like the article, it is very informative, although I can still smell the "how-to" tone there. I like the images best, because those can visualise what you are saying, and because it is a game, people have to see it. However I reckon you should make them smaller as they take about more than half of the page width. Okay, here is the list of things you can improve.
  • The most important thing, citation, and I couldn't see any single one of them, which is, um, needs to be done. If you don't put any citation, I am afraid you will fail Neutral Point of View and Original Research and other stuff you don't want to hear :P. Read Footnotes for help.
  • As the article mainly discusses about the gameplay, you can also write about the development and public perception. You can easily gather references or citations for this one, of course.
  • When I read the article, again, how-to tone is somewhat still there, also it is somewhat like a list of information. Try improve the prose of the article, it is important to pass good article.
  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), we should avoid linking headings, but I reckon it is alright for your article, as the information under each heading is not that much to use "main article template".
  • I also see separator line between ARC Trooper and Imperialists section. Is there any missing heading?
  • Lastly, per Lead Section, the "title words" in the lead section should be bolded, I can help you with that.
With this amount of information, you only need citations and fix the flow of the article, and I am sure it will pass WP:GA and maybe WP:FA soon. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Maserati MC12

I rewrote the article and would like to extend it further. This is the major edit I made [5] but I have since added a bit more. I know it needs more pictures, and I am currently looking but because it is such a rare vehicle there are few pictures that aren't under copyright. What I would like to know is what should be added to make it better? Thanks... James086 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello James086 how are you? I've just read the article and I think it is a good article, with reasonable amount of information and nice photo. Another thing, which is probably one of the most important thing is the inline citations, which great, you've used citation template and you can see the result, its great. For the improvements, I think I will just list it here, alright?
  • Inline citation should be put after punctuation per manual of style
  • By looking at Wikipedia:Lead Section, your lead section should be longer, you could write about the development, in brief. Also you can also write about notable buyer, as its pretty expensive, of course, if you can find the info.
  • When I read the whole article, it still needs prose improvement, because at the moment it still looks like a list of information. Try expand each bit of information a bit more.
Well that is all for now, I will help you with the inline citation format though, as its pretty stressing thing to do by yourself. If you have satisfied, please put it back here, so we can see the improvements. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 10:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I will work on what you have suggested. Also thanks for the help with inline citation. James086 15:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian Hedonism

Hi, I'd like to know more about Christian Hedonism, the present stub seems not enough. Would I have any chance to enjoy a full article on this subject in the near future? Thanks, - 221.121.33.118 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I suggest you be BOLD: create an account and contribute to the article (then seek feedback on your contributions here)! If you have no intention to contribute to the article (for example, because you lack sufficient expertise in the subject), you may list it at Requests for expansion. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Surfactin and Dwarf Crocodile

  • Surfactin This I think was a copy/paste from a paper on the subject at this revision. I thought it had sufficient notability to not get an outright deletion request so I trimmed it a lot and wikified it the best I could.
  • Dwarf Crocodile This I found with only a single line of text succintly describing the animal. As a good article on this animal was lacking, I found the links at References and made a composite text that reflected the websites' information.

Any corrections regarding grammar and organization are most welcome to any of these articles. Dracontes 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Surfactin

Hello Dracontes, sorry for the late reply. I have read the Surfactin article and I think it has a good potential to pass good article. I know I keep saying that but I am honest :). The best thing about the article is good amount of information and use of inline citations. I really like the way you used it, with the right formatting as well. I also noticed the stub template at the bottom of the article, which I think should be removed as the article is not a stub. The prose of the article is also great! Okay this is the downside of the article

  • Because the subject matter is very technical, why don't you put some pre-explanation about the topic before you get to the real topic? I saw a guideline that a great article should contain enough info that the reader do not have to look up another article. Probably it will be worth to try.
  • You could also put some images to help us understand better.

So thats all for now, if you can, please put that article here again so we can see the improvements. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 09:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (oh yeah, I will comment on the other article as well)

Dwarf Crocodile

While Surfactin has heaps of inline citations, I cannot see why you can't put citations on Dwarf Crocodile as well. With that kind of specific information (which is great!), I reckon you can easily find many sources and put them to the article. Just a suggestion, you might want to see citation template (have I told you this? :P). You can also expand the lead section, and read lead section if you want. It has helped me to write better lead sections :). The last thing is probably to expand the content of each headings, because those are still look empty. Apart from these things, the article is really good. If you have some questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 07:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Baseball scorekeeping - cleanup

This page has been tagged for cleanup since June, so being a former official scorer, and still one of those people who keeps score at every game I go to, I did a complete rewrite of it back in August. Except I'm having trouble getting other baseball people to read through the entire thing, and I don't want to just go replacing the entire original article without some feedback and/or improvement from other knowledgeable editors.

My new version is a user subpage (User:Dakern74/Baseball_scorekeeping) for the moment, and you can feel free to leave comments there. Thanks. -- dakern74 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello how are you? Sorry for the late reply, but I am not a baseball dude :P. So, hmm, you have got plenty of information there, and I can see you are an expert in these things, well done. However, I have seen people who understand very much about the subject matter on the article often do not put citation whatsoever. I can understand this because people already know the information without any resource. That is why, my first and the most important feedback is to add heaps of citations, preferably inline citations. I am afraid, if you do not put any citation, you will fail original research and verifiability. I will list some possible improvements
  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), you should avoid linking any heading, so it is better to put {{See also|blahblablah}} after the content of one heading/subheading.
  • The main thing I notice is the flow of the article, which is in dot points. I also understand this is like a guide of baseball scoring, but you have to be carefull of What Wikipedia is Not. With many dot points, people may think it is a "how-to" article. I also once made an article made of lists, but then many people told me to avoid lists.
  • I cannot emphasize enough that you need inline citations, or maybe for the first step, general references will do. Also try to put See also section at the bottom.
Maybe that is all for now, if you have any question or disagreement, please do not hesitate to put it on my talk page. Good luck, all the best and take care -- Imoeng 02:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Eugene Schieffelin

Wrote a new bio of Eugene Schieffelin...

All of the European starlings in the USA are here because a guy named Eugene Schieffelin imported a flock from England and in 1890 released them into New York's Central Park. There are now 200 million European starlings in the USA, as a result.

Thanks for taking a look.

Phowitt 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) phowitt

Hello Phowitt, welcome to Wikipedia! You might want to design your userpage, it is fun, hehehe. It is a good start, really, you have got the basic information about him, you just need to expand it a little bit more. I also noticed it has been around for only 6 days, well done. Here are some things you can improve.
  • Firstly, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for a complete things you need to know about biographies in Wikipedia. You also might want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to learn more about it.
  • As I always said, citations and references are the most important things you need to know, probably more important than the content itself :P. Because even though you have written 20000 words, it is useless without any citation. Inline citations are desirable.
  • I should have written this first, that Eugene Schieffelin should be a notable person to be in Wikipedia, try to read Wikipedia:Notability (people).
  • I noticed many external links in the main content of the article, which I have rarely seen before. I mean, I haven't read any policy about that, but it is just not very popular style.
Maybe that is all for now, but please, please, I really want to see any improvement on the article. Probably I will add it to my watchlist, but you can also bring it back here. Good luck, all the best and take care -- Imoeng 02:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI Imoeng, the page that says to not put external links in the article body is Wikipedia:External links. Specifically, it says that links not used as references should only be in the External links section. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Saxifrage! Imoeng 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

John Robbins

The John Robbins article was mostly plagarized, so I re-wrote it. It should be checked for NPOV. --Karuna8 23:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty NPOV to me. I'm going to go in and do a little grammar-nazi copy-editing, but other than that it's a promising start and I can see it doing well. —Keakealani 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Essawiki

Please consider my user page as an innovative concept of interest, and give me feedback. That would be very much appreciated.

Wikipedia is not a place to write essays on the topics found here, so unfortunately your idea is not acceptable. This is from WP:NOT:
Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2
 Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:...Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2

I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing in other ways. Yomanganitalk 00:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Photography

I have been working on a photography portal, but I am new around here and I need losts of feedback and/or editing help. Also, I would like to know where to place it to get more people interested in working on it. -Gphoto 22:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed on the user's talk page. Imoeng 09:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Gateau Affairs

I just made the table. I understand that it is not really Wikified. any other things that I can improve on?--Tdxiang 09:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello tdxiang, how are you? You said "I just made the table", which table do you mean? I will just review the whole article, alright? You have got enough information there, which is good. I also think you have understood about lead section and wikilinks. Here are some possible improvements.
  • For the lead section, you can expand it a bit more, by writing about where does it aired, are there other countries airing this show and stuff like that.
  • Again, sorry but I have to say this, citations. Moreover, inline citations are extremely important to satisfy no original research and verifiability. I remember that time when my article got deleted :(, but I am sure you can do better than me.
  • I saw a spoiler plot template there, but I could not see the closing template.
  • When I read the synopsis, I found that the sentences are rather monotone, sorry to say this. Probably you can vary the length of the sentences and make the prose better. Above all, if you have great amount of info, the delivery would significantly improve it.
  • Try to put "see also" and "external links" section. They are not compulsory, but they will make it a real article (I mean, its not common to have an article without them).
Again, this is a great start, please do not stop expanding it. If you have some more questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Good luck and take care. Cheers -- Imoeng 09:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Tdxiang! I don't need to introduce myself; we know each other! This article needs a lot of work.
  • Firstly, the article does not provide a broad coverage of its subject, which is one of the Good Article criteria. The article should contain more information about the show, besides the plot. For example, how was it produced? What did critics think? Were there any sequels?
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While comprehensiveness is good, the Character and Synopsis sections contain too much detail, to the level of being fancruft. Please try to write in summary style.
  • In addition, the article does not have any references. Please find some references, and add some internal links and external links to improve the structure of the article.
I hope you find my feedback useful, and use it to improve the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Blade Heart

This article of a show was just created today. I'd like to know how to improve on it. Thanks.--Tdxiang 10:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, you sure is a great contributor :)!! For this time, probably I will not give as much comment as before, since the content is fewer than your previous article. However the current information is pretty good, I can see some good points in the infobox. Also, do not forget about citations, since probably it is as important as the content itself. When I looked at your previous article, also this article, I think you will find reading lead section is good to improve your lead sections. Okay, maybe that is all for now. But please come back if you have expanded the article a bit more. Good luck and take care - I<font color="blue">moeng 11:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Maserati

This is a Template that would go on the end of articles (namely Maserati vehicles). This is the first template I have made and would like to know if there are any changes that need to be made before putting it on the bottom of suitable articles? Perhaps the date structure should be changed, I don't know. Also check out the talk page for the general format that I followed when making it. Thanks, James086 13:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, James086, how are you? Wow you sure a Maserati ultimate fan! :P The template is already looking good actually, you have done a great job and the date is fine, I reckon. I have tried to improve it myself but I couldn't, ahahahha. Here are some points
  • Try to add an edit button so other users can change or modify the template easily. Just a small "e" on the bottom right of the template is fine.
  • I noticed for the 3200 GT, the GT is not on the same line as the 3200. I don't know whether its my browser or what. If it happens in yours, try to fix that.
  • Although "Racing Vehicle" is a bit off topic, I think it won't harm.
  • Probably you should list all the models, although there will be too many red links. When other Maserati fans look at the redlinks, it is possible they will make a new article for that particular model. Just a suggestion, maybe a bad suggestion :P
As I said, it is already looking good. Maybe in the future you can make Wikipedia:WikiProject Maserati. Click the link!! :P Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm back. Thanks for the quick and useful feedback :). I have tried everything you recommended except I left the racing vehicles on. If the racing vehicles section makes the template too red with links or it doesn't really fit it can go. I added the edit button, the red linked cars and trimmed it a bit so it didn't have a long bit of blank. The 3200 GT is all on one line for me so it may be your browser, screen resolution or maybe it's mine. If it only appears to be good for me then it should be changed. I'm going to look at it on another computer this afternoon so I will change it then if it doesn't fit. I'm going to start putting it on the ends of articles now, Thanks again. James086 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Meg Griffin

This is an article about the fictional character from the animated show, Family Guy. I've made some pretty major edits (see differences) to the page in the last week concerning the article's length and quality, which has met with some resistance from fans of the show. I have concerns that much of the information on this page is not encyclopedic, and may instead be more appropriate on a fansite like The Family Guy Wiki. We have not gotten into an edit war (yet). The talk page has more details. Please weigh in. Thank you. --C-squared 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, C-squared! Unfortunately, it is difficult to give feedback on your edit, because your edit is primarily deletion of a large section of text. It is generally bad form to remove large sections of text from an article, but I understand that you were removing fancruft. If you have not contributed significantly to the article, and need suggestions on how to improve it, you can seek a peer review. After you make further contributions to the article (in the form of writing, not deletions), you may wish to come back here and seek feedback. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks—this has been very helpful. --C-squared 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How is my first article?

I just did a little work to my page on [Steven Vaiani] the drummer for [An Albatross].

I feel as if my links are not great. They work fine but they all have those brackets around them. Also, sometime the thumbnail pic shows up and sometimes it apears as a text link to the picture.

Those are my thoughts. I hope it is ok. I look forward to working with this site, as I have been an avid user for well over a year now.

thanks, Thomas Kachel

Hello Thomas Kachel, how are you? Welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, to make a wikilink (internal link) you only need to put the Wikipedia address, which is the first words you see on each page, for example, [[Steven Vaiani]]. What you did is, you put the whole url. If you want to put the whole url, you only need one square bracket.
So, about the article, you have got a nice lead section, sufficient information, so we know what is the article about. First of all I'd like you to compare with another drummer article, and I can only think of one drummer, Mike Portnoy, although I is not a good example, since it has no citation whatsoever. Speaking about citation, Wikipedia will always ask editors to put citations or references, so you will not categorised as Original Research and non-Neutral Point of View. If you fail these things, I am afraid people have no choice but to delete it (I learned from my mistake :P). Noticed I have added "stub" template at the bottom, you might want to read WP:STUB to know more about it. By the way, have you read Help:Starting a new page and Help:Editing? These will really help you improve. So now, try to expand it a bit more, then come back here because I really want to see the article improve (its nice to see any improvement!). I also have added the article to my Wikipedia:watchlist so I can help you with some particular things. If you have any question, just drop me a message on my talk page or ask it to the help desk. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have found a better article for a comparison, although I like Mike Portnoy more :D. Try to look at Travis Barker. Notice how the citation works. Oh yeah, I haven't told you about inline citation, please look at the link. Also, I have removed a statement that contained no neutral point of view, such as "talented drummer". To keep these sort of statements, you need to add citations after the statement. There are really many things to learn, as I'm also still learning now. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company

Because of my own time constraints, and the difficulty obtaining proper form in this article, I am requesting feedback on the article American Mutoscope and Biograph Company.

Thank you,

--Roger the red 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Roger the red! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. I must commend your excellent use of references; I'd never be able to write an article with 24 references! However, I noticed that some of the references (as of time of writing: 3, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23 and 24) are simple links with no extra information. For these references, you should provide additional information, preferably using the {{cite web}} format.
The article's main weakness is in structure and organization. Here are several suggestions for improving the structure and organization of the article:
  • The lead section is quite weak, and needs improvement. You may wish to read Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections. The lead section should state what American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is (which it does), establish its notability and summarize the entire article. In addition, you may wish to add an infobox at the top of the article.
  • I think the article focuses too much on the history of the movie studio. Therefore, it fails to provide "broad coverage", one of the good article criteria. You should create a "History" section, and make "Founding", "D.W. Griffith" and "Decline" sections subsections of the History section. For broad coverage, please provide information about other aspects of the company. For example: What were its most notable productions? What did critics say about the company and its productions? How was the company organized?
  • There are no images in the article. Although images are not required, it would be useful to have some images in the article. As they say, an article without images is like an emperor without clothes. To upload an image to Wikipedia, click on "Upload file" on the left menu, and follow the instructions. To include the image in the article, add [[Image:FILENAME.EXT]] to the article (where FILENAME.EXT is the image's filename) where you want the image to go. Please be careful about uploading copyrighted images, though, unless they are fair use.
Once these concerns are addressed, I believe American Mutoscope and Biograph Company will be close to Good Article standards. When you have addressed these issues, before nominating the article, please review the Good Article criteria and send the article for peer review. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Laura Spence Affair

This is an article about the political row known as the "Laura Spence Affair" that broke out in the UK in 2000 over alleged elitism in Oxford University admissions

Is this article NPOV enough and is it OK that I have only so far used sources from BBC News? If not, what should I add in? Smeddlesboy 12:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Smeddlesboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
I did not spot any obvious POV problems in the article. However, there may be some subtle POV problems that escaped my eyes. For example, in the first paragraph of the "After the Row" section, please be careful with weasel words such as "arguably". You may wish to read the NPOV tutorial for advice on writing in an NPOV manner.
As the BBC is a reliable source, I see nothing wrong with entirely relying on it for sources. Of course, using a wide range of sources is good, as long as they are reliable. In addition, I suggest you format your references using the <ref>...</ref> method. Wikipedia offers a guide on formatting references, but in a nutshell: enclose all the reference URLs in <ref>...</ref> tags, and create a References section, plaving only a single tag - <references/> - in the section.
I hope this answers your questions, and you have found my feedback useful. If you have more questions or need further feedback or clarifications, please feel free to post your request here. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)

This article presents information about U2's 1983 protest song and single. It achieved good article status in June. Since then quite a bit has changed (diff), and while it might be ready for a peer review, I'd like to test the waters here first. Some questions I have for general editors who might not be self-proclaimed U2 experts (as most of the editors of the article to this point have been):

  • The lead section. I've read over Wikipedia's advice on what an appropriate one looks like, and done my best to adapt the intro, but it still needs some work.
  • Images. Are enough used? Are they appropriate? Do they all qualify as fair use?
  • References. There are quite a few, but I'm certain more are needed. Where?
  • General layout and prose. I've compared the layout to other featured articles on individual singles, and I think they're fairly close. Is the information interesting and compelling? What still needs to be addressed? What parts of the article shouldn't be there?

Basically, I think it's pretty good, but it's been combed only by a group of U2 fans. I'm looking for the opinions of outside Wikipedians, I suppose. Thanks! McMillin24 contribstalk 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, McMillin24! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Since this article has achieved Good Article status, I think you should go ahead and send the article for peer review. RFF is generally for new or underdeveloped articles, which are likely to have glaring issues that need to be fixed, such as stylistic problems or lack of references. It also aims to offer guidance to new contributors, regarding their strengths and weaknesses as an editor. An article that has achieved Good Article status is unlikely to benefit from the feedback we tend to give at RFF. However, you are welcome to request feedback on other articles which you are trying to fix glaring issues or improve to Good Article status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents and related pages

This is a request for feedback on Wikipedia:Contents and related pages, most of which should be listed at Category:WikiProject Reference pages. The purpose of this "project" is to develop a set of comprehensive yet highly usable "Wikipedia Contents" pages suitable for the Main Page and sidebar. Please give feedback related to topics such as content, usability, and presentation. Think about what should be added, deleted or rearranged on the main page, supporting pages, and the header and footer navigation templates. Also, more contributing editors are very welcome to dig in and help spruce things up. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Rfrisbie! Unfortunately, your request is beyond the scope of RFF. RFF is for requesting feedback to encyclopedia articles you have created, or edits you have made to articles. We cannot give feedback on talk pages, or pages in the Wikipedia namespace. I am not aware of any process for getting feedback on non-article pages; perhaps you may wish to create such a process. I am considering creating such a process, as we have recently been receiving several feedback requests regarding non-articles. In the meantime, you may wish to ask at the village pump. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Any Wikipedians who are interested in Wikipedia:Contents are more than welcome to go there and throw in their two-cents-worth. No project is needed to do that! Rfrisbietalk 15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear J.L.W.S.,
Even though some of these pages are in the Wikipedia namespace (the rest are in article space, except for the one which is in portal space), they all pertain directly to the content of the encyclopedia. The pages in this set which are in the Wikipedia namespace are there only because they include self-references, but they are in fact part of the encyclopedia proper. (All encyclopedias have tables of contents and indices. Well, that's what these are!) --The Transhumanist 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody! We could sure use your comments on Wikipedia's various contents pages. There's a lot to be done, and it would take the 3 of us who have been working on this section of Wikipedia years to complete it by our lonesomes. Plus we don't even know if anyone really likes what we are creating. So come by Wikipedia:Contents and take a look!!!!! Thanks. --The Transhumanist 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tables of contents

Note: since the following pages pertain directly to the content of the encyclopedia, there is no better place than this venue for requesting feedback. Thank you. --The Transhumanist 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this navigation bar...


Contents | Overviews | Academia | Topics | Basic topics | Tables | Glossaries | Portals | Categories


All of the pages on that bar need your feedback. There's just 3 of us doing almost all of the work, and we could sure use some help. HEEEEEEEELP!!!!!!!!

First of all, do you like the bar?

Is there anything essential missing from the bar?

If so, what needs to be added?

Are there too many links on the bar?

If so, what should be removed?

How did you learn about the bar?

Do you make much use of the bar?

Do you like the colors selected for each of the pages listed on the bar?

Do you like the color distribution amongst the pages on the bar?

Would you rather they all be in greyscale?
Would you rather they all be the same color (as each other)?
Would you rather they all be different colors (than each other)?
Do you like the pages colored just the way they are?

Do you like the icons on those pages?

Keep them?
Get rid of them?
Find better ones?
Except for...?

Do you like the coverage of each page?

Are there enough links provided?
Are there too many links?
Are there gaps in coverage? What did we miss?

What else do you love about any of those pages?

What else do you hate about any of those pages?

Which of those pages do you make the most use of?

Which of those pages do you never use at all?


Contents | Overviews | Academia | Topics | Basic topics | Tables | Glossaries | Portals | Categories


Is there anything we've overlooked?

Religion in Indonesia

Two weeks ago, this article was an Indonesian collaboration article, but it had not improved significantly. So since last week, I have tried to expand the article, of course with some other editors. I'd like people to comment on the flow and the content, as well as the quality of English used. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very good article already, I was going to suggest more about some of the religions (mainly Islam because it's the largest) but then I realised there was a whole separate article. The only advice I can offer is to improve them (Islam in Indonesia, Catholicism in Indonesia, Buddhism in Indonesia). Ha, you ask for advice on this article and I tell you to go fix something else, sorry about that but the main one you have edited is already very good. Perhaps someone else can advise better. When I read it for quality of English and flow it seemed fine, I changed the grammar in a few phrases slightly but it is a fine article. James086 Talk | Contribs 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

masonic architects

I am requesting reviews and further information for the articlemasonic architects with external limks a priority. thanks signed by bamboo dragon 17/10/2006

Hello, bamboodragon! You can sign your posts by typing two dashes and four tildes, like this: --~~~~.
I'm glad to see the article has a "See also" section, and a list of books which were used as references. However, you may wish to add several external links to websites where readers can find information about Masonic architects that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.
All the information in this article is lumped into one big paragraph. Please divide this huge paragraph into sections and smaller paragraphs for better structure and organization. In addition, the article desperately needs a copyedit; it is replete with grammatical and punctuation errors.
In fact, I am not sure whether this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Please read what Wikipedia is not. Your article may be nominated for deletion if it is deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia.
However, please don't get discouraged. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and make better contributions. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about references

Hi. I am working on Swedish literature, trying to bring it to featured status. I still have a lot of work to do about contents, language, and the lead section, but I'd like to ask Wikipedia's experienced contributors about references.

I am worried about the inline references being to plenty and distorting the view of the article as a whole. Is this an issue, and if so, what can I do about it? Last time I was trying to write an FA i was told I should use inline references. But now when I compare Swedish literature to other FAs I see that they don't use inline references to nearly the extent I am. Can someone clarify this to me?

Fred-Chess 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fred, how are you? I have to admit that although there is a clear standard for FA articles, the nomination of an article goes back to each individual reviewer. Plenty references is not a bad thing, and I reckon, the more references you have, the better the article is, because it will satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and many other WPs :P. I just want to give one suggestion, that you might want to consider using WP:CITET although it seems too late to change the whole citations. But I and the other editors made it, we have changed the whole citations using WP:CITET. Also, if you feel a certain article should denominated from it's FA status, you can put the article at WP:FAR. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the more references the better, the ref numbers (superscript links to the end of the page) are small and provided they don't interrupt sentences I think they are fine (they should always go at the end of a sentence). If there are lots of references then it shows that the article is well sourced, some articles have TONS of references at the bottom, so many that it almost constitutes its own page! The article already looks pretty good I think, but if you feel you want to add more that's great. Bear in mind that you said you came here to ask experienced editors, I have only been here since June so I'm not really experienced, but I hope it helped anyway. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. / Fred-Chess 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Add-on domain article - may be innaccurate

Hi, I recently created an article on Add-on domains - I wanted to check my understanding of them was accurate. Thanks, Thomas Ash 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad Holland

Please editors post your comments on this article. IMO, it is a well writen article, with good references and is written in NPOV. If you can do anything to bump this to GA status, please inform me. Showmanship is the key 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Showmanship is the key, how are you? It is a well written article, but I hardly can see any direct citation (with the correct formatting). Although references section is highly important, you also have to provide inline citations, and of course the reviewer at WP:GA will ask for it. You also need to format the references using an appropriate formatting, maybe you will find it easy after you read WP:CITE. The lead section mentioned that he was a basketball player, but the information throughout the article is mostly about coaching career, maybe you should mention about coaching in the lead section as well. You might want to read lead section guideline. Last, but not least, is the presence of pictures, which is also very very important, and demanding at the same time. However you have to be careful to upload the image with permission. Maybe that is all from me. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

This article on James Robert Baker is the first I have written on Wiki, and I know it can be improved. I just don't know how to do it. Firstly, I haven't posted any sources, though I do have them. I just don't know how. Also, I cannot think of any more articles that can link to the one I wrote.

Any assistance would be appreciated.Jeffpw 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jeffpw, welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, let me give you some pages to look at.
There are actually millions other pages, but those will do :D. So, about the article, it is good that you have got enough information, which you will need to make the article fatter. By the way, have you tried Wikipedia:Notability (people)? This person must suit the policy, if not, I am afraid that it will be deleted. Another thing to remember, and very important, is citation. I see you've got them but you can't put them in. Please read Cite sources and footnotes for inline citations. Since I joined Wikipedia, I found that inline citations are highly important, maybe more important than anything, because you will satisty no original research and verifiability. Last but not least, is images, or pictures, as I really want to see this person's face! :P. Okay, maybe that is all for now, if you want, please put the article back here again after you improve it. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page, or go to the help desk. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now added footnotes to everything that I felt needed a source attribute. The page is now also linked from 9 other wiki pages and has a picture of the subject. Could somebody please read the article, and let me know if I need to source any other information, and if it needs to be lengthened?Jeffpw 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the new Christian Potenza article a couple of days ago

Hello

I created the new Christian Potenza article a few days ago. I'm sure you have seen Potenza on television before, probably in a commercial.

Please edit this article however you can, expand on it if you can, and encourage others to expand on it. Potenza is, in my eyes, a very good actor and deserving of a strong Wikipedia entry. Please do as you see fit.

-Kowalchuk

Hi, Kowalchuk, welcome to Wikipedia. Firstly why not make an account? It makes signing your name easy, you simply write four tidles (~~~~) and it allows you to actually start new articles. These are the main points of improvement that this article could use:
  • This article could use a picture, especially if it is about someone frequently seen in television commercials. Remember though that the picture must be free and not under copyright for it's use on Wikipedia. See WP:Images for more info.
  • The article is very brief, it should have more about him, his family, his history (see Wikipedia: Biographies).
  • Another thing is that it has no sources. The external links section is for websites that will be useful (usually only official websites, not fan sites). You can find out how to do this at WP:CITE and the preferred method is using the citation template available here: (WP:CITET). This gives nice organised citations that don't take up much room and make it clear what each citation is related to (with a summary at the bottom of the page).

If you want an example of an excellent article (the best of Wikipedia see a Featured Article, there is new one on the main page each day. These will have the citation template, be well structured and have loads of pictures. It may seem daunting but you don't have to add a lot each time you edit an article. I edited the article a bit, adding some info, references and the references section. James086 Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review! 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gimli animal shelter

If there is anyone out there who can expand on the Gimli animal shelter article, please do so... as well as editing it please. Even regular animal shelter policies or information from the Gimli Animal Shelter site would be appreciated. I would just like to see a larger article here. Finally, please link other articles to this one. I do not think there is enough of this.

-Thank you

GAS official site

Hello. Please post at Requests for expansion if you want someone else to contribute to the article. RFF is for seeking feedback on your own contributions to an article. I encourage you to be bold and sign up for a Wikipedia account, and contribute to the article, after which you may request feedback on your contributions here. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Middlewich

I would be interest in how this article could be improved, with the final intent being to put it forward as a possible good article. Salinae 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cúcuta

I wrote an article about Cúcuta, a colombian city and I need your feedback. I think my english is not good and the article needs a clean up..

Thanks!

Ricardoramirezj ✍ 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ricardoramirez, how are you? Sorry for the late reply! Btw, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy it. So, about the article, it is looking good already, with good amout of information and images. You also have backed up some statements with references, which is great. I also like the gallery section, good on you who have gathered the images. Here are some possible improvements.
  • I noticed some sections do not have much information, such as the History section. You might want to get rid of the subheadings and merge the information under a heading.
  • When you put inline citations, please consider using citation templates, so the formatting looks better. Also, try to read WP:FOOT (sorry if you have). It says that you need to put citations after punctuations.
  • Under the demographics section, probably you need to put more words, not just images. If you have had some more "written" information, you might want to resize the image to become smaller.
Maybe that is all for now, but you can tell me when it is ready for another review. Or you can put it on peer review. But I am sorry, I cannot help you with the English, as mine is not better than yours. In case of that, I will ask someone to review the English for you, alright? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers -- Imoeng 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Design_Patterns

I have added substantially to this article based on my notes from a recent teaching stint at Upenn. In particular, I reworded the opening and added a summary of Chapter 1, which contains an intricate discussion about object-oriented design that has had a lot of influence over time, but which few people have actually taken the time to read in detail.

I also tried to embed appropriate links to related pages.

I feel this was worth doing since a lot of other pages link back to this one, which indicates how well-known the book has become.

I did quite knowingly make one "judgemental" statement which seems to be true based on my experience, which is that people find the book somewhat difficult reading and hence many more recent books covering almost exactly the same information have found a thriving market (I didn't say it exactly like this). I hope that is OK in this case since it does impart information that helps put the book into perspective.

It seemed to me that the person who originally posted this article had not actually read the book (all too common, I'm afraid, in people who like to talk about design patterns).

Anyway, I'm a relatively new contributor and I'm trying to find my sea legs so I thought I had better ask for feedback before doing a lot of this kind of thing.Harborsparrow 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

An image of the cover (under fair use guidelines) would be nice. Twinxor t 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I just did that.Harborsparrow 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Camus' The Fall

I've recently made some rather extensive edits to this former stub article. More specifically, I've rephrased some of the introductory material, added the novel infobox, written a brief section on the setting and its thematic importance, and included a complete synopsis of the novel.

With regard to feedback, I'm concerned that the synopsis may be too lengthy and/or detailed; however all of the details I've included would seem to be useful for any "Philosophy" or "Themes" section -- which clearly will be necessary -- so I don't see where material can be cut or even if it should be. Finally, while I've been hanging around Wikipedia for a while, until now I've only made more-or-less minor changes or additions to articles; certainly nothing on this scale. So, some feedback on the general writing and tone of the article would therefore be much appreciated. Thanks! --Todeswalzer | Talk 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Smith Taylor

I've written this article from scratch as footnote to a larger article. Any feedback on needed improvements most welcome. --meatclerk 06:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things:-
Also, as another option, consider also reading this and especially this. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nurit Peled-Elhanan

As I am somewhat unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia, I would appreciate some feedback about any aspect of this article. Tidaress 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tidaress. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. After briefly reading through the article, here's the feedback I have to offer:
You have done a good job finding and formatting references for this article. In addition, you have found a photo of her. Well done! (You may wish to add a caption for the photo, though.)
However, the article focuses too much on Elhanan's opinions. According to the good article criteria, articles should offer broad coverage of their subject. The information in the sections "On Israel", "On the USA and Great Britain" and "Quotes" should become subsections of a new "Opinions" section.
If you have sufficient information and references, try writing sections on:
  • Elhanan's history. Where did she grow up? What type of education did she receive? What significant events were there in her life? (Name this section "Biography".)
  • Elhanan's personal life. What does she do in her spare time? What is her family like? (Name this section "Personal life".)
  • Criticism of Elhanan. How did others react to Elhanan? What did they say about her? (Name this section "Criticism".)
As Elhanan appears to be controversial, when contributing to her article, please bear in mind that Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The NPOV tutorial offers some advice on ensuring NPOV in articles. In addition, the article should establish how Elhanan is notable, or the article may be nominated for deletion.
Hope this helps. Please use my feedback to improve this article and your skills as a Wikipedian. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I will add information to the article as it becomes available to me. Tidaress 08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Double Bind

Hi, I recently made some major changes to the double bind article and would like some feedback as to their quality. Thanks! Itistoday 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pipil grammar and Miskito grammar

I have just posted a new article on Miskito grammar. This is my second effort to write an article of this same general type: four weeks ago I also posted Pipil grammar. As a linguist specialising in grammatical descriptions and minority/endangered languages, I would like to continue to contribute such grammar sketches of other little-known languages to Wikipedia. It follows from this that in some sense the Pipil and Miskito grammars represent prototypes for articles of this kind. Because of their potential value as prototypes, I am particularly interested in "getting it right" with them, producing good articles to serve as future models.

There already exist several grammar sketches of languages in Wikipedia, and indeed a category Grammars of specific languages to which these belong. There is no single model followed by all of these, and as would be expected, they vary quite widely in structure and quality. I am aware of general issues about quality of language descriptions and the particular range of problems posed by descriptions of specific languages, and have made it a point to work towards and exemplify a "good" and "robust" model in my grammar sketches that might be worthy of emulation and as a guide to authors of future (or editors of existing) descriptions.

I will close my request for feedback with a few disclaimers and pleas.

First, I am new to Wikipedia (I started a couple of months ago), and may be guilty of a novice's errors. Secondly, the nature of the articles in question may justify some readjustment of usual criteria.

For example: both these articles are scratching the upper limit recommended for article length. I do realise that. I have also made strenuous efforts to reduce article length to the minimum compatible with the needs of articles of their kind and purpose. In my own judgment, the resulting length is right for the kind of subject. It would also in my opinion not be a good idea to try breaking up these articles in order to achieve shorter ones because they do each form a coherent whole. On the other hand, I also believe the articles to be short and synthetic enough to be regarded as bonafide encyclopedia articles, and as such I have written them. They are grammar sketches, not grammars in the habitual sense (which are normally expected to be of book length and much more specific and detailed), yet they do attempt, within these self-imposed limits, to provide the non-specialist reader with an accessible and balanced overview of the structure of a specific language. (See also next point...)

Those are some of my quandaries as a new Wikipedian trying to understand and comply with policy regulations. The two grammar articles cited above represent practical attempts to work through or around these and "get it right". Could I have some feedback to let me know if you think I have done so? --A R King 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources and references

(Re the Miskito grammar article) I am slightly concerned about some aspects of the use of references and the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policies; this may be because I am a novice. On the one hand, all sources are to be acknowledged. That is not generally a problem, except in particular situations such as I have encountered in the Miskito case, where I obtained material by saving a copy of a website from the internet, only to find at a later time that the material is no longer on the internet, leaving me with no obvious way of referencing it any longer. Suggestions? On the other hand, original research is not to be presented. Does this literally mean that I should not cite my own published work? How about my own unpublished work? Assuming I manage not to do that, so that I only cite other people's work, it is not always easy in the case of content such as this to see how to make use of others' work without "copying" any of their content. In the case of descriptive information, presumably this is okay provided the information is "reworked" in one's article (which it normally will be). But too much reworking might be seen as original work, so there is another pitfall to avoid! But a good grammatical description absolutely must make use of examples, and here there seem to be only two options: borrow examples from other work (linguists do this all the time), or make up new (original) examples (for many languages this requires more knowledge than your average Wikipedian is likely to possess, unless (s)he is a specialist in the field, potentially "guilty" of original research...). Incidentally, in the case of Pipil I am a specialist on the language in question, while in the case of Miskito I am not and have drawn more heavily on the available sources (including the disappearing websites mentioned above). --A R King 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm young to Wikipedia too, but I've been teaching quite a while, and I feel that web pages alone are seldom adequate as a reference for the reason you gave (they may disappear). Links to web pages should, in my opinion, only be used if they reflect material that is also written somewhere, or material that is likely to be stable because it is on the official website of a stable organization. Even news organizations sometimes cycle their articles out so they become unavailable after a relatively short time.Harborsparrow 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's more complicated than that. The materials in question (two items, actually) are of such a nature as to obviously represent either published (probably) or perfectly publishable items of literature. They are manifestly products of serious scholarship, whose contents seem as reliable as a published work would be (which they probably are anyway). At one time they were on the internet, presumably intended for access by the public, and it was then legitimate to cite them as web sources. They are now off the internet, as far as I can tell, but that doesn't mean they are no longer good sources, and surely it doesn't mean they can no longer be quoted; what it does mean is that, unless when they were on-line I had also found, copied and still have a non-internet reference provided for these items, or else I can dig one up now (probably available somewhere in a library I personally cannot currently access), I don't know how to formally identify the source. If the upshot of all this is that web sources cannot be used as part of academic research or referred to in serious writing (including Wikipedia!), then the whole "internet revolution" would seem to have shot itself in the foot. I can't believe that's the answer. What is then? In the case of the Miskito article, the two materials in question provide most of my source information (since I don't have access to an academic library where I am). --A R King 15:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alan, some comments/responses re your concerns, above.
Firstly, the No Original Research policy is (by my reading) intended more to dissuade the general wikipedia contributor from inserting their own uncorroborated opinions, speculations, pet theories etc, particularly where there is no independent way or basis for verifying either notability or reliability. This is sensible enough. However, in the case (such as yours) where a contributor has notably-published work in some field or other, then that's a different matter, and it should generally be ok to cite such works. It's probably better that your work is not the sole or main source of information for the article, and that at least other notable references are provided which could be used to assess the relative merits and standing.
Also, the higher the "grade" of the work's verifiability the better (eg peer-reviewed vs. self-published), since any statement or associated source may be open to challenge on the basis of WP:RS, WP:V or WP:CITE regardless of whether it comes from a contributor or third-party source. This is generally only a problem if the information can be seen as contentious, implausible, or unduly opinionated. I don't think that's the case here.
Re the use of any unpublished MS. of yours, or your own set of illustrative linguistic examples- generally this should be ok too if there is no alternative, with the proviso that you can (as you have done) establish your credentials in the field and provide accompanying reference works from others to back these up.
For other materials unpublished or no longer readily available, again it should be ok to use these where there is no alternative, or in addition to more readily-accessible sources. As long as these are clearly marked as such so the reader may decide for themselves how reliable or otherwise the source may be, then some citation is better than none at all, which is all too-frequently seen. In any event, if some other editor has a problem with the added info they'll raise the issue, and it can be worked out. Just my interpretation, others may have differing takes on it. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out. This advice will also be useful for future work! --A R King 06:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ye Antientist Burial Ground, New London

Newly created article on local landmark with regional historic importance.

  • Is tone "encyclopedic" enough?
  • Are references and citations sufficient and appropriate?
  • Is photo properly cited and tagged?
  • Other(?)

I am a local history buff and this is my first Wikipedia article. This is a "pilot" and I intend to do more in this vein. What I learn here I shall use in my subsequent writing.

Thanks. --RalphThayer 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice article, your knowledge of this remote place is impressive. Please don't consider my suggestions anywhere even close to comprehensive, but from just skimming over it
  • Some of the sentences are very long, run-on sentences that are difficult to follow
  • Most wiki articles don't put a horizontal rule to separate the table of contents, to keep with uniformity and style I'd remove it
  • Parts of it read like a mystery novel and not an encyclopedia entry, for example, I'd remove the word stark from here: "In this stark and isolated corner of early colonial Connecticut"
  • Just before the table of contents there seems to be a broken quote
  • Don't forget that the Notes section can be used as a place for references as well
  • The See Also section should point to internal wikis, so since all of those links point to other websites you should rename it "External Links"
Otherwise, good job, your knowledge is impressive, the amount of citations is fine, and the page looks good, but remember, one of the best ways to learn how write good articles is to look at the featured articles. -- itistoday (Talk) 08:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Apachean ca.18-century.png

this is an invitation to comment on the map. – ishwar (speak) 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to add a key to the bottom-left corner of the map. This means it can be understood even without the image page. Otherwise, nice! Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epic of Evolution

I posted the original article yesterday. (This was my first posting, and it was a very enjoyable experience.)

Today I saw a NPOV notice on it with some changes. I was amazed at the quick response.

Later today, I updated this article (stub) with additional content. Have I addressed the NPOV issue?

Any other suggestions?

Thank you in advance for help.

Best Wishes,

Cathy Momosean 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV issues may stem from the article treating evolution as a fact and that people who don't agree with evolution are misunderstanding it. While I am completely in agreement with this, and am quite the strict anti-creationist, we have to stay NPOV. Some more information on what is meant by the "Epic of Evolution" (I believe you mean the concept of the universe as a perpetual "story" by "epic", as in a literary "epic", this might be misunderstood, make sure to let readers know this in some way!). As I'm not really a policy guy I can't comment further, but that's what I've seen so far. Best of luck. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am fully aware that this is not the proper place to debate the issue, so I'll keep my comments brief and to the point. I'm not entirely sure what Wooty's position is above, whether evolution should be treated from a "neutral" point of view or stated as a fact; but regardless of that, I can't see stating evolution as a fact as being an NPOV issue for the very reason that evolution is a proven scientific fact: to state it as such is no more POV than saying the sky is blue or that birds have wings. Making the point any other way would be irresponsible and unbecoming of an encyclopaedia.
But perhaps more to the point, having read the article I'm still unsure exactly what it's about -- what is the "Epic of Evolution"? Is it a book? A religious idea? Etc. etc. etc. This should be stated clearly and unequivocally in the lead section. --Todeswalzer|Talk 04:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese aborigines

Taiwanese aborigines. Compare to the [pre-edit version]. --Ling.Nut 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm looking for another round of input from outside eyes before I make an attempt to go for GA. Color me nervous. --Ling.Nut 11:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Skip it. Thanks. --Ling.Nut 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Carroll diagram

I've written this article almost on my own and it's a bit short. Can anyone comment on it or make it a little longer?--CarrotMan 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You need to format the reference using a citation template - find the appropriate one somewhere here. Seegoon 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

which may, or may not, inspire you. Since my math skills start at (minus) it is all I can contribute. Good luck. MissionCreek

Sonija Kwok

Biography of a Hong Kong actress. I would also like to request for a rating of this biography. Thanks.--Tdxiang 10:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rated this a start-class biography. It has no references, which it needs to fufill Wikipedia's policy on verifying content. Other than that, there is no reason to bold the awards she recieves in the #Pageant Career section - bolding, as stated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, is for the subject's name and any other alternate names for the subject. The prose also needs some work - saying "Note: [text]" is not preferable, and it should somehow be avoided (eg. "It should be noted that..."). The same can be said for the phrase "Anyway, after her winning...", which is unencyclopedia in its' tone of voice.
Another glaring problem is the image - the license currently under is not permitted withing Wikipedia's policy on images, as stated in WP:FU. Please provide evidence that this is from a promotional photo kit, or else it will be deleted. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Methyl tert-butyl ether

The clean up cost estimates are incorrect. Under "Legislation and Litigation", a figure of 1 to 30 billion in clean up costs is cited. The $30 billion value comes from a USGS report that indicates the amount (and value) of MTBE produced worth $30 billion. This is NOT the same as estimated clean up costs.

Hi. I think you're in the wrong place - this is for requests for feedback on articles. Because Wikipedia is, well, a wiki, you can be bold and edit/fix the article yourself. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My Opera Community

A couple weeks ago I created the My Opera Community article. Since then it has been sited as not listing its importance. I have been working on it but would like some advice as to how to best achieve it. I know that it could use more third party sources and editors. Any other advice would also be gladly appreciated. Kc4 04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Vilnius Castle Complex

Hello, before some time I crated Vilnius Castle Complex article and gradually expanded it, with help of other contributors improved spelling. And I thinking about WP:GA now, but before this, it would be wise to receive some feedback about it, starting from layout ending with enunciation. Please share your thoughts. M.K. 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've had a read of your article, and it is very good. However, a couple of things struck me:
  • The Teutonic Knights burning sentence in the lead could do with a reference.
  • Ditto above with the "attacked several times" sentence directly below it.
  • A lot of the #History of the Upper Castle section requires references, which are a basic requirement for GA and FA status. Although there is a little bit of leeway with what needs to be referenced, dates and figures are things that really require references to ensure accuracy.
  • Similarily, the #The Castle Arsenals section requires some references for the dates towards the end of the first paragraph.
  • A "see also" section, if applicable, wouldn't hurt.
  • No real problems with the prose, however there seems to be places where there are no internal links, especially in the middle sections of #History of the Upper Castle. Knowing little of what is notable in Lithuania, I can't hazzard a guess as to whether any of the potential links I'm thinking of would be applicable, however another review of this area may be handy.
  • Nice image selection, however as you have occasionally had images on the left side of the page, those in the #The Royal Palace section may be better if there is one or two left-aligned.
Otherwise, very nice! A very interesting compilation, which I enjoyed reading. Best of luck, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I will try to fix these problems ASAP. Thanks again! M.K. 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No problems :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Elias Fund

Hello, I am hoping so see if I could get some feedback on the Elias Fund article. I have been building it up for a while with a few others and was hoping for some input and feedback!

Thanks for your help. --Thefirechild 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Thefirechild! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Let's have a look at the article:
Firstly, is the Elias Fund notable enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia? If so, the article should establish its notability, or the article may be nominated for deletion. Note that some parts of the article read like an advertisement. For example: "For more information on starting an Elias Club at your Highschool or College contact info@eliasfund.org" and "A tax deductible donation can be made by two means".
The article does not have any references. In order to satisfy Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, please try to find and include references from reliable sources. If you need help formatting references, you may wish to read Wikipedia's referencing guide.
You should add a lead section to the article, encompassing some information from the Overview section.
All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Millwall brick

Before submitting the article Millwall brick to peer review, I would like receive feedback. Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a nice article given the slightly weird topic :) A couple of things:
  • Any chance you could get a picture of a brick in a generic position for the infobox - it may be more descriptive.
  • The lead needs references - "...was allegedly used as a stealth weapon..." etc.
  • Dunno if it would be possible, but the #Design section needs references (otherwise it could be considered OR).
  • The #References in popular culture section could do with a beefing-up, to explain th subject more in-depth.
Otherwise, nice article! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll begin to work on implementing your suggestions.--Jreferee 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No problems :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Breakfast Club

Hi, I have made a major change on reorganizing the lists of the Cultural Impact. Some of them are compiled into paragraphs for the lead section, and the rest are too diversely specific for me to make them into prose. Any feedback will be great. Thanks, Vic226 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistead_Burwell_Smith_IV

Hey all, I'm a new ed but a pro journalist who uses Wikipedia every single day. I posted my first entry, and wanted a little feedback on it. I chose a subject I knew well, but one that was esoteric enough to have no previous description. As such, I cited two of my past interviews with the subject, Pinback and Three Mile Pilot bassist/vocalist Armistead Burwell Smith IV, in the References section, along with another insightful interview and his bands'official sites. I kept it short, but will be happy to expand on the piece if everyone feels that the references used are legitimate and non-vanity. I wanted to understand the nuances of using my own past research, which I cannot separate from my overall knowledge on the subject, for support. Of course, I plan on covering a variety of subjects for which I haven't interviewed anyone, but I figured I'd start with this thorny issue first to better understand how Wikiquette applies to it. I can't thank you enough for opensourcing this encyclopedia, and for bringing knowledge to the world for free. It's amazing.

I have done a copy edit for you. Correct anything if I have mistakenly changd the facts. Since the feature seems to be his playing style can you describe this further beyond "fret work"? Do the references relate to specific sentences? You could extend teh article with a discography --Just nigel 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

West Country Carnival

In the hope of starting the push towards featured article status, I request a review of the article West Country Carnival. I was the editor who started the article, but asking for a review for something which is "visual" up until this point was, quite frankly - pointless! I have now added various pictures to the article, and while waiting for the images have with other editors considerably improved the original text. All feedback gratefully received! Rgds, - Trident13 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are great. It was good to read about this. Well done.
There are a couple of grammar errors in your first sentance. "The West Country Carnivals are a parade celebration with floats (termed "carts" locally), based in the English West Country; that goes back 400 years to the Gun Powder Plot of 1605." Try "The West Country Carnival is an annual celebration featuring a parade of illuminated floats (called "carts"), in the English West Country. The celebration dates back to the Gun Powder Plot of 1605." --Just nigel 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanx! I have made the suggested changes Rgds, - Trident13 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_feedback_Archive_2_7170.html"