Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Morometii

Hi, I've recently edited a note abour Marin Preda's novel Morometii. I would like it to be read by someone and eventually related to Marin Preda's page (if OK).

Thank you,

Dragos

Hello, Dragosioan. I'm Hildanknight, the user who created the Requests for feedback initiative several months ago. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and posting your feedback request (it increases the activity of RFF).
Since you did not provide any link to the article or "diff", I'm afraid I don't know where to go to read your article or edit. So how could I (or anyone else) give feedback?
If you are seeking feedback on an article you wrote, please provide a link by typing the article name enclosed in double square brackets. For example, here's how to create a link to Google Groups (an article I wrote, pardon the plug): [[Google Groups]]. Or you could type in the name of the article, highlight it, and click the underlined "Ab" button on the editing toolbar. Either way, you'll give me a link to the article, so I (and others) will be able to read it and give feedback.
If you edited an exisitng article (you say you "edited a note"), then please provide a link to the "diff" page. To get this link, go to the article and click on the "history" tab at the top. There will be a list of all edits made to the article. You should find your edit with your username, edit summary and the time the edit was made. Click "(last)" to arrive at the "diff" page. Now copy the URL and paste it here. Enclose the URL in single square brackets. For example, here's a link to the "diff" of an edit in which I expanded the Google Groups article.
Once you provide a link to your article, or the "diff", someone (possibly myself) will soon reply with feedback on your article or edit. Hopefully, the feedback will help you gain insight into your strengths and weaknesses as an editor, and you will use the feedback to improve your editing skills.
As a side note, please remember to sign all your posts. However, do NOT sign your contributions to Wikipedia articles! At the end of the post, click the signature button on the edit toolbar (it's third from the right, to the left of the hyphen and to the right of the W) to sign your post. Here's how it will look like:
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soft focus

I just rewrote soft focus (it was significantly factually incorrect, stating that soft focus was the same as out-of-focus) and added illustrative pictures; I'd like some advice on how to improve the article further. grendel|khan 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Since you "rewrote" the article, this means you were not the one who created and wrote the original article. So I don't know which parts of the article were written by you. Could you please provide the URL of the "diff" of your edit? To get the "diff" URL, go to the article, click on History, and look for your edit in the list (it should have the date and your username and edit summary next to it). Then click on "last" next to your edit to arrive at the "diff" page - copy the URL and paste it here. Thanks!
Here's the diff containing the rewrite. Mainly I'm looking for ideas on how to expand it at this point; I've explained what the effect is and how it's achieved (specialized lens, specialized filter, schmutz on the front element), and included illustration. grendel|khan 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick peek at the article, though, and it seems pretty good. It is well written and formatted, and makes good use of links (both internal and external), references and images! However, the article is pretty short. Try and expand it a little further - after a Peer Review, you could nominate it for Good Article. I'm in the Good Articles WikiProject, so I'd be happy to see your article become a Good Article. All the best to you, both in your real life and as a Wikipedian. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much where I'm stuck; I can't think of a direction in which I might expand the article. There's just enough text there to support the images, but obviously if it's to become a good article (in either sense of the term), it should be longer. But what to add? grendel|khan 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this topic, but here are a few questions that you might try to research and answer in your article. Do any well-known photographers use soft focus often in their works? Since you seem to be an expert on this subject, what types of images benefit from soft focus? Which do not? What specific size or type of lens flaw creates soft focus? How are modern-day soft focus lenses constructed to induce soft focus? How much does a decent soft focus lens cost? Also, since you mention that soft focus is popularly used in glamour photography, you might want to illustrate it by adding a glamour-esque photograph taken using soft focus. I hope this helps, and good luck with your article. NigelQuinine Blather• Toil 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political criticism

Political criticism is a term simply meaning "commentary on political topics", covering all basic political discussion and propaganda. I wrote the article some time ago and consider it one of my better works but would greatly appreciate some feedback on it. Thank you all in advance. Ben Tibbetts 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Overall, the article is very good. There's a few things I saw:
    • "Critics of this philosophy affirm instead that the general public (and, on a more individual basis, the "Average Joe") lacks the resources and capability to conceive opinions that are educated enough to be taken seriously..." This is the basis for the United States Electoral College. That part can be expanded a bit from that article.
    • There's no need to say, "(to use America as an example once more)", for example. Ideally, you could add some examples from outside one particular country to give the article a bit more of a worldwide view. Perhaps some examples from other non-Western cultures would be helpful?
    • Some users (particularily in Latin America) may take offense at saying America === United States, so I'd avoid it if possible.
    • Caricatures are very important methods of political criticism; try to give them a bit more of detail in the article. That can be done by bringing some data from the linked article. You should also make use of {{main}} and its brethen.
    • References. The article could really use some, to verify the verifiability policy. That's the thing that is potentially separating the article from Good article status.
  • Overall, very good, so I would be proud of your work if I were you. Titoxd(?!?) 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Carbohydrate Diet

I was just wondering if it would be possible to get some constructive comments on the page I have done. I know there are a few things which would improve it if I spent maybe 5 more minutes, but I can do that when I do the major over haul.

Thanks SO mcuh for help. It is truly greatly appreciated.

Iheartflutes 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Hildanknight, creator of Requests for feedback. Here are some pointers you may find useful:
In the introductory paragraph, you made good use of internal links. However, there are very few internal links elsewhere in the article. Wikipedia thrives on internal links, so do use more internal links where relevant. In addition, there are no external links or references at all. Although I find referencing difficult, I suggest you add external links to relevant web sites about the Specific Carbohydrate Diet. If you can find some references too, great! Without external links or references, we are not sure whether the diet is notable enough to merit an entry in the encyclopedia.
The style of writing in this article worries me. This article is written like an instruction manual, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or a how-to; therefore, the article should present information about the diet in an encyclopediac way. For example: "Always discuss diet with your doctor before trying anything." Refrain from using "you" to address the reader in articles. In addition, instead of recommending a few book titles (which shouldn't be underlined) in the article, why not list them in a Further Reading section (without letting it get too long)? Otherwise, you may give us the impression that you are trying to sell your books.
Sorry to sound harsh, but I think you will need to do plenty of work during the major overhaul. RFF is a new initiative and hasn't garnered much traffic, but I hope another Wikipedian will drop by and offer you more feedback. Nevertheless, all the best to you, both in your real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Iheartflutes, great job putting that article together. Here's some more detailed feedback:
  1. One of the main guidelines we try to follow on Wikipedia is that articles are written with a neutral point of view; meaning we don't support one side or the other in an argument, but only present the facts. Your article does a very good job of presenting only the facts of the diet, but it doesn't talk at all any facts against the diet. Are their nutritians who disagree with Elaine Gottschall's book? Has any research been done to support or refute the claims of the diet? These are the types of questions that I have after reading your article. (See WP:NPOV for more information).
  2. All articles on Wikipedia try to be as similar as possible in terms of style and structure, so that our readers know what to expect once they get used to it. The way we work together to achieve this similarity is by using the Wikipedia manual of style. It's absolutely full of guidelines for language, article headings, grammar... anything you can think of is in there! They're not rules, just advice that the editors of Wikipedia have agreed makes for the best articles.
I hope you find that helpful; if you have any questions about what I've said (or anything else!), please feel free to ask on my talk page. --jwandersTalk 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your ideas and suggestions. They are really great. Sorry the page sucks so much, but thanks to what you have said, I now have some really great ideas to keep going. Thank you SO much!!! Iheartflutes 08:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! So get going! I'm just a 14-year-old with lots of time to waste and a talent for writing, so I decided to "waste my time" helping you. I just had a look at the article, and it's much better! However, please don't add comments like "I have more to say and will return to this section tomorrow night, but right now it is rather late for me!" or "(Can someone get this to work please!!!!!)" in articles. You can leave them in HTML comments, the edit summary or the talk page. And since you asked for help on how to make external links work, the format is an opening square bracket, followed by the URL, then the anchor text, and concluding it with a closing square bracket. Hope that helps! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Erotic Engineer

can't find my page in search?????????????

That is strange cause I can find it.. Erotic Engineer. Do you want any feedback or something? Imoeng 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It will take some time for a new page to appear in search results. Imoeng, I think you clicked "Go" instead of "Search". I entered "erotic engineer", clicked "Search", and could not find the article (although I found it clicking "Go"). The first search result was a link to an AfD debate on the article Erotic engineering, which was deleted. Therefore, I'm not sure if Erotic Engineer (which should be moved to Erotic engineer) is notable enough to merit an entry in the encyclopedia. JoDiva, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but NOT your contributions to articles!) by clicking on the signature button (third from right in the editing toolbar). All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The search uses a index that is separate from the main database to find pages. It is updated on a schedule, so there is often a delay between creating an article and it appearing in search results. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibanez JEM

After a good response from all of you guys, I decided to request another feedback for an article I've just created. Thank you for your time!! :) -- Imoeng 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice use of images and links (including references)! You've improved a lot, so keep it up! I did spot a couple of minor issues, though no one is perfect:
I noticed minor writing style problems in the "Ibanez and Steve Vai" and "Design and production" sections. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia, so articles are expected to have encyclopediac tone.
Wikipedia doesn't like lists. The list I'm referring to is the list of guitar models. Only the first 3 sections of models have prose; what about the other 5 sections of models? If you think too much detail would make the articles long, you could provide a summary while offering a more comprehensive coverage in a sub-article.
That I had to search hard for faults to find suggests your article is pretty good. I wonder if another reviewer will come and disillusion you, spotting problems that escaped me. If not, try getting your article to Good Article status. It's probably a good idea to Peer Review the article before nominating it for Good Article, though.
Before I forgot, Imoeng, thanks a lot for your barnstar! It's the first barnstar I ever received, so it means a lot. When I first stumbled across the barnstars page, I thought that if I got a barnstar, it would probably be because of my writing skills - I never expected a Random Acts of Kindness barnstar. Perhaps if we discovered a common interest, and collaborated on articles on that interest, we could become Wikifriends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
ReplyThanks again Hildanknight! Just one question from me, what do you mean about "encyclopediac tone"? I don't know because I've never read the real encyclopedia anyway. hahahha. So probably it'll be very useful if you could tell me.
About the barnstar, that is alright, don't thank me, but thank yourself! :) You deserve it. --Imoeng 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basketball (ball)

Please leave feedback for my latest article Basketball (ball).--Showmanship is the key 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article, its a very good article, I reckon. The good thing about it is you have explained in details about the topic, and the topic is also very specific, which is good. To make it even better, I think you should include the specifications of the ball, like, the diameter, weight, pressure, and stuff like that. Of course you can also relate that to a particular organization like NBA for example.
And I see you are already good at referencing, and why dont you try this link and see "Multiple uses of the same footnote", so people can easily see you references.
You could also put some images, but be carefull with the policy and guidelines, just make sure you have the rights to publish it. So yeah, thats it from me, I like the article and its a good one. Take care! -- Imoeng 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Supershow. Did you write the whole article? If so, great job! Here's my feedback:
There's a problem with the footnotes - they seem to be invisible! All I see are bullets and daggers with no text next to them. I viewed the page in Opera 9 (my favourite browser) and Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7., so it isn't a problem with my browser. I don't think External Links should be formatted as a bulleted, numbered list.
You don't seem to understand Wikipedia's guideline to make internal links relevant to the context. For example, you added internal links to several colours, but failed to add internal links to several technical terms and proper names.
I noticed minor writing style problems in the article; for example, read the "Reinvention" section. In addition, I don't think you should add a section on notable basketball sellers; Wikipedians may mistake that for advertising or spamming, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia!
You may wish to add images where useful. Once you address these issues, I suggest you nominate the article for Good Article, though it's probably a good idea to Peer Review the article first, before nominating it for Good Article.
Hope that helps. All the best to you, both in your life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Jesus. Was Jesus' death at the cross?

Recently I added a contribution in Historical_Jesus but other editor deleted it due to grammar errors. Can you check if there is some grammar error and correct it?

Ok there is the text:

"Gerard Messadié develops more his idea in his novel L'Affaire Marie Magdalene . According Gerard Messadié, Jesus survived thanks to an conspiration . Messadié supports also the idea of survival basing himself on the Jesus' irregular crucifixion. The crucifixion was a slow martyrdom that took several days,. The death at the cross was slow because was usually due to asphyxia caused by the parallelization of thoracic muscles due to immobilization that caused that posture. Surprisingly Jesus was a little time in the cross (approximately three hours, according the gospels). If the prisoner was death, the tibias were broken. Jesus tibias don't were broken, instead, Jesus was wounded by a lance in the side (not a mortal wound).

Besides, the corpse which suffered crucifixion was buried in a common grave but Jesus was buried in a new tomb, according Mattew gospel. (At least Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemos were part of the conspiration, since they deposit the corpse). Besides the shroud that was used to bury jesus wasn't sewed [1]"

User:Atenea26 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Atenea26, sorry cause I didnt read it at the first time, because I am a muslim and I dont know whether I can give a good feedback to you. However I tried to prioritise the sake of wikipedia good articles and decided to give you some feedback! :) From my english point of view (just one level above you on the userbox :)), there is no any grammatical error. Just one thing though, since its related to religious matter, you really need to put the citation at the end of the last sentence, since its very important and sensitive.
Take care! Imoeng 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your feedback. Yes you have reason,but the citation his hidden, if you go to edit section you will see it.-->User:Atenea26 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I've seen that, its on the bottom of the page, citation number 10. What I meant is the second citation, at the last sentence, where a citation is needed. This was taken from the edit page, "However, although Romans had many ways of performing a crucifixion, their law was that once a criminal was hung upon a cross, their body was not to come down until dead, which would be verified by various practices to ensure the crucifixion had in fact been completed.[citation needed] ." Yeah, that is the sentence. Okay, good luck! Imoeng 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Atenea62! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. My advice: talk to the editor who removed it and ask him/her to point out the grammatical errors.
Be glad I topped my class in English this term, and topped my level last term! OK, I'm not trying to show off; here are some grammatical errors I spotted:
"develops more his idea" - should be "develops more of his ideas". The word "more" means "idea" should be the plural noun, "ideas".
"According Gerard Messadié" - should be "According to Gerard Messadié".
" survived thanks to an conspiration" - should be " survived due to a conspiracy". The word "thanks" introduces an unencyclopediac tone, so it should be changed to "due". The word "conspiration" does not exist - I think you were looking for the word "conspiracy". Since the word begins with C, a consonant, the article should be "a", not "an".
"supports also" should be "also supports".
"the Jesus" should be "Jesus". "Jesus", as a proper noun, does not need an article.
I need to go. I may return later to look for more grammatical errors. Hopefully others, especially the editor who removed your edit, will help me with the job. Your English could do with some improvement - all the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the entire section a bit. The Messadié novel could be put into a citation using <cite> format. I will leave that for someone else to do. --Richard 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
Richard I would comment it on the article disscusion page.--> User:Atenea26, 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
Contrary to an earlier comment, there is an English word "conspiration," but you should determine if this is the word you really want. The sentence "If the prisoner was death, the tibias were broken" is garbled. "Jesus tibias don't were broken" is garbled in two ways. First, an apostrophe is missing at the end of the subject's name, and second, "don't were" should be "were not." Anomalocaris 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, can you point another grammar errors? User:Atenea26, 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"according Mattew gospel" should be "according to the gospel of Matthew". Kaldari 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TeX font metric

I wrote TeX font metric (all of the non-me edits so far sum up to the addition of an interwiki link to ru:), and recently significantly expanded it by summarizing the file format specification found in Knuth's original source. I'd appreciate someone other than me going over it and seeing if it makes sense even if you haven't been poring over the source materials all day. (And if anyone wants to look over #Soft focus, I'm still interested in feedback on how to expand that article as well.) grendel|khan 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! Its a good article with specific details and very good referencing. However, in my opinion you have used too many technical words. I think, to make a very ultimate good article (although probably I cannot make one) is to think the worst understanding of the potential readers. If you can satisfy the "non-technical" readers, of course all the experts will understand it even more. Also, probably you could include some examples of how TFM can be use in our daily life, as people will think, "ahhh! thats what it means!" Another thing to increase the quality is to have a brief intoduction on the technical words. So probably you could explain what is "big indian" and "DVI" and sort of things, thus, the readers will not have to go back and forth to another article related.
So yeah, that will be all from me, just keep it simple.. :) Take care! Imoeng 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to use needlessly obscure language, but I don't want to end up duplicating content from other articles either. If I wrote it to be understandable to a time traveller brought here from the fifteenth century, it'd be a novel. The best I can do, I think, is to link technical terms, and explain why I'm doing so. (See, for instance, that I rewrote the bit about endianness. Different systems represent multibyte data in different ways; the point is that the TFM format does it in one way consistently across all systems, meaning that you don't have to worry about the endianness of the computer that made the TFM file or the computer that uses it. I think I got that across.) I also tried to separate the more technical content into the "Specification" section; any explanation of the internals of the file format (which, for nearly everyone, will be of academic interest only) would necessarily require a level of understanding above and beyond that of the casual reader; if you're going to read about file format internals, you're already going to know about bits and bytes. I do see your point about what any of this has to do with DVIs, and I've updated the second paragraph to make it clearer where this fits into the TeX workflow. Does the first section, at least, make more sense now? It's more important than the "Specifications" section, since it's of interest to more people. grendel|khan 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, and I think there is nothing much you can do as the subject matter itself is very technical. However, I have looked at your article again and I see you've changed some words of the article. Now the introduction part and some of the "specification" part is clearer. Also, you are right, probably most non-technical people like me (and some non-native english) will stop after the introduction part. So that is why I'm not giving you anymore comment since I'm afraid I'll make the quality even worse, so I will leave it to the more expert mates. Btw, probably you could take a look at thispage, as I think you have capability of doing that..
So, take care! Imoeng 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't mean to sound defensive. If I didn't want criticism, I wouldn't have put the article up for feedback here. I wouldn't have made the changes you'd suggested if I thought they made the article worse; I wouldn't have thought to make those changes in the article if you hadn't mentioned them, and I think they definitely make it clearer. I've added another section just now, about the human-readable equivalent file type (PL, or property list), and I'm not sure where to put it so that it makes the most sense. If I put it above the specification, I can't refer to the internals of the TFM format to contrast the PL format, but if I put it afterwards, it looks like it's an afterthought. grendel|khan 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, grendelkhan! Hildanknight, creator of RFF, here.
I suggest you read articles on other fonts/font metrics. This will give you an idea of the expected structure, style, format and presentation of your article.
I could understand most of the "specification" section. Although fonts aren't my specialist subject, I've used computers since 3. However, I don't know why that section should comprise the majority of the article. Perhaps you could add more sections to offer broader coverage on the font?
Nevertheless, all the best to you, both in real life, and as a Wikipedian! I hope your article becomes a good article, as I'm a member of the Good Articles WikiProject. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Beevers

This is my first go at trying to correctly reference an article (changes). I would appreciate some advice on if I have done this the correct way or not. Any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Essexmutant 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it and compared to the pre-edit article. And I also notice that you've given heaps of references, which is excellent. However, I feel like the proportion of the references is like 1:1 compared to the sentences. Probably you could make it better by expanding a sentence with one or two more support sentences, so that the references don't seem very monotone and feels like everywhere, while referencing is extremely good. Another thing that you can do is to put just one link, which is http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=l and make them all into one source, but I think it won't help much and not very clear.
So, thats all from me, the referencing is great but try to add one or two more sentences to before referencing it. Take care! Imoeng 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Essexmutant! You displayed an exemplary use of references, so great job! I suggest you add notes to some of the references. This article is almost ready for a Good Article nomination, although you may wish to send it for Peer Review first. I can't help you much as I'm not good with references. Keep it up, and all the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, both of you. I will add notes to the references and see where a Peer Review takes it. Cheers. Essexmutant 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Root cause

I did a complete rewrite of this entry, as the previous version was incredibly bad (incomplete, disjointed, opinionated, and a little spammy). As I'm not terribly well-versed in wikipedia rules and style guidelines, I'd like to get some overall opinions and suggestions for improvement. Here is a link to the diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_cause&diff=66545259&oldid=66102153

Note... the revision was done from a different IP than this request. Please direct any personal feedback to 72.141.22.69

Thanks! --192.75.48.150 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey mr,72.131.22.69! Why don't you register to Wikipedia so you can contribute and communicate easily? :) So, yeah, about the article, its a fine article for me. You've selected a unique topic and it is good, however, it must be harder to find the sources. Speaking about sources, you really need to make references, if you don't know how to do it, you can take a look at this. Of course, external links are good as well, but sometimes you need to cite a sentence or a paragraph like this one, "One view holds that, in theory, one would have to return to the Big Bang or the point of Creation (theology) to find true root causes". It is a big subject matter and its very important, thus you need to make citation.
The other thing is, probably you could divide the article into some parts. For instance, you could make the first two paragraph as a "Background" and maybe "Purpose" and "Application is Science" or something like that. It is good to divide it into parts so people know what you are talking about, although your explanation is very clear.
Yeah, so good luck on it and take care! Imoeng 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you're an anon, I doubt you'll respond to this, so I'll just point out two things:
The introductory sentence "Problems are caused to happen" is gramatically incorrect. I suggest "Every problem has a cause".
I suggest you add headings and references to the article.
I strongly advise you to create an account to edit on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kânik Language

The Kânik Language is a fictional constructed language created by Jeff Shanley for his debut novel Mathion: Book One, Mavonduri. It is the original language of the Kânín and the Wolven, a high race of Men.

I assume you are Oharion, since the history page is full of your name. And I assume you've made it yourself with just a little help from someone else. And I think, the article is very good, provides details and its very specific. You also have provided examples of the grammar and some words to explain the grammar. However one thing that you've missed is references. Some people may think it is a fictional subject matter, although it is really fictional. So what you can do is to put references. I see you've put the first references in the introduction, but it is better to link the references to the bottom part of the page. To learn about that, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia Footnotes. Seems nothing wrong for me about the article, but probably you can just wait for the others to drop you a feedback. If you want to get more feedback, since your article has already developed well, why don't you try Peer Review.
Excellent work, Oharion! Take care! Imoeng 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Oharion! I got your username from the edit history, but in future, please remember to sign your posts to talk pages (but NOT articles!) by clicking on the signature button (third from right) on the editing toolbar. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are some suggestions for improving the article:
Read other articles on fictional languages, such as Klingon language or Pig Latin. Note the way they are structured, formatted and presented. Having a similar style for related articles increases readibility. If there is a WikiProject on fictional languages, they may be able to help!
I noticed that your article makes sparing use of internal links. Wikipedia thrives on internal links, so use them well (though don't overuse them). Make internal links where relevant to the context, and add internal links to your article from relevant articles. The article does not have any references or external links at all. I'm not good with referencing, but do try to add references when you can. In addition, provide the reader with some external links to websites about the language, for further reading.
If you can find appropriate images to include in the article, great! You may wish to increase exposure to your article by creating a redirect from Kanik language. Keep improving the article further, and after a Peer Review, you may wish to nominate it for Good Article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the article uses bold a lot. Bold is used at Wikipedia only for the introductory use of the name of the article. The other places you are using it seem to be for words in the language and for emphasis of terms. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style tells us to use italics for foreign words and for "words used as words" (e.g., "the term abundance means having a lot"), and to not use it for emphasis except in very rare cases. Likely, many of the terms you've bolded that are not being used as "words as words" can be turned into internal links (even if they haven't got an article yet). — Saxifrage ✎ 07:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Most other articles on languages are titled "Fooish language" rather than just "Fooish," per Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. I would recommend renaming (moving) the article to Kânik language (note lower case). --Ginkgo100 talk • contribs • e@ 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic distance ladder

RfF on a major overhaul of Cosmic_distance_ladder from a newbie Wiki contributor. The cumulative differences I introduced are [[1]], but I've replaced nearly everything.

Hey there, it is a very interesting article for me. I also noticed that it is a very specific and technical article, so you really have to be careful on the selection of the words, as many people here, including me, do not have PhD or a high academic level to understand the article. In case of that, you might want to explain some brief explanation of the "technical words" like "spiral galaxies" and "elliptical galaxies". I know that people might want to visit another article, but I think it would be even better if you put some brief explanation there. THe other thing I notice is that there is no any article subheadings. Subheadings are really important to remind people where are they now and to divide the articles into parts. For this article, probably you could divide it into, Introduction, Method, Laws, and sort of things (sorry I cant help for this!). You could also put some images and photos, if you can, but remember about policies and guidelines. Above all, is citation, which I think is one of the most important things on editing. Besides the external links, you do have to put citations on some related paragraphs or sections so that the readers know where did you get that information. To learn about it more, please read Wikipedia Footnotes. Okay, probably that is all from me, if you have other queries, please feel free to contact me on my talk page or post a question on WP:HD the Help Desk. Good luck and take care!! Imoeng 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I've started on this (the beginning of sections are there now), will continue to hack on it for a while. I'll go through my dead tree library for citations. Images ... I don't know ... this topic doesn't lend itself easily to a graphic, and there's always the public-domain requirement. --BSVulturis 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoopfest

Please rate this detailed article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by supershow (talk • contribs).

On a quick browse through the article, I was left with a few questions. Is this a regional thing? Who sponsors these events? Is there a single organization that runs them now? Is the article discussing a specific event or just a kind of basketball tournament? Also, the tournament diagram in the middle looks nifty, but I don't understand what it communicates that the words "single-elimination tournament" don't. The article also might benefit from a careful read-through; the prose could be tightened up a bit. Lastly, you seem to have a lot of small edits made every minute or two in the process of writing up the article; to help us see the development of the article in larger steps, please use the preview button. Hope this helps! grendel|khan 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Betton Hills Preparatory School

This is my first wikipedia entry. I recently made this page for my old middle school. I am not sure if it is considered biased or not, please tag the page if you believe it is. Please leave any other comments too, and check for any spelling errors. I am also having trouble uploading pictures from the internet. I would like to upload their campus pic at http://bettonhills.com/images/campus.jpg and the logo at http://bettonhills.com/images/Betton%20Hills%20logo%20new.jpg. Thanks

Comment:Hey there, thanks for joining and contributing for Wikipedia. The article has a good starting point, so it is very possible to expand it until it gets a Featured Article status. And, it is always a good thing to make an article related to your region, your school and stuff like that. However, I spotted some things that need attention, like the infobox. Did you know about infobox before? You can read it here and learn a little bit about it. So, I've searched and I think this would suit your article. Also, there are some sentences that I concern, like "Betton Hills students have a challenging and unique curriculum, in accordance to the Core Knowledge curriculum" and the "Values" part, because it seems like an advertisement, sorry about that. One of the important thing is NPOV which is Neutral Point Of View, you might want to consider that. Some wikipedians also do not like list, so, probably you can expand the "Classes" part a little bit more. About the pictures, please look at this.
Okay, thats all for now, if you need help, just reach me on my talk page or post on WP:HD. Good luck and take care!! Imoeng 09:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
'Oops, I forgot to mention about citation or references. Besides the external links, you need to put some citations so that the NPOV thing satisfied, please read on Wikipedia Footnotes.
Hello, Scottybo! Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but NOT articles!) by clicking on the signature icon (third from right) on the editing toolbar. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
To upload the campus pic and logo, save the pictures to your computer, and then upload them to Wikipedia - click on "Upload file" on the left toolbar. Please don't upload copyrighted material unless it's fair-use, though!
The article is quite biased. But that's a natural, common mistake, as you probably wish to tell everyone how great your school is. An example is the statement "It is open to everyone who desires a great education". At least the article does not look like advertising.
Wikipedia has an official policy known as NPOV, which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Fortunately, Wikipedia also offers a tutorial for eliminating bias in articles to help achieve NPOV. I suggest you add a "Controversy" section. If there have been any cases of pupil misconduct which made the newspapers, that's the section to write about them.
Are you sure that the school is notable enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia? If it is, please add information to the article proving how the school is notable. If it's not notable, someone may list the article for deletion - no offense to you. If the school has any notable achievements or won any awards, this information should go into an "Achievements" section.
The article contains some lists, which you should try to convert to prose. I am concerned that some sections, such as "Mission" and "Values", may be copyright violations of the school website. I hope my concerns are unfounded, but if they are, try rewording the sections.
I noticed the article lacks references. Where did you get all the information in the article from? Perhaps you should spend some time finding useful references to add to the article. Referencing is difficult for beginners, and I personally have difficulty with it.
Well, that's all the feedback I have to offer. Please use the feedback to improve your editing skills and the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_feedback_Archive_3_6469.html"