Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Phelantalk 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 Toois 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 SAYSvIANEN....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:
“ 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. ”

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  ·  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  ·  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. AndI 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)

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

The Masters of Choy Lee Fut section needs a little cleaning up to do.

  • You'll get better help at WP:CU for clean-up requests. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MIT

I have added or revised substantial parts (History, Research & Faculty, Alumni) of the MIT article over the past several weeks. There are currently legitimate concerns about academic boosterism & length of the article (~70kb). I don't want a formal peer review (yet), just some new sets of eyes to read it over. Suggestions welcome on topics to be cut, expanded, merged, reformed. Madcoverboy 07:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Madcoverboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here's my feedback after speed-reading the article twice:
Your concerns about academic boosterism are valid. For example, the "Notable alumni" section, with over a hundred people in the list, is completely overkill. There is also a long list in the "Faculty and research" section. Try trimming these lists down - that should do the trick. For general advice, you may wish to read Avoid academic boosterism and the NPOV tutorial.
In the three sections "Culture and student life", "Faculty and research" and "Academics", I noted some overlapping information and fancruft. The "Campus" section appears to be too long. In addition, I spotted excessive external links in several sections, particularly "Organization".
Overall, MIT appears to be an excellent, well-referenced article, and after some trimming of fancruft and lists, do consider nominating it for Good Article status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

•Agreement with several other comments posted here, there is editing that needs to be done to eliminate overlaps and remove language that may be more appropriate to an institution recruiting brochure or Annual Report. Academic boosterism is very apparent, and a little disorganized. There are so many external links that it is confusing because some do not seem related to the core subject "all about MIT".This makes it difficult to track through history and relate it to major (departments) (schools) within the institution.I am sure it was difficult to get all the parties to contribute and to collate the information in the first place.I think a laser editing job would be in order, and then add back when the screaming begins. But, all in all, an overly informative piece. MissionCreek 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One (word)

Should this be an article at all? Is it Wikipedia policy to have articles on words themselves (the only thing new here is a paragraph on the history of the word's pronunciation)? Fagstein 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, this is not a Wikipedia topic. Possibly as an art or language form, attached to some other article. MissionCreek 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pandanus spiralis and Pandanus utilis

I recently started these two articles about tropical trees to compliment Red Fruit. They're referenced as well as I could make them, but it's surprising how short of an article a half hour's research can produce. Does anyone have suggestions on how to expand, or otherwise improve, them? (Unfortunately,) they're the most extensive articles I've started (though I have done a longer rewrite or two) without outside intervention. --Gray Porpoise 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing that you could do would be to do the references using the {{cite}} family of templates. That improves the article by giving the reader a list of the references. I've done the first two in Pandanus spiralis for you (on the theory that you'd like to be doing this yourself!). Waitak 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gray Porpoise 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That task has been completed. Are there any other ways that these can be improved (e.g. any type of information that needs to be added)? --Gray Porpoise 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

HHNO and HHNH

I have been working on splitting Halloween Horror Nights into the two component articles listed above. From my talk page, you can access the subpages I used to help during the split. I would just like general feedback on how it went and any suggestions on improving the articles themselves.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

8 Foot Sativa

Over the last couple of months, I have been working on updating the 8 Foot Sativa entry. It has developed majorly, from what it was (really was just a stub). Just reading through the text I have written it doesn't seem to flow as well as I like, so just want some peoples view on that, and any suggestions of changes to make the article better.

Thank you JohnstonDJ 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Forgot to sign. JohnstonDJ 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to requests for feedback. Nice looking article!
  • One problem I can see is a lack of references - for example, in Sections 1.2 to 1.5 inclusive, there's no references (I see you've done it for the other sections I didn't mention, which is a good start). See WP:RS for any further information you need on this.
  • It would also be good if you could find/get permission for a free image for this article. Currently, every picture is a fair use image, which is something Wikipedia wants to avoid. Further information on this can be found at WP:IMAGES.
  • Another thing that would be good would be a "See Also" section, for pages closely related to the band. Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style is always a good read - I noticed you bolded the album in the first paragraph (also known as the lead)), a thing which is discouraged by the Manual of Style.
  • Finally, I also noticed that a lot of albums aren't in italics. Generally they are placed in italics, per the Manual of Style. This is a pretty easy fix, though :)
Cheers, and good luck, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

AdventureQuest

Since 1 September 2006, I did an extensive and complete rewrite of this article.

Compare:

I would appreciate any constructive feedback you have to offer, and suggestions for improving the article.

I hope to improve this article to at least "Unreferenced GA" standard. Note that despite the game's notability being established in an AFD, a quick Google search yielded no reliable third-party references. If you have any suggestions for finding such references, I would like to hear/read them.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (creator of RFF)

I found [6] and [7]. I am not sure how good these are, but most of the things I get for AQ are travel or cheat sites. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey :) A few things I noticed, in no particular order of importance etc.
  • There seems to be a lack of internal links throughout many sections of the article.
  • A "See also" section with similar games may be good.
  • There's one or two occasions where "AdventureQuest" isn't in italics.
  • The "Criticism" section especially needs references, preferably in-line citations.
  • Double-check all the links are going to the right spot, as opposed to disambiguation pages - I seem to recall when I wrote a CVG article that a number of generic terms went to pages that were not what I wanted.
  • Is there a portal related (CVG, Computers etc.)? If so, {{Portal}} (see instructions by clicking the link) can be added to the "See also" section.
  • Ensure that the prose reads well and is interesting, and avoid saying stuff like "It should be noted..." etc. - see WP:GTWBA.
On the whole, a very nice article :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stillwater Area High School Feedback Request

Stillwater Area High School

I'd like to get some feed back on this page...If you could post comments/suggestions/problems etc. on the talk page that'd be much appreciated. Mientkiewicz5508 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Web_document (article) Feedback Request

The Web_document article was contested about original research. All other possible problems on Talk:Web_document. -- Krauss 22:09, 23 November 2006

Mary-Claire King

I developed the article on Mary-Claire King.I'd like some feedback rating the biography and general commentary. --LQ 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Brightman

I've been working on this for quite some time now but I don't think it's quite ready for peer review. Anything you can offer in the way of help would be great. My main concerns include:

  • Sources. I'm having a bit of trouble finding external sources (i.e. not official.) I know they're out there. They have to be. Lately since she released her album she's done a lot of radio appearances. Looking for transcripts with mixed results.
  • Photos. Currently we've got one photograph, a fair-use screenshot from a concert recording. Doesn't quite cut it. I've been trying to find photos but to no avail.
  • The article is still rather listy at the moment.

Thanks in advance to all who have suggestions. Crystallina 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

eletrical

How three phase system can change into two phase system by capacitors?

Galaxy

IMO this is a core topic in astronomy and the article is fairly well developed. I'd like to bring this up to GA, if not FA quality. Apart from the need for references, could you let me know what else needs to be added to make this article a comprehensive write-up on the topic? Are there any changes needed to the format or content? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(new section)

Hi, my name is Bill Kendall, and I am an accomplished portrait artist and aspiring writer at 52 the ripe old age of 52.I recently joined WikipediA as a contributing writer/editor, because I am very impressed with what you are doing with this site.This is a good example of emergence theory using positive feedback as well as negative feedback to create a more sentient site -- than most of the other sites you find on the web.I want to know if you will allow me to contribute an autobiography of an Artist/Writer: me.I would like to submit multiple drawings and paintings some times for illustration purposes; at other times I will contribute single ones with write-ups explaining techniques or brief histories.I would like to start an autobiography "One Artist's Sketch Pad" as an on going serial developmental fashion.Can this be done?I need to learn how to delete my duplicate ones (contributed artwork) and get all of them linked together as well as to other sites that are in your WikipediA network, that might be interested in seeing: the developmental stages of an Artist/Writer from the time I started at about 12 years old tell now.I would appreciate your attention to this matter and I look forward to working with you all.Please check out my artwork and make sure it meets your high standards, if not, please let me know.thanks, once again.Until next time...I await your kind replies,

bk

--FarroRavenKnight 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Public domain

I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Bill, first of all, if you want your images to be global to all Wikipedias, and other sister projects on the Wikimedia network, I suggest you upload the images on the Commons, the shared media repository. Secondly, your work on Wikipedia has to be encyclopedic, and not autobiographical; Wikipedia is not a personal webhost, so you might want to start your own personal wiki, which is pretty easy nowadays. Cheers! --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 14:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English

Please help bringing the Al Jazeera English article up to featured status.

However, considering the US regime's long-running smear campaign against Al Jazeera, I have one earnest request:

Before editing the article, go and actually watch the channel. That should be a requirement for anyone editing the article. The link for free online watching is in the article, so most users shouldn't have a problem doing that. 139.30.24.34 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to improve an article to featured status, consider requesting a peer review instead. RFF is more appropriate for newer, less developed articles. However, Al Jazeera English does not appear to be anywhere near featured status, so consider aiming for Good Article status instead. You may wish to consult a relevant WikiProject, where you may find useful resources and other Wikipedians willing to help you improve the article. I hope you succeed in bringing Al Jazeera English to good or featured status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A good Wikiproject to bring to attention on this article is Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, or a sub-project thereof. ~ crazytales-Stalk My Contribs!!!- 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Princess of the Stars

I would love it if I could get some feedback about this article. The Princess of the Stars is an opera by Raymond Murray Schafer. Thanks for your advise on what needs work! S.dedalus 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad start at all. A few suggestions:
  • First of all, it's always best to copyedit before submitting. There were some spelling/grammar issues that I caught in a quick once-over; possibly more I didn't see.
  • If possible, it would be improved by some critical sources; reviews, etc. Did any notable actors participate in the performances? If so, this could be mentioned.
  • The "See Also" section isn't needed; most of the links there are already wikilinked in the article's text.
If I think of anything else I'll add it. Crystallina 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm on it. S.dedalus 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Fox

The article on red foxes need a bit of layout work.A few of the pics posted are blocking text and creating unsightly blank spots.

Seems to have been fixed. —Seqsea (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I Not Stupid for GA

I don't wish to increase the backlog of my process, but I created it to use it, and I'm using it again.

Since 9 September, I did an extensive rewrite to this article, on my favourite movie. Several SGpedians and I agree that it is close to GA status, which I am aiming for.

Before nominating the article, I need to address two concerns:

  • The "Political satire" section. This section is unreferenced. Should it be removed? Is it needed to satisfy the "broad coverage" section of the GA criteria?
  • The "Production" section. The lack of coverage on Singaporean movies has made research very difficult. What information needs to be included in the Production section?

I would appreciate other feedback or suggestions for improving the article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Doodlebug

Can someone please reconsider including our article for doodleBug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doodlebug

Our original article was removed, but we feel if someone would actually take the time to look at what we have posted in talk regarding it's removal, it would be considered legit.

Thanks so much for your time and help.

(Please forgive me if I have posted here in error, and give a solid redirect if needed.)

RedSodaPop - Artist and Member of http://doodleBug.desktopcreatures.com

Please see this policy; your website does not meet the notability guidelines as set out in the aforementioned policy, and hence has been deleted. In plain words, your website is not noteworthy enough to have an article on Wikipedia. --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thameslink Programme

Hi, I'd like some feedback for this article please. Here's my version and here's what it looked like before I made several major edits. Edvid 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The other works section can probably be be absorbed into the main prose.Other wise it looks good to me.Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions)(Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. By the way, what would the article need to reach GA status? Edvid 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

St Pancras Thameslink railway station

I would greatly appreciate some advice on how to improve this article, which I think is good enough for Start-Class requirements, although it hasn't been assessed yet. It was created in April 2006 but hasn't changed significantly since then. Edvid 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first thing I notice looking at the article is the future stuff.Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.What it is intended to serve or function as should perhaps be incorporated into the main prose, while more speculative future content should be avoided.That's one thing you can do to improve, anywho.Hope it helps!Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions)(Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. With respect to the crystal ball comment, would some additional referencing be enough? As far as I can see, most of the speculation is documented in some of the referenced links anyway - nevertheless I'll take your comment on board. Edvid 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Georgia General Assembly

I have been trying to re-do the Georgia General Assembly article. The original was a stub, basically a paragraph long. I was hoping for some feedback on the article and suggestions to make it better. I have to admit I was inspired a lot by the U.S. Congress article and adapted that format in the expansion of Georgia General Assembly. One problem I can already see is that the Capitol Building pic is rather small in the infobox, but I don't know how to make it larger on here.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Reb 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Furl

"Furl is a free social bookmarking website that allows members to store searchable copies of webpages and share them with others."
This article was a stub and I've attempted to expand it. This is my first Wikipedia contribution, so I'm very unsure of the quality of my content. It also still looks a little small, but I don't really know what else to add. Here is the diff between the previous version and my edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furl&diff=92021142&oldid=74564163

Arungoodboy 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arungoodboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are a few pointers; I hope you find them useful:
Are you sure that Furl is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? http://furl.net has an Alexa ranking of 2,247. If Furl is notable, the article should establish its notability. If Furl is not notable, or the article is suspected to be spam/advertising for Furl, it may be deleted.
The Furl article focuses too much on the features of the website. One of the good article criteria is "broad coverage" of the article's topic. To achieve broad coverage, I suggest you add sections about the history of Furl, and any notable reviews or criticisms of the site.
I noted that the article lacks references. To ensure verifiability, I suggest that you find and add some references to the article. Formatting references may look difficult, but you simply have to enclose the reference's URL in <ref>...</ref> tags, and add a "References" section, which should only consist of a <references/> tag.
Once these issues have been addressed, feel free to return and request more feedback. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Student Project: Articles Related to Downstream_processing at WP:SUP

Twelve articles on aspects of downstream processing are in preparation as part of a student project.The students, mostly seniors in Cornell's Biological Engineering program, are all first-time editors and reviewers, learning as they go - as am I, the instructor.The students and I would very much appreciate peer review, human or javascripted, on any of the articles listed here.

Already open for review:

Thank you! susato 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

National Civil Defence Cadet Corps

Request for feedback on content that could be added into or edited in article

Add in things like Activities the corps does, Uniform and Insignia, Membership. Does the corps offer any Courses members can addend. Any Competitions ? Brian | (Talk) 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

plato

who was plato in the story allegor of the cave?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Courtney 15 (talk • contribs).

This page is for requests for feedback on articles. You might try the Reference Desk, though note they won't do your homework for you. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Victor Hugo" painting letters v.h. help please!

VICTOR HUGO] how would i know who to contack, too show a picture of a painting, that may have been done by victor hugo? can anyone help me! I have a painting mid 1800s signed V.H.I CAN NOT SEE HIS AUTO-GRAPHS TO COMPARE? THIS PAINTING I HAVE; I WAS TOLD IT may have been done by VICTOR HUGO!? IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT MAY OR COULD HELP ME! MY EMAIL IS <redacted> i would like to send a few pictures, if you have a hard time contacking me my <redacted>, im from gray maine! thank you gary vickerson. <redacted> I TRIED TO SEARCH THROUGH THIS SITE BUT ITS A LITTLE TOO MUCH FOR ME TOO, FIND WHAT IM LOOKING FOR! SO IM ASKING FO RSOME HELP, ANY TYPE OF HELP!

  • Questions like this belong on the reference desk, but you'd be better off finding an art dealer near where you live. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've also removed your contact details to avoid you being spammed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hempfield High School

My concerns are posted in the discussion page of the article.

I don't see anything of interest on the talk page. However, when reading the article, I noticed that it suffers from academic boosterism. This means that it places too much emphasis on the school's achievements, and is thus biased. Wikipedia has a policy stating that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view - I suggest you read the NPOV tutorial for suggestions on how to achieve this. If the school's notability is contested, its article may be viewed as advertising, and may be deleted. It would be great if you could find and add some references to the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl Mindell

Biased?

Huh? Are you asking us whether an article you wrote, Earl Mindell, conforms to Wikipedia's NPOV policy? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so (I don't think that's what s/he's asking). However, I redid the article (such as it is). It's no longer POV. I'll watchlist it and expand as I can. Anchoress 09:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamersley, Western Australia

Hi, I'm looking for someone to review the above article for me - it's almost entirely been contributed by myself. Problem is I'm too close to it to see the forest for the trees and would appreciate any feedback on how I can improve this article, hopefully towards Good Article status. I requested a peer review at WP Australia but received no response. Orderinchaos78 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a couple very minor grammar issues, but other than that I see very few problems with the article; it's quite well-written.I'm inclined to say that this is more suitable for Peer Review, simply because it is quite fleshed out and needs a bit closer inspection.
My only piece of advice is to improve the organization and flow.Sometimes, paragraphs jump around a bit, giving the impression that parts of it were written as an afterthought or that you didn't know where to put that piece of information.Leading on that point, the flow is interrupted by such sentences, so there isn't as much intuitive reading as there could be. Overall, very well done. —Keakealani 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ThinkGeek

Hi, a while ago I made an enormous article expansion on a popular e-commerce website called ThinkGeek, the page has since been edited but a large-scale edit was made to the article regardless. I managed to find a lot of information about the website which wasn't already available (the slogan, the year it was founded, a few t-shirts they sell, and so on). What I'd like to know is what could I have done to push this article into more of a good article status? My biggest concerns are perhaps perhaps the software and hardware sections, but I made do with the information that was there. Then there's the Products list, perhaps I can go into more detail into what was being sold? The Geek Points category I'm very proud of, but a majority of the text was copied and incorporated into the article, styled to the specifications of the encyclopaedia. What could I do next? Here's a link right here... oh wait... I mean HERE! =P Druss666uk 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article seems fairly sparse. I think I'd like to see more information referenced from third party reviewers. Do you have anything on their business model? Are they privately held, or do they have stock? Are they affiliated with any other businesses? Do they have a development group that comes up with their merchandise, or are they just a VAR? Who were the four founders? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Internal_query_string_links

I have been bold and created this article to document a template that I created to addresses a limitation of the current wiki software. I believe that the template is useful and well coded. What are the thoughts of experienced wikipedians? BBilge 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but RFF should only be used to seek feedback on articles in the main namespace. I don't know any place for seeking feedback on pages in the Wikipedia namespace, but you could try the village pump. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, though the enquiry was really about the suitability of the template that the article is about rather than the article itself. --Bilge [TC] 21:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii Youth Opera Chorus

I've been steadily cleaning this article up, but I am at a loss for how I can better inprove the article, although I know it has a long way to go.I'm having problems with some of the phrasing, so I would be very grateful if someone could make a suggestion.Thank you in advanced, and happy editing! —Keakealani 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article could use some external sources to indicate the notability of the choir. I'm not sure if there exists any specific notability requirements for choirs, but at present the article doesn't say much, other than this being a choir based at the University of Hawaii (which isn't really any indication of notability). Bjelleklang-talk 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall certainly do so.I'm sure I can find an article about the China tour, at least.

Ford BA Falcon

Hi, I have checked this article myself and others but it still lacks something. I need some comments on what could be fixed.Senators 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on cars, but I think it looks great! The only thing I could think of would have to be a quick overview of the sales, and some mention if the car is based on a previous model, or if a newer model is based on this one. Bjelleklang-talk 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex tourism

Would need an experienced and trustworhy editor as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop#interim state editor revision for duration of the arbitration, to write the article in a decent state during the ongoing arbitration. Most importantly to decide whether a link toSly Traveler is acceptable or not. / Fred-Chess 11:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Information Sharing and Customer Outreach

Is this NPOV enough? I've attempted to improve the quality of the article overall and would appreciate any feedback.Thanks in advance --Tom 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution

I've tried using peer review twice. No one seems to be interested in commenting and suggesting corrections for this article. I've been trying to bring it to FA. All and any comments apprieciated. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you'll have to send it for a third peer review, and hope someone responds. Try posting at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject to get reviewers. RFF caters to newer, less-developed articles, and an article which has already achieved Good Article status is unlikely to benefit from the RFF process. There were several concerns raised in the failed Featured Article nomination - have you addressed them yet? All the best to you in your quest to improve New Jersey State Constitution to featured status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Overall it seemed fine to me. There were a few paragraphs that were overly long and could do with judicious splits to make the reading less taxing (so to speak). It can be difficult to get feedback on the 2nd and later PR reviews, especially on less than exciting topics (no offense intended); I don't really have any suggestions on that score. But if the failed FAC issues have been addressed and there was no PR feedback, I'd try for another FAC. They seem more motivated to find flaws in an article. — RJH (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If an article in PR is not getting reviewed at all, after a couple of week it might helpful to bump the PR template to the top of the stack. I.e. edit the PR page and move your entry back up to the top so that people who might be interested will notice it right away as they scan down the page. (Not that I would encourage this widely, of course, but it's helpful on occasion.) Also, tactically, it seems to help when the poster tries to sell the article a little in the description by saying something interesting about it (rather than just saying it's the 2nd or 3rd PR, for example.) — RJH (talk)
I think the writing quality could be improved. I've started to edit the prose, but it could take a while to finish. You'll get the idea from my first few edits, though. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Semen

The quality of this article, especially the illustrations, is hotly debated.Please comment on the talk page. Rockules318 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Silver State Classic Challenge

I've driven this open road rally in Nevada a couple of times. I've been working on this article for about two months, and I'd appreciate some guidance on what I should do next.In particular, I don't know if I've given too much detail on rules.NNH 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not experienced with the subject matter, but I'd not consider the ‘notable cars’ notable in the sense of Wikipedia. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Money No Enough

I wrote an article on Money No Enough, Singapore's all-time highest-grossing movie. As of 27 December 2006, 11.30pm Singapore time, the article is one of six listed in the Did you know? section of the main page. Wisekwai gave the article a Start-Class rating. I would appreciate any feedback, or suggestions for improving the article to B-Class (and, if possible, GA status). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In terms of language and structure, looking at other movie pages like, say, The Matrix, might give you some ideas. A proper Principal Cast table would be nice... perhaps also a subtle edit of the Plot Summary. Its actually fairly well-written, except for the first paragraph which lists the main characters. I prefer the style of other movie pages, which Ive noticed tend to avoid "third person" words like "main characters" and simply delve directly into the plot, describing the characters as they are mentioned. Otherwise, nice article! Metao 09:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Janjua

As I stated on the Talk page for this article, the list of "famous people" keeps growing. None of these people are Wikilinked, and Id like to delete the section as the first step towards cleaning up the entire thing. I requested a consensus on the Talk page, but no responses as yet... perhaps this is not the forum for such a request to be made more public (if so, please direct me to the right place on my Talk page) but Id certainly like a couple more eyes to look over the article and add their comments. Metao 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have gotten no response, be bold and edit as you see fit :) Bjelleklang-talk 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fleet Command

New article and first time, looking for input. Mike D 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay, but needs more sources, especially for the section on realism. It is very important that articles remain verifiable, and as such, any claims in an article must be backed up with a source. The article also needs information on the notability on the game; how many units sold, critical reception, etc. Bjelleklang-talk 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinkerton Academy

I've made many edits over the month and recently created the Academics and Extra-curricular sections. I've also added many of the notable alumni (though I think some of them are not notable enough). I've uploaded a picture using a fair use rationale but I think it may not fit the fair use policy. I need feedback and suggestions on how to expand the article.--EvaGears 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, but could probably do with some sources for the history section. Great work on the section on notable alumni, wish all articles had as good references... ;) Bjelleklang-talk 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SynchronX and Moo Mapper

Hello, everyone. Could someone please take a look at those articles? I just want to know if that style of writing is suitable for general Wikipedia editing and whether or not I should change my writing style. Comments would be appreciated; thank you! Matt489Talk 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both looks like they could be good given a little more work. First of all, you need to indicate the notability of both applications; the articles doesn't say anything about their importance, user/industry feedback, or spinoffs/similar. This needs to be added, if not you can risk that the articles will be deleted for not passing Wikipedia's notability requirements. Bjelleklang-talk 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proximity effect

The Proximity effect in audio section of Proximity effect has been completely rewritten.I am a first time editor looking for any constructive feedback.Thanks in advance.

Some thoughts: The introduction is vague and too short. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings): "Avoid restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles". (Thus "Atomic physics", rather than "Proximity effect in atomic physics".) In the main article some illustrations would probably be helpful, or at least make it more engaging. The atomic physics section could use some expansion, including an explanation of the effect as well as the meaning of "proximate" at this scale. (Is it on the order of an atomic diameter, for example?) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments.The only section to which I have made contributions is the audio section.I did not lay out the heading titles so I am a little unconfortable editing them.I like the idea of adding illustrations to make it easier to understand the effect described.I'll get to this shortly--Jack Cartland 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem and thanks. I went ahead and updated the section titles per "Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages". — RJH (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

I'd like to get the above article assessed (Start, A class, B class, etc) and get some general feedback on it so I have a better idea of where I can improve it. Is this the right place to ask? --Jim (Talk) 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be a good idea to leave a note on the relevant wikiproject's talk page. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Morier

A month ago I submitted corrections to the article on James Justinian Morier which were accepted and the corrected article is available. But at the same time, after unsuccessfully trying to register, I submitted short articles on his brothers John Philip and David Richard, written from my own knowledge as the author of their biography, because I thought they too should be included. So far these have not appeared. Have they been accepted and if so when will they appear? If they have not been accepted why not?80.168.173.57 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a problem trying to register? It seems a pretty straight forward process. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Manises UFO Incident

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

As I'm not a native English speaker, I would like that someone could check this new article because I'm worry about my broken English. Thanks in advance.

  • I took a look at it, and aside form a few changes in vocab, it seems fine. Bosola 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this article needs to source the claims about the detected UFOs and the witnesses. - Ilse@ 13:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perplex City

I did some rearranging and expansion of this article, and I'm looking for some feedback on how the article feels now. Mostly concerning Intro, organization, whether it feels like a complete summary, and any other comments. -AtionSong 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you can improve the article by using the lead not as an introduction to but as a summary of the article. When I start reading the article I am not properly introduced to the way this particular ARG is played, I think this should be explained before the 'Story' section. - Ilse@ 13:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College, Perth

Aquinas College, Perth - I have made some pretty major edits, more than 500 on the article over the last 2 months, the article has grown from little more than the basic info to one that has alot - it now has 7 daughter articles. It would be great to see where i can improve this article. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 13:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I found some 'empty' references. - Ilse@ 14:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

I have tried to fix up this article, and it is maintained. What can I do to make it better? Tenacious D Fans 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I've removed the {{expand}} tag. :) Xiner (talk, email) 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

John Mackey

In the article about John Mackey, his year of birth seems to be in question. He was born 8/15/1953 in Houston, TX. I know this because I am his sister. Thanks Dorothy Mackey Lurie'

Which John Mackey are you referring to? Is there a dispute about the birth information, or is it just missing? In the first case you best use the talk page of the article to discuss the issue, in the second case you can just add the date to the article (and preferably add an online source). - Ilse@ 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Martha Washingtonians

The old version was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Washingtonians&oldid=91010142

Anyway, I've tried to streamline the style and information. This is a quite significant edit- could someone check it out please?

There is quite a bit of what appears to be opinion-based text, which is definitely in need of citations. (Particularly "As an organization, it was comprised of wives, ... and other female relatives of drunken men.") Could the references be converted to use Wikipedia:Footnotes? Also I'd recommend trying the Wikipedia:Citation templates. I can also see what appear to be multiple spelling errors ("am ore", proipriety, owmen) and at least one missing period. The page could also use an illustration. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasmonean

Looking for interested editors for this subject of ancient Judean history in a period that spans Jewish history from Alexander the Great to the Roman Empire and includes the period of the Maccabean Revolt and Hanukkah.I have been expanding/editing alone for a while and I can't even see the obvious errors anymore, let alone get a fresh sense of the flow and scope of the article.I don't think it's ready for WP:PR, needing references and much more first.Kaisershatner 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Judaism and Ancient History categories to the article.This should increase the number of editors who find, read and work on the article.You may want to search for additional appropriate categories and add them too.Also consider looking for appropriate articles that should mention the Hasmoneans, and add content to those articles, including a wikilink to this one. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 12:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne

We have constant NPOV disputes regarding this controversial figure. Does anybody have any ideas about how we could resolve the problems without losing all sense of rationality? -- Qarnos 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there are a few things you could do. First add a NPOV tag where needed to warm fellow readers, a list of tags to use is available here: WP:NPOVD. Next you might need the help of an admin, so go here: WP:RFPP and list the article to be requested for semi-protection, if the edits are vandalism or unreferenced garbage made by IP addresses or if a user passes the 3 reverts rule. If this is not the case, then head right to WP:RFAR, list the article in the fashion shown, and hopefully it should help you out. Bobo is soft 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Hey

The article has been revised after speedy deletion. Comments and improvements of the article by experienced Wikipedians are welcome here – especially by experts in information science. See the recent talk about the revision here. ThT 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC), ThT 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Has he accomplished anything notable, other than a study? Otherwise the article probably needs to expand on what makes that one study particularly notable. From my experience in the AfD process, Ph.D. candidates are generally not considered notable in their own right, and are unlikely to pass the average professor test. Is analystic a word? — RJH (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to describe the importance of the study more in detail, but maybe this needs a native speaker to make it clear. IMHO the prominent use of that study in the training program of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission makes him "a significant expert in his or her area" (average professor test). But it would help, if others see this in the same way. --ThT 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That helps a little. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Golden Film

The article is assessed as Start-class by User:Supernumerary. I would like to receive some feedback on elements of the article I could expand or elements I should add to get the article towards B- or GA-class. Thank you for your help, Ilse@ 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the introduction contains the full text of the article, with the rest just a list with no claim to notability. You may also want to find other sources that mention this reward (i.e., find claim to notability for your article). Xiner (talk, email) 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I changed the introduction to a summary of the article and moved the content to separate sections. I also added some critique to the award, a section that can still be expanded. - Ilse@ 10:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamparsum Limonciyan

Hello, I have expanded this article. I need feedback on where to go, how it should be expanded further, what to do to improve the article. Any feedback is appreciated. --Free smyrnan 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fairly good already, although there are a few missing commas from parenthetical phrases. I would like to see an illustration or two showing the Hamparsum notation system. Otherwise nothing really springs to mind. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

František Plánička

This biographical article has undergone a relatively large expansion during the past 3-4 months; however, a high percentage of that work has been done by one user, myself. I want to make sure it is going in the right direction and that it is not full of mistakes and/or biased. Any comments will be much appreciated. --ChaChaFut 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Flood (Halo)

Hey chaps, I just had a question relating ot writing about fiction in general and as it applies to the edits I'm doing to the above page in particular:

I've read the guidelines on writing about fiction, especially as it relates to this page I'm trying to clean up (in-universe and such.) But I'm having problems. I fully understand the whole 'sources beyond what (in this case) the player of the game sees, and no inferences from that' but frankly, I'm getting annoyed with it. Rewriting all the passages to make it 'out of universe' gives the writing a strained feel- not to mention repetitive. However, I do also want to know if providing references, I don't know, somewhat... absolves you of some of issues? Regardless, does anyone have some tips to make out of universe stuff sound better? Check out the article for what I mean, reference-wise and all. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The writing style seemed fine to me, apart from some minor editing issues. I'm not clear how you think the text is "strained". However, I did find that many of the paragraphs are too long. These become tiresome for the reader; I'd suggest breaking them up (at appropriate locations) into 2-3 smaller paragraphs. Also the introduction mentions "vectors" but doesn't explain them. Should I assume that is a biological vector? Maybe a link would help, or a parenthesized explanation? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus decision-making

i have done a complete rewrite of Consensus decision-making and am looking for general feedback, with emphasis on how to get it up to WP:GA status. thanks for your input! -- frymaster 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. My one suggestion would be your references. Try converting them using citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Many GA and FA use this method. Also resize them a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references /> (remove the spaces after each "<") in the references section. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Great job on the references. The format is that footnotes always appear at the end of a sentence, never in the middle, and there is not a space between the footnote number and punctuation mark. Bobo is soft 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Roller hockey at the 1992 Summer Olympics

I don't know if this article has been edited enough in order to be peer reviewed (I guess it meets the majority of the criteria) so I'd like to ask anyone available to give their opinion and suggestions. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, good olympic stats article so far. I'll try my best for some feedback. First, make the "footnotes" appear just at the bottom of the "Competition" section, as a footnotes section is usually reserved for references and tiny notes can actually be included in the article itself. If that's too difficult, then just rename it "Notes". Also the intro paragraph could use a little fine tuning to make it sound more official for an encyclopedia article and make sure that it can be universally understood as best as possible by someone not familiar with the topic. For example it says, The first three in each group advanced to the semi-finals which were played in the Pavelló d'Esports de Reus, Reus, on a league-system, what is a league-system exactly? Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions! I tried to follow them as best as I could. I hope it's somehow better now. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I went and corrected the writing a bit, it reads great now. Bobo is soft 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've checked your edit and (apart repeating some wikilinks which already existed) I believe you helped a lot! Thank you so much, again ;) What about the sub-articles? Could you take a quick peak at those too, or should I open a separate topic for them (they're 4 separate pages but all related to this parent article). Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome. I looked at the sub-articles and they look fine. You could also change the footnotes to notes there as well. I think that the Group A and Group B articles are small enough that you should consider merging them and renaming the article "Groups A and B". One benefit it is easily to manage just one article than two on the groups. The articles themselves are trivial sports statistics and one article should do for both. Bobo is soft 02:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
All done. I merged the group articles and renamed it to Roller hockey at the 1992 Summer Olympics - Preliminary round and updated the main article accordingly. I think it's "tidier" now, no? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Visible digital watermarking.jpg

I made Image:Visible digital watermarking.jpg a while ago to illustrate the concept of visible digital watermarking, but ever since I uploaded it I've felt uncomfortable with the fact that it's my name written across the image (because it seems like some kind of self-promotion). The reason I originally chose to use my name and the date is that these are properties of the image that will never change. Other possibilities I have considered include the text "Wikipedia" (but this makes the image less useful for other projects), "watermark" (but this isn't suitable for other languages), or some meaningless number or series of shapes. What do people think about this? —Bkell (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it's trying to illustrate watermarking, and since the author and copyright date are usually included in such watermarks, I think it's a good example of what it's trying to illustrate, hence a good encyclopedic image. I wouldn't worry too much about it being self-promoting, unless you're concerned about releasing your name. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Gatekeepers

Can anyone give me some tips on how to improve this article? Or is it already pretty much done?

Hello, nicely done and thanks for this good example. This seems to meet most of the criteria for being a perfect article (WP:PERFECT). Just a couple of things though... In the lists, it was weird that the description of the individuals started to the left of the bullet, but I fixed that. Also a couple of statements could use references or rewrites:
  • The book was generally very well received, with many claiming it portrayed the changing face of an increasingly competitive college admissions process, and
  • However, some critics questioned if profiling the admissions practices of a specific Northeast, highly selective liberal arts school would lead to an accurate portrayal of college admissions throughout the country.
Maybe these were intended as introduction to paragraphs that were to contain the references to back up these claims, but the sentences following each of these don't back up these introductory statements. (PS. Please sign your posts to discussions with four tildes: ~~~~. That will automatically be replaced with your signature when you save the page) Sancho McCann 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Racemization

Hello everyone! This is one of my first real articles I've been working on, and while it still needs some work I'd really appreciate any input anyone has. I'm sorry to use such a formal channel but I havn't made any wiki friends yet and I'm hoping this will get that ball rolling!

It's about the formation of a racemic mixture in chemistry. I've tried to detail the broad concepts, as well as scratching the surface and pointing towards where others could get more information. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! --Robert Stone, Jr. 09:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good for a stub, but most of that science stuff went waaaaaayy over my head. Perhaps some external links to notable sites talking about said topic? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out David Fuchs! Could I ask what was too complex and I can make sure I explain that better? I tried to put the complex stuff like SN1 with a link regarding that reaction and such for anyone who was curious, do you think I should just come right out and explain it in this article? Thanks again for taking a look! --Robert Stone, Jr. 21:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok first off, I've only taken introductory bio courses, so nothing fancy, keep that in mind. First off, maybe make Stereochemistry section an internal link or something like that? there's a page on it, so it could help... secondly, I think that the lead could be added on to. Ok, so I know its the partial conversion of... etc., but what significance does it have? Otherwise people not specifically looking for that term are gonna leave. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Robert, I'd agree that the article looks in good shape for an early one. Biggest hole right now is a lack of references. Look at Wikipedia:Citation_templates for the how-to. What you've got in there so far is mostly pretty general - citing a couple of college-level chem texts should be adequate.
The article makes it sound like carbocation is the only way that racemic mixtures formed; that doesn't seem right.
A picture would punch it up a bit. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Image_Request is a place to ask for help. David.Throop 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to be too critical, as many tech/science articles here share this problem, but the article needs to be written down to the generic audience--the customer reader--not to place a premium on technical crispness like that of a professional journal. If you keep an audience in mind of 11-15 years, you should strike it right--it's totally clueless introductory material to those kids, so will serve the divorced housewife barefoot and pregnant as well, so to speak.

As such, I'd move up and expand the definitions section, expand the intro, and write a bit more contextual explanation into each sentence. Kudos on a great first effort. Reread WP:MOS on introductory paragraphs if you're doing sci-tech articles, and review the use of bold text as well. Most of those articles generally fail right there--this is a general encyclopedia, not to be written for the grad or even the college student. A lot of explanation can be contained by a careful selection and by the introduction order of wikilinks--there is no reason to not link on the second or third use, vice the first if it aids the flow and understanding. Best wishes // FrankB 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Curly horse merge/redirect to Bashkir Curly?

I've been trying to cleanup the Curly horse article, but I have doubts about it's worthiness, given it's origins as an advertisement. It may be beyond recovery. I think Bashkir Curly is far closer to Wikipedia's standards that Curly horse should probably be a redirect. Other thoughts? Xaxafrad 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected Sancho McCann 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Although the redirect was already done, there are some further improvements that you can do. Check out the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:STYLE) for guidelines on capitalization of headings for example. Also, as in most articles, more references would greatly improve the article. Sancho McCann 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Discrimination2

I've developed this template to bring together all discrimination-related articles into a sensibly arranged, but compact and non-exhaustive form. I think the arrangement as it is now makes the most sense to me, though perhaps terms could use tweaking. Looking for broader feedback. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit excessive. On one article it was crowding another tall template. Why not use a bottom of page format where it doesn't impose so much on text and other boxes on the right margins. That's generally what history topics do with big templates. // FrankB 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Constantine Andreou

Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on this article and some suggestions on how to grow it. --Kimonandreou 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be a great improvement if you added references for the information, especially sentences like "is recognized as one of the most eminent figures in the international art scene". I tried looking on Google for information about him outside of Wikipedia and could not find anything other than his inclusion on a couple of lists of painters and a fan website (the one you included as a reference), so I suspect you won't get many references off of the internet. Maybe you have access to some publications that are not published online... art journals or magazines? You could cite those as references. (Also, two of the four references/external links do not point to working websites). Sancho McCann 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! I'll work on the references (I did take them out of books). As for the statement is recognized as one of the most eminent figures in the international art scene, it was from a speech from the Greek Minister of Culture when Andreou was presented with the "l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" award. How would I reference that? --Kimonandreou 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I don't know if I have the answer, but my opinion would be that if the only source you have is a speech, then what you would be contributing is original research (WP:Original_Research). To avoid that, you'd need to wait for another source to reference the speech, or maybe right out declare the same thing. Then you could include the information in Wikipedia. Sancho McCann 07:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some minor fixes to the references. 1) Stated that that section was from the minister's speech 2) Fixed the links (updated or stated when discovered invalid as per WP:Citing_sources). I'm still looking for journals and magazines. --Kimonandreou 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert N.C. Nix, Jr.

I made some major edits to this article over the last month (see [8]). I'd be interested in whatever feedback anyone has. JCO312 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Great improvement. I especially like that every statement that could possibly be questioned has a reference. However, the way that you have organized the references is confusing. I suspect that many of your references are used multiple times and this is what you're trying to show with "N. 4", or "Id". The proper way to use a reference multiple times is described at Wikipedia:Footnotes under the Citing a footnote more than once section. You basically name a reference the first time that you use it: <ref name="a_reference">http://www.link.com Description of this reference</ref>. Then when you want to use it later, you can just write <ref name="a_reference" /> (The backslash at the end of the ref tag is important.) Sancho McCann 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

William Alexander Hammond

I have had a couple editor reviews, but I would like to have my article writing reviewed. How can I improve? Thanks, Dar-Ape 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Like most many articles for feedback, my one suggestion would be to improve the references. Try converting them using the citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Also resize them a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references /> (remove the spaces after each "<") in the references section. Also note that footnote numbers all go at the end of a sentence after the period, and there should be no space between the punctuation and the reference. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I have made the references into templates and checked for spacing. Please let me know if I missed something or if you think of another way in which I could improve the article. Dar-Ape 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvest (band)

I am requesting feedback on this article. Please let me know how I might improve it. If anyone knows of sources where I could find more information on the band, I'd really appreciate it.

Brief description of the topic: Harvest was a band from 1977-1995. They released 14 albums and 2 videos (that I know of) during their tenure. Their genre is Contemporary Christian/Gospel.

Thanks for any suggestions,

jamielng 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. You've done a good job with the style of this article. Other than some layout issues in the discography section, it fits in well with the rest of Wikipedia. As for the content though, I have some suggestions for improvement. It isn't apparent from this article that the Harvest meets the notability requirements (WP:MUSIC). You will need to work on showing that "it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Sancho McCann 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for reviewing the page. The layout issues you spoke of, do you mean the way that I incorporated music samples in with the discography? If so, is this allowed? Why or why not? I tried to give impeccable fair use rationale.
Re: the notability requirements, I thought that multiple meant two or more. I know that I'm pretty slim right now with only two, but they're the only ones I could find so far.
Thanks again for your review.
Take care,
jamielng 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No, for the layout issues, I meant when I view the page (maybe at a different resolution than you), some of the [edit] links aren't in line and interfere with the adjacent columns. The fair use rationale seems right on. As for the references, yeah, two might be enough, but it would be nice to have a few more. I'll try to find some also. Sancho McCann 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I found some. I'll let you add these as you like.
  • [9] This describes Paul's involvement with Harvest and also has a short history of the band part-way through the article.
  • [10] Another Paul bio, with another short history of the band.
Maybe you have some access to magazines that aren't online. You could reference these too.
Sancho McCann 17:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sancho,
Thanks again for your help. Re: the interference with columns, I also have experienced this on other computers besides my primary one. I'll switch to two columns instead of three to avoid this - although it will lengthen the article.
Thanks a lot for looking up some more references! I'll work at getting their content incorporated. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any magazines that aren't online. I'm on the lookout, though, and would like to delve into the local libraries to see what I can find.
Thanks again for your feedback. Please let me know if you have other suggestions,
jamielng 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made the suggested changes.
Any other feedback would also be appreciated,
Thanks,
Jamie L. 16:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Park

I have recently completely rewritten the article, basically deleted and started over, but here is the difference, if you really want to see it. I am aiming to get this up to good article status, and was just looking for a neutral opinion on the matter. Any suggestions of improvement- content, tone, sections, citation or whatever needs improving would be very much welcomed. I take it the standard here is to answer here on this page, but, in case I forget I posted this, could you leave me a message on my wall to say that you have responded? Thanks. J Milburn 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman (TV program)

I'm requesting general feedback for the entire article. It isn't a very long article so it shouldn't be that long to read through. Another user and I have recently made a lot of updates and changes to the article, in an attempt to bring its quality up. It still needs some expansion, but we would like some feedback on what to improve. Thank you. Bignole 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems more than sufficient for the subject matter, particularly for a pilot episode that never made it to the tube. There's some fine tuning needed here and there, and the page could use some images. Otherwise nothing really sticks out, other than a certain excess in the amount of speculation (albeit cited.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I didn't think anyone would read it..lol. I will confere with the other editor that works on the page. Bignole 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks pretty complete to me. Maybe a little tweaking of Reaction as well. But the article could really do with an pic or two. After that, goto peerreview. Davey4 11:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Major edit: Wu Teh Yao

Good day! I've made a major edit on the article "Wu Teh Yao", a political scientist. It's practically a new article, since the information prior to my edit was "political scholar, educationist" (or something like that). I would be grateful if someone could look into the article and help on the formatting, citation, or even adding information. There are photos of Professor Wu, but I did not upload it as the copyright info is unclear. Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Eng Aun 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Stadtbahn

I've translated this article from its counterpart at de: and added some new information that wasn't in the originally translated article. It might have some linguistical quirks though, and I've probably put in the occasional unclear wording. doco (☏) 11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish cochineal

I started this article a few days ago. It's about a lesser known, Central European cousin of the cochineal. I'm not a native English speaker, so please feel free to point out (or, better, correct) any linguistic or stylistic mistakes. Thanks, Kpalion 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kpalion, it is a magnificent article. I could only find a few minor items to adjust for grammar. My compliments on your work. Ken McE

Geography Cup

The Geography Cup article is the first full length article that I have written, so any comments whatsoever about what to improve, what to remove, etc. are much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Grhs126studenttalk 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very, very solid article. I'm trying to look for areas for improvement, but it all looks very good. Good internal citations, especially. The only thing I could suggest would be putting even more information in the article, such as quotations from founders and participants. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but I think you've done a fine job. --Tractorkingsfan 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for Smoking

I've recently done a lot of work on this article, mainly integrating the "trivia" section into the article and doing stylistic edits. Since I've done this over about nine edits, I'm not sure how to provide a diff, but please look at the article now as compared to how it stood at the time of the 14:24, 31 January 2007 edit by Erikster, who has also been helpful. To be honest, I'm mainly interested in whether this article still deserves to be classified as Start-class. --Tractorkingsfan 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was this request archived without being responded to in any way? I made considerable edits, none of which could be summarized by one diff, since they were spread out over time. It strikes me as rather inconsiderate just to say, "this one doesn't fit the bill, so let's ignore it!" If I had been contacted, I could have formatted the request differently to inspire someone to pay attention to it. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Direct Payment to User

A UK Social care initiative that gives people money to arrange their own social care.

First article I've written, might well be a stub. Dunno. Would appreciate some feedback.

NatashaUK 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi just a couple of thoughts after a quick glance.

Happy editing— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thought I wanted feedback but it turns out what I actually wanted was someone to write 'We love this article. You are the greatest of all wikipedians and a paragon of encyclopedic writing' Ah well. Thanks for the feedback, I'll make the changes you suggect and see if we can't get that response in my second article, tbc.

NatashaUK 09:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldversion.com

I am requesting article feedback about Oldversion.com as it now appears to read as an advertisement.

  • The article was nominated once for deletion, but was left with no consensus.
  • It has been tagged since October 2006 for lacking sources.

I made revisions recently, but most recent revisions now have made the article almost look like an advertisement to me (capitalized categories of software in the Software section). The talk page has it that my most recent revision casted "a very negative spin on it".

Article history shows that the most recent edits were made by User:MrToasty and then an IP user and then a user with a rather long edit history.

I do admit that the my revision contained original research and facts that needed proper sources and that its Criticism section appeared larger than the Advantages section. — Which is why I need comment on my revision, too. If comment on my revision cannot be put in here, I welcome relevant comment on my talk page. -Mardus 06:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LJM

I created this artlicle about LJM and I want your advice on it and since it is only a stub. I would appreciate if anybody could expand it. Thanks in advance.

I wonder how much can be written on the subject. Can it be included within Enron or Andy Fastow? Xiner (talk, email) 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Smirks

Looking for suggestions as to what needs to be done to make this article suitable for rating as "Start" or preferably "B". Ringbark 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll need some inline citations/footnotes. See WP:FN for the initial info you'll need. Your references, to be complete, should use the citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Also resize your references section a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references /> (remove the spaces after each "<") in the references section. Also note that footnote numbers all go at the end of a sentence after the period (not in the middle of a sentence), and there should be no space between the punctuation and the reference. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tangatawhenua.com

Tangatawhenua.com is a web-based Maori-focused newsletter (the only digital periodic serial of its kind). Is the article NPOV enough? Looking forward to any assistance you can provide. Atutahi 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The neutrality of this page seems fine to me. The statement that "It is the only web-based media company of its kind in the world" is somewhat ambiguous. Does "of its kind" refer to that fact that it is Māori run and operated? — RJH (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven Ford

The picture posted for Steven Ford is not Steven Ford. It is his brother. Steven is the son with the hair loss pattern similiar to that of his father, former President Gerald R. Ford. Steven is the handsome one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.207.238.71 (talk • contribs).

The talk page suggests that this has been corrected. — RJH (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Hello. I've been working on this with a few other main contributors and have a feeling that we're all pretty involved with the subject matter of this article, so it will be good to have some feedback from the community. Comments on anything are appreciated... layout, content, presentation, style, future work, whatever... Thanks! Sancho McCann 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall it seems fine to me. I only found a few minor issues that you may wish to address:
  • The lead section states that "The purpose has since changed" but it does not say to what.
  • Department of National Defence and World War Two could be linked in the lead section.
  • The statement that "cadets... are not expected to join the Canadian Forces" could be interpreted in a negative manner. Would it be better to say, "..are not required to join the Canadian Forces"?
  • The hyphen in the second paragraph, Ranks section, could be replaced by a &mdash;.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with all of your observations, and have worked them into the article.Sancho McCann 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oronamin C Drink

This is my first article!

I have translated from its counterpart at ja: and would love your feedback. Specifically tell me if you notice any style mistakes or content holes. Also I am wondering if the Imitation Products section is biased.

Oronamin C Drink (オロナミンCドリンク), produced by Otsuka Chemical Holdings Co., Ltd., (distributed an sold by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.) is a carbonated beverage available in Japan. It is commonly called Oronamin C or Oronamin. Its name is similar to the Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. beverage "Arinamin" and its name comes from Otsuka's own Oronamin H Ointment and the main ingredient, vitamin C.

Thanks! --Quylob 11:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to provide the best feedback I can. Here are my suggestions:

  • 1. In the advertisements section especially, or wherever possible (intro section is okay though), consider reducing the amount of names and words in Japanese lettering. It is not useful for the average reader on English Wikipedia and if someone wanted to read Japanese in an article, they would do so in the Japanese Wikipedia version of the article.
  • 2. Inline citation references are an essential part of any good article on Wikipedia. See WP:FN for the proper info on how to add them.
  • 3. The Genki hatsuratsū? advertisement battle section contains almost all red links, and the list of names seems non-notable. Consider shortening or removing that list.
  • Other than that I don't know enough about the topic to correct anything else. Also, a tiny suggestion, when you make an edit to an article, consider doing medium sized edits instead of tens of tiny edits and clogging up the article history, but that's not too important.

Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Fantastic! Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.

As for #4, do you use an external editor to make changes? So far I only edit in a web browser, so I'm afraid of losing changes and have the tendency to over-save.--Quylob 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I edit in the normal Wikipedia space in a web browser, so I don't know anything about external programs. I think Auto Wiki Browser is a popular one though, I'm sure there's lots of other editors who are familiar with it. Bobo is soft 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the easier changes you listed and am looking into some citations ... thanks again! --Quylob 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Blur

I've made some major edits to this article (see [11]). I would be interested to see what feedback anyone has for it. ErleGrey 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro seems a little long. The second two paragraphs that are pretty dense and the info is repeated later in the article. Maybe trim down those two paragraphs to give a shorter overview and it will be a pretty solid article. Zzz345zzZ 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Constantine Andreou

I'm working on the citations and POV issues on the article. I'd like some feedback on whether it's got a NPOV or not now and whether I need more references and citations (for what's already written). There are some sections that still need to be expanded (feel free to expand them) but, knowing where the article currently stands would be great. --Kimon 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty NPOV to me. Not sure if you need numerous lists for all of his sculptures and paintings though, seperated out by date. That seems a little excessive. Dr Popularity 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks! So, who can remove the {{POV}} tag? Also, I broke the artwork into separate lists as I'm still working on the individual lists. I may change the structure and break them into themes but, by date range seemed logical to me. I'm open to suggestions though. --Kimon 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, as far as I'm concerned, it's baseless (and if anyone re-adds it, they should add an explanation on the Talk page). I would personally just have one list for sculptures and one for paintings, and only if you can't integrate them into the main article (I've no idea just how prolific he was). Compare to similar articles like Vincent van Gogh and El Greco, which only list the notable works of art.
Thanks! Good idea on just listing the notable works of art. I'll take a stab at it. I was basing this article on the model used by the Pablo Picasso one where all works are listed. --Kimon 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Chung Ling High School

This is my another major edit, which the difference is here. This article concerns a school in Penang, Malaysia offering secondary and pre-university education. Again, thanks in advance!
Eng Aun 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like good work. Here's a few things I noticed:
  • The introduction is far too short (suggest looking at Wikipedia:Lead section)
  • The table of contents seems too long. Perhaps the sub-section headings in the "The campus" section can be replaced by bolded text?
  • Automated PR reviews flags sub-sections that begin with "an" or "the". So "The identity" could be "Identity", for example.
  • Your history section is in need of citations.
  • I'm not sure about the use of so much non-English language in the text; most non-native speakers won't know what that means anyway.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deadspin

Article has undergone lots of change recently and was wondering what should be added/changed. I was thinking adding more about the actual content. Zzz345zzZ 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The page text looks fine, but it seems entirely favorable to the web site. Has there been any publicized criticism? What are their sources of income? Some of the citations are improperly placed before punctuation. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Article

Hi i am wondering if i am doing a good job on a article i made on wikipedia.org This is it. Banga City PLease post some feedback on what i can improve on on my talk page. --Avenue 51 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean Banga (City)? — RJH (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexamenos graffito

I've just created this article and would love to receive any feedback. Thanks! Grover cleveland 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's perhaps a few too many section headings; almost one per paragraph. Could they be reduced in number? Also your citations are preceding punctuation. (Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags) Other than that the article seems fine to me. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Rabinowitz

I've expanded this entry quite a bit, though nobody seems to be paying much attention to it. That many unanswered edits to it in a row makes me feel a little bit self-conscious. I'd be thankful if somebody else would take a look at it. — CharlotteWebb 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of information in the article and you have your citations but, the article is lacking any headings. Take a look at WP:WPBIO for some pointers. You should also add an infobox (perhaps Template:Infobox Politician). I'm not an expert editor but, I'd start there. --Kimon 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Colombia Three

I've done some improvement work on this article from the version I first saw. Weggie added the headings I didn't get round to adding as I planned to do that after adding the much needed sources. Any suggestions for further improvement please? One Night In Hackney 12:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a heck of a lot better now! I would like to read some more about their history prior to being arrested, what else did they do in Colombia what training were they providing, how were they contacted, international reactions, etc. Since the article is on the three men that comprise the group, I would like to know more than just the arrest and result. It sounds like a very interesting story and I want to read a lot more about it. --Kimon 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Osborne Reef

Osborne Reef is a failed artificial reef that, ironically, is causing more damage to underwater habitats than it is providing them. I effectively wrote the entirety of the article, and have received few edits since. I'd really like to get some input on the article, as well as maybe some help with introducing further links into other articles as appropriate (to clear out the {{orphan}} tag). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi pd_THOR, the article looks great actually. The inline citations add the required verifiability to the article and the general structure looks fine for now. Rest assured that an orphan article is not always a non-notable article. Some points for improvement are:
  • Remove some of the red links and only add internal links later if those red links are ever created. And remove the red links on the author's names in the references section.
  • Dates should be written as August 21, 2006 instead of 2006-08-21. The latter method is only used for inline citations.
As for the orphan tag, there isn't much you can do if there are not many artificial reef articles, perhaps "Environmental disaster" is a possibility you can work with, but I'm not an expert.
Bobo is soft 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the dates easily enough, and removed the redlinks from the reference authors that I doubt garner their own Wikipedia article. I created an article or two to rectify some of the redlinks in the article itself, but nothing crazy--and nothing that wouldn't warrant an article on its own anyways. I gave some thought to the {{orphan}} problem, and without indiscriminately adding "see also" to various applicable articles, I'm not sure how to well-insert this article into others.

Anybody have other input for the article; suggestions? Is this WP:GA submission material, or should it just stay as is for now? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-relationship

About non-realted people with the same last name.

Is there anything to this topic besides possible coincidence? You will probably want to avoid material that could be excluded under WP:NOT. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statelessness

Any suggestion for content or changes? DavidYork71 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually go right to the end of the page for new entries, so this might get missed up here at the top. Here's a few thoughts:
  • The page looks a little too "listy" (lots of bulleted lists rather than prose).
  • It is a little weak on citations. I'd also recommend using the teplates on "Wikipedia:Citation templates" so your citations are in the standard format.
  • The page could use more illustrations.
  • Too many sections use the page title in the section headings. (See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Wording.)
  • Why doesn't the article mention Diaspora?
I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement

Both articles created by me. Where can I access a copy of the draft Agreement and how can I get a picture of the Indonesian Justice Minister for this? DavidYork71 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting more advice than you probably wanted over at the article's AfD. You did a nice job of getting proper attribution from reliable sources and that's why the debate's going as well as it is. Even so, my first thought upon seeing the article was that it would be better placed as a section of a larger article for now. Once it gets too long for the parent article, it can again be split off into an independent article. My guess is that is what the consensus of the AfD is going to be too. Don't be discouraged, though; it's a very well done article with good graphics, citations, and it's very clearly written. We all get some of our stuff shot down once in a while, so try not to let it get to you. Best Wishes! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

James Sabow

Hello, this article is about the USMC Colonel who died the morning of January 22, 1991 at his backyard quarters on MCAS El Toro in Orange County. I would appreciate any feedback that might be provided. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article doesn't exist --Kimon 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a redirect to James E. Sabow. It was deleted along with that article following an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James E. Sabow (2nd nomination) —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

STS-74

Hi there! I have just embarked on a review of the Shuttle-Mir program missions, and have just completed my first article rewrite. The original article was made up mainly of original pre-flight NASA text, so seemed to be stuck in an extremely odd timewarp. I have restructured and rewritten the article and added a new image, and would appreciate any comments as to how I could improve it further, comments I will find useful as I sort out the other mission pages.

Here is the comparison page for the original article and my rewrite: [12]

A nice, decently thorough article. Here's a few observations that may or may not be useful:
  • The introduction is somewhat brief. I could do with another paragraph.
  • Is there any information on early mission planning? When did the crew begin training for the mission? How and why were the crew members selected?
  • Inconsistent date format: 19/11/95 and November 11, 1995, for example.
  • Probably should replace dash with &mdash; in "November 15 - 19" section
  • You might make mention of who was on board the Mir at the time. It appears that there were no crew members exchanged. Was there a reason for this? Can this be explained?
  • "...docked to Mirs Kristall module..." => I believe should have an apostrophe: "Mir's".
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the advice - i'll do a bit more research and have a review of my text, then get back to you. Colds7ream 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, i've done a bit more ferreting about for facts and had a review of my text, fixing, I hope, most of the issues. I'd appreciate any more comments, as i'd really like to make this page my first Good Article. The comparison page is here: [13] Colds7ream 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're pretty much at GA now. If you don't want to try a peer review for some reason, you might as well go for it and see if it passes. If it fails you can always address the comments and then try again. — RJH (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - I have nominated the article, so let's see what happens! Colds7ream 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New Cuyama, CA

I've been lurking for some time on the WP, improving my tact, understanding and skills. I recently wrote my first fresh article from scratch last week on a growing town in California (New Cuyama) that did not have any data, and spent the next few days revisiting it to catch any extras or detail that might have been left out. I'd love to get some feedback on this article, my style, and content. Thank you Wikipedians! McA 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Anyone?
It's well written and is very clear to read. Interesting too. You should find some more references for some things like that bit about the name coming from clamshells or the Native Americans who lived there previously. Your references section should come before the external links section. You might want to look into using citation templates so that your citations come out in a standardized format. You also should place an appropriate stub tag on it. Lastly, most town articles list some vital statistics like a population figure. Overall it looks like an article with a good future to it. Good work! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Health care proxy

Hi, this my first article on Wikipedia. Its been up for a week now and I was wondering if there are any suggestions about things that I need to do to improve it. Thanks;) Bader_isu

Try adding useful internal links.--Rmky87 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Artificial limb

The article on artificial limbs was previously a stub and I expanded it so it was a complete article. I could use any general advice on the article (this is the first one I wrote).

The article may be found here: Artificial limb. talkGiler S 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks pretty decent to me. Additional illustrations would make it a more appealing visually. You could add a section on Media uses, such as in the film The Fugitive (1993 film). — RJH (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Great job so far. For the footnotes, you could shrink them a bit by placing < div class="references-small">
< references /> (remove the spaces before the < and >). For the cost section, watch out for the iffy tone, try to make it sound more professional. Also you don't need two spaces between sections, only one. Bobo is soft 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotary phase converter redundant, erroneous and commercial.

Would anyone please review the Rotary phase converter page. I am hesitant to do any of the chnages necessary to this page without some support. As a newbie I would like advice and as a person with commercial interests in a related area I do not want to be biased or exposed to charges of bias.

The issues.

  • 1. Rotary converter covers the subject in a less biased manner. Rotary phase converter is redundant since it is siply a species of rotary converter..
  • 2. Rotary phase converter is full of value statements that have to do with a particular manufacturer --such as-- "The best types of RPC use actual three phase generators" a statement which would be difficult if not impossible to validate: The best in what sense?? Horsepower/dollar?? Voltage balance at full load?? Best for my application??

The generator claim is one also made by American Rotary, which is the commercial company you get when you click on the external link "Parts For Building a Phase Converter". It should at least be supported by some sort of reference to literature. I have never seen this claim made in a technical article.

  • 3. The link to "article on power factor" goes to an "organization", every page of which is an ad for "PhasePerfect", another manufacturer.

The link to "List of commercial phase converter manufacturers" which was apparently added by a generous wikipedian to give these folks a place to post, is a redirect back to the Rotary phase converter page.

  • 4. The article is full of odd verbage.. "The quality of three phase power generated by such a phase converter may or may not be satisfactory," and "Besides RPCs (the most popular technology used to convert phase), there are other technologies available today that may or may not perform as well as this proven technology."

The page was likely built by a rotary phase converter manufacturer as evidenced by the external links and the arguments for what is the "best" technology. I am tempted to edit this article but am held back by the above considerations and questions. Should Rotary phase converter exist at all or just be an expansion of the Rotary converter article? There is very little real information in the article although it does contain some good links to "how to build your own" style articles.

Is anyone interested in this matter and willing to take a look at the page? I would be happy to make changes if they were vetted first. Better yet would someone else, clearly unbiased, become interested and do some of the editing. If I make changes, should I post a request here or elsewhere to get them reviewed and edited?

Thanks --Ottojas 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Parents of Suicides Internet Community

I recently rewrote this article to fix the "inappropriate tone" of the original article and provided some links to related groups/topics. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any additional sources of information for the group. The group's website http://www.parentsofsuicide.com/ doesn't provide any history on the group. I'm looking for feedback on the rewrite and also any additional sources of information for the group. Robevans isu 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were to come across the article now I'd AfD it for notability. Work on external sources and asserting notability or it will be, eventually. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Emergenetics

Was this article deleted?

I'm not really sure, but I don't find an old AfD template for that page. Was it a well-developed page? You might need to ask an Admin for help. — RJH (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The deletion log lists the reason as CSD G11. CSD G11 is a speedy deletion criteria that is meant for "blantant advertising". In other words, "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Note that I cannot actually see the deleted page. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Chelton Flight Systems

Hello, this is my first article on wikipedia. I'm wondering what you think needs improving? Also, do you think it is NPOV enough? Thanks.

It is very nicely formatted and well written. It's a much easier read than many technical articles I've come across. It does, however, come across as sounding a bit like an advertisement and it doesn't assert the company's notability. This is important because the article could be deleted if it's found to un-notable. Here's a guideline for asserting the notability of a company. You might also think of adding some citations so people can see that you're complying with the Attribution policy. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and have a great day! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Treehugger.com

Hi, I created a page for Treehugger.com. I'm new at posting on wikipedia and could use some feedback on my page.

Thanks,

Please see Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This page needs to reference reliable third-party sources. Also, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Introduction; the article, for example, should have links to other articles that are relevant to the context. —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Try not to type headers in all CAPS. Ionescuac 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

National Black Chamber of Commerce

Hi,

It was suggested to me that I request a peer review. I don't think this article is developed enough for that, so I'm posting it here. What would you recommend I do to make this article better? Is the portal placement OK? Should I delete the external links? They were already there, but they don't seem relevant to the article. Thanks!--LtlKtytalk | contribs 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Good work on the article! You might consider inline referencing and citation templates for organisational purposes. I guess you got all of the information from that one source, but different subpages. In Gunston Hall, I dealt with this by making a "Citations" section as a subsection of the references section, allowing a shorter list of references followed by a more detailed list of the subpages of those references. Anyways, you don't have to do all that work, but I have found it is easier to do early on.
It's good to see that you are using a reliable-looking source, but it might also be good to get some outside information from secondary sources on the NBCC. News might be particularly interesting.
I hope that helps a little,
ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I'll ask again after I've edited using your suggestions.--LtlKtytalk | contribs 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Can someone take another look? Hope I don't have to post another top level topic. Thanks!--LtlKtytalk | contribs 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks great to me, although I guess you could get more feedback at WP:Peer review. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gunston Hall

Gunston Hall is a United States historical building, and was the home of George Mason. I am looking for general ideas for improvement, hopefully things I am capable of. I am not an expert on the topic. I am particularly interested in getting a second opinion on the reliability of the references. Thanks! ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request for peer review. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Saner Wonggoun

While I created the majority of this biographical article, it received a bout of attention after being on the Main Page as a WP:DYK entry. I'd like to consider it for B (or maybe even A) classification, but want to receive feedback and hopefully spur somebody else to decide on the articular quality in my stead. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting article! It has good narrative form and is interesting throughout. Good illustration and well referenced. I noticed a few places where it wandered between present and past tense. It could use some sections and probably should be tagged as an ongoing event. Overall, not much to gripe about; good work! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I did a little work to ensure only currently-relevant information is presented in the present tense, and added a little sectioning. I also tagged it as an ongoing court case, but cannot find any subsequent information to supplement the article with. Thanks for the input and do you have any other thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes' cattle problem

I created this about a month ago. I'd like especially to know if everything is sufficiently explained, and if there is anything missing from the article that you would expect to see. Thanks. --Sopoforic 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some questions:
  • Could you clarify the meaning of Diophantine analysis without the reader having to go to another page?
  • By the Sun god, did Archimedes mean Apollo?
  • By triangular number, does the poem mean a cube?
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the first: I'm not sure it'd be appropriate to do so. The particular meaning of Diophantine analysis isn't very important to understanding what the problem is--it's just the field of math that the problem falls under. I suppose that I could write: "...is a problem in Diophantine analysis, the study of polynomial equations with integer solutions." Is that sufficiently useful to justify inclusion, do you think?
Well I've received criticism in the past for submitting articles to FAC that use terminology that is too technically obscure for the average reader. Usually at least a brief explanation of the terms is requested. It's up to you really, but most non-mathematicians won't know what 'Diophantine analysis' means. Your example looks more than sufficient. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Part the second: Helios, I think. I can look that up to verify and put it in. Was Apollo actually the sun god?
According to the Apollo page he supplanted Helios as the Sun god. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Part the third: It does not mean quite that, indeed. I've provided a link for it (triangular number), since that is probably not something most people are familiar with.
Thanks a lot for your help. I deal with math all day, so I'm not always aware when I say something non-obvious. --Sopoforic 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I know the feeling. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Swaraj

Kindly give me your feedback for this article. I am interested in this subject and further wish to improve this article. Please see [14] for difference in the earlier and current versions. Thanks--Shahab 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The language used bothers me a little bit (e.g. "Actually, the key concepts..." and "It's actual meaning goes much beyond simply..."). You should probably try to reword this to have a more encyclopedic tone (don't say 'actually,' the whole second sentence of the lede may be unnecessary, etc.).
The section "The Swaraj Movement" is essentially just a timeline, it seems, and would be better as prose with some more information to add context (what sort of effect did the establishment of the Navajivan Trust have?).
Aside from these, there are some general style issues: section headings should have only the first word and proper nouns capitalized; you should have access dates on URLs used as references; you should include titles if possible for web addresses; the quotations should be worked into the article; you should make sure that the capitalization of swaraj is consistent within the article; you shouldn't repeat the title of the article in section headings, generally.
I hope this is helpful. --Sopoforic 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tried to implement your suggestions. What do you think now?--Shahab 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's much better, I think. Some of the wording still doesn't seem very good, but you've definitely improved it by adding context and better explanations. I'll see if I can rewrite a paragraph or so later to show you what sort of changes I'd make to the wording.
What still needs improved:
  • You don't need to link to Hind Swaraj in the external links, since there's a wikisouce link already to it.
  • You should use for the title of the other link: "Swaraj Foundation home page" or something like that; use its title rather than a description. A description in a addition to its title, though, would be fine.
  • You don't need access dates for external links unless they were used as references--and if they were, then they should be in the references section, instead.
  • You shouldn't duplicate links in the see also section that are also used in the article.
  • You should perhaps try to work some of the most closely related things in the see also section into the article, as well.
These are mostly pretty minor things; the biggest thing that needs improved is just the wording, which I'll try to help with later. Otherwise, the article is much better. Good work. --Sopoforic 15:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cademuir International School

I would love to have some feedback on this article. At the beginning, Cademuir was a Scottish School stub. It is about a school now being closed. This is the first article I am actively working on. It was quite a deep resarch work to bring a nearly-AfD-stub to something like Start-Class. I've added an image and some basic data on the right and described the last facts on the school. I want to learn from my edits and further improve this article. Recently I found some advanced statistics, but I don't know if it was worth an inclusion. Are there enough sources? Did I include enough photos? Should the table have the GPLed logo instead? If possible, wouldn't it be bad to include more information? My edit: [15] Thank you ! --Lazer erazer 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cúcuta

I'd like to make Cúcuta a featured article, please send me your feedback.

--Ricardocolombia 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job with this article, I can't see any huge errors, problems, or omissions. You can rightly be proud of what's been achieved here! Dr Popularity 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Good work. Solid integration of pictures, graphs, and info. Could use a few more reference links. Zzz345zzZ 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a nice solid article with plenty of information and pictures. Not bad. :) Ionescuac 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a very good article already. It seems to have been translated from Spanish or written by a someone whose English is a second language, so it needs to be edited into a more "natural" English style. I hope someone with a bit of free time can do this. -Arch dude 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was turning the prose into more natural English, but being the idiot I am, I closed the tab before saving it. My only criticism is the awkwardness of the language at some points. Overall though, it is a very good article, which has a high chance of being featured somewhere down the track

The Backyardigans

General checkover, is there anything you feel could improved upon? --treelo talk 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For your references see Template:Cite web and make sure your web sources are fully referenced. It is not enough to just have the URL, but the title, date, access date, publisher etc. are need as well. Also, there should be no space between a punctuation and a footnote. Bobo is soft 06:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Stooges

Added More information to the 'Ted Healy and his stooges' section. I would like to get an idea what the community thinks is lacking from the article (not just the section I edited), what is not explained, what is unclear etc... (all comments are welcome and very much appreciated) -- DTGardner 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very well written and thorough, but at 56k long, the article becomes somewhat tiresome to read. The Ted Healy and his stooges section, for example, could stand alone as an independent article; interestingly the eponymous article you linked to in that section is a two sentence stub, I think it would be better if that were reversed. Another problem causing the article's length is the laundry lists at the end: The external links section is out of control and needs to be seriously pruned (I myself try to keep them to < 5 entries). The tributes section also needs to be shortened as does the catch phrases section. Does the slapstick section need so many examples? The members section would probably look better expressed as a wikitable. The sections could also be better organized; for example the Social commentary and satire section should probably follow immediately after the History section. Citations: For an article of this length to only have two citations is not so good— although I'm not sure whether the Books section and the Further reading section are meant to also be citations. You should use the citation templates to achieve a standardized format for your references, and I would suggest the use of the layout at Template:Reflist for your references section. Despite my criticism, I enjoyed the article and left better informed than I came. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Makah

major edit to this page - I'd like to know how well this article flows now. Gobonobo 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle-Mir Program

Hello again! This is my second major article revision, and I'm kinda pleased with it. The original article was pretty much only Start Class, with proposals to merge and delete it, and I've restructured it, added lots of extra text, put in images and links and a fair amount of citations. I'd like to get this article to GA and then FA status, so any feedback would again be extremely appreciated, as the feedback I got for my last article, STS-74, helped me get it to GA! The comparison page is here: [16] Thanks, Colds7ream 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Simon (politician)

Former senator from Illinois, the article was choppy when I saw it first. I tried to clean it up and almost single-handedly made the inline citations (there was no citation at all before, which is kind of strange for a senator). Please give feedbacks so it can be improved further. Wooyi 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable oil economy

There are 3 different ways that vegetable oil is being used in vehicles, each with an article. Together these seem to have a bright future. There are many pages like hydrogen economy, ethanol economy, etc. where the characteristics and potential of other energy systems are discussed, so I made an article for vegetable oil economy. This is my first real article. I think parts of biodiesel probably should be moved to this and I started to discuss that on the biodiesel talk page. Any help appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vincecate (talk • contribs).

Hello, Vincecate. A few suggestions related to the Vegetable oil economy article itself:
  • Capitalization: The first word of some of the wikilinks in the article are unnecessarily capitalized. Examples: "Biodiesel around the World"; "Air pollution". Links to articles are always case sensitive, except for the first letter of the article name, so Air pollution and air pollution will get you the same article. Also, only the first word of section headers should be capitalized, as well as any proper nouns (if any). See here for more info. Also, some of the wikilinks in the See also section needs capitalization.
  • Images: Per WP:MOS#Images, consider right-aligning the first image in the article, and staggering the remaining images left-and-right.
  • Templates: Consider repositioning the {{environmental technology}} template from under the See also section to the top right of the article.
I hope this has been of help. If any of this is unclear or if you need help with anything specific, feel free to leave me a message! —XhantarTalk 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much! I have done most of the easier stuff. I saw something about a bot that fixed up citations. Is there really such a thing? If I do nothing will they get fixed after awhile? Vincecate 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you have to fix the citations on your own. Bobo is soft 02:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Audio Home Recording Act

Took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out how to request feedback. I've been working on this article and would appreciate it if someone gave it a look. We're having some difficulties figuring out how to properly frame/interpret the relevant caselaw on this statute, and frankly I'm not sure how Wikipedia or encyclopedias in general deal with issues of legal interpretation. Iamtfc 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It kind of looks like a big wall of text. Adding a picture or two would spice it up a bit and don't forget to site. ;) Ionescuac 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A few references would be nice alongside those pictures. Wording is fine. It will never fbe fun like an article on Disney, but needs a to be referenced to solidify and some pictures to spice it up. Try Wikipedia Commons for soemthing suitable. Rgds, - Trident13 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Teruel

I picked up a stub article and expanded it, "The Battle of Teruel." I am wondering if it is still a stub. I am still doing the research on casualties as that data has been elusive.

Many thanks

GenghisTheHun 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

I'd say it's not a stub article. It looks like you have multiple citations to "Hugh Thomas" and four different versions of his book listed as the references—it would be difficult to determine which one was used for the page citations. — RJH (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Peace Fund

This is about a charitable organization. I don't know what to do about the name The is actually a part of the name. It isn't searchable. When I search for 'The Peace Fund', it comes up. When i search for 'peace fund', it doesn't. Any suggestions about what I should do? Also I know it needs more independent citations - can you also check for NPOV? Also, any other suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.--LtlKtytalk | contribs 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please disregard the searchable question. I suppose it hadn't been cataloged by the search engine yet. Now, it is showing up just fine. Any suggestions regarding contest would still be appreciated. Thanks.--LtlKtytalk | contribs 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval ships

I'm not sure where to go with this article, and would appreciate suggestions.--Tabun1015 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see information about the ship-building techniques of the period, and what innovations these particular models provided. (E.g. development of bulkier, sail-driven ships for use in the N. Atlantic.) It could use a history section, including major ship-building nations, the nature of their fleets and any key naval battles. Also is this specifically europe-oriented? How about a discussion of the rigging? Is there anything on ships built for river navigation? Thanks.[17] — RJH (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fluidized bed reactor

Hello everyone. I am new to Wikipedia have recently written a new article on fluidized bed reactors. This article is about a chemical reactor device where a bed of solid particles is fluidized or vigerously moved around by a fluid. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for additional content or other possible changes. Thanks in advance for your help and input! Hughesy127 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Here's a few comments.
  • This page describes a limitation on the velocity that you might want to mention. Also you might include something about the "excellent heat and mass transfer characteristics" in the introduction.
  • This sentence doesn't quite make sense to me: "Various utilities also use FBR’s for coal gasification, nuclear power plants, and water and waste treatment settings." It seems to be switching topic in mid-stream, going from applications to utilities.
  • Where does the "gas" come from in the following statement? "The high gas velocities present in this style of reactor often result in fine particles becoming entrained in the fluid."
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Rose Johns

This is a new article on an early civil rights activist who played a major role in ending school segregation. Any suggestions for revision will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

For your references use Template:Cite web and make sure your web sources are fully referenced. It is not enough to just have the URL, but the title, date, access date, publisher, etc. are needed as well. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Sowers

I've just posted a complete overhaul of this page. As it's my first WP contribution, I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Before I worked on it, there was virtually no sourcing and a good deal of what I didn't think to be encyclopedic content/language. Here's a link to the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Sowers&diff=114682815&oldid=111020744 Thanks in advance. Sanfranman59 01:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Premru

American/British trombonist and composer. Think I've got it going now; I'd appreciate any general evaluation, and esp. on citation/reference style--the article relies heavily on online sources, so it didn't seem to make sense to separate them out as "External Links". I hope my solution makes sense. Also most of the article synthesizes multiple sources so it's difficult to footnote or Harvard-cite each item. Does it seem encyclopedic? Hopefully the text establishes notability. thanks.--Turangalila (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tartan Noir

I've written a completely new article for this subject, as the previous version wasn't really up to scratch. I've added a section on roots and influences, revised and expanded a list of Tartan Noir authors, added notable works in the genre. This is my first crack at a wiki article, and I'd like to know what others think of it. Many thanks. Edofedinburgh 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Screen Quotas

Could you come and give some comments for rivision. This is my article for screen quotas. Thank you

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

I like the writing style used, however I will say that you should take a look at the formatting style used in some other articles to get a feel of how Wikipedia is generally formatted. Also, you can make internal links to articles like [[this]] which would output a link like this. Also, please sign your name by writing four tildes (~~~~) after making posts on project pages. Phuzion 03:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Katsuhiko Nakajima

  • This is an article I made about a week ago and have expanded on slightly since. I feel this could become one of the better wrestling articles on Wikipedia with some fine-tuning, and I'd like some advice on how to take it to the next level. Thanks. MarcK 10:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Suzanne Shell

Subject of article is a longtime activist who has been in the news recently for a notable case brought against Internet Archive. Though I have tried to be extremely meticulous with sourcing statements, the subject of the article has complained on the talk page about inaccuracy and NPOV. Please review the article and double check the sources, as well as provide any feedback on how it might be improved. Thanks! Jokestress 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_feedback_Archive_2_7170.html"