Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

Skip to the bottom

Requests for Feedback

Shortcuts

This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed.
This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions.
If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.

Before you request feedback

There are certain things which come up again and again so it may help if you deal with them before requesting feedback:

Does your article have reliable sources? These are important in terms of both verifiability and notability.
Do you have a conflict of interest that may harm your ability to produce a neutral article?

If you would like a beginner's guide to these sorts of issues, take a look at the article wizard.

If you are unsure about how to edit Wikipedia articles, take a look at this tutorial.

For a more general discussion of writing your first article, see "Your first article".

How to post a request

Place a Wikilink, with the title of the page inside [[ and ]] - for example, [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] - in the box below.
Click Click To Add Request
In the new article, Write a brief summary of your work or what in particular you need help with, but do not post the whole article here.
If you have rewritten an existing article, you may wish to provide a diff link from that article's history that shows your changes.
Check regularly for responses to your request; they will most often be made here.

↓ Post your request using the box below. Replace "Untitled" with a wikilink to your article - e.g. [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] ↓

After Receiving Feedback

Check back here often, as you will receive a response here.
Respond to the feedback, either with a simple thank you, to ask for help with anything mentioned, or, after you've made some of the improvements, what they think of them.
Consider helping out here in the future - anyone can read up on what articles should be like and provide constructive criticism.

Are you providing feedback?

Please consider notifying the user whose article you are providing feedback for by placing a message on their talk page, so they will be able to read it in a timely manner and reply if necessary. You can use..
- {{Feedbackreply-sm}} A template asking the user to check back here and consider responding
- {{Feedbackreply-alt}} A more personal version of the first offering your help with developing, moving to mainspace, etc.

Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

The previous few days of requests are transcluded below. The pages for the past 20 days are: (click here to refresh)

Index of all requests for feedback

Chandra Om

Hello,

This is the first page i have created, subject is Chandra Om User:Premandom/Chandra_om, a well-known teacher in Yoga circles. i am intersted if you think it needs any work, and what type before i try to post it for everyone to see. Thanks very much.

Premandom (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the article not being promotional, but aren't you in violation of the conflict of interests rules? Xcviii (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premandom - thank you for your time and the feedback Xcviii. i am not sure what you mean about the conflict of interest. Is it because my username has a 'om' in it? 'Prem and Om' is how i sign some of my emails. It means Love and God and i thought it was a nice username. Sorry for the confusion. Should i try to post it under a less confusing looking username? Or do you have any other suggestions? Premandom (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name is fine. However I disagree with Xcviii about the draft article. It does read as promotional to me, more like a press release than an encyclopedic article. Phrases such as "dedicated her life to selfless service", "initiated by Sri Dharma Mittra into his spiritual lineage", "dedicating her life to the service of others" are not encyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3CX Phone System

I have updated this page based on the feedback received User:Voipguy/3CX_Phone_System and would welcome further feedback Voipguy (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JanaDixon/ipodmeister

Hi there! I wrote this article on a company I heard about on the news. I've tried to write it once before and it came across too advertisment like I suppose. I was hoping to get some feedback to make it acceptable for wikipedia. Thanks for any help!

JanaDixon (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)JanaDixon 11/25/09[reply]

At the moment the tone is still too promotional in my view so the tone will need some work before it is moved to the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the article and added a picture. I think. I'm still a little confused and I have 12 windows open with different guides. Is it still too promotional? Thanks again!

JanaDixon (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) JanaDixon 12/2/09[reply]

I think in order for this to be sufficiently nonpromotional, you need to think of it as a page to explain another page. Such as, if there is a general social movement towards bartering/recycling, you could talk about this group in that context, and provide links to the main wiki page talking about that movement. As long as all the article does is talk about a company or group and its objectives/goals/projects, it's not an encyclopedia article; it's a promotional item. Xcviii (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again to bother everyone! I tried to add more about the recycling and Voluntary Simplicity aspects of the company, better? Worse?

JanaDixon (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC) JanaDixon[reply]

Shilpa Architects

Shilpa Architects User:Rasikar/Shilpa Architects

I am trying to write an article about an architecture firm from India that is part of our class project. I am a newbie to authoring articles on wikipedia and any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Rasikar (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So not appropriate. Buy yourself a webpage.Xcviii (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please guide to help me make it more appropriate? It would be very helpful to have your comments/edits/modifications/omissions to make it more suitable. These architects already have a web page but i drafted the article by researching what was available about them and their work, mainly from third party internet sites/media reports but I did refer to their website as well. The objective for my class project is for each student to create a profile and develop a case-study of contemporary foreign architects and urban planners. My hope is that a wikipedia article about my choice of firm will be part of my final project report. Thanks in advance for your help. Rasikar (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Xcviiiwas a little harsh - I think there is the basis for a article here. You need to be more specific about why this firm is notable per WP:CORP and support it by references to reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines etc where the firm and its accomplishments are discussed in some detail. Also it does need to be toned down a little to avoid sounding promotional - phrases such as "this emphasis has created sustainable infrastructure with a sensitivity for society as well as the built-natural environment" are not encyclopedic. When you have found your sources, take a look at WP:CITE for guidance as to how to cite them, or drop me a note on my talk page if you need help. – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..I will modify based on your feedback. Thanks again! Rasikar (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women of the Apocalypse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luthar28/Women_of_the_Apocalypse

Hi there, it's my first page so I'm wondering if it looks correct?

Luthar28 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I would give a more complete description of the themes of the four stories, and then do a section on each where you write a brief summary. That would be more helpful than merely listing the stories.

Also, it would look a lot better if you would get the publisher to upload a picture, or if you would provide a direct link to the particular item(s) you discuss, as opposed to a generic link to the publisher's website.

Xcviii (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The formatting and most of the information on your page are very good. However, some of the writing doesn't comply with the Manual of Style. For example, we usually try to avoid contractions ("there's" in the second sentence) and to write out numbers. I would also make sure that all of the sentences in the article are complete sentences. For example, the article reads that "Published in October 2009 by Absolute Xpress." This is good information, but it doesn't read like an encyclopedia. Instead, you might want to say "The anthology was..." or something similar.

Other than that, your main concern would be to add more information and more sources. Try to find outside sources if you can - a newspaper article on the anthology would be good. If you want a guideline for how these sorts of articles can be put together, you can look at the page for To Kill A Mockingbird, which is a Featured Article. (The article you're writing doesn't have to be nearly so long, though - there probably isn't as much to say!)

Annalise (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. How would I add a picture and book info to this article? Specifically, I'm talking this type of format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashforward(novel)

Luthar28 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! What you're looking for is the infobox for books, which is here. I found it by going to the WP:BOOK page. It might be useful for you; they have a lot of information about how to write articles on books, including an Article Template that you can use. Annalise (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it's almost ready. I don't know how to upload pictures yet -- I've requested the the publisher do so. Any other suggestions?

Luthar28 (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Isaac Fine

Seeking feedback.InproperinLA (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with some aspects of this article.

I've made some changes, and reported my concern here.

BLP's are a high profile issue at Wikipedia, so I want to make sure we are handling this correctly.--SPhilbrick T 19:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking feedback for new article -SkiTAM

New user - first time submitter looking for feedback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skitam (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you create the article? The only edit that you have made with this username is the request you posted here. – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning to write about SkiTAM, please read the WP:USERNAME policy first, especially the point about promotional names.--SPhilbrick T 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InproperinLA (talk)

New Industrial Revolution

I would like some assistance in tightening up the article New Industrial Revolution. This article was deleted once and was just recently reinstated. If you would like the full history, you can check out my talk page ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am specifically interested in including more references to this movement, so that it is not on the chopping block again. This is an existing worldwide movement, and has been referred to by this name. Thank you!! ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards requesting its deletion again to be honest with you. You might be better writing an article on the book Cradle to Cradle if it meets notability guidelines.

It appears to be similar to a neologism. It may not be an appropriate article. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms
Yes, it is sourced, but it looks like you used synthesis of published material that advances a position (WP:SYNTHESIS}. "New Industrial Revolution" does not appear in here or here for example. You need to find sources linking all of the subsections to the subject. If they don't even mention the subject you are publishing an essay (WP:NOT#ESSAY).
These are a couple lines that jumped out:

"The New Industrial Revolution will produce a world of abundance and good design - a delightful, safe world that our children can play in." We cannot tell the future
"At the heart of the New Industrial Revolution is a quantum leap in the way that humans think of the products that we purchase and consume. The traditional "cradle to grave" product lifecycle must be changed to a system of "cradle to cradle" product flow" I assume this is a direct line from the book. Quote it if it is. A little fluffy for a neutral encyclopedia so paraphrasing might be even better.
"An analogy of the shift in values can be drawn from such governmental agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and their activities of the past two hundred years..." needs a citation from a reliable source.
"The destruction that comes from war is now being recognized as wasteful, expensive, and an ill-conceived method for achieving peace in our world" -by who?
"Looking back there is just the one model for development, the global economic development that we know." Again, more essay like writing not appropriate for encyclopedic text.
"Spacious fields of greenery and towering housing complexes in Chicago." I'm seeing a small city garden and some mid rises.

Biomimicry. I don't know what is up with the link (fix it) but text is preferred over lists.
Earthships and Permaculture have 0 refs.
See WP:CITE#HOW for better citation formats.

Don't hesitate to ask if you need clarification on any specifics.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It reads like an essay. An interesting essay, to be sure, but still an essay.--SPhilbrick T 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard PPC

The Blizzard PPC Hi, this is my first article, it is related to the Commodore Amiga systems, specifically the Amiga 120 as its an accelerator for it. Please give me feedback on it, and tag appropriately. Thank you! Dreamcast270mhz (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has been proposed for deletion. I assume you think otherwise. You might leave MrKIA11 a note at his talk page. While he is someone preoccupied with his bid to become an administrator, he is an active member of the Video Games Project, and may be in a position to give you useful advice.--SPhilbrick T 22:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Irla

Request for review, input and assistance of article User:Profklm/Sharon Irla. (created Nov 28, 2009)

I hope to later expand this article to include photo of the artist and, with her permission, some sample work.

Moreover, I hope to later add a section header of "Movement," as Irla is one of a handful of contemporary Cherokee Artists whose artwork is based on historical, scholarly research of the Cherokee. Other notables in this "Movement" would include Martha Berry, Talmadge Davis, and Anna B. (Sixkiller) Mitchell (for whom an article needs to be written).

I look forward to your input. Thanks Profklm (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is sketchy. I see one mention in a reliable source. Is that it? I'm not sure this would survive a deletion proposal. I see quite a few awards, have any of them been discussed in a reliable source? Even if not, some referencing is required to support Verifiability

Please review Article Layout, as your article structure does not follow Wikipedia conventions.--SPhilbrick T 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review new page Satan's Pilgrims

The new page about the instrumental surf band, Satan's Pilgrims,can be found at User:Crowdesign/Satan's Pilgrims.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowdesign (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your footnotes need tighetening up, but before working on that, make sure you can establish Notability. That link is general, for more specific advice, see WP:MUSIC.--SPhilbrick T 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank B. Wynn

I have just started a new article User:Davidclydewalters/Frank B. Wynn I have much more information on Dr. Wynn and his considerable contribution to medical history and the conservation movement in the United States. I have just completed a Doctoral dissertation on leadership and the biography of Dr. Wynn at the University of Montana. The article is not complete. I have only started it to learn how to contribute. I am requesting feedback only so that the article is properly constructed and will not be deleted. I will continue to work on it. Thank you for creating and maintaining this valuable information resource. I have already made a donation and expect to do so again in the future. --Davidclydewalters (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am writing this article for a history class I am taking at the University of Maryland. I was wondering if anyone could provide me with constructive criticism on how I can improve this article. Any feedback would be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodarre (talk • contribs) 05:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opening sentence assumes the reader knows what a safety fuse is. Start with an introduction, directed at people who might not be familiar with the object.

Please review Article Layout for some suggestions for improvement.

Your current structure is a single long section. Think about how to break it into two or three relevant sections.

Unfortunately, I have to suggest that you read Fuse (explosives). At first glance, I see a lot of overlap, so you'll have to figure out if your exposition can be distinguished from the existing article.--SPhilbrick T 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humberstone Garden Suburb

82.7.37.91 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do is to establish Notability with references to reliable sources.

If you can meet those requirements, then check out Article Layout to see how to create sections.--SPhilbrick T 17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Land Administration

Requesting feedback. Institute of Land Administration Smwiti (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've jumped too quickly into details without a proper introduction.

For example, you mention it is in East Africa, but you don't mention the country.

One might guess it is a college or university, but those guesses would be wrong.

Start by telling us what is it, and where it is. With whom is it affiliated? When was it created?

The sentence starting "possible employers" and the sentence closing "this is an education for you" are not appropriate.

You need to establish Notability with references to reliable sources

If you can address these issues, then look at footnotes for suggestions on how to properly include references.--SPhilbrick T 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Muir Giles

Hello, I've written an article about occupational therapist Gordon Muir Giles -- he developed a significant new approach and treatment for individuals with neurological injuries. Would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Mattymatt (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive criticism can't really be provided until notability is asserted. Please provide additional independent sources (not from the subject) or this will more than likely be deleted. I hope this points you in the right direction.Cptnono (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- I've added three more independent sources, bringing the total for the article up to nine. Mattymatt (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Language 2

user:Rick206/Dynamic Language This article is about a communications company I heard about located in Washington State. It is in a subpage. I would like to add a picture as well if this possible after the move is allowed. Thank you for reviews and remarks. Much appreciated. Rick206 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As before, you still need to provide more third party, secondary sources that support claims of notability. The tone is also a little spammy so that will need some work. Also take a look at WP:FAQO. – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to request another review to see if the above issues have been resolved or are making progressive steps toward a mainspace article? Thank you!

Rick206 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Francis Walker

Hello, I'm looking for feedback on a draft article in my userspace regarding User: Luckygrrrr/Edwin Francis Walker, a prolific investigator for the Southwest Museum. Any help regarding formatting and otherwise is appreciated. Thank you.

Luckygrrrr (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Luckygrrrr[reply]

The subject is probably notable per Wikipedia's definition, based on the numerous books he wrote, but you will have to cite some additional reliable sources to support those claims of notability - press coverage, scientific journals etc. Let me know if you need help with citing sources. Also, the list of works is rather long and in danger of swamping the rest of the article, maybe just select the major works?. – ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Gang of 1974

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LCLproject/The_Chain_Gang_of_1974

I'm new to wiki and any help would be greatly appreciated.

LCLproject (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acrompton/multifaith spaces

Posting request based on Acrompton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pasting article text into this page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request to go live with page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apdsm/Andr%C3%A9_Marques

As there is several André Marques on wiki, I propose this one to go as André_Marques_(filmmaker).

Apdsm (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is probably notable per Wikipedia's definition, based on the awards he has won, but you will have to cite some reliable sources to support those claims of notability. Let me know if you need help with citing sources. In the meantime I have tweaked the layout a little. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

Hi there again. I've added some references. Let me know if one needs to do more.

regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apdsm (talk • contribs) 11:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona Method

To whom it may concern,

I feel the Sedona Method article is a good addition to the vocabulary defined in your book.It spart of human relations study.

Sincerely,

Spelling B Girl <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpellingBGirl (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for speedy deletion as it is almost impossible to tell what the article is about. Please take a look at WP:YFA or you can use the the article creation wizard to assist you in creating your article. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Feather Development Group

User:Dschotthoefer/Red Feather Development Group

This is my first article and I just want to make sure it is a good one and will not be deleted immediately. I believe this non-profit is article worthy due to their prominent work and great efforts to change the world. I figure that if Habitat for Humanity has an article, then the justification for Red Feather to have one lies in the same reasoning.

--Dschotthoefer (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the formatting a little (for example, you don't need to specify a references group where the references are simple like these). I think it's ready to be moved to the mainspace, let me know if you need help with that. And just an FYI, "other stuff exists" is not usually justification for an article to exist, they key criterion is notability. – ukexpat (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMO (Internet Marketing System)

Hi, there, I am new and have just created an article called PRIMO (Internet Marketing System which is a automate system used for internet marketing.

I would appreciate your feedback and correction on it!

Many thanks for your help and input!

Kind regards,

Graciousness2009 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is at User:Graciousness2009/PRIMO (Internet Marketing System). I am afraid that at the moment this reads like a blatant advertisement for the system and its creator and would almost certainly be speedily deleted if moved to the mainspace. You will have to do a lot more work on the tone of the article and find some more third party reliable sources to support the notability of the subject matter if this one is to have a chance at surviving in the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hampton

Timothy Hampton recently died in suspicious circumstances. He was a British weapon of mass destruction specialist and employee of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) in Vienna, Austria.

This is only my second posting but it looks close to me :) I do appreciate any input.

Wittym (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is interesting, but it uses plain URLs in its external links. This is undesirable because sometimes websites/pages change URLs, and do not leave a redirect in their stead as is usually done here at Wikipedia. Therefore, over time, plain URLs could eventually become dead links, a phenomenon known as linkrot. With only a plain URL, it would be difficult for a user to track down the new location; therefore, it is recommended that you also provide a brief summary of the webpage (title, sitename, etc.) by using the syntax [http://www.example.com link title], obviously replacing example.com with the URL. Citation templates may assist with this task, particularly {{cite web}}. Cheers, Intelligentsium 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My idea for a section on articles

I often refer to wikipedia for information. I often leave an article, after having read it, with more questions about the topic at hand. It would be nice to see a section in each article where visitors can post questions about that article so that others with knowledge could contribute answers to those questions directly in the article in a seamless form. Not as if they were answering the question (as forums do) but as a further contribution to the article to make it more complete. Once that question was answered then the question could be grayed out to show visitors that the the answer is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.191.233 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have the talk page, wherein editors can ask a bit of information be included, then it is, and this is very similar to what you suggest. Unfortunately, this is the Requests for feedback page, for requesting feedback on articles. For requesting feedback on your idea to better Wikipedia, please see the proposals section of the village pump. Thank you. Intelligentsium 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, one of the justifications for the reference desk is that people can ask questions, and if the question is a good one, and can be answered by someone staffing the desk, but cannot be found in an existing article, perhaps a relevant article should be expanded to include the answer.

However, the linkage between those types of discussions and actual changes to articles is rare. Perhaps if you flesh, it could be implemented, either on the talk page or on the relevant reference desk with a closer linkage, and someone actually changing the article. As noted, the best place to push this forward is the Village Pump, but you might check out the reference desk, and see if those pages should be part of the solution.--SPhilbrick T 00:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (programming language)

I have created a new article on Genie, a dialect of the Vala programming language. I am not affiliated with GNOME and tried to write the article as neutral as possible, but some revision (and hopefully enhancement) would be appreciated. Latinmidget (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is Notability You have no examples of reliable sources showing that language has been used, discussed, or reviewed by others.--SPhilbrick T 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only the first two external links are related to GNOME, the others are from independent authors who have certainly used and reviewed the language. Reliability is relative, but take for example Barry Kauler (creator of Puppy Linux, a well-known distro), who has chosen this language as development platform. In any case, it should be noted that this is actually an alternative dialect (I have rephrased this in the article) of a well known language (which already has an entry in Wikipedia and is intended to become one the main development platforms for GNOME 3.0), so IMHO the article on Genie has notability. Nevertheless, your concern is valid and I will try to look for more independent sources. Latinmidget (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the external links; they should be interpreted as "reader, you might also find this interesting". If they do help establish Notability, that's great, but they need to be properly referenced to material in the article to "count". --SPhilbrick T 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kresimir Chris Kunej

The article is in my user space at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turqoise127/Kresimir_Chris_Kunej. It was deleted due to notability concerns. Since the deletion I have shortened the article to a great extent, replaced some rotlinked sources with screenprints of when they were active, I added some screenshots of the significant coverage source (TV show coverage), improved the refs, and added a paragraph entitled "Resulting Lasting Impact in the Field of..." which provides a clear corrolation with article subject and significant impact. I believe that now the article meets WP:PROF 1 and 4, there are 2 good RS one significant, that meets WP:N, notable enough to meet WP:GNG, mainly for subject's activities on the WP:fringe (his strict translation standards theories are very fringe, as I recently realized), as well as WP:ANYBIO (2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.)(see "resulting lasting impact" paragraph). Although I believe my work has addressed the notability concern and met it, recently I was advised that now there may be WP:SYNTH concerns over the very paragraph that clearly shows notability. How do I re-word or change so there is no WP:SYNTH? What are your thoughts? And, can you provide me with some help and advice for improvements? I would be much obliged. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity and the convenience of other editors, can you please list here:

two reliable sources you refer to; and
the specific claims and sources backing them up that give demonstrate satisfaction of PROF 1 & 4?

Thanks, ^Bongo_matic 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I did not misunderstand the nature of this forum, I was merely attempting to solicit some feedback, help and advice from experienced editors on here regarding an article I have worked hard on and firmly believe is a good contribution to the accumulation of knowledge on the project. Regardless, nothing in policy or guidelines says that sources have to be available to everyone, whether for reasons of physical access (e.g. if they are from books or journals only avaliable in libraries in one country) or of language. Sources have been provided for this article, and they are verifiable. If there is a language barrier issue please let me know.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone patrolling this page is unaware that sources are not required to be on the internet or even in English. However, the article has 22 references, many in another language and some may require a library visit. It would be a waste of my time, if for example, I tracked down translation of reference 22 and concluded it didn't support notability. You might respond that it wasn't #22 that supports notability.

None of the first three sentences in the lede demonstrate notability. The fourth sentence might, but it isn't referenced. So I read Bongomatic's question as - which references should I look at in order to confirm that you've now met the requirement? Lots of relevant references is a good thing, but in most articles, it only take one or two references to support notability.--SPhilbrick T 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I would have to present a case here, I believed I would get some advice here for improvements by previously uninvolved editors. Regardless, for the sake of Sphilbrick's reasonable comment I will address the question;

the two reliable sources I refer to are (I will actually offer 3)

1) #14, significant reliable in-depth coverage on the subject on a national TV show. It is cited per guidelines. To strengthen this I have added screenshots of the actual segment showing subject interviewed and his academic publishing discussed.

2) #15, coverage in an article in Jutarnji list, as of late there is an article on that newspaper on our Wiki. Reliable, sourced.

3) #16, coverage on the subject on a different national channel and different TV show, reliable, sourced.

PROF 1 is met because it reads The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed. Read paragraph "Resulting Lasting Impact in the Field of Croatian Translations" for details on that. Also, article subject’s works and translated books are held widely in Republic of Croatia, WP:ACADEMIC does not state it has to be libraries in the US or a particular state. I listed sources of subject’s works in numerous libraries in Croatia (verifiable internet sources), including the major National University Library of Zagreb.
PROF 4 is met because at least two of the subject’s works are being used as textbooks, his translation of a Civil Engineering textbook at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and one of his academic papers as required reading at the University of Tubingen in Germany (both are sourced).

Article is also notable per WP:ANYBIO - 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. and per WP:FRINGE, which I actually realized in discussion with editor Bongomatic; subject's theories are fringe. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement include suggestions to help you edit the article so that it meets the basic inclusion criteria. If you read the rest of this page, you will see that the vast majority of responses are about notability and sources as those are areas about which there seem to be the most confusion or misunderstanding. – ukexpat (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will be grateful for any and all input. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that you are not required "to present a case here", but neither are you required to list an article here for consideration by others. If you wish other editors to spend their time reviewing your article, specifically with reference to the criteria you yourself cited:

I believe that now the article meets WP:PROF 1 and 4, there are 2 good RS one significant, that . . . meet WP:GNG . . . as well as WP:ANYBIO

you are likely to get more thoughtful responses if you direct people to the relevant places. My suggestion, to which you took inexplicable umbrage (despite calling a nearly identical request "reasonable"), was a suggestion that—since the issues I excerpted from your initial request are those that readers of this page are likely to focus on—you make it easier for editors to review your article and claims regarding it. ^Bongo_matic 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabto

Nabto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tommyped/Nabto

Tommyped (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:N and WP:PRODUCT - at the moment the draft says nothing to indicate how or why this product is notable as required by our inclusion guidelines. You will also need reliable sources to support any claims of notability. – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Gang of 1974

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LCLproject/The_Chain_Gang_of_1974

LCLproject (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly unreadable and looks more like a list of songs and albums than providing any useful information about the group. Lack of inline citations makes it difficult to tell what reference supports any notability the band may have. Most importantly, the article does not make any reliable claim that it passes WP:MUSIC, meaning that this article would likely be Speedy Deleted. -Drdisque (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Start by applying paragraph organization and grammar check. The claim that the bass player is also in another band and that that other band always mentions this band suggests that there is no real evidence of notability; such expressions are red flags. The very first link, to an article in the Colorado Daily, that one might count (so to speak); I don't see how the rest add up to notability. Sorry, but them's the shakes--it looks like the band has more work to do. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obie One B.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nemo05/obieoneba (Nemo05 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Schoolwires

User:Afvincent/Schoolwires

Afvincent (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)afvincent, 12/9/2009[reply]

I think there is the basis for an article here and the company may be notable per the guidelines at WP:CORP. However at the moment the article reads like a marketing tool - "solutions" and lists of features are marketing stuff, and not encyclopedic language. You will also need some third party reliable sources to support notability claims. Is there any significant press coverage? – ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. This is the first article I've written for Wikipedia, and I am still working on using the right voice. I am all for eliminating the marketing speak. Do you (or does anyone else) have any suggestions for how I could best describe what the company does and what they sell?

The company has been featured on the Inc. 500 and 5000 list for a few years running (which I sourced in the article). It has also one a "Best in Tech 2009" award for "Communications Management" from Scholastic (Scholastic Award) which I would be happy to cite if you think that would add a solid reliable source. I could also include external links to some of the districts they've handled, perhaps? That would certainly be a stronger source than any press releases the company puts out.

Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated, of course. Thanks for your help and your patience! Afvincent (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)afvincent[reply]

Canadian Crossroads International

Canadian Crossroads International Cbentl2 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reliable sources demonstrating Notability. --SPhilbrick T 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Vibrations

I recently posted an article on the band, Natural Vibrations. I have performed the edits suggested to me previously and have yet to hear back from more wikipedia editors. If anyone has any feedback on my article it would be much appreciated. Thank you, Nhollis1113 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need some third party reliable sources to show how the band meets the notability guidelines set out in WP:BAND. At the moment the only cited references are to the band's own website and what appears to be an online retailer. If the band is indeed notable, there must be some significant press coverage that you can cite. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windward Reports

Please review User:DavidThi808/Windward_Reports to see if it meets the requirements for notability. I believe it does with Business Week and eWeek citing it.

thank you for your time

DavidThi808 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)DavidThi808 12/10/09[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carmen2u/Lee_Aase

This is an article I have written regarding a notable figure in the world of social media in healthcare, Lee Aase. I have compiled an extensive list of references, external links, and other supplementary information. With able guidance from PhantomSteve (a Wiki contributor and advisor), I have fortified each of the sections I created and am now seeking broader review to ensure that this page will be ready for formal submission to the active site. I welcome your constructive criticism. As a first-time article writer for Wikipedia, I have been warmed by the good counsel I have obtained so far and look forward to your input. Thanks. Carmen Gonzalez, also known as Carmen2u (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the list of potential sources, external links, and interviews, I'm not sure if you have established notability. One to two lines in reputable sources (ie Forbes and Good Morning America) are not enough to create an article. Articles cannot rely predominately on primary (the subject's) sources or blogs. You might want to consider creating an article on social networking in medicine since it appears to be the subject receiving the significant coverage in the reliable sources. That being said, you have made some steps towards this biography. If you choose to continue with it:

Remove the interviews and reduce the external links sections. It appears that you were attempting to assert notability but it does not improve the encyclopedic value of the article. WP:ELNO for the external links.
A good PR run (which appears to be what some of the coverage is based off of) will make a PR article. Limit and watch the wording of coverage solicited by the subject.
Remove all blogs. These are not references. A mention of the subjects blogs can get some room but I would recommend making sure sources discuss it or other editors will assume it is promotional (just the way it works on Wikipeida). Blogs should not be used as sources. None of them appear to be by reputable sources joining in new media but utilyzing full editorial control so they do not meet the requirements in the guidelines. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources
Reformat all of the references. I recommend cutting out all of the inappropriate ones before taking this step
The lead does not need a section header . WP:LAYOUT
"evangelist" seems a little fluffy. "Proponent" or something similar would be less pretty but more encyclopedic.
The Speaking engagements subsection needs sources independent of the subject that are not blogs for lines such as "Aase is a highly regarded figure in the social media arena..."

Your "sources" have verified that the subject spoke at conferences (such as the one in Vegas) but without appropriate sources throughout the article already truly verifying notability, it reads like a resume.

Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodele Awojobi

I have recently written the article, Ayodele Awojobi, and would need valuable feed-back.

The article, I believe, speaks about the life and achievements of what I believe to be a remarkable Nigerian academic; a pioneer in Mechanical Engineering research, out of Africa.

Feed-back would be highly appreciated.

Thanks.

Krrush 10:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krrush (talk • contribs)

I have reviewed about half the article and cleaned it up quite a bit -- the language is way too "flowery", repetitious, and full of hyperbole, and has to be toned down to make it more encyclopedic. Please take a look at WP:MOSBIO for guidance. I will continue to review and tone down. – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legion Airs

Legion Airs is a published collection of music that may be of interest to WWI and WWII historians, Choral groups, or others looking for public domain materials.

user:Paskperfect/Legion Airs

I am giving the publisher's address (directly from the published work) as the reference. Is this acceptable?

Paskperfect (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key problem here is notability - please read WP:MUSIC, and I guess WP:NB, for appropriate guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim & Co.

Wertheim & Co. Stanleywmorten (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a quick review and made a couple of format changes. The main problem however is the flow. Rather than setting out the history in a chronology, you should convert it into prose and break it down further into sections, see Microsoft, and DuPont as examples. – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HappyFeet Soccer

Please review this updated page- any feedback would be greatly appreciated! HappyFeet Soccer: HappyFeet Soccer Upper90 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references must be to significant coverage in reliable sources to support notability. The current references do not appear to be significant coverage. Has the programme received any press coverage? – ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peas_(Astronomy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peas_%28Astronomy%29

I have created a page detailing a class of galaxy that has been found by the users at Galaxy Zoo and would like some feedback please. I have used references to papers and sites as much as possible, but I'm unfamiliar with how to actually make the reference tags work!

This is a scientific page using scientific data from papers published by the highly reputable MNRAS. I have the permission of the authors of the paper to use it as well as I can, and also to include photos that she has produced. To quote C. Cardamone: "Please go ahead and freely use the pictures, anything I've posted on the forum / blog, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Nowell (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content-wise, the article is very good. Stylistically, it needs a lot of work. See the manual of style for help, or leave me a message on my talk page. Friendly tip: Question marks(?), exclamation marks(!), and ellipses(...) are almost never encyclopedic in tone. If you really feel that a sentence needs one, that sentence probably isn't encyclopedic in tone either. As for your references, your scholarly articles were very good- try to have more of those and less forums and blogs. Also, you seem to have gone overboard with the external links. Just a little bit. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 09:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Style does need improving, so will concentrate on that. Punctuation marks can be dealt with. External links can be shortened- I guess I was trying to justify the article's inclusion. The forums and blogs are part of the Galaxy Zoo 'experience', after all it is about communicating day-to-day with people from all over the globe. I will endeavour to use less 'opinion' and more science though. Thanks again. Oh, and sorry for forgetting to sign it. Regards, Richard Nowell, writing for Galaxy Zoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Nowell (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeff.Hull/Articles of War (U. S. Army 1806)

Hi, I was looking up "Articles of War" in conjunction with a book I am reading and SURPRISE the Wikipedia entry had no samples of Articles of War of the period I am interested in. So I have written one. (Well, found one in the Congressional Record and formatted it for Wiki)

User:Jeff.Hull/Articles of War (U. S. Army 1806)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeff.Hull/Articles_of_War_%28U._S._Army_1806%29

Please review it and let me know if it is acceptable and how I can improve it. Feedback to jeff.hull@mac.com or here.

Thanks.

Jeff.Hull (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full texts like that belong in Wikisource, not in Wikipedia itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tabak4/ecosia

I would like you to read this article( Ecosia ) and write me your feedback. As english is not my native language, there might be some language mistakes. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabak4 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither asserts nor evidences any kind of notability. I'd nominate it for speedy deletion as an article about a non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trunks_cscs/Anthology_of_Anvil

I was reading the Wiki page on the band Anvil and noticed that the link for Anthology was to an unwritten article, so I decided to put something together User:Trunks_cscs/Anthology_of_Anvil. —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Fastflow (computing)

Please review Fastflow (computing), which is a lock-free programming framework specifically targeting commodity multicore. Aldinuc (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IronE Singleton

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia. I am trying to start an information page for a local actor in Atlanta Georgia who has managed to land over 4 major TV/Hollywood production deals in the last year including the role as lead villain in the current #1 movie in the country "The Blind Side". I tried submitting his information before but it was deleted because it lacked sufficient references. I don't want to make the same mistake again so I am seeking your wiki wisdom and critical eyes to provide feedback on my progress thus far.

Thank you for any help you can provide.