Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 12
katu anoda fruit (Sri Lanka name), Annona Muricata (sour-sop, custard apple), is a very popular variety of custard apple in Sri Lanka, and it is not at all mentioned in Wikipedia. Review of the two articles cited will show it does have very strong cancer cure abilities
- http://www.lankafreezone.com/blog_view_45_Katu-Anoda---The-Cancer-curing-Fruit.html
- http://dh-web.org/place.names/bot2sinhala.html
117.200.163.248 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, this is not a place to request articles; this is a place to get feedback on articles that you have written. If you feel there should be an article on this fruit, odds are that you are the current individual on Wikipedia who cares about this subject, so you might as well write the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys... this page has been up since December...I was hoping someone could review this soon? :D Thanks !
Rachnzl (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Done Not really an expert on software issues, but seems to make standards overall. Reviewed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
K S Narayanaswamy was a great Veena artiste. He is a recipient of almost all awards that a Carnatic music artiste can get, including the Sangeetha Kalanidhi and the Padma Bhushan. But sadly, little has been written about him in the internet. I hope that this article satisfies your requirement and is reviewed soon.
Goks277 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, while the text of the article is fine, it needs to be properly sourced per the guidelines at WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (music). To prevent your article from being deleted for lack of sourcing, I have "userified" it by moving it to your User page to be worked on in draft form. Once you add proper footnoting (WP:Footnotes) giving evidence of neutral, third-party coverage in published sources, we can publish your article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Please could someone review this new page for us - hope you enjoy it!
Worldwide Happy Media (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at your references, although you have tried to use inline citations you haven't done it quite right - the <ref> </ref> tags are supposed to actually go in the article next to the statement the reference is supposed to verify, rather than in the references section, like this:
- This is a sentence <ref>[http://example.com|The reference name goes here!]</ref>
- Hope you understand. If you have any more questions, please do feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo 06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I have finished writing page for IBS Group Holding, It's necessary that page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator, for page to be posted
DmitryIBS (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
please provide any feedback or corrections to this page so it can be published!
Carashmara (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, the article does not yet establish Notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Please carefully read this policy and see if you can find reliable sources (WP:RS) to establish the notability of the subject. Business/organisation articles without neutral, third-party footnotes are Speedy Deleted, so yours must remain on your Userpage until sources are added. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This is my new article and I will appreciate any generous review on it.
Steveyen1 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewed for format (just needs some minor format cleanup), and de-capitalised "well". Advise you check in with one of the technical WikiProjects for more specific expert feedback. I'm not quite sure who would cover this: perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. Will look into it to make corrections.
I will appreciate more reviews.
Janet.Eldar (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, to prevent your article being deleted for a variety of reasons (advertisement, unsourced, no evidence of notability provided), I've moved your article to your Userspace to be worked on in draft form. Please note the tags at the top, and post here if you have any questions about what needs to be done to remove the tags to make the article suitable for publishing. In its current form, it is not a Wikipedia article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Article deleted for following Criterion for Speedy Deletion (WP:CSD): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.britannia-movers.co.uk/about-2/about-britannia-movers-international. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Please review my article and let me know if I should make any changes. Many thanks!
70.28.16.8 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This is my first wikipedia article, so would just like a general look-over to let me know if the citations I've included are sufficient and if I have been sufficiently factual in this article. Though I've searched for additional traditional media citations and haven't found more yet. Thank you for your time!
Spxotc (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have found a number of semi-decent sources so far as documenting tool shops goes; I think you're actually ready to publish once you address the tags. You need to add WP:wikilinks and WP:Categories. Also, don't abbreviate, like "MI" as readers in Tokyo or Capetown might not know American state abbreviations; in general it's better to over-explain locations for a global audience. Transition is a bit choppy between sentences/paragraphs, so try reading it out-loud to yourself a few times and see if you can smooth it a bit. Then just add categories (specific categories, not "Tools", "Wisconsin", but "Tool manufacturers in the United States", "Companies based in Wisconisn", etc.; but I just made those up, check around the Category structure to find out what the actual existing, precise categories are). MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Akdrave (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Buna ziua. Looks good overall, but your footnotes are bare URLs; you want them to be full citations so that even if the link moves we can still track down the article by its citation. You also lack categories; see WP:Categories for how to find the right, most specific (not "Romania", "Theatre") cats for your purpose and add them. Nice work overall. Important note: you didn't fill out the copyright info correctly on your images; click each pic to go to its page and see your warnings. You must promptly address any errors/gaps in your image uploads or they will be deleted. This is an extremely common problem with new editors; I think the system just isn't intuitive, so make sure you fill out the form to the letter, read error messages carefully, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Buna ziua, Matthew. I've fixed the URLs, added categories, and I added the recommended permissions to the photo as I have full rights over the content. Please review if you get a chance.
Thanks!
- Cu plăcere! Good work on the fixes; I made some minor upgrades improving the sub-sectioning (please use the History tab to see what I did for your future reference) and adding WikiProjects to the Discussion page. Good skills overall! For your future articles, maybe you could look at Wikipedia:Requested articles and see if there are any requests you'd be interested in filling? If you or your friends are in Moldova, perhaps also check out Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Moldova? Lastly, if it's of interest to you, you may want to introduce yourself and your interests at WP:WikiProject Moldova, WP:WikiProject Film or WP:WikiProject Theatre. Note that some WikiProjects have low participation and you might get little response, but it never hurts to check in. Thanks for the good work, and I hope you'll stick around and continue to cover areas of interest to you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll do! Have a great day!
Can you please thell mi this page is ready to go live?
Bongolou (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not ready at all. It's not in Wikipedia format, it has a promotional/fansite tone rather than a biographic one, and most importantly it does not provide verification of WP:Notability (music). Articles about living people (WP:BLP) absolutely have to be referenced to published, reputable sources. Not blogs, not Twitter, not Facebook, but an actual book, article in a recognised journal/magazine, or website of a recognised news media agency. This is both to maintain Wikipedia standards as well as to protect the reputation of the subject; most people wouldn't like to have their biographies written based on blogs that aren't accountable to anyone. The article can't be published until you provide sourcing, neutralise the tone, and format it, and sourcing is the most vital, so I'd do that first. Make sure to carefully read WP:Notability (music) and ensure the article meets all the standards laid out there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No editing help needed, just a third party review of a new page.
Bioevolution (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- You do need editing help, since you didn't bold the title term, italicised "New London" for some reason, describe the band in subjective terms, and abbreviated state names. At this point, I'm not sure this band meets WP:Notability. You have two sources, I'm not totally sure if either meets WP:RS requirements, so overall the band is pretty patchy on WP:Notability (music). Please read the Music Notability policy linked and see if you can find a few more sources to verify notability. Until then, I'm moving your page to your userpage as a draft since it's not ready for publishing yet, and subject to deletion if not turned into a draft. Note: also I'm pretty sure it's frowned on to draw comparisons to major bands by happening to have recorded at the same studio, as it implies a notability not necessarily connoted by the recording situation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for the feedback. (is this the appropriate place for responding?) I'm working on editing, and found somebody who knows the band to provide additional sources. Regarding the other bands that have recorded at the same studio, I reread the last update from the other user, and it doesn't sound like there is any 'comparison' being made at all, it seems really to just be supporting notability by showing it's a recognized studio, not some random garage or basemenet home studio - is that still not allowed or still frowned on ? Thanks for anybody's responses! Bioevolution (talk)
- One word of caution on asking people who "know the band" for info: the actual sources used still need to be published works. I suppose it'd be fine to ask a fan if they have press clippings, but you can't footnote a fact as "according to Jimmy Smith, who's gone to all their shows". I'm not an expert on band articles, but my impression is that overall indirect linkage tends to come across as name-dropping "John Smith had his book published by Acme Publishing, who also publishes Shakespeare and Charles Dickens." If Acme Recording Studio is legit, just put Acme Recording, and better yet if there is an article Acme Recording. You don't want to seem like you're grasping at straws to say "this is a real band", you want to prove it by footnoting to various reviewers, commentors, news articles that give evidence to the Notability of the band. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL @ "according to Jimmy Smith, who's gone to all their shows" ... good point on the studio - i removed the other references and just left the studio name, which has a wiki page itself. thanks ! Bioevolution (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good call, Q Division explains all the notability right there. That is indeed the magic of wikilinking; it keeps us from having to clutter pages by re-explaining things, since people can just follow the links for more info. By the by, not at all saying this applies to your article, but since you're working sourcing and all, you may enjoy this unofficial article about those people who can't prove band notability: Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Just to give you an indication about why we're so picky about band sourcing, and why the more hard-evidence you can give, the better a band article is. :) MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate feedback for my new article. Thank you very much for your time, volunteer!
D4a8 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, looks solid overall, but a few minor things: footnotes go after punctuation (no space between), and two of your footnotes are bare URLs that need to be turned into full citations. Good work on sourcing to official gov't sites, categorising, etc. Also you filled out the copyright/source data properly for your image, which is quite rare for new users (the upload form is, unfortunately, not very intuitive). Nice work all around; what's your next article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
MatthewVanitas, I have fixed the links. Thanks! Not sure about the next article, perhaps the one for the National_Center_for_Toxicological_Research. (I posted this on your talk page as well, wasn't sure where to reply)D4a8 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a new page... can someone review it? Also, how/when do those notification boxes go away? I added the requested links and category info, so I am hoping I am all set for right now. Sorry for the newbie question, but I'm learning!! Thanks in advance!!!
Macomb13 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I've removed the other tags, but added "uncat" and "no footnotes". The category you've added is "redlinked", that is, there is no such category name. I recommend you check out Category:Michigan and explore down into its sub-categories to find the most specific categories applicable to your article. You can also find an article for a similar county board of commissioners and see what categories that article uses. For the footnote issue, you have references down below, but they're not actually footnoted to the individual statements those citations verify. Find the reference that validates/sources a given sentence and insert the full "ref" to "/ref" text immediately following the sentence or phrase (after the punctuation marks). That way we can tell which individual statements are verified by which links. Your links are also "bare URLs", which should be turned into full, linked citations. A lot of this is explained at WP:Footnotes, so that'd be good to read. Don't get discouraged, you're on the right track, just needs some fine-tuning. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Can those links quoted in external links be used as references? What else could be disputable? What should I rewrite or correct? Thx... I appreciate your help
Borchica (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
pls review this article i have written for inclusion on your site. thanks! : )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexanderheld/Speed_The_Band
Alexanderheld (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, you're still a little on the edge of WP:Notability (music). Your only real reference is one article in the OC Register, though that is an actual paper and it's a pretty good article. The usual benchmark is at least two significant-coverage (not passing mention) articles in reliable/reputable books/papers/journals/news (not Facebook, blogs, forums). Can you review the linked Music Notability policy and see if you can strengthen your case? Also, regarding footnotes/links, do not include Twitter sites, download sites, Amazon, etc., as that's considered "blatant promotion." The presumption is that anyone who wants to buy your music will be able to find you using Google, so WP won't link your sales info. Check the policy and see what tweaks you can make. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)