Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 7
Hi! I am a student at Boston College working on a project in my neuroscience class that aims to update and improve many of the stub class articles that are present under the topic of neuroscience here on Wikipedia. Any suggestions for improvement that you might have for further improvements would be greatly appreciated-- the three of us that are working on the article are brand new articles to the site and could use all of the help that we can get! Many thanks in advance!
LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the content since it's totally out of my league, but format-wise you really seem to have all the fundamentals down pat: proper lede, sectioning, section titles, good footnotes, WikiProjects; you even put the footnotes in two columns, which I think is often a nice touch. This section is more for basic noob feedback on Wikipedia formats and policies, helping folks learn the basics, but I think you're well past that point. Have you checked in at the Discussion pages of the involved WikiProjects to solicit technical input? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Lauren,
- I'll ask around and see if we can get some useful comments from more knowledgeable people. I'll ask them to leave notes at Talk:Satellite cell (glial), so check there in a day or two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I have put up a new entry. Can someone please review and provide feedback?
Ranjani Krishnakumar (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Couple things:
- It's not Wikipedia policy to use titles repeatedly; his titles may be mentioned in the lede, but thereafter he should be referred to as "Pai", or as "Ramdas M Pai" in cases where he may be confused with some other Pai. People are not called "Dr Smith" etc. repeatedly throughout the article, as their doctorhod has already been established, and excessive honorifics imply bias.
- Where you have lists towards the bottom, each point should be bulleted (as I'm bulleting these points now). That is done by simply starting with an asterisk: "*".
- Very important point: you're about to get all your images deleted since you failed to provide sourcing or copyright information. Wikipedia takes the legal status of images very seriously, so it is imperative that you click on your images to go to their image pages and update the sourcing and copyright info. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made the changes you'd recommended. Removed all titles and bulleted the list. I've also added sources to the pictures. I'm new here. Please let me know if anything else is necessary. Thank you. Ranjani Krishnakumar (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Two things on images: first, when you added the information you did not remove the deletion warnings from the images (I removed it from the first one), so the pics are still tagged as having no source/license though you've claimed them. Secondly, and this is outside my line of expertise, be prepared to have someone message you and ask where is the evidence that Manipur University granted Creative Commons status to the images. Not my speciality or concern, but you may want to read up on Wikipedia:Image use policy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. I'm figuring out. I'll read up. Thanks
Ranjani Krishnakumar (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I recently posted an article on Shonga farm , located in kwara state Nigeria. It was immediately marked for deletion for violationg section G11 and since then has been removed. I would realy want to understand better what aspects of the said article violated section G11 so that I would take not of that before reposting, thank you
Salamanda1 (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, G11 is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." and articles so identified can be deleted immediately. I can't see the article content since it is gone, but presumably the proposing and approving editors found the article to have primarily promotional, vice educational, value. What I recommend you do is go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and request "userification"; that is, to take your article and move it to your personal userspace where you can work on it in draft form to see if you can address all issues before re-publishing the article. I recommend you get your draft userified, and then you can come back here and ask us to look at it, as we cannot see deleted articles unless they're restored. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot I appreciat eyour help. I will do just that. Salamanda1 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like some feedback on the article Soccer Shrines. It's the first article I've ever written.
It's about a television show made by the Canadian producer, Best Boy Entertainment. The show is a documentary travel series about soccer stadiums around the world & the religious like devotion of soccer fans.
Please offer any suggestions so I can make this article better. Thank you.
Murphy.sarahanne (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am setting up a page for Wisconsin Rugby Club, I am looking for pointers on how to make this article Wikipedia-worthy. The Wisconsin Rugby Club has been exposing Wisconsinites to the obscure sport of rugby for 49 years, and recently purchased land and has plans to construct a 2 story club house just outside of Madison, WI in Cottage Grove, WI to further assist in bringing rugby to the USA. The Sports Complex has 4 fields in total and has been host to multiple tournament events, from collegiate all the way up to Men's Division II Midwest Final Four matches!
What else can I do to make this article supported? There is very little information about rugby in the US, and even usarugby.org is updated so poorly that this spring's playoff schedule for Men's Division II has not been publicly posted yet!
Help!
King Philliam (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, have you yet read Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? I'd suggest that; it should lay out pretty clear benchmarks as to what a sports article has to meet for inclusion. I don't know the topic, but it may be the case that a local sports club might just not meet notability requirements. There are many thousands of sports clubs in the US, and we can't cover them all, so there does have to be a certain bar set. This doesn't necessarily mean that WP is derrogating your organisation, just noting that it doesn't have documented long-term interest from uninvolved parties (enjoyable though it may be to its enthusiasts). If your club doesn't meet that bar, consider moving your article to an outside specialist wiki which has different benchmarks of notability, like http://rugbyunion.wikia.com/. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed a work that was deleted. Its currently on my user page and i was hoping i could get some feedback, from other editors, on it before i repost. Thank you
Salamanda1 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've made some basic changes, but honestly I think the G11 case isn't that strong. Here's what I advise: go through and WP:Wikify a few more key terms and names (not common nouns, just issues specific to the subject or possibly unfamiliar to readers). Fix the footnote which shows up at the bottom with a red error message. For the last group of footnotes, where it's a bunch of footnotes to the Shonga site, instead of listing them over and over again, maybe just take one of each footnote, and put all three footnotes at the end of the sentence which introduces the chart. That way it's less repetitive, yet still clear that the chart is derived from those three web pages. Once you've done that, I suggest you send a courtesy email to User:SchuminWeb and ask him if he has any remaining concerns. Honestly, I think it might just have been that he saw a bunch of citations to the Shonga site and assumed the article relied too heavily on Shonga's own statements, but you have quite a few other good footnotes, so I think the substantiation is good. Also triple-check the article for any phrasing that may be unduly praising of Shonga; it's fine to objectively mention positive things, but you want to be wary of any phrase that sounds like you're cheerleading for that outfit. Feel free to message me if you have any further problems; glad you managed to get it userified without issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thank you so much Matthew you have been truly helpful and I appreciate your assisstance.Salamanda1 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I recently uploaded the 'Shonga Farms' article. But each time i look it up through google it appears as User:Salamanda1/Shonga Farms. Please how can i het it to read 'Shonga Farms' only? Salamanda1 (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Google is probably going to a cached version of the article, and may take a day or so to catch up. The page is definitely moved on Wikipedia itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and was hoping to receive some feedback on my inaugural article.
Thank you,
Pnakit (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, the primary concern I see with this article is that it does not document notability. For notability standards for academics, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Your footnotes thus far just link to primary documents; two papers by the subject and several patents. What you need are neutral, third-party discussions of his significance. Please read the Notability policy and see if you can find reliable sources to supplement. Since your article is a BLP (biography of a living person), it must have outside references, or is subject to Speedy Deletion. To avoid this, I've moved your article to your Userspace so it can be worked on in draft form until it is referenced: User:Pnakit/Allen WeissMatthewVanitas (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thank you so much Matthew you have been truly helpful and I appreciate your assisstance. Gracias! Salamanda1 (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing my first article and I need advice please. It isn't nearly finished, but I hope I have a good start. Any advice appreciated. I've tried to footnote as much as possible from the printed sources -- the problem is there isn't a lot printed on this artist (yet)! Also, I'm still figuring out how to use/upload images, so those will be added shortly. Thanks! (I'm still learning!)
HHaney (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, regarding images: I strongly advise you avoid some headache and read up on Wikipedia:Image use policy. Adding images is easy once you learn the process, but a huge portion of new editors get their images auto-deleted for failure to provide clear/accurate sourcing and copyright information. So please do yourself right and figure out the process before launching in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty solid overall; nice work on sourcing/footnoting. Couple minor format issues: section titles use "Sentence capitalistion", not "Book Title Capitalisation". When you list discrete items, like "Works" or "Further reading", use an asterisk to place a bullet at the start of each item. Also, as you go live, ensure you add WP:Categories; note that cats should be as specific as possible, so not "Art" and "Germany", but "German expressionist artists" or whichever. Maybe take a look at a long-established article about a similar figure and see what cats were added to that page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Please review this article... Thanks!
Batch2004 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Need reviewers/feedback about a new article I created. Any help is appreciated.
HTii (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Made some basic changes; just click the History tab on your article and use the buttons to compare the differences between your versions and mine. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
bold & italic[edit]
Jo2hat (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a brand new article in need of helpful reviewer(s). Any help/feedback is appreciated.
HTii (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Just added a page for this oracle users group, just as there are pages for other such groups