Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 December 30
Please could you provide me feedback to my article? Many Thanks.
R0sco001 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this article good enough to move out of my user space?
Rabidgremlin (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added few more sources. please tell how to post this article in Wikipedia??
Bpositivebhappy (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Boeing_Technical_Fellowship[edit]
Please take a look at this article I wrote on the Boeing Technical Fellowship--a program similar to the IBM Fellows. An earlier version of this article was criticized for a lack of citations; I believe I've resolved this problem. Thank you for the review! --smintisgood
Smintisgood (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Another brief article. The subject is an author with a number of publications available on Project Gutenberg for whom no article yet exists on Wikipedia. This is an attempt at providing the missing article. See Wikipedia:Project Gutenberg author list. Comments welcome.
Tkotc (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking for general comments on new page. Please let me know if anything stands out for addition/deletion. Thanks!
Ajschorschiii (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The fields in the cite web template are terms of art. You could look at Template:Cite web for details, but I'll summarize. The "title" field is the title of the web page. So your reference number 4 should not have the URL information as part of the "title". That's only necessary in the "URL" field. The closest thing the page has to a title is "Rev. Alfred Leo Abramowicz". The "work" is, in the case of a web site, the name of the web site. In this case the closest thing to a name of the site is "Poles in America Foundation, Inc.", the title given on the site's index page. While the "work" and the "publisher" are typically different, in this case the publisher is also the name of that organization. I admit that this is a de minimis correction. I removed the unreviewed articles header.Tkotc (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tkotc! Ajschorschiii (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Please can someone review the article. Also, offer advice on correct language to be employed so not sound like advertisement. Thanks.
Gruntfuttock115 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an article about the not-for-profit organisation called the London Welsh Centre in London. It is an old organisation with a colourful history and eminent presidents, both past and present. Please let me know how I can improve the article.
London Welsh Centre (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
one week of peril (film)[edit]
Conorh123 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
one week of peril (film)[edit]
Conorh123 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
one week of peril (film)[edit]
Conorh123 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Conorh123 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I‘m trying to publish this article about a new collaboration system, called Secure Mobile Workspace. Unfortunately my article has been put on hold, due to lack of third-party sources. Since the project is relatively new there are not any official third-party publications on it yet. Therefore, I would like to use reliable sources about web collaboration technologies and web-based application. Does this fulfill the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia Administration? I appreciate any help or suggestion on how to resolve this issue. Thank you in advance!
olesha 21:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It says that there are no links, but seems to me there are plenty! And the picture doesn't seem to be loading properly. Is the substantiation enough? Thanks!
Vlinchong (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the banner that asks for links from other articles? That's not the same as saying your article has no links (references).
- The photo seemed to load uneventfully when I viewed the page.
- Are you sure the tone of this article is encyclopedic? To be honest, it seemed very close to promotional to me.
- You ask if the substantiation is enough. To meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music), you can show that the subject "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." The criterion includes "online versions of print media". Not being in the music business, I don't really know, but it seems that at least some of your sources are the kind of sources that meet the requirements. But whether the actual coverage is substantial or trivial, I can't judge. I hope that others with a better sense of Wikipedia's interpretation of this policy will comment further. Tkotc (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please review this article. It is not easy finding english language sources online for this article but I have listed reliable sources.
Thanks
Fifa6986 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi it says multiple issues and problems and asks for feedback. would love some as soon as possible is this is about an event of global importance
Polskax (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your article appears to be an article about a person who at this point you say is merely a suspect in a criminal act. He's mentioned only briefly in one of the news articles you referenced. Wikipedia:Notability (People)#Criminals and crime victims says, " Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured."
- That same location gives guidelines for establishing the notability of perpetrators of criminal acts that I am not sure have been met here. In particular, the perpetrator of a crime may be notable where
- the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
- I don't think we can say that the coverage at this point has been persistent, and only one of your sources mentions the subjects role.
- Wikipedia:Notability (events) says that "People and other subjects known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable then an article should be written about the event instead." This might be your better course of action here.
- Tkotc (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I have just edited article- you stated not enough media reference to Cherkesov's role in alleged murder- I have added literally half a dozen from around the world included major media corporations. As for the criticism regarding 'notability of perpetrator's (alleged) criminal acts. I feel as the alleged actions of the perpetrator were the catalyst one of the biggest riots, and the biggest ethnic riot, in post Communist Russia, then the acts are certainly of enormous import. Keep in mind Russia is to host the football world cup, the planet's second biggest sporting event, in 2018. As such, riots,especially those connected to soccer (the riot initially began as a protest by Spartak Moscow fans)are of major significance to world news, sports news and political news. This is directly connected to one of the most major news events in Russia of recent times, reported across the world on every major news network from the BBC to Al Jazeera. As such I think these criticisms can be discarded, and either the tag claiming there are 'many issues' with the article be removed, or I receive feedback on genuine issues with the article. Thank you
Morton Hilbert is credited with the creation of the Human Ecology Symposium, a precursor to Earth Day. He was a professor at University of Michigan, and involved in a variety of environmental and health causes. The main article on Earth Day seems to have an excessive focus on Gaylord Nelson, particularly in the "The First Earth Day" section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day#The_first_Earth_Day This is to the point that I can't even figure out how to incorporate some information about Hilbert.
Someone cleaned up citations for me, and I added links to other wiki pages. Any other suggestions, or any edits I should make?
Babyacorn (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please could you review this article and - if you are happy with it - remove the "This page is a new unreviewed article" tag at the top of the page. Thank you,