Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 September 16
This article describes the state of wine growing in a new region, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada. It also provides detailed listings of growers and producers.
Idcalder (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory, and address listings are not appropriate. Where is the information from? Is it all published in a book or something? At the least, I think the specific addresses should go, and almost certainly the names should be removed, see policies on non-public figures.
- External links (to each company) should not appear within the body text; see WP:EL. It is inappropriate advertizing. Chzz ► 04:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
hey just wondering if my article's o.k. or not...
Yuukichan101 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is a bit short; even a stub article should have two or three sentences. It needs more than one source to show notability. You won't be able to use that photograph without explicit permission; see Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Chzz ► 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I want to make sure this article is decent before moving to the namespace. I just feel something isn't right about it.
E♴ (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is, it is not about the person - Glover - but it is about the event. Clifford Glover himself would fail the notability requirements as WP:BLP1E, and the article is just as much about the policeman, and the case.
- It should be appropriately renamed to "1973 shooting in Jamaica, Queens" or something (I'm not quite sure; have a look at existing articles) and re-worded accordingly. We could have a redirect from Clifford Glover. Chzz ► 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello All, I am looking to make this page on ADMS and am looking for any feedback before I get too far. I am open to all suggestions as I want to make this as Wiki Correct as possible. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Lori Costello (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not a bad start. It should have been in a user subpage, instead of your user page, but no worry (except there's an extra step when it gets moved, and I don't remember what it is.)
- It comes across a bit on the spammy side, sounds like it was written by someone promoting the system, rather than a dispassionate, encyclopedic treatment. Take a look at Wikipedia:Spam, it is not egregious, but that guideline may give you some hints. I don't have a lot of specific points on that regard, but "Timely and properly directed rescue efforts can often make the difference between mishap and disaster" sounds like a PR piece, not an encyclopedia article.
- Nice job on references - that helps alleviate my concerns.
- There's a section: "Projection" with no content.
- There's another "Further reading" with no content.
- I did some minor cleanup
- The Products section is a but spammy, but no great solution. You have referenced some of the bullet points, but not others. External references (not company website) links would help.
- I don't like the title of the "Reception" section. Consider something like "certification" or "compliance", or something along those lines.--SPhilbrickT 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please review this article. Your comments are most welcome
Priyanair2609 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
New article. Please review and give feedback. Thanks!
Sdbaird (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This is my first article on Wikipedia. I saw an article involving this church and, after checking Wikipedia and finding no information on it, decided to make a page myself. Any information you could provide or any advice you have would be appreciated. Thank you.
Joseph5234 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- This draft has some potential but has some issues.
- There are several references, which is a great start, but there are still not as many as are desirable. You need to demonstrate Notability with multiple references to reliable sources. You have ten references, but a closer look identifies some concerns. First, the good news, the SeattlePi and AP cites look good.
- You have a link to the organization's website, which is OK for certain information, but does not "count" toward establishing notability.
- The link to the mission statement failed for me, as did the link to the statement-of-faith. (repeated attempts sometimes worked for some pages).
- The last two references are not online, which is not a requirement, but it does make it hard to evaluate them. It appears they support some of the detail related to the lawsuit, which is good, but is only tangential to Notability support.
- The first and eighth references are the same (if we can resolve other issues, I can show you how to fix that). A minor problem, but it does mean one fewer reference.
- The second reference isn't online; again that's OK, but that title isn't one I would expect for support of an organization creation date. Is the creation discussed in some detail, or is it an off-hand mention?
- That leaves two solid references for notability, which is probably not sufficient (although others may feel differently). However, I'm struggling to confirm that these two articles are about the same organization. The Seattle article mentions that it is a Phoenix based organization. The AP article is about a girl in North Carolina, who is part of an organization started two years ago. The article doesn't have a clear date, but it appears to be 2010, which would mean the organization started in 2008. That doesn't match up well with the claim of an organization started in 1999. While the AP article hints that the group is national, there's no hint that it is associated with a group in Phoenix.
- The organization has no ministers or board members in Phoenix, or even Arizona for that matter. While there's no legal requirement for an organization headquartered in Phoenix to have senior officials in Phoenix, it does raise red flags.
- You have a decent amount of material for a first draft, however, two of the main sections are simply quotes from the website. While it is natural to want to make sure that those statements are verbatim, the lack of discussion or context is not a plus. It essentially means the article is a two sentence lede, with a paragraph about a controversy involving a member, plus copy and paste of some of the organizations's material.
- I think it needs a fair amount more work to make it acceptable, including more discussion of the organization in reliable sources.--SPhilbrickT 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for your input. Secondly, I looked at the discrepancy between the dates for the start of the organization and also the location. It seems that a church by the same name was started in Phoenix, AZ in 1999, but it eventually went defunct. Later, in 2008, a new organization was created that used the same name. This CBM is not affiliated with the original. I don't know how I should go about fixing this in the article, but I will take out the previous statement. Also, how should I go about with references that can pertain to multiple areas in the article? I will try to fix those faulty links. Thanks again! Joseph5234 (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I checked on the links you mentioned and they worked for me. It might be a problem with your browser.Joseph5234 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I fixed the multiple use links (as you know, because I mentioned it on your talk page, but I'm mentioning it here, so no one else needs to explain.) I tried the links again, and this time they worked.--SPhilbrickT 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Just curious how this page looks. I have added references and links. I also don't know when this page will actually go live.
Diatribe06 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Try and add some sections to the article, like this:
==Hello==
which creates a section with 'Hello' as the name. Also, as per WP:CITE YouTube cannot be used as a reference. I've made a few improvements, and added some tags, but there also seems to be a problem with the reference style. You need to try and use inline citations to display your references. Chevymontecarlo 14:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
My article on a leading analyst in the industry I work in (procurement) - Andrew is recognized around the world by people in procurement for his research.
Kkeaneybean (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- He may be recognized around the world, but that applies to a lot of people who aren't necessarily notable. The first reference is to an industry specific publication, and simply lists him as part of a long list. The next two are similarly long lists, very few of whom are notable.
- The next reference doesn't appear to be a general circulation publication but some sort of specialized site that simply notes he is speaking somewhere. The last is just a reference to a presentation. I don't see any examples supporting notability.--SPhilbrickT 22:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
KevinHardie (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting, but I couldn't get either of the first two links to load.
- The phrase "but due to the success of the event, it looks set to become an annual occurrence" is discouraged, see WP:CRYSTAL.--SPhilbrickT 23:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Wish to do not disturb any of the presents relaying questions.
188.153.36.0 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- That article has been around for years, and I don't see any recent edits by you. What is your question?--SPhilbrickT 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone help me change the title of my article from "Buket (graffiti artist)" to just simply "Buket". If someone can review the page as well that would be great. Thanks.
Diatribe06 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll move it for you :) Chevymontecarlo 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Killiondude moved this into my user space to clean some of this up. I'm basically at the point where I don't know of anything else that I need to do to the article, although it's certainly possible I missed something. Futuresoon (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- The primary concerns with the article involve notability. See WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The article needs to establish notability through significant coverage, reflected by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At this point, there is not significant, independent coverage. An independent source is a point of media or publication which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Published works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not considered reliable. Considering the target audience of sources culled from the legal publications provided, the references are presented by professional industry media of limited interest and circulation. The publications have established an affiliated, direct interest in the subject or the topic of which the subject is involved and is therefore, not independent. Use of sources of this nature, does not establish or support notability. Accordingly, subject does not meet notability criteria presented in WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Unfortunately, the mere fact that an individual is a candidate for a political office does not establish notability. Additionally, it is highly frowned upon for candidates to use Wikipedia as a campaign promotional tool. I wish I had better news and realize that this is not what you wanted to hear, but this assessment is according to the policies and guidelines established for inclusion on Wikipedia. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
ADMS Page ready to go?
[edit]Hi all, I feel that my ADMS page is ready to be posted. If you could review before I do this I would be very appreciative. Also, I have tried to find the steps in simple English on how to move the page but I can't figure it out, can anyone provide guidance here? I want the page name to be "ADMS - Advanced Disater Management Simulator" Thanks for the help Lori Costello (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)