Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 11

< 2010 June 10

2010 June 11

2010 June 12 >

Back to main feedback page

Index of all pages

No-Limits Apnea

Cemeterygates79 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with most new articles, the main issue here is verifiability. Please take a look at this, for a guide to using in-text citations. -Reconsider ! 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's coming along nicely, but as well as doing what Reconsider says I recommend maybe adding a few more external links, but the references to verify the article is the main thing. Chevy monte carlo 05:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vivlom/Multiple_Baseline_Design

Dear reviewer,

This article discusses in detail some of the finer points of multiple baseline designs which are not appropriate for the single-subject design page. Please review, and if appropriate, post this submission

Thanks for your help!

best wishes, vivlom

User:Vivlom/Multiple Baseline Design —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivlom (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link. I think that you should maybe try and add more links to the article, by placing [[ ]] around a word to link to another Wikipedia article. I also think that you should maybe add inline citations to the article's references, see WP:CITE for more information. Hope this helps! Chevy monte carlo 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the existing references into inline citation format; I will add further help on that subject on your talk page. I also added a wikilink to Single-subject research#AB research designs - please add further such appropriate links to other articles.

I am concerned that some parts of the article might be considered original research, which is not permitted; for example, the "Concurrent Designs" section has no references, and it says e.g. This strategy is advantageous because it eliminates several threats to validity - which appears to be opinion, rather than fact. Be careful to maintain a neutral point-of-view.

It would also help if you could give more context; at the start, it says measurement of many participants before and after a treatment - but what kind of treatment? Medical treatment? I think, presently, it makes too much of an assumption about the reader; please try to give an overview at the beginning, putting the whole subject into context. Chzz ► 06:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3d Armored Cavalry Squadron_(ARVN)

New article 3d Armored Cavalry Squadron (ARVN)

Please review. TnCom (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure about the 'Presidential Unit Citation' section, I don't quite understand the purpose of it and why there are some words in capital letters. I also think you should try and add links into the article. I can see you've added some already, so I'm assuming you know how to add links already. It's not a bad article, but it needs some improvements still. Chevy monte carlo 04:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monoblock Xray Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magwa50/Monoblock%C2%AE_X-Ray_sources

Magwa50 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some tone issues in the article - at the moment it sounds like an advertisement and Wikipedia articles are supposed to sound neutral. Please see WP:TONE for more information. Also, although you've added categories to the article, they don't exist as they are red links. Please remove these categories or add some categories to the article that actually exist. Thanks and I hope you understand. Chevy monte carlo 04:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire piece reads like a publicity brochure, not an encyclopaedia entry. You need to remove all the registered trademark logos from the title and the text body - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)#General_rules. The references you have supplied do not IMO amount to "significant coverage in reliable independent sources", so I'd also be looking for additional evidence of notability. If you are associated with the company or the product, you need to read WP:COI. Ka renjc 09:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Morro, New Mexico

El Morro, New Mexico Please review and provide feedback on my new article about a small village named El Morro, New Mexico. If the article is satisfactory, please remove the "new unreviewed article" template.

Thank you,

Orionseeker (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good article but the references need a bit of work. Please try and add more references from reliable sources. One reference is good but it's not really sufficient. By the way, the unreviewed template is supposed to be removed when sufficient feedback is given, not when the article is determined to be satisfactory. Hope this helps :) Chevy monte carlo 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should add some categories.
As noted, it needs more references. For example, you mention two nicknames in the infobox, but there are no references to the nicknames.
One of the usual entries for a location is the population. Can you find it and add it?--SPhilbrick T 19:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Foozie

I wrote the entire article myself today, and I would like some feedback. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments at the Peer Review]. |:-) ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Talkback Me_· 05:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]