Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 September 19
I am the beginner. Your article writing is complex and I did whatever I could... Remaining was confusing. If my health article was not up to standard, i humbly request you to guide me in easy way, rather to just delete my post. It will be helpful to me.
Dr.faizanali (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this article is not remotely ready for the mainspace yet; it has a number of fundamental problems.
- It contains no valid citations. In order to show that the Facebook service you have started is notable enough to merit an encyclopaedia article, you need to show that it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This means newspaper or magazine articles or other academic, media or news coverage about the service - reasonably detailed coverage, not just listings or passing mentions. Facebook is not a reliable source. Since the service is two weeks old it is unlikely to have attracted sufficient coverage yet, and indeed I can find none.
- It is not written in a neutral tone or style. Instead of being a neutral, factual article about the subject, it is a promotional piece designed to publicise the service and attract new users and more doctors to it. It is written in the first and second persons ("we, us", "you") rather than the third person; this is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia articles must confine themselves to factual and descriptive language. Wikipedia is not for advertising.
- It has been written by you, the person who is setting up the service. This means you have a serious conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from writing about it on Wikipedia.
- I am sure this is a very worthwhile idea, but unless you can show that it is an established service which has received significant media coverage already, there is little point in trying to make an article about it. If the service takes off and it does receive such coverage, you are welcome to come back and request that someone else writes an article about it - you can do so at WP:Requested articles. Sorry not to be more positive at this stage, but good luck with the project. Karenjc 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Your feedback is much appreciated. I am hoping to take this article live shortly. Thanks for your help.
Parkertony (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The article is well written but not based on any reliable independent sources. As such it would unfortunately be a deletion candidate, possibly without discussion as it hardly asserts any specific importance for this particular language school.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I created this article. I did not have the correct copyright information for the photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tess_Broussard_2010.jpg
I have since resubmitted the correct license/copyright holder information but it is still tagged to be deleted on Tuesday September 21.
How do I get the "new article" tag taken off the article and how do I get the photo copyright info accepted?
thanks.
david kantar Dk4wiki (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The primary concerns in this article center on the lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject does not clearly meet criteria for inclusion found at either WP:ENT or WP:PORNBIO. Notability cannot be established through IMDb. The YouTube videos are inappropriate per WP:ELNO. The photo copyright should work out with the permission sent via OTRS as indicated at the media page. That said, it won't matter much if the article is deleted due to lack of notability. Cindamuse (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Nieuwenhuis (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please write your article on a subpage, rather than your talk page. It is difficult to ascertain where your article begins and ends. We need to be able to identify what your article looks like in its entirety in order to review it. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This is my first wikipedia article and I am hoping for basic feedback. Thank you.
On reserve (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- This isn’t a bad start at all. I think your subject passes WP:N for the level of coverage he’s had, and your references are pretty good, although you need to fomat the refs and external links correctly. If you don’t mind me editing your draft, I will do a couple for you as an example. In particular, the inline external links should be removed into the External links section at the end. You need to change the lead section – claiming he is “one of America’s leading butchers” is an unsupported opinion, although you could say he had been “described” as such if you had a reliable source. You could probably call him a celebrity butcher instead. He should be referred to throughout as “Mylan” not “Mr. Mylan” or “Tom”. (this is the house style) The words “in the past seven years” in the final paragraph are time-sensitive and will soon be out of date; they should be replaced with “since 2003” (or whatever is correct). What’s the red “Tom Mylan” link in italics in the picture caption? You’ve licensed the picture as public domain, so there shouldn’t be any author credit for it.
.If you can get the above details straightened out, I think it would survive in the mainspace.Karenjc 22:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)- I have taken the liberty of formatting your refs and 4 of your external links, to give you an idea how to do the others. I also picked up a couple of typos, and clarified a couple of points. Feel free to revert my changes if you dislike them. Doing this has brought it home to me that the article requires more inline citations to support the assertions it makes, in particular those assertions that make Mylan notable (such as his TV and writing engagements and his lecturing). I would suggest you look first in the articles you have already found. Rather than use them simply as further reading, identify where they support the assertions within the article and insert them as inline citations, following the format of the two existing references. I would also question whether the mention of his wife and her projects is appropriate - she doesn't have an article in her own right and may not be independently notable by Wikipedia criteria, and it makes the article read a little like a press release. Karenjc 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Would appreciate it if a more experienced user could double check this article before I try to publish it. I think it should all be okay but ye never know and I'm new here! Thank you.
Legoon (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cutting a record is not always enough to make the artist notable: See WP: Notability(music). Therefore the article may be nominated for deletion. Also not all of the references are reliable: See WP:Reliable sources. Blogs for example would not constitute reliable sources because they don't have a reliable publication process. Also I have searched some of the websites you cite as references but kind find any mention of the artist. I'm afraid that I don't have any suggestions to improve the article currently but if you sit tight another reviewer might have something more helpful to add. Alternatively; check out other music articles, find out who the editors are, go to their talk pages and ask them directly for help. Don't give up!--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I just finished this article, my first.
DonDrapersCapers (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken a brief look at your article and one of its biggest problems is its lack of references. A good rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For example, the anecdote regarding his 'job interview' with Senator Kennedy is not mentioned in the reference you cite. Also the link given for your third reference, which you heavily rely on, doesn't appear to be working. Remembering that Wikipedia is world wide, I don't think it can be claimed he is 'well known'. It is best to avoid statements like this, even if the person is renowned globally. He is certainly notable though and deserving of an article so keep up the good work.--Ykraps (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)