Still working towards getting this on the main site! I'd like any feedback you can give me. I tried to fix all the things that you asked me and beefed up all the information and references.
Thank you!
Bloynoys (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The tone is definitely better, but most of the article is still a lengthy summary of the book that's still more like presenting an argument than analysing an argument. Not to accuse you personally, but we're touchy about such things because they verge close to making an argument in the form of a statement; strongly advise you read WP:Coatrack to understand what you want to get away from. You have a couple footnotes, but half of them are to the actual book (no need to cite the book, it's understood when you're summarising it) and half to one book review. I do note though that you appear to have several un-footnoted links in your "References" that appear to be analysis of the book. The reactions to the book are in many ways more important than the summary, because they get at the significance of the book. I suggest you take most of the summary and dramatically trim it down to just the basics of her argument (and don't use the word "hopes"), maybe two paragraphs tops and call it "Summary". Then the next section, very important, should be "Reactions" or "Reception" and there you can summarise and footnote any reviews, news articles critiquing or supporting the concept, etc. Again, the goal of a book article is not to summarise the book, it's to cover the book's role in society and history. I think you're really on the right track, you just need to adjust your goal slightly to come into line with Wikipedia's practice. Keep up the good work, and you'll be able to get this through. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I improved, expanded, categorized and referenced the Swiss cheese model article. I'd like some feedback, diff link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swiss_cheese_model&action=historysubmit&diff=425769343&oldid=425147270
This article is about a professional American Soccer player Daniel Stevens who is now playing in Europe.
Dps104 (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, a few things. For most of these, the easiest way to figure out what the standard is would be to look at a long-established article about a footballer (soccer player) and see how they formatted it:
- You need to add categories; not vague ones like "Football", but specific ones. Again, see any established article about a soccer/football player. Note WP tends to say "football" since basically everyone other than Americans calls soccer "football".
- You have WP:Bare URLs in your footnotes; they should be written-out citations with a link. Again, see any established article to note how this is usually done.
- Too many of your sources are to fansite-type references; can you strengthen the article by adding more footnotes which are to legit news sources, like major newspapers, etc? Hopefully his moving to Finland was covered on the sports page of the LA Times or some regional paper or something. Basically, you just want to show that his importance is widely noted in media.
- Finally, to really spruce up the page you'll want an WP:Infobox, that baseball card-like box in the right margin with stats, picture (if you can acquire a public-domain one), etc. Again, check any established football article to copy-paste the template format (don't try to change the sections/labels, they're permanent, just change the data to fit your guy).
- So, a few things to fix, but definitely on the right track. Nice work, hope you'll find more interesting things to write about; these articles just get easier and easier each time you do them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have launched a new film festival, Activist Film Festival and created the noted page to service fact searches about event. Appreciate your feedback. Thanks
Colman ridge (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, several things to work on:
- As a member, you have a WP:Conflict of interest, so please read that policy on how to ensure you remain neutral and transparent while writing about issues you're involved in.
- Your page does not yet evidence "notability"; that is, no proof is given that people not involved with the event have written about it, which is absolutely required both to ensure neutrality and to prove that the issue is worth having an article about. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
- I've tagged the page with other issues you'll want to address, including the lack of WP:wikilinks to other articles (making your article a "dead end" in the interwoven system of articles), the lack of categories (see WP:Categories for how to select and add them), and a lack of footnotes. WP:Footnotes aren't just links to "here's the official site" or "this is also interesting" but are meant to be "here's a link to an article which proves that this statement is correct."
- So, several things to work on, but if you can address all those issues we can publish; just be aware that Notability policy does set a certain benchmark that organisations/events must reach before publishing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you refer or review this article I'm creating for a well know basket artist Lissa Hunter?
Scottevans222 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I've looked it over and made some partial tweaks (check the "History" tab for what I changed, and continue those changes in the rest of the article). Also note that section titles should be in "Sentence capitalisation", not "Book Title Capitalisation". Your references look good, but they aren't footnoted; as mentioned in WP:Footnotes, whenever possible references should be footnoted to the specific statement the reference verifies. So if someone sees "She studied at Acme University (footnote)", they can check the footnote and verify it for themselves. As it is now we have no idea which facts are proven by which references. You also need to add WP:Wikilinks by putting double-brackets around terms to link to WP articles; not simple words like "basket" or "United States", but things people might need to know more about, like "Pueblo culture" or "left-hand anaverse basket weave" or whatnot. Last, the category "Art" was way too broad; you need the most specific of applicable cats; I added a few example cats there, though "American artists" can probably be narrowed down even further, so click over to that cat and see which of its subcats are most applicable, and/or check out other articles under "Basket weavers" and see what categories they used. Nice work overall. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sairam User, Did you like the Article? If So, please feel free to give your feedback.
Saiamrithadhara (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, your article is not yet ready for publication, so has been moved to your userspace here User:Saiamrithadhara/Saiamrithadhara to protect it from deletion (only the place where it was previously listed is being deleted, your draft is still safe). Your draft will take extensive work to make an article, as at this point it does not even resemble Wikipedia format or content. Further, I must caution you that is is generally a bad idea to write articles about subjects you are personally involved in, due to the difficulty in taking a neutral stance. I strongly advise you read WP:Conflict of interest to better understand this issue. If you understand the issues involved, and note the maintenance templates I've added to your page, please return here and reply so we can discuss them. The fundamental issue you must address is "Notability policy"; that is, to meet the benchmarks required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) by providing multiple, neutral, third party references to prove basic facts about the organisation. That is, you must provide evidence that unrelated news or academic writers have taken the time to write about this organisation. Please read the linked policies, check out the maintenance advisory templates I've added to your page, and then we can talk. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, is your article about the same subject at this one? Shirdi Sai Baba movement. Appears to be followers of the same guru. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping to receive further feedback on my modified article, I have added sources in order to meet the general notability guidelines. I believe I am ready to go forward with moving the article from my user-space to making it a public article. Please let me know if you have any comments.
Thank you,
Is this article ready to move to live?
Paulc2 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well... I'll address your article first off, and then the larger issue. Your actual article has a variety of issues, most predominantly in that it is largely WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. All your information is apparently derived from advocacy sites, with the exception of one PC World article which says nothing about gang/group stalking, a local Fox affiliate piece of no particular academic rigour where they just interviewed one claimed victim and then talked to a cop about cyberbullying. And then the DOJ report, which you clearly admit does not discuss the term, and thought it says "many people report they are being stalked by groups" says nothing about the validity of these claims. So basically an entire article based of advocacy cites with some minor touches of outside referencing which are rather misused to purport larger acceptance of the subject. I've read a few gang stalking sites before, and a lot of the verbiage of the article comes straight from such advocacy sites.
- Secondly, and this is far beyond the purview of RfF (we just help people format their footnotes, find sources for articles about 1940s painters, explain how categories work, etc.), but this issue is a well-beaten dead horse on WP. I'm not accusing you, but I do note this topic has a long history of bringing in single-issue editors whose only goal is to advocate for publicity for their cause, who refuse to follow WP standards, and put up an ungodly fuss of accusations when their articles are deleted for justifications which absolutely any neutral, uninvolved editor would agree with. Again, not saying this is you, but if the shoe fit...
- If you are indeed coming here in good faith to neutrally report on a topic (and I will WP:Assume good faith), I strongly, strongly suggest you read the history of how tumultuous this topic has been, and take careful note of why this topic perennially fails to publish. Just with a brief glance, I found the following:
- Talk:Stalking, which covers this extensively
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking (note almost every established editor backed deletion, while a host of new-registers and IPs gave extremely... emotional replies with zero grounding in standardised Wikipedia policies)
- Those are the basics, and I'd encourage you go to the Stalking Talk page to introduce your draft and solicit feedback, but again given the lack of third-party sources, the strong advocacy position, the verbiage pretty much plucked from advocate sites, etc., I'm not optimistic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, looking to get the tags removed from this post. All books are referenced either with publisher sites or reviews--everything I could find actually--and everything else is taken from interviews, published bios, and such.
Thanks for your help and input!
