I am interested in opinions regarding my first article and references. Thank you.
Fish nerd (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a science guy, so I can't comment on content, though your sourcing looks very well-done. Just a few format issues:
- Section titles are in "Sentence capitalisation", not "Book Title Capitalisation".
- You can unify your footnotes which come from the same source using the "ref name" code. See WP:REFNAME for details.
- You need to add categories; note that categories should be as specific as possible, so not "Category:Viruses" and "Category:Fish", but "Category:Icthyoid viruses" or whatever the name of the category is. Try checking similar articles for category ideas, or wander the appropriate category's subcats to see what's out there.
- Format aside, looks good, nice work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Fish nerd,
- I'll leave a note at WT:WikiProject Viruses and WT:WikiProject Medicine to see if we can find a knowledgeable person to comment. You should feel free to read and comment at those pages, as well. I'm sure they'd be happy to have another person connected to their groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm Graham. I hang around both of the above projects, but I mainly contribute to virus articles. I have had a quick look at the article and it is an excellent start and is now on my watchlist. I'm working on Saturday, but will have time to comment more fully on your contribution on Sunday. But this aside, please feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you need any help at all. Graham Colm (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to distinguish Justin E. Chatwin (federal candidate) from Justin Chatwin (movie actor) which is why I used the middle name initial. It is properly cited, I'm just hoping the process of it going live doesn't take too long.
Kimnicolewiki (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- The article is already "live" since you posted it in the main article spaces, instead of working up a draft on your Userpage. Fortunately, since you provided footnotes your article is not in danger of deletion (unlike a lot of new biography articles, which are posted prematurely). Among the things you want to fix: make your External link a full citation, not just a URL. Add categories (check the bio of a similar figure to know which ones to add). Figure out what article "John Oliver" needs to link to and add a link. Finally, if Chatwin does not normally go by his middle initial, instead of artificially using it to disambiguate him, you can move the article to Justin Chatwin (politician), and at the top of the Justin Chatwin article you can add {{distinguish|Justin Chatwin (politician)}}. That's one way to do it. Oh, also make sure your footnote numbers come after punctuation; it looks better that way so that's the WP standard. Overall, not a bad start though. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey: Thanks a lot, Matthew, that really helped. I can't move this article to a new disambiguated "Justin Chatwin" yet, though. The move feature isn't available to me until I've been with Wiki for 4 days or by 10 edits (argh). I did add a category and that helps to distinguish it. I wasn't sure what you meant by making my link a full citation. Coud you clarify? Thanks again:)
- Sure, it goes two ways: on the one hand, on your footnotes (if possible) you want to add a URL link to any of those articles if they're online. If they only exist on paper, no worries, but if they are online you want to link to them by typing them like so: [http://www.example.com This Is An Article]. Note that external links are one bracket, URL, space, text, and one bracket. On the other end, in your links section you have things like "http://www.thevarsity.ca/articles/4896". These are "bare links" and subject to WP:Link rot. What you want is to type something like: [http://www.thevarsity.ca/articles/4896 The Tale of Justin], The Varsity, April 2011 That way readers have both the URL, but also the title/publication/date of the info, so they can still find the content if it ever changes URLs. All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This martial art was internationally recognized and validated on May 5th, 2008 by Professor Marty Cale, President of the International Martial Arts Council of America, naming sensei Michael S. Peterson as "founder" (soke) of the Attsuuten-ryu kempo-jutsu system. Mr. Peterson was inducted into the U.S. Martial Arts Hall of Fame as "Founder" of this system on July 26th, 2008. I sure hope I did all of this correctly! Thank you!
This is all I have on Steve Free, there is nothing more. I would love to see WIKI keep this article as I have worked hard for this artist to get this page going. As for citations, maybe a bit more help, but how do I go about those? Thanks! I work 45 hours and more a week and only have a bit of time for this. Thank you again!
184.15.113.181 (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Two separate issues, of which referencing is the most important. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) to get an idea of how one needs to document biography articles. Long/short you need to find neutral, third-party mentions of how significant a person is. The idea is "if nobody else is writing about them, why should WP?", so you need to demonstrate that other published sources (not blogs, forums, Facebook, fansites) are covering this person. You have some links at the bottom, and some of those appear to be actual industry or news pages, so I recommend you try to turn those into actual footnotes. Take a glance at WP:Footnotes to see how to turn links into usable footnotes that verify the info in your article. For fixing the orphan issue (which is a far, far, lesser issue than the referencing), check out WP:Orphan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I hope I'm in the right place. I'd like to request a review for a newly created article John Quackenbush. Quackenbush is a prominent scientist in the fields of bioinformatics and computational biology. This is essentially in a biographical format. I hope it meets Wikipedia standards. I appreciate your help. Thank you. --Mary
Mkalamaras (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Postscript
editI've realized now, after reading more, that I have made this article live prior to requesting feedback. Sorry for this--it's my first article creation and I was working through a learning curve. I mixed up the idea of "feedback" with "review." Again, I do hope this article passes muster. Thank you. --Mary
Have written new article and would appreciate feedback and removal of the unreviewed article template. thanks!
Made the article more encyclopaedic and removed blatant advertising. What other changes need to be made to make this a valid article?
Please review this article. We would love some feedback. Thank you.
Rested (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did some basic cleanup and wikify, but you need to add categories. Note that categories should be the most specific applicable categories, so not huge broad cats like "South Africa" or "Cars". MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure to make sure I was heading in the right directions with this article. Arthunter (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I made some changes and comments; click the "History" tab on your article to see the changes made. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! I made the changes you suggested. Arthunter (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Further feedback, suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Arthunter (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Somebody please review my new articles on Jessica Cox and Mugai Nyodai. Thanks!
173.49.72.38 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding Mugai:
- Looks good for content, but formatting needs work
- Please divide the large block of text into sections (by chronology or theme) Section-less of any longer than a paragraph or two are hard to read.
- Please turn your bare-link footnotes into full footnotes (see WP:Footnotes). For the GoogleBooks, there's an auto-footnote generator that's really awesome and quick here: http://reftag.appspot.com/
- Try adding a few more wikilinks: not commonly-understood nouns or familiar locations ("Japan"), but any location key to the article's content, any names of important figures, and specific technical concepts (religious or artistic).
- Nice work overall, you'll get the hang of WP format over time, and it'll make your articles cleaner and smoother to read. Keep up the good work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Not my first article written. Put in several references. Not much to it yet, but I'll be adding as this topic is part of my research for a book.
Mattfrye (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you're writing a book, be extra, extra careful to use only secondary sources and existing scholarship on your article. Primary research, novel theses, new conclusions/discoveries etc. are not part of an encyclopedia, as those have to go through peer review in the academic or journalistic world first. Check WP:Original research for the guidelines. Article looks good, but remember to put your footnote numbers after the punctuation marks. Note also that if you use the same footnote twice, you can use "ref name" (WP:REFNAME) to unify the footnotes (it's like an automatic Ibid; don't do Ibid manually, it easily gets disrupted on Wiki by new data being added). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your input! Mattfrye (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This is my first article - hoping to get it reviewed. Thanks! Jpsrah (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Too busy to check content now, but one quick thing: you really don't want to use "Ibid" on Wiki. All it takes is for one person to add a footnote between (3) and (4) and all of a sudden all your Ibids imply they're from a different book. Check out WP:Footnotes to get some ideas on how to code footnotes most effectively. Also, minor sidenote, section titles use "sentence capitalisation", not "book title capitalisation". MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I've made those suggested edits. Jpsrah (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewed and removed "draft" tag. Use the History tab and the "differences" tool to see what I've changed for your future reference in writing articles. The only main concern is that you're rather heavy on primary resources, but not so severely that I see the article being prod'ed for deletion. For now, I say just leave the "primary" tag, and as the situation develops endeavor to find media/political coverage of the term itself, not just occurrences of it or quotes from the author, so that the third-party discussion of the theory can be added to the article. Makes sense? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, what you've said makes complete sense. I was a bit worried about my reliance on primary sources since it is such a new term. I'm hopeful that it will appear in media much more frequently in the coming months with some debate/discussion/etc. In the meantime, I'll keep digging. Thank you again for the help and advise. Jpsrah (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently article "isentropic exponent" redirects to "heat capacity ratio". As far as I have been able to find out, this is only exactly correct for ideal gases. So I would like to replace the redirect by the proposed article. Probably some changes to the article "heat capacity ratio" are needed as well.
After ten years of work, research and assembly or facts, sources, references, and photos (not yet uploaded) on this man who was a pioneer in personal aviation, recognized worldwide, in the Experimental Aviation Hall of Fame, and whose unselfish work lives on (he has passed away) the article for him was submitted today. The article's name is Ladislao Pazmany. The username is airbornmondial. It is requested that this good, solid, biography of this notable man be posted so that others - students, young pilots, and aeronautical designers and engineers can benefit in the future from what they read here. Thank You. As you are, as am Ia volunteer, and your help in getting this information available is deeply appreciated !!!! Thanks again.
Airbornemondial (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Took a look, and though the content is interesting, it does need a fair bit of work to put it into proper Wikipedia format. A few initial points:
- The first occurrence of the title term should be bolded.
- Currently you've manually typed in numbers to be footnotes; that is an unnecessarily awkward way about it, as Wikipedia has a very handy auto-footnoting system. See WP:Footnotes for info on how to type "ref" tags around your citations so they'll automatically number and line up at the bottom of the article.
- Your article currently lacks categories, which are fundamental to the article being accessible on Wikipedia. See WP:Categories for some basic guidelines; note that categories should be specific as possible, so not "Aviation" and "Norway", but "Norwegian aviators".
- For sections, there is an order to follow: right now your largest sections use === around the section titles; but the main sections should have ==, then the subsections of said sections should have ===, then any sub-sub-section ====.
- You also need to wikify (WP:Wikify) your text, that is, put double brackets around key terms to link to other Wikipedia articles: [[Germany]] --> Germany. Don't do this for common nouns, familiar terms, dates, or locations known to any average reader ("Argentina"), but do add wiklinks for people, less-known locations, technical terms, etc. Only add wikilinks at the first occurrence of a given term, not each occurrence in the article.
- To summarise: good content, now you just need to spruce it up to bring it in-line with Wikipedia formatting. This will make the article easier to read, easier to continue to improve, and visually consistent. All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Mind's Eye the series is a web series growing in popularity and has already been awarded several times. Entirely independently produced in Guelph, Ontario Canada, it deserves to reach a wide audience.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Tom Roper-Brown (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- The main issue you face is proving "notability"; that is, justification for WP coverage. For film, see this policy: Wikipedia:Notability (films). As the page stands now, it's more like advertising or a fansite than an actual article, and does not yet include any neutral, third-party discussion of the series. Film articles generally have the very basics of plot, but extensive episode summaries, dramatic descriptions of characters, etc. verge on WP:fancruft. You can drop by WP:WikiProject Film for some advice on establishing notability; folks there might have more information about good ways to establish notability for works that are primarily covered in New Media. Definitely hold off on moving this to the main articlespaces for now; you'll want to leave it on your Userpage until you can positively sort out the Notability issue, as bios/companies/bands/films that don't meet Notability requirements in the main article spaces are subject to WP:Speedy deletions. Not trying to be harsh, just clarifying there is a high bar for bios/companies/bands/films/etc. to keep WP from being innundated with articles of unproved long-term significance. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)