Please give me suggestions for the improvement of this article. You are invited to edit this article to make it look better on wikipedia.
Please review this article I wrote on a philosophical concept and help confirm that it is of wikipedia format and standards. Thanks!
National Engineering Robotics Contest I have made this article, as it is one of the most prestigious Robotic competition in Pakistan and their is no info about it in Wikipedia, please give your feeedback here and add any authenticated information
editNational Engineering Robotics Contest I have made this article, as it is one of the most prestigious Robotic competition in Pakistan and their is no info about it in Wikipedia, please give your feeedback here and add any authenticated information you can it will be great favour
Would like some feed back on this to ensure my subject is "Notable" before continuing with further work on it.
I posted a request here last week while the page was still in my own namespace but no one replied and the entry (along with several others) then disappeared from the feedback page. Alan666wsg (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you need more background on the person. Maybe you edited too much information out, resulting in an article perhaps too "lean." All the pieces are there, but I wanted more. --Rherren (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback.
- I have more information to expand the biography but I was waiting to ensure my subject passes the 'Notability' test. Alan666wsg (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
could you give me feedback on this brief article on 'Good Things in England'?
LambsC (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- You have one reference, basically confirming existence, but I do not see any that meet the criteria set out in Notability, specifically If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... --SPhilbrickT 17:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I second user Sphilbrick's remarks. It sounds like an interesting book, but why does it warrant a Wikipedia entry? Your line about influence is tantalizing but needs to be expanded and referenced. Archivingcontext (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- What this article desperately needs is some context - e.g. Elizabeth David noting it as important somewhere in something she's written would be a big start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
please provide some feedback on this short article on William - an Englishman. This is just to get the ball rolling on what will hopefully become a more extensive article on the work.
User:Shomikz/NewsByCompany.com
editI would request you to review this article.
Shomikz (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Link: User:Shomikz/NewsByCompany.com
- Has zero references and seems to promote your website. It is likely to be deleted unless its notability is established by references in reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Wingroras:Michael_J_Wade Any feedback on the article of a well-known evolutionary biologists would be appreciated. I have also made over 40 edits, and been a user for 4 days now, yet am not able to move the page so that it is an actual Wikipedia page. Any advice on how to move it? Thanks.
Can someone fix the problem near the end of this article please? The tournament singles and doubles perfromances should be separate but it is all in one table. Help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I would like help in expanding this article about the actor/writer/director resident in Belfast, Northern Ireland and his work.
Hello, I was wondering if anyone could review this article and then remove the unreview tab. Thank you!
Hi,
I've just created the ThinkPad W Series page as part of a collection of pages I'm doing on Lenovo products. I've worked to incorporate feedback I've received from the ThinkPad T Series and ThinkPad X Series pages - which I created a few weeks ago.
I'd appreciate a review of the page and any input on what I can to do to make it better.
Hi there, I'd appreciate a steer as to the feasibility of this article. It's designed for information purposes, not promotional, but I want to check I've managed that before attempting to go live with it. I've included links to existing article that behave similarly and which mention the company about which this article talks to support the creation of this article. Many thanks.
Katiclio (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Disappointed. I was expecting an article about the general concept of holiday lettings (or holiday homes, for which we already have an article). Instead I get an article promoting a website, with no explanation or references indicating why it is at all notable. The tone, in phrasing such as: "new article content is about a business...but is not promotional", is not appropriate, and terms such as "...its position as a leading market player" are clearly promotional. Astronaut (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Presbyterian Orthopaedic Hospital in Charlotte, NC
I am seeking a review on my page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carara_%28Run%29,_2009
Mwarsame (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- What makes this film notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it? Without some evidence of notability, with references from reliable sources it is very likely to be deleted. Being the director, producer and writer, you also have a clear conflict of interest in promoting this short film. Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gilaliza/Center_for_Women%27s_Justice_Israel My first article, still a work in progress, just looking for direction and feedback, strengths and weaknesses, etc. How far do I have to go before it's ready to go live?
I just finished working on this, and I'd like some feedback before moving it into article main space. It should be notable, I'm quite surprised an article wasn't created for it already.
This is my first submission. I would appreciate any feedback. Thank you.
Your article has a footnote referencing ythe personal blog of the subject...I would remove that one item. With everything else that is good about the material, I don't think sacrificing this one statement should be a problem.--Margareta378 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Christopher Calvin Harrison is a director and choreographer in New York City with a 20-year history of work with such notables as Franco Zeffirelli, Microsoft, and Marc Jacobs.
I have been working on an article about a minorly famous author. Please review for Notability. Thank you.
Disclosure: I am this athlete's brother.
As I had noticed that there were links in other articles with my sister's name on it - she's an accomplished gymnast, performing regularly in international level representing our homecountry, Brazil - I went ahead and created this page. As I don't wnat it to be deleted, I'd like to request assistance in referencing it correctly, and to be as impartial as possible. I did my best to provide links to articles and other news sources regarding the results provided in the article.
Thanks a lot, Venetiglio (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
is there anything needed to or could be done to improve the page?
This is my first attempt at adding a new article to Wikipedia. I believe I did my due diligence, but would love someone with a critical eye to supply me with feedback. Thanks ahead of time.
This is a brand new article on a notable Wall Street-er that needs feedback from other Wikipedia members on structure and content. Thank you!
I am mostly looking for a second set of eyes. I think the sources are reliable - but am interested in feedback on the tone or style of the written entry. Thanks much, in advance.
This article needs reviewing from an independent source. I am a relatively new member but feel this is a good article. I have already tagged the lack of citations within the article, which is also a problem with the majority of the main articles that this article links to, and I am working on that. For now, I need someone to review it, check that is it relevant and is structured well.
Thanks!
I'm having problems trying to sparate the tournament singles and doubles performances on this artice. Can someone help me out and fix it please? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
This is at the moment a fast growing topic, used for example to structurally understand Quantum groups. However it has so far only be treated as definition in a couple lines in the article Braided Hopf algebra (also please note, that while I'm used to communicate math, I'm Wikipedia-Newbie ;-)
My aim was to export this article to an own page, describing the relevant applications, summarizing current development lines and providing down-to earth examples. I might humbly add, that I invested some time, so the sources are complete (covering most of the nowadays knowledge of different authors on the topic) and the thought-line is sensefully structured. However, this is certainly not enough for a good article....
- If I provide an easy example for a general theorem (too trivial to be covered in scientific journals), do I just cite the general theorem source?
- With the newest result, one can mention and interprete them, but of course not go into depth on proof etc. I guess this is not "stubby"?
- The article should be "commonly" understandandble....if "commonly" means one has heard of classical Lie algebras or Braided monoidal category, as have many theoretical physicists and algebaists nowadays ;-) Should that be noted somewhere? Should one provide an "intuition"-section for the others?
- I'm insofar involved, that I aim to work in and already tought a course on the subject, but neither me nor my professor etc. are mentioned in the article....is that already a neutrality issue?
- And last but not least: I would very much appreachiate any other comments you might have on....
- Structure
- Depth
- Understandability
- ...and anything else you might note
Thanks in advance for your kind support :-)
I don't see any footnotes to connect material to sources. The reference list is long but where are the footnotes? Keep up the good work. --Js258 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Please check this out for me.
I thought this to be a very informative article and well written.--Rherren (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
In reviewing this article, I would recommend different spacing of the photos into 2 groups that would better suit the look of the overall page. Actually, the content to be exceptional. I just found the placement of the photos was probably the only issue. --Js258 (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Finally an article that looks like someone can read and right. Precisely done. I found this article interesting...I'd be interested in reading any other articles you may have written here. --Margareta378 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a pretty nice article. It appears you have written articles before. I would offer constructive criticism, but I don't have anything to offer. I think you've done an excellent job here. --Npelli65 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Good, brief article. I think the photos are good in support of the text, particularly considering the subject matter is photography. I read an article posted here previously about a photographer with NO supportive photos at all. This is simple and straight to the point.--DHollande (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
MKeimPhD (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Such gushing compliments - I wish it was all in good faith. Unfortunately, the authors of the above comments: Rherren (talk · contribs), Js258 (talk · contribs), Margareta378 (talk · contribs), Npelli65 (talk · contribs), DHollande (talk · contribs) and MKeimPhD (talk · contribs); are all subject to a Sockpuppet investigation and are looking likely to be the same person. Oh, and the article is subject to an AfD. Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion. Astronaut (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)