Umm...I wrote this article some time ago and have not received any feedback on it. I'd like to write some more articles, but I thought I should wait until I received some feedback on this one first before continuing on. Is there anyone out there?
Jack Trumpet (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Highly technical articles are slow to get Feedback due to limited familiarity with the topics, but I'll weigh in. Overall very good, my primary caveats: you need to add WP:Categories (as specific as possible), section titles are in "Sentence capitalisation" not "Book Title Capitalistation". Format aside, though your footnotes are quite good, the earlier part of the article is a bit light on footnotes, despite citing some very specific statistics, etc.; this info must come from somewhere so a good footnote helps track it down. Nice work, and looking forward to seeing more from you now that you've gotten feedback; feel free to drop back in whenever until you feel you've clinched formatting. But even now, really solid work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see 'Requests for Feedback', 2011, May 9, Item 11
Please see my comments/ questions at Requests for Feedback, 2011, May 9, Item 11. Many thanks.
John jacob lyons (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, your situation is somewhat complicated, as it started as an autobio, and is now moving towards being a description of a theory you originated (which is also CoI, as you are professionally invested in popularising your theory). Rather than focus on formatting help (here), I would suggest you address this as a subject-matter issue, and request feedback at WP:WikiProject Science. I think you haven't gotten much feedback since we here honestly don't know what to make of it, so we've been sticking to the easier "add cats, fix your footnotes" help requests. Interesting article, but I think you really need to talk to some Science folks about it as you move forward. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Matthew. Will follow that advice. How do I get the title changed to Genetic Priming?
I'm not trying to "popularise" the theory Matthew. At this stage I suggest that it is an interesting hypothesis in the field of Evolutionary Theory(ET) that has been well received in peer-presentation and in well-respected scientific blogs. It may well be of interest to many others interested in ET. I would also welcome any feedback I can get.
Also, would you please review the Wiki-comments at the start of the article? I'm not sure that they accurately reflect the current status. Many thanks. John jacob lyons (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Pradeep321 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't waste our time with joke articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
User:KateHughes/Wolverhampton Homes I am the Communications Manager for Wolverhampton Homes. I recognise this is a conflict of interest and as such, would appreciate if a wikipedian could check my article for neutrality. It is also my first wikipedia article so I am not sure I have correctly formatted it, any assistance you could offer in this area would be appreciated. Thank you!
KateHughes (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've done some formatting,and advised Kate to find some references, which are awaited. The article does seem to have a neutral PoV, and no obvious CoI issues. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good to go, now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now live, at Wolverhampton Homes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi are the references appropriate, and how do I make the article live? I dont seem to have a move box. Cheers
Joey350 (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Done Your article is now live. You need some minor fixes, mainly turning your WP:Bare URLs into proper WP:Citations to avoid WP:Link rot. Also, if you cite something as a footnote, you don't need to have it separately listed as a "Reference". Overall looks pretty good; you can also email the guy and ask him to release a photo to WP:Creative Commons, and then you file a WP:OTRS tag to prove its release so you can upload it to the article. Image licensing is kind of tricky at first, so don't be afraid to ask for help. Nice work overall, just fix the footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article and hopefully keep it live!
Victor Wolfson is a notable playwright, novelist, director and actor and has received an Emmy Award for his work. I have written a brief paragraph to describe him and his work and listed filmography, plays and books. Need it to be reviewed.
Cutiekatie (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good work overall, though note that IMDB and IDBD are not authoritative sources since they are also user-submitted, so ideally you want to add a few more references from news sources or GoogleBooks (use http://reftag.appspot.com to auto-format citations from GoogleBooks). I suggest you look at some other playwright articles to see how lists of Works are formatted; it may be there's an official standard to mirror on WP. Minor things: people aren't mentioned by title (Mr.), and "USA" and other such terms should be spelled out (but not linked since they're familiar terms). Larger issue: you need to add WP:Categories; suggest you look at other playwright articles to see what cats are standard. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Have added categories, but must say am finding it difficult to find references - do I need references to prove that he has written the works? (Cutiekatie (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC))
- Nope, we're not quite that strict. So long as his name's in the title (and it's clearly not a guy with the same name writing 50yrs before on a different subject), you should be fine. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Information about Serge de Gastyne who was my teacher, mentor, colleague and friend. As this is my first post to Wiki, I would appreciate feedback. Submitted by John Leeger.
JWLeeger (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of good content, but has some format and sourcing issues. For formatting lists of works, I suggest you check out the articles on some similar artists and see how such lists are formatted, as there appears to be a standardised way you're not following. Regarding sourcing, for such a long article you should have a lot of footnotes, and you don't even footnote the Time article, which should be a great verification of all kinds of details. On footnote #1, the word "From" is unnecessary; being a footnote implies "from". But you need to include a full WP:Citation for the book: author/editor, title (linked to the GoogleBooks page if available), publisher, date, ISBN number. For footnote #2 you need the article title. Footnote #3 doesn't really work; that appears to be WP:Original research (OR). WP:Reliable sources are those published by professional news/academic/journal/etc concerns, so personal knowledge, blogs, forums, FaceBook, etc. are not admissible. Fortunately, you can get plenty of good footnotes by searching his name on GoogleBooks, and better yet you can automatically create full citations using http://reftag.appspot.com , which takes all the work out of it.
- In summary, fix the format, make your foonotes clearer (and remove the OR), and add as many foontnotes as convenient from reputable publishers, and particularly from serious works you find on GoogleBooks. That should leave you with a very strong article indeed. Also, note that under WP:Fair use you can add one, low-resolution photograph of the subject since he's deceased, regardless of the copyright of the image for academic purposes.
- Nice work, a little fine-tuning should make it stellar. Hope you'll stick around and add more music articles once you've gotten a feel for format. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)