Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 September 15
Request feedback on proper formatting on article. There were a couple of heading that I did not know how to fix. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
please correct the spelling of kottarakara as it, instead of wrongly saves as koottarakara
Kalloor 03:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Reviewed by Ma®©usBritish [talk] 13:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to a shorter title - author name/location is not required, per WP:OWN - all Wiki entries are public domain, and should not be "signed".
- Article has multiple issues in terms of content, references, layout, etc. See new info box at top of page for details.
Brandhackers [1] is a 1,800 member monthly Manhattan "ProLogo" Meetup[2] which began in 2008 in New York City. The initial informal rather culty monthly Meetup soon turned into an on and offline social network showcasing prominent and rising digital marketing and brand technology opinion leaders in the city including no-namers to EVPs and Presidents of major brands and tech companies.
Please check if my article can be published.
McBub (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewed by Ma®©usBritish [talk] 11:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Article is advertising - violates: WP:NOTADVERTISING
- Sources are all self-published - violates: WP:COI
- No notability established - per WP:CORP
- Tone is biased - against WP:NPOV; given that username matches article and company name, this also violates WP:CORPNAME
- Sorry, but this article is currently unacceptable as Wiki material - Wiki is an encyclopedia, not an advertising site.
This article is a short introduction to iPlant Collaborative, a National Science Foundation funded project to create cyberinfrastructure for the plant sciences.
I believe this short article has both adequate references and the requisite even, neutral tone. However, I have a personal connection to iPlant. This is a potential conflict of interest that could sway my writing, but I don't know of anyone unconnected to iPlant who could provide the same content. I intentionally kept the article short and to the point. My hope is that once the page exists that others who have a less direct interest in iPlant will expand the article when/as appropriate (I am employed by iPlant; academic collaborators who work with us would make better sources for more detailed information).
I would appreciate any input that will help to make certain that the article is appropriately neutral and authoritative (and free of marketing-style content) before I post it.
Matthewhelmke (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Shows promise. A few formatting issues probably need to be cleaned up, but sounds like a good topic. Hope to take a closer look tomorrow, if someone else does not get around to it first. Thanks for working in your user daft space first. W Nowicki (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm reading through your comments and hope to get through a second draft this week. Matthewhelmke (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
PLEASE CHECK MY ARTICLE AND LET ME KNOW WHETHER I CAN PUBLISH OR NOT?
Hi everyone. I am trying to see if this page sounds too self-promotional. Does it look like my references are documented correctly and do they look "significant" and "reliable" enough to qualify for approval? Also, this is my first submission. For it to qualify, do I really need to make 10 edits to other pages that are already in existence?
Thank you very much for your input.
Princeton Marketing (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Please review to see if this qualifies for submission. Much appreciated.
Princeton Marketing (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Evidently yes, it was deemed promotional and already deleted. It might be a good idea to read the guidelines first; it would save all of us some time. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed the noted problem of using bare URLs for citations by adding full citations for references. I would like someone to review them and verify that this is correct. Thank you.
Engineerts07 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is better, but should also add |work= or |publisher= also so that it is more clear which sources are independent and reliable, such as refereed journals vs. advertisements or blogs etc. There was also some promotional language and uncited assertions that need work. W Nowicki (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi This page has been edited to reference more links to Alice Offley which it didn't have before. Hopefully this will be enough for it to be "live" Any feedback with this?
Did I do this right?????
Please review this new page about the Samsung NX200 camera. The page is entirely sourced from the press release announcing the product. I am a user of the NX system of cameras.
I am seeking feedback on a revised version of an article on Jacki Zehner that I posted a few months ago. I made requested changes to the sources and believe that this article now meets Wikipedia standards. I appreciate your guidance and feedback.
Thank you!
Is this article correctly formatted and ready to go live? I appreciate your feedback.
Hello, I'm fairly new to this so I'd like some feedback on my first article. The article is about a famous commercial photographer who has done some outstanding work and is one of the top ten creatives in the advertising world. Thanks for your help. Please be gentle, but honest.
I created a page for the photographer Richard Ross and I would like someone to review it.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-12-11/news/can-dhafir-harris-a-kimbo-slice-protege-become-a-ghetto-superstar/
editPLEASE REVIEW MY PAGE FOR ME TO SEE IF ALL IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC POSTING
Need comments to this article. Thank you!