Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 September 16
Cage of Eden
[edit]Can anyone review this article that has just been created? Thank you.
FonFon Alseif (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my first Wikipedia article. I'm looking for general feedback, assessment, rating, etc. The article is currently rated as Stub class. I've completely rewritten it to add detail and depth, improve structure, improve style, increase the impartiality of the section on Szabó’s informant activities, add and improve references, and reformat and expand the filmography. Hirschjoshua (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm very new to writing for Wikipedia. I'm trying to post an entry about my radio station. I'm not trying to sell the station, I'm trying to write a non-bias article about it. I do not want my post to be deleted so please let me know if there's anything that does not look suitable for Wikipedia.
Also, I included several references, I'm just not sure the format in between the ref tags is correct. If someone could check them I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you!
Gashouseradio (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a new entry for Wikipedia on EUROGEO-European Association of Geographers. I am one of the vice-presidents of that organization and no written sources or references exits on that organization yet. I am looking for general feedback on the article.
Yilmazari (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Please help to provide feedback to this article. Thank you.
Asc S2B (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, please review for approval.
Manohar reddy123123 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
My first totally new Wikipedia article. I'd like it reviewed for acceptability, etc. I have taken care to link outside materials, and have studied other, similar articles on software applications, in an effort to meet the essential "not an ad" criteria. I'm not a developer of this application, just a user. Hazydave (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Dayh04 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my first Wikipedia article and I want to ensure that it is clear, concise and informative. Thank you for the help! Dayh04 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Need assistance in this medical oncology topic.
Dr meetsingh Talk 17:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article on Emeline Roberts Jones. Thanks.
Dante8 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, need a third party to review the article so they can remove the template at the top stating this is a new, unreviewed article. Thanks. Also please let me know what improvements I should make and if there are any other complaints or comments you may have.
Abaaz (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator." I had help early, but now I'd like to move past "unreviewed article" if possible.
Mgblakes (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Reviewed by Ma®©usBritish [talk] 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again!
- Firstly, have to say article is definitely looking much better, and coming along nicely! I do hope it's been enjoyable for you to create and develop.
- Secondly, sorry I didn't see your replies on your talk page. Don't hesitate to contact someone via their talk page, or use the {{talkback}} template if you want a response from people, they're probably not ignoring you, it's just easy to miss replies on other pages when there's a lot got going on!
- Article feedback
- I've copy-edited it a bit, again, and added a few references I found, including re-adding his approx birth year with a source; plus some wikilinks.
- Also renamed "Introduction" to "Background" as the lead section is sort of an intro in itself, so best to avoid that word.
- I see you've added a few more refs, and expanded the referencing details, which is good to see.
- In terms of the weasel words I mentioned before, much better tone now, more direct like a historical text should be, and neutral; essentially easier to read without feeling it's editorial.
- Citations aren't bad, overall. There are only 3 paragraphs without any citations, which I think if you can aim to cite them, would be a real bonus:
- "Background" - paragraph 2.
- "Captain Parker H. French's California Expedition" - paragraphs 1 and 3.
- Because most of your sources are offline, books and newspapers, I cannot verify them, but I think looking at some of the titles referenced there is no question that notability has been accounted for, one way or another. Don't hold me to that, but I don't think you'll find anyone wanting to have the article deleted for non-notable reasons anytime soon. If you do find someone disputes it, do let me know.
Hello Ma®©usBritish!
So glad to hear from you. Sorry that I hadn’t gotten the workings of the “talk” exchange method down. I think I get it now. Maybe. I hope editing this page is right!
I am having so much fun with this project and I am delighted to get your help.
I see what you have fixed up in my piece and am glad for it, thank you. The footnote for the birth year I am going to change, however, as Tucker’s Texas On-Line article is not a primary source, nor is it always accurate. (Especially, “replaced his law partner (who had suddenly died) in the 1854 California legislature.” Not even close. His law partner, Freeman Shanks McKinney, was a first term legislator in 1854, like French, both being elected to office. McKinney was executed by Mexicans as a member of the Henry A. Crabb filibuster in 1857. More filibuster connection! )
The fact is that McGowan stated the year as 1826 without evidence and Baldridge described French as appearing to be 24 in 1850. That is all anyone really knows.
“Background” is a definite improvement over “Introduction.” Thanks.
I have sources for everything and will get them in. The fact is I mostly stopped researching the project a year or more ago and it is hard to put my fingers, so to speak, on everything I need. It’s all in my computer though, and I’ll find it. Better organization to start would have helped!
I wonder if there is something I can do with the complete list of men who enrolled in the California expedition? There were 192 enrollees and 48 enlisted men (not 120 and 60 as the Texas Handbook states). It was a lot of work to assemble the list from several sources and it seems like it should be made available to possible researchers in some way.
Many of my sources were in fact found on-line, many through library databases not generally available or by fee, like jstor, but several are readily found on the Web. I guess I should list the link if that is how I found them and not just the original publication? Another question: should I ask permission of the owners of unpublished memoirs who have shared some of the material with me in email exchanges? They all thought I was writing a book or article for publication when we corresponded and permission was implied.
Sorry to go on so long!
Mgblakes (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi - your reply was in the wrong spot, but have moved it.
- Feel free to replace/edit anything I did - especially invalid citations. I noticed that you had a year of birth in the first draft then it was gone, so added that source as it matched one of your ref'd books.
- I've done another quick copy-edit sweep - nothing major, although you do keep using curly accent quotes “ ” – can you please use straight quotes " " – as produced by shift+2 on your keyboard, as it helps wiki search results and Search engines find quotations, whereas the grave/angular/curly ones do not. Same with apostrophe, can you use the straight ' keyboard one (shift+@), not ′ please. Just helps keep everything consistent with the Manual of style, and such.
- If you have 240 names, there are a couple of options available. A standard list, although that might be a little dull. A table, 4 columns wide would be less lengthy. Personally I would recommend you pick the most prominent/notable members of the expedition and discuss a bit about them with citations, and then round off saying there were 192+48 as a point, without the full list of names on Wiki - instead, if you can give a solid reference as to where people can find that list, whether in a book or an external site, it's a better way of doing it, without over-doing it with a full list, as if there were say 20 or 30 people, it wouldn't be too bad, but 240 is a lot more to consider, and could draw attention away from the article.
- Note: There's also nothing to stop you creating a new article, with a short intro and then a full list, then linking to it from other articles. Bearing in mind it must be notable and referenced, but other than that, list articles are common on wiki.
- If you first find info on a website, then the same in a publication, cite whichever best supports the way you write in onto Wiki. Books are usually better, as websites can vanish overnight, most books are almost always trackable to verify.
- Aren't any memoirs dating back to 1850s going to be long past copyright term anyway, and no longer in need of permission? You'd only need a reliable source if this is the case.