Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 February 16
Talk:Fluctuation-dissipation theorem -- Section: Fix Error in Equation (**) in Derivation.[edit]
Please review proposed fix and critique as appropriate. Psh07733
PaulH (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Llaneerg Scott Greenall Does my article have what it takes to stand the test of time in wikipedia?[edit]
Does my article have what it takes to stand the test of time in Wikipedia? LINK:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Llaneerg/Scott_Greenall
Llaneerg (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Again, day 2 and i have chosen a stub article to research and update. If i could receive some feedback on this update i would be grateful. The article has a 'multiple issues' banner. What is the process to eliminate some or all of the issues quoted on the banner? Should i be removing some or all of the issues once i feel the issue is addressed?
Regards, Jeff
Geez-oz (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some Deletionist has glared at the page with its glowing red eyeballs, so the first order of business is to address the issue of notability. As it stands, the article has a couple of decent third party links, but I think the way the references have been recorded could be improved, making it somewhat more obvious that the subject is notable. I changed the Sunshine Skies link. Change the template used for the Sarasota Journal article in google news to "cite journal" and fill in as much as you can. The link to the Florida Dept. of Corporations was bad. I tried to find what it should be but couldn't immediately find a reference to the name change, only the dissolution. No instant gratification. See if you can clean that up.
- I don't know who removes those banners or the issues mentioned therein. Maybe someone else can weigh in on that. Otherwise, try the Help Desk. Ditto the stub tag.
- How do you address the issues on the banner? Here there are three. (1) Needs sources or references in third party pubs. What this really means is sources going to the notability issue, where some place talks about the subject of the article, not just mentions it. So the timetable is not what they mean, although it is a great addition to the article. There are two good ones already, with the book site and article in the paper, but if you can find more, the more, the merrier. (2) Questioned notability. That means some Deletionist wants to destroy the article. Issue solved by having two or more references. (3) Wikified. A most useless addition to the banner, because instead of sending you to a description of wikification, it sends you to a category page. Worse yet, it gives no clue about what the person who pasted the banner really envisioned, or whether they envisioned anything at all, since it says "may". However, the definition of wikification includes putting in some subheads, so the article as it stands looks wikified enough to me for an article its size. So in summary, more references/citations/authorities if you can find any.
- When you are happy with where you are, make sure to thoroughly proofread the article. There were some minor issues with punctuation and capitalization, and all those little details can make the article look professional or not. Also how it flows. With several people contributing to an article, glitches can develop.
- I took the sunshine skies site out of External links because it has been cited in the body of the article. Bluegrass Airlines seems to be a pretty good link. The External link to FL Dept Corps doesnt work. I dont think you should have one in this section because it is already cited (when fixed) in the body of the article, unless there's a different part of the FL site that people should see. The google sites External link doesn't work and I wasn't sure how to find its intended target.
- When you are done, put the article on your watch list, so you can be alerted to any incursions by Deletionists. Tkotc (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
To be given the go- head of publishing the article in the mainspace.
Bewisesafe (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a new page about DNV's Acoustic Resonance Technology, which is another type of ultrasound inspection for industry
Legolio (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a page about a locality in Bangalore. I am pretty confused on how to move it from my user space to wikipedia so that others can view it when they search about HBR Layout.
Randeepsp (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about the Australian author Wendy Lewis. This is not finished: I expect to add more biographical details as I get them, and more details about the plays, but the published books are all referenced.
So tell me - is it OK to post the new article live? If not, how can I improve it?
Ben morphett (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- What you need at this time are some references to articles or reviews about her in order to establish "notability". The guidelines for this are on the Wikipedia pages WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. References to such articles should be "inline"; that is, inserted in the body of the article where you state a fact that the reference verifies. For how to do this see the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please be careful to pick independent references (like a newspaper or magazine review) rather than a bookseller's site or any site that would have a similar conflict of interest. She looks like a good potential candidate for an article, so good luck! Tkotc (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Review of first article requested. Thankyou.
Tallguyuk (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Clarkes Coaches - London Coach Hire and Executive Services
This article is related to the history of Clarkes Coaches. Please review, Thank you.
Clarkescoaches (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review - thanks and also "how do I get rid of Marian Nicholson in the page's URL?...
[User:MarianNicholson|MarianNicholson]] (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your user name will disappear from the URL when the page is ready and moved to the regular Wikipedia section.
- See where the name of the association appears in boldface at the first line of the article? That should be the beginning of a lead paragraph saying what the association is. You need to write that. The boldface stuff is not meant as a subtitle.
- One problem now is that you need external links to reliable (independent) sources which can be used to verify the statements made in the article. The way it is now, it looks like you wrote down what you personally know, which amounts to "original research" (in Wikipedia-speak). You cannot write up original research. So off to the Web or library with you to find those references!
- You cannot have bare links to external sites within the body of your article (e.g. the "about us" link). Those must either be converted to references or moved to External links as appropriate.
- You have not used wiki markup in your article (for things like subheads). It's pretty easy. Look at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet and keep it handy. For how to reference see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
- Overall, and this is just plain opinion, I think the article is a bit long and reads too much like a publicity piece for the organization. Reread what you have and see if it reads like an encyclopedia article. Consider pruning it a bit. This is in no way an expression of opinion on the merits of the organization, which indeed seems like a good cause. Tkotc (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
PLACE A LINK TO YOUR ARTICLE HERE[edit]
Kubr (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would like feedback on the structure of this article and whether it is sufficiently neutral or seems too biased towards Germany's climate policy.
Anjakueppers (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't get the sense that the article is unduly biased. But the problem I have with it is it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; more like a newspaper article or news release. It's clear that you have a lot of good information about this, but I think you need to step back for a moment and ask yourself what have others been thinking and saying in public sources, and then cast the article in terms of what these other sources have said. If the article is otherwise weak, it is in references verifying many of the statements made in the article. It looks like good article subject and should be an excellent contribution. A minor point–you should be using wiki markup for subheads and the like. See Wikipedia:Cheatsheet.
I would like to know if this is acceptable for an article and how to create links to other wiki articles in the body of the text
Prisoners Advice Service (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your account under the PAS username is blocked. The article is about to be deleted for copyright violations. But it seems like a good topic. Advice: set up a new account under some individual's name; rewrite the article in your user space using the article wizard. If you are in fact associated with PAS, say so on your user page. Try to find some independent sources of information (e.g. articles about ...) and write the article using the facts you find in those articles. Tkotc (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article - Thanks!
Bartash (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a nice article. The real need is for references to articles about your subject. Has there been a newspaper, magazine, or journal article about it? Let's assume the organization is notable. Then, shouldn't we expect that someone has noted it? If you can find and use materials along those lines, it would improve things greatly. A serious problem is the use of "Interview with Jack Harte" as authority. Problem 1: it isn't published, so we can't read it. Problem 2: it sounds like you conducted the interview, in which case it is "original research", and, oddly enough, you can't use original research as authority on Wikipedia. You will probably have to drop that. (Actually, if you have a good interview, you should try to publish it somewhere.) Tkotc (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I am looking for general feedback on this draft. Is it coherent, interesting, does it provide useful information?
Bbstudiosw (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please provide some feedback/review! Thanks
Mansell1 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review this article and approve it soon... thank you
Sivajikannan (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an article on targeting - a strategy used in health intervention. It covers the definition, gives some examples of targeting in international health interventions, discussed ethnic concerns of using targeting and addresses the differences between targeting and tailoring (two concepts which are sometimes misused by scholars).
Fish poisson (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)