Talk:Startup Britain

[Untitled]
The full list of supporting companies may not be needed. Take a look at the rules regarding lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28lists%29 HappyLarry88 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Review
Overall this article looks very nice and is a great job for a relatively new WP editor. Congratulations on that. Below are some general comments on the article. The criteria against which it is being judged are for what is considered a good article. There is no requirement that 100% of these criteria be met, but they are a good standard by which articles should be measured. In general I follow the overall criteria of other editors including User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet.

A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * Overall the grammar is fine, but there are not too many paragraphs more than one sentence though.
 * The intro paragraph's 1st sentence does not completely follow the recommended format. Don't put Startup Britain on a separate line. See Operation Mallard for an example.
 * There is not quite enough explanation of what they are doing. More is either needed in a separate paragraph, or possibly you can squeeze in a similar company or just a bit more explanation for what they are doing.
 * A few of the words in the overall article would be good to Wikilink starting from the intro paragraph including UK Government, budding entrepreneurs, web portal. In general you would like to link words that can easily be unknown or even less familiar to some people.
 * You have Startup Britain spelled three different ways in the article. They should all be the same.
 * Startup Britain is a list where it may better be served with prose. You can easily convert the bullet list into sentences.
 * Startup Britain should be renamed to Related quotes since you generally do not include the article name in the sub heads.
 * Having said all that, I am not sure that section is really notable enough to include. Articles should not just be a copy of a company/organization web cite. When you include something there should be some significance. The three people quotes may not have any significance to any reader unless you give them the information. I see David Cameron is already covered in another article, but you might want to include something about each person following their name if you decide to keep this in.
 * I now realize these are the founding members. A section of quotes from the people who started the program may be considered biased and not represent WP:NPOV.
 * Startup Britain should use a lower case "l" for launch. See WP:MOSHEAD for more information.
 * The first sentence has some grammar problems.
 * The Harvtext templates have a problem; they do not seem to have the desired effect you likely were looking for. Check WP:Harvard citation template examples to see what you really meant here.
 * The sentences are single line paragraphs. They should be combined to form one or two paragraphs.
 * The quote from Colin is not necessary as a direct quote unless you are trying to be so specific with his words. Generally you can paraphrase his quote and then put a footnote for the citation.
 * You may want to consider the article on the use of while and whilst (in addition to amongst and among). Certainly there is nothing wrong with whilst, but you will find some editors pushing to make articles sound simpler and less complex. In some countries outside of British English use, the word has a somewhat pretentious meaning and is considered adding unnecessary complexity to the sentence.
 * Startup Britain should have a lower case "m" for members.
 * This section might flow better with addition prose around it.
 * Startup Britain should be lower case "l" for list.
 * What does it mean to be "company supporters of StartUp Britain?"
 * I am not sure of the significance of this list and it might not be considered notable enough to include.
 * If it is kept, most of these companies have articles in WP and should be linked to their articles.

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * Startup Britain identifies good sources on some bullets, but not others. If the current sources cover all the entries, consider adding the appropriate footnotes. Remember even if information is a fact that you directly know, without a verifiable 3rd party source someone can challenge you and get it removed.
 * Startup Britain can certainly use some footnotes. Those are some very specific numbers so you must have gotten them somewhere.
 * Startup Britain uses quotations with no sources. That is a definite item needing a source. Check out WP:CITE for more information.
 * Startup Britain should have a source of some kind at least in the first sentence.
 * Startup Britain. It is great to see so many sources in a first article. At some point articles are improved by using citation templates the most common being for online sources.

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * I find the article stays on track pretty well and certainly does not drill into unnecessary details.

.
 * I mentioned above that the quotes might be considered biased since they are the founders.

.
 * New articles generally don't have any problem here since no one knows about them yet.

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * Some kind of image would be good. It adds interest to articles.
 * Along this same idea you will find an appropriate infobox will add some good summary information and interest to the article. See Template:Infobox company




 * For your first article or for being a new editor I am impressed with how well you have done with this article. If you make the changes above (or as many of them as you believe are necessary) you can put a not on my talk page to come back and review the differences. Good to see new editors join the WP community. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)