Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 June 8

User:Chatul/OS/VS2 (SVS)
User:Chatul/OS/VS2 (SVS)

This article describes release 1 of Operating System/Virtual Storage 2 (OS/VS2), ususally known as Single Virtual Storage (SVS) to distinguish it from MVS. The article is intended to provide enough information to put SVS in context, but not to reproduce the information already in OS/360 and successors or related articles. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd reccomend turnign the list into a paragraph and possible and infobox or pic. Maybe some more refs to prove its notability.  ~ Qwerp Qwertus   · _Talk_ · _Contribs_ ·  22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive complexity: first and second order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FO_(complexity) used to be a "stub" I added a lot of thing, and since FO stands first order, I added second order SO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SO_(complexity). I would like a feedback for both. And in fact I wonder if they can't be just part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_complexity, or may be if every "operators" shouldn't be an article by themselves (I could add more details if they were section to give an idea of why the theorems I state are true). There is only one reference, but it is because every single result are in this book.

Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think with the first article you need to try and add more references. Even though you have a book reference already, the whole article only has one reference. Please try and add a few more reliable references if you can. Chevy  monte  carlo  04:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why ? Every proof are in it, so if I link some other lecture speaking of that it will just be he same proofs and same information. And I can not put as reference the lecture I received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur MILCHIOR (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates to GCRA and Leaky Bucket Algorithm
I wish to update/re-write the article on the Generic cell rate algorithm (it currently flagged as in need of expert attention). However, as this is a version/implementation of the leaky bucket algorithm, it will be necessary to address that article first.

The leaky bucket article has been flagged as disputed since March 08. This flag was removed 28 May 2010, with the statement that the talk page contained no factual dispute. I have put this flag back and included a new section in the Talk:Leaky_bucket page that, I hope, explains the core issues of the dispute: that there are actually two different versions on the leaky bucket algorithm in the literature, and the article confuses these.

This leaky bucket article currently falls well below the quality that should be expected and needs, as a minimum, major revision, and may need to be fully re-written. To this end, I have a text that I think addresses all of the issues, and would be willing to provide this for comment, editing, etc. However, as a newbie to editing articles, I am unsure about how this should be done. Also the text I have runs to some 4k7 words, so may be a little over-detailed in this context.

So, while I feel confident in regard to the subject, I ask for assistance in the process.

Graham Fountain 10:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)

Also, why do I keep getting this "—Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)" after the signiture?

Graham Fountain 15:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)
 * You got “this”, because you didn’t sign your comment. Personally, I think the software should do it for you, but that hasn’t happened. Whenever you are supposed to sign (you don’t sign articles, but you do sign talk pages), you add four tildes (~) to the end of your post, and it will be rendered as your name. If you don’t a friendly bot will  follow you and add that comment.  SPhilbrick  T  16:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that I had signed it by putting four tildes at the end. If there's more to it than that, where is the info?
 * Going to sign it now, so lets see.

Graham Fountain 08:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)
 * No, that didin't seem to work again. However, please don't let this minor issue detract from the major (my fault for putting two in one I guess).

Graham Fountain 08:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)

Plateau Systems
This article introduces User:Pspspsmmm/Plateau Systems a software company in Arlington, VA named Plateau Systemsthat provides Talent Management Systems.

Pspspsmmm (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid using management speak, buzz words, technical terms and abbreviations. Okay so some of the terms are linked but I was just taken to another article with management speak, buzz words, technical terms and abbreviations. As a layman, I found it almost impossible to finish reading. Sorry. I hope someone who is a bit more au fait with the subject will review it too--Ykraps (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently, too promotional, e.g. solutions that help organizations develop, manage, reward and optimize organizational talent to maximize workforce productivity - how can you verify this claim?


 * The whole "Products" section is not encyclopaedic, see WP:NOT


 * Things like this forrester report do not appear to be truly independent reliable sources - it looks like paid-for PR?


 * We strongly recommend that users with a conflict of interest do not try to write articles about subjects that they are involved with; if this applies, consider helping us to edit other articles instead; if the company is notable, then eventually someone else will write about it.


 * If you want to help improve Wikipedia in general, that's great, and we'll help as much as you like. But if you only wish to ensure we cover this particular company, then you will run into difficulties; check the business FAQ.  Chzz  ► 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but words such as "optimize", "maximize", "operating performance", "streamline", "drive innovation" are example of Peacock words, or PR-lingo, usually a sign of an article written more like an advertisement than neutral coverage. I believe this would require a fundamental rewrite to become acceptable, preferably from someone else if you have a  WP:COI--  SPhilbrick  T  23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Smoked Bear review requested
I've move an article to the mainspace from my user space. It was reviewed here by SPhilbrick  T  and by Nuujinn (talk). The review can be found at [User/Smoked Bear].

Would someone please remove the "new unreviewed article" tag. [Smoked Bear] TnCom (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The citations need to be inline. SPhilbrick  T  16:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by SPhilbrick, yo do need some inline citations, maybe some external links. An info box and picture are always useful also. ~ Qwerp  Qwertus    ·  _Talk_ · (Talkback Me) ·   21:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you also need to try and add a few more links to other articles if you can. You already have two links, but they don't lead anywhere. Don't remove them, though, as a page may be created eventually, and then the link will work. Chevy  monte  carlo  15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Immersive Education Initiative
User:Eaglebc13/immersiveeducation

This page talks about the collaboration of schools in the immersive education initiative, an initiative to teach through virtual and immersive worlds.

Eaglebc13 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job, but I would recommend the following improvements...
 * Adding Reliable References - References prove the notability, or importance of the subject, why it should be included in an encyclopedia. You :should add more from places that show this, such as a newspaper or bod website that is not theirs.
 * Adding Reliable Sources - Sources show where you got your info from and that it is reliable\accurate.
 * Inline Citations - Show where you got sections of information within the text - they are especially important for somewhat controversial topics.
 * Adding Pictures - You can always use a good photo!
 * Expanding It - It is a bit short and needs expansion.
 * Adding An Infobox - Info-boxes are always good for an article - they help people see the most important info.
 * 
 * Good job though! If you have any questions or need help improving, or publishing it to Wikipedia, feel free to contact me here or visit my page :here. I would also recommend possibly reading this.~ Qwerp  Qwertus    ·  _Talk_ · (Talkback Me) ·   03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)