Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 14

Women Employed
Hi. I just added this article on Women Employed, a 37-year-old Chicago organization that works on issues facing working women. It's my first article, and it's currently unreviewed. I'd love it if someone would review it, and if you'd provide any feedback. Thanks!

Wemhoffj (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's mostly OK.


 * I removed some inappropriate external links - see WP:EL.


 * I reformatted it a little; you do not need an == Introduction == heading, instead you just begin with the name in bold; the actual name of the page forms the 'heading' - see WP:LEDE.


 * For external links, you can use this format;

*Homepage
 * Homepage


 * I removed the 'unreviewed' tag.  Chzz  ► 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the feedback, and for reviewing the article! User:Wemhoffj

User:Metalla515/Artemis Fowl: The Album
My article is about an unreleased compilation album that I have made up, and this is a request for it to go live.

Metalla515 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Wikipedia is not for things you invent. Unless the album is produced by some record label, and gets reviewed in newspapers, we can't have an article about it - see WP:VRS, and WP:FIRST.  Chzz  ► 04:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Krain Court/ADMAP GAS
Having problems with the notability???

Krain Court (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This looks like original research, which is not permitted. Articles can only be based upon already published information - from newspapers, research papers, books, or whatever.


 * To pass the Wikipedia 'notability' requirements, such independent reliable sources are required; you have to say where the facts come from, and show the reader where they could check it, using inline references to reliable sources - see WP:REFB.


 * Also, please check conflict of interest guidelines.  Chzz  ► 08:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

David Musselwhite
Hi, this is my first new article, on a UK literary critic/author, so I'm just hoping someone can check it for me and make any necessary suggestions; thanks!

Proof64 (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 1, the link didn't work; I fixed it.


 * I added details to the references, using the template.

Generally, I think it is OK; I removed the 'unreviewed' tag. You might want to add a and. See also WP:DEVELOP. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 08:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is generally ok. I've made some minor edits. I agree with the need for the a and . Good luck! (KatyLynnScarlett)

Capernaum
I want to improve the article but I'm not sure where to start. Would appreciate some help.

Est.r (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably, Capernaum


 * The first, most important thing is the referencing. Currently, there are sections with no references at all, for example "Description" - there are many claims there, and they have no reference, so they are not verifiable and appear to be original research, which is not permitted. E.g. an ample north-south main street - according to who? The claim that it is 'ample' is subjective, so without a reference it is not neutral.


 * Other parts have a 'reference' in brackets, but not in the usual footnote format, e.g. low windows (Loffreda, 1984). - for help on how to reference things, see WP:REFB.


 * This is the main issue with the article: all the facts need an inline reference to an appropriate reliable source. Keep it neutral, and only state verifiable facts.  Chzz  ► 08:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Portus Theodosiacus
Could someone review my new article? Thanks.

Est.r (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)