Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 April 16

History of Columbia University
Nowhereman86 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agaricus cupreobrunneus
I'm pretty sure I didn't screw up anything too badly, but I've never created an article before, so outside comments would be welcome.

Kevin (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only things I found to tweak were that you had one extra blank line between sections, and you didn't bullet listed items with an asterisk, but that aside (and I fixed them) you look great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Kevin (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Lfp98/EVcort
This is an article on the EVcort electric vehicle, which was manufactured from 1981 to 1994. Although only a few EVcorts were produced each year, the car is historically notable because it incorporated features such as regenerative braking and a complex battery charging protocol, that are common in EVs today but were quite innovative at the time.

Lfp98 (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice article, very interesting. The first paragraph is a bit long - I think it should have a short non-technical lead section, which summarises the main points of the article, and then the second paragraph could go into more detail. I've added it to a category by adding the text, you could find ideas for more categories by looking at similar articles. Best, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Beatrice Helen Worsley
It would be great if somebody could review my new article about Beatrice Helen Worsley. I know the refs are crappy, I will fix them when I get a chance. Thanks.

Dante8 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice article, interesting woman. It would be a bit more readable broken into shorter paragraphs. The references need a tidy as you know, I suggest using WP:REFNAME where you use the same reference multiple times. Best, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Smilingdork/Lukas_Biewald
I've written this biography of CrowdFlower CEO Lukas Biewald. Does it appear ready to publish?

Smilingdork (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Meets WP:Notability, so you're good on the most common problem. Most of your footnotes are well-done citations, but #2, 3, 4, and 5 need to be formatted in that similar clean, clickable link, full who/what/where/when citation style you use in the others.  Also, you're creating sub-sections before you have sections.  The big sections get == around the headings, the subs get ===, but you jump right to ===. Shouldn't take you more than a minute to fix.  You also want to add a few more categories, something along the lines of "Businessmen in California" or "American internet entrepreneurs" or whatever cats are out there.  Also the cats "Living people" and "1981 births". MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:GarethHRoberts/Marc Hostert
Marc Hostert This is my first article. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

GarethHRoberts (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings, your article is not ready for publication, so I'm moved it to your Userspace for drafting: User:GarethHRoberts/Marc Hostert. The primary issue is that the article does not document Notability per the standards of WP:Notability (people). That is not to say that Hostert is not literally "notable", but that you have not provided footnotes which demonstrate that reputable academics or media are discussing him.  Please review that policy, and provide in-line footnotes (WP:Footnotes) to verify the statements made in the article; this is also for Hostert's protection, as biographies of living people must be documented by source to ensure accuracy and prevent libel.  Aside from that, your article needs categories (WP:Categories), and also it's not WP format to include "external links" within article text.  Actual footnotes go in the text, but simple links to "European University Institute in Florence" aren't done.  Now, you can double-bracket a term to link it to its WP article, as in European University Institute in Florence, but otherwise links to external websites must go in "Further reading", "Sources", "External links" etc. sections at the bottom.  So, a few fixes to knock out. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ajl772/AfC/Shame On Me (song)
I've been working on this article for a little bit, and I have been doing lots of Google searches to find information about it.

I'm worried though, that if I move this to mainspace that it might get CSD'd/PROD'd/AFD'd for lack of notability because of a (possible) lack of reliable sources. Are the sources I have provided so far reliable enough? I believe the song is notable, since it is being played on many different radio stations, and is not an "independent record label". Granted, the label company is brand-new, but I am also working on creating that article as well. Please feel free to take a look at that one here). I also plan to make an article for the singer as well.

I do know I need to work on the cite web references more. – Ajltalk 23:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I know I also need to add it to categories too. – Ajltalk 23:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Katrina doesn't have an article. Is that because she's not notable or just that nobody's bothered? I haven't edited any music-related articles so maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I've done a quick search on Google and the song doesn't seem to be very notable (once you get past the itunes/youtube/katrina's own website results). Also note that one of your references doesn't seem to work. . The second reference is from her own website. And the third one, from iheartradio, just proves that the song exist. I don't think it's a notability-provider. Anyway, this seems like a non-notable song, it will probably get AfDed. Though, as I said, I have not dealt with many music-related articles before so you might want to wait for an expert to comment. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Notability (music) you really do need multiple neutral, third-party refs for Notability. This doesn't mean that the song is literally not "notable", it just means that we don't have enough citeable info about the song from anyone not directly involved with it to be able to write a neutral article. Maybe just keep the draft here, move on and write some other articles, and in six months see if there's any news coverage about the song that you can use to establish Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Zlqq2144: Hmmm, that's odd... it worked when I first retrieved it.
 * @MatthewVanitas: Ok, thank you for your comments. I will hold off on it for a while.
 * – Ajltalk 23:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What type of information counts as "third-party"? Do radio station events (i.e. a lounge performance) count as being notable enough? Or if they are not notable by themselves, do a number of them add up to being notable? – Ajltalk 23:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)