Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 15

Tom Carolan
Could someone please review and let me know if it be taken off the "unreviewed category"? Thanks

Blastjacket (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ But you still need to fix the WP:Bare URLs in the ELs, you have a couples lists of artists that don't appear to have a footnote to verify them, etc. Minor formatting issue: you only have to "pipe" a wikilink (using "|") when the name you want to display is different from the actual article title, but this does not count "_" . So, Jewel is great, but Stone Temple Pilots should just be Stone Temple Pilots. Nice work overall, just needs some footnote tweaking. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Drgao/List_of_diseases_associated_with_infectious_pathogens
This new medical science page: User:Drgao/List_of_diseases_associated_with_infectious_pathogens was started from scratch in my userspace. This suggested new page is intended to fill the gap in Wikipedia's medical science coverage in the area of: pathogens that have been associated with human diseases. This is a large area of current medical research, and has no dedicated page.

Pathogens that have been associated with human diseases differ from pathogens that have already been proven to cause disease, the latter being those pathogens included on Wikipedia's List of infectious diseases. Pathogens associated with disease may, or may not, turn out to cause that disease, depending on what science eventually discovers. A large part of medical science revolves around finding pathogens statistically associated with disease, in the quest to uncover the etiology of a disease. So I felt that this new page is needed.

My page as it stands is about half complete. A lot of research work has been put into finding (and referencing by proper Wikipedia standards) various important pathogen-disease associations.

What I would like to know is: is this new page, assuming it is acceptable, ready to go live, as it stands? I ask this because I really need some help in completing the page (finding more pathogen-disease associations to list). Thus going live may attract other people to help complete the page. I know that there are lots of stub pages on Wikipedia, and this new page has got much further than a stub.

Many thanks for your advice on this.

Drgao (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you may want to work on List of infectious diseases. It seems to have the same subject matter. Your introduction would probably be very useful there, and we really need more citations in that list. Style-wise, your writing seems to be a little essay-like, which is to be avoided. Also, you need to add some categories. But other than that... WOW. Those are beautiful citations, and I think having a blurb describing each disease would be very good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, don't be afraid to nominate the improved list at the suggestion page for Did You Know? Or, I can add it for you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Crisco. Thanks very much for reviewing the page. I will take up you suggestion that a small description of each disease could be added (although the title of each disease is a wiki link to the wiki page for each disease).


 * Note that this new page is different to (but complements) the List of infectious diseases, so both pages really need to be kept.


 * Here is an analogy to understand the difference between them: the List of infectious diseases page comprises the diseases that are definitively proven to be caused by pathogens, proven guilty in the court of science; whereas my page lists those disease/pathogen suspects awaiting trial in scientific court; in future, if the disease/pathogen associations on my page are also found guilty, then these could in theory be moved to the proven guilty List of infectious diseases page; but if found innocent, then a disease/pathogen association would be removed completely from both pages.


 * In other words, my page is a list of disease/pathogen suspects awaiting trial; and the List of infectious diseases page is a list of disease/pathogen suspects already convicted.


 * What I am trying to do in the intro text on my page is make this distinction clear, for even the layman. Perhaps you can give some advice on how to do this, so that the reader understands the difference between awaiting trial and already convicted. The court metaphor I have used here is perhaps a little crass?


 * I take you point, though, that my intro is a little essay-like. I will see if I can chop out a few unnecessary details and make it more punchy. This will hopefully make the article clearer.


 * Great analogy, but I think that it may work best as a single article, with the list reformated as a table.


 * And so on. Naturally, of course, that would take a bit of discussion to reach a consensus... not to mention it would be a lot of work. But Rome was not built in a day... Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point, and there are some clear advantages to the approach you mention. A comprehensive reference is one. The disadvantage, though, is that it would be more difficult to quickly glance through a List of infectious diseases if half-finished scientific research (which is what my page essentially comprises) were included in the List of infectious diseases, especially as there are BY FAR more disease associations (when I manage to finish my list) than there are proven cases. Also, many listed associations will turn out to be spurious (ie, turn out to not cause disease) - thus you will be mixing fact with speculation.


 * In other words, the two pages have different context and flavor: the List of infectious diseases comes under established medical fact. My new page comes under unproven medical research, and the intro text explains the nature of this medical research (and without this intro, the lists on my page would be without context, hard to understand for the average reader). My intro would not be appropriate for a page on established infectious diseases.  If anything, the  List of infectious diseases might be tacked on to the bottom of the infectious diseases page, where there is already an appropriate introduction to the subject.


 * Another argument for separate pages is that the diseases listed on my page mostly are chronic diseases, that are common ailments in developed countries, and by convention are not really thought of as infectious diseases - the latter are what you typically catch in tropical jungles, many of which finish you of very quickly. Even if it were proven, for example, that Epstein-Barr virus causes multiple sclerosis in a small percentage of people that catch it, I am not sure if the medical profession will be labeling MS as a classic infectious disease (but we should get advice on this). If you look at even the proven cases listed on my page (like Squamous cell carcinoma for example), these are technically infectious diseases, but they don't seem to be viewed as a classical infectious disease.


 * Is there a way to contact the medical portal on Wikipedia, and get some advice on this? It would be good to get the opinion of some MD's and medical researchers that frequent Wiki. Adding the classic infectious diseases will not harm my page, so I don't mind, but there may be Wikipedians from the infectious disease pages that will not like it. Drgao (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A more expert opinion can probably be obtained at WikiProject Medicine. You have very good arguments, and I must admit my medical knowledge is not very in-depth (I don't catch many mistakes in House, for example). From an article construction standpoint, your list is very good. For a better consensus on whether a merger is desirable or other ways to improve your article from a content perspective, perhaps WikiProject Medicine would be a good place to try. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This userspace draft page has now gone live. See here: List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens. Drgao (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Armchairs
Is this how I am supposed to respond to this? This window is a bit confusing. As for the page, Thanks for your input. I added the categories. I ran the tool for fixing the references. It seemed to do something, but I don't see what the difference is. I ran it again and it says that it doesn't need anything. Is that right? Thanks -Andrew

Hello. This is my first page. I would appreciate it if someone would review this site. I had some trouble formatting it. I couldn't get the first line to indent (it made a weird box around part of the text) and I can't get the last little paragraph to indent without the line below indenting with it. I would like to know who other criticisms you may have. Thanks!

Diggerbabydaggerbaby (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall not bad, and your sourcing (the absolute key thing) seems to pass muster. You need to fix your references though to be proper WP:Citations, also avoid "see Note 1" or "Ibid" or similar, since the order of footnotes can change over time. Instead read WP:REFNAME to see how to deal with multiple uses of the same ref. Your footnotes also need to be formatted better, see WP:Citations. You also need to add WP:Categories, and on the Discussion page add WP:WikiProjects. That should about do it. You can also email someone with pics of the band and get them to release one to the WP:Creative Commons so you can upload it. Feel free to post back with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tavis Smiley (TV Series)
To Whom It May Concern,

I noticed that there was confusion on Wikipedia about the different shows hosted by journalist Tavis Smiley. This is understandable because he has many different self-titled programs on radio and television. There was, however, no page for the late-night show he hosts weeknights on PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/). I did notice that there was a redirect if one entered in the search box Tavis Smiley (show), which sent the user to a section of The Tavis Smiley Show page. This redirect is incorrect usage and confusing because that show is a syndicated radio talk show that has no connection to the late-night talk show he hosts, other than the fact that he is the one hosting it. This redirect should be changed and made appropriate. Furthermore, and finally, because of the use of his name, it is difficult to allow the brackets to be put around the references to the late-night show in the article about him found at Tavis Smiley. This, simply put, is because the name of the PBS show that I made the page for and his name are identical, so Wikipedia thinks I am trying to link his page from his page. This needs to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable about redirection and linking than I. Please let me know what you all think.

Luke

Inquisitarian (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Touchphonics
I need someone to review this article for me. It says I need more reliable sources but I have sources/links listed that are from print magazines as well as very big online sites. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchphonics

Esptoyou (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've got a couple things to fix:


 * Some of your refs don't quite make WP:Reliable sources, but setting that aside for the moment.
 * Your "footnotes" aren't footnotes, they're just clustered at the bottom of the article. "Footnotes" should be footnoted to the facts that they verify. So read up on WP:Footnotes and figure out where to put your tags.
 * You need to add WP:Categories, as specific as possible. Check out a bio for a similar musician to get an idea of what to use.
 * You have WP:Bare URLs in your footnotes, you need to turn those into proper WP:Citations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A few things to work on, then check back in here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Multnomah Greyhound Park
I need someone to edit this article and provide feedback. It is new and has the template.

Jakobees (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Good overall, though a couple more references couldn't hurt. The main thing you need to fix is that most of your citations are incomplete. You have an article name with a link (good) and an access date (good), but what you don't have is "The Oregonian, 14 April 1984" and suchlike. Take a glance at WP:Citations and tune-up your footnote cites to ensure all the basic info is given. Otherwise, looking good and nice pic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Patrick C. Shea
This is a new unreviewed article. I am requesting a reviewer to review the same so that it is no longer an unreviewed article. Thank you.

Stilly4 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Good overall, and nice work on sourcing. Mainly, can you narrow down the cat "American lawyers" into 1 or more of its subcats? Also, on WP we don't call folks "Mr", "Dr", etc., just call him by last name once he's been introduced. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it needs to be moved to conform with the guideline for name usage. We normally don't use middle names in article titles. Don't worry though, I've moved it for you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sourdonuts/Hyomin (Park Sun Young)
I just added a page about Hyomin from T-ara. Please help give me feedback to improve it. Please review it thanks!

Sourdonuts (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your article was up for WP:Speedy Deletion due to sourcing, so I've userified it for drafting for you. The formatting isn't bad (though note you can't just link to external photographs), but the main issue is that most of your sources don't appear to meet WP:Reliable sources. AllKpop appears to be more like a blog and forums than any official news-site. Nave appears to be like Facebook. Soompi looks like a forum. So overall Kukinews seems like the only possible RS you have. What you need are more authoritative sources backing up your info. I suggest you read WP:RS to get a feel for it, and maybe ask for some help at WP:WikiProject Korea if you're not sure what sources might pass WP:RS. Again, format and such look solid, this is purely an issue of reliable sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Dante8/Deaf Women United
I did an article on Deaf Women United. It would be great if somebody could please review it. Thank you.

Dante8 (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings, your article has a few issues to address. Most importantly, all your sourcing is to DWU; such does not make an article, but a mission statement. What you need, and this is also to address WP:Notability requirements, is 'independent, reliable, substantive coverage. That is, information drawn from unaffiliated sources, which are professional news/academic sources (not blogs, forums, FaceBook, etc), and are more than just a passing mention. I've userified your draft to your Userpage to keep it safe from proposed deletion while you work at adding third-party references. Now located here: User:Dante8/Deaf Women United. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Irooloo/Ocean Grove Band
< I am not sure if my article is appropriate for wikipedia so, I would like you to check it out and tell me what you think! Thank you in advance! -->

Irooloo (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Eyesofbabylon/Jeff Key
I need to know what exactly I need to do to correct the issues that this entry has. This is my first Wikipedia entry and I need very specific guidance, not general categories of what the issues may be. Thank you!

Eyesofbabylon (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can give specific advice, but you're still going to have to read some basic writing and formatting policies, which I'll link here. I've also "userified" your article (moved it from articlespace to your personal userspace) for drafting, as it is not yet ready to be a public article. To address the maintenance templates another editor added:


 * Its external links may not comply with Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.: this means that the links to other sites which occur "in-line" in the main body of your text need to be removed. For example, the term "59E59 Theater" either needs to link to a Wikipedia article 59E59 Theater (if one exists) or not link at all. The only place where there should be links leading off Wikipedia in-line are in footnotes/references, "external links", and "further reading". So get rid of all of those.
 * It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. : the main issue here is that you don't use WP:Wikilinks to link to other articles. Note how in a normal WP article there are words in blue that you click to go to other articles; you don't do that here. To add those, just put double-brackets around words, but not random words, specific terms people might want to read more about. So don't link "artist", but do link "postmodernism"; don't link "New York City" since most people at least know of the term, but do link "Bangor, Maine", etc.
 * It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest (CoI) with the subject matter. : Your username is the same as the play, so it's a likely assumption that you came here to promote the play, rather than to actually contribute neutrally to an encyclopedia. I advise you leave some comment on the Discussion page noting your CoI. You don't have to give you name or contact info, but something like "I'm a relative of the writer", "I work for a theater that's putting on the work", etc. to be transparent about it. Note also the advice left on your Talk page about changing your account name.
 * The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.  and This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. The problem right now is you have a large article, and your sole references are two footnotes, both to a page for the play. You need to read up on WP:Reliable sources and WP:References to understand how referencing works. This is especially important since this is a biography of a living person, so we want to be sure things are accurate so nobody is libeled. For any given portion of your article, we should be easily able to tell by looking at the footnote where the information came from. Note that per WP:Notability, we need to see proof that other people are talking about this person, so we need to see independent, reliable, substantive coverage about this person. So not blogs/FaceBook/fansites/YouTube/forums, but citations to newspapers, journals, etc. Fortunately, it seems the subject has a decent amount of coverage online, so look through Google, figure out which sources seem like professional news/events, see what they wrote, and use that to footnote the article.
 * This article's tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia. : this is your second-biggest problem, WP:Tone. A WP page is not a press release, a promo, a secondary personal website, etc. It is an encyclopedia, and so needs to have WP:Neutral point of view and be phrased in unemotional terms. To give a quick copy/paste of phrasings you use that just aren't encyclopedic: "The depth of his descent into chaos and turmoil ... and craved something more fulfilling... His straight buddies... He has more stories to tell about his journey"


 * Fundamentally, yes this is a notable subject and should have an article written about it. The intro portion and "The Eyes of Babylon" section are actually pretty close to decent if they can be properly footnoted. The "Biography" section gets into more detail that I expect you'll be able to footnote, and personal experience or things you've read on forums or heard in conversations are not admissible. The Bio section would need the dramatic tone turned to a more practical one, and all assertions would have to be backed up by some kind of footnoting.


 * Feel free to post back to this same thread with any questions, but these issues must be addressed before moving the article back to articlespace. As a safety measure, unreferenced BLPs are generally swiftly deleted, to ensure the subject's reputation is not compromised by unsubstantiated content. First things first: sourcing. After that, remove anything you can't verify using your sourcing, then ensure the tone is encyclopedic. Remove any in-line external links, and add in-line links to other Wikipedia articles (WP:Wikilinks).


 * Is that about what you needed to know? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Remote and Virtual Tower
This is my first new article at Wikipedia.

Want general feedback on this article to further improve my future contributions

Thanks in advance!

Olepstorstad (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Jama-Coaque Ecological Reserve
Does anyone see any reason why this article should not be posted? I have been trying to post this article for a while but don't know how to do it.

Jerrytoth (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your article is already "posted"; it's in articlespace indeed. If it were in your Userspace, you'd see "User:Jerrytoth/" in front of the title. Looks good overall, but needs WP:Categories, and footnote #6 is misformatted somehow so not working as a link. Otherwise, looks nice. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)