Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 29

i'am try to add girlfriend of matthew staton bomer
i.am the girlfreind of matthew bomer

tiffany haggerty 06:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skye1987 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but relationships are only added to articles if they can be supported in reliable sources. You'll need to show that it's documented in print rather than get us to take your word for it. —C.Fred (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Lundberry/Harleysville_Group_Inc
This is an article about an insurance company that is fairly well recognized within the insurance industry. I tried to summarize the company in good detail within it. But Iam not sure if it is acceptable to supplant info from the company on here as well since the company is able to give relevant factual info about mergers and the such.

Lundberry (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Gulf Bridge International
Seeking feedback for article.

Is a short summary of GBI, a communications company connecting the middle east to the world. Their most recent mentions in international press have been added as references.

Umair785 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Umair, unfortunately you have only referenced three press releases. Articles require independent reliable sources, to show why the subject is notable. Please also read the business FAQ, and see WP:CORP for more details on the requirements for these type of article.  Chzz  ► 01:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Emmasinclair/Association of Management & Professional Staffs
Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the feedback, great advice, I have changed the tone to be less advertorial and removed some content. I have contacted the Union and unfortunately they do not have any 3rd party impartial mentions for the notibility criteria, could they perhaps have a stub entry. They are a bona fide union who operated in the shadows of Unite Union, and as such find it difficult to be found. Thanks for noticing the name, I will correct this if it is worth continuing with the process. thanks again Emma

Emmasinclair (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but all articles - regardless of the subject - must demonstrate notability, with independent reliable sources. To quote from the core policy on verifiability,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.


 * Please see WP:VRS. For further information on the requirement, see WP:ORG.  Chzz  ► 01:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ayke Agus
Please comment on Ayke Agus, an article I just wrote on a classical musician.

Russellbyrne (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall it looks pretty good, but there are some issues: 1) There are numerous claims that could do with some sources like the biographical claims (for example her ethnic background -- if that's contained within her book then it would still be helpful to add the citation to that spot), the Julliard scholarship offer and all the other claims about school and affiliations. 2) Read up on WP:LOWERCASE which will basically tell you that all the words after the first one in a section heading should not be capitalized unless they are proper names. For example it should be "Career as a musician" instead of "Career As a Musician". 3) The biggest problem I see is with the images.  According to the information you provided with the files they are taken from her website but I do not see anything on her website that licenses use on Wikipedia, see WP:IUP for information on this. In fact this is such a serious problem that they should be removed from the article since it appears we are violating copyright laws by having them here. SQGibbon (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. 1) I added some more citations to her book, her website, and updated one of the reviews of her playing with more specific information.  2) I've fixed the capitalization in the section headings.  3) I think you misread what I wrote in the metadata for the images.  The first image mentions that it's the same as the one on her website, but that I obtained it directly from her.  I updated the other images to reflect this too.  Can you or someone else remove the "unreviewed" link now?  Thanks, Russellbyrne (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome. I removed the "unreviewed" tag.  The images are still an issue though.  I don't doubt that you got her permission to use the images but as I'm sure you understand you saying so isn't good enough by Wikipedia standards.  Unfortunately I do not understand exactly how to proceed from here but I'm pretty sure if you start with these folks WP:OTRS that'll get you going in the right direction. You might also want to read WP:DCP.  Maybe another editor will pipe in with more specific instructions.  In any case, nice job on the article. SQGibbon (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was quick! No worries, you pointed me in the right direction re: the images.  I'm going to follow the procedure outlined here.  Thanks again. Russellbyrne (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just finished my part of the Requesting_copyright_permission process, and I added a "OTRS pending" tag to all three image descriptions. Russellbyrne (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Taylornate/Flap surgery
This is my first time writing an article from scratch, so I'm looking for any kind of feedback on it. I'd also like to know if it is far enough along to bring it live. I wrote a lot of it by summarizing info from a textbook. I've cited the textbook chapters as well as the primary sources that the textbook itself cited. Is this legit? Taylornate (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and brought it live, but I'm still looking for feedback.--Taylornate (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reads good. The only thing I might suggest is talking about its relationship to plastic surgery. Maybe some examples too like how it's done with oral surgery, different kinds of injury, etc. Just a thought. Warthan58 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks.--Taylornate (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Terilg/Best_Radio_You_Have_Never_Heard_podcast
just looking for feedback before posting live. added additional references as this subject has gotten more coverage.

Terilg (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To me this article looks like an advertisement. See WP:NPOV.  If you are involved in this podcast then you have a conflict of interest and this article may not be appropriate.  See WP:COI.--Taylornate (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Themoporometry and Cryoporometry methods of measuring porosity, Gibbs-Thomson equation, Strange-Rahman-Smith equation
Hi, I have been writing 3 related articles for a while, and have just made them go live. They discuss a method of measuring pore-size distributions that is now nearly 2 decades old, with a number of published papers and review articles, the prime ones of which are cited. This technique may well be relevant to the very active subject of Biochar. Note, there was a prior article titled Gibbs-Thomson Effect that actually discussed a different but closely related equation - I asked for discussion and advice. The original article was I believe strictly the Ostwald–Freundlich equation, so I moved it there. Suggestions and advice strongly welcomed. Dr.BeauWebber (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is far from my field. But one thing to say is that wikipedia articles should not be based on what you "believe" but what is paraphrased from cited sources. Ostwald–Freundlich equation has no sources at all, and claims to be the Gibbs–Thomson effect in the body. If you have sources that say it is something else, please add them to that article and change its body. The new Gibbs-Thomson equation has some style problems (no lead to establish context, not a complete sentence) but does cite sources. Some of the sources appear to be your own papers, which is a conflict of interest but they seem in reliable publications that have been peer reviewed, so much better than most. Since there are no links to Ostwald–Freundlich equation it might have been just merged into a related article, but not sure which. I will try to give examples of the style issues and trust you with the technical correctness until we ever get a second person who knows this field (which should be given in the lead, whatever it is). W Nowicki (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Petrov, O.; Furo, I. (references 3 & 8) are the main other people working in this field. I will send them an email to comment. In the existing discussion : '"Gibbs-Thomson equation" used interchangeably with "Ostwald–Freundlich equation" in ALLAN S. MYERSON (Ed.); Handbook of industrial crystallization, Second Edition; Butterworth–Heinemann, Boston; 2002; 313 pp.' This was not any version of the "Gibbs-Thomson equation" I had ever seen, so just assume it must be the "Ostwald–Freundlich equation", which I do not know.

User:Warthan58/Hill Top IT New Article, 1st one, want to get it right.
It's a new article. It's the first one I've done, so I want to get it 100% right before going live with it. Warthan58 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a direct interest in this company?--Taylornate (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have a relationship with them, but I don't make money from them. I've done my best to avoid a COI and remain neutral; which is why I asked for feedback before going live. I studied the entries of half a dozen other similiar businesses before writing this one. But if the real question is if I had no relationship with them, would I still make the entry? Knowing what I know about them, the answer is yes. Warthan58 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A COI is something you have or you don't, and you can't avoid it by writing a certain way. The problem other than COI is notability.  The general notability guideline states a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG).  Ignoring your COI, I don't think your article demonstrates notability because there are only two references and they don't seem to state anything other than the fact that the business exists.  The Forbes article does not mention Hill Top.  I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I think the most appropriate thing for you to do, because of your COI, is to step away from the article.  If the topic is truly notable, then someone without a COI will eventually write about it (WP:SPIP).--Taylornate (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I don't have a COI according to the strict guidelines set forth in COI. In my opinion, Notability is very subjective and judgemental, and when I look at other similiar businesses to figure out how notability really works, all I see is that they exist and have a few references.  I'm missing why they're notable and why Hill Top is not; it seems like it's all the same thing.    E.g.: Caiman Consulting, Small Dog Electronics, Nabih's Inc., Haddock Corporation, Tekserve; they're all Apple Specialists and part of WP:BUSNS.  Now the Forbes article link's to the definition of Stuxnet written by Hill Top, and go's to it on Hill Top's website, but I can see where that may not be notable since they don't actually talk about Hill Top; I'll remove that.


 * I'm not sure what strict guidelines you are referring to, but from your username I suspect you are related to Eric Warthan which could put you under [| close relationships]. You already mentioned that you have some kind of relationship with the business.  I told you specifically why I think your article is not notable, that it only has 2 outside sources that say nothing more than the business exists.  As for the articles you linked to, it is possible that some of them don't meet the notability guidelines and you would be free to challenge them.  I will give you my opinion on what might make them notable:


 * Caiman Consulting: National recognition for "Top 10 Best Small Firms to Work For"
 * Small Dog Electronics: Mentioned in a book "Cool Careers for Dummies"
 * Nabih's Inc.: "one of the oldest Apple Inc. authorized resellers"
 * Haddock Corporation: Wrote software that was widely distributed
 * Tekserve:  "the largest single-location Apple Specialist in the United States."


 * BTW, I do appreciate your criticism and feedback. I will disclose all potential COI in my user page before posting the article.  As far as the notability, I'll work on it and try to improve the article (and will ask for further review), and I do appreciate your feedback.  The only other question I have left is (besides COI and notability), is it written well?  Does it read and flow correctly?  Does it sound neutral, etc.?  I am trying to learn.  :) Warthan58 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In that regard I think it's fine.--Taylornate (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, alas, a company that just has satisfied customers is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. The irony is if there was, say, a big scandal or lawsuit about the company it would be written up in newspapers and then might be notable (like politicians). If, say, you can get something like local newspaper confirming the Stuxnet connection, that might help. Although calling it a "logic-bomb" is colloqial I think. W Nowicki (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)