Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 5

Fudan Fuzhong Overseas Foundation
Please help review and kindly provide feedback on the article. Thx! Zhang18 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The layout is good, but per Notability (organizations and companies) it is absolutely mandatory that you provide multiple footnotes to independent sources. For an encyclopedia article, it isn't enough to let an organisation talk about itself; that's what corporate/organisational websites are for. What you need is media or academic coverage to verify this information and provide outside, objective perspective. Please read the Notability policy linked above, and see if you can find academic or news media coverage (preferably online, though not required to be) about this organisation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added some outside media sources. Please help review and remove the tags at the top of the article if possible? Thx! Zhang18 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Steady state topography
Richard042 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you should take a look at the different guides and policies available in the welcome box I sent you at your talk page. It will help you with stuff like formatting and whatnot. A few more things:
 * Some editors prefer having at least one online source. There should be some available, and they will improve the article.
 * You should not use multiple citations for each sentence, per the style guides.
 * Titles are usually at the most common name, so the (SST) was removed in a move (not by me).
 * You should try and find some categories to fit this in, to help others find it.
 * This is more of a personal valuation than anything, but perhaps less technical language could be used to make it more accessible.

Good article! Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jean1980/Daraka Larimore-Hall
The last time I used non-scientific journal references, the internet was just getting started. Can someone please help me turn my abbreviated list of Daraka Larimore-Hall's writings into something more coherent?

Jean1980 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion should take place at your talk page. I have posted there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "His" who? Your post does not indicate which article you're referring to. Please provide a link to your article rather than just posting a question as your section title. I've fixed it for you, but in then future please assume that other's don't know what you're referring to until you provide a link. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, a couple points: don't capitalise section titles, just capitalise the first word and any proper nouns (so "Sentence caps" not "Book Caps" either). Second, you'll want to "tuck" your links into the titles; note how I "tucked" your first entry under "Writing"; please do that with your links and footnotes. You also need to add WP:Categories; specific as possible, so not "Unions" but "American union organizers" or whatever the name of a currently existing category is. Suggest you find articles on similar political figures and use their cats as inspiration. Lastly, and very importantly, currently all your refs come from sources politically linked/similar to the subject. What you want is to find some more neutral sourcing to balance out the article, like newspaper articles, etc. Even articles critical of the subject are fine, and prove that you're addressing the issue neutrally, so long as they come from WP:Reliable sources (not blogs, Facebook, fansites, etc). Hope this gives you some ideas on how to fine-tune. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I fixed the capitalization and the formatting of the links in the "writings" section. I also added a link to an article by The Santa Barbara Independent, the county newspaper. I'll look for some more and try and fill out the categories. I believe I remember him running for city council of the city santa barbara in the late 90s, but I haven't found anything online so far. Jean1980


 * Also check out GoogleBooks: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&biw=1252&bih=833&q=Daraka%20Larimore-Hall&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp . Note that you can auto-format any gBooks citation by just pasting the URL into http://reftag.appspot.com (an awesome tool). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a great tool, thanks. I've added categories and a few more writings further flesh it out.  Do I now need to wait 2 more days to publish it?  Jean1980 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You still need to tuck/format your references. Check out WP:Citations for full details, but basically you want something like: author (if applicable). Title (linked to external website if available). Publisher (or webhost), date of publication (if available). Accessed-date. Right now it's hard to read all the details of each footnote at a glance. I'd say do that, and then good to publish. If you don't have Move privileges by then, just post right back here and one of us will publish it for you. If you happen to be familiar with people involved in this group, I suggest you see if you can get them to release a photo of the subject to Creative Commons (like public domain); then you can file a [[WP:OTRS] ticket validating the freeness of the photo and upload it. In an ideal world, all bios should have photos, so if you can get one without undue hassle it'd be a nice touch. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help with the references. I think I have them all done although I tried an in-line reference to the union's bylaws I found, but not sure I referenced them correctly.  I don't have access to a photo in the public domain.  I'd appreciate help moving it as I don't have move privileges yet.   Jean1980 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Avoca Beach Rural Fire Brigade
This is a short article on the history and background to the Avoca Beach Rural Fire Brigade. A volunteer brigade in Avoca Beach, Central Coast, New South Wales, Australia. The history is hard to cite since it's passed down from old - timers but the links to our Department (New South Wales Rural Fire Service) are pretty solid. It has current officers and previous captains. Thanks heaps.

Leigh.pilkington (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings, interesting article, but needs some fixes. You need to add WP:Categories, as specific as possible. I've also removed some info that was not specific to the ABRFB (general-interest articles on brushfire) as external links must be specific to the immediate topic (the ABRFB). I also removed the personnel rosters; given that these people aren't famous for something other than ABRFB, there's really no enlightenment value to a casual reader to see a list of unfamiliar names; such info is better left on the official brigade website, which is conveniently linked at the bottom of the article.


 * The primary issue you have is that your article is dependent upon WP:Primary sources, that is, the ABRFB speaking about itself, when what you need is other people writing about the unit. I do caution you that including "what everybody knows" is not encylcopedic, and runs afoul of WP:Original research. For example, asking a retired firefighter about the history and writing it here is OR, and not part of what an encyclopedia does. On the other hand, if a journalist interviews a retired firefighter, then published an article in the NSW Times (or whatever), then that would be an excellent source. The difference is that Mr John Smith interviewing someone and putting it on Wikipedia is that it is not reviewed by any authority, and Smith's reputation is not built upon accurate reporting. Whereas the journalist and the NSW Times are staking their reputation upon factual accuracy, as would, say, an academic from Sydney University writing an academic journal paper on Australian firefighting. Do you track my line here? Neat topic, but you just need some sort of independent, reliable, substantive coverage to evidence that the content is accurate and that the topic is something that other people have found worth writing about. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

-->MatthewVanitas (talk)
 * Thanks so much Matthew - that's a really great bit of feedback.  I kind of knew some of that was coming but I think I've got some good ideas.  I've been scouring the old newspapers etc for when stuff is mentioned so it's been a good exercise.  I'll keep plugging away!

Thanks heaps, very handy. Leigh.pilkington (talk)

User:Pierre_erasmussa/Telepreneurship
Pierre erasmussa (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting better, but it's still too "essay-like", with words like "we" and "leading questions" like "who will invest...?" WP isn't a textbook or magazine, articles have to be written like encyclopedia articles. Also, refs go after the punctuation (you're good there), but with no space between punctuation and reftag, and no space between refs. Also, you have somewhat of a WP:Conflict of interest due to writing about your own theories; that's not totally prohibited, but in the interest of transparency you should put a little note at the top of the Talk page to basically say "I'm citing my own works on this theory, was involved in its development, but am also including others works as substantation that others are also developing the idea", or something like that so nobody thinks you're trying to sneakily popularise your own invented neologism. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Gainful employment
Please review my article on Gainful Employment and provide feedback on the talk page. Thanks!

HappyFeelings2011 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Minor note: WP is case-sensitive, that's why your link to Gainful Employment is a non-functioning "redlink", but Gainful employment takes you right there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mktguru201/eviti
This is my first article post. Any feedback is appreciated.

Mktguru201 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest you also post this Request for Feedback at WP:WikiProject Medicine. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:SHalverson/Alsbridge
I'm requesting general feedback on this page before it goes live. Is it formatted and styles correctly? Are the references placed correctly? Thank you in advance fo any feedback you can offer. All the best!

Reaghanf (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The main issue is WP:Bare URLs; you need to turn your footnotes into full WP:Citations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sgerbic/Mark Edward
My first Wikipedia Article. Want feedback before I move to main page. Thank You, SGerbic (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Late Show with Joanne Good
Hey. I would like feedback in regards to this article. Thanks

Jamaicarussa (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added some maintenance tags to the top of your article; post back here with any questions if you're unsure how to address those items. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Baigelman/BookEnds
I would love someone to review this for me. I think/hope I'm getting closer to being able to publish this. thank you so much!

96.251.89.72 (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am writing this comment under the assumption that the IP Adress was User:Baigelman, and my notification shall be posted there.
 * The most important things have been tagged by MatthewVanitas and should be dealt with before you move the article to the main space.
 * There may be a possible conflict of interest, considering your former username was BookEnds. Although that does not mean you cannot write the article, you should take extreme care to do so with a NPOV and prove notability beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 * External links do not go in the main body of the text. If you want to link to them as references, use a ref tag, such as . This will also create in-text citations, which are considered the best way to fulfill Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.
 * Please read Wikipedia's policy on external links to find out what sites are allowed. Facebook is generally not.
 * I hope that helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Privies of Wales
I created a new article for the book Privies of Wales as part of a class assignment. This is my first article and I wanted some feedback.

RevWiss (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings, first things first, make sure you read Notability (books). That's the WP policy on book articles, and I imagine your grade does rest on following format and policy. Your layout/coding is pretty smooth, but the lacking is that you don't have any independent referencing, you just have the book talking about the book. Try checking out some articles about other famous modern books, and note that they're not just plot summaries; they use reviews, news articles, etc. to discuss the context of the book, its writing process, its reception, etc. I would also suggest that you post this same feedback request at the Discussion page at WP:WikiProject Books to get really expert advice on book-writing. Good luck, hope you get a good grade. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)