Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 November 1

User:Hasteur/Louisiana_Fairy_Tale
I noticed that there is not a article for this song. I intend to move this to main space once another editor looks at this and provides feedback. I intend to condense the miscaleneous hooks in the multiple inbound articles to become content in this article. I'm intending to try for a DYK nomination on this article, but need to get more appropriate prose into the page so that it'll meet the 1500 character minimum threshold.

Hasteur (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

PerlTidy
New article for a nearly decade-old Perl coding tool. Just need to make certain the article meets standards, and if not, how to fix it.

Thanks!

Woodrow, known to some as Asim 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Public library
Hi everyone! I just did a major overhaul to the "Canada" section of the Public library article. I also re-wrote the introduction as it contained some misleading information. I've never edited a Wikipedia article before and I'd love to receive some constructive feedback. Thanks in advance! (LauraKBC (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
 * I took a look at your expansion of Public library, and let me congratulate, it was a pretty impressive first edit! You seem to be knowledgeable about the topic, and it shows, especially in the richness of details and in subtle distinctions like "subscription" and "free, tax-supported" (an important information that the section lacked completely). The references you used are pretty good, which is very important for Verifiability, congrats!
 * Some very little issues are:

My examples are just meant to show procedures to make your section really shine, your edit was really good. The changes you made to the lead section are great, it's important to have someone with some expertise check the factual accuracy. The quote at the end of the lead could probably be inserted somewhere else in the text, perhaps in one of the first sections (sections 3 and 4 look like good candidates). And making a little "quote box" around it would be nice! Have fun and continue making useful contributions to Wikipedia! Zidanie5 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Youtube reference (#57) is redundant because the page linked at reference #56 has the same video embedded, and they both source the same statement. Also, it has the title and work parameter inverted.The work parameter is usually used to indicate the name of the website (when citing an online source), while in this case the title parameter should indicate the name of the specific video.
 * The section could use some trimming down on unnecessary words. As the Manual of Style says, "writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording". You can improve the section by making some changes accordingly. An example I noticed at a first glance (unnecessary words in italics): "As they stand today, public libraries in Canada".
 * This sentence is a bit unclear: "The Toronto Public Library was one of the first libraries to choose free status, and it was the largest of them all". It may be just me, but it's not clear if the TPL was the largest of the first libraries to choose free status or among all the libraries. If it means that the TLP was the "largest of the first libraries", it is a vague indication. How many are the "first libraries"? In my opinion the sentence needs rewording to be more factual, for example pointing out if it was the largest library at the time it became free. Also, "of them all" is probably redundant.
 * Another sentence which could use a rephrasing is the one beginning with "In Saint John...". In my opinion it would work better this way -> "The first free, tax-supported public library was established in Saint John in 1883[...]"
 * The large quote starting with "Subsequent legislative.." doesn't convince me. I think it could benefit from being expressed in prose.

Find My Past
Just looking for some second opinions of a new article I created. It is about a popular UK genealogy website (itself used as a citation for hundreds of WP articles). Before I uploaded the article, I made sure the key facts (1) its a leading genealogy website (2) it received a Queen's Award for Innovation, were cited to reliable sources. It still needs development but the basics are there. However, within a few hours the article had been tag-bombed. The tag-bomber seems to believe that primary sources must never be used and (though the article is short and neutral) written like an advert. Obviously I don't want to get into a battle with this person and would like to get some neutral opinions. Thanks. Sionk (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sionk (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Gannon
This is my first article, just wondering whether it's OK or not.

Mvdw1973 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)