Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 12

User:GregoryCouratier/Sandbox
Hello,

Could someone tell me if my article is appropriate for the mainspace ? I tried to use a NPOV, and took into account that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advertising website. To me the article is just information. Please tell me if I should modify it and how so that it can be published.

Thanks

GregoryCouratier (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the main problem is going to be establishing notability. At Wikipedia, there are strong guidelines requiring all content submitted to have a certain degree of importance. While there are many articles which break these guidelines, they will be applied as much as possible. In particular, see WP:ORG for the guidelines concerning businesses. Basically, to be confident of having it stay when moving it to a main article, you will need to find a couple of sources that give a good discussion of the company.— Kan8eDie (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thanks for the information. I have inserted three notes with links of websites that talk about the company. I also have added the company's products, regarding what's asked in WP:ORG. As it is my first article, could someone tell me if the article matches all Wikipedia's requirements ? Thanks a lot.
 * GregoryCouratier (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. It is looking good, but at the moment there is still few independent sources (press releases etc. do not count, and we prefer to have full features when establishing notability, rather than just the odd page). Now, these are demanding requirements, and it can be hard to find enough good sources, but it should be possible with just a bit more work. One more full article in a big newspaper would be enough. Well done for your great efforts so far though.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have added two pages from main news providers. One from 'Les Echos', french national newspaper, and one from 'Yahoo! Taiwan'. Do you think it is enough ? Thank you for your help. GregoryCouratier (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) I have shifted it to the main article space. Thanks for the contributions so far. Good luck with further improving it and adding detail!— Kan8eDie (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ZA786/Alvi Armani
This is a page about the hair transplant company: Alvi Armani. I want to make sure it's neutral. 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ZA786

User:ZA786/Alvi Armani/Origenere

I made this page for the line of hair and skin care products, Origenere. I want to make sure it's neutral. Thanks. 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ZA786 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZA786 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ZA786/Alvi Armani/Alvi Armani Hair Loss Scale

I made this page for the Alvi Armani Hair Loss Scale, a classification chart for male and female pattern baldness. I just want to make sure it's good to go live. Thanks. ZA786 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ZA786


 * The problem that all of these articles share is that none of them demonstrate the notability of either the man, his chart, or his products. Notability is demonstrated by finding multiple, reliable sources that discuss him or his products, but are not associated with the man himself. His personally maintained websites as well as tabloid newspapers are not considered reliable sources, and these are the only sources that have been provided. For a man making medical products, a reliable source would probably be media coverage (from newspapers or broadcasters, and not tabloids) or reviews of his products in respectable magazines. As for neutrality, the neutral point of view cannot technically be determined when there are no reliable sources, as they define the neutral point of view. If you were to put your articles into mainspace as they are now, they would probably be deleted for lack of notability or even for serving as advertising. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

John Etnier
Requesting feedback on new page John Etnier. On a technical level, I'm a bit stumped as to why the infobox shows no colored bars for title and background information, but any feedback at all is much appreciated.

I hope it isn't too awfully outré to create what is essentially an autographical page. I tried to keep POV very neutral.

Thanks!

Etnier (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ehh. You're not really supposed to. Just keep a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), since you have major "conflict of interest" (WP:COI), and restrain from using "peacock terms" that would glorify yourself I think it'll be fine. I'm one of the more lenient people on Wikipedia about edit stuff you're involved with though (other editors say that conflict of interest editing should never happen). If you read WP:ASFAQ, it says Wikipedia strongly discourages it (but its never forbidden). Anyways, onto the feedback portion.


 * You're off to a nice job of referencing things. However, it'd be nice to see the list of reference that don't have inlince citations, converted to inline citations which cite whatever info they present inside the article. I removed the duplicate references. Some were listed as references with inline citations as well as in the list, so I just removed the duplicate in the latter part.


 * You might wanna use a reference for the lead. Something already referenced in the article will do. Because this is an article about yourself, you probably want to cite things like crazy to make sure people don't say you're posting original research (which is a big "no no" here).


 * You also might wanna make some sort of reference to your dad in the article (since I see that he also has a Wikipedia page you helped out a lot at).

I looks like a good starting article. Like I said, any info on there should probably be referenced a lot. I think the main thing this article needs is just expansion (of info and references). Good job so far though :-) Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Thanks so much for this!!! I don't really dare expand the info in the article. Perhaps others may at some time. I just feel it covers its subject to an appropriate depth and that any furthe detail would be vainglorious.

Many thanks!Etnier (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Subaculture
First time user. I wrote an article about 'Lugs' Branigan, a tough, hard policeman in Dublin, Ireland in the 40s, 50; 60, 70s. Very well known in Dublin and Ireland, but not outside. I wrote the article n my sandbox, and am how looking for feedback and information on next steps.

User:Subaculture or —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.56 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Subaculture


 * A good start. There are plenty of books and references to copy this over to the main article space at James Branigan and get editing. The first things to do are to find any related articles and see if you could add appropriate links to the new article, and then on the article itself, maybe using a few more headings might be useful. It looks pretty good though.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cherita/wikilink
Cherita [pronounced CHAIR-rita] is a Malay word for story or tale. A Cherita consists of a single stanza of one-line verse, followed by a two-line verse, and then finishing with a three-line verse. It was created by ai li, editor of still: home of short verse, on the 22 June 1997.

The Cherita arose out of the English-language haiku and tanka tradition, but is more anecdotal, or nano-narrative, in nature than are the “momentary” haiku and the more lyrical tanka, though it is easily adaptable to lyical expression. It is imagistic in nature, and depends on conciseness and suggestion for its effect.

More about Cherita, as well as examples, can be found on still: home for short verse Winfred Press

Soaphollow (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaphollow (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like WP:original research, or WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Please do not add it without discussing your sources first.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Feedback needed for wikipedia newbie
Please check my one and only article. Is the material ready for submission. Feedback on the content and format would be appreciated.

Thank You, Sayyes1985 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Soaphollow (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to be heavily pushing the organisation. Could I ask whether you are involved yourself? I suspect this article will need looking into before it goes up.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Contributed an introduction to Domain-specific_multimodeling
Hi,

as my first wikipedia article, I've written up a fairly comprehensive article on Domain-specific_multimodeling. The format that I've aimed for is the following:


 * 1) intro
 * 2) example
 * 3) problem
 * 4) solution
 * 5) see also and references

Any ideas on improving the content would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Ahessellund (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Only had a short glance at the intro, therefore can't say much about the content. Here is what I noticed:
 * The first sentence is quite heavy for somebody unfamiliar with the subject. Which view? What is developed? "Language" as in Chinese, English,...? I think you should at least state the field (programming/software development?) this article is about and explain "development paradigm" (or better link to a wikipedia article).
 * More inline citations are needed
 * Put weblinks in the references or an "External links" section not in the text
 * Consider the boxes at the start of the article
 * Explain the relation to Domain-specific modeling (maybe you did and I missed it) bamse (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback re: my White River War article - mainly about wiki-formatting
Hi, just posting this RFF because I wrote an article, and I'm not sure if all the formats, etc. are exactly right. I've left it saying it is a stub, although maybe it isn't anymore? Thanks for your suggestions

The article It is about the White River War, which was a war between the US army and the Ute Indians of Colorado in 1879. Basically lists all the interesting aspects of the war. I didn't put subheadings or photos or anything of that sort, but did provide references and did also put in internal links. Thanks for you help!--Roar-the-bore (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Should be at least start class in my opinion. Consider using a reference scheme with Notes/References as in Quiriguá for instance to avoid using "ibid." To make the article more readable add sections, something like: "causes-events-outcome". I noticed that "Utes" links to a disambig page. You should redirect the links to Ute tribe instead.bamse (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When will the article be posted?
After I have wrote my article and uploading my picture, what's Next? When will the article be posted on Wikipedia for others to view? How long does it take? Please let me know if I need to take an additional step.

Thanks Tish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridesmartarc (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As soon as the page is created then the article is there to view (and to be changed and messed about with) try WP:YFA for more info Bihco (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
How do I improve this article?

Thanks!

Iatpiatp (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you could start by following the tags at the top of the article. Your username suggests that you will find it virtually impossible to convince us that you are truly neutral. Please only edit as yourself, and not as part of your employment. We could do with a lot more references: books about you, articles, and so on.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * References are the most important, especially those that show outside iterest in the company, so newspaper articles etc (most companies will have at least local coverage). I would restructure the article too, put Areas of work into the lead instead of a seperate section - it is the most iportant thing an ignorant reader like me wants to know. The move history to be the first section, with time line a subsection (using 3 === instead of 2) of that. Timelines like this are rarely seen as good writing, so re-writing as prose paragrpahs might be an improvment.
 * assuming you work there, can you get a photo of the offices released into public domain? Also if the company has a logo, this can be uploaded as fair use (ask at my talk page if you are unsure of image uploading).Yobmod (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Listing a company in the Companies In Houston page
I am so confused as to waht is correct ... I tried to put list a company on the page. I used several other d3scriptions that were on this page as a reference to make sure I was in line.

It was deleted.

I also completely updated the Network Tap page and everything was deleted and the page is written to support one vendor and no tutorial links are allowed???

I would like to develop a page on Network Acces methods - Tap versus SPAN access.

Would this be acceptable?

I have read and reread the conflict of interest plus amny of the other requirements and I believe that this is a fit for wikiPedia.

It actually should be under Network Tap but who ever ius running the site refuses to allow the discussion/tutorial.

I look forward to actually heading from the Team.

Oldcommguy - tim@oldcommguy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldcommguy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hard to understand clearly what you're talking about. It seems you've had a confusing time here on Wikipedia. Sorry about that! Have you read WP:YFA? It talks about creating your first article. As far as your problems with adding external links--WP:EL covers the policies for that on Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Santosh77/Subpage Tripp Lite
Hi i have added an article on an organization in the wikipedia as it is the oldest UPS manufacturing company since 1922, Kindly pls provide me feedback on the article if it needs to changed or modified.

User:Santosh77/Subpage

Thanks Santosh Santosh77 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)santosh77Santosh77 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can guide me on it, any corrections that i need to make or any feedback, :-), pls let me know. Thanks Santosh Santosh77 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)--Santosh77 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi I just took a look at your article. It has a lot of information with references which is really good. The thing I noticed it that most of the references come from Tripp Lite's own website--which isn't bad for just citing fact, but it doesn't show the notability of the company. On Wikipedia, a subject of an article has to have "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (from the link I provided in the last sentence). As of right now the article lacks any significant coverage in subject independent of the company. These sources can be online or offline (i.e. articles in business magazines, newspapers, etc.). Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, i will add in more secondary reference from mags & newspapers to the existing ones once done will inform you to have a look at it again Santosh77 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)--Santosh77 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos
Request for feedback for an article I wrote from scratch. Being virtually the only author, I am looking for a second opinion on what needs to be improved (apart from language) to get it up to good article standards. bamse (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a truly extraordinary effort! I am sorry that I don't have the time to read and analyse all that just at the moment, but that is a lot of text to produce on the subject. I will try and get back to it soon. The most reassuring this is the long edit history, as otherwise we would instantly assume some copy and paste, but it looks clean and a great addition to the encyclopaedia.— Kan8eDie (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is definitely not a copy-paste :-). Hope you will find time to have a look at it. Also partial looks (only "Architecture" for instance) are appreciated. bamse (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

arg (mathematics)
I rewrote this article this afternoon, and would appreciate some quick comments. Lay people welcome! If the article doesn't explain or link it sufficiently, do tell me, as that is the sort thing I find most hard to get right.— Kan8eDie (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never really dealt with math related articles on Wikipedia (I'm more of an English guy). I have read the article several times already and I still don't really get what an arg is. However maybe I'd need to read the Simple Wikipedia listing for this article to understand it, because I'm just not that great at math higher than basic algebra. I think that somebody who has a firm college-level math understanding will be able to read it though... As far as the wikilinking, I'd say it could use more. I'd say the word "periodicity" in the "Definition" section could wikilink somewhere (because I'm not sure what that means...) also maybe the word "cut" in the last sentence of the same section could be wikilinked? I'm not sure if these are words that even have pages, but it seems they should. Hopefully this helps... I feel like an idiot though. Killiondude (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all! You have to be pretty clever to make any sense of the embarrassing train wreck I seem to be producing.— Kan8eDie (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am more of a math guy. I think the intro and the new figure are much better and easier to understand than a day ago. One problem though: you write about an "angle between the point and the positive real line" which as far as I know is not defined. You could copy something from Polar coordinate system or the Definition(s) section of your article. Also replace line->axis. The second paragraph about the principal value could go into a separate section (after Definitions).
 * In the algebraic Definition it is not clear if 1,2,3 have to apply simultaneously or if one or two would be enough. In 2., shouldn't the "r" be on the other side of the equation to agree with figure 1? My math teacher and me don't like expressions like $$x=0\ne y$$ (better write as two expressions) but that's up to taste I guess.
 * After "in which case the term phase is used equivalently." there should go a new section in which you explain the multi-valuedness of arg. Capital pi is not defined (probably some interval of length 2 pi?)
 * In "Principal value", is it possible to define Arg also for negative real numbers? If not, there should be a note in the text. In the same section you write arg in terms of Arg. However arg operates on all complex numbers, while Arg as defined by you only on a subset of C.
 * In identities, the modulus-argument form could be more prominent (bigger?) as it is a very familiar expression. Also make the article easier to read by using either "r" or "|z|" not both. In figure 1 indicate "x", "y" and "z" as in the first figure in Complex plane. bamse (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. The 'angle between the half-lines corresponding to the position vectors representing the point and the positive real axis' just doesn't sound as snappy for a lead. Modern texts use inner products to angles directly from vectors (no half-line defs).
 * Absolutely. My typo. Two expressions now there if that's what you prefer.
 * I was just indicating that the image is in R. Hopefully clearer now.
 * I did indeed get this exclusion from an older Beardon book. Even he gives up on it though, so I have removed all dated references to maintaining arg continuous by excluding a half-line.
 * In what way exactly? I am considering just dumping the article and running, so could you do this yourself?— Kan8eDie (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How was running? Not sure if (and how) you can increase the size of TeX equations in wikipedia, so forget about the modulus-argument stuff. I edited a tiny bit in the article and think there are no major mistakes anymore. Personally I'd remove "amplitude" from the first definition as I'd never seen it before in this context. Are other people besides the authors of reference 1 using this term for arg(z)? Amplitude states: "In older texts the phase is sometimes very confusingly called the amplitude." If you prefer to keep "amplitude", a warning like this is necessary IMHO. An easy thing which still could be done is to indicate "x,y,z" in figure 1. bamse (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:D.M. Edgar/Millbuies
seeking feedback on the above draft article--D.M. Edgar (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link to your draft above (you forgot "User:"). bamse (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I only had a short glance at it. Could you add references/sources to the article.
 * Start the article like other wikipedia articles: "Millbuies Estate is a Country park in ..."
 * Add wikilinks to the text.
 * Put sections to make it more readable
 * Remove or substantiate (with reference) POVs (for instance: "This bridge is a well-photographed spot.")
 * Remove non-encyclopedic stuff (I am not sure that Councilor Edgar's diet (sandwiches, tea, biscuits) is relevant for the country park)
 * Parts of the article sound too much like advertising to me
 * You also might want to read WP:YFA if you haven't done already. bamse (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Izetbegovic
I'm not sure if I'm handling this according to procedure but, here goes. I feel that the article on President Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia needs to be re-evaluated. John Schlinder who is already resourced in the article has recently come out with another book entitled "Unholy Terror". It's a book that is thoroughly researched with a full bibliography for evidence of his assesments. Many of his arguments and evidence refute what has been thought of as "common knowledge" as to what really happened during the Bosnian conflict. I'd like to forward the idea that someone besides me who might be more even handed and experienced then me, read the book and then make any editorial adjustments that might be felt as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazycelt1969 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I link the correct article in the section heading? If you cannot find somebody here, you might want to leave a message on the article's talk page. Expert wikipedians or people interested in Alija Izetbegovic will more easily find your request there. Sorry, it is not exactly my cup of tea, so can't help you with this request. bamse (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rodgersia
As a new contributor, I am unsure how to proceed with the botanical article which I have finished writing on my home page. (There may be a mistake with the referencing.) Do I have to move the article elsewhere? Thank you for your help. Saxifraga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxifraga (talk • contribs) 10:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs quite a bit of cleanup, but I have still moved it to the Rodgersia page. Please do keep working on it there. Thanks for the solid start to the article.— Kan8eDie (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.I will go over it again & try & improve it. Saxifraga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxifraga (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:BETTER if you want ideas on how to make articles better. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it a good idea to include cultivars of the Rodgersia species because I only know about those in the UK & as there are very few which have definate descriptions, they are notoriously mis-labelled or duplicated. Is there any other information on this subject which would be advantageous to include? Again, thank you for your encouragement & help.79.74.230.159 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might wanna ask Wikipedia Talk: WikiProject Plants if they see anything further that could be included. They are a little more in touch with plant-related articles. Killiondude (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will try that now.Saxifraga (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Saxifraga

CE-HTML
It is quite technical up till now, but is it clear to a casual reader and does it make sense ? It would be great if someone would examine the article somewhat from a layman's view. Thrill59 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a programmer, I find this offers far too little context, let alone for the layperson. There is plenty of good information there, but the lead entirely fails to explain exactly what CE-HTML is. As mainly a backend database developer, I have not come across this, and still don't know quite whether is is a new type of document, or a platform specification, and if so what parts of the system it covers, and so on. More explanation is needed. Thanks for making a good start to this though.— Kan8eDie (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Improved on the article, including a concise introduction plus picture, rearranged the technical stuff to different areas, and hopefully made it more clearer ; how does it look ? -- Thrill59 (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Haley's Queen
Please give me your feedback on the two following articles: Queen: The Story of an American Family, and Alex Haley's Queen. Also please make sure their disambiguation pages are correctly done. This is my first REAL attempt at creating anything for Wikipedia; and I did NOT write the information on the articles (most of it was already there). I plan to do that next but I wanted to do the formatting and whatnot for them first. Thank you ever so much, Rivka (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I prodded both of the disambiguation pages. If you read WP:DISAMBIG it explains when disambiguation pages are used and such, and I don't believe these pages needed their own titled disambigs. The Story of an American Family is looking okay. I fixed some minor things on the page. The biggest thing is to try and add content to it, and fix the concerns addressed in the tags at the top of the article. Try to find sources for any info that you add to it though, the more sources the better. See WP:NOVSTY for info on style guidelines for novels.
 * As far as Alex Haley's Queen, I added three tags to it. It is completely unreferenced, which is not really good. Like I said, the more sources the better. If you can fix that, you could take the tag off or change it to template:refimprove. The second issue with that article is that the plot summary is much larger in comparison to the other aspects of the article (unbalanced). You could try paring that down as well as adding content to the other parts. See WP:MOSTV for more info on how to structure that article. Killiondude (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! I will look at your suggestions and try to improve the article!! Rivka (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kman787
Hi,

I just wrote my first wiki article in my user space. Can someone review and give some feedback to see if it is o.k. to move it into the live Wikipedia main area? If not, what changes need to be made to improve the article.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kman787 (talk • contribs) 21:21, February 20, 2009
 * I see that you attempted to post the article live at SelfMadeEasy.com (a few days after posting here), and it was speedy deleted. I'm sorry that your request for feedback wasn't answered sooner! Accounting4Taste was correct in what he wrote on your talk page about why the article was inadequate. If you have any further questions about how you could fix the article, you can ask me on my talk page. Also read WP:BFAQ. Killiondude (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

EmEditor
I've made substantial additions to the EmEditor page, could you please make some comments about content citations, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. I'm most concerned about having enough/proper references. Thanks! Red Summer Rain (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa. So from the page's history is looks like it has been in existence for 3 years (almost to the day), largely untouched until you spruced it up. The first thing that should be done with the page is that more independent, third party sources to show that it is notable enough to meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Somebody put a tag on the article a few years ago, but an IP rewrote the article and removed the tag (not addressing the issue). If notability isn't proven, then the article has a chance of being deleted.

After notability is taken care of, you can probably focus on the following: Hope that helps. If you have any further questions you can ask here, or on my talk page. Killiondude (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "EmEditor" is the starting word of a lot of sentences. In fact, it is stated many times throughout the article. You can probably substitute "the software" or something similar in many places so that it is a smoother read and less repetitious.
 * The lead section is pretty choppy. Try combining sentences (make compound sentences) and give a little more of a summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for more info.
 * Similarly, you might wanna combine short paragraphs (one or two sentences) into longer paragraphs.
 * You might want to check out this guide to see if it could help in any way (I've never extensively edited software-related articles, so this might help you more as far as what content you could add).
 * You also might wanna check out this tool that helps citie things (when you're finding sources show notability).

University of Valle
Greetings. I've made substantial additions to University of Valle page, could you please make some comments about its structure, contents, and cites. Please also add comments to the feedback section of the talk page. -Andremun (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I skimmed the page for a few minutes looking at various parts. I can give you a few pointers. You can remove the subsections that have no content in them right now (Athletics, Activism and any others). The Noted people section could probably include a few of the more notable people that are included on the List of University of Valle people page. "See also" sections are generally used for pages that are already not wikilinked inside the article. I'm not sure if all those are wikilinked, but I see the "list of people" page is. As a matter of personal opinion, I think all reference tags look better after punctuation (if punctuation is directly next to it), but Wikipedia policy simply maintains that each article be consistent with however they place the reference tags. You seem to have stayed consistent, which is what matters. The Faculties subsection looks like it needs some clean up... you can remove the parts that don't have any info after them (Faculty of Health: for example). In the future, you might wanna just convert that subsection into prose instead of a half list/half prose piece. Overall, the article looks nice. Good job on referencing. You can probably take the tags off of the top of the article now. If you have any further questions or requests feel free to post here or on my talk page. Killiondude (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I made the suggested changes.  If anybody has more comments, please don't hesitate to contact me. -Andremun (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Kannaphon/Royal Cliff Beach Resort
Hi,

I tried to write the new article about Royal Cliff Beach Resort, Pattaya in Thailand and It was deleted from Wikipedia which was explained that the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company.

Now I have rewritten this article to become more like encyclopedia and I think this article will be useful for any viewers who want to know about PATTAYA, THAILAND. This hotel is the one of most popular in Thailand and is the one of the very first hotel in PATTAYA. They have received multi-award from all over the world in the past 35 years. User:Kannaphon/Royal_Cliff_Beach_Resort

Could you please kindly review my article and advise me how to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannaphon (talk • contribs) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article still reads like the hotel's website. However with a little work you can make it encyclopedic. The biggest problems are non-neutral language, POV and unreferenced statements. You should also look for neutral/independent references if you want to write how amazing the hotel is. Tourist information or travel agencies naturally show places in a more positive light. I read up to History and left my notes here: User:Bamse/Royal_Cliff_Beach_Resort. Hope it helps. bamse (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bleacher Creatures
I started this page a while ago and have recently tried to fix the grammar and references. It has some good content but I would like some suggestions on how to improve it. --Sportskido8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, February 27, 2009.


 * I left a response on Talk:Bleacher_Creatures. Hopefully you find it useful! AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Composting toilet
Major rewrite, removing flags for verbosity/repetition, NPOV, worldview. Open to any critique or comment on this stumbling first -- Red58bill (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting concept (the toilet). As of right now, the article has a lot of valuable information. Unfortunately this seems to be mostly original research which is sort of a big no-no on Wikipedia. More reliable sources need to be cited so that all that info can be verified. I see that the external link section is kind of large. If you're using any of those links for reference material in the article, you should cite them using inline citations whenever possible.
 * In addition to that, I'm a little bit skeptical of placing examples of different brand's toilet models in the article... Be careful when giving examples because it can lead to other editors adding spam and advertisement type language for their own products. Also, for the "See also" section, if any of those links are wikilinked in the article already, they can be removed from that section. Typically "see also" sections are for stuff that relates to the content in the article but is not discussed (or mentioned). You can also take a look at WP:BETTER if you want more generalized info for how to make articles better. Please let me know if you have any more questions or comments (either here or on my talk). Regards, 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Phyllostacys makinoi hayata
Hello!

I am from Taiwan and I am looking for more information about Phyllostacys makinoi hayata, but Wikipedia do not have many of this aricle. Here at Toucheng Farm (www.tcfarm.com.tw ) we have about 5o hectares of this kind of bamboo. They are written in traditional chinese characters, but I can translate them to english if you wish. How can I contribute them? I would like to expand your article compliments odf Toucheng Farm.

Sincerely,

Violet G. Lin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.15.163 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome! See WP:Introduction and WP:Your first article. You can be bold and edit things around here with verified facts if you'd like. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Phyllostacys makinoi hayata
There are 44,906 hectares of this genus of bamboo in Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.15.163 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Random fact of the day? I thought this was the feedback request page... Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New Netherland
This article needs work with references. Would be great if someone could run a check on links, to see if they're current, plus any other help would be great.Djflem (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment before I go to sleep: please give all weblinks in the "External links" and "References" a proper name replacing "[2], [3], http://...". If you use a webpage as a reference you should add an access date. Looks like a well-written article. Will probably have a closer look at it tomorrow. bamse (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed some disambiguity in the lead section and started to format the references. However, I don't know on what date you did the research, so I cannot put proper access dates for web references. Therefore I will leave the access dates empty for the time being. Please fill them in. bamse (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is reference #6 the same as the fourth External link? If yes, please remove the external link. bamse (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really a big mess these references. It looks as if 100 authors were working on this article, each with his own citation style... bamse (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I converted almost all references to a common style. A little work is still left. Have a look here. I have not checked if the information in the reference links can be used as a source for the respective part of the article. This should be easy to check for an author or somebody familiar with New Netherland. From what I saw, the websites pointed to by the links are (in one way or another) all about New Netherland, so I believe that the links are fine. bamse (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli-Occupied Territories
Hi

I'm Whippersnapper! I added an insert to this page, Israeli-Occupied Territories, on the American-Israel Lobby's role in maintaining the occupation. And today it disappeared. What's up? I put in references.

Thank you

Whippersnapper
 * Hi. This really isn't the place to ask for that kind of stuff. WP:Help Desk is probably directed for that stuff, but I'll answer your question. Another user removed it, and stated: "extreme misspelling, lack of attribution to source, clearly OR based on poor spelling and over quotations qualifies are plagarism. come back with sandbox. also, learn to ref - ur section messed with the article code." in their edit summary. Now, misspelling should never be a reason why something is removed from an article (that is easily fixed), you did seem to cite your info, and it wasn't really original research since you cited it... I read the content and it seems like something from a personal essay though, and that is grounds for removal from an article. It wasn't exactly on topic either. But the user who deleted your content seems kinda banal (from the edit summaries he leaves). Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Andersen
As a first time new contributor I wrote a stub article for Francis Andersen. I supplied half a dozen references. I realize that the initial quality and format is poor, but I don't have much time so I wanted to work on it little by little. I was taken aback by getting a note warning of a speedy deletion tag. However I couldn't find the tag when I looked at the article. Some other helpful editor had added a reference to an online biography, and a festschrift in his honor. It was also acknowledged by Wikiproject Australia. My guess is that perhaps these additions have averted speedy deletion. My question is, were my initial references insufficient to avert speedy deletion warning because they were primary sources, not secondary? I would like a little guidance and encouragement, or I'm afraid I'll be reluctant to contribute.Tekone Yoshimori (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say a third party source? You termed it as primary source which is something slightly different. Yes, when you create an article you have to provide several third party sources to show that something is notable enough for inclusion. But another editor helped you out and showed that the subject of the article is indeed notable. This page is used to request feedback for work you've done on articles though. If you have any other sort of question, you can ask me on my talk page. Killiondude (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

School of Continuing Education (New England Conservatory)
Greetings,

The Continuing Education department of New England Conservatory makes a positive contribution to the music community of Boston. It gives the general public access to the resources of a prominant music school.

I have started the article in my subpage, I would like feedback on its construction as it is my first article. I'm not sure what the proper term for this is, but it would be nice to link the short discription of the cont. ed. department in the (New England Conservatory) article to this more elaborate one of the department. This department is akin to the Extension School of Harvard.

Thank you,

Radialblur (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that you posted it as an actual article. I tagged it because as of right now the only references you have are that from the school itself (which is not sufficient for Wikipedia). Additionally, you list a lot of programs and degrees you can get from the school which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Perhaps you could include a section about the history of the school? With references of course. See WP:UNIGUIDE for more info about how university article's should be formatted (and what should be included). If you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

new user
I wrote an article for someone else, i am finished with the article. i did it in sand box how do i post the article--Elvis &quot;BlacElvis&quot; Williams (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm assuming you're talking about the article you wrote in your user space? It seems to be an auto-biography which Wikipedia strongly advises against. Not only that, but you don't seem to meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Additionally it seems to be full of untrue statements and unreferenced (among other issues). See WP:INTRODUCTION and WP:FIRST. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Marisko/eFileCabinet
I'm a first-time new contributor and I am looking for some feedback regarding at article I created in my user space. It's far from complete but any tips/suggestions on how to further improve the article to make sure it is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and NPOV would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! --Marisko (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like it could use at least one or two more sources that discuss the company in depth. This fulfills the requirement of WP:COMPANY that states a source has to have significant coverage in secondary sources for it to be included in Wikipedia. It certainly has a neutral point of view, and you back up your claim with sources, which is really good. You could also wikilink things like Provo, UT (the first instance), and maybe one or two other relevant terms in the article (it seems a little "wikilink bare"). When you think you've reached the requirements of WP:COMPANY you can move the article into the mainspace. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Virginity test
I almost completely rewrote this article last night. It was previously an opinion essay with one source, so I spent last night finding it other sources, organizing, adding information and rewriting. I don't feel comfortable removing the NPOV and the clean-up tags when I'm the only one who's worked on the article since those tags were applied. Any commentary or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I made almost 50 edits last night, so I'm sure I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took awhile to respond. I'm actually procrastinating on writing an essay right now... so I'll give you some feedback to fill my time :-)


 * You should probably format the references. You've done a nice job of referencing things, but the formatting is just a little off. See how the links in the reference section come up as [1], [2], etc? You need to fill in a title for the webpage after the URL to give the blue link a name. If you aren't sure how to do this, let me know.
 * The sentence in the lead that states "It is based on the incorrect belief that a woman’s hymen can only be torn as a result of sexual intercourse." should probably be changed. More specifically, the word "incorrect". Maybe substitute "false assumption"? Incorrect seems harsh and perhaps a little overbearing. Also, the lead needs at least one or two references up there (they can be ones that are included already, but just haven't been tagged up top yet) to verify its info.
 * The article is a little unbalanced right now. It sort of focuses a lot on Africa. Granted that that is probably where a lot of this stuff happens today, I'm sure there's info about elsewhere in the world. Check out Google Scholar at www.scholar.google.com. I've found they can find a lot of good sources for Wikipedia.
 * Don't get me wrong, I think you've done a very nice job so far. Those are just some things that can help the article. Remember, no article is ever perfect. You could probably take those tags off the top of the article now since you've fixed things. Killiondude (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll work on all of that. Thank you! AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Take care with WP:OR especially WP:SYNTH - in the lede.
 * Sadly still occurs in many countries in the Indian continent; I've heard about a plastic surgery proves that 'restores' the hymen. Japan had/has? a tv show with 'live' deflowering; not sure if that's relevant. Bit more digging needed to broaden the scope, I think. Good luck. --  Chzz  ►  14:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulltick
Hi, Could you please give me some feedback on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Communicationsbcm I'm a first-time new contributor. I really need help on how to improve the article. Any tips will be much appreciated. Thank you Alejandra --Communicationsbcm (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs references from reliable sources to support the facts. People have to be able to check the information - for example, it says "was founded in 1999" - how could I verify that? Is it mentioned in a newspaper or book? If not, you'll have to remove that fact.
 * Also, as with all corporate articles, be very wary of conflict of interest. If you do have an interest in the company, then you should carefully read WP:BESTCOI. Hope this helps; any questions, ask me on my own talk page. Good luck! --  Chzz  ►  10:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheree Silver
Hi, Sheree Silver is a relatively new article brought back in a deletion review. Could somebody take a look at it and see where it is on the article class scale? Thank you for your time. Spring12 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry for the short delay in responding; things can get a bit backed up here. Please help out if you can!


 * Re. Sheree Silver - it needs some work; I'll do a bit of editing to it now and report back soon. --  Chzz  ►  21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the main problems with the article was that the references had little information; I've corrected that with this edit.


 * I used various citation tools to do this - Zotero for the web links, and the cite book generator for the book. For the TV and radio episode, I just copied from template:cite_episode.


 * Please note that I haven't actually checked the validity of these references though, and some of them appear to be primary sources and therefore require further improvement.


 * I will edit it further. --  Chzz  ►  22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your assistance! There's a slight disagreement between another editor and I over including a large number of references. (Basically, the difference between the current revision and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheree_Silver&oldid=279938835 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheree_Silver&oldid=278772837. Do you think any of this info should be added? The disagreement's currently in Template:RFCbio_list. Spring12 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'll address this issue later; first, I'll do a bit more editing in the hope of answering your initial Q - i.e. the article class. Incidentally, I put all that info (re cite) about how I did things, as I always try to do in here, in the hope of giving you tips for the future. I hope it will be useful? --  Chzz  ►  22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most definitely useful, I was planning on writing everything up in MLA format by hand. :-) Spring12 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed the infobox from 'philosopher' to the more standard, and I hope more appropriate, Template:Infobox Person. Please see that doc and see if further fields could be completed; if her day of birth can be added it will factor her age; Also I put all prev info into 'occupation' and some could be re-jigged into other fields perhaps. --  Chzz  ►  22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your original request - we've promoted the article to start class; I don't feel that it meets C-class as yet due to the questionable nature of some sources (see WP:ASSESS). Per WP:V, unfortunately some of the info may need to be removed to improve it further; sadly if reliable sources don't exist, facts have to go.


 * Regarding your 'supplementary question';
 * When discussing different versions, it's very helpful to provide a diff
 * I don't think the nuforc reference is directly relevant to the topic of this article (if you see what I mean).
 * I don't think eonline is a reliable source, so I'd leave that bit out. See WP:SOURCES


 * OK - I won't get embroiled in the debate itself, but I wish you the best of luck with it. I want to move on through this backlog. Again - if you found this useful, do have a look down the list and see if you can comment or advise any others. Cheers! --  Chzz  ►  00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Spring12 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on proposed TurnKey Linux article
The User:Abd/TurnKey Linux was rewritten based on an earlier article that was deleted in a rather messy affair triggered by an anonymous IP vandal.

The current version of the article has been substantially rewritten and cites multiple reliable sources which establish it's notability. It is now awaiting additional feedback in order to reach a broad consensus on it's move from userspace back to mainspace.

I've opened an RfC but that seems to be a venue that focuses on edit conflicts, rather than a good place to asking for general feedback. I wasn't previously aware of this page, but now that I've found it, it looks like what I was originally looking for.

LirazSiri (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Move it to mainspace immediately; it's well-written and well cited. Be WP:BOLD - it may well attract comments etc, but that's all a part of the process. I see no major issues with your userspace version; it looks pretty good to me. If you have any problems, give me a shout. Good luck! --  Chzz  ►  00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians
I have remade this article, and for sure it is not any more start-class. Can somebody review it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that the article is being peer reviewed here, and is also a Good article nomination. It would seem that several editors are hard at work on it. Therefore, to avoid any issues of WP:SHOPPING, I think that further help here wouldn't be appropriate. Good lukk with the GA; of course, if you do have any specific need of help, please ask. --  Chzz  ►  04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Keown100/Sion_Record_Bostick
This is my first original article and only my second contribution. Although I've tried to do my due diligence, I would appreciate any feedback.

I'm particularly interested in feedback and advice regarding citing references. I want to use inline citations as opposed to general citations. However, one reference serves as the source for several facts in the article. Is there a more appropriate way of doing this than the method I have employed?

Keown100 (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding references;


 * Some of the references use tags, and some don't. It would be preferable to use cite tags for all of them. As an example, I've changed one with this edit.
 * The use of a named reference looks fine. I'd suggest using a shorter name, as is very long, and the name only shows up when editing. I'd use something like.
 * The references could also be improved by adding more information. Check the template documentation, such as Template:cite news/doc, and see if you can add extra fields.
 * Please also see User:Chzz/refs, especially the mention of tools, for more help with referencing.


 * General suggestions for improving the article;


 * Dates should be in the form 1 January 1999 - no punctuation, and day month year.
 * Some of the wikilinks are redirects - for example, Texas Army is a redirect to Texian Army. You should either use the latter wording, or you could put Texian Army . (Note that the 'a' in army should not be capitalised)
 * In the body text and the caption, it says; "Surrender of Santa Anna". This should be in italics and not quotes, Surrender of Santa Anna.
 * Would it be possible to find a picture of the man himself?
 * Some of the sections are too short to stand on their own (such as 'personal life' - this should be merged into other areas of the article
 * One of the best ways to improve the article would be to find books that give more information. This would also improve the references.
 * One last tip - have a look at similar articles in the featured articles and good articles categories. These are exemplary Wikipedia articles, and are great for seeing the 'right way' to do things.


 * I hope this helps; good luck with it.  Chzz  ►  03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Extremely useful advice across the board. I'll refine the article in each of the mentioned areas. Many thanks for taking the time to provide such insightful feedback. Keown100 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First article - Feedback is appreciated
Hello everybody,

I wrote a first article for Wikipedia and would appreciate your feedback. My main interest is the US economy and its companies, so I opted to write an article on a US company who’s products are very well known (Westcott scissors and rulers) but the company itself is less known: Acme United Corporation.

Since I’m not allowed to upload images yet, I could also use someone’s help to upload three images for the article (the company’s logo and two of its products).

Many thanks in advance for your advice and assistance. Caea (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm... a few things are uncited, but the sources you have listed look pretty reliable. As far as images go, you first want to try locating those that are licensed for free use. If none are available, you can try uploading them to the article under a free use rationale, if it applies. Spring12 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to put an access date on those links. Spring12 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spring12, many thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it very much. Concerning the images, they are for free use, but when I wanted to upload them, I couldn’t because I haven’t edited enough articles yet. Can I get any help with that? Caea8937 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, where are the images located? Spring12 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The three images are on my hard drive, so I can e-mail or upload them. Caea8937 (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the upload form is working now, that's the best bet. You have a couple options. The easiest route for "free" images is through . The instructions are pretty straight forward, but if you have any more questions let me know. Spring12 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:AirCombat/VANDU
Hey there. I've been working in the area of harm reduction in Canada, and I recently met some of the members of VANDU. I figured they needed an article, as they are showing up more and more in recent media. I've read the VANDU website and was thinking of using some of the article links they provide to garner more sources; all feedback is appreciated! AC (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can start with their site's "sources", yes, but try to find as many reliable sources as possible from third parties. They might not meet the general notability guidelines right now, until more RS are present. Spring12 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just have another small question -- can I use Google News / Scholar results as reliable sources? I remember in university we had accounts on various "sourcing" sites that you paid for in order to get reliable, checked results, and I'm wondering if Scholar is as good. AC (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, news stories and Google Scholar articles are very reliable--because the publications go through fact checking and stuff. Those are actually some of the best sources to cite. Killiondude (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

New article: Harwich Junior Theatre
I noticed there was no article about the Harwich Junior Theatre, so I figured I'd write one. Thanks! Rmd1023 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. sufficiently notable? (50+ years old plus culturably notable in its area).
 * 2. editing suggestions?


 * Welcome! Unfortunately, the theatre might not meet Notability_(organizations_and_companies), because to be notable an organization has to have significant coverage in secondary sources, which is not apparent from the current revision. Also, the writing style is a little bit promotional (ex: including the verbatim address makes it resemble an ad, being more descriptive would be better). Good luck, Spring12 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Bryan
I have rewritten the article on Margaret Bryan adding information and references. I have also rearranged a lot of the information that was already there, and deleted some. I think this is the comparison link: I'm a newbie to extensive editing on Wikipedia and this was a project to help me teach myself how to code. I would greatly appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look at what I've done. It would be good to have any feedback you can give me on coding, practice and/or content. Many thanks. --JohnTheSupercargo (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure there are more experienced editors than I am, but I'd be glad to try. :-) The current revision you have looks okay, but a lot of the wording is unnecessary (such as: was appointed Lady Governess to all the legitimate children; which would be more encyclopedic as "was Lady Governess for"). Usually articles should keep a neutral tone, not too much, not to little. You might also want to take a look at Words_to_avoid, it gives a little bit of advice in this manner. For the links to external websites, I've been going with this template: Spring12 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a bit wordy, I agree. I found re-writing a very wordy and confused earlier version, trying to include valuable points that others had posted, and coding properly difficult to combine. Maybe it gets easier? :-) I'll print out a version of the text alone and look at it on paper. Usually helps me. I'll look through the Words to avoid page too. The pattern for the ref is useful. I confess, I just copied the one decent one that was already on the page and reused it, except for the refs to British History Online which follow the pattern given on that site. Thanks again.

--JohnTheSupercargo (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Have re-written my re-write. Hope the quality of the language is better now. I have removed the "improveref" notification on the article. Would appreciate feedback. --JohnTheSupercargo (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The links between internal belief systems and academics
INTERNAL BELIEF SYSTEMS

By Kirtis Tomas, with recommended revisions by Steven Carl Johnson

In the past 50 years, African-Americans have been labeled olored   egro   lack  and  frican American   Few cultures in modern history have experienced such fluidity in defining whom they are, as determined by skin color and racial origins. The name game is just a symptom of a more pernicious problem, which correlates with fairly consistent low academic test scores in the African-American community. The difficulty in accurately defining this race and concomitant poor learning skills are demonstrably attributed to the lack of internalized belief systems (IBS). What passes for thinking may be relegated to comparing and contrasting processes. One thing is measured by its relativity to another. All too often, there is a noticeable lack of definitive criteria by which to relate to one environment in a meaningful way. In order to be able to analyze data, one must have an innate belief system with which to compare and contrast information, thereby rendering meaning. Furthermore, it is difficult to utilize the internal beliefs of others when one has no personal belief system or common cultural set of beliefs, because one must believe in something to accept or reject an external belief system. Here, to ccept means to acknowledge, not condone in agreement. For the purpose of this discussion, elief system may be defined as shared history of mostly unconscious, yet functional, self-knowledge. In other words, it is a personal set of values that may be handed down from one generation to another or learned via a communal setting that can be applied to interpretation and thus accept or reject a particular fact, idea, or position. Validation of these concepts is then internal instead of external. It is by way of internal validation that a society comes to many widely accepted group norms, including its own identity, or name. The identifying label might not stem from the group own choosing, but rather, from the group  acceptance or acknowledgment of an external belief system. Explained simply, you are what you believe. For people to have core beliefs, they must have a pre-existing template, one that allows people to analyze data, with the template serving as the philosophical platform. For example, Korean people believe their race sprang from the union of a woman with a bear. Jews believe they are God chosen people. Whether these beliefs are accurate is irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is that a majority of that culture believes it. And from these basic beliefs, along with religion and history, springs the (IBS) from which people move forward and experience life. Their impact on daily behavior, cognition, emotional functions, etc., can be seen most clearly in the way an (IBS) promotes stereotypes, when in fact what is being experienced by others is a gross reflection of the (IBS). All groups, from Asians and Jews to Arabs and Hispanics, seem to fit part of stereotypes, at least the positive ones, if not the negative. (SMART, TOUGH, LAZY, etc.) Yet for the most part, fortunately or unfortunately, the shared (IBS) determines who we really are. We are not independent human beings of historical literature; we are more alike than different in our common culturally delineated humanities. There may be an argument about what makes a qualified, belief system: there is room for interpretation; still, at a minimum, the definition of an (IBS) should answer the following questions:

1.	Where did I come from? 2.	What am I doing? 3.	Where am I going? 4.	How do I get from here to there?

One of the other potent functions of the (IBS) is that it combines three things: culture, history, and template (which serve as a catalyst) upon which a culture forms, and individual identities, which are really group identities, function. Most people identify themselves as belonging to a particular nation, race, and ethnic background, and sharing history and origins with those of the same identity. Loyalty to one people group, cultural traditions, and religious values form the framework within which each of us exists. American Blacks do not have collective beliefs as compared to virtually all other recognizable cultures. During slavery, African-Americans were the victims of historic brainwashing. Today African-Americans inherited this brainwashing from their slave ancestors. Who, being the last people held in slavery in large numbers, were the benefactors of a well-developed system that strove to erase the remains of a once-held belief system. There were, in slavery, numerous African tribes and, as such, numerous belief systems. [different cultures = different belief systems] In approximately 270 years, all of the significant ingredients of an (IBS) were removed, from religion to philosophy, language to folk tales, as if erased from a chalkboard. In modern terms, it could be thought of a as brainwashing through which no memory of what made up the culture was left. Ergo, no transmittable (IBS) survived. This theory is based on research and observations of African American students at Michigan State University (1966 1971). Most of the African-American students scored, on average, 20 points lower on the Graduate Record Exam than white students, why such a disparity? Over time, people without belief systems are more inclined to engage in less cognitive behaviors that don require the utilization of the strengths inherent in a belief system (such as deductive reasoning). Some of these less cognitive behaviors and activities are: spending significant time watching television, being more sensitive to popular culture phenomena (as expressed in such valueless behaviors as promiscuous sexual activity), and or pride in ones ability to engage in rudimentary language skills. After undergraduate college, many of these same African-American students went to law school. Following graduation from law school, many of them were better-spoken, able to articulate thoughts, debate theories, and discuss complex issues. Before law school training they could not do that. Based upon these observations, the hypothesis is that these African-American students had found something that helped serve as a philosophical platform from which they were able to engage in positive cognitive interaction. What was this platform? It was, in fact, the law. The American legal system is a set of rules that govern society, a set of rules that gave these African-Americans something they had been missing, namely, a functional belief system that was both ordered and organized. This belief system facilitated these students ability to climb the intellectual ladder and learn how to think critically and reflectively. As stated earlier what passes for thinking is really comparing and contrasting ideas. In order to be able to analyze data, one must have a reliable, fixed belief system with which, or from which, to compare and contrast the information. Even concepts such as religious faith had a European perspective, since all that had been African was denied both by slave status and 300 years of distancing from what African religions might have been. Without an (IBS) logic dictates that one does not truly believe in anything. Having nothing to compare with, one cannot accept anything as fact. Thus, such ystem-less individuals experience inconsistent boundaries or values by which to evaluate everyday occurrences. Obviously, the advantage of an (IBS) is the facilitation of data. One can make sense of the world only when external events can be processed, or compared. The disadvantage is less obvious, being that it is nearly impossible for people to break away from a given, ingrained way of thinking. In groups, this is a down side in the sense that they will all tend to think alike and act alike, and feel comfortable while doing the same. This includes all the inherent historically obtained behavioral/cognitive errors, since no belief system is developed perfectly or without errors. A common saying dictates that people who do not know their history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of that history. This is a fallacy. Groups with (IBS) often know their history well, and continue the mistake cycle. They will repeat errors because the errors are by-products of their immutable template. This leads to an cho effect of sorts, being defined as the unconscious whisper of the original mistake (error) heard in one  mind, like echo. Some cultures excel in certain areas as a result of following the template; in other areas, mistakes are readily repeated, not only by themselves, but by later generations as well. Mistakes as well as successes can be duplicated, just like any other identifiable feature of a given belief system. In order to understand and appreciate the strengths of an (IBS), one might read the Willie Lynch Letter of 1712 (see Appendix). This reading may provide the necessary background as to what brainwashing is, when used on a cultural social basis if understood correctly; the rainwashing which is discussed here is outstandingly different from that debated in the 1970. Supposedly, Vietnamese intelligence experts were brainwashing individual prisoners of war. There was quite a bit of controversy amongst psychologists as to whether such a measure could actually be effective. That set aside, the brainwashing referred here is a social program, perpetrated and felt broadly across the culture. Its main focus was not that individuals were subjected to intense indoctrination (though in a few cases a slave may have equired some such in the slave owners minds). The main thrust was to develop and maintain the economy as one that used the agricultural ools available to the farmer: horses, livestock, equipment, and sadly slaves. This is clearly seen in the Lynch document and / or its equivalent in the 1700. In the slave-owner mentality, the desired goal was to reduce African-Americans in servitude to the mental and emotional (or psychological) level of barnyard animals for the purpose of breeding them for compliance and work. Obviously, animals have no history, culture, or language, which is why the slave-owners worked viciously to eradicate these things from the minds of their slaves. There are at least two conclusions regarding internal belief system. Initially they may seem contradictory; however in full form one may gain a complementary picture. First, there are benefits too not having a belief system (this may seem counter intuitive based on what has been written thus far). With that in mind, never the less, functioning without an IBS, or thinking outside of the box (IBS) one must be aware that they are doing so. In other words, to reap the benefits of being able to think outside of the box (outside the IBS), one must realize the following: the fact that there are boxes, they have limitations, and they have potentials. The creativity of non-box thinking is about as close to genius-thinking as most humans are capable of. Further testing is required. Second, in order to improve societal functioning of African Americans, a belief system can be taught that would not impose some of the features people find distasteful in other belief systems. This would allow African-Americans to improve their social standing and be able to compete in a society that has been run by flawed, internally corrupt belief systems. Teaching law (American Jurisprudence) starting in kindergarten would be beneficial to African-American students. American law is a simple enough belief system and would empower the students who learn it. In kindergarten, this belief system could be taught in simplified methods, becoming increasingly complex as the student moves into higher grades. This training would provide the students with the ability to make judgments based on comparing and contrasting data to a fixed quantity. On reaching high-school, the students would step beyond instruction in what American Law says and begin to learn about how to adjust in a society based on that Law: how to conduct oneself as a consumer of legal services, how to mount a political campaign, and how to mount a social movement or protest movement. If correct, several things should occur, grade point averages should rise, violence should decrees, and the general achievement of an entire subject group or race should be raised. If this works to satisfaction, it could become the central engine of a particular society or a significant portion of the engine. It is also possible that by being able to choose a belief system that is based more on logic, reason, and societal mores, we may be able to avoid the pitfalls inherent in other systems that cause repetitive, self-destructing patterns.

[THIS EDUCATIONAL PLAN PRESENTED BY THE 1830 CORPORATION]

Works Cited

BAOSU Members. (2005). Belief system: a double-edge sword. Oklahoma State University Buddhist Association. Retrieved November 26, 2006 from 	http://www.okstate.edu/osu_orgs/ba/F05/belief_system.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantraack (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Your first article and WP:Intro. What you wrote doesn't really belong on this page, as this page is for feedback on articles, not a place to post articles. What you posted doesn't really seem encyclopedic. Perhaps you can read more about what Wikipedia is and is not. Killiondude (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

S. Omar Barker
I believe the S. was for Samuel. He signed notes to friends with a "lazy S" O. B. He often said he tried to register the brand "lazy S"OB but some other lazy s.o.b. already had. I met S. Omar Barker and his wife Elsa when he asked my father to translate a letter to Elsa Barker that was in Dutch. As the rest of our family was away I accompanied my father to the Barkers' house. Later I was in Elsa Barker's 7th grade English class/homeroom. One of the delights of Mrs. Barker's English class was the occasional lecture from S. Omar Barker. He would always talk about the work of writing. He would end his talk with the reminder that "writing is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." S. Omar Barker grew up in Bullah, New Mexico. The Sapello, New Mexico, Postmistress says Bullah is more a general area. The zip code for Sapello will also bring up Bullah on some web sites. S. Omar Barker's older brother was the forrest ranger who found the burned bear cub known to one and all as Smokey Bear to this day.

97.119.132.123 (talk)Katherine H. Kirk (aka Katie Mallory) Sapello, New Mexico —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure what that was. But this is not the place for it. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimpeoples/Example/John_p_Healey
This is my first article for Wikipedia. I am slowly working my way through this process and am still about halfway lost most of the time. I would appreciate feedback on the article and guidance about what the next steps are when it is "ready for prime time." Thx, Jimpeoples (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will bring this to your talk page, since you had it deleted per U1. Killiondude (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nm. I see it was moved to John P. Healey. You've done a pretty good job for your first article. I think you might need to focus on making it more neutral in tone, and not trying to praise him or his work. Just give the facts and no superfluous language :-) You might wanna check out WP:AVOID and WP:PEACOCK (I think you have some words from the second link that are in this article). Also, one of the references links to a Geocities webpage which is not considered a reliable source since it has no fact checking reputation. Also, you might wanna use our and other  templates to make the references look better. There are a lot of pictures in the article, which isn't necessarily bad, but not all of them relate to Healey directly. Perhaps cutting out a few of the indirectly related pictures might help the article look more like an encyclopedia entry. Hopefully this helped. Any further questions, you can ask here or on my talk page. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Modbear/Sandbox - Counterstring
Hello. I recently requested an article on counterstrings (graduated strings used in software testing), but then decided to take the initiative and created this article in my user space. I'm interestred in feedback on the topic notablity, the clarity of explanation, the style and the language issues (as I'm not a native speaker). Thanks! --Modbear (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not good with computer science, but I showed another editor your article and they found it interesting. However, both of us agreed that the sources you used are self-published sources (blogs) which aren't really credible/acceptable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires multiple third-party, reliable sources to show that something is notable enough for inclusion. I tried to do some investigating to see if there were more credible sources that would prove notability, but came up short. Killiondude (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term is pretty specific, so it's no wonder that there aren't any solid white papers written about it. :-) In fact, the reason I wrote this article is that I once came across this term and couldn't find its definition almost anywhere, including Wikipedia (which has an extensive computer science knowledge base).
 * As for WP:SPS, I've noticed that it makes an exception for self-published sources "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Out of the three sources I provided, the earliest and initial one,, is James Bach's blog. He is indeed an expert in software testing (whish is the field the term relates to), the author of many published works on testing (see , ) and co-author of Cem Kaner (you can find both them under Software_testing). Given this, can this source be accepted? --Modbear (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had wondered if any of the blog authors would be considered "experts in their fields". Even if James Bach would be considered an "expert" and therefore citing his blog is allowed (which, I'm leaning towards agreeing with), it still doesn't fulfill WP:N. There needs to be "significant coverage" to warrant an article, and one blog about it doesn't really fulfill that... I don't make the rules, I just follow them :-) Actually, it was community consensus that formed that rule many years ago. Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. --Modbear (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/User:Perelien/Sandbox
Hi! I'm a new user, and a first-time contributor. I've just written an article on Dutch trance artist DJ Dazzle (it's in my Sandbox), and I would really appreciate it if someone could have a look at it and give me some feedback. Thanks a lot in advance! Perelien (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding more reliable sources for verifiability, and remember to be careful with words like keen or instantly hooked, because they can sometimes be exaggerations. The citation style is a little bit unclear (enclosing the references in hyperlinks isn't necessary), but this should be ready for a mainspace move sometime soon. Spring12 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spring12, thank you very much for your feedback and tips! I've edited the expressions you pointed out. I've also tried a different approach with regards to references, would you please have another look? Adding more references is quite difficult, though, as there aren't too many available. The only more recent bio I could find online is at the artist's MySpace page - can I list that one? I will keep working on it, though! I also have a question concerning images: I've received a few pictures in a promo pack, from the artist's manager. May I use them here? Thanks in advance! Perelien (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The style needs work; For example, this sentence;
 * In general he is associated with trance, but his style is quite varied - he plays both (vocal) trance, progressive, tech house and dance music.
 * This is opinionated; try to be neutral; word it so that the reader can make up there own mind. Example;
 * He has performed trance, vocal trance, progressive, tech house and dance music..
 * Notice the links; I've used things like;
 * progressive
 * See WP:linking for more info on this.
 * If there are no references, then simply leave it out.
 * Avoid myspace totally. It's the definition of an unreliable source. (See WP:RS and WP:V)
 * The most important thing is the references; for tips on referencing, please look at User:Chzz/refs.
 * Hope this helps,  Chzz  ►  02:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article: Situationist International - from Start to C-Class
I would say Situationist International has now evolved to C-Class. Any comments?--Sum (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my. The references are a real mess at the moment, and in dire need of a thorough going-over. You might get some ideas from user:chzz/refs. Reliable, verifiable references are vital to an article - a good way to think of it is, if you were reading the article, and looked at all the books, weblinks etc, would you be able to check up every single fact? --  Chzz  ►  05:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, but using templates for citations is not a requirement for C-Class.--Sum (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I never intended to imply that cite tags were necessary, merely that I felt that the biggest issue with the article was the referencing, and that use of cite tags is, in my experience, a good way of improving the referencing. I find it difficult to assert many of the facts in the article, and that is a central pillar of Wikipedia: verifiability.
 * I feel that the best way to progress this article would be to sort out the references. If your require more specific feedback, or if we can help in specifics, please let us know.  Chzz  ►  02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swimlej/Fighting_Chance
I am working in this article about Fighting Chance a non-profit cancer information center in my hometown. It is my first article, and I wanted to make sure I included enough references to third party sources. Any suggests that you can give to help improve the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimlej (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) --Swimlej (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

SLIMbus

This is the first article I have written for Wikipedia. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks, --Kdboyce (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The first issue I have with this article is the first part; the lede section. The very first words should be the title of the article enclosed in ''' . It should then summarize the rest of the article - it should immediately tell us what it's all about. Remember that it will be read from people all over the world, so perhaps it should start;
 * Fighting Chance is an American charity that provides counseling for cancer patients and caregivers.


 * The second problem with this is references; add references for everything - make sure they are reliable and verifiable sources. The webpage of the charity is a primary source, so may be challenged. For example, if you say "The organisation has 3000 employees" with a reference to their own website, that information may later be removed. If you can source a national newspaper article that mentions the fact, it should be OK. For help with how to make good refs, see my own tips in User:Chzz/refs.


 * I also recommend that you get in touch with other people in the community. Go to their talk page, create a new section, and say hello. Remember to 'sign' your message, with ~ at the end. Some of the others I've helped with similar articles include;
 * who made Braille Institute of America
 * who made Free Legal Advice Centres
 * who made Centres Against Sexual Assault
 * , who has also just joined, and wishes to create an article about a charitable org.


 * It's also worthwhile you reading through their talk pages, to see the issues they faced with their articles.


 * Best of luck; please leave me a message some time, and let me know how you're getting along.  Chzz  ►  02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)