Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This is a description of an archeological site in Galilee. I have tried to follow the Wikipedia conventions as best I can, and I intend to go back and improve the links within the page, but would appreciate some feedback about (a) its length and (b) its structure. Comparing it to other archeological articles it seems rather long, but on the other hand the technical detail about its history and construction are useful to anyone really interested in this kind of site.
2 days later: I'm finding this difficult. The page can be accessed through its URL (so it has been saved and exists) but not through the normal Wikipedia search box. Andrew 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Andrewfwilson
- As with many searchable databases, it takes days or weeks for new changes to take effect. I will look at the article itself when I have more time. Adrian M. H. 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
How do I add references.I am newto all this. I belive I have the artical in good shape — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.52.86 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2007
- Questions such as this should be posted at the Help Desk or one of the alternative venues such as NCH. See WP:FN and WP:HARV. Adrian M. H. 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I created the controversy section, though some anonymous users claim that it is inappropriate and/or slander. The section is referenced however, and I tried to maintain NPOV. Take a look at the discussion page. What do others think? Inappropriate/slander or appropriate? -- WiccaIrish 04:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that quite regardless of whether it violates WP:BLP (which it does), it is ridiculous for three lines of the article to cover the man's career and the remaining 90%+ of the article to be a long, virtually unsourced and weasel-worded attack page. (I can't think of the last time I saw so many "allegedly"s in a single article, while three (and possibly all four) of the four 'references' are blogs and not reliable sources and should not be being used.) Your comments on the discussion page seem to suggest you think using the word "allegedly" is a good thing. This page as it stands fails WP:BIO top-to-bottom and needs a complete rewrite — and sourcing from reliable sources to remain in anything resembling this form. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would have appreciated a nicer response. However, it is true that two of the references are blogs. I changed one of them to the source (aidshealth.org). I can take out the other and the statement it sources although it is apart of the Miami Herald website, with the article authored by a staff writer. According to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported, "alleged" and allegedly" are not that bad. I can remove them though. But you've got to be kidding me, that section only has *two* "alleged" and *one* "allegedly." I'm sorry but if you've never read anything that had three inflected forms of "allege," or any other word for that matter, you haven't read much. -- WiccaIrish 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, but the article was blatantly biased; my dad was a campaign manager of his, but since Wikipedia enforces a NPOV guideline, then a complete or at least partial revision of this article is necessary - in fact, the article wasn't written in typical Wikipedia fashion when I first saw it... Blake Gripling 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I came across this article a while back and was intrigued as it should detail one of my hobbies but it fails to I think. My personal contributions so far have been to move the article and other major edits such as condensing list and sections of undeveloped sub-points. I have been debating about scrapping most of the metal lists and handle materials and writing a description of the process from my own experience but I am not sure if that would be appropriate or not. Thanks for the helpJunolupus 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Three points obviously spring to mind. Firstly, list are (for the most part) really bad things. They are a cop-out solution for editors who cannot write encyclopædic prose. They should be kept to an absolute minimum within articles because long and/or numerous lists are boring for readers and lack detail and context. It needs cleanup work to reduce the listcruft and reduce the number of sections, which are far too numerous (even if they all had content, they would still need to be rationalised). Secondly, you cannot write anything "from your own experience". Finally, where are the references? Without citing its sources, it fails WP:V, so whatever you write will need to be verified by sources. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
OK so NOR here thanks for the heads up and I think that I will take out all the metal lists and try to start from a much smaller article. Does it seem appropriate (for the sake of simplicity) to document main methods? There is a guide to properly citing sources for Wikipedia isn't there, that would tell me what is legal to cite and technical things like that. Thanks alot for the input. Junolupus 22:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Capresso, Jura-Capresso, and Michael Kramm
Hello!
I just finished editing the Capresso entry I posted last week. I added references, took out information on the product line, and changed the language. What do you think? Also, do you think I should combine these three entries into one? Any suggestions on editing the Jura-Capresso and Michael Kramm entries? I really appreicate your help! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 October 2007
- Well, one of those
does not exist apparentlywas speedied, and we accept one request at a time anyway, for obvious reasons, so on which article do you want to focus? Adrian M. H. 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any suggestions on how I can make this article better. Thank You! --S.dedalus 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am a former employee of cedar point, and a former Paddlewheel Captain. I created this page to expand a little bit on paddlewheel. I did not cite specific references, because there aren't any. The only reference I have is my first hand experience as a captain. I would like to improve this, but am not sure if there is any way to do so. If somebody could please help me out, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshogan1 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 October 2007
- Since you have admitted that there are no references and it is all based on your own experience, it fails two key policies as well as the notability guideline. Adrian M. H. 10:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- As an employee doesnt this make me a firsthand resource? Dshogan1 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly, you have not read any of the pages to which I have linked. If you had, you would know that you cannot be a source. Source material for verification must be published by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, be that primary or secondary in nature. There are specific scenarios that allow for exemption of the need for independence, dependent on the nature of the claim being verified, but that certainly does not apply here. Notability is established by non-trivial treatments from independent reliable sources that focus on the subject in question. Adrian M. H. 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- As an employee doesnt this make me a firsthand resource? Dshogan1 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looking over a Google-cached copy of the deleted article, it looks like the first concern would be the non-encyclopedic nature of much of the contribution. You might want to consider setting up your own web site if that is the type of material you want to cover. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
help on merits and limitations of ICD of classification of psychiatric illness
hello my name is ranjeet. i have a question that im looking for a comprehensive report/ ppt presentation about merits and limitations of ICD of classification of psychiatric illness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.23.153 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2007
- This is not in the remit of RFF, Ranjeet. See the header for a brief explanation of what this page is here for. You might like to try the miscellaneous section of the Ref Desk. Adrian M. H. 12:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I created this article after reading a LiveScience article (because I was "bore"d, get it?), and was very surprised that there hadn't been an article already. Please make this article better. Yes I know it's too short, but I always find what I can about a subject and write a stub about it. Please look into it (preferably ASAP). It needs more info. Try to find more sources and improve the reference markup. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like you want Requests for expansion rather than RFF! Either that or request help from whichever WikiProject is most applicable. Adrian M. H. 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've worked extensivley on improving this article and if the outcome of this is good I may ask for a peer review. I would appreciate any suggestions on how I can make it better after it failed a GA review. Thank You from Pafcool2 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- A couple of obvious points after a brief scan: The first thing that strikes me (almost literally) is the sheer frequency of the words "Croydon" and "London" in various forms. The first sentence is particularly clunky, and not just for that reason. I can see some repeated links as well (South London and Central Croydon, for example). PR is perpetually backlogged, so you probably won't gain anything by taking it there. Adrian M. H. 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the uses of the words Croydon and London is hard to avoid in this article (named London Borough of Croydon).Pafcool2 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since you strangely decided to duplicate your response onto my talk page, I will duplicate my response here: it would not be hard at all and only takes some care and imagination. Adrian M. H. 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the uses of the words Croydon and London is hard to avoid in this article (named London Borough of Croydon).Pafcool2 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Feedback request
I am building a wiki page about a company and am trying to keep it informative vs being an advertisement. If you could give me some feedback on how to make this happen I would appreciate it. You can view the proposed page on my userspace at User:Cwacker1/MPLS-Experts I would prefer to here from people in the telecommunications/IT field as they understand what are true benefits of MPLS vs blatant advertisements. Please post in the discussion of the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwacker1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 October 2007
- First of all, much, if not most of the article is about the MPLS technology. That belongs in the Multiprotocol Label Switching article, not in the article about the company. (For all I know, it's already there, in which case the massive duplication is totally wrong.) If the company (say) writes all its programs in C++, you wouldn't expect to find a long discussion about the advantages of that language in the article, yes?
- Second, regarding the section that is a list of service providers, that should be removed - see WP:NOT. Similarly, the external links section needs to be pruned back to basically a link to the company's website, per WP:EL.
- Those changes will make the article much, much shorter. It will also expose whether the company is notable enough to have had news stories and other reliable sources report on it. If not, then you're going to have real problems making this a real article. If so, then it will be a short article, which is okay - this is a new, small company, and a short article is appropriate for that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
jann haworth
My article about this artist was deleted on 16th September 2007 by Ben Schumin for lack of notability. Since then i have been helped by Adrian M H, who has advised me to contact Mr Schumin to see whether the article can be made acceptable, but I am not sure how to contact Mr Schumin. I have at least 11 verifiable book sources which reference this artist's work. Severy 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can contact him via his talk page at User talk:Schuminweb. Adrian M. H. 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have seriously revised many portions of this article, and I would love some feedback on the sections I have done so far, basically to the the Mithridatic Wars. What can I do to improve? Any problems? I was hoping for feedback, but as of yet I haven't gotten a response. Let me know! Thanks! Monsieurdl 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Vancouver Academy of Dramatic Arts & Director Simon Longmore
Hi I am just checking as to whether my copyright info is actually being submitted or if I am doing it wrong. Thanks, I haven't been able to view the pages so I have a feeling I am missing something. Chrissybug66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissybug66 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 October 2007
- That is not much information to go on, and it is not clear what you are asking, but it looks as if you might be better off asking at the help desk. RFF is for getting feedback about significant contribs to any specific article. Adrian M. H. 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
requesting on forgot password
I am recently created an account on 11-10-2007, but in this i am forgot my password. In this please help me and my e-mail address <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.233.130 (talk • contribs)
- Hi. First of all, I don't think this is the right place. Try the Wikipedia Help desk. Second, please do not give us your email address. This makes it public on Wikipedia and very public throughout the Internet, making you a potential target for spammers. We can reply through whatever page you editted on, or through your talk page. Third, please sign your comments using 4 tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~ . You are welcome to edit without an account, although using an account has its benefits. Next time, if you choose to create a new account, please make a password that is hard to guess but easy for you to remember, or check the "remember me" box. I am going to post this comment at the Help Desk, so you will probably find any answers there. ~AH1(TCU) 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I think you can revive your password through your email account or you can link when you log in here in forgot password link. Then, they will send your password in your email account.--Nicolealmer 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have since rewritten this article (diff link), and am currently working hard to improve it. Before I tended to it, it was a short paragraph and a list of features and specifications copied directly for the Caparo website. I have rewritten it into a well-structured article, with most, if not all, information present (that could be cited.) —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't got much time to look it over right now, though I will do so if I can. It looks neat at first glance. In the meantime, you might want to include this. Worth a mention. Adrian M. H. 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was in the Trivia section I had recently removed, however, I cannot figure out what section to put it in. Trivia doesn't seem appropriate. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would avoid using a trivia heading even for things that may be trivial. Sometimes, tangential but noteworthy facts can get branded as trivia, simply by being tangential, but that doesn't necessarily prohibit their inclusion. It is always best to work it into the text elsewhere anyway. It's a notable event that received coverage in multiple sources, so I think you could just write a paragraph on it at the end of the article. Adrian M. H. 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have implemented it in the article without the use of "Trivia." —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would avoid using a trivia heading even for things that may be trivial. Sometimes, tangential but noteworthy facts can get branded as trivia, simply by being tangential, but that doesn't necessarily prohibit their inclusion. It is always best to work it into the text elsewhere anyway. It's a notable event that received coverage in multiple sources, so I think you could just write a paragraph on it at the end of the article. Adrian M. H. 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was in the Trivia section I had recently removed, however, I cannot figure out what section to put it in. Trivia doesn't seem appropriate. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Requesting feedback on this recently re-written article. I want to know what people think.Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
...anyone...? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the Catherine T. MacArthur article, because when they mention the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation – Is it an exaggeration to say 1,000 times everyday on PBS stations throughout the U.S. (and probably on their sponsored programming throughout world) I realized I had no idea who she was. Same when the Genius Grants are made and they are the 3rd or 4th national story of that day
I included all the news and wiki-allowable info on her that I know without doing “research” or anything else that wiki would forbid (like adding my opinions or thoughts) and yet stamped about its top is now:
The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies,blah-blah
Crappy poorly written article written by a troglodyte? OK I can accept that. Silly scribbling of an imbecile? Fine, got it I don’t entirely disagree.
Not notable though? That strikes me as absolutely absurd. Short of linking to everyplace the foundation is mentioned on-line can you suggest some ideas?
Thanks in advance
Khan Noonian Singh 20:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- You have not demonstrated notability. In fact, you have barely even asserted it. It is a candidate for AFD as it stands. I expect that you are already familiar with the requirements of WP:N and WP:V, but this article fails to meet either of them. Adrian M. H. 23:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- And you might want to review WP:RS as well; there is a world of source material beyond the internet, amazingly, which too few editors ever actually utilise. Adrian M. H. 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any suggestions on how I can make this article better and perhaps gain GA-status. Thanks. kalaha 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Add references to the history section; try to reduce the quantity of refs in the season by season table; lose the address; merge the sponsorships into another section; avoid incorrect plurals (such as "they have" instead of "it has"); fix the cite error. Otherwise, it is a good effort. Fix all of the above and you won't have much to do to pass GA. Adrian M. H. 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This 'article' is the result of some effort by me and a few other wikipedians. However, mainly due to the fact that we are unable to get more reliable sources we are forced to keep it on the project page. I'd appreciate any help. U5K0 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Much has been done to the ECS article since its promotion of A-Class article status. I'd be grateful if other editors would offer suggestions for what might yet need to be done for promotion to FA status. Jancarhart 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any article of this standard belongs at peer review. Adrian M. H. 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Rubiks Cube (not created yet)
Hi. Milaneus (talk · contribs) has mentioned (on MSN) that he wanted an article on his band, "Rubiks Cube". I'm not ready to create an article yet, as I'm not sure if it meets notability. Yes I looked through WP:MUSIC, and it apparently meets several of the criteria. Here's a sandbox version of it.
'''Rubiks Cube''' is a three-person youth [[Indie Rock]] [[band]] located in Southern [[Ontario]]. They have performed in 3 semi-public concerts. They have had associations with [[Courtesy Blush]], and have genres similar to that of [[The Used]], [[Incubus]], [[Billy Talent]], [[Wolfmother]], [[The Mars Volta]], [[Queens of the Stone Age]], [[Queen]], [[The Beatles]], [[Cult (band|Cult]], and [[My Chemical Romance]]. They have had many previous names and have exsisted for around four years. {{Infobox musical artist |Img = |Img_capt = |Img_size = |Name = Rubiks Cube |Background = group_or_band |Origin = Southern [[Ontario]], [[Canada]] |Genre = [[Indie Rock]] |Years_active = [[2003]] - present |Label = |Associated_acts = }}
- The infobox usually goes at the top. Auroranorth (sign) 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the article for Hiromi Shinya and am in a situation involving conflict of interest. I would greatly appreciate any experienced Wikipedian looking at the article for neutrality and for general format, as it is my first article. I also would appreciate anyone with knowledge of Japanese doing a small amount of research on Hiromi Shinya--especially on his written work--as he is much more well known in Japan, and I can only assume more information about him exists in Japanese. I have posted additional pertinent information in the talk page for Hiromi Shinya. Thank you. Nik-renshaw 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone? The article is quite short. Apparently this feedback request thing is a rather slow process, unless your question is inherently flawed? --Nik-renshaw 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is slow because there is only one editor who is willing to spend any time here on a regular basis, and that's me. I don't have much to say about this article apart from the fact that it is quite well written but your sources are weak: a bio from the website of his clinic (not an independent source) and a synopsis from a book seller don't really meet the requirements. How about some coverage in newspapers and medical or health journals? The claims of notability all there, which is great, but the sources don't back it up. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is rough for you. Anyway, the bio is only used to provide information in, I believe, two places, about his place of birth, and the title of his residency at some point, which I felt met the requirements for use of non-independent sources. And the book is currently being released in the U.S., so there is little information on it thus far. I did not think that a bio from the publisher was a stretch at this stage--as it contains no praise or criticism--but I will definitely update once more is available in the coming months. Reviews, interviews, media coverage, what have you. The rest of the article is from the medical journal Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, which I think is a fine source to demonstrate notability in that field. Anyway, the biggest problem--as I state in the talk page--is that the majority of literature on him appears to be in Japanese, and my patience with Google-translated pages only extends so far. However, I am on top of the situation, and I expect the dearth of material on him in English to meet its end in the coming months, and I intend to continually update the biography with well-sourced material as it is becomes available. Otherwise, if you know the best way for me to find someone willing to do some research in Japanese, I am all ears. Thanks for reading it, and I apologize for griping. I could try to help out here, but I don't know what good I may be, since I've only been a Wikipedian for about 1.5 months, very part-time. --Nik-renshaw 06:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and I have another question: Am I allowed to quote copyrighted material on Wikipedia? My understanding of the whole GNU/Public domain/free sources/whatever article was that I should avoid it if possible. I found some quotations in the medical journal quite illustrative, but I edited them out in favor of paraphrase, according to my interpretation of public domain/free use policy, after reading it. Thanks. --Nik-renshaw 06:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I always avoid quoting in that way. Google translations? Often useless, but occasionally unintentionally hilarious! Post a message for assistance at WikiProject Japan if it's still active, or if not, make use of the User ja category to find an editor who is fluent in Japanese and English and perhaps willing to assist. That med journal is a very good source, but the publisher's bio, neutral though it is, could be brought into question; because it is not independent, it does not indicate notability. It's not a big issue for me in light of his achievements, but it's something to be aware of. I'm impressed by your keenness to continue to develop the article; I wish more new editors did that. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you. I dropped a line at the WikiProject Japan page, so hopefully I can get proper sourcing into the authorship section soon. Also, I was wondering if my section titles were too specific or clumsily named, thereby restricting future growth of the article. I tried to read up on as much as I could about conventions in article creation, but it's no substitute for experience. --Nik-renshaw 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, they're fine. There's nothing to prevent anyone from changing them if it is required in the future. Adrian M. H. 13:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you. I dropped a line at the WikiProject Japan page, so hopefully I can get proper sourcing into the authorship section soon. Also, I was wondering if my section titles were too specific or clumsily named, thereby restricting future growth of the article. I tried to read up on as much as I could about conventions in article creation, but it's no substitute for experience. --Nik-renshaw 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I always avoid quoting in that way. Google translations? Often useless, but occasionally unintentionally hilarious! Post a message for assistance at WikiProject Japan if it's still active, or if not, make use of the User ja category to find an editor who is fluent in Japanese and English and perhaps willing to assist. That med journal is a very good source, but the publisher's bio, neutral though it is, could be brought into question; because it is not independent, it does not indicate notability. It's not a big issue for me in light of his achievements, but it's something to be aware of. I'm impressed by your keenness to continue to develop the article; I wish more new editors did that. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is slow because there is only one editor who is willing to spend any time here on a regular basis, and that's me. I don't have much to say about this article apart from the fact that it is quite well written but your sources are weak: a bio from the website of his clinic (not an independent source) and a synopsis from a book seller don't really meet the requirements. How about some coverage in newspapers and medical or health journals? The claims of notability all there, which is great, but the sources don't back it up. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the choice of words in the presentation of the tenets of this belief system/therapy. It may be an NPOV problem, IMHO. In the presentation the words "awareness" and "realization" are often used in a way that implies the underlying truth of what the "student" is being led to. In addition, the article still feels to me as if it is directed to a reader who is a potential true believer in the system, rather than a sceptical outsider. As a result it doesn't seem neutral to me. Rather than letting this come to some kind of dispute, I would like others to look at the article a leave feedback. DCDuring 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at it, and I was skeptical at first by looking at the sources, a lot of which were from Banks, Mills, and their center at West Virginia. Then I looked onwards to the various different places this has been encountered, the presentations to the APA, etc., and I think that it is more of a source problem than anything else. You are correct when you say that the definition of innate health is not there, and [3] is not acceptable at all. This needs cleanup, and I found the very place to go: [[ http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/wviih/pdfs/Melissa%20Baker%27s%20Article%20in%20ABMP%20magazine.pdf]] on page 90 of the article. THIS should be referenced and expanded to give the definition of innate health- the talk page isn't the place for the definition only. NPOV in this article is missing because of two reasons: References to criticisms are notably absent, which needs work, and the objections raised which are noted are from the proponents themselves, which is odd. If this article is cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia and less like a dissertation on why HR works, then you have something. Also, I would can the multiple-referenced sentences- they are very distracting. Monsieurdl 19:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. I do plan to add a referenced definition of "innate health."
- "References to criticisms" are lacking in the article, not because of the point of view of the article but because of the lack of attributed criticism that can be found in published materials. What little attributed criticism has been found has been included and presented neutrally. If necessary I can remove all unattributed objections, but this seems to me to reduce the article's balance, not improve it.
- Multiple-referenced sentences are there because of the previous requests for more neutral and/or peer-reviewed references to assure a neutral point of view. Can you suggest a way to handle this so that the requested documentation does not reduce readability? RRWayne 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Rainhill
Recently I have worked a fair bit on Rainhill, though I never initially created the article, and I am pretty proud of how it has developed. It is my home village so I am getting around to taking some photos to improve the article but can anybody else help with what other content I should add? So far I have basically completely changed the layout of the page and added references and bits of other content. Thanks DoyleyTalk 07:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that's not a bad effort. I have copy-edited it for grammar, style and punctuation and provided HTML comments at relevant junctures of which you should take note. Remember to remove them when dealt with. Points for attention include:
- Footnote formatting needs to follow the layouts at WP:CITET, though use of the templates themselves is entirely optional and not particularly recommended by me if you don't want to do too much typing and pasting.
- Footnotes should be positioned immediately after punctuation.
- More citations are needed (tagged accordingly) even if you use repeat refs (use the naming system).
- Some explanatory wikilinks are needed for international readers (see comments).
- Don't place external links in body text.
- Watch your punctuation and spelling; I fixed a US spelling that should be a UK spelling.
- Categories are added in square brackets, which I fixed for you.
- Watch the red links; if the subject is not actually notable, there is really no benefit to a red link (it looks messy without good reason and can encourage novices to create yet more non-notable content). I would question the notability of some of those red linked items. For example, Michael Abram might be a BLP1E case.
- The lede should precis the essence of the article, but it instead contains some content that belongs elsewhere and is not expanded upon elsewhere. Adrian M. H. 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Cherine Anderson - First "new article"
Greetings, folks. This is my first new article, and I've already learned a ton. I'm working out how to present references and links (perhaps I was a bit excessive in that regard), and there's another section I want to add about Reggae Festivals she's performed at (I saw her live at a festival and was blown away!).
I seem to be getting by, learning some of the in's and out's of Wikipedia composition, but I find the documentation very difficult to sift through (e.g. it can take an hour to figure out how to use a minute function - between finding a relevant entry, looking up the accepted use, finding documentation on how to use the function, figuring out the code and syntax required, and finding examples of how to use in a real article.) Am I missing some major resource for figuring out how to do things quickly?
grrr... I bet it's gonna take me 20 minutes to figure out how to get this talk page on some sort of hot list that people will see and respond to... heck, it took me 10 minutes to find out that the only way to make a paragraph "tabbed-in" like this one is to create a damn table I got lucky - only took about 5 mins...
Please review the page, it's structure, style, and accuracy, and provide any helpful critiques or suggested reading.
Thanks!
- Caen 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very briefly, the most obvious and easy fixes are: footnote format; EL format; lack of infobox. Adrian M. H. 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
First Article created!! Dwarf Athletic Association of America
Hello! I've been editing behind the scenes for a while and have completely reworked a few articles, but I had never created my own article. So, after watching Little People, Big World I wanted to see if there was an article on the Dwarf Athletic Association of America. I couldn't find one, so I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to write my first article. I was hoping someone (or many people) could take a look at the artice and give me some feed back. I think this is an important topic that deserves a place here and I hope I created a well enough article to be expanded on in the future. You can find it at Dwarf Athletic Association of America. Thanks in advance for you feedback, I appreciate it! Josborne2382 04:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's very good, one suggestion would be to tidy up the references. Rather than just putting the site, do it like this: {{cite web |url=website |title=name of what you want the ref to be |work=who made the reference, website etc. |accessdate=date, e.g., 7 November |accessyear=year, 2007}}
— jacĸrм (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the feedback and suggestion, I will do that! Josborne2382 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nice start - you can shorten the list of references by naming them, and then referrig to them by name later. I did a couple as an example. Also, I added a category - you may want to see if there are any others that are appropriate for your article. Regards—G716 <T·C> 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks much for the feedback! Josborne2382 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Need assistance with Commercial Revolution article
Hello...I've been expanding what was a small article into a much larger, more comprehensive one, and I'm seeking help on getting more references for it, and to add more text to make it more complete. Also needs a bit of copy-editing. I'm also unsure of when the put the dates of the commercial revolution, either the 1100's (after the Crusades), or the period before Columbus's voyage. Not sure if this is the best place to make this request, so I hope that I'm not overstepping bounds here. I'm the only one working on the article, too. Hires an editor 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a few months, and would appreciate any comments. Regards—G716 <T·C> 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just a thought. If I were looking up "common cold" in the encyclopedia, and I didn't know very much medical terminology, and me or my spouse or kids were stuffy and miserable, I would find it a bit humorous and comforting to see something like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Petit_Sammy_%C3%A9ternue.jpg on the article page. It's not technically useful information in any way, but it might cheer someone up! :) And that might keep them reading the more technical information. Like I said, just a thought.... --Busy Stubber 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This shows the differences from my first edit to the article to the current version. I have done a lot of minor-medium work, mostly copyediting. Please give me your opinions on anything else that can be done. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this stub article. I came across it when it was clearly an advertisement[1]. It's not a clear advertisement now, but the anon editor(s) don't seem to be doing much to help establish notability. I don't know anything about this trade show. Feedback appreciated. --Busy Stubber 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted the latest edits, added the advert tag, and added warnings to the user talk pages of the anon editors. Regards—G716 <T·C> 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks! --Busy Stubber 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- The anons are back, so I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Regards—G716 <T·C> 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wonderful help! --Busy Stubber 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The anons are back, so I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Regards—G716 <T·C> 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks! --Busy Stubber 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I created this page a year ago. Recently another editor, without contributing anything to the article, put the article up for deletion, partially because he couldn't understand the topic. In response, I rewrote the entire page and added a lot of material. could someone review this article and make some suggestions? Thank you. Travb (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if my thoughts are helpful in a hot debate, so I won't put them on the talk page but put them here.
- It might help if you put the article in historical context. What Americans think of as civil law is a bit ambiguous (that's why there's a disambiguity page for it). The American legal system is based on the assumption that all citizens consider the Christian ten commandments to be beyond debate in terms of appropriate personal conduct. The United States wasn't founded by atheists, it was founded by Christians who disagreed with the British concept that a monarch was chosen by God to rule the citizens. Americans believe that citizens should elect their rulers (democracy), and that no one person is "chosen by God" to rule daily life.
- "Civil" has come to mean "non-secular" -- whatever best expresses "non-religious-based." The US was established to be respectful of all religions, with the government being impartial to religion. But at that time, the only religions under consideration by the founding fathers were Christian-based. The founding fathers of America did not consider non-Christian religions to be relevant to the new country being established, the USA. They based the laws of the country on the assumption that the citizens were of various deminations within Christianity. At that time, for the American settlers, this was more or less true.
- Young editors and readers won't understand American civil religion unless you explain the history. They think that modern American society is unrelated to religious ethics or religious law. It's not that simple, but they don't know that. I think some historical context would help. --Busy Stubber 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please check the grammer of this article. English is not my main language and so I have difficulties to correct the sentences of this article. D@rk K 10:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, my article has just been rereviewed as a B-class article and I'd really like some advice on how to improve it further so that it can become a good article. Thanks, ---- Cazo3788 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some observations:
- I would like to see more paragraph breaks in the text. At present many of the paragraphs run almost the full length of a section. This makes for tiresome reading.
- The lead should be 2-4 paragraphs, per WP:Lead_section#Length, and be a consise summary of the article.
- In the "Early life..." section, try not to start all of the first three sentences with "he". It looks unimaginitive.
- Can you finish up the "Works" section by adding years to the remaining fields?
- It would be a good idea to properly format the references. For this I recommend Wikipedia:Citation templates.
- Statements such as "took London by storm" can be considered point of view; not to mention the use of vernacular. Likewise for "...the most famous being..." Such statements can be made if they are an authoritative quote, for example, and/or have a suitable citation. Otherwise I think they should be converted into a more neutral form.
- "considered left-wing" may not be meaningful for everybody. Perhaps it could be clarified? What does "A composer of audacious, ... symphonies..." mean for somebody who is not very familiar with classical works?
- For highly notable individuals I like to see a section of "Awards and honors" giving a list of how they have been recognized by others. But that's not suitable for everybody I suppose.
- My $.02 worth. I hope this helped a little. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Review article for neutrality
Could someone please see if the following entry now meets the criteria for neutrality and the warning be removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponseti. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricketrica (talk • contribs)
- Sign your name first of all :) I don't think it is neutral yet- the section on Publications is especially bad- it reads like an advertisement. The beginning bolded text is not appropriate for an introduction, and needs revision. The inline references are not done properly as well. -- Monsieurdl (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently completed work on the article Harold Innis. I notice it has been given a B rating, but I feel the article is virtually complete and probably deserves a higher rating. Bwark (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
New word
I would like to submit the word " Crichtonian" as a new work. Meaning things or ideas that could only be imagined by author Michael Crichton.
- Sorry but this isn't likely to happen, because:
- We tend to not accept neologisms, especially ones that are unsourced. See WP:NEO
- Unless they've had a unique cultural impact, individual words don't get their own articles. Some examples of those that do: fuck, truthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.186.233 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Verify this individual.
I have been contacted by Nadu Ribadu - Bank of Nigeria in regards to inheritance. I would like this verified with all the e-mail scams on bank accounts lately. Please verify. I am looking for a phone number and reason why I was picked. Thank you. sincerely-David O. -SM Troop 1052 -USA. (if not verified - I will contact the FBI to investigate.) 11-19-2007.
- Dear David, This page is intended to provide comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have created or substantially changed, and your request is completely unrelated to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but you will want to contact an organization that can assist you with such issues, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As a note of personal advice, I would ignore such a letter, as it is most likely a scam, as you suspect. If you inherited anything, the chances are a lawyer would have contacted you, not a bank. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 11:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Threat of nuclear weapons in Korean Peninsula
Shall we share the opinions on the above topic? Your valued points of view are appreciated. Ahlong1234 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- This page is intended to provide comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have created or substantially changed, do you have a specific page that you wish feedback on? Ariel♥Gold 11:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on the McFly article for a while (over a year perhaps) along with other fans and I'm unsure on what it needs to be improved. A review or comments would be extremely helpful! --Stacey talk 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have previously requested feedback, however no real helpful or in-depth feedback was given. I was hoping for another look at it. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Japanese abacus known as the soroban. It was originally a redirect to the abacus article, and I changed it to a full fledged article (diff) because in the talk page for the "abacus" article, there was a discussion to split up the article into ones discussing each type of abacus. The Chinese abacus, the suanpan, already has its own article so I was compelled to do the same, using what I have learned about it (with references listed, of course). Except for a correction by Pandacomics (talk · contribs) and a few spam edits by an IP anon, I'm the only one working on this article. I'm asking for any feedback, suggestions, or improvements on the article. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that this article should have more explanation on how a soroban is acutually used, what a multipication table is for, a discription of the standard method, ect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.165.229 (talk • contribs)
I think that's an awesome article A+ well done--207.61.173.135 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
Nemertea I need to get this to GA status as soon as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Chaucer (talk • contribs)
- You might try signing and adding the date to your request. Some suggestions:
- It could use some pictures and/or illustrations.
- Citations should always follow punctuation.
- There are several single-sentence paragraphs. I'd recommend expanding them or merging with another paragraph.
- Can the Anatomy and Length sections be merged?
- For the longer specimens, is the width proportional to the length? If not, how wide do they get? What is their mass?
- Could the article explain 'stylet'?
- You need a reference for the etymology in the lead.
- Other than that, I'd recommend looking at some of the articles in the Biology section of Wikipedia:Featured_articles for ideas. I hope this was of some help.—RJH (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I've made some improvements to Earth science including adding references and citations. I hope so much that it's at least good-article quality 
. Could someone please evaluate it for me?--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- So does anyone have any comments?--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think a good example of a general subject article is Biology. You might take a look at how they did their page for ideas.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Mumia-w-18 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think a good example of a general subject article is Biology. You might take a look at how they did their page for ideas.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Electroconvulsive Therapy
One Sentence was changed and a reference for it was added. The references did not move down one # as expected.
Added balance to the statement, i.e. truth/reality, as in "9-11 Was An Inside Job" with Stephen Jones for a reference. Please see my discussion section page... The # citation works as a link to where the reference should be. BUT there is no reference. There is a lot of overwrite mess now on the reference section. Can't fix it, as you can tell from my history page - spent some effort trying! I don't believe that what I did - created the mess, as I followed the template, so it should at least appear in error if a minor mistake was made in it. But in truth - adding this single reference is a lot like Jones's analysis of trade center dust in that it kinda makes the commission report meaningless - all by itself.
Wolfdeck
- I fixed a broken <ref> element. Now at least the references show up
. Electroconvulsive Therapy still needs some work. Right now I have other things to do, but when I'm done I'll take another look at the article. Otherwise good job Wolfdeck.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed a broken <ref> element. Now at least the references show up
Bury St. Edmunds witch trial
I have done the majority of work on this article and before I lose myself can someone have a glance and see if I am heading in the right direction (ish). Thanks Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This is main article about Armenia country. It is a product of collaboration of many people.I became frequent contributor there recently. Any constructive feedback even about minor details or syntaxes (preferably from native or near native knowledge of English language) will be very welcome. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 900 meters, use 900 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 900 meters.[?] - Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), categorise (B) (American: categorize), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery), program (A) (British: programme).
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on the list formatting task at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, on reformatting the lists on List of subnational entities. It seemed to me that this info would fit well in a table, so I've started formatting it that way on the page linked in this section title. The page isn't finished, but I'd appreciate knowing if others think the table format I came up with is worth pursuing. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Zinfandel
Would welcome some feedback on where Zinfandel stands at the moment. We've a bit of a debate going on how big the "USA" section is going to be, but the West Coast wine fans are working on that, so really I'm more interested in how the remaining 90% of the article looks to other people. In my limited experience it 'feels' like it's probably in the region of a good GA but am open to comments, and would welcome suggestions for anything that needs doing to get it up to say an A (or even FA perhaps?) Obviously stability is one thing we haven't yet got, but that will come.... FlagSteward (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I wrote a "Request for Feedback" question a couple of months ago. I can't find the answer to my question in the past responses, so I thought I'd start over again. There are a couple of stamps on the Capresso page that I created, and I was wondering if an editor could take a look at the revisions I added to the page. If my revisions still do not meet Wikipedia standards, I'd like some tips on how to do so. Thanks for your help! Scsbn4 (Talk) 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The real problem is that you make no effort to demonstrate that Capresso is notable. See this page for how to do that, or the article of a big company such as BAE Systems for an example - you'll find lots of references at the bottom where BAE is mentioned in national newspapers such as the Financial Times or the Guardian. That proves that BAE is regarded as notable by trustworthy third parties, and is the best way to prove that the article is not just somebody writing about their own company for promotional purposes. Other Wikipedia 'how to' articles you may want to read include WP:CITE, WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. FlagSteward (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Eagle Creek, Montana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Creek%2C_Montana
Eagle Creek, Montana is a fictional town wherein live the characters from the novel Sarah Conrad of Eagle Creek. For some reason, the webpage is active, meaning I have a link but I cannot find "Eagle Creek, Montana" in the wiki search engine. Additionally, the whole "untagged images" thing is confusing. I have read the tutorial but I still cannot understand why my first two images were fine and the third was not. I cannot find a way to delete the image which is what I'd like to do. Anyway, I would appreciate some feedback. Jason Goldtrap (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that it's about the setting of a first book suggests that it's unlikely to be notable enough to go into Wikipedia. The fact that the book was written by a Jason Goldtrap suggests that there's probably a major conflict of interest here. I've put it up for deletion. On the search thing, it is there now, so there was probably just a slight delay in it getting indexed by the search engine. FlagSteward (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I used Sepkoski's online marine fossil genera database to compile a list of bony fish that are known from the fossil record. I have marked extinct genera with daggers (†), and bolded fossil genera that have managed to survive to the present day. I've worked really hard on it, and was hoping someone could give me some feedback or advice. Thank you! Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- As a non-specialist, it looks like you've done a nice job - all those red links should keep someone busy!!! I've tweaked the TOC to use one of the standard templates, which is just a bit cleaner and centred. To be honest, you're probably better off asking for advice on some of the dedicated Project boards such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Extinction - the latter might be the best place to start, then if you don't get a response there, try Biology. People can get very picky about getting taxonomy right, and it makes sense to run as many eyeballs past it as possible before starting to fill in all those red links. FlagSteward (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrote a new article but is not public within Wikipedia
Hello, I finished writing a new article, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semiotic_Matrix_Theory_%28SMT%29&oldid=180254159 but is not public yet. What I am doing wrong? Thank you in advance! Chitola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.184.140 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 December 2007
- It seems that when you were not logged in, VOA Bot II mistook your edits as "test edits." See your diff as 64.33.184.140 to determine why this might happen, and look at the history.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- <edit conflict>Hello! The article Semiotic Matrix Theory (SMT) is indeed publicly available already, notice that the link works just fine. The source of your confusion may be that your article was not yet listed in the search index- that index often takes some time to update so don't sweat it. You also seem to have done some editing while logged out of your account (as in your post to this very forum). You might want to double check your logged in status while making edits- the edit window will warn you if you're editing while logged out.
- Your article is well referenced and authoritatively written. However, the first thing that struck me about the article is that I couldn't figure out what the heck this thing was until most of the way through it. You need to include a lead section that succinctly explains what the subject of the article is because since this is an encyclopedia you have to assume that people are looking up the article because the don't know what it is. The language of the whole article should also be written with a more general audience in mind, You need to explain jargon to people who may not be familiar with the words you are using. You might also consider using footnotes for your citations. More links from and to related articles would also be very helpful. All in all I do think it's a very informative article, thanks for adding it.
I've just created this article fairly recently (after the History section on the Collegiate wrestling page had been taking up loads of kilobytes) and have been editing this article either signed in or logged off on my own or at a public computer for some time now. Even though I'm not a wrestler, I've tried to make sure that this article is accurate and consistent with the sources I've been able to find. Please check behind me, and correct and improve not only this article, but also the History sections on the Collegiate wrestling and Scholastic wrestling pages where approrpiate. I'm mainly interested in improvements to all of the sections for accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?
There has been a question that has been on my mind for some time. In the section on the 20th century, I've pointed out that the first college dual meet took place between Yale and UPenn in 1900. I've cited the sources I found that information from appropriately. Other sources, such as the article on this website at http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/article.asp?intID=2084, point out that the first college dual meet took place between Yale and Columbia in 1903. Is one right and the other wrong, or could both events be added to the article and clarified somehow?
Could someone please also add accurate and cited information regarding the development of American wrestling at the high school level?
I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if this article is at least B class. I would like to see this article become a Good Article, if not an A Class or a Featured article in the near future.
Thanks, Wikiman86 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I've submitted the same information in a Peer Review request, but just in case this article was not developed enough for other people's taste, I've submitted it here as well.
This is a new article that I just created, because there was hardly any information on the USA Wrestling (USAW) from any other articles on Wikipedia. As you can tell from the article, USA Wrestling is the national governing body for freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling in the United States. I've tried to outline its history, structure, and current events and activities.
I'm mainly interested in improvements to all of the sections in terms of accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. I would particularly be interested in more detailed expansions of the other sections besides the History section. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?
I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to see this article become at least B class in the near future. Please give your feedback.
Thanks, Wikiman86 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to improve the article on the Interational Association of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) with information on FILA's history and current structure, events, and activities. I've gotten information mainly from the FILA website, but someone else has pointed out (as can be seen in the tag) that there should also be third-party sources to back up my information. At the present time, I haven't been able to find any.
I'm mainly interested in improvements to all of the sections in terms of accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?
I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to see this article become at least B class in the near future. Please give your feedback.