Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 November 24

Hello

I noticed a few bullying awareness articles but nothing on Bullying Awareness Week. I was involved in the rallies this year so thought I would add an article. I am looking into what other communities/schools and businesses have done to support Bullying Awareness Week.

Thanks for your time Kate

Plentyspace (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I removed the unreviewed template.

You've done a great done identifying relevant references. However, some of them are bare urls, or simply a title with a link. Please consider looking into full citations. You can find more information about citations templates in footnotes. I personally find it very helpful to use the optional citation gadget. To install, go to "My preferences", select the rightmost tab "Gadgets", the check the box next to refTools (in the Editing gadgets section). Once installed, it will add a new button "Cite" to your editing toolbar. Click on it to add a citation. Makes it much easier.--SPhilbrickT 16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article explaining the Reformed amillennial view about Armageddon. The article contains ample sources from notable Reformed scholars.

Dvopilgrim (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what to say about this article other than it appears to be desperately short of references. I don't know how referencing religious articles works so I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't have thought that the bible counted as an independent source. The best advice I can give you is to contact one of these people who may be able to help.--Ykraps (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here, I've written an article about a software program and It says someone else must check it. Anyone can review it and send me some comments? I used transcad article to see how to do it and it seems ok to me. Thanks!

JJULEN92 (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please review my article about Ahmed Imtiaz Bulbul.

203.223.94.159 (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Some interesting issues here!

Firstly, the article draft as originally created had a clear, major problem: it was an unreferenced

"BLP" proposed deletion

tag, which causes an article to be deleted if no sources are added to it within ten days.

However, I then went looking for a source I could add myself to help it avoid this fate, and discovered an equally serious problem: the majority of the article's contents are copied verbatim from http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/11/06/d611061401111.htm. The opening paragraph was also copied entirely from http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=15609. That made the entire article a

copyright violation

, which is also barred by Wikipedia policy (and copyright law). So to solve that problem I have removed all the copyrighted content and replaced it with a few short sentences of original prose.

That leaves the article as a

stub

, so let me give you some tips for rebuilding and expanding it:

• The newspaper articles were both written in very glowing terms, which would contravene Wikipedia's requirement for a
  "peacock phrases"
  that imply a value judgement. In an encyclopedia, we try instead simply to state facts, not opinions.
• The appropriate way to incorporate material from published sources is to summarize and
  verify
  it. This is, as I said, especially important for BLPs.
• To connect an article to the other content in Wikipedia requires
  wikifying
  .

Lastly, a note - you posted this request for feedback from an IP address. I am assuming you are the article's creator,

sockpuppetting

.

So, lots of food for thought there, I guess - if you have questions about any of this, don't hesitate to ask. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, kindly request you to provide any feedback on my article. Thanks!

Bharat.mk (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems fairly well-written, with some professional polish, but the sources are weak and the article tends to read like an advertisement. For example: The Computer Weekly article[1] actually says THBS (1) was hired by O2 to provide services and (2) is using

agile programming. Unaccountably, in the first paragraph, this simple bit of information has grown into THBS having "experience in agile methodologies and the global delivery model help facilitate serviceability and cost-effective delivery". Now perhaps all of this is true, but the source doesn't actually say anything at all about whether THBS is cost-effective, and thus it deserves a {{failed verification

}} tag.

The lists of locations and customers targeted by your marketing department should probably be deleted entirely: This is not really encyclopedic information.

I am a little concerned about whether this business should have a Wikipedia article at all. The sources are either routine (the CMMI database report,[2] the Forrester Wave report[3]), published by the company (corporate website[4]), very brief (a glorified press release[5]), or mostly about someone else (the CW article, which contains a mere three sentences about TBHS). The usual minimum requirement is two

WP:CORP for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please review this article. Thanks!

75.146.83.254 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty well written, but I have a few suggestions:

• The first reference, which links to http://www.ncdd.com/, isn't specific enough. Since you used the ref. after the line "In 1999 Oberman was [...] certified as a DUI defense specialist by the National College for DUI Defense", the ref. provided should prove that "In 1999 Oberman was [...] certified as a DUI defense specialist by the National College for DUI Defense". This also applies to a few of the other references.
• You may want to add more detail to the ref. names. This can be done easily with
  citation templates
  .
• Fix the section headers to comply with WP:CAPS.
• The
  external links section
  anyway.

Good luck. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please help me to write in better English the article Thibaud of Etampes (Theobaldus Stampensis, and to find the good links.

Gaetan Poix (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this query is redundant to the next one, so please see responses below. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help me to write in a better English the article Thibaud of Etampes (Theobaldus Stampensis), for I am French. I have also a technical problem about the picture.

Gaetan Poix (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gaetan Poix. I've fixed the image issue and carried out a full copy edit of the article at

moved to the title Theobald of Étampes

. There are a few further issues to address, which I'll outline for you to address:

• Though the article has three references, it could use some more. Essentially, every claim in the article needs to have an
  neutral point of view
  that reflects all significant scholarly views on the subject.
• The article is well formatted and uses sections, but it lacks
  wikilinks. You can add these by placing paired square brackets around the words that you want to turn into links to corresponding Wikipedia articles - so [[Étampes]] gives Étampes
  .
• This article looks very promising - well done! Gonzonoir (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to submit this article to the Wikipedia Information pool.

It may seem trivial, but when you consider the amount of money involved it isn't.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Csdidier (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An interesting article but one which lacks references. You appear to have some experience with writing articles and I'm sure you know all about citing sources so it just remains for me to trot out the old mantra: Every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph has to have a reliable, third party source pertaining to it. :) Regards--Ykraps (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback . . . I've put in the appropriate references . . . (citing my sources).Csdidier (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of fact, WP:Inline citations are not technically required for every paragraph. But most of the best Wikipedians do provide a citation for every paragraph, just to prevent questions later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willwallace100 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to establish notability. See the guidelines at

  WP:Inline references to learn how to add these to your article. Hope that helps.--Ykraps (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I hope I got this right! If I understood your criteria for notability and external references, then all should be ok. It's my first time posting anything here, so everything feels a bit new. Sorry if the article is lacking in any way. :)

Pauley13 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The biggest problem with this article is that it has no references at all. Every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph has to have a

  WP:Inline references to learn how to add these sources to your article. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Also it might be worth checking this person's achievements against the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to make sure he is notable and thus worthy of inclusion.--Ykraps (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]