Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 10

Hello, thanks everyone. I posted a new article that received some initial feedback. I have since made all the (relatively simple) changes that the first reviewer suggested. Please give me a hand with the sign off that can take away the "unreviewed article" tag. Thanks again!

Grambles12 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good; all seems to check out, except perhaps Albert resides in Williamsburg, Virginia with his wife. They have two children. which is unreferenced, presently.

I removed the 'unreviewed' tag. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft page for an eminent British Neuroscientist, Professor Andrew Lumsden, on par with Carla Shatz, who has a similar Wiki Page.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and Director of a MRC Centre in London.

KathleenWL (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start, already looks good. I made a few edits already, and will do a few more.

TwoThreeFour main points:

• You've included references, but mostly as bare links. We are striving for a better format to links, especially in more technical articles. Check out WP:CITE and footnotes for some direction. 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.
• We prefer not to include ISBN numbers in the main article. I converted the reference, using the citation gadget, and now the ISBN, Publisher and date are in the reference.
• Links to Wikipedia articles should not be formed as references, but as wikilinks. I removed the reference after "hindbrain" and made a Wikilink.
• The major publications should be in a standard format, which doesn't exactly match the rules for paper publications. I've converted the first one, and will do some more. Please double-check my work, for example, I'm not quite sure I got the issue number right. One of the main advantages is that a reader can click on the doi or PMID and go to an online version.--SPhilbrickT 22:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can check my article of Darkleaf Entertainment?

Alieneks (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this article is currently nowhere near suitable for Wikipedia as it stands. The company is only three months old, has not released any games yet, and appears to have no coverage at all in reliable independent sources, such as magazines, books, newspaper articles, trade journals and so on. It therefore fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for companies; without satisfying one of them, it cannot qualify for a Wikipedia article. All but one of the "references" link to posts on the company's own forum, which is not a reliable source. Worse still, the article appears to contain a derogatory comment about a former employee, which I have removed and which should not be replaced. Until it receives significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, this company is probably not ready to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Karenjc 11:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think my article is ready for publication - please can you provide any feedback. I'd appreciate administrator help in getting the existing redirect from spiritual healing to faith healing deleted.

Many thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a position to offer feedback right now, but just a heads-up to other potential reviewers that Spiritual healing was formerly an article, and was redirected to Faith healing in 2005 as a result of this discussion. However, the content of that article was considerably different from that of the current submission. Karenjc 12:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following feedback from user:Tom_Butler I've renamed the article to Energy healing(biofield) with a corresponding redirect from the previous name of Spiritual healing. Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some feedback directly to the editor here--SPhilbrickT 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you advise me how to publish this please ? i am having difficulty with the process and cant understand why part of the article seems to be in a box ??

Beebhoy245 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the material that was in a box. If you start a sentence with a space, that will happen.
• One of the important requirements of an article in Wikipedia is that it demonstrate the Notability of the topic. (While this is a guideline, not an absolute requirement and exceptions can occur, they are rare.) I don't know enough about the sport to know whether the facts you quote qualify for notability, but you should have more references.
• Check out Referencing for beginners for help properly formatting references
• The item in the External Links section was just to show you an example. If you have no external links, you should remove the sentence. If you do have some, replace example.com with your items.--SPhilbrickT 22:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time that I have created an article from scratch, hence the request for feedback. I know that pictures would make it look better. Finding some that can be used will be next week's task. I could add that one of the external links provides access to good line drawings. My intent is to add pages for the genera.

Mary Barkworth (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I rewrote your first reference, now it include an online link to the article.
• I wikilinked a number of terms in the article
• Your first and second external links point to the same place - which appears to be a personal page as part of the Utah State website. It may not be acceptable as a link, further investigation is necessary
• The third external link fails; it appears to be malformed, but an attempt to link to a subpage of the above link. I found the correct site (I believe) and fixed it
• The fourth external link appears to be the same material as the second reference (translated?). It is usually not appropriate to have an external link to the same material as a reference, but this is an unusual situation, and more investigation is needed.
• You have three sections with no references. References will be needed to support the claims.
• You will want to add an infobox. Check out Eleocharis dulcis to see an example (although, the infobox in Glyceria is probably more relevant)
• You might want to contact a Wikiproject. Members there can help you with technical aspects which generalists may not know. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants is a good place to start.--SPhilbrickT 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of these articles useful?

• Moon CD, Guillaumin JJ, Ravel C, Li C, Craven KD, Schardl CL (2007). "New neotyphodium endophyte species from the grass tribes stipeae and meliceae". Mycologia. 99 (6): 895–905. PMID 18333513.
• Catalán P, Kellogg EA, Olmstead RG (October 1997). "Phylogeny of Poaceae subfamily Pooideae based on chloroplast ndhF gene sequences". Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 8 (2): 150–66. doi:10.1006/mpev.1997.0416. PMID 9299221.--SPhilbrickT 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

75.22.58.154 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His own website, and the press-release, are primary sources. Therefore, currently, it does not show why the person is notable - it needs independent reliable sources. The management is also not independent.

Also, it is not neutral - for example, his distinct photographic style.  Chzz  ►  04:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]