Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

"WP:FEED" redirects here. For the essay on vandalism, see Wikipedia:Deny recognition. For RSS and Atom feeds, see Wikipedia:Syndication. For the page rating system, see Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool.

Requests for Feedback

This page provides comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have drafted, created, or substantially changed. This is not a general help page. To seek assistance or ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions. If you are seeking an outside opinion about a dispute, please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please note that this page is patrolled by volunteer editors just like you and it may take several days to review your request.

Before you request feedback

There are certain things which come up again and again so it may help if you deal with them before requesting feedback: Does your article have reliable sources? These are important in terms of both verifiability and notability. Do you have a conflict of interest that may harm your ability to produce a neutral article? If you would like a beginner's guide to these sorts of issues, take a look at the article wizard. If you are unsure about how to edit Wikipedia articles, take a look at this tutorial. For a more general discussion of writing your first article, see "Your first article".

How to post a request

Place a Wikilink, with the title of the page inside [[ and ]] - for example, [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] - in the box below. Click Click To Add Request In the new article, Write a brief summary of your work or what in particular you need help with, but do not post the whole article here. If you have rewritten an existing article, you may wish to provide a diff link from that article's history that shows your changes. Check regularly for responses to your request; they will most often be made here. ↓ Post your request using the box below. Replace "Untitled" with a wikilink to your article - e.g. [[User:Example/Lipsum]] or [[Cats]] ↓

After Receiving Feedback

Check back here often, as you will receive a response here. Respond to the feedback, either with a simple thank you, to ask for help with anything mentioned, or, after you've made some of the improvements, what they think of them. Consider helping out here in the future - anyone can read up on what articles should be like and provide constructive criticism.

Are you providing feedback?

Please consider notifying the user whose article you are providing feedback for by placing a message on their talk page, so they will be able to read it in a timely manner and reply if necessary. You can use.. {{Feedbackreply-sm}} A template asking the user to check back here and consider responding {{Feedbackreply-alt}} A more personal version of the first offering your help with developing, moving to mainspace, etc.

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

The previous few days of requests are transcluded below. The pages for the past 20 days are: ()

• June 7
• June 8
• June 9
• June 10
• June 11
• June 12
• June 13
• June 14
• June 15
• June 16
• June 17
• June 18
• June 19
• June 20
• June 21
• June 22
• June 23
• June 24
• June 25
• June 26

Index of all requests for feedback

cavalry tactics

I found this article poorly written and not concerning much off the topic. So I started major rewriting, translating and collecting. It should be the analog of infantry tactics. Currently it gives basic information on several cavalry tactics, concerning especially the Middle Ages and heavy cavalry in Europe. The feedback is required for restructuring it and integrating further information. Wandalstouring 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Wandalstouring! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Let's have a look at that article - here's my feedback:

For starters, I don't like the lead section. In an article about X, a good lead section would say what X is, assert how X is notable, and summarize the most important facts about X. The lead section should probably start "Cavalry tactics are..." The current lead section is not encyclopediac.

Please try to avoid self-references such as "This article is about the tactics used while employing mounted troops, but shows them in connection with other arms related in tactics."

In addition, I spot a couple of POV issues and unencyclopediac statements scattered across the article.

You may wish to add sections about the history of cavalry tactics, as well as any notable criticisms/disadvantages of them. This will make the article offer a wider coverage of the topic.

However, the article looks promising. It makes excellent use of images and internal links. It's well-structured and has a couple of references and internal links.

Well, that pretty much sums it up. Keep improving the article. As a member of the Good Articles WikiProject, I'll be happy if Cavalry tactics becomes a good article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple of citation tags to statements I found dubious but the more important flaw is that the article does not discuss calvary tactics after about 1600. Cavalry continued to be used until after World War I - more than two hundred years later. In fact small groups of cavalry were used in Afghanistan a couple years ago. No real discussion of sword/sabre/scimitar tactics either. Rmhermen 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian arowana to FA status

I am trying to bring Asian arowana to Featured Article status. I would love some outside opinions on what could be done to improve the article. I would also like some outside help simply so that it's the product of more than one major editor. Thanks -- I have added this page to my watchlist so I can return the feedback favor! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk • contribs • e@} 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ginkgo100. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.

If you wish to get Asian arowana to FA status, I suggest you try the more established Peer Review process, unless a considerable majority of the article content comes from you. RFF is for Wikipedians, particularly newcomers, to get general feedback on new articles they write or major edits they make, and use the feedback to improve their skills as an editor as well as the article in question. Peer Review, on the other hand, is for polishing up "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work".

Please remember that Featured Article standards are very high. I once nominated Neopets, an article I considered excellent, for Featured Article, but the reviewers pointed out problems I have never spotted, such as weasel-wording and lack of referencing. As the article is quite short, I suggest you nominate it for Good Article, where it will have a greater chance of success. Having Good Article status will also help the article when it becomes a Featured Article candidate. As a member of the Good Article WikiProject, I will be happy to see Asian arowana become a good article.

As I cannot find any obvious or significant problems with the article, I think Asian arowana has a good chance of passing Good Article, as it meets the good article criteria. It is well-written and comprehensible to non-speciailist readers (like me); is broad in its coverage and conforms to NPOV; has good structure and formatting; makes good use of references, internal links and external links; is stable and makes good use of images.

Thanks for offering to return the feedback favour. The number of requests for feedback we receive daily is growing, but only 4 Wikipedians regularly respond to requests: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng. We need more experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, to watch this page and regularly respond to requests. I suggest you respond to some of the requests for feedback posted on this page by other users, especially those which have not received any responses. You may be interested in two discussions about RFF on the village pump and on RFF's talk page.

All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll look into Good Article and Peer Review. Most of the content at this point has come from me. I've got about six months as a Wikipedian under my belt and was unaware of this process until you recently promoted it on one of the help desk pages (can't recall which one), but this is a great way to contribute to the project. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk • contribs • e@} 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If most of the content was contributed by you, I must say that you have done a great job. Hopefully someone else will spot a way the article can be improved that missed my brain. RFF is a relatively new process, and we need more Wikipedians to respond to the increasing volume of requests for feedback. If you are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, you may wish to regularly respond to requests, and you may be interested in the discussions linked above. I hope the Good Article nomination passes! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough, Ontario

In the last month or so, this article has been improved and reworked extensively. I want to keep pushing it up the hill of improvement, but I'm stuck in a rut and hoped I could get some feedback. I am looking for all sorts of feedback, but content is most important- what's missing, what's unnecessary, what areas need to be expanded, that sort of thing. Other feedback regarding style, format or anything else are also plenty welcome, however. WilyD 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my compliments on handling the issues over the last month, from something that looked like an edit war (or one waiting to happen) to collaboration! Also, great work on the article, it's a more interesting read than I expected, to be honest. Watch out for formulations with weasel words like "Some people find such nicknames offensive or racist." In the history section I got a bit confused by the timeline (or, more specific, the order in which it was presented) but that could be just my simplistic mind :) I don't know how images are usually explained, but the map uses colours that are only explained when you one clicks on the image. That's about all I can think of right now, I don't know the area at all, so I have no idea what you might be missing, but maybe others do... --JoanneB 16:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WilyD, as well my compliments to your reworking of the page. It went from juvenille to encyclopedic due largely to your work and the collaboration of others in a matter of a few weeks. Wikireality is something to be wary of. The limited view of a few users can make it seems like elephants roam here. I agree with looking out for weasel words. 'Some' should be taken out, because Scarlem is no cute word, but a word cloaked inside a white hood. Thanks for your efforts and energy, it is truly appreciated as the collaboration and largely your input has added true value to the content of the current page. AS far as content, what about the leafy neighbourhoods along Lake Ontario all the way up the Rouge River to Steeles? The many parks and golf courses - two private ones Cedarbrae and Scarborough Golf and Country, and Dentonia and Tam O'shanter (4 golf courses in one part of the city!); All the other major recreation and sports amenities (from the Y, to the Agincourt and Birchmount pool complexes); Variety Village; in the new Morningside Heights community (in the Rouge beside Cedarbrae golf course, a Gold LEED (LEED is environmental standards) school (the only one in Canada) will be built opeing next year). I will add more ideas for later on, but there is a vast network of significant parkland (Thompson, Colonel Danforth, Morningside, Rouge) as well.Dscarborough 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

HVDC Transmission

hi,

my name is Bernard Kotze and i am an electrical engineering student busy with my thesis on HVDC Transmission Modelling. i have a question about hvdc transmission!! why do "they" normally install a 3 winding transformer (star-star-delta vector group) in the "rectifier part" of a HVDC transmission network?? does the vector grouping have any significants?? does it have anything to do with the elimination of any harmonics??

please clarify this for me

my e-mail address is removed to prevent spam

regard bernard

I think you would do well to direct this question to the reference desk.

--Richard 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Presume you've gotten an answer by now, but if your still looking for the answer, you might also post your question at Talk:High-voltage direct current. Folks with a specific interest in high-voltage direct current transmission are likely to be watch-listed there and are most likely to be able to respond to your question. Williamborg (Bill) 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

new article dog odor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Odor

My first article. Maybe not really wikipedia material? A user tagged it for clean-up. Do articles need to be more 'meaty'? --caroldermoid 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just took a "first whack" at cleaning up the article. However, more substance wouldn't hurt. --Richard 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome to wikipedia! Umm, actually, its not a very good thing to tag an article without a clear message. However, from my point of view, your article meets "What Wikipedia Is Not", one of the reason is that wikipedia is not an instruction manual. So, maybe you can look at Help:Starting a new page and learn some basic things, or simply look at Help:Tutorial. Alright, take care and happy editing!! If you need more help, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page or go to the help desk to ask any question about using wikipedia. Cheers -- Imoeng 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I guess I can see the What Wikipedia is not does cover what is in this article. That would mean no sense in filling it out more or morphing it into a dog care article. I guess it should be deleted. Oh well! Thanks again! --caroldermoid 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, its not like that. I'm pretty sure that you can cover more information there, like why that dog is smelly, any issues related to the healthyness, stuff like that. I'm very sorry if my feedback is not like what you'd expected, but, hmm, I guess I should have change the wordings. Moreover, if the article should be deleted, why people bother to put the cleanup tag? Happy cleanuping! and editing of course! Cheers -- Imoeng 09:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, caroldermoid! I'm Hildanknight, creator of Requests for feedback.

Before deleting an article, consider if it can be rewritten and improved. Is dog odor notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia? Have enough people published knowledge about dog odor? If not, the dog odor article should be listed on Articles for Deletion, where Wikipedians will form a consensus on whether it should be deleted. If dog odor is notable enough, please don't list the article for deletion. Instead, try to rewrite and improve the article. Here are some suggestions for improving the article:

Sometimes the problem lies not with the information in an article, but how it is presented. Wikipedia doesn't like lists. It would be better for you to organize the article into headings such as "Causes of dog odor" and "Types of dog odor" and "How dog odor affects dogs and owners". It is important to write in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia, to ensure the information is presented from a neutral point of view, and to add references where possible. Adding a useful image to the article would be a bonus.

If the article does get deleted, please do not get discouraged. Everyone makes mistakes. I once spent an hour writing an article, Gmail Help Discussion, which was deleted. However, two other articles I wrote, Google Groups and Homerun (film), have been commended as potential Good Article candidates. So learn from your mistakes, be bold and keep contributing to Wikipedia! All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. I do appreciate the supportive tone of all the feedback, too. I will give it a try as far as fleshing things out and getting references and a photo or two in the next two days. --caroldermoid 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did a major re-write, making the entry more encyclopedic. I would appreciate feed-back on the new version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_odor TIA --caroldermoid 18:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you organized the article into two sections. However, think of better ways to organize the sections. For example, as I suggested, "causes of dog odor", "types of dog odor" and "effects of dog odor". Remember that sections can contain subsections for further organization. Under "types of dog odor", for example, you could have could have two subsections - "natural dog odor" and "unnatural dog odor".

Remember my other advice. As your article lacks references, please add some references to show where you got the information from. In addition, keep the tone encyclopediac, formal and concise. Statements such as "Many dog owners notice or complain about dog odor" are not encyclopediac. Start the article with a strong lead section.

As a side note, you can quickly link to an article by typing out the article name enclosed by double square brackets. For example, to link to the dog odor article, type in [[dog odor]]. I hope this helps! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I followed some of your suggestions about a stronger lead section and added a reference. Thanks again. --caroldermoid 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

DECv

Hi, the link I've given (DECv) is a redir to the main article, about the school. i just can't be bothered writing the whole title. It's my first article, and I just wanted some feedback. Thanks! --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 05:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome to wikipedia! I noticed you've made a nice signature, that is why I though you've been here for quite some time. So, about the article, its a good start, really, you've made a clear description of the school. You may want to add the infobox, so you can list the school information there, please open up Template:Infobox_School_Formal and copy it to the article. Another thing is references, which is essential for every article, so that you satisfy What Wikipedia Is Not and Original Research, also lots of other things to consider. So, from my understanding, the students of this school don't really have to attend school? Wow that is amazing, I want to do it sometimes :) Therefore, I'm pretty sure there are some disadvantages, perhaps you can include this, but remember, put citations or references. To learn more about it, please look at Help:Footnotes. I also noticed that you've bolded some words, like "also" and "course CD", which I think is not really relevant, maybe you can look at Manual Of Style. Sorry, but there are just many pages to look at!! But everyone should really go through this step. Last but not least, you've made a good redirecting, wonderful. Okay, happy editing and take care! If you have any other query, please dont hesitate to leave me a message or go to help desk. Cheers! Imoeng 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Deon555! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.

Is the school notable enough to merit an article in the encyclopedia? If so, the article should contain information that establishes the school's notability. If the school is not notable, someone may nominate the article for deletion.

I suggest you read articles about other schools. This will give you an idea of the expected structure and formatting for articles on schools. You may be interested in WikiProject Schools, particularly if you wish to write more articles on schools.

Aim to make the article offer a broad coverage of the school. For example, you may wish to add information regarding the history of the school, its achievements and its curriculum/activities. The article could do with a couple of images of the school.

The article lacks references. Please add references to the article and cite your sources where possible. This will help people chec:k the accuracy of your research.

Use of formatting for emphasis, such as bolding the word "also" or italicising the word "homeschooling-like", is discouraged.

Please ensure that the article has the tone expected of an encyclopedia. This means being formal and concise. Phrases such as "children who for other reasons (including medical, social, emotional etc)" and "is ideal for students who are, perhaps, travelling permanently, and have a laptop with them" do not sound encyclopediac.

That pretty much covers up the feedback I have to offer. The most important thing is to expand the article with more information. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guys, thanks for the feedback. I've done heaps of work, put in stuff about enrolments etc, infobox, and a bit of general cleaning, and added a pic. let me know what you think [[DECv]]. . I'm a little unsure how to go about citing it.. A little help there? Thanks! --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I got some help from another editor. Wow this whole "making articles" thing is fun as :) Take a look at the current version, and tell me wat u think :D --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is fun! Wow your article has improved a LOT, you've managed to fill all the infobox entry and did a good referencing. I'm at school now, so I can't give lots of feedback now, so later okay? But yeah, you;ve done great job! Oh yeah, try to delete the redlinks until you can make the articles. Take care -- Imoeng 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Imoeng, well I thought my article was good yesterday, haha that was crap compared to now, i now have something good to say when (eventually) i get to RfA and am asked "Which of ur contribs are u particullarly proud of" :D. I've removed those redlinks, soon enough I'll probably create more articles, and re-insert them as blue links ;). Have a good one. --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 04:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've added references, and an infobox with an image. Welll done! Keep expanding the article with more information, and include some information to show how the school is notable. If you improve it to Good Article status, that will be something to boast about in your RfA (and if you do, I'll support you - so make that your goal)! All the best! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I make it notable? --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 07:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to look at the link Hildanknight has given you. Its WP:N I think.. Imoeng 08:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a look at WP:NOTE, but I'm still a little confused? What do I have to put into the article to make it "notable"

You can't "make" the school notable if it is not, but if the school is notable, then you must include information in the article to show how the school is notable. The notability unofficial guideline exists to prevent advertising and vanity articles. The amount of Google hits and press coverage of the school are good ways to determine its notability, and there is a new proposal to implement notability criteria for schools.

If the school is notable, the article is expected to answer the question "How is the school notable?" If the school is notable because it (or several staff) has won some major awards, or due to achievements of one of its sports teams, then state the achievements in the article. If the school was featured in a local newspaper which has an online archive, state so in the article, and remember to include a link to the newspaper article.

I hope that helps you understand the notability unofficial guideline better. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here or on Notability's talk page, and hopefully you'll get a quick, good answer, either from me or someone else. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deon, J.L.W.S. and I both tried to answer your question at the same time! Here's my version ;-):

I can understand your confusion. Notability is a difficult topic and even the most experienced Wikipedia editors have disagreements about it. Basically, some editors think that Wikipedia doesn't need to have a article for absolutely everything; for example, that every school in the world doesn't need to have its own article. But notable schools obviously should have articles; for example Columbine High School is notable for the tragic events which happened there and Glen Ridge High School is notable for its high academic achievement.

Unfortunately, there's no rules on what makes a school (or any other article) "notable enough" for Wikipedia. We generally tend to err on the side of keeping articles if there's a dispute, but if you can find any verifiably referenced details which would make DECv stand out, it would be good to include them in the article and also mention them briefly in the introduction. --jwanders^Talk 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict]Hi, Thanks for the replies. I'll look into it a bit more tomorrow, cause it's getting late here. Thanks :) --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 10:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups

I wrote the Google Groups article several months ago. More than 90% of the article content has been contributed by me, and the article still reeks of newbie mistakes. I created RFF because I was seeking feedback on this article and found the exisitng processes inadequate. Since I have contributed so much to this project, I hope to be rewarded with some feedback on this article.

Richardshusr told me the article was excellent and nominated it for Good Article, but the nomination failed. I am trying to ensure its next nomination in early September passes, and will expand the article further this month. Therefore, I would appreciate any feedback on how I can improve the article to meet the Good Article criteria, and regarding my strengths and weaknesses as an editor.

After receiving feedback and improving the article, I will send it for Peer Review in late August. In addition, some of the screenshots are outdated, and as I have changed my browser to Opera, should I take a whole series of brand-new screenshots using Opera?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has some good information, but is let down by a few factors:

1. The large central section on "Interface features" reads as a "how to" guide, something that Wikipedia specifically is not. It could be rewritten to cover the aspects of the interface without listing each feature.
2. Ditto the "Technical" section - this even mentions "tricks" to help the user.
3. The "Official Google Groups" section does not require the long list of groups at the end - this detracts from the first part of this section.
4. The "Criticism" section, which in my opinion is the best section, needs citing.
5. "History" though well cited needs filling out.

Reworking the emphasis and size of each of the sections would help give it some balance. Other areas which could be covered to improve the article are: competition from other products and services, comparisons to Usenet, Google's aims and intentions for Google Groups (how it fits into their strategy etc.) Hope this helps Yomangani 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Homerun (film)

This is my second major article, after Google Groups. As with Google Groups, over 90% of the content has been contributed by me, and as I have not improved the article since, it reeks of newbie mistakes.

As with Google Groups, Richardshusr nominated Homerun (film) for Good Article, but I withdrew the nomination after Google Groups's nomination failed. I am seeking feedback on my writing skills and on how I can improve the article further, to Good Article status.

I will use the feedback provided to improve the article, and I intend to expand the article further this month. I will add information about the cast as well as Megan Zheng's victory at the Golden Horse Awards. In late August, I will send the article for Peer Review, and once it's complete and I've addressed the issues raised, I'll nominate Homerun (film) for Good Article.

I am aware that the article lacks references. However, the Plot section is difficult to reference as such information must be obtained by watching the movie itself. I will probably be able to reference the information that I will add in my expansion, regarding the cast and Golden Horse Awards win, from the official sites of Homerun and the Golden Horse Awards.

There is currently a discussion on the talk page about whether Homerun should redirect to Homerun (film), Home run (the basketball term), or Home run (disambiguation). Please feel free to participate in the discussion and give your thoughts, after you have given me feedback on how to make Homerun (film) meet the good article criteria.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hildankight, hows it going?? Its strange cause I've seen an Arabic movie exactly the same with that, its about shoes as well. I've just read the article, its good, I reckon. The introduction part is perfect, not too short, not too long and contains enough information. There are also some other parts beside the Plot, which are very good too. The most recognisable thing is the red-links. Try too delete all the red links first, until you can make the article for those, even just stub articles. I noticed you also mentioned about references. There must be lots of magazines and websites that provides plot and trivias, as I think, based on the story, this movie is pretty popular is Singapore. Moreover, I'm afraid if you cite it from your watching experience, you'll meet Original Research. So, yeah, try to find a website, or even the story on the back of the DVD case. Ahh, I also remember you have difficulties on referencing, and WP:FOOTNOTE will help. If not, just give me a message and I'll help you. If you can, try to put a screenshot image, just one I think is enough. You can also put some more information like the making of the movie info, awards, responses from public, and many other things!

So, to recap of what are the missing things

• Try to clear the red-links
• Citations
• Screenshot

Alright, good luck and take care!! Imoeng 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article (as I thought it was easier than listing the problems here and you can see the changes I made in the diff).

• It shifted tense in the plot summary from present to past and back again, so I've put it all into the present.
• It reused nouns ("shoes...shoes...shoes" etc.) when pronouns would have been preferable and spelt out relationships when they were obvious ("the former's doing the latter's..." etc.)

In addition to the points raised by Imoeng, I think it is missing details on critical reception, box office performance and importance (if any) in Singaporean cinema.

Home this helps. Yomangani 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, box office performance information would be very suitable there. Cheers -- Imoeng 12:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Imoeng, thanks for your feedback. Some of the red-linked names are those of Singapore actors that definitely deserve articles (perhaps I should go on a stub-creating spree). However, I agree that some of the red (and blue) links are unneccesary and should be removed. I'll remove links that are not relevant to the context.

It will be easier to reference information about the cast and Golden Horse Awards, as such information is found on their official sites. Is it possible to cite the movie itself for the entire Plot section (although I will try to find online references, however difficult)?

Yomangani...to think I topped my class in school this term and the entire level last term! Thanks for doing the copy-editing and giving me some information I could use to improve my English. I will try to find information about box office reviews and critical reaction, and add sections into the article, including references. There will be a seperate section about Megan Zheng's Golden Horse Awards victory. Hopefully including information on the GHA victory, box office performance and critical reaction will be sufficient to satisfy the "broad coverage" required by the good article criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

King Edward's School, Witley

Hullo people, wondering if you could give me some tips on what I could do to improve this article. I'm not a newbie here, I'm just asking if the article is lacking anything specific. All the content is the product of a collaboration between User:Joe Turner (not to be confused with JoTurner) and I, both students at the school. Any feedback? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I've just read the article. Quite interesting. I think it's quite good and easy to read. I've only got a few comments. Firstly, I think you can remove the stub tag. The article is now a reasonable size. Secondly you might want to consider improving the quality of the references. I've spent quite a bit of time adding references to the History of Brighton article. You can see that I've added quite a few references to specific books and websites. Notice there are some templates to help you like Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web. I think this helps with verifiablilty. --Seaweed 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get right on it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dog skin disorders

Hi, I am a wikinewbie, but I have expertise in this subject. This was a stub, and perhaps still should be? I removed the stub notation after I added material, sub-headings and references.

My intention is to expand this further, but want some feedback before I go on. TIA --caroldermoid 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good, you did not need to indent the sections, so I fixed that. Otherwise just keep adding infomation and sources. Very good job! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a minor copyedit: there was some redundancy and the different types of disorders probably don't merit their own headings, so I made them subheadings. It is a bit disjointed at the moment, but you can probably solve this as you add more content. I suggest you add a little detail on each of the disorders (or at least the major ones) - just a quick explanation of what it is, as the important details are covered in the main articles. It would also benefit from some statistics on incidence of skin disorders in dogs and treatments. Yomangani 01:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I did reword parts of the intro section to put it into a more formal tone and for clarity, and I bulletized the references. But you are doing a good job with the article, and especially with providing references. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk • contribs • e@} 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Puget Sound Environmental Issues: Sections 1 through 8

[Puget Sound Environmental Issues]

Looking for feedback on improvements made to Sections 1 through 8. I would like to see this article brought up to "wiki" standards. How am I doing? Groovyjoker 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To me it looks pretty good. There are some issues with sources and citations but thats just me being picky. The article is around 60-65 kb's and that means its well overdue to start splitting some of it into sub pages. Take the longest section that doesnt revolve around the intro of history and shorten it to a paragraph or two. Then take that section and expound upon it in a new article whose title is the section name, or something close to it. I'd also try to wikify it a bit more, try linking at least one word per paragraph (but dont go overboard). Keep up the good work. SynergeticMaggot 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will start splitting. I am trying to improve the sources and citations - can I get more feedback in that area, too? Be as picky as you want. ——Groovyjoker 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, skimming through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might give you ideas for improvements. In particular, I notice that you're using Title Caps for the section headers—Wikipedia's style is to captialise only the first word and proper nouns, with the rest lowercase. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that it would pay you to give it another run through after checking the manual of style.

Some other comments:

• There is no need to link a phrase more than once (especially if it is an external link)
• It needs another copyedit, there are some artifacts left over from your changes ("Washington state provides is the second largest seafood producer" for example) and some verbs in the wrong person, probably from changing phrasing while you were redoing it.
• You could use 'the Sound' or 'it' to replace the repetition of "Puget Sound" or leave it out all together in some places (such as in "Eelgrass beds provide nutrients and shelter for various biota in Puget Sound,Washington such as salmonids")
• You can create numbered lists by prefixing the sentence with # - it looks better than having them all in a line (I've put an example in section 7)
• You might find it useful to use the {{cite}} template to cite your sources. See WP:QC for a quick reference. Inline quotes are very popular nowadays.
• Some of the statements are POV (see WP:NPOV) such as the last paragraph of section 7. Try rewording it or, if it is a quote, format it appropriately and provide a reference.

Hope this helps Yomangani 23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Republican Monarchist Debate

I am looking for feedback on Republican Monarchist Debate. I found wikipedia to be very aithoritative with regard to the topic of modern constitutional monarchy whilst reading up about it. I attempted in this article to capture current debate in this area in a neutral way (by collecting both sides of debate from partisan websites and summarizing). Thanks for any feedback on the article or improvements on it! Sandwich Eater 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This article suffers from lack of references. It's not obviously written from one point of view but the lack of citations for either statements or rebuttals means that it could be seen as POV and original research. These type of articles ("Views of...","Misconceptions about...","Debate over..", etc.) often come up for deletion as they are seen as POV magnets (I see that this was proposed for deletion almost as soon as you started it for just such a reason). To make it a good article you need to provide references for each of the points from reliable sources (and note that web forums are not usually regarded as reputable sources). You should also try and find an independent source for your statement in the introduction that "From a political science perspective the current debate is interesting as it is public, published via the internet, and has an international basis to some extent across the commonwealth nations in the form of Common Cause, an international Republican movement linking the national ones".

A couple other minor points

• Decide on capitalisation of the various titles and stick to it.
• It could do with a few more links to provide context (Republicans,House of Commons, Prince Charles...).
• It didn't need a justification of its purpose with regard to WP policies (the assumption is that every article should stick to the policies), so I removed it

Hope this helps Yomangani^talk 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway

I have been working on this article for some time now, and it has become the hub of a number of items relating to this railway (most of which I have started myself), that remain more or less as stubs, but even by splitting out parts of the information, it has been difficult to keep it down to 32k. I had intended adding a link to a detailed description of the route of the line, with each feature described, grid references etc, (this is currently languishing in my sandbox) but think maybe it is not appropriate to Wikipedia, so may need to find an alternative home for that part of my research.

The subject is one I am very enthusiastic about, and although I've tried to maintain a NPOV, I'm not sure I've always succeeded!

I am told that the article is aproaching FA quality, but would welcome a wider review, and any suggestions on how it may be improved (There is also much more I could add), whilst keeping to the 32K limit.

Thank you

regards Lynbarn 11:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall it is nicely balanced, but needs more references, (added where you had indicated Lynbarn) and as you say it still shows evidence of POV (I can tell you are an enthusiast and I shouldn't be able to tell that from the article if it is written as NPOV). It's got a personal chatty style which I like but might get beaten out of it if you go for FA status, and is well illustrated with images.I gave it a bit of copyedit for typos, repetition and redundancy, but another run through wouldn't do any harm. Some more specific comments:

• a lot of railway specific terms are used without links or explanation

working through these Lynbarn

• consider using the {{cite}} templates for the citations

not tried that one before - will look into it Lynbarn

• it overuses exclamation marks

done! Lynbarn

• "perhaps in the vanguard of what became the Heritage Railway movement in the UK and elsewhere" - is NPOV and WP:OR

removed Lynbarn

• Consider unlinking some dates per the Manual of Style

done Lynbarn

• "On 13 November an auction was held to sell off remaining items, although, despite hopes from many that the line would remain intact, very little was sold." - the subclause here has no connection with the main clause

rephrased paragraph Lynbarn

• "Unlike railways such as the Welsh Highland Railway" - if this is the only example say "Unlike the Welsh Highland Railway", or provide another example

done Lynbarn

• "Wistlandpound Reservoir has flooded the formation close to its mid-point" - which formation? (probably jargon)

done - formation changed to track bed Lynbarn

• "The station itself has returned to the ambience of 1935." - POV

re-worded - better but may need more Lynbarn

• Recommend you change [sic] to ... - it is confusing and an ellipsis is fine within quotes although I'm not sure another description of the route really helps here.

I disagree - This was added as a previous editor mistakenly corrected Fox and Geese to Fox and Goose - the name the pub carries now. see in-line hidden note. I think tthis is the correct use of the Latin term Lynbarn

Ahh, I thought the hidden note referred to the fact that the [sic] was used in the original quotation. In this case ignore my comment, it is correct as it is. Yomangani^talk 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• "over the 8 hour working day resulting in a lock-out by employers from July 1897 and January 1898" - suggest dropping this, it's more information than is required (although it means rephrasing the next sentence)

mostly gone Lynbarn

• "testament to the excellence of the original design." - either POV or the citation id badly placed.

relocated reference Lynbarn

• "One crane, with match truck" - matching truck?

was jargon - wikilink to explain what a match truck is Lynbarn

• the final section "The future" reads as completely your point of view. I'd completely rewrite it giving references.

I'll rewrite this section Lynbarn

Hope this helps Yomangani^talk 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful, thank you, I will make some changes over the weekend - particularly the POV, and use of jargon & exclamation remarks!!!

Regards, Lynbarn 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yomangani - more adjustments completed - many thanks for your suggestions. Regards Lynbarn 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better - I can hardly tell you like it now and the jargon balance is good. A couple more points:

• I'd move the "More about Axe" link to the external links section - it breaks the flow where it is.

Moved - I did wonder that one myself Lynbarn

• Two descriptions of the route (three including the diagram!) are too much - the fact that they are different just makes it more confusing, but it's a hard to know how to deal with it as each has useful information and you can't break the quote from the guidebook without ruining its charm. So basically a critism without any constructive suggestions, sorry. Yomangani^talk 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've solved it - removed the image for later use on a subsidiary page, converted the first descriptio to concentrate more on the technical "gradient profile", and moved it below the main description - Does that look better? thanks again Lynbarn

That's much better (btw, is "Snappers halt" in the quote supposed to have a lowercase h?) Yomangani^talk 11:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

oops! er - no it wasn't supposed to be l/c - now fixed, thanks Lynbarn 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall a very nice contribution in a category that I think Wikipedia excells in; well developed articles about topics relatively unlikely to ever make it into a detailed article in the Encyclopædia Britannica. This article is very much in a niche (but one I find quite interesting). You might consider adding a small discussion of the significance of narrow guage railways for its period in the region, and a comparison of them with the L&BR. Alternately you might consider filling the space between the L&BR and the Narrow-gauge railways article with an overview of regional (southern England or...) narrow-gauge railways. Keep up the fine work! Williamborg (Bill) 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't think there is room here for much more, but I'll certainly look into doing something in a separate article on the regional aspects as you suggested. Many thanks. Lynbarn 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cold_War_Crisis

I came upon this mod, a person in a naval gaming forum I read was talking about his work either for the mod or on it's forum. Either way, I stumbled across a forum topic about their mod on wiki. I looked at it, was basically a copy-paste from thier website, and inevitable it was put up for deletion within hours probably. I rewrote the entire page. First proper "my own wiki article" type thing. Thanks. Macktheknifeau 16:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have laid the foundation, you need to work on making it more clear. For a person unfamiliar with the subject (me), it is confusing.

Here's your current intro:

"Cold War Crisis is a Total Conversion for the Command And Conquer: Zero Hour Expansion. It takes place from 1980–1989 and features realistic units from various NATO and Warsaw Pact armies. The game has been awarded 2 ModDB Awards, one A "Mod Of The Moment" and the other being a ModDb Model Texture Design Award.The Cold War Crisis demo is currently at Version 1.1, and is available from the official website, or a number of online file directories. This version includes one mission of the US which was first shown at EA's booth at the Games Convention 2005. A public Beta is likely to be released in late 2006."

1. You need to establish in the first sentence that it's a game. Such as like this: "'Cold War Crisis' is a game based on a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact." (That sentence isn't perfect, but you get the idea.)
2. I don't understand the following "Total Conversion for the Command And Conquer: Zero Hour Expansion."
3. "Mod" and its incarnations above need to be explained.
4. "EA" should be spelled out.
5. Is there only one game convention per year? Who sponsors it, and where?
6. "Beta" should be "beta test." Maurreen 09:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I have made changes to the article (specifically the first section). Macktheknifeau 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work; that's much better. A few other things:

1. The word "you" should normally be avoided in articles.
2. Much of the capitalization is not needed.
3. The intro ends wtih: "A public beta test is likely to be released in late 2006." That needs attribution -- who says so? Maurreen 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Something you should be aware of: mods are frequent targets of AFD listing, and the majority end up being deleted or merged to the original game article on the basis that they are non-notable. There appear to be some articles that would help establish notability listed in your article so I would use these as references rather than just mentioning them in the text (see WP:CITE for information on citing sources). A couple of other points:

1. No need to link anything more than once (Command And Conquer: Zero Hour) - if the reader hasn't clicked on the first one they aren't interested.
2. References are needed for a lot of the statements as Maurreen mentioned above
3. Avoid suggestions like "For a complete unitlist, please check the official website." This makes it read like a "how-to" guide or an advert. The official website is in the external links so there is no need to relink it here.
4. The gameplay section reads like original research - you should give a source for the strategy.

Hope this helps, Yomangani^talk 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much as well. I am aware of afd's of computer game and mod articles, and went out to find what is generally accepted as notability for software and games. I hope that this article will not befall the same fate.

a poem written by Milton Vishnu Williams - fair heart wounded

I was a friend of Milton and his wife Dorothy some years back, he wrote this poem for me about me and although i did have a morden tower book containing this poem, i have misplaced it as the years have passed - i would like to know if anyone has a copy of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elle-crossley (talk • contribs)

I've edited your comment so it doesn't stretch the page, FYI.

At any rate, I think this question might be more appropriate for the reference desk which specializes in knowledge questions and the like. Also, did you try searching? You are editing an encyclopædia after all. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese aboriginals

Taiwanese aboriginals. I've made a large number of edits. Here's the [diff] [updated diff], but if that is too spaghetti-like, here's the [pre-edit version] Thanks Ling.Nut 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

changed diff to show recent mods. Thanks. Ling.Nut 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's interesting, but I think it is too long (see suggestion below). I felt it ended rather abruptly, but perhaps that is just a case of rearranging some of the subsections in the modern era section. It needs a copyedit once you have completed the rewrite - there is some awkward phrasing. I'd recommend covering their connection to other Malay peoples and prehistory and a section on language would also be a good addition. Some more specific points:
  • The lead is good but I'd suggest not recommending that the reader "(see Austronesian languages:Homeland)" - you don't really want to suggest they leave this article before they finish reading the lead - a wikilink from Austronesian in the preceding sentence is fine.
  • Perhaps the history of the aboriginal peoples could be split off into its own article and only briefly covered here. It would give the article a better balance and allow you to develop it without worrying about the length too much.
  • The section on assimilation is confusing as it doesn't make clear the chronology, switching to and fro between past and present tense. It is also poorly referenced and would benefit from some work on the layout. It may be better placed after the history and tribes sections.
  • The section on tribes is concise and informative and the graphic especially good. The infobox at the bottom somewhat detracts from it though - perhaps list the tribes as part of the text in that section?
  • The history section suffers in several places from a lack of date information. Although there are sections with clear dates, there are also sections where it is difficult to know what time period is being referred to, or whether these are ongoing or completed actions: Plains Aboriginals, Migration to Highlands, Headhunting all suffer here.
  • The section on the modern era is patchily referenced but otherwise good, although as I said, it may be better to rearrange the order of the subsections.

Yomangani^talk 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Your comments were definitely helpful. Maybe I'll come back in a couple months with a follow-up request. Until then, thanks!

Ling.Nut 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio-controlled boat

I have updated some information and request input for others.

Hello 7severn7 — your edits to the article Radio-controlled boat look great. One thing: please do remember to use the "Show preview" button, and only to click "Save page" at the end of your editing session. This will prevent the history page from becoming clogged up with your edits, and will also enable other editors to see more easily what changes you have made. Thanks! Best wishes, ^talkGiler S 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

International Rugby Board

• Just needed help with a todo list on the talk page - suggestions on what should and shouldn't be in the article.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Technology

I am requesting feedback (from Wikipedia:Requests for feedback) for the technology article, which has undergone a very slow metamorphosis since its origination in Wikipedia. It would be hard to categorize this article as new, since it was conceived in 2002, but, only now is it emerging from its B-classification. Therefore, the editors of the technology page could use your help moving the article to A-class.

Here are the questions?

1. Is the article broad enough?
2. Is the article too broad?
3. Does the article flow? is it engaging? clear?
4. How is the lead section?
5. Are there enough images? too many?
6. Is the article too long?
7. Is the article informative?

Please make the feedback at Talk:Technology/Request for feedback or by hitting the Edit link to the right of Technology, above.

Thanks, SteveMc 22:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try and have a proper look at it next week, but from a quick scan through I can immediately see that it has far too many links. Many terms are linked repeatedly and many common terms are linked that don't need to be. The "See also" section repeats links from the article. There is also a lack of references and a mixing of citation styles.

Lead section: The introduction overuses "technology" (that's going to be hard to avoid) and is repetitive. I gave it a very quick copyedit to try and remove some overuse of words, but it needs reviewing. (I also removed the see also link - you don't really want to encourage the reader to go elsewhere in the first sentence). The last sentence seems to be re-covering the sentence before in less detail but with examples: I'd consider merging those two. Overall the lead reads like a definition, but with such a general subject that's probably not inappropriate.

Hope this helps (obviously you only see the bad things when you are having a quick look) - Yomangani^talk 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yomangani,

• I went through the article and delinked repeated and common terms. I am not a great judge of context, so many more could be delinked. Plus, is it possible that this article is so broad, that it may have a lot more links than other articles?
• I think I got the citation style fixed.
• I worked on the introduction.

More to come. Thanks, SteveMc 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I delinked some more in the first few sections (I think good rules are not to repeat links - if the reader is interested they will have probably clicked it the first time, and not to relink the titles of the main articles). It probably will have more links than most articles because it is an overview of the individual subjects. Yomangani^talk 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I got the repeated links out of "See also" and I fixed a couple more references. SteveMc 02:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:lack of references. I am not sure what to do about this feedback. First, I am not sure that I agree. Second, if I did agree, I am not sure how to fix it. In either case, how to fix this is really a pragmatic issue, in my opinion, an unpractical one. In other words, much of the information contained in this article is a matter of generally "common" knowledge, especially to someone who "lives and breaths" matters of a technical nature. But, it is not original research, but is expert knowledge, allowed under Wikipedia:No original research policy, therefore finding sources for these statements could be problematic. Not that I am against citing sources, in fact, I am willing to work to do this, but I am very unsure how to draw the line between what needs citations and what does not, for this article. SteveMc 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be right (as I said, I only had a quick scan through). A lot of this could be covered by the "apple pie" get-out clause of WP:OR. I'll have better look this week and see if I can see anything that needs citing that isn't already. I probably had a knee-jerk reaction to the number of links and lack of references brought on by reviewing articles on narrower subjects, so looking at this will be handy for my reviewing technique too. Yomangani^talk 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs is a good editing/rewrite. I've tackled the lead section -- I hope you like it. The history section just isn't complete without an explanation of the technological stages (Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Industrial Revolution, Industrial Age, Space Age, Information Age, etc.) and technological levels (hunting/gathering, horticultural, agrarian, industrial, etc.) the previous edits were completed by User:Nexus Seven 14:25, 16 August 2006

Looks good to me. I will have trouble adding text on all of those ages since I have little knowledge in those areas. In some ways, the stages are there, but not specifically. The Industrial Revolution is there, but not as a separate section. Adding those stages is going to make the article very long, are they really needed? Is there anything else that could be done instead? SteveMc 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above - I feel that using the stages of technological progression as a basis for the article would give it good structure and flow, and allow you to talk about the developments made and the social impact of them, which more accurately deals with what technology means. LinaMishima 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick/long note about the "ages" approach. I have aluded to this previously but will point it out again as I believe it bears reiterating. The problem with the 'ages' listed above is that technicaly the Stone Age finishes about 10,000 yrs BC and everything before this time is classified as Stone Age however more recent examinations of a continously growing body of evidence would indicate a progression that goes back a good deal further and one that is much more gradual yet constantly accelerating(e.g we now know we had weaving before?? Agriculture). While I do agree in some respects with the comment that "using the stages of technological progression as a basis for the article would give it good structure and flow", I think it is also true that this approach is basicaly limiting(see other Encyclopeadias e.g. Encarta). I do think the 'ages' should be mentioned but only as a sub-section of the outline indicated earlier by Maureen. While that outline will produce a very long article I think in this case it is justified - after all we have been practising the subject for at least half a million years!(that we are sure of so far).

I would also add that Bushcraft should be added immediatly after Fire, as many of the skills that precede Agriculture fall into this category. As to what is important, that's easy - PLUMBING and various other domestic appliances - trust me on this, go primitive camping for more than a few days and it's not the computer or TV that is missed but hot showers, flush toilets(and toilet paper:-), warm-dry clothing-beds-and-houses, stoves, kettles, and supermarkets(logistics). These are still the fundamental problems of technology, the rest is mostly just cool stuff to keep us amused. Rossfi 13:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1994 San Marino Grand Prix

I've made a lot of edits to the above article on Formula One's blackest weekend and would like some feedback on the article as a whole. Specifically does the article seem to flow nicely with the layout and sub-headings I've chosen, does it properly introduce and explain the parties involved, is it NPOV (this is a problem with other articles covering parts of this event such as Ayrton Senna) and are there any Wikilinks that appear to not go where they should. Finally any additional comments on how the article can be improved will be appreciated! Thanks Alexj2002 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite a tough article to make satisfy the requirements of the possible audience, as you will have both the dedicated F1 enthusiasts and the more general readers interested in the deaths of Senna and Ratzenburger. I think you done a fairly good job of satisfying both without oversimplifying and while keeping it in the context of other Grand Prix race articles. It flows quite nicely and doesn't suffer from POV at all.

I gave it a quick copyedit but the only thing I couldn't make sense of was "reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association" - did it reform having previously disbanded or were its rules or structures reformed? That needs clarifying. It also needs some explanation of what the purpose of this was.

One other thing: the "Notes" heading would be better replaced by "Important statistics" or something similar to prevent confusion with footnotes (but I see this is a generic heading across the Grand Prix race articles, so you'd have to change it everywhere)

Hope this helps. Yomangani^talk 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I'll have a shot at rewording and explaning the Drivers Association bit, it was disbanded and reformed again as a result of this GP. I can see where you're coming from on the "Notes" heading, but I don't think Important Statistics would be an appropriate replacement - who says they're important? Perhaps "Grand Prix Facts" would be more appropriate. As you say - it's generic across the range so it would have to be discussed at the Formula One WikiProject and if a change is decided upon, it will probably require a bot to go through and change them all. Alexj2002 10:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Drottningholm Palace

It is really my first major rewrite, so I am a bit lost as where to go now and I am looking for some help. I took it from this to this. I am fairly pleased with filling things out a bit but would really like to make it a good article. English is not my first language, so perhaps the prose is not the best etc et al. Any comments or opinions would be very warmly welcomed! Mceder 05:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've given it a quick copyedit for English. It's interesting and you've done a good job in expanding it so far, but there is not enough detail in the areas you cover and there are other areas that I would have expected to see covered that are missing.
  • I've changed Hedvig to Hedwig everywhere as this is her name in English (according to the article)
  • I think the literal translation of "Holm" is "island" not "islet" but my Swedish is terrible.
  • "The position of the queen" - was she actually queen? That isn't made clear.
  • "This saw some change during the reign of Oscar I of Sweden." - needs to be expanded. What happened? Was there renovation work?
  • The Chinese pavilion is not mentioned in the article, but is one of the reasons that it became a World Heritage site, so there should be at least a mention of it before, if not a whole section on it.
  • Most of the existing sections could do with filling out with details of the restoration work etc. What caused the fire that burnt it to the ground? Why was it left to decay? What was the state of the building when restoration started?
  • Some details on the interior of the palace, layout, areas open to the public and funding for the upkeep of the building and grounds would be good additions
  • There are no references. All the details should be cited (see WP:CITE) as original research is not allowed on Wikipedia.
  • The images are good, but the tiny picture of the church looks out of place when the rest of the images are thumbnails.

Hope this helps. Yomangani^talk 11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Helps tremendously, now I know where to go! Off to find some references and resources, I will be back here in probably a month or so :) Thanks again!! Mceder 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather liked the article. If English is not your first language, you have mastered it extremely well as a second language.

Took the liberty of pointing out that the island Lovö lies in Ekerö Municipality of Stockholm County since most English speakers won't recognize this & Lovö is not yet linked to an English article. You may want to check and assure I got it correct.

I'm sure those who are strong editors will have more comments, but overall a very nice bit of work. Williamborg (Bill) 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and for the additions to the article! Mceder 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on W.E.Jones

I gather it may be unaccepted. Ok. I need help - I'm new and confused. May have to give-up! Osborne.

I think the problem with the Eifion Jones article is that it does not establish notability. In order for an article to merit inclusion on Wikipedia there must be some assertion that the subject is worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. You can establish this in the article by giving references from third party works that prove that he is recognised as an expert in his field. In addition the article has several point of view statements such as "He was a well-liked lecturer and his enthusiasm was imparted to students". All wikipedia articles should written from a neutral point of view so this type of expression is discouraged. Yomangani^talk 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're Still the One

A page that already existed when I found it, and I've put alot of effort into it, and would like to see if maybe it could make the Good Article list, I've put references and what not, and I'd just love some feedback.

Thanks,
Thankyoubaby 05:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have believed you could collect so much information on a single! Needless to say it is very comprehensive. It's not any easy topic to cover in an article because there are great many statistics and generalities, but you've done a pretty good job. It would be nice if some of the information in the lead was moved into its own section, specifically the part detailing the lyrics, as it reads like personal opinion. The article gets very "listy" at the end. This is going to be hard to avoid, but you could give a brief introduction to each of the charts with a summary of the most important information, being careful not to duplicate the information you've given in the sections above.
  • Decide on a format for quoting the chart positions (you use number 1, #1 and at #1).
  • "(see 1998 in music)" wasn't necessary - the information is here. You could perhaps add that link in a "See also" section at the end.
  • "one of her most successful singles in the country markets" - should that be just "country market"? Or is there more than one country market, and if so, was it successful in some but not others?
  • "Fortunately for Twain and Lange's sake, the relationship has been able to survive." - this is not written from a neutral point of view. The first clause should be dropped or perhaps quoted from Twain herself (I assume she must have mentioned this somewhere?)
  • As I mentioned above, the couple of sentences explaining the lyrics at the end of the lead would be better in their own section, with just a summary sentence in the lead
  • "The video received heavy rotation" - rephrasing this in a less jargony way would help
  • "..was Twain's first video played on stations like MTV, Vh1, and MuchMusic" - this needs an explanation of what a station like MTV, Vh1, and MuchMusic is. If you mean it was the first video to play on those stations specifically, don't use "stations like", but otherwise explain the characteristics of those stations: "it was Twain's first video to be played on non-country specific stations such as MTV" or something similar
  • Singles - this section needs consistent use of brackets around the mix information (or an explanation of why they aren't bracketed if it signifies something)
  • "This nomination made Shania the first country artist and only female country artist to ever be nominated for an MTV Video Music Award." This sentence has a problem in that it will date should another female country artist be nominated. You could say " and to date (2006), is only female country artist...". This will also date but at least it gives some context.

Hope this helps, Yomangani^talk 10:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Beat (film)

I've revised this several times. Having trouble understanding how to make things link and the following words show purple not blue in my attempt - genre, Protagonist, Action film, Drama film, sequence, The Shawshank Redemption.

A beat, in film is an Event, Decision or Discovery that significantly alters the way the Protagonist pursues their Goal. Beats are specific, measured and spaced to create a pacing element that moves the progress of the story forward. Uneven or erratic beats will be felt by the audience as either slow-usually the most forgettable or often tedious parts of a film-or stretches of film that jolt the audience unnecessarily.

Every cinematic genre has a beat that is specific to it’s development. Action film has significantly more Beats (usually Events) while Drama film has fewer beats (usually Protagonist Decisions or Discovery). Between each beat a sequence occurs. The sequence is often a series of scenes that relates to the last beat and leads up to the next beat.

In most American films the beat will fall approximately every five minutes. Following is a beat example from The Shawshank Redemption:

At 25 minutes: Andy talk to Red and asks for rock hammer. - Decision

At 30 minutes: Andy gets rock hammer. - Event

At 35 minutes: Andy risks his life to offers financial advice to Mr. Hadley. - Decision

At 40 minutes: Andy notes ease of carving his name in the wall. - Discovery

At 45 minutes: Mr. Hadley beats Bogs severely. Event

After each beat above a significant series of results takes place in the form of the sequence, but what most people remember are the beats, the moment something takes place with the [Protagonist]. More information on Beat Structure is provided in Anatomy of A Screenplay, Dan Decker.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28film%29"

• They show as purple rather than blue because you have visited the links previously (they show as blue for me). The links are fine in the article, but you do need to do is provide some evidence that this article is is not original research (which is not permitted on Wikipedia). I've listed the book you referred to as a reference, but you should give some more details about it such as publisher, date and ISBN number. You should also add any other material you used as sources for the article under the "References section". Yomangani^talk 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Erast Fandorin

With the help of Vidor and dab, I transformed the article about the fictional detective Erast Fandorin from this starting point.

Right now, I'm a bit out of inspiration as to what needs to be done next. I'd really like to get this article to at least GA-grade, but I think some work needs to be done first. Any comments are welcome. (P.S. English is not my mother tongue, so any comments on that are also very welcome). Errabee 12:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If English is your second language, you can be extremely proud of this work.

I'd suggest you focus on the criterion that an article be broad in its coverage. In this respect make sure it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC) while staying focused on the main topic (no non-notable trivia). I'd suggest you put the detective novel in Russia into context:

• Who were Boris Akunin's Russian mystery predecessors?
• Where mysteries commonly written by Russians in Russia in the period Boris Akunin wrote or was Fandorin a trend setter for the period?
• Who were Boris Akunin contemporaries on the international scene?
• And similar context points...

Well done - Williamborg (Bill) 13:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it (but have to do some additional research). Errabee 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

the city of vianen in the netherlaNDS- location!!

hI,

AS I WAS BORN IN THE CITY OF VIANEN, IN THE NETHERLANDS.. I WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT VIKIPEADIA MOOVED MY CIRY OF BIRTH FROM ZUIDHOLLAND PROVINCE TO UTRECHT PROVINCE....

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nl-zh-va.html

MY PAS WORD SAYS vIANEN....ZUIDHOLLAND , AS PLACE OF BIRTH NOT UTRECHT..

I HOPE SOME ONE WIL READ THIS AND SET THINGS RIGHT,

[email protected]

Wim Verdoold.

Vianen was transferred from Zuid-Holland to Utrecht on 1 January 2002. See here. The information in Wikipedia is therefore correct. Errabee 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)