This is my first article and I am simply looking for some feedback on it please. Any help will be appreciated. How close am I to being able to submit it for view by the general public? Thank you.

Disgrig (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start.

• There was a problem getting your references to show- don't recall the exact problem, but I fixed it.
• I replaced the first three references to include an online link to some of the material.
• Consider adding an infobox, check out Artie Wilson to see how it is done; copy the code and make the necessary changes.
• Go ahead and move it to main space (ideally, after an info box) or ask me, and I'll do it if you don't know how.--SPhilbrickT 21:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you please ensure neutrality of the article?

Amitabhghatak (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the 'well respected' in the first sentence as this is opinion. It is all right to use if it is a fully referenced quote and in "quotation marks" otherwise it is inappropriate. If you can, try using Cite web to format your references. In all other respects, it seem to be in order.--Ykraps (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Divya Narendra, co-founder of ConnectU. Article editorial quality generally good but needs help establishing NPOV about a famous person (Mark Zuckerberg)

65.96.161.39 (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the right forum for that article. This forum specializes in helping people who are starting an article from scratch (in some cases, a major rewrite). That article has been around for some time with input from many editors.--SPhilbrickT 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MariaFlordeluna (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - part of a continuing history of creating hoax articles relating to fiction Super GT World Championship. Portions of thise article may be salvagable if wording can be made significantly different from Detroit Indy Grand Prix.

I have continuing Sock puppet concerns with the banned User:GorillazDirtyHarry, User:Cloudfinalfantasy and various IPs like User talk:115.147.202.144 User talk:115.147.230.46 amongst others, because elements of the same hoax motor racing series is being persued. --Falcadore (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have written this article based on research I am conducting as part of my LLM programme. Looking forward to all feedback on my research so far. Thanks!

Annieabrams (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your use of links:

• The way to do an internal link is like [[this]], which produces this. If you want to have the displayed text and the link's destination be different, you could do [[example|this]], which produces this.
• Speaking of links, it appears that you have too many of them. See WP:Link for how to do this appropriately.

Other than that, it doesn't look too bad. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 19:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this page needed creating but i dont really know what im doing or what to do next would some one take over?

Eb707 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi feedBack on this article would be most aprciated guy's, it is a project for my university course so take it easy but very open to constrcutive ciritcism

150.237.85.229 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article does not indicate the importance or significance of its subject and therefore can be could have been speedily deleted. Please note that the group's official pages are not considered independent, reliable sources, especially for purposes of notability. I have moved it back into userspace, User:Gazhall24/Second Front (Performance Group) -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 02:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) wording changed -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 02:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if this is acceptable for upload to real page. As my previous created page for Hourihane was deleted, since then i have added in his intenational career stats. IpswichTown95 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks pretty good. The subject appears to be notable. The article could perhaps do with a picture and the references would be better using the Cite web format.--Ykraps (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New page. I want to make it public. I am kinda not sure how to move on with this article.

Dsernick (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You need references, see WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources --Ykraps (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is good, but I want to make sure before I make the page go live!

Bradleystetz (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article isn't about Sanchez, I don't see how his comments are relevant. It appears to be an attempt to pad out a desperately short article. Try talking about the subjects life/work prior to this appointment instead. Also be aware that in order to be deemed notable and thus worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia; a TV personality must have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, and/or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I'm not sure this has been demonstrated.--Ykraps (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to creating/editing articles for Wikipedia and I'd just like to submit this new article I've written for some feedback to see if I'm following the guidelines correctly and if it's good to make it live or if I need to change anything.

The article is about a new open source content management system called Phire CMS that was released on 11/1/2010.

Thanks!

Nicksagona (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is desperately short of references and the 2 provided are not reliable as they come from the companies own website (see WP:Reliable sources). In addition, the product needs to be compared with other available systems in order that a balanced point of view is portrayed. As you appear to have a vested interest in the product, you might not be the best person to write the article. You can request an article to be written by a 3rd person Here--Ykraps (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback, it is much appreciated. I do have a couple of questions about the points you've brought up. Regarding the number of references - at this time, the project is brand new, so the number of references linked to it is going to be very low. The hope is to see references to the project grow over time, and therefore provide more unbiased outside opinions of the project, which could be cited here in this article and help the article grow as well. Also, the one reference to Open Source CMS is a 3rd party website and is not affiliated with the company. In fact, it was listed on there with the hope that people would vote on it there to rate it and render a unbiased public opinion of it there. (So, far only 9 votes, but again, it's only been available since November 1.) Regarding comparison to other projects like it, I very much wanted to include something along those lines, but wasn't sure if it would be considered incorrect to draw comparisons to other popular available systems. The project itself can be compared in a few different lights to systems such as WordPress, Expression Engine and MODx. So if that is acceptable, I can add some comparisons to those other systems. And lastly, while yes, I do have a vested interest in the project, my main goal of this article was simply to attempt to put the project out there to gain some exposure and feedback, whether good or bad, and to see how it compares on the playing field next to other projects like it. After all, it is an open source project for all to use for free. --Nicksagona (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia the articles within need to be notable. One of the ways of demonstrating notability is through the citing of 3rd party sources. I appreciate that this is difficult with a new product and maybe it would be better to write the article a bit later on when there are more 3rd party sources and reviews to cite. I also appreciate that you want to get your product 'out there' but unfortunately Wikipedia is not here for that purpose. If this article is moved into the main section as it stands, it is likely to be speedily deleted as advertising. One of the things you can do to make it sound less like an advertisement is comparing it with other products but you must do so in a neutral fashion. As my interest isn't with computery stuff, the best advice that I can give at the moment is to look for similar articles, click on 'view history' and see who the interested editors are, then leave a message on their talk pages asking for their help.--Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have add two new "reliable sources"

Athunt (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to establish notability before this article can be judged to be encyclopaedic. In the case of actors that means:

1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

• Or in the case of porn stars:

1.Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award.

2.Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years.

3.Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.

4.Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

In addition, the article is a bit short.--Ykraps (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eb707 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The link you used in the title is a disambiguation page,which you have never edited. Perhaps you mean halo (club), which you have edited, but there's nothing there.--SPhilbrickT 02:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about an online radio program, and lists the episodes with a brief description. The page was flagged by the CorenSearchBot for potential plagiarism of blogspotradio. Most of the content is not replicated from the site, but the show titles and air dates are the same. Does this cross the line into plagerism?

Nikolakordic (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like it has been deleted. There have been some rather intense issues lately involving plagiarism, so many are on a short fuse. I can't review what you had, but I'll note that facts are not copyrightable, although the creative expression can be. If the site had a lot of facts, that might have lead to a false positive. Hard to be sure without seeing it.--SPhilbrickT 02:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last seen here--Ykraps (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]