How do I make this article more notable? Help!
- First you need to STOP RECREATING THE SAME ARTICLE! Second: There is already an article on en.wiki about the subject so this page could be a redirect to that or you could just copy/paste the sources from the en.wiki article (Not sure if that would be accepted here though...)! Barts1a (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- May I suggest that you create the article in your own "sandbox". First, create your own user name and password so that people will know that you are willing to take responsibility for your own edits. Say you pick "George" as your user name. Second, cereate a new article page called, "User:George/Yabasic". Make your article there. (You can start by copying the article from en.wikipedia.) Once you are done making it simple, leave a message on Simple talk asking for someone to look it over and give you suggestions. Finally, when people think that it is simple, move the article from User:George/Yabasic to Yabasic. (Only users with signons can "move" articles, so that is another reason why you should get a signon.) I think that many people suspect that edits made by IP addresses rather than signons are "vandalism." So to be treated with respect, it helps to have a signon. I hope that this helps you. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It is best if the first sentences of an article explains what the subject of the article is. For example,
Make this article better[change source]
How can I make this article better? Input and constructive criticism is welcome
Respectful suggestions: 1) Get a signon. 2) Look at the ideas in the English Wikipedia article 3) Try to focus on Yabasic rather than BASIC - perhaps explain the differences. 4) Give the history. BASIC has been around since 1963, but Yabasic started in 1995. 5) Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ Good luck. Racepacket (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Should we remove the red links tag? There are not actually that many red links, compared to some articles. DJDunsie (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Make this article better[change source]
- One or two basic examples of code is fine, numerous examples and complex coding is not really needed. Try things like the history or background. Take a look at the article on English Wikipedia and pick out things there? Normandy (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:REDLINKS explains why. Basically they promote article creation when articles are missing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Someday, someone will write articles with those three names. When that happens, the author of that article will not have to find this article to add links. Instead, they will turn blue automatically. Red links are not "bad." The way to fix red links is to create the article, not to remove the link. Of course, if the topic is not notable then the link could be removed. Similarly, if the article exists but has a slightly different name, you can use a pipe: [[slightly different name|text of displayed name]]. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A move was requested for this page, moving it to YaBasic. What are our thoughts on that? I would probably be against the move, as it doesn't look like that is what the developers call it on their website.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, the developers call it Yabasic without the captital B. I have a feeling it might be a German term, because the website is a .de domain. Orashmatash 19:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Peer review[change source]
Well, it is an okay article. It has some good information.
Well, I will list them:
- It's tagged as complex. Try simplifying it.
- All of the references in the article are for 1 sentence. References are supposed to come after the sentence that they source, not altogether at the bottom.
- You told us to "study" a bit of code. Can you find a better word?
- It doesn't really give much information about how to use it. While the information it does give is of good quality, there is much more that could be put in.
- I don't think anyone would vote for it to become a GA. It doesn't yet meet the criteria. But keep trying...
It's fine all-round, but references should be fixed, the English simplified, and some more information would make it better. An infobox might be good too. <br\>I will keep checking on this article to see its progress. Regards, Orashmatash (t • c) 19:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)