This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that you removed a link to the above page from the Liquid oxygen "See also" section [1]. Why is it irrelevant? Where else could it be mentioned? Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to just add your name under where it says that someone will review the article? I don't think anyone will want to review it by Monday, which is when Legolas returns, anyway, so it's perfect timing that that would be when you'd be able to review the article. :) Just a suggestion, though. CarpetCrawlermessage me 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTc)
This is just a quick thank you for your postive good article review and work for the Coatbridge article. Cheers! Jayhoolihan (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I already have an article at FAC (Gropecunt Lane) but do you really consider Worsley good enough for a try? I hadn't thought there was quite enough information on the modern economy of the place to warrant it. Where do you consider the article's weaknesses to be? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Most sensible solution. I quite agree with it and wasn't trying to be awkward – the whole Tontine thing took a very long discussion to get clear. Not only is it an inherently confusing concept to modern eyes, but there were two schemes running concurrently, one of which was later funded by the accumulated surplus from the other. If you can think of a way to make it less awkward, please do! – iridescent 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - I've left a reply.
I think you're definitely right about there being scope for some kind of followthrough on the effects, and I'll try to knock something together in the next few days. If you'd like to review what's there for now, feel free, but it might be simplest to put it on hold for a couple of days, and then we can look at it as a unified whole with the new section(s)? Let me know how you want to go about it... Shimgray | talk | 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you changed back my edit to the previous version to a "more appropriate title". However, there isn't really an "origin" of fire. Rather, a known record or history of it. If you don't mind, I'll change it back. Its a little bit misleading.--Spotty11222 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
hello again
this is an article that i started from stratch myself and something i have done a bit of work on recently. i'm wondering what sort of mark the article should receive. (currently, the article has not been graded, but i feel it is at start class) Kilnburn (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed the concern on the talk page now as well. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is my first GA attempt. Nice of you to write "This GA Reassessment should not be regarded as a poor reflection on the editor who submitted the article to WP:GAN". I'm not sure if incompetant is nice to say about the reviewer. Anyway, I am attempting to address the suggestions and hope that I will be given enough time to do so. If it is yanked from me, I doubt I will reapply for GA because it would be too discouraging. User F203 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to sound like a pest, but you took Partington today, reviewed it and passed it all in one day. You're still taking more reviews to do. I've had problems like this in the past, with my supposed reviewer being slow and unresponsive. Why is it taking well over a week for Cheadle Hulme, yet you pass another similiar one in one day? I'm sat around waiting for you to pass/fail it before I can move onto the next stage (either improving it further for GA, or making it FA worthy). I cannot do any of that until you make the review. Again, I don't want to sound like a pest, but you are being really slow over this, and your rude deletion of my message makes me wonder how seriously you're taking this. If I were you I wouldn't take any more reviews until the ones you have were done. It's rude to keep people waiting unnecessarily, and removing their messages from your talk. Majorly talk 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Thank you for reviewing Cheadle Hulme. You didn't have to and I appreciate the effort; the article and wikipedia is better off for your efforts and diligence. Thank you again for a job well done, and long may it continue! I know you've got one of these already, but it seemed appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello there
You mentioned that some sections of the Eurostar article fail WP:verify; I wondered if you could help me by identifying the appropriate sections so that I could commence work upon them when I have the time. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate it, at least I know now where to take it.81.111.115.63 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Pyrotec. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could try to get in a GA review for Gareloi Volcano? Thanks, ceranthor 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment. Is there a tutorial anywhere of creating a route diagram? NtheP (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I finished rewriting the section. ceranthor 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. I think another review of Fort Scott National Historic Site is in order; I removed a lot of the damage others inflicted on the article that I did not previously see.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 12:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the review of this article, I will be away from tomorrow for the week and will be without internet connection so I will not be able to address the issues before then. The other main editor is back during the weekend so I will leave them a note to see if they can address the concerns. Hope that you do not fail the article before I get back. Keith D (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated Erebus, its less than 3,000 characters of straight out prose but I think that it's comprehensive. Can you check over it to see if it meets comprehensiveness standards? ceranthor 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your comment at wp:an3 and responded briefly there, but I'll also respond here and any discussion should probably continue here rather than at the noticeboard. Specifically, you seem to say that I have "ignored" wp:3rr (if you are indeed referring to me). Since I've reverted a grand total of two times in three days, I'm not sure quite how you're figuring your math. Further, the spirit of the the rule is to prevent edit warring. When it became clear Rerutled wasn't interested in developing any consensus around his proposal and would apparently attempt to enforce (through undo) his new version, I didn't revert him further and brought the issue to the noticeboard. (His proposal has since been reverted by another editor, as they were in the past, given the lack of consensus for his changes.) As you stated on my talk page previously, you don't have any particular preference for what the lead says, but for those of us who do want to see the article remain stable, I would hope you'd at least be a little more careful before carelessly (and unproductively) throwing around accusations that a good faith editor has "ignored" policy. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks – that was quick! That (and the not yet written Twickenham Bridge) were the two most likely to cause problems in the Bridges FT drive (although cleaning up the mess of inaccuracies and original research that is London Bridge is going to be a nightmare); hopefully it should all run smoothly from now on. – iridescent 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering what grade the article has reached, which i started. I would say the article is only at start-class. Kilnburn (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised to see your response at wp:anew. It looks like you're adopting, intentionally or otherwise, the same incorrect interpretation of policy that User:Rerutled has been clinging to, namely that: "the 'consensus' information given in the article is not [verifiable]." Given your experience here, I've been surprised by your take on a few things (carelessly alleging violations of wp:3rr being among the most disappointing), and given your work on good articles, I can appreciate that you tend to hold articles under review to a higher standard. However, wp:v is clear in that an incomplete citation does not make a fact "unverifiable." The work referenced exists, the exact page is cited. We need to get the exact author information for the section in question, but that, by far, does not make the reference "unverifiable." You have very much been an important participant in this discussion, but on at least one occasion your comments have lacked good faith, and on at least another (here) they haven't been based on policy. Because User:Rerutled appears to be new to Wikipedia, your misinterpretation of policy could affect (and perhaps has affected) his handling of this matter, and I urge you to use greater caution before stating something as policy, incorrectly. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could i ask you to peer review the Dollis Brook Viaduct? Simply south (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It's so sad that the article will lose GA. If it loses it, I won't reapply. That's because I don't edit war. :( User F203 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've undone this bold, but well meaning edit. Creating new GA sections has many knock-on effects, so best efforts should be made to fit an article into the existing scheme. In this case Apothecaries' system could be placed under health and medicine (or possibly mathematics). A new subsection for one article would be overkill: we need to maintain some stability at GA. Geometry guy 23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think I have addressed your points, so would appreciate your having another look now. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
hello again
recently, i have done a bit of reference work on this article and have put this under a peer review. currently the article is A status, but this was given a while back and i'm wondering if you can check the article and see if it is still up at that standard. thanks. Kilnburn (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Following your encouraging comments at GA review, I have had the article copyedited and peer reviewed and it is now a FAC here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! To be honest, I was quite surprised that you passed it so quickly, as I expected some suggestions for improvement. Not that I am complaining (and thanks for your tweaks of the article), but could you tell me what you'd like to see added/expanded upon? The lead has been noted and will be expanded. Thanks for your time and regards, Constantine ✍ 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I find it quite strange that you should conclude what is supposed to be a "review" in four days, without ever having listed it at WP:GAR. Would you like to reconsider your closing please, so as to allow comments and article improvement, in the same way that other GA-reviews are conducted? Physchim62 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for reading and reviewing articles at GA. DVD 02:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, it's 81.111.115.63 back on a different IP for the forseeable future. Your guidance with the Eurostar article was greatly appreciated, and I am glad it achieved GA status after all the improvements that went on. Right now I'm working to fit out Docklands Light Railway properly, as it (deservingly might I add) with stripped of GA status mainly for failure to reference sufficiently; I have already tripled the amount of references used, and am currently in the search of more. Keep an eye on it if you get time, it probably won't go up as great as Eurostar did but it should be seeing some more looking into in the near future. Also, as a small suggestion, perhaps you should examine High Speed 1 to see if it still meets GA requirements, it doesn't in my eyes and it was pushed up to that status in the same brisk and rushed style.86.155.132.194 (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe we have a misunderstanding there, but I am flexible and happy to learn from you. My concerns are (i) you revert before explaining; (ii) I do not care which spelling is used US or UK, what I do not understand is that you change two words without looking at the whole article. If you read phosphorus or run spell-checker, you'll find that there are plenty of words in US spelling (odor, meter, distill, etc. - I don't remember by now). Could you explain why don't you fix the whole article, but revert my edits honestly trying to make it consistent ? I felt I was doing a courtesy job on that, and I'm surely not going to do that again. Whoever will nominate this for GA/FA will get the bashing. Again, none of this really matter. I just wanted to understand the experienced editors like you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I simply select the text in wikipedia with the mouse (not the code, but the actual view), copy it into MS Word, and then use two windows: Word finds me mistakes, which I correct in another window (firefox or wordpad with the original code). Materialscientist (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec - I saw that you had reviewed John Douglas (architect) and so, on the off-chance that architectural articles might be of interest, Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford might tickle your fancy. Then again, it's very new and only just been added to the GA backlog, and I'm sure you've got other articles to write/edit/read/review with much greater priority. So, in summary, I'll leave you alone... Regards, BencherliteTalk 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)