GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chip123456 ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read through the article and have noticed not all paragraphs are backed up by references. To achieve GA status they need to be. The article sill be placed on hold and I will re read it again to see if there are any other things that need to be rectified. To other editors - please feel free to comment to share your views on the article. the article will be placed ON HOLD.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Just from a quick look:
(UTC)
Mattximus ( talk) 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and yes, I agree with your comments. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Some other things which need to be sorted:
TheKurgan another thing look at the last paragraph in modern history! See the problem with the ref????-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC).
If possible, there could be an expansion on the neighbourhoods, as long as you can find a decent reference. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Some other things to improve the article:
-- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
All reviewer comments processed, updates done, citations added...with the exception noted above about the Historical Population and the fact that the Canada Census Bureau will charge me for the info! Am exhaling now...:) TheKurgan ( talk) 17:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Done
TheKurgan, please see
this. I thought it was just my computer but obviously not, please see mine and the administrators discussion on the Sarnia article on this thread. (after Notodden Airport discussion). --
Chip123456 (
talk)
17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem for the above has now been rectified, kindly by administrator Redrose64. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if still needed...but... Moxy ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There is enough content to merit GA class, but the writing style has serious deficiencies.
Primarily, there are many sections that have too much trivia. For example (just from a quick scan of the article):
Didn't ask you to give every little thing that happened there, only a little bit of an expansion. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I never asked that you put a Wal-Mart, when I said expansion of shopping I didn't mean every single shop.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
There are also clarity issues combined with trivialities. For example:
TheKurgan ( talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the article needs a serious copy-edit to achieve GA standards, though I don’t think it requires much more new information to be added. Apart from references (of which there are many instances).
I feel that this article should now be promoted from C-class to B-Class. I have not had time for a formal review, but I summarized my concerns above. The decision (and other recommendations) are, of course, up to the reviewer. Mattximus ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I will read thoroughly through your concerns in due course. I have left some opinions under the ones that I have read.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made several changes to the article, moving the Infrastructure section to the Economy heading, and instead of listing specific stores in the retail section, made it generic. Is this acceptable? TheKurgan ( talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is hard. I agree with TheKurgan but agreed with what Mattximus has said. It would be really appreciated if some other editors can comment here and the on hold will be extended until another editor has shared their views. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't use bold. See MOS:BOLD-- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is a new message posted on here, it is in my watch list so I can see when a new message has been posted. There is no need to make it 'stand out' as I am informed.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for some reviews as previously said so sorry for the delay in deciding the articles status. IF I don't get anymore during this or start of next week, I think that the article may have to be rated as B-Class, but let's wait and see.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I suppose so. As the reviewer I have the say of pass or fail but I want to make sure that Mattximus is OK with the improvements, and will make the status decision after they have replied to your long message. This is because if another editor feels there is a problem I must listen to them, not just myself. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To Mattximus: Hello, again,
I'm quite sorry if I got bent out of shape when I read your comments. I was still smarting from Silverchemist's thinly veiled attack on my credibility by saying he had problems with my supposed "facts." The quotes around facts REALLY irked me. Since I've spent nearly 45 hours total on the Sarnia article and want it to be of the highest standard, I didn't like his insinuation. In any event, I shouldn't have taken it out on you and I erased my comment to you that might have been hasty and snide. I've taken a lot of your comments to heart and have revamped the article, moving things around to make sections smaller (the Name section, specifically), and codifying the Economy and Infrastructure sections. I remembered you reverted one of my edits because I didn't need sub-sub-sections, and you were right. I combined the sections again under a main heading called "Economy and Infrastructure" with simple subheadings for "Retail and Hospitality," "Transportation," and "Health Care." Since you had pointed me in the direction of Lethbridge, I took the combination idea from that page. I do respectfully disagree that the article is only a B-Class article. It may not be FA status like Lethbridge yet, but it is certainly the equal of London, Ontario's article, which is GA. Thank you, though, for all of the help in keeping me on the right track. I WANT that GA rating! TheKurgan ( talk) 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
TheKurgan is taking this far too personally. I can appreciate his/her passion for Wikipedia and thinking about an article in a possessive sense (I have fallen into that trap myself at times), but I do object to my comments (see below), being characterized as a "thinly veiled attack" on The Kurgan's credibility. I insinuated nothing about TheKurgan's contributions...I made general comments about the article, as is the purpose of a Talk page. Silverchemist ( talk) 18:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Per recommendation on the
Talk:Sarnia page, I've removed all duplicate internal links except those in photo captions in order to conform to the overlinking criterion.
TheKurgan (
talk)
18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! The TOC seems to be acting up on Opera, with a laptop ratio screen. Is there any way to fix the relationship between the image and the TOC box? -- Zanimum ( talk) 19:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is looking really good and the improvements are excellent. I have an idea of what status I would like to give the article, but will leave any more ideas, until this time tomorrow, If I don't hear anything I will assume there is nothing that can be more improved and will act on anything contributed or what is not contributed for improvements. --
Chip123456 (
talk)
18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I am delighted to tell you I have passed the article early! Well done to everybody who has managed to help give it this status and thank you to editors eho have contributed on this page! -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you to all who helped, especially Mattximus, Silverchemist, and Moxy. FA now or bust!!! TheKurgan ( talk) 19:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Congrats, I'll try to help you to FA if time permits (I'm also on a similar quest to get Greater Sudbury to GA). Again, I strongly suggest using Lethbridge as a model which, because of it's size, is the perfect comparison page. I also think you should stagger the photos a bit. I know I'm contradicting a previous editor, but I think as long as you don't sandwich text between two pictures, you can alternate left/right for a more aesthetically pleasing article. Mattximus ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chip123456 ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read through the article and have noticed not all paragraphs are backed up by references. To achieve GA status they need to be. The article sill be placed on hold and I will re read it again to see if there are any other things that need to be rectified. To other editors - please feel free to comment to share your views on the article. the article will be placed ON HOLD.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Just from a quick look:
(UTC)
Mattximus ( talk) 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and yes, I agree with your comments. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Some other things which need to be sorted:
TheKurgan another thing look at the last paragraph in modern history! See the problem with the ref????-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC).
If possible, there could be an expansion on the neighbourhoods, as long as you can find a decent reference. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Some other things to improve the article:
-- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
All reviewer comments processed, updates done, citations added...with the exception noted above about the Historical Population and the fact that the Canada Census Bureau will charge me for the info! Am exhaling now...:) TheKurgan ( talk) 17:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Done
TheKurgan, please see
this. I thought it was just my computer but obviously not, please see mine and the administrators discussion on the Sarnia article on this thread. (after Notodden Airport discussion). --
Chip123456 (
talk)
17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem for the above has now been rectified, kindly by administrator Redrose64. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if still needed...but... Moxy ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There is enough content to merit GA class, but the writing style has serious deficiencies.
Primarily, there are many sections that have too much trivia. For example (just from a quick scan of the article):
Didn't ask you to give every little thing that happened there, only a little bit of an expansion. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I never asked that you put a Wal-Mart, when I said expansion of shopping I didn't mean every single shop.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
There are also clarity issues combined with trivialities. For example:
TheKurgan ( talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the article needs a serious copy-edit to achieve GA standards, though I don’t think it requires much more new information to be added. Apart from references (of which there are many instances).
I feel that this article should now be promoted from C-class to B-Class. I have not had time for a formal review, but I summarized my concerns above. The decision (and other recommendations) are, of course, up to the reviewer. Mattximus ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I will read thoroughly through your concerns in due course. I have left some opinions under the ones that I have read.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made several changes to the article, moving the Infrastructure section to the Economy heading, and instead of listing specific stores in the retail section, made it generic. Is this acceptable? TheKurgan ( talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is hard. I agree with TheKurgan but agreed with what Mattximus has said. It would be really appreciated if some other editors can comment here and the on hold will be extended until another editor has shared their views. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't use bold. See MOS:BOLD-- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is a new message posted on here, it is in my watch list so I can see when a new message has been posted. There is no need to make it 'stand out' as I am informed.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for some reviews as previously said so sorry for the delay in deciding the articles status. IF I don't get anymore during this or start of next week, I think that the article may have to be rated as B-Class, but let's wait and see.-- Chip123456 ( talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I suppose so. As the reviewer I have the say of pass or fail but I want to make sure that Mattximus is OK with the improvements, and will make the status decision after they have replied to your long message. This is because if another editor feels there is a problem I must listen to them, not just myself. -- Chip123456 ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To Mattximus: Hello, again,
I'm quite sorry if I got bent out of shape when I read your comments. I was still smarting from Silverchemist's thinly veiled attack on my credibility by saying he had problems with my supposed "facts." The quotes around facts REALLY irked me. Since I've spent nearly 45 hours total on the Sarnia article and want it to be of the highest standard, I didn't like his insinuation. In any event, I shouldn't have taken it out on you and I erased my comment to you that might have been hasty and snide. I've taken a lot of your comments to heart and have revamped the article, moving things around to make sections smaller (the Name section, specifically), and codifying the Economy and Infrastructure sections. I remembered you reverted one of my edits because I didn't need sub-sub-sections, and you were right. I combined the sections again under a main heading called "Economy and Infrastructure" with simple subheadings for "Retail and Hospitality," "Transportation," and "Health Care." Since you had pointed me in the direction of Lethbridge, I took the combination idea from that page. I do respectfully disagree that the article is only a B-Class article. It may not be FA status like Lethbridge yet, but it is certainly the equal of London, Ontario's article, which is GA. Thank you, though, for all of the help in keeping me on the right track. I WANT that GA rating! TheKurgan ( talk) 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
TheKurgan is taking this far too personally. I can appreciate his/her passion for Wikipedia and thinking about an article in a possessive sense (I have fallen into that trap myself at times), but I do object to my comments (see below), being characterized as a "thinly veiled attack" on The Kurgan's credibility. I insinuated nothing about TheKurgan's contributions...I made general comments about the article, as is the purpose of a Talk page. Silverchemist ( talk) 18:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Per recommendation on the
Talk:Sarnia page, I've removed all duplicate internal links except those in photo captions in order to conform to the overlinking criterion.
TheKurgan (
talk)
18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! The TOC seems to be acting up on Opera, with a laptop ratio screen. Is there any way to fix the relationship between the image and the TOC box? -- Zanimum ( talk) 19:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is looking really good and the improvements are excellent. I have an idea of what status I would like to give the article, but will leave any more ideas, until this time tomorrow, If I don't hear anything I will assume there is nothing that can be more improved and will act on anything contributed or what is not contributed for improvements. --
Chip123456 (
talk)
18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I am delighted to tell you I have passed the article early! Well done to everybody who has managed to help give it this status and thank you to editors eho have contributed on this page! -- Chip123456 ( talk) 15:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you to all who helped, especially Mattximus, Silverchemist, and Moxy. FA now or bust!!! TheKurgan ( talk) 19:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Congrats, I'll try to help you to FA if time permits (I'm also on a similar quest to get Greater Sudbury to GA). Again, I strongly suggest using Lethbridge as a model which, because of it's size, is the perfect comparison page. I also think you should stagger the photos a bit. I know I'm contradicting a previous editor, but I think as long as you don't sandwich text between two pictures, you can alternate left/right for a more aesthetically pleasing article. Mattximus ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)