![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks for giving your thoughts on the nomination (again). You're like the energizer bunny: you never stop. Well, I've replaced ref. 7 and I've FINALLY removed all of the tough pigs references. Unbelievebale, huh? Well, now that everything's fine, I was wondering if you could you leave a Support or an Oppose at the nomination. If you can't, don't want to, or just don't want to, please leave a note on my talk page so I won't bother you in the future. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed all the sourcing issues on Augustus Jones - by and large just copyediting made it unclear what came from where, so that's easy enough. I've tried to clarify what was unclear, but if you could give it a parse and see what's still to be done, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Wily D 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. How can I use this as a source? Thank you. -- Efe ( talk) 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
All finished with your comments. Thanks for the review! Mitch 32 contribs 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
E, thanks for your support of this article. It'd be my hope that three times would be a charm, but wait, it's the fourth time it's been nominated. It's been such a frustrating process getting this article passed, so I appreciate your input. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Moni3 has suggested that you might be willing to comment on my sources listed for White Mountain art. Would you be willing to give me some quick feedback? I'm not ready to go past GA at this point, but I'm trying to contact more wiki-experts to help me improve this article. Thanks. JJ ( talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Since JJ is planning to take this to FAC, my biggest issue was that two of his citations, #28 and #33, go back to a self-maintained website. I thought it a sensitive WP:RS issue, so I asked him to check with you on it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a lot for taking a look at this article, and your comprehensive review. I've made a start addressing your points and will work on the remainder when time permits! All the best, Smith609 Talk 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your comment. I think I've caught all the references now for you to check. Bettia (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for striking one of your objections to the website sources. I believe that Allhiphop.com also meets this standard. See [1]. Let me know if you concur. Savidan 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. As someone who normally questions sources, could you comment on this RFC at the SummerSlam (2007) talkpage initiated by another user. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I decided to be brave and look at a video game FAC. I remember vaguely that I've seen discussions between you and Sandy on VG sources and the VG RS page, but couldn't remember details. I asked about a lot of the sources on the FAC for The Orange Box, and I was basically told "it's on the VG sources list". How have you handled this in the past? Should I push back and ask what makes them reliable beyond a listing on the VG site or let it go? Thanks! Karanacs ( talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll post my comments on the article's talk page. I'm leaving though in a few hours on a 4-day vacation, so I'll be able to devote fuller attention to this sometime early next week. But I think I have enough time to offer some preliminary comments before I leave. -- Anyo Niminus ( talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Where have all the bishops gone? Haven't seen one around for ages. Have you given them up? Brianboulton ( talk) 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, could you consider adding http://www.musicomh.com/ to your sources list. As described here, it's noted by Google News (amongst others) and appears on Rotten Tomatoes (amongst others)...I'm not sure how much you ask for before adding to your list, but that seems to have been enough for Spinner.com at this FAC.
Anyway, thoughts?
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's like a train wreck, isn't it? No matter how hard I try to stay away from that FAC, I just can't seem to take my eyes off it, and then I get sucked into commenting again. It looks like you have too. I have lost count of the number of times I've been accused of being anti-Catholic (to be a non-Catholic and get married in the Catholic Church and attend mass at St. Peter's in Rome is apparently a glaring sign that one is anti-Catholic), anti-FAC, and just a generally bad person. It really makes me want to run away to the beach somewhere and clear my head, but then I remember that I hate sand.<sigh> Karanacs ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bokenkotter's review is a review by a historian. Bokenkotter teaches history at Xavier University and his book on church history is considered to be not an apologist but a critics viewpoint. His review of Vidmar's book constitutes a scholarly review and he clearly offers "faint praise" and does not state that it is inaccurate but actually recommends it to reader at the end of the review. Please provide any links to any bad review of Vidmar if you are going to persist in opposing my use of this source. Did you ever look at the 13 citations in the text where his book stands alone? They are to basic statement of uncontested Church facts. The other 20 citations in the article to Vidmar are doubled with other sources at the end of the same sentence. We did this to prove to reader that various scholars from different viewpoints came to the same conclusion on those points. We used Vidmar to balance the article against sources considered to be critical. NancyHeise ( talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Please join me in a virtual weissbier. You did a fantastic job and I am very sorry I was not there due to the tyranny of time zones. Prost! -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 06:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've caught all the British/American spelling anomalies now, and I've made a few copyediting changes. I'm sure that more could be done to sharpen up the prose still, and I may take another run through it later, but apart from a couple of comments I made on the talk page I think it's up to an FAC nomination now. Good luck! -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, hi, I was curious about something. I've been reviewing the sources at this article, and having some questions. But I see that you already looked into them at the FAC. [2] Could you expand a bit on what exactly you checked? Do you have access to all those sources? Or did you just spotcheck the online ones? See also Talk:Elderly Instruments#Sources. -- El on ka 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, per your suggestions. Thank you. Let me know if I need to change anything else. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dorothy the Dinosaur (and me) have given you this beautiful rose in appreciation for your assistance in getting The Wiggles to FA-status. Yoo hoo! and Good on ya, mate! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You left some good comments on this article's FAC, but there's not that much interest either way. Are there any suggestions that you could make for improvements to this article that might better make it qualified for a Featured Article? If it doesn't get promoted (currently no supports, no objects), I'm looking for things that I could improve so that it would either be worth supporting now or worth a second pass through FAC later. Thanks for your assistance and comments so far. JRP ( talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Cold fusion at WP:GAN, and I'm not really sure what to read to answer questions on citations...I don't really trust WP:CITE to tell me how things get done at the FAC level. Maybe I can run one by you? Please? Some of the web cites don't have a "retrieved on" date, such as one that is a NYT story from 1989; but the story is probably the same today as it was in 1989. Should I stick a "retrieved on" tag with today's date, or ask the writers exactly when it was retrieved? - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to deal with the objections to statements about the references at Talk:Cold fusion#GA Review; could you have a quick look, please? I normally don't pawn off work, but this review has taken about a week; it's a very contentious subject, and I want to avoid coming across as not knowing what I'm talking about...which would be the case if I try to say too much about reference requirements at the GA level :) - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected all the statements you listed. Thank you.— Wildroot ( talk) 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi E, swiped your "articles to start" list on your user page and am working on cropout. Stay tuned for when the link turns blue and feel free to dive in and tweak! Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Citation Barnstar | |
A barnstar for you - the great goddess of citation! Montanabw (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
Since you made the offer [3], I'm working on two Carolingian manuscripts, the Utrecht Psalter and Ebbo Gospels. In the short term, what would make a good DYK hook for these? Gimmetrow 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, me again - I've just left a comment on the talk page for Bishops of Lichfield, about mention there of "Saint Sexwulf". I'm curious about it, the linked page hasn't been created yet, and the article's history shows you as a recent editor so I thought I ask if you'd cast your eye over it. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(undid indent)
I'm sorry - I'm beginning to feel like I'm really bothering you over this Sexwulf business - but I do appreciate your input, and you and Chzz are the only people who have answered my calls! The price you pay for being helpful, I suppose... Anyway, I've just done another edit at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox, and it's my final attempt at clarifying Sexwulf's possible identity, before throwing in the towel. So, I'd be very grateful if you'd have one last look at it: if you and Chzz still see OR - Chzz has said pretty much the same as you, understandably - then I'll give up all thought of it, and post the revision without it. But obviously I'll want to keep mention of the factual error itself. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Me again! I've just had a very favourable review of the OR issue from Chzz, saying that I've "erred on the side of caution", & should go live with my revision of the Sexwulf article: I'm going to work on that now. But obviously I'd still appreciate your input, both on the OR issue, & on any possible improvements that you might spot - I feel like I've got to a point where further inspiration would be helpful! But I know you're busy - where do you find the time?! ;o) Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 08:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think I've responded to all your source issues at FAC. I hope I also might have managed to come up with a favourable compromise regarding abbreviations. If you had any further thoughts, I'd be most grateful. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Gosh it took me a long time, but please review my responses at Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2. Thanks so much! -- Dweller ( talk) 11:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Looked it over, and it looks good, although I wouldn't set it in stone just yet. Longer reply on the talk page. Dana boomer ( talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reviewed Hugh de Puiset at GA yesterday. Its not bad, just needs a few tweaks and a couple of questions answered before I pass it. I know how busy you get, so its likely you simply haven't had time to get around to it but I thought I'd officially notify you in case you missed the review. Regards-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressed your concern about RPGFan by swapping out the ref for one from Amazon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead of the Arabian sources. I'm a bit busy at work today and don't have a lot of extra time, so don't worry about me interfering with your edits. If I feel the urge to play, I'll go work on Appaloosa some more! And, thanks for putting TB up for FAC...I've watchlisted it and shall keep an eye open for comments. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have taken note of your comments, and hope the issues you have raised have been resolved. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your curious recent note on the FAC page. Perhaps you should check the responses to your points on the RCC talk page if it is of concern to you. Xandar ( talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have time, could you take a look at the references for Noble gas and tell me if you think they are acceptable? Gary King ( talk) 00:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm trying to take a bit of the weight off Sandy on the dispatches. I wondered whether, per here, you would be able to commit to June 23 (which would mean a draft by the 21st) for a dispatch on sources? That would be fantastic. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, Francis Bok is a Good Article. User:Bless sins seems to think some of the sources are not reliable - things like interviews in Christianity Today. Would you mind taking a look at the sources and weighing in on the talk page? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the Bok sources. I fixed the Sudan Sunrise one. I am at a loss for understanding the users objections. Dincher ( talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, since you have seven peer review requests currently open, I wanted to let you know about the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy which places the following limits on peer review requests: "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review, FAC, GAN, or A-class review. For more information on these limits see here." This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits.
The current requests you have made can stay open (they are grandfathered in), but I wanted to make you aware of the new limits for future requests. Thanks for all your work on checking refs, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs suggested I contact you re whether Tea Leaves should be regarded as a Reliable Source for video games. You'll find additional info at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Boldly_added_TLeaves.com. Could you please post comments there. If you have time, I'd also be grateful if you could look over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Other_self-published_sources_that_are_worthy_of_respect. Many thanks. Philcha ( talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Would you take another look at Strapping Young Lad, and its FAC page? I have addressed many of your (and other) comments. Thank you very much. Gocsa ( talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to most of your RS concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth - I'm working with User:Vintagekits on an article he would like to bring to FAC on boxer Michael Gomez. It's his first time at trying, and he's taken the "add every reference I can find" approach in sourcing the article; however, I know it's not particularly appreciated at FAC to see a long string of refs after a paragraph (or worse yet, a sentence). I'm also a little unsure as to how well some of the refs will hold up (reliable-source-wise) when you do your magic. I'm wondering if you might be so kind as to give this article a sort of pre-emptive online reference review, so that when the article appears at FAC there aren't any extraneous refs and the questions about sourcing are taken care of in advance. Thanks in advance for any assistance and feedback you're able to provide. Risker ( talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Just FYI, Sandy has restarted the FAC for RCC. NancyHeise notified most of the previous commenters, but it looks like you were left out because you didn't explicitly support or oppose. I'm sure you noticed already, but I wanted to cover all the bases. Karanacs ( talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on another article for FAC, and I'm trying to make sure I have as little stuff to do once it actually hits the page. I put it up for PR, am going to get someone to help with the prose, hopefully, and I'm asking you if you could take a look through the sources when you have a spare moment to see if they are to your liking. Thanks for all your help.
P.S., yes, it's another video game. And yes, I have another one after that I want to improve and put up at FAC. On the plus side, though, I'm gathering up sources for an entirely different article after that, so hopefully you won't have to endure much more of this. (After that, I'll probably go back to video games again, but hey, at least you guys will have a respite.) Cheers, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Just giving a shout, I've gone through and fixed the citations as mentioned and posted reasonings for the sources you inquired about on that page.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing the references of Halo (series), your comments have led to my question however. I thought that interviews could be seen as reliable unless the interviewee was taken out of context. This is pretty unlikely for Halo seeing as video-games aren't usually contentious subjects (I would expect to find quotes out of context relating to politics and religion for example). What sort of thing should I look out for that would make an interview unreliable? This way I can avoid problems with sources in future. The only thing I could think of would be to make sure the person interviewed is an official, not just some-one with an opinion. Cheers, James086 Talk | Email 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm watching this page so you can reply where you like :)
Thank your for supporting this article in the first (unsuccessful) nomination. I have recently renominated it. As the article has been somewhat expanded since you last saw it, would you mind re-reading it an ensuring that it still meets your high standards. Savidan 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Per your comments I have double checked everything that you requested. I removed the dead links, and tried to fix all the errors and problems with all the links, including adding titles, access dates etc to references.
I hope you can continue your review for the FAC of London, located here.
Thanks in advance,
The Helpful One (Review) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Nimrod article has been promoted. This is the fourth (and last) of the major British Antarctic expeditions that I have been working on since January, all now FA as are their leaders, Scott, Shackleton and Mackintosh. Sincere thanks to you, for the time you have given to reviewing and supporting these articles - it is very much appreciated. That project is over, but the Antarctic and Arctic still beckon, and I shall continue to toil away, though perhaps with less emphasis on FA status. Your keen eye and judgement will always be welcomed. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank for the pretty new toy for my user page. I don't think that I earned it as you have done so much work here and elsewhere, including at Commons, thanks. Cgoodwin ( talk) 05:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montana class battleship, and after several days of work I do believe that I have adressed all current concerns of yours. I am therefore leaving this message to ask if you would be willing to give the article another look and reevaluate your position on it, or alternatively, present any additional problems or concerns you may have. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! This is to inform you that I have replaced the Sify refs with other citations. I would be glad if you go through the changes to the article 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 13:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
To
Ealdgyth, For your superior reviews of at least 92 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for again being the top reviewer at FAC and for your careful work and thorough and exhausting reviews of sources to help promote Wiki's finest work. Your dedication to the Wiki—even when busy in real life—is astounding. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award, and to Maralia for running the stats for May. |
Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey)! I've gone through the article and have addressed all of your concerns, with another user removing the IMDb source. I hope to gain your support. Thanks! – Nurmsook! ( talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by the automated Giggabot ( stop!) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Just following up on my FAC. Sandy recommended that I reach out and see if there were any other improvements that you would like to see in this article. You have "Comment, leaning towards support", but if there's some tweaking that I can do to make you lean all the way over, please let me know. I appreciate your feedback and criticism. JRP ( talk) 02:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Heya, Ealdgyth. (Dude, I have no idea what it is with readability/speakability and typability, but your username does not flow off the fingers...) Anyway, congratulations on Thoroughbred. Well done on that. My partner is a horse lover from Misty of Chincoteague, but she never could afford to actually work with horses. When she read Thoroughbred, she got all interested in Freisein, or whatever they are. So far, that's the only topic she's ever considered working on, though she uses Wikipedia for science all the time...
Ok at any rate, have a couple questions on Indigenous people of the Everglades region. I checked the Bureau of Indian Affairs website. Apparently they don't think it's worth their time to put a search engine on their site, so I couldn't change out the Seminole Nation source with another of a higher authority. You mentioned during the GA review that you kept yourself from making FA-type comments, and I was wondering (should have asked you at the time) if there was anything in particular you wanted to see for FA. On a similar note, BuddingJournalist has given it a look-see, and made all the blood drain from my extremities by suggesting I put exact page numbers for journal articles instead of ranges, like there are now. Normally, I appreciate a nutty difficult thing to do if it makes the credibility of my articles that much more concrete. I might grumble, but I'll do it. However, if this is a trend coming up in citations, I have hundreds of journal citations throughout all the articles I've worked on. It would take me months to track down the exact pages of each journal article citation. I wanted your opinion on this request before I run my head through drywall. Not that I'm being dramatic or anything... -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-02/Dispatches
New MOS stuff. Montanabw (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, would you mind checking the sources of Ars Conjectandi (which is at peer review right now)? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Go (board game) you told me to get back to you when I had the references fixed. So here I am. I have check every reference on the page, replacing those that might be dubious, replacing all of the Sensei's Library references, adding publishers, accessdates, the works. As far as I can tell, all the current references should be ok. There are still some links to Sensei's Library, but these are footnotes provided for extra information, not citations. If you find the time to have a look, that would be great! Regards, HermanHiddema ( talk) 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you watchlist Mustang (horse) for a bit? Someone went in and deleted a bunch of sourced material and when I reverted the changes and got a bit snarky about it (like I do on occasion), they reverted back and got snarky too. Anyway, I tried to extend an olive branch by a third edit that tries to incorporate the ideas this person had and some of the new content they added, but who knows how they will take it. So asking for more eyes on the article. It's nowhere near GA yet, but it is heavily referenced and I put a lot of work into trying to keep it balanced between cattle ranchers and PETA sorts. (Sigh) May need a sane voice to look over the edits. I think Getwood has this on his list too, and I asked Dana to keep her eyes open as well. I am not opposed to improvements on articles, as you know, but I hate big messy rearrangements that I have to go through with fine tooth comb to fix. (whining) Montanabw (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Your offer of journal articles got me curious to check out my university library and I was pleasantly surprised that they had access to many online databases in English, despite the fact that the main language is not English here. I just checked out JSTOR and downloaded a few articles. As you appear to have conducted some research already, I was wondering if you could give me a few tips. How did you find articles in journals outside of JSTOR? For example, how did you find "Reformation and Renaissance Review"? Does your library has access to Equinox Publishing? Any other online databases that you recommend? -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
When you said that the citations in the Appaloosa article needed work, were you referring to the fact that, at that point, most didn't have author/publisher information, or something else? I've made sure that all of the current refs have proper formatting (noting that one link is dead). Are there verifiability issues with the refs? I think we've made the decision to wait until you get home to put the article up for FA, but if I knew what the main problems with refs were, I can add that to my pile of things to slowly work on over the next few weeks! I know you're busy this week, so I don't expect anything more than a brief answer :) Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Even though I've done a ton of edits around here, there is always something new I learn. I didn't know that it was bad form, so please accept my apologies on that point. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw my latest Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) responses, but your feedback and/or support would be appreciated.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks for your careful checking of references in peer review and FAC and for comments on
Worlds End State Park which made
Featured Article today! Dincher ( talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Hey, I saw you talking on Durova's talk page about the dfficulty of getting images of mediaeval lives in America. I live in Edinburgh, and have access to a lot of things thereby that you probably don't. Is there anything I can help you with? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Creatures of Impulse | |
Thanks for peer-reviewing Creatures of Impulse. With the help and support we recieved, we were able to raise the article up to FA a mere month and two days after starting it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
Oh!! I am very sorry... I had replaced the dead link at the same time when I had addressed other issues but forgot to mention Replaced or Done...(just realized this after your latest comment)... Apologies for keeping you in waiting and wondering...Please re-visit to check the links KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I did some; it's ready for a new look from you. Wikipedia:FCDW/June 23, 2008 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think I have addressed your concerns at the Space Pilot 3000 peer review but let me know if there are still any problems, I'm not very experienced with citation formatting. Thanks for your time and advice! Star dust 8212 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the History of Bradford City A.F.C. peer review. I've amended two of the references. However, you ask about [4]. That site is recognised as a WP:RS by WP:FOOTY and is maintained by User:Richard Rundle. If there are any problems about using that, don't hesitate to either get in touch or ask Richard. I'm sure it may come back up, if I make it as far as FAC. Peanut4 ( talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all your work on this. Hopefully it will make FACs go a little better (and your life there easier) too. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth. Thanks for dropping by. I left comments there. -- Efe ( talk) 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ive resolved your points on the Thriller peer review, thanx for your helpful additions. Regards. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, I would like to do a thorough checking and clean-up of the sources for Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York, but I am not very proficient with the template reference system that you use. I would prefer to do it all 'free-hand', though I respect that you may have reasons for preferring the template style. If you could direct me to a cheat sheet on how to properly use the reference templates, I would be happy to learn. On the other hand, if it doesn't concern you too much, I would love to just re-type all the references without the templates. Whatever you decide, I like the "notes + references" approach so I'll keep that. BTW: any thoughts on separating Wulfstan's works into its own article? I would love to see this, but then I am a little Wulfstan-crazy and realize it may be unwarranted. I am also aware that the long list I added to the Wulfstan article is a little ridiculous; couldn't help myself. Eltheodigraeardgesece ( talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't start hiding already-I promise this won't hurt! I can't seem to let go of this article (the topic deserves to be featured and I don't want to see it back at FAC more than once more because it makes my head hurt). This time, I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since you have experience in Catholic history topics I hoped you might be able to take a look at
my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page.
Karanacs (
talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
PS Your user name is very hard to spell. Would you mind if I put a link to your talk page in itty bitty letters at the very bottom of my user page so that I don't have to search for pages we've both edited to find you again?
Karanacs (
talk)
15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the sourcing/referencing. I presume these were OK since you didn't comment. As for the two columns, I've put a reflist|2 tag in, but you'll have to tell me if it now shows the notes in 2 columns, since I use Internet Explorer which can't show the 2-column format, per discussion on FAC talkpage. If you can get to read the prose, you will find that no animals were harmed during any of Bruce's expeditions. Worth a cheer. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Planning on FAC'ing soon, so I was hoping you could confirm/deny that my responses to you there suffice? Cheers, giggy ( :O) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing X Club! I had a question at the Peer Review regarding one of your comments. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; I've replied there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I believe I have addressed any issues with the sources you queried. Would you be able to take a look and let me know if you are satisfied. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 23:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I'd just like to let you know that we've addressed all of your concerns (as far as I can tell) over at the FAC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take another look to see if we've dealt with everything satisfactorily. Thanks for your time and review. Keilana| Parlez ici 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I handled all your concerns at [ [5]]. I'd be grateful if you'd run an eye over the links again for me and post to my talk page if you find anything outstanding. I'm planning to go to FAC in about a week. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A quick question on references...your favorite area :)
I know you don't usually like the use of encyclopedias as references for Wikipedia (which I completely understand). I recently acquired a book called The Encyclopedia of the Horse by Elwyn Hartley Edwards, published by Dorling Kindersley in 1994. Despite the title, this does not appear to be a typical encyclopedia, but instead more of a general compilation of horse information, separated into sections on evolution, early uses, breeds from various areas, different uses, etc. Would you mind taking a look at this and seeing if you think it can be viably used in our GA/FA articles? It looks to have a lot of good information in it that I think would be of use, especially in the main horse article to finish all of the referencing that is needed! Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I left a reply at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Marcellus_Formation/archive1. Dhaluza ( talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've corrected all your issues, with the exception of the Newsarama blog. Would you mind double checking? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
An online article (reliable of course) that I'm planning to use as a source has the desired information on the second page. What is the proper way of handling this? Should I link to the start of the article or the important page? I figured that you would be the right person to ask about this, and I would appreciate your feedback (if you ever get a break from FAC :-) ). Giants2008 ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I spent an entire day walking them through this because I wanted an example of how to comply with WP:SPS. See the talk page of the FAC, and let me know if you think this is tight enough to link in our upcoming Dispatch: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully the references are better than they were last time now :) Gary King ( talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't take up your colorful invitation to remind you to revisit Bruce's peer review ("bop me one next week" - your words), because I guessed you were busy. But he's gone to FAC now, & if you can find a moment to check him out, he's be very pleased. I can absolutely promise that he treated all his animals impeccably - he was a civilized Scot, after all. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your suggestion about including my responses to the links you listed for review line by line. Is it kosher to follow up with this format and delete the previous list of responses I left or should I use strikethrough? Mrshaba ( talk) 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
... is getting long ... is there anything you can cap at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War? As far as I can tell, sources seem to have been addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be possible for anyone to move them back. Even before the moves, there does seem to be a bit of a mish-mash. I did a couple but didn't want to get invovled in a protracted edit war across a whole range of articles. David Underdown ( talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but I responded to your comment at the Insane Clown Posse FAC a day ago. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
Many thanks for your constructive comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First-move advantage in chess, which helped to improve the article and reach the FA level! SyG ( talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess you think I capped the comments? :( Gary King ( talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for checking the refs in Forksville Covered Bridge. I think there are 5 or maybe 6 total covered bridge articles I could get to FA without too much trouble. Of course there are over 200 covered bridges on the NRHP in Pennsylvania.
As for the link checker, I would ask User:Geometry guy about this (I am not as technically hip). I know one concern is just the amount of space anything included in every review takes. Thanks for all your work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be possible for anyone to move them back. Even before the moves, there does seem to be a bit of a mish-mash. I did a couple but didn't want to get invovled in a protracted edit war across a whole range of articles. OUP usage does seem to favour the lower-case — ODNB articles always seem to use it, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. David Underdown ( talk) 14:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks for giving your thoughts on the nomination (again). You're like the energizer bunny: you never stop. Well, I've replaced ref. 7 and I've FINALLY removed all of the tough pigs references. Unbelievebale, huh? Well, now that everything's fine, I was wondering if you could you leave a Support or an Oppose at the nomination. If you can't, don't want to, or just don't want to, please leave a note on my talk page so I won't bother you in the future. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed all the sourcing issues on Augustus Jones - by and large just copyediting made it unclear what came from where, so that's easy enough. I've tried to clarify what was unclear, but if you could give it a parse and see what's still to be done, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Wily D 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. How can I use this as a source? Thank you. -- Efe ( talk) 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
All finished with your comments. Thanks for the review! Mitch 32 contribs 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
E, thanks for your support of this article. It'd be my hope that three times would be a charm, but wait, it's the fourth time it's been nominated. It's been such a frustrating process getting this article passed, so I appreciate your input. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Moni3 has suggested that you might be willing to comment on my sources listed for White Mountain art. Would you be willing to give me some quick feedback? I'm not ready to go past GA at this point, but I'm trying to contact more wiki-experts to help me improve this article. Thanks. JJ ( talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Since JJ is planning to take this to FAC, my biggest issue was that two of his citations, #28 and #33, go back to a self-maintained website. I thought it a sensitive WP:RS issue, so I asked him to check with you on it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a lot for taking a look at this article, and your comprehensive review. I've made a start addressing your points and will work on the remainder when time permits! All the best, Smith609 Talk 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your comment. I think I've caught all the references now for you to check. Bettia (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for striking one of your objections to the website sources. I believe that Allhiphop.com also meets this standard. See [1]. Let me know if you concur. Savidan 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. As someone who normally questions sources, could you comment on this RFC at the SummerSlam (2007) talkpage initiated by another user. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I decided to be brave and look at a video game FAC. I remember vaguely that I've seen discussions between you and Sandy on VG sources and the VG RS page, but couldn't remember details. I asked about a lot of the sources on the FAC for The Orange Box, and I was basically told "it's on the VG sources list". How have you handled this in the past? Should I push back and ask what makes them reliable beyond a listing on the VG site or let it go? Thanks! Karanacs ( talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll post my comments on the article's talk page. I'm leaving though in a few hours on a 4-day vacation, so I'll be able to devote fuller attention to this sometime early next week. But I think I have enough time to offer some preliminary comments before I leave. -- Anyo Niminus ( talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Where have all the bishops gone? Haven't seen one around for ages. Have you given them up? Brianboulton ( talk) 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, could you consider adding http://www.musicomh.com/ to your sources list. As described here, it's noted by Google News (amongst others) and appears on Rotten Tomatoes (amongst others)...I'm not sure how much you ask for before adding to your list, but that seems to have been enough for Spinner.com at this FAC.
Anyway, thoughts?
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's like a train wreck, isn't it? No matter how hard I try to stay away from that FAC, I just can't seem to take my eyes off it, and then I get sucked into commenting again. It looks like you have too. I have lost count of the number of times I've been accused of being anti-Catholic (to be a non-Catholic and get married in the Catholic Church and attend mass at St. Peter's in Rome is apparently a glaring sign that one is anti-Catholic), anti-FAC, and just a generally bad person. It really makes me want to run away to the beach somewhere and clear my head, but then I remember that I hate sand.<sigh> Karanacs ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bokenkotter's review is a review by a historian. Bokenkotter teaches history at Xavier University and his book on church history is considered to be not an apologist but a critics viewpoint. His review of Vidmar's book constitutes a scholarly review and he clearly offers "faint praise" and does not state that it is inaccurate but actually recommends it to reader at the end of the review. Please provide any links to any bad review of Vidmar if you are going to persist in opposing my use of this source. Did you ever look at the 13 citations in the text where his book stands alone? They are to basic statement of uncontested Church facts. The other 20 citations in the article to Vidmar are doubled with other sources at the end of the same sentence. We did this to prove to reader that various scholars from different viewpoints came to the same conclusion on those points. We used Vidmar to balance the article against sources considered to be critical. NancyHeise ( talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Please join me in a virtual weissbier. You did a fantastic job and I am very sorry I was not there due to the tyranny of time zones. Prost! -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 06:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've caught all the British/American spelling anomalies now, and I've made a few copyediting changes. I'm sure that more could be done to sharpen up the prose still, and I may take another run through it later, but apart from a couple of comments I made on the talk page I think it's up to an FAC nomination now. Good luck! -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, hi, I was curious about something. I've been reviewing the sources at this article, and having some questions. But I see that you already looked into them at the FAC. [2] Could you expand a bit on what exactly you checked? Do you have access to all those sources? Or did you just spotcheck the online ones? See also Talk:Elderly Instruments#Sources. -- El on ka 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, per your suggestions. Thank you. Let me know if I need to change anything else. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dorothy the Dinosaur (and me) have given you this beautiful rose in appreciation for your assistance in getting The Wiggles to FA-status. Yoo hoo! and Good on ya, mate! -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You left some good comments on this article's FAC, but there's not that much interest either way. Are there any suggestions that you could make for improvements to this article that might better make it qualified for a Featured Article? If it doesn't get promoted (currently no supports, no objects), I'm looking for things that I could improve so that it would either be worth supporting now or worth a second pass through FAC later. Thanks for your assistance and comments so far. JRP ( talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Cold fusion at WP:GAN, and I'm not really sure what to read to answer questions on citations...I don't really trust WP:CITE to tell me how things get done at the FAC level. Maybe I can run one by you? Please? Some of the web cites don't have a "retrieved on" date, such as one that is a NYT story from 1989; but the story is probably the same today as it was in 1989. Should I stick a "retrieved on" tag with today's date, or ask the writers exactly when it was retrieved? - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to deal with the objections to statements about the references at Talk:Cold fusion#GA Review; could you have a quick look, please? I normally don't pawn off work, but this review has taken about a week; it's a very contentious subject, and I want to avoid coming across as not knowing what I'm talking about...which would be the case if I try to say too much about reference requirements at the GA level :) - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected all the statements you listed. Thank you.— Wildroot ( talk) 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi E, swiped your "articles to start" list on your user page and am working on cropout. Stay tuned for when the link turns blue and feel free to dive in and tweak! Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Citation Barnstar | |
A barnstar for you - the great goddess of citation! Montanabw (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
Since you made the offer [3], I'm working on two Carolingian manuscripts, the Utrecht Psalter and Ebbo Gospels. In the short term, what would make a good DYK hook for these? Gimmetrow 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, me again - I've just left a comment on the talk page for Bishops of Lichfield, about mention there of "Saint Sexwulf". I'm curious about it, the linked page hasn't been created yet, and the article's history shows you as a recent editor so I thought I ask if you'd cast your eye over it. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(undid indent)
I'm sorry - I'm beginning to feel like I'm really bothering you over this Sexwulf business - but I do appreciate your input, and you and Chzz are the only people who have answered my calls! The price you pay for being helpful, I suppose... Anyway, I've just done another edit at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox, and it's my final attempt at clarifying Sexwulf's possible identity, before throwing in the towel. So, I'd be very grateful if you'd have one last look at it: if you and Chzz still see OR - Chzz has said pretty much the same as you, understandably - then I'll give up all thought of it, and post the revision without it. But obviously I'll want to keep mention of the factual error itself. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Me again! I've just had a very favourable review of the OR issue from Chzz, saying that I've "erred on the side of caution", & should go live with my revision of the Sexwulf article: I'm going to work on that now. But obviously I'd still appreciate your input, both on the OR issue, & on any possible improvements that you might spot - I feel like I've got to a point where further inspiration would be helpful! But I know you're busy - where do you find the time?! ;o) Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 08:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think I've responded to all your source issues at FAC. I hope I also might have managed to come up with a favourable compromise regarding abbreviations. If you had any further thoughts, I'd be most grateful. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Gosh it took me a long time, but please review my responses at Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2. Thanks so much! -- Dweller ( talk) 11:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Looked it over, and it looks good, although I wouldn't set it in stone just yet. Longer reply on the talk page. Dana boomer ( talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reviewed Hugh de Puiset at GA yesterday. Its not bad, just needs a few tweaks and a couple of questions answered before I pass it. I know how busy you get, so its likely you simply haven't had time to get around to it but I thought I'd officially notify you in case you missed the review. Regards-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressed your concern about RPGFan by swapping out the ref for one from Amazon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead of the Arabian sources. I'm a bit busy at work today and don't have a lot of extra time, so don't worry about me interfering with your edits. If I feel the urge to play, I'll go work on Appaloosa some more! And, thanks for putting TB up for FAC...I've watchlisted it and shall keep an eye open for comments. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have taken note of your comments, and hope the issues you have raised have been resolved. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your curious recent note on the FAC page. Perhaps you should check the responses to your points on the RCC talk page if it is of concern to you. Xandar ( talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have time, could you take a look at the references for Noble gas and tell me if you think they are acceptable? Gary King ( talk) 00:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm trying to take a bit of the weight off Sandy on the dispatches. I wondered whether, per here, you would be able to commit to June 23 (which would mean a draft by the 21st) for a dispatch on sources? That would be fantastic. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, Francis Bok is a Good Article. User:Bless sins seems to think some of the sources are not reliable - things like interviews in Christianity Today. Would you mind taking a look at the sources and weighing in on the talk page? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the Bok sources. I fixed the Sudan Sunrise one. I am at a loss for understanding the users objections. Dincher ( talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, since you have seven peer review requests currently open, I wanted to let you know about the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy which places the following limits on peer review requests: "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review, FAC, GAN, or A-class review. For more information on these limits see here." This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits.
The current requests you have made can stay open (they are grandfathered in), but I wanted to make you aware of the new limits for future requests. Thanks for all your work on checking refs, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs suggested I contact you re whether Tea Leaves should be regarded as a Reliable Source for video games. You'll find additional info at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Boldly_added_TLeaves.com. Could you please post comments there. If you have time, I'd also be grateful if you could look over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Other_self-published_sources_that_are_worthy_of_respect. Many thanks. Philcha ( talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Would you take another look at Strapping Young Lad, and its FAC page? I have addressed many of your (and other) comments. Thank you very much. Gocsa ( talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to most of your RS concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth - I'm working with User:Vintagekits on an article he would like to bring to FAC on boxer Michael Gomez. It's his first time at trying, and he's taken the "add every reference I can find" approach in sourcing the article; however, I know it's not particularly appreciated at FAC to see a long string of refs after a paragraph (or worse yet, a sentence). I'm also a little unsure as to how well some of the refs will hold up (reliable-source-wise) when you do your magic. I'm wondering if you might be so kind as to give this article a sort of pre-emptive online reference review, so that when the article appears at FAC there aren't any extraneous refs and the questions about sourcing are taken care of in advance. Thanks in advance for any assistance and feedback you're able to provide. Risker ( talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Just FYI, Sandy has restarted the FAC for RCC. NancyHeise notified most of the previous commenters, but it looks like you were left out because you didn't explicitly support or oppose. I'm sure you noticed already, but I wanted to cover all the bases. Karanacs ( talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on another article for FAC, and I'm trying to make sure I have as little stuff to do once it actually hits the page. I put it up for PR, am going to get someone to help with the prose, hopefully, and I'm asking you if you could take a look through the sources when you have a spare moment to see if they are to your liking. Thanks for all your help.
P.S., yes, it's another video game. And yes, I have another one after that I want to improve and put up at FAC. On the plus side, though, I'm gathering up sources for an entirely different article after that, so hopefully you won't have to endure much more of this. (After that, I'll probably go back to video games again, but hey, at least you guys will have a respite.) Cheers, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Just giving a shout, I've gone through and fixed the citations as mentioned and posted reasonings for the sources you inquired about on that page.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing the references of Halo (series), your comments have led to my question however. I thought that interviews could be seen as reliable unless the interviewee was taken out of context. This is pretty unlikely for Halo seeing as video-games aren't usually contentious subjects (I would expect to find quotes out of context relating to politics and religion for example). What sort of thing should I look out for that would make an interview unreliable? This way I can avoid problems with sources in future. The only thing I could think of would be to make sure the person interviewed is an official, not just some-one with an opinion. Cheers, James086 Talk | Email 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm watching this page so you can reply where you like :)
Thank your for supporting this article in the first (unsuccessful) nomination. I have recently renominated it. As the article has been somewhat expanded since you last saw it, would you mind re-reading it an ensuring that it still meets your high standards. Savidan 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Per your comments I have double checked everything that you requested. I removed the dead links, and tried to fix all the errors and problems with all the links, including adding titles, access dates etc to references.
I hope you can continue your review for the FAC of London, located here.
Thanks in advance,
The Helpful One (Review) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Nimrod article has been promoted. This is the fourth (and last) of the major British Antarctic expeditions that I have been working on since January, all now FA as are their leaders, Scott, Shackleton and Mackintosh. Sincere thanks to you, for the time you have given to reviewing and supporting these articles - it is very much appreciated. That project is over, but the Antarctic and Arctic still beckon, and I shall continue to toil away, though perhaps with less emphasis on FA status. Your keen eye and judgement will always be welcomed. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank for the pretty new toy for my user page. I don't think that I earned it as you have done so much work here and elsewhere, including at Commons, thanks. Cgoodwin ( talk) 05:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montana class battleship, and after several days of work I do believe that I have adressed all current concerns of yours. I am therefore leaving this message to ask if you would be willing to give the article another look and reevaluate your position on it, or alternatively, present any additional problems or concerns you may have. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! This is to inform you that I have replaced the Sify refs with other citations. I would be glad if you go through the changes to the article 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 13:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
To
Ealdgyth, For your superior reviews of at least 92 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for again being the top reviewer at FAC and for your careful work and thorough and exhausting reviews of sources to help promote Wiki's finest work. Your dedication to the Wiki—even when busy in real life—is astounding. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award, and to Maralia for running the stats for May. |
Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey)! I've gone through the article and have addressed all of your concerns, with another user removing the IMDb source. I hope to gain your support. Thanks! – Nurmsook! ( talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by the automated Giggabot ( stop!) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Just following up on my FAC. Sandy recommended that I reach out and see if there were any other improvements that you would like to see in this article. You have "Comment, leaning towards support", but if there's some tweaking that I can do to make you lean all the way over, please let me know. I appreciate your feedback and criticism. JRP ( talk) 02:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Heya, Ealdgyth. (Dude, I have no idea what it is with readability/speakability and typability, but your username does not flow off the fingers...) Anyway, congratulations on Thoroughbred. Well done on that. My partner is a horse lover from Misty of Chincoteague, but she never could afford to actually work with horses. When she read Thoroughbred, she got all interested in Freisein, or whatever they are. So far, that's the only topic she's ever considered working on, though she uses Wikipedia for science all the time...
Ok at any rate, have a couple questions on Indigenous people of the Everglades region. I checked the Bureau of Indian Affairs website. Apparently they don't think it's worth their time to put a search engine on their site, so I couldn't change out the Seminole Nation source with another of a higher authority. You mentioned during the GA review that you kept yourself from making FA-type comments, and I was wondering (should have asked you at the time) if there was anything in particular you wanted to see for FA. On a similar note, BuddingJournalist has given it a look-see, and made all the blood drain from my extremities by suggesting I put exact page numbers for journal articles instead of ranges, like there are now. Normally, I appreciate a nutty difficult thing to do if it makes the credibility of my articles that much more concrete. I might grumble, but I'll do it. However, if this is a trend coming up in citations, I have hundreds of journal citations throughout all the articles I've worked on. It would take me months to track down the exact pages of each journal article citation. I wanted your opinion on this request before I run my head through drywall. Not that I'm being dramatic or anything... -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-02/Dispatches
New MOS stuff. Montanabw (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, would you mind checking the sources of Ars Conjectandi (which is at peer review right now)? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Go (board game) you told me to get back to you when I had the references fixed. So here I am. I have check every reference on the page, replacing those that might be dubious, replacing all of the Sensei's Library references, adding publishers, accessdates, the works. As far as I can tell, all the current references should be ok. There are still some links to Sensei's Library, but these are footnotes provided for extra information, not citations. If you find the time to have a look, that would be great! Regards, HermanHiddema ( talk) 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you watchlist Mustang (horse) for a bit? Someone went in and deleted a bunch of sourced material and when I reverted the changes and got a bit snarky about it (like I do on occasion), they reverted back and got snarky too. Anyway, I tried to extend an olive branch by a third edit that tries to incorporate the ideas this person had and some of the new content they added, but who knows how they will take it. So asking for more eyes on the article. It's nowhere near GA yet, but it is heavily referenced and I put a lot of work into trying to keep it balanced between cattle ranchers and PETA sorts. (Sigh) May need a sane voice to look over the edits. I think Getwood has this on his list too, and I asked Dana to keep her eyes open as well. I am not opposed to improvements on articles, as you know, but I hate big messy rearrangements that I have to go through with fine tooth comb to fix. (whining) Montanabw (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Your offer of journal articles got me curious to check out my university library and I was pleasantly surprised that they had access to many online databases in English, despite the fact that the main language is not English here. I just checked out JSTOR and downloaded a few articles. As you appear to have conducted some research already, I was wondering if you could give me a few tips. How did you find articles in journals outside of JSTOR? For example, how did you find "Reformation and Renaissance Review"? Does your library has access to Equinox Publishing? Any other online databases that you recommend? -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
When you said that the citations in the Appaloosa article needed work, were you referring to the fact that, at that point, most didn't have author/publisher information, or something else? I've made sure that all of the current refs have proper formatting (noting that one link is dead). Are there verifiability issues with the refs? I think we've made the decision to wait until you get home to put the article up for FA, but if I knew what the main problems with refs were, I can add that to my pile of things to slowly work on over the next few weeks! I know you're busy this week, so I don't expect anything more than a brief answer :) Dana boomer ( talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Even though I've done a ton of edits around here, there is always something new I learn. I didn't know that it was bad form, so please accept my apologies on that point. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw my latest Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) responses, but your feedback and/or support would be appreciated.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks for your careful checking of references in peer review and FAC and for comments on
Worlds End State Park which made
Featured Article today! Dincher ( talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Hey, I saw you talking on Durova's talk page about the dfficulty of getting images of mediaeval lives in America. I live in Edinburgh, and have access to a lot of things thereby that you probably don't. Is there anything I can help you with? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Creatures of Impulse | |
Thanks for peer-reviewing Creatures of Impulse. With the help and support we recieved, we were able to raise the article up to FA a mere month and two days after starting it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
Oh!! I am very sorry... I had replaced the dead link at the same time when I had addressed other issues but forgot to mention Replaced or Done...(just realized this after your latest comment)... Apologies for keeping you in waiting and wondering...Please re-visit to check the links KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I did some; it's ready for a new look from you. Wikipedia:FCDW/June 23, 2008 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think I have addressed your concerns at the Space Pilot 3000 peer review but let me know if there are still any problems, I'm not very experienced with citation formatting. Thanks for your time and advice! Star dust 8212 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the History of Bradford City A.F.C. peer review. I've amended two of the references. However, you ask about [4]. That site is recognised as a WP:RS by WP:FOOTY and is maintained by User:Richard Rundle. If there are any problems about using that, don't hesitate to either get in touch or ask Richard. I'm sure it may come back up, if I make it as far as FAC. Peanut4 ( talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all your work on this. Hopefully it will make FACs go a little better (and your life there easier) too. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth. Thanks for dropping by. I left comments there. -- Efe ( talk) 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ive resolved your points on the Thriller peer review, thanx for your helpful additions. Regards. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, I would like to do a thorough checking and clean-up of the sources for Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York, but I am not very proficient with the template reference system that you use. I would prefer to do it all 'free-hand', though I respect that you may have reasons for preferring the template style. If you could direct me to a cheat sheet on how to properly use the reference templates, I would be happy to learn. On the other hand, if it doesn't concern you too much, I would love to just re-type all the references without the templates. Whatever you decide, I like the "notes + references" approach so I'll keep that. BTW: any thoughts on separating Wulfstan's works into its own article? I would love to see this, but then I am a little Wulfstan-crazy and realize it may be unwarranted. I am also aware that the long list I added to the Wulfstan article is a little ridiculous; couldn't help myself. Eltheodigraeardgesece ( talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't start hiding already-I promise this won't hurt! I can't seem to let go of this article (the topic deserves to be featured and I don't want to see it back at FAC more than once more because it makes my head hurt). This time, I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since you have experience in Catholic history topics I hoped you might be able to take a look at
my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page.
Karanacs (
talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
PS Your user name is very hard to spell. Would you mind if I put a link to your talk page in itty bitty letters at the very bottom of my user page so that I don't have to search for pages we've both edited to find you again?
Karanacs (
talk)
15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the sourcing/referencing. I presume these were OK since you didn't comment. As for the two columns, I've put a reflist|2 tag in, but you'll have to tell me if it now shows the notes in 2 columns, since I use Internet Explorer which can't show the 2-column format, per discussion on FAC talkpage. If you can get to read the prose, you will find that no animals were harmed during any of Bruce's expeditions. Worth a cheer. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Planning on FAC'ing soon, so I was hoping you could confirm/deny that my responses to you there suffice? Cheers, giggy ( :O) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing X Club! I had a question at the Peer Review regarding one of your comments. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; I've replied there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I believe I have addressed any issues with the sources you queried. Would you be able to take a look and let me know if you are satisfied. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 23:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I'd just like to let you know that we've addressed all of your concerns (as far as I can tell) over at the FAC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take another look to see if we've dealt with everything satisfactorily. Thanks for your time and review. Keilana| Parlez ici 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I handled all your concerns at [ [5]]. I'd be grateful if you'd run an eye over the links again for me and post to my talk page if you find anything outstanding. I'm planning to go to FAC in about a week. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A quick question on references...your favorite area :)
I know you don't usually like the use of encyclopedias as references for Wikipedia (which I completely understand). I recently acquired a book called The Encyclopedia of the Horse by Elwyn Hartley Edwards, published by Dorling Kindersley in 1994. Despite the title, this does not appear to be a typical encyclopedia, but instead more of a general compilation of horse information, separated into sections on evolution, early uses, breeds from various areas, different uses, etc. Would you mind taking a look at this and seeing if you think it can be viably used in our GA/FA articles? It looks to have a lot of good information in it that I think would be of use, especially in the main horse article to finish all of the referencing that is needed! Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I left a reply at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Marcellus_Formation/archive1. Dhaluza ( talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've corrected all your issues, with the exception of the Newsarama blog. Would you mind double checking? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
An online article (reliable of course) that I'm planning to use as a source has the desired information on the second page. What is the proper way of handling this? Should I link to the start of the article or the important page? I figured that you would be the right person to ask about this, and I would appreciate your feedback (if you ever get a break from FAC :-) ). Giants2008 ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I spent an entire day walking them through this because I wanted an example of how to comply with WP:SPS. See the talk page of the FAC, and let me know if you think this is tight enough to link in our upcoming Dispatch: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully the references are better than they were last time now :) Gary King ( talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't take up your colorful invitation to remind you to revisit Bruce's peer review ("bop me one next week" - your words), because I guessed you were busy. But he's gone to FAC now, & if you can find a moment to check him out, he's be very pleased. I can absolutely promise that he treated all his animals impeccably - he was a civilized Scot, after all. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your suggestion about including my responses to the links you listed for review line by line. Is it kosher to follow up with this format and delete the previous list of responses I left or should I use strikethrough? Mrshaba ( talk) 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
... is getting long ... is there anything you can cap at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War? As far as I can tell, sources seem to have been addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be possible for anyone to move them back. Even before the moves, there does seem to be a bit of a mish-mash. I did a couple but didn't want to get invovled in a protracted edit war across a whole range of articles. David Underdown ( talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but I responded to your comment at the Insane Clown Posse FAC a day ago. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
Many thanks for your constructive comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First-move advantage in chess, which helped to improve the article and reach the FA level! SyG ( talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess you think I capped the comments? :( Gary King ( talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for checking the refs in Forksville Covered Bridge. I think there are 5 or maybe 6 total covered bridge articles I could get to FA without too much trouble. Of course there are over 200 covered bridges on the NRHP in Pennsylvania.
As for the link checker, I would ask User:Geometry guy about this (I am not as technically hip). I know one concern is just the amount of space anything included in every review takes. Thanks for all your work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be possible for anyone to move them back. Even before the moves, there does seem to be a bit of a mish-mash. I did a couple but didn't want to get invovled in a protracted edit war across a whole range of articles. OUP usage does seem to favour the lower-case — ODNB articles always seem to use it, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. David Underdown ( talk) 14:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)