![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Harold_Pinter&action=historysubmit&diff=400425876&oldid=400212476 This includes the deletion of requests for page numbers. I am unwatching the Harold Pinter page, as I have no time to get involved with this at present. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
We need to do better than IMDB and his personal web site, since neither are reliable. Any ideas? This one may be destined for AFD. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 16:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen your GA review for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). I understand the reason for marking the dubious links and am working on finding more reliable sources for them. I've even marked some fansies that were not marked as dubious. I just have a few quesitons:
Please leave me talkback template when you have answers. Thanks, Glimmer721 talk 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The RFC didn't work and Loremaster continues to be unreasonable. Advice? 86.184.158.136 ( talk) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack
An editor is changing some code at the top of the talk page that is not working properly. Can you figure out what s/he is trying to do? BTW, what's happening with the GA? All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your statement. I have a little question placed on the discussion site of the article. I hope you can answer my question. I hope that you have the discussion on your watchlist. (-: By the way the German section of this article was not my idea, but now I have made this section shorter and now (after it) I like this section a little bit. (-: -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please if you have time, please look on the article again, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. )-: -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jez
Just seen your mention on Wikipedia 10 page - am organising event on 13th with help from a growing cast of many...would love your help...get in touch = steve.virgin@wikimedia.org.uk or steve@mediafocusuk.com Best Wishes Steve Steve virgin ( talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing up the GA review. Now that that's over, is there any way to propose a guideline saying that an editor can only nominate an article for GA if that editor has either done substantial work on it or commits to do so? Or, if that won't wash, how about a simple rule that, if you are going to nominate an article that you do not work on, then you should *first* ask the primary editors of the article if they have a reason why it ought not to be nominated? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I received the invite below & was going to talk about Somerset canals & the Floating Harbour so I thought you might be interested.— Rod talk 08:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day.
Hi. You got the history of what happened here wrong. See Talk:Eric Cantor/GA1#Note. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well done for your work on the Victoria Rooms. I can't see anything else at present but agree it will not get GA by next week - looking forward to meeting you & others f2f. As we will be meeting at the Watershed Media Centre perhaps we should do the same job for that one!— Rod talk 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't "delete and merge". That would change the authorship (because it wouldn't retain whoever wrote the merged content originally). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
Please can you add all of the links back on to Wikipedia that you have removed from my work today. These aren't spam links, they are community website links.
Many thanks Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpondsbristol ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, Mangotsfield is not in Kingswood. The borough of Kingswood no longer exists. Mangotsfield is a Parish and so are all other areas in South Gloucestershire. This is an insult to local people.
Many thanks Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpondsbristol ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
You put a clean-up temp on Paul Skinner in August 2009. I've had a little sweep-out of the contentious stuff. Improve/edit/add to what I've done if you like, but when all the fluff was removed there wasn't much left... how often do I find that? Best wishes,
Acabashi ( talk) 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I see that Cirt has abandoned a chunk of articles that he tagged that he was going to review (10+) I knocked out several so far, but I was wondering if you could knock out a couple. Namely, if you can wrap up the three in culture and society, I'll do the remaining ones. That's the one flaw about the bot, there's no way to note an abandoned review. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the Fasci Siciliani article. I tried to answer your concerns, but I am not sure how to handle some of them. Maybe you could have a look again. Cheers. - DonCalo ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, you're quite right. It was something brought up in a review of mine so I thought it was a standard requirement - something someone finally told me a short time after reviewing the GA application for Homosexuality. In fact until your message, I'd forgotten I'd even put that in the review. Miyagawa talk 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells. Thanks for taking on the Charles B. Pierce review. I responded to your specific comments there, and will do a more thorough top-to-bottom copy edit in the next couple days to try to address some of the general prose and phrasing items you mentioned. I'll let you know when that's done. Thanks again! — Hun ter Ka hn 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Clarify_my_argument.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it seems to me the File:FA-GA-articles-per-million.png update is wrong; there's no change from the last one. It should have passed 3000 by now. Lampman ( talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've done the (slightly embarrasing) prose fixes you pointed out and thanks for the other copy-edits and review. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi and thanks very much for the review! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells. Since you had reviewed my Gone for Goode GAN back in the day, I thought you might be interested to know I've nominated several other Homicide: Life on the Street episode articles for GAN recently, including " A Dog and Pony Show", " And the Rockets' Dead Glare", " Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" and " Night of the Dead Living". If you have any interest and would like to review them, I'd be happy to respond to any comments or problems you have. If not, no biggie. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If you feel like doing another quick lighthouse GA review, I've nominated Cape Moreton Light. The previous review was rather painless, thank you again. I wonder if GA ever beat DYK? Probably not often :) -- Muhandes ( talk) 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I added some things in the article so that there is no new material in the lead. Could you take a look in the article to see if there are more things to be done for it to be a GA? Thanks, Idontknow 610 TM 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Some months ago you created a GA review for the British Library. As part of the WP:GLAM/BL editathon a number of British Library related articles have been created, improved or updated and a few improvements have been made to the main article. Would you be interested in revisiting and possibly refreshing the review you documented (I have added some citations to help address the main problem you identified, see Talk:British_Library/GA2#Tidy_up) or would you prefer I go ahead with a new request at GAN? Thanks Fæ ( talk) 22:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, got a couple more for you. I'm trying to limit my time at GAN for a couple weeks to catch up on other processes I help manage, else I'd do these myself: User:Sayantan m hasn't edited in a while, so the review on Fastra II needs a conclusion (writer is retired, so if there's further issues then it can just be failed, but I don't see any), and the review on Anders Johan Lexell needs to be, well, started. You're free to leave a note first of course, though I think they've waited long enough. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed the articles but have not filled out review pages for them. For this to be construed as vandalism would (I hope) be very unlikely since I have also included the oldid reference of the revision I reviewed. I know the process of the GA reviewing thank you, but will create these pages as a matter of urgency. Hugahoody (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Juggle is the one who performed a copyright violation of the Wikipedia content. Not the other way around. If you look at the bottom of the Juggle.com page it says "Some of the content on this page was provided by other sites, including Freebase (University of Miami) or others licensed under Creative Commons".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering what your thoughts are about Wikipedia:AN#User_passing_several_articles_without_doing_reviews.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Hugahoody (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review at Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. I think we have rectified all the issues now and look forward to hearing from you soon.-- Ykraps ( talk) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've added some more development info to Jack's article, as well as a little other info. What do you think of it? RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've put several comments into the Lolicon talk page, as you may have seen. The conclusion is that the article needs a a major revision by some dedicated editors. I am reasonably knowledgeable about the topic, but I don't have the time to spend on the article. It won't be a few quick fixes. The Kinsella paper is out-of-date (1999) and the Diamond and Uchiyama reference is also old. It is also not really relevant, since Diamond's papers, including his 2009 paper, deal with sexually explicit pornography and not with "rorikon hentai." There is also a good deal of new material available today, and one editor has been adding material (more power to him!). I'll check the article from time to time, but only sporadically. Timothy Perper ( talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the reassessment - the subject matter is disagreeable to me, so I would not be the best person to check its neutrality, despite doing a minor cleanup on the article prior to the reassessment. I gave the project a poke two months ago about the article. -- Malkinann ( talk) 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please post a summing-up comment at Talk:Lolicon/GA1, outlining where the article still fails the GA criteria? -- Malkinann ( talk) 21:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assessment of Hatt-i humayun, I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. I'll take care of the problems you listed and request a copy edit at WP:PR. -- İnfoCan ( talk) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Lolicon is undergoing a community good article reassement as there are several reviewers who believe it was delisted improperly. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in performing the Lolicon good article reassessment. As I'm sure you know, this article played a role in Lawrence Sanger's accusations that Wikipedia supports child pornography -- or so it has been said, here, for example: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=58987. It's a topic that generates much anger and concern in the United States, as you can also see from the current discussion surrounding Wikipetan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Active_discussions). So your calm has been most welcome. I have withdrawn from the discussion of Lolicon, although I will sporadically check in with occasional comments as time permits. So once again, thanks. Timothy Perper ( talk) 12:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the review of the article. I think I have addressed the issues you pointed out and some others I found as well. Although you set a seven day period for a new look to the article, I want to know what you think about the changes I made recently. And, in case that I forgot something if you could point it out.-- Gduwen ( talk) 19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Was wondering if you'd be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. I'm actually surprised you hadn't been pinged about it since you're likely the most active reviewer. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_backlog_elimination_drives/March_2011#Pre-drive_discussions's talk page.
Thanks for the review and the minor copyediting. I believe I addressed the minor issue remaining. I also present a minor dilemma I have for your consideration at Talk:Cape Moreton Light/GA1. Best regards. -- Muhandes ( talk) 11:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your work at GAN, especially with the above review. I know long articles such as the above can be daunting to review. I believe I have now addressed all the issues you raised. Thanks again! Adabow ( talk · contribs) 04:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your review of this article, I've gone through and made the changes you suggested. Let me know what else needs to be done. Thanks, -- Cerebellum ( talk) 04:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Um, no, that was more because I accidentally broke it :) Fixed now, I think, thanks for the note. - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. -- Michael Paul Heart ( talk) 12:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am Jivesh. We have never talked before. I was the one who nominated "Single Ladies" for GA. I want to thank you wholeheartedly for the review. I know it is not easy to review such a long article. I am very happy it passed GA. Thank you once again. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, I took over the GA nomination from Paralympiakos before Green-eyed girl had to move on (you can see this on Talk:Sako Chivitchian and on User talk:Paralympiakos). I hope that's ok with you. Cheers. EdChem ( talk) 18:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing megamaser for GA status! I am glad you enjoyed it. James McBride ( talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already replied. Looked it over when I saw you were reviewing and noted that Hadley wasn't linked or explained. I've fixed it. Thanks, by the way, for reviewing. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Oh, by producers, did you mean the credits? If so, yes, and I added them to a separate section. Should I write that out in prose? — Novice7 ( talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Because you made the original attempt to review the Getty Villa article, I am contacting you to let you know that the original nominator has had his ban lifted and has returned with a "Coptright" mentor. I have notified both the nominator and their mentor of my review in process and felt I should contact you as well.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It may not be in the GA criteria, but note that the docs for {{ Infobox album}} say "Formerly, a Reviews field was included in this template. Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section. See WP:Albums#Reception." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 15:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Your copyvio note seems a bit heavy handed in this context. The text was based on the Southwark website, however you will find none of the wording is a copy&paste and as Southwark Council are emailing me directly with this information trying to get it updated on Wikipedia, there seems to be little chance of a practical problem over copyright interpretation. If you disagree could you take it up on the talk page for my attention rather than flagging the article with large notices? You will note that Southwark link to the Wikipedia article from their official pages, so this gets a bit of attention from their side and I would not want our culture of notices to hamper their goodwill (which has already resulted in the release of the official recent photos used in the article). Thanks Fæ ( talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, though it seems pretty obvious that telling a OTRS volunteer that you believe they are acting with a conflict of interest and that they don't understand the copyright status of text on Wikipedia would be taken as a serious allegation of incompetence against the individual rather than as GA review comments about the article. If you wish to follow up your allegations, please do so using a proper process rather than leaving them as unresolved in the logged GA review record. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
I just checked in and saw that the GAN for the article on Imru' al-Qais had been put on hold pending some improvements. I will do my best to enact these improvements by tomorrow, 11 March, and I hope I can ask you for pointers if I run into anything I'm not sure about.
Thank you,
Maitham d ( talk) 17:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update:
After reviewing the requirements more carefully, I have 4 questions:
(1) Is there any possibility for an extension of the 7-day period? I just saw the message today. It will be possible for me to make most, but perhaps not all, of the specified improvements before the deadline.
(2) Regarding the "Who?" comment on "Some have suggested... ...influenced by... ... Mazdakism...", I can refer back to the original source to get more precise information, but I might not be able to do it today (book is in a university library).
(3) Is the inclusion of an image required for Good Article approval in this case?
(4) Aside from the issues addressed above, and integrating "stranded sentences" into paragraphs, is anything more required for Good Article approval?
Thank you!
Maitham d ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: I propose that the lead in its current form complies with the intent of the Wikipedia criterion. The lead in this case is five paragraphs, exceeding the suggested limit by only 1. All of these paragraphs flow well, each has a well-defined purpose, and none of them are very long. Maitham d ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: The most egregious stray sentences have all been consolidated. Maitham d ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: "Different historians..." passage has been deleted. "Some have suggested..." passage has been modified to more accurately reflect the sourcing of the information. Maitham d ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
When we call someone "notable" in wikipedia's voice, that calls for a citation. The material you added lacked any ref whatsoever. If you want to re-add it, find an RS statement that says as much, and re-add it with the ref reflecting the RS. Otherwise, it just looks like self-aggrandizing self-promotion, which sadly we have too much of in the Project.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You stated that the article is on hold for 7 days. Following input from other editors, it is probable that the article will be split, with the military stuff going to RAF Lympne, leaving Lympne Airport covering the civil stuff. May I ask that the GAN remains on hold rather than failing at the end of 7 days if it takes a bit longer to achieve this? The GOCE are going over the article at the moment. Mjroots ( talk) 06:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for the fast and positive review. I've removed the offending line, didn't find any sources. Care to have a look? Worm TT 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the article, I fixed the recent linkrot that was noted and fixed the minor prose issues brought up, I also did a spell check on the reworked parts of the article. Finally, I merged those two small sections into larger relevant sections and it looks much more clean now. I think we're getting close to a GA but please let me know what else needs to be done. Thanks! Bhockey10 ( talk) 00:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the swift, deep and sure GA review you performed at Santa Maria de Ovila. Thank you! Binksternet ( talk) 16:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to improve the article, as per your instrucions, so it will meet the GA criteria. Hansi667 ( talk) 08:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells! I addressed your concerns over at the GAN for American Arts Series Commemorative medallions. Thanks for reviewing it!- RHM22 ( talk) 14:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I posted some comments and questions regarding the improvements you ask for at Talk:HSR-350x/GA1. -- Rontombontom ( talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of the Iranian targeted subsidy plan and for your constructive criticism. SSZ ( talk) 06:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure you will have this bookmarked, but just in case, there is a request there concerning feedback from the review for this article at Talk:British rhythm and blues/GA1. Thanks in advance.-- SabreBD ( talk) 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say thanks a lot for your GA review of Mir - it's very much appreciated! :-D Colds7ream ( talk) 07:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed your comments. Please take a look. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For the speedy review of Juliusz Słowacki! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I copyedited the article (quickly, since I know it's been in the cooler for a few days :-)). Thanks for your efforts as a reviewer! Wi2g 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. — Designate ( talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
for work on Bristol articles — Rod talk 15:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
hello,
I removed some copyvio and I think it is acceptable now. I forgot to delete it before, oh man! How about now?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad. Her father, Aleksandr Kuznetsov has coached five Olympic and world cycling champions. Her father's protégés include her mother, Galina Tsareva, a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records, and Svetlana's brother, Nikolay Kuznetsov, a silver medalist at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Kuznetsova also tried out cycling in her early years, but it bored her.She focused on tennis instead and was sent to Spain when she was 13 years old for better training and coaching also leading her to speak fluent Spanish.
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad. Her father, Aleksandr Kuznetsov, has coached five
Olympic and world
cycling champions. Kuznetsova's mother, Galina Tsareva, is a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records, and her brother,
Nikolay Kuznetsov, is a silver medalist at the
1996 Summer Olympics in
Atlanta and coach of the Russian cycling team Lokomotiv. She began to play tennis at the age of 7 and moved to Spain 6 years later for better training and coaching. While there she became fluent in Spanish.
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad to Aleksandr Kuznetsov, who has coached five
Olympic and world
cycling champions, and Galina Tsareva, a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records. Her brother,
Nikolay Kuznetsov, is a silver medalist at the
1996 Summer Olympics in
Atlanta and coach of the Russian cycling team Lokomotiv. She began to play tennis at the age of 7 and moved to Spain 6 years later.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011!
Mifter (
talk)
20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you think the article would flow better if all the info on the plaza were in one section? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I realise that you'll receive another from the people co-ordinating the GAN backlog elimination drive, but to review ~80 articles in under a month is a stellar undertaking. For your work, here is the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Thank you for your impressive efforts! AGK [ • 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
Hi again, Jezhotwells!
Thanks for reviewing Kepler-8b. I greatly appreciate it. :D -- Starstriker7( Talk) 00:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift and diligent review. Your efforts on GAN is nothing short of outstanding. Argyle 4 Life talk 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
After the review, I have several questions which I posted to the review page. Prose is something I need to work on, which usually requires help from others, even after 101 good article contributions. I need input about what is missing in the lead; that comment had me at a loss. Thank you for reviewing the article, and I look forward to your responses. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. Anyone can nominate an article and any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required. (Note, however, the subsequent paragraph on reviewer integrity.) A reviewer should be able to read the article critically, and apply the Good article criteria fairly. If the reviewer believes that the criteria are met, the article can be listed as a Good article. If any of the criteria are not met, the reviewer has two options. If the problems are minor or easy to fix, the reviewer can simply fix them, or the nomination can be put "on hold" for a week or so to give regular editors of the article time to address the reviewer's suggestions. If the problems are substantial or extensive, the nomination can be failed. In the latter case, regular editors should be invited to renominate the article once it has been improved; the Good article criteria are achievable in almost any article, and there is no minimum time between nominations. | ” |
— WP:Reviewing good articles |
Hi Jezhotwells,
In your review of this article you mentioned that the lead needed some work. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on what was missing/extraneous in the lead if you get a chance. I'm going to try to take a shot at fixing up the article. Thanks, Qrsdogg ( talk) 03:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please could you re-tag the dead links so I know which refs it is because I had to revert the edits to revert an IP edit which keeps on deleting the lead section, cheers, – Liam Taylor– 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with Somerset Levels which got its little star last night. The next target is a list. It's not quite ready for FLC nomination but if you had the time/inclination to turn your eagle eyes to the prose on List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset that would be great.— Rod talk 08:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. Veriss ( talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Your doing a great job Jezhotwells. Another GA review under your belt, you'll win the top award at the backlog. Shame your reviews are not that detailed or fair.. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering if you noticed my last message? I wasn't sure if I should challenge some of the fansite refs or wait until you looked it over. Rain the 1 BAM 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As one of the major contributors to Bristol you might want to take a look at the recent edits by User talk:Sir Stanley - he ((I assume it's a he) has a bit of form. I've reworked them a bit but you may feel that more robust action is required... RedSquirrel ( talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've sorted out the move as you suggested, will fix the redirect in the template. Mjroots ( talk) 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, its a pleasure to make your acquaintanceship. I'm the nominator for the article Lepidoptera, and its nice to see such a seasoned reviewer review the aforementioned. This isn't my first, and sure isn't my last, but what is the purpose of the neutral signs, does that mean you haven't decided yet? Oh, and God forbid I forget to say thank you for cutting of your own time. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your edit as the particluar Folly Farm referred to is very definitely in South Gloucestershire, as you would see if you read the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As a fellow contributor (alc59) to the Bybrook River article, you (Trident13) have my whole hearted support on this. Corrections are fine, but they do not need to be overlaid with ill-judged and unnecessarily aggressive negative comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alc59 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jez for giving up your time, ever patient and helpful, to assist new users of Wikipedia at the Bristol Wiki Academy on 19th March 2011. MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, yeah i know that but we had several times that someone tagged it unreferenced and then other users reverted him with the same argument and after ome discussion it was cleared. It is the bracket from the main article, so a link to the bracket is/should be enough. Kante4 ( talk) 00:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I really do not understand what you want to tell. Can you please do the copy-edit yourself? Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look into it. (Not sure what the problem could be, I fiddled with a load of my tools last night but not that particular script. Weird. - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 09:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Scott Davidson (musician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fages (
talk)
14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for casting your eyes over the Lympne Airport article, your constructive criticism and eventual passing of the article as a Good Article!
Thank you for the notice. I will try to find material to expand the article but it is possible that he just is not notable enough to justify an article. Juno ( talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of Abraham Quintanilla Jr AJona1992 ( talk) 19:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.
During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.
At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days ( Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days ( Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).
While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).
If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.
Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I checked the dead links at the start of the review. I did not recheck them, but I will check them now. Thank you for pointing them out. I removed the [citation needed] tag in the table of colleges, because citations would have been needed if the year that the college was founded was specified, but it was not. I failed to notice the third [citation needed] tag, and I regret that error. What is the procedure for correcting my mistake? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 03:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, why is Talk:Taylor series/GA1 being requested for speedy deletion? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells. I have nominated G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) for GA reassessment after much thought. I did challenge the information but they want to keep it and I feel that it does not comply with the GA. One editor made a point on the talk that the GA review was a month ago, but still you reviewed the article fair and square and there was not large sections of the article with unreliable refs. It is almost asif they wqaited until it passed, then created a firewall to keep me at bay. Because I have been reverted each time I tried to make a positive change. Anyway, on another note two editors have been helping me with the prose issdue I had. So I am glad I took your advice! And a big congrats on the GA Drive and all the articles you managed to over see. Rain the 1 BAM 20:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For taking care of this. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. You have placed a template on a page I have recently created: Ruth Aarons. With this template you ask for more sources. However, I have included in the page a link to the official database of the International Table Tennis Federation listing the complete list of achievements of the player Ruth Aarons.
Since I've created the wiki page for several other table tennis players, it could be important to understand if the link to the International Table Tennis Federation database is enough.
Cialo ( talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added two more references to her biografy. Cialo ( talk) 11:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I had a question that wasn't answered among the FAQ. Today an editor opened up a review page on an article I wrote and nominated for GA. The review was started, but he immediately said he wouldn't be able to do a "thorough review" until the weekend, then wrote a few recommendations based on the Lead section. This is only my second nomination, so my question is: Is this practice normal or acceptable? It seems odd to open a review page, then say "I'll review it later". Relevant discussion at: Talk:Coffin birth/GA1. Thanks. Boneyard90 ( talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
For reviewing over 40 Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia. Congratulations! – MuZemike 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
For the second consecutive drive, you have reviewed (by far) the most Good article nominations during the GA backlog elimination drive and hence is entitled to this Content Review Medal. Your reviews have gone a long way towards making the GA backlog elimination drive a success. Thank you, and congratulations! – MuZemike 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. I am glad that could help. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I've replied to your request to explain the usage of certain references in the article Moonrise (Warriors), so I thought I'd notify you in case you didn't notice. Thanks, Bramble claw x 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to review your edit at User_talk:Wizardman in light of how it messes up the new section I added after it. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've made a pledge not to review anymore GANs, or do any "bad" edits until this time next year. I'll just focus on writing articles in userspace, and then promoting them for a bit. I'm also going on a two week WikiBreak soon too. Userboxes can be misleading. Age. Sorry, Jezhotwells. Rcsprinter Gimme a message 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Harold_Pinter&action=historysubmit&diff=400425876&oldid=400212476 This includes the deletion of requests for page numbers. I am unwatching the Harold Pinter page, as I have no time to get involved with this at present. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
We need to do better than IMDB and his personal web site, since neither are reliable. Any ideas? This one may be destined for AFD. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 16:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen your GA review for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). I understand the reason for marking the dubious links and am working on finding more reliable sources for them. I've even marked some fansies that were not marked as dubious. I just have a few quesitons:
Please leave me talkback template when you have answers. Thanks, Glimmer721 talk 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The RFC didn't work and Loremaster continues to be unreasonable. Advice? 86.184.158.136 ( talk) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack
An editor is changing some code at the top of the talk page that is not working properly. Can you figure out what s/he is trying to do? BTW, what's happening with the GA? All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your statement. I have a little question placed on the discussion site of the article. I hope you can answer my question. I hope that you have the discussion on your watchlist. (-: By the way the German section of this article was not my idea, but now I have made this section shorter and now (after it) I like this section a little bit. (-: -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please if you have time, please look on the article again, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. )-: -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jez
Just seen your mention on Wikipedia 10 page - am organising event on 13th with help from a growing cast of many...would love your help...get in touch = steve.virgin@wikimedia.org.uk or steve@mediafocusuk.com Best Wishes Steve Steve virgin ( talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing up the GA review. Now that that's over, is there any way to propose a guideline saying that an editor can only nominate an article for GA if that editor has either done substantial work on it or commits to do so? Or, if that won't wash, how about a simple rule that, if you are going to nominate an article that you do not work on, then you should *first* ask the primary editors of the article if they have a reason why it ought not to be nominated? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I received the invite below & was going to talk about Somerset canals & the Floating Harbour so I thought you might be interested.— Rod talk 08:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day.
Hi. You got the history of what happened here wrong. See Talk:Eric Cantor/GA1#Note. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well done for your work on the Victoria Rooms. I can't see anything else at present but agree it will not get GA by next week - looking forward to meeting you & others f2f. As we will be meeting at the Watershed Media Centre perhaps we should do the same job for that one!— Rod talk 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't "delete and merge". That would change the authorship (because it wouldn't retain whoever wrote the merged content originally). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
Please can you add all of the links back on to Wikipedia that you have removed from my work today. These aren't spam links, they are community website links.
Many thanks Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpondsbristol ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, Mangotsfield is not in Kingswood. The borough of Kingswood no longer exists. Mangotsfield is a Parish and so are all other areas in South Gloucestershire. This is an insult to local people.
Many thanks Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpondsbristol ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
You put a clean-up temp on Paul Skinner in August 2009. I've had a little sweep-out of the contentious stuff. Improve/edit/add to what I've done if you like, but when all the fluff was removed there wasn't much left... how often do I find that? Best wishes,
Acabashi ( talk) 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I see that Cirt has abandoned a chunk of articles that he tagged that he was going to review (10+) I knocked out several so far, but I was wondering if you could knock out a couple. Namely, if you can wrap up the three in culture and society, I'll do the remaining ones. That's the one flaw about the bot, there's no way to note an abandoned review. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the Fasci Siciliani article. I tried to answer your concerns, but I am not sure how to handle some of them. Maybe you could have a look again. Cheers. - DonCalo ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, you're quite right. It was something brought up in a review of mine so I thought it was a standard requirement - something someone finally told me a short time after reviewing the GA application for Homosexuality. In fact until your message, I'd forgotten I'd even put that in the review. Miyagawa talk 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells. Thanks for taking on the Charles B. Pierce review. I responded to your specific comments there, and will do a more thorough top-to-bottom copy edit in the next couple days to try to address some of the general prose and phrasing items you mentioned. I'll let you know when that's done. Thanks again! — Hun ter Ka hn 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Clarify_my_argument.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it seems to me the File:FA-GA-articles-per-million.png update is wrong; there's no change from the last one. It should have passed 3000 by now. Lampman ( talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've done the (slightly embarrasing) prose fixes you pointed out and thanks for the other copy-edits and review. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi and thanks very much for the review! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells. Since you had reviewed my Gone for Goode GAN back in the day, I thought you might be interested to know I've nominated several other Homicide: Life on the Street episode articles for GAN recently, including " A Dog and Pony Show", " And the Rockets' Dead Glare", " Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" and " Night of the Dead Living". If you have any interest and would like to review them, I'd be happy to respond to any comments or problems you have. If not, no biggie. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If you feel like doing another quick lighthouse GA review, I've nominated Cape Moreton Light. The previous review was rather painless, thank you again. I wonder if GA ever beat DYK? Probably not often :) -- Muhandes ( talk) 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I added some things in the article so that there is no new material in the lead. Could you take a look in the article to see if there are more things to be done for it to be a GA? Thanks, Idontknow 610 TM 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Some months ago you created a GA review for the British Library. As part of the WP:GLAM/BL editathon a number of British Library related articles have been created, improved or updated and a few improvements have been made to the main article. Would you be interested in revisiting and possibly refreshing the review you documented (I have added some citations to help address the main problem you identified, see Talk:British_Library/GA2#Tidy_up) or would you prefer I go ahead with a new request at GAN? Thanks Fæ ( talk) 22:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, got a couple more for you. I'm trying to limit my time at GAN for a couple weeks to catch up on other processes I help manage, else I'd do these myself: User:Sayantan m hasn't edited in a while, so the review on Fastra II needs a conclusion (writer is retired, so if there's further issues then it can just be failed, but I don't see any), and the review on Anders Johan Lexell needs to be, well, started. You're free to leave a note first of course, though I think they've waited long enough. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed the articles but have not filled out review pages for them. For this to be construed as vandalism would (I hope) be very unlikely since I have also included the oldid reference of the revision I reviewed. I know the process of the GA reviewing thank you, but will create these pages as a matter of urgency. Hugahoody (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Juggle is the one who performed a copyright violation of the Wikipedia content. Not the other way around. If you look at the bottom of the Juggle.com page it says "Some of the content on this page was provided by other sites, including Freebase (University of Miami) or others licensed under Creative Commons".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering what your thoughts are about Wikipedia:AN#User_passing_several_articles_without_doing_reviews.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Hugahoody (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review at Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. I think we have rectified all the issues now and look forward to hearing from you soon.-- Ykraps ( talk) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've added some more development info to Jack's article, as well as a little other info. What do you think of it? RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've put several comments into the Lolicon talk page, as you may have seen. The conclusion is that the article needs a a major revision by some dedicated editors. I am reasonably knowledgeable about the topic, but I don't have the time to spend on the article. It won't be a few quick fixes. The Kinsella paper is out-of-date (1999) and the Diamond and Uchiyama reference is also old. It is also not really relevant, since Diamond's papers, including his 2009 paper, deal with sexually explicit pornography and not with "rorikon hentai." There is also a good deal of new material available today, and one editor has been adding material (more power to him!). I'll check the article from time to time, but only sporadically. Timothy Perper ( talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the reassessment - the subject matter is disagreeable to me, so I would not be the best person to check its neutrality, despite doing a minor cleanup on the article prior to the reassessment. I gave the project a poke two months ago about the article. -- Malkinann ( talk) 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please post a summing-up comment at Talk:Lolicon/GA1, outlining where the article still fails the GA criteria? -- Malkinann ( talk) 21:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assessment of Hatt-i humayun, I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. I'll take care of the problems you listed and request a copy edit at WP:PR. -- İnfoCan ( talk) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Lolicon is undergoing a community good article reassement as there are several reviewers who believe it was delisted improperly. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in performing the Lolicon good article reassessment. As I'm sure you know, this article played a role in Lawrence Sanger's accusations that Wikipedia supports child pornography -- or so it has been said, here, for example: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=58987. It's a topic that generates much anger and concern in the United States, as you can also see from the current discussion surrounding Wikipetan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Active_discussions). So your calm has been most welcome. I have withdrawn from the discussion of Lolicon, although I will sporadically check in with occasional comments as time permits. So once again, thanks. Timothy Perper ( talk) 12:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the review of the article. I think I have addressed the issues you pointed out and some others I found as well. Although you set a seven day period for a new look to the article, I want to know what you think about the changes I made recently. And, in case that I forgot something if you could point it out.-- Gduwen ( talk) 19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Was wondering if you'd be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. I'm actually surprised you hadn't been pinged about it since you're likely the most active reviewer. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_backlog_elimination_drives/March_2011#Pre-drive_discussions's talk page.
Thanks for the review and the minor copyediting. I believe I addressed the minor issue remaining. I also present a minor dilemma I have for your consideration at Talk:Cape Moreton Light/GA1. Best regards. -- Muhandes ( talk) 11:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your work at GAN, especially with the above review. I know long articles such as the above can be daunting to review. I believe I have now addressed all the issues you raised. Thanks again! Adabow ( talk · contribs) 04:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your review of this article, I've gone through and made the changes you suggested. Let me know what else needs to be done. Thanks, -- Cerebellum ( talk) 04:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Um, no, that was more because I accidentally broke it :) Fixed now, I think, thanks for the note. - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. -- Michael Paul Heart ( talk) 12:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am Jivesh. We have never talked before. I was the one who nominated "Single Ladies" for GA. I want to thank you wholeheartedly for the review. I know it is not easy to review such a long article. I am very happy it passed GA. Thank you once again. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, I took over the GA nomination from Paralympiakos before Green-eyed girl had to move on (you can see this on Talk:Sako Chivitchian and on User talk:Paralympiakos). I hope that's ok with you. Cheers. EdChem ( talk) 18:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing megamaser for GA status! I am glad you enjoyed it. James McBride ( talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already replied. Looked it over when I saw you were reviewing and noted that Hadley wasn't linked or explained. I've fixed it. Thanks, by the way, for reviewing. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Oh, by producers, did you mean the credits? If so, yes, and I added them to a separate section. Should I write that out in prose? — Novice7 ( talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Because you made the original attempt to review the Getty Villa article, I am contacting you to let you know that the original nominator has had his ban lifted and has returned with a "Coptright" mentor. I have notified both the nominator and their mentor of my review in process and felt I should contact you as well.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It may not be in the GA criteria, but note that the docs for {{ Infobox album}} say "Formerly, a Reviews field was included in this template. Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section. See WP:Albums#Reception." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 15:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Your copyvio note seems a bit heavy handed in this context. The text was based on the Southwark website, however you will find none of the wording is a copy&paste and as Southwark Council are emailing me directly with this information trying to get it updated on Wikipedia, there seems to be little chance of a practical problem over copyright interpretation. If you disagree could you take it up on the talk page for my attention rather than flagging the article with large notices? You will note that Southwark link to the Wikipedia article from their official pages, so this gets a bit of attention from their side and I would not want our culture of notices to hamper their goodwill (which has already resulted in the release of the official recent photos used in the article). Thanks Fæ ( talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, though it seems pretty obvious that telling a OTRS volunteer that you believe they are acting with a conflict of interest and that they don't understand the copyright status of text on Wikipedia would be taken as a serious allegation of incompetence against the individual rather than as GA review comments about the article. If you wish to follow up your allegations, please do so using a proper process rather than leaving them as unresolved in the logged GA review record. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
I just checked in and saw that the GAN for the article on Imru' al-Qais had been put on hold pending some improvements. I will do my best to enact these improvements by tomorrow, 11 March, and I hope I can ask you for pointers if I run into anything I'm not sure about.
Thank you,
Maitham d ( talk) 17:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update:
After reviewing the requirements more carefully, I have 4 questions:
(1) Is there any possibility for an extension of the 7-day period? I just saw the message today. It will be possible for me to make most, but perhaps not all, of the specified improvements before the deadline.
(2) Regarding the "Who?" comment on "Some have suggested... ...influenced by... ... Mazdakism...", I can refer back to the original source to get more precise information, but I might not be able to do it today (book is in a university library).
(3) Is the inclusion of an image required for Good Article approval in this case?
(4) Aside from the issues addressed above, and integrating "stranded sentences" into paragraphs, is anything more required for Good Article approval?
Thank you!
Maitham d ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: I propose that the lead in its current form complies with the intent of the Wikipedia criterion. The lead in this case is five paragraphs, exceeding the suggested limit by only 1. All of these paragraphs flow well, each has a well-defined purpose, and none of them are very long. Maitham d ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: The most egregious stray sentences have all been consolidated. Maitham d ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: "Different historians..." passage has been deleted. "Some have suggested..." passage has been modified to more accurately reflect the sourcing of the information. Maitham d ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
When we call someone "notable" in wikipedia's voice, that calls for a citation. The material you added lacked any ref whatsoever. If you want to re-add it, find an RS statement that says as much, and re-add it with the ref reflecting the RS. Otherwise, it just looks like self-aggrandizing self-promotion, which sadly we have too much of in the Project.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You stated that the article is on hold for 7 days. Following input from other editors, it is probable that the article will be split, with the military stuff going to RAF Lympne, leaving Lympne Airport covering the civil stuff. May I ask that the GAN remains on hold rather than failing at the end of 7 days if it takes a bit longer to achieve this? The GOCE are going over the article at the moment. Mjroots ( talk) 06:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for the fast and positive review. I've removed the offending line, didn't find any sources. Care to have a look? Worm TT 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the article, I fixed the recent linkrot that was noted and fixed the minor prose issues brought up, I also did a spell check on the reworked parts of the article. Finally, I merged those two small sections into larger relevant sections and it looks much more clean now. I think we're getting close to a GA but please let me know what else needs to be done. Thanks! Bhockey10 ( talk) 00:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the swift, deep and sure GA review you performed at Santa Maria de Ovila. Thank you! Binksternet ( talk) 16:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to improve the article, as per your instrucions, so it will meet the GA criteria. Hansi667 ( talk) 08:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells! I addressed your concerns over at the GAN for American Arts Series Commemorative medallions. Thanks for reviewing it!- RHM22 ( talk) 14:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I posted some comments and questions regarding the improvements you ask for at Talk:HSR-350x/GA1. -- Rontombontom ( talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of the Iranian targeted subsidy plan and for your constructive criticism. SSZ ( talk) 06:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure you will have this bookmarked, but just in case, there is a request there concerning feedback from the review for this article at Talk:British rhythm and blues/GA1. Thanks in advance.-- SabreBD ( talk) 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say thanks a lot for your GA review of Mir - it's very much appreciated! :-D Colds7ream ( talk) 07:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed your comments. Please take a look. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For the speedy review of Juliusz Słowacki! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I copyedited the article (quickly, since I know it's been in the cooler for a few days :-)). Thanks for your efforts as a reviewer! Wi2g 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. — Designate ( talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
for work on Bristol articles — Rod talk 15:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
hello,
I removed some copyvio and I think it is acceptable now. I forgot to delete it before, oh man! How about now?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad. Her father, Aleksandr Kuznetsov has coached five Olympic and world cycling champions. Her father's protégés include her mother, Galina Tsareva, a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records, and Svetlana's brother, Nikolay Kuznetsov, a silver medalist at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Kuznetsova also tried out cycling in her early years, but it bored her.She focused on tennis instead and was sent to Spain when she was 13 years old for better training and coaching also leading her to speak fluent Spanish.
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad. Her father, Aleksandr Kuznetsov, has coached five
Olympic and world
cycling champions. Kuznetsova's mother, Galina Tsareva, is a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records, and her brother,
Nikolay Kuznetsov, is a silver medalist at the
1996 Summer Olympics in
Atlanta and coach of the Russian cycling team Lokomotiv. She began to play tennis at the age of 7 and moved to Spain 6 years later for better training and coaching. While there she became fluent in Spanish.
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad to Aleksandr Kuznetsov, who has coached five
Olympic and world
cycling champions, and Galina Tsareva, a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records. Her brother,
Nikolay Kuznetsov, is a silver medalist at the
1996 Summer Olympics in
Atlanta and coach of the Russian cycling team Lokomotiv. She began to play tennis at the age of 7 and moved to Spain 6 years later.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011!
Mifter (
talk)
20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you think the article would flow better if all the info on the plaza were in one section? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I realise that you'll receive another from the people co-ordinating the GAN backlog elimination drive, but to review ~80 articles in under a month is a stellar undertaking. For your work, here is the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Thank you for your impressive efforts! AGK [ • 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
Hi again, Jezhotwells!
Thanks for reviewing Kepler-8b. I greatly appreciate it. :D -- Starstriker7( Talk) 00:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift and diligent review. Your efforts on GAN is nothing short of outstanding. Argyle 4 Life talk 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
After the review, I have several questions which I posted to the review page. Prose is something I need to work on, which usually requires help from others, even after 101 good article contributions. I need input about what is missing in the lead; that comment had me at a loss. Thank you for reviewing the article, and I look forward to your responses. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. Anyone can nominate an article and any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required. (Note, however, the subsequent paragraph on reviewer integrity.) A reviewer should be able to read the article critically, and apply the Good article criteria fairly. If the reviewer believes that the criteria are met, the article can be listed as a Good article. If any of the criteria are not met, the reviewer has two options. If the problems are minor or easy to fix, the reviewer can simply fix them, or the nomination can be put "on hold" for a week or so to give regular editors of the article time to address the reviewer's suggestions. If the problems are substantial or extensive, the nomination can be failed. In the latter case, regular editors should be invited to renominate the article once it has been improved; the Good article criteria are achievable in almost any article, and there is no minimum time between nominations. | ” |
— WP:Reviewing good articles |
Hi Jezhotwells,
In your review of this article you mentioned that the lead needed some work. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on what was missing/extraneous in the lead if you get a chance. I'm going to try to take a shot at fixing up the article. Thanks, Qrsdogg ( talk) 03:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please could you re-tag the dead links so I know which refs it is because I had to revert the edits to revert an IP edit which keeps on deleting the lead section, cheers, – Liam Taylor– 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with Somerset Levels which got its little star last night. The next target is a list. It's not quite ready for FLC nomination but if you had the time/inclination to turn your eagle eyes to the prose on List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset that would be great.— Rod talk 08:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. Veriss ( talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Your doing a great job Jezhotwells. Another GA review under your belt, you'll win the top award at the backlog. Shame your reviews are not that detailed or fair.. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering if you noticed my last message? I wasn't sure if I should challenge some of the fansite refs or wait until you looked it over. Rain the 1 BAM 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As one of the major contributors to Bristol you might want to take a look at the recent edits by User talk:Sir Stanley - he ((I assume it's a he) has a bit of form. I've reworked them a bit but you may feel that more robust action is required... RedSquirrel ( talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've sorted out the move as you suggested, will fix the redirect in the template. Mjroots ( talk) 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, its a pleasure to make your acquaintanceship. I'm the nominator for the article Lepidoptera, and its nice to see such a seasoned reviewer review the aforementioned. This isn't my first, and sure isn't my last, but what is the purpose of the neutral signs, does that mean you haven't decided yet? Oh, and God forbid I forget to say thank you for cutting of your own time. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your edit as the particluar Folly Farm referred to is very definitely in South Gloucestershire, as you would see if you read the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As a fellow contributor (alc59) to the Bybrook River article, you (Trident13) have my whole hearted support on this. Corrections are fine, but they do not need to be overlaid with ill-judged and unnecessarily aggressive negative comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alc59 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jez for giving up your time, ever patient and helpful, to assist new users of Wikipedia at the Bristol Wiki Academy on 19th March 2011. MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, yeah i know that but we had several times that someone tagged it unreferenced and then other users reverted him with the same argument and after ome discussion it was cleared. It is the bracket from the main article, so a link to the bracket is/should be enough. Kante4 ( talk) 00:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I really do not understand what you want to tell. Can you please do the copy-edit yourself? Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look into it. (Not sure what the problem could be, I fiddled with a load of my tools last night but not that particular script. Weird. - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 09:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Scott Davidson (musician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fages (
talk)
14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for casting your eyes over the Lympne Airport article, your constructive criticism and eventual passing of the article as a Good Article!
Thank you for the notice. I will try to find material to expand the article but it is possible that he just is not notable enough to justify an article. Juno ( talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of Abraham Quintanilla Jr AJona1992 ( talk) 19:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.
During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.
At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days ( Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days ( Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).
While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).
If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.
Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I checked the dead links at the start of the review. I did not recheck them, but I will check them now. Thank you for pointing them out. I removed the [citation needed] tag in the table of colleges, because citations would have been needed if the year that the college was founded was specified, but it was not. I failed to notice the third [citation needed] tag, and I regret that error. What is the procedure for correcting my mistake? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 03:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, why is Talk:Taylor series/GA1 being requested for speedy deletion? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells. I have nominated G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) for GA reassessment after much thought. I did challenge the information but they want to keep it and I feel that it does not comply with the GA. One editor made a point on the talk that the GA review was a month ago, but still you reviewed the article fair and square and there was not large sections of the article with unreliable refs. It is almost asif they wqaited until it passed, then created a firewall to keep me at bay. Because I have been reverted each time I tried to make a positive change. Anyway, on another note two editors have been helping me with the prose issdue I had. So I am glad I took your advice! And a big congrats on the GA Drive and all the articles you managed to over see. Rain the 1 BAM 20:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For taking care of this. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. You have placed a template on a page I have recently created: Ruth Aarons. With this template you ask for more sources. However, I have included in the page a link to the official database of the International Table Tennis Federation listing the complete list of achievements of the player Ruth Aarons.
Since I've created the wiki page for several other table tennis players, it could be important to understand if the link to the International Table Tennis Federation database is enough.
Cialo ( talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added two more references to her biografy. Cialo ( talk) 11:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I had a question that wasn't answered among the FAQ. Today an editor opened up a review page on an article I wrote and nominated for GA. The review was started, but he immediately said he wouldn't be able to do a "thorough review" until the weekend, then wrote a few recommendations based on the Lead section. This is only my second nomination, so my question is: Is this practice normal or acceptable? It seems odd to open a review page, then say "I'll review it later". Relevant discussion at: Talk:Coffin birth/GA1. Thanks. Boneyard90 ( talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
For reviewing over 40 Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia. Congratulations! – MuZemike 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
For the second consecutive drive, you have reviewed (by far) the most Good article nominations during the GA backlog elimination drive and hence is entitled to this Content Review Medal. Your reviews have gone a long way towards making the GA backlog elimination drive a success. Thank you, and congratulations! – MuZemike 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. I am glad that could help. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I've replied to your request to explain the usage of certain references in the article Moonrise (Warriors), so I thought I'd notify you in case you didn't notice. Thanks, Bramble claw x 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to review your edit at User_talk:Wizardman in light of how it messes up the new section I added after it. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've made a pledge not to review anymore GANs, or do any "bad" edits until this time next year. I'll just focus on writing articles in userspace, and then promoting them for a bit. I'm also going on a two week WikiBreak soon too. Userboxes can be misleading. Age. Sorry, Jezhotwells. Rcsprinter Gimme a message 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)