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. |
Hi Jez, I've moved the images from your comment on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/News and notes into the article itself. I was looking for pics like that when putting the article together so thanks for free licensing them and putting them on Commons! — Tom Morris ( talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yuor comments on Whitewater World/GA2 are very mean. I should be allowed to trout you. Mike 2 8 9 20:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you kept Bomarillu as a GA, while the other two were delisted by someone else. Probably the right call. I have just nominated an article for GA that I have worked on a lot, Shriya Saran. I would be interested to know what you think of it. BollyJeff || talk 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered if you had a copy (or access to one) of Vaughan, Adrian: Isambard Kingdom Brunel — Engineering Knight Errant, John Murray, 1991, ISBN 0-7195-5748-8.? It is used (3 times) on Clifton Suspension Bridge but lacking page numbers. I was considering trying for GA again with that article & wondered if you had any thoughts or could help?— Rod talk 15:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Jez, I know you often complain about the low prose standards at GAN, but were you aware of that you passed the above article with this sentence: "Nicholas Whyte commented on the book on the page on Northern Ireland Political Parties on the website Northern Ireland Access Research Knowledge (ARK)?" No less than four 'on's. -- Eisfbnore • talk 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jez, I would appreciate it if you would give your input here on the GA re-assessment page. Thanks!-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Good luck! Pasindu Kavinda Talk 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Jez, Thanks for your Stuckism GA Review. I added all requested refrences and made some other changes to the article. But I need more time to make other changes, I'm not home this week. I wanted to know is it possible to put it on hold for another 7 days? (14 days with previous 7 days). Thanks. lapsking ( talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jez, I almost made all changes you requested, except these 2: "The lead does not fully summarise the article."
"The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow."
Thank you, lapsking ( talk) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jezhotwells. I agree with your "Please don't edit the WP:GAN page directly, if you wish to leave a note, please use the note parameter" - but the {{ subst:GAN}}, quoted in Wikipedia:GAN, AFAIK doesn't describe this parameter. Perhaps someone should document this and other parameters. -- Philcha ( talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean up! Please watchlist the article, as it has a persistent crufter. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have corrected all of the issues you pointed out in your review and now feel the article is ready to be passed. Thanks, Liam Taylor 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad atleast someone is noticing me. Nobody really knows all the effort I've done round here. I've re-/assessed a couple of thousands of articles for WPBeatles, when I should've been doing important school work! All that hard work I've put into WPBeatles. :L -- Yeepsi ( Talk to me!) 10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your participation in our event last week. I see you haven't done any project editing since - though you have been busy! Please do try and improve one or two of the articles in the project list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see my talk, Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Abraham_Isaac_Kook_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Ksavyadkodesh ( talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thanks so much for your work on the page for the book, First Light. You began editing it before anyone even I had and I think that that's what got other people to edit it. Because you gave the page a starting point. :) Toontown59153 ( talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi - I noticed Talk:The_Byrds/GA1 through the NFCC overuse report. The article has no less than 25 non-free media files in it - the 9th most of any of our 3,000,000+ articles. It's undoubtedly well-written but I can't see any reason how it can pass GA with this amount of overuse - no band article needs 18 music samples and it would be rejected straight away at FA. Sure, the media files have rationales, but that many clearly can't pass WP:NFCC#3a. I think this has to go to GAR and I'll probably drop a note at WT:NFC, but I thought you'd like to comment first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
As the original WP:PRODder, you may be interested in WP:Articles for deletion/Beef Jerky. Cheers, Uniplex ( talk) 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see, the rules were changed since my last nomination. It was too long break. On every wiki the rules are different. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, just to let you know I amended Wehha of East Anglia according to your comments. Thanks for them. Hel-hama ( talk) 13:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No I didn't.. I suspect it was Prior Park College where the article is fairly dire. I wanted to focus on the building etc with Prior Park. Would welcome any input as I'd like to take this one to GA.— Rod talk 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. -- Philcha ( talk) 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I see you are working on Hotwells. If you want any old pictures you might like to take a look at this set at a site I found recently.— Rod talk 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your efforts at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Cloudbound ( talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your reversal. If I may inquire why do you maintain that lapot was a legendary practice, when the sources state that it was an "unconfirmed legend"? There is a big difference between legend and legendary:
legendary
Would you agree that the sources imply or explicitly state that "The legend of Lapot" is something so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a legend? With no other intention than due diligence and neutrality, i sincerely look for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.182.5 ( talk) 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I understand English very well, and that is why I'm concerned with a word like "legendary" that conveys additional meaning which may misrepresent the source's intent. The dictionary entry for "legendary" states:
If you are unwilling to discuss whether that the use of "legendary" to denote a myth may be misleading I must surmise that you are not acting in good faith. Do correct me if I'm wrong. 79.101.182.5 ( talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You can resort to Ad hominem and berate my English all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that "legendary" has a meaning that is misleading. Furthermore, I'm not the only one to point this out. But you seem to think we all don't know English. The praxis of Lapot is a myth, unproven, not widely known, not praised and hard to believe. Which is why I chose "apocryphal". Anyway, since you are "guarding" the article, I opened this discussion in order to find a more suitable word that correctly describes the practice. But why do you insist that legendary doesn't have additional meaning?
Thank you for your kind words.
109.93.18.94 ( talk) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
== Word "legendary" is deemed as a word that may introduce bias by the Wikipedia manual of style WP:W2W. Would you care to reconsider whether the use of this word to describe lapot is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.18.94 ( talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jez I have added a phrase explaining the term "sprinter" to the lead of Hever Golf Rose. I think that must have been the reason for the context tag. Please let me know as I want the article to be at least C class. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and support. I've taken the liberty of moving your bolded support to the start of the line; The delegates prefer this since it makes it easier to spot. Hope you don't mind Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jez. Thanks for the great review! Actually, I did notice the backlog for GAN and I have been thinking about possibly tackling a review or two. I'm going to try to see about trying to fit in the time sometime in the near future. Take care, Moisejp ( talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - No problem, thanks for the nudge - as the nominator appears to be inactive, if no one steps up to do the required edits I will assist if I can. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the subtopic for The Walking Dead (TV series) for the GA nominee. I didn't know which topic to file it under. Again, thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I have fulfilled all of your requests. Please have a look when you have time. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
Thanks for you astute review and for helping with the backlog at the GA nomination page. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
Really? Cause I've read and re-read the "instructions" and fail to see anything I did wrong, but it didn't work. So unless you are assuming bad faith on my part, then quite clearly the instructions are not clear to me.
Now, either offer to help me, or keep your "helpful" comments to yourself
Jasonfward (
talk)
22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I just say that I think it is really unfair that you chose to review this GAN just 42 minutes after it was nominated. 1). You should let more time go by, in case other people want to review it. 2) There are some GANs which are over 2 months old, yet you review one which is 42 minutes old. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the nature of how GANs are chosen. However, many thanks Jezhotwells for the prompt review - it has given me (and I am sure other editors who have had an input into the Joplin page) a good guide on how to improve it. The Peer Review done fairly recently didn't pick up many of the issues you have highlighed. Thanks again. Ben (Major Bloodnok) ( talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you check up on the facts before giving assistance here edit warring over the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland is covered by the AE sanctions doesn't matter what article it appears on be it sport or any other article. Mo ainm ~Talk 11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells, thank you for taking the time to read the article. I haven't nominated an article before, so I'm wandering if commenting beneath it on the 90210 discussion page was the correct thing to do? Also, I don't know how frequent you edit TV articles, but TVLine is the most reliable source for TV news and TVbytheNumbers is the only source for TV ratings and extremely reliable. I would request that you remove those two sites from the fail criteria. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI. Much improved, but something to be aware of. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for reviewing Dorival Caymmi! I've begun to make the changes you suggested on the review page. I have also left a question there for you. I've got to take care of some off-Wiki things right now, but I will be back within the next few days to continue working on the article. Armadillopteryx talk 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! FYI: Relapse (album)/GA1. Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:7arazred_-_disruptive_editing. Thanks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review. I've done what you have asked for. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I am trying to look at points that need addressing in the FA. I think you said that "No." needed to be changed to "number". I have pointed out on the FA page that MoS says to use the abbreviation "No." ( MOS:NUMBERSIGN). It seems a little strange that we could wind up using "number one" and "No. 68" throughout these articles.
Is it possible there has been some crossover in MoS recommendations? I cannot see where the use of No. is suggested to be changed. The abbreviations section seems to only apply to full titles which are commonly abbreviated rather than this instance.
I understand that MoS recommends using "one" rather than "1", and here "No. one" would obviously not make sense :¬) I did wonder if this was one of those cases where "No. 1" would be considered a 'general' exception "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words) when talking about chart positions - or more specifically "Proper names, formal numerical designations, and other idioms comply with common usage;"
The issue for me is that so many music related articles have this in them that I need to ensure this is addressed in my future copy-edits. Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've cleared up some issues and I left some questions on the GAN. Thanks for the review. Erick ( talk) 06:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that the article has been promoted. Well done on the extra work! Jaguar ( talk) 15:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Lagrange 613 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Lagrange 613 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
First,
Thanks for your lightning fast and thorough review. I have never nominated an article and this helps give those of us working on the page a baseline to work from.
Second,
I respect your analysis (need to add more references though that will be hard to find as this is a bit of a niche topic, ISBN number needs fixing, Lead needs to do a better job of directly reflecting each subtopic).
Third,
I do have one question about your POV analysis. In fact coming in neutrally (I think I own and enjoy gear from most of the manufacturers out there) I took on the job of fixing one potential bias favoring one of the manufacturers (DD Hammocks). What do you see needs fixing?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
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. |
Hi Jez, I've moved the images from your comment on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/News and notes into the article itself. I was looking for pics like that when putting the article together so thanks for free licensing them and putting them on Commons! — Tom Morris ( talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yuor comments on Whitewater World/GA2 are very mean. I should be allowed to trout you. Mike 2 8 9 20:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you kept Bomarillu as a GA, while the other two were delisted by someone else. Probably the right call. I have just nominated an article for GA that I have worked on a lot, Shriya Saran. I would be interested to know what you think of it. BollyJeff || talk 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered if you had a copy (or access to one) of Vaughan, Adrian: Isambard Kingdom Brunel — Engineering Knight Errant, John Murray, 1991, ISBN 0-7195-5748-8.? It is used (3 times) on Clifton Suspension Bridge but lacking page numbers. I was considering trying for GA again with that article & wondered if you had any thoughts or could help?— Rod talk 15:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Jez, I know you often complain about the low prose standards at GAN, but were you aware of that you passed the above article with this sentence: "Nicholas Whyte commented on the book on the page on Northern Ireland Political Parties on the website Northern Ireland Access Research Knowledge (ARK)?" No less than four 'on's. -- Eisfbnore • talk 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jez, I would appreciate it if you would give your input here on the GA re-assessment page. Thanks!-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Good luck! Pasindu Kavinda Talk 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Jez, Thanks for your Stuckism GA Review. I added all requested refrences and made some other changes to the article. But I need more time to make other changes, I'm not home this week. I wanted to know is it possible to put it on hold for another 7 days? (14 days with previous 7 days). Thanks. lapsking ( talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jez, I almost made all changes you requested, except these 2: "The lead does not fully summarise the article."
"The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow."
Thank you, lapsking ( talk) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jezhotwells. I agree with your "Please don't edit the WP:GAN page directly, if you wish to leave a note, please use the note parameter" - but the {{ subst:GAN}}, quoted in Wikipedia:GAN, AFAIK doesn't describe this parameter. Perhaps someone should document this and other parameters. -- Philcha ( talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean up! Please watchlist the article, as it has a persistent crufter. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have corrected all of the issues you pointed out in your review and now feel the article is ready to be passed. Thanks, Liam Taylor 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad atleast someone is noticing me. Nobody really knows all the effort I've done round here. I've re-/assessed a couple of thousands of articles for WPBeatles, when I should've been doing important school work! All that hard work I've put into WPBeatles. :L -- Yeepsi ( Talk to me!) 10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your participation in our event last week. I see you haven't done any project editing since - though you have been busy! Please do try and improve one or two of the articles in the project list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see my talk, Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Abraham_Isaac_Kook_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Ksavyadkodesh ( talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thanks so much for your work on the page for the book, First Light. You began editing it before anyone even I had and I think that that's what got other people to edit it. Because you gave the page a starting point. :) Toontown59153 ( talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi - I noticed Talk:The_Byrds/GA1 through the NFCC overuse report. The article has no less than 25 non-free media files in it - the 9th most of any of our 3,000,000+ articles. It's undoubtedly well-written but I can't see any reason how it can pass GA with this amount of overuse - no band article needs 18 music samples and it would be rejected straight away at FA. Sure, the media files have rationales, but that many clearly can't pass WP:NFCC#3a. I think this has to go to GAR and I'll probably drop a note at WT:NFC, but I thought you'd like to comment first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
As the original WP:PRODder, you may be interested in WP:Articles for deletion/Beef Jerky. Cheers, Uniplex ( talk) 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see, the rules were changed since my last nomination. It was too long break. On every wiki the rules are different. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, just to let you know I amended Wehha of East Anglia according to your comments. Thanks for them. Hel-hama ( talk) 13:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No I didn't.. I suspect it was Prior Park College where the article is fairly dire. I wanted to focus on the building etc with Prior Park. Would welcome any input as I'd like to take this one to GA.— Rod talk 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. -- Philcha ( talk) 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I see you are working on Hotwells. If you want any old pictures you might like to take a look at this set at a site I found recently.— Rod talk 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your efforts at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Cloudbound ( talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your reversal. If I may inquire why do you maintain that lapot was a legendary practice, when the sources state that it was an "unconfirmed legend"? There is a big difference between legend and legendary:
legendary
Would you agree that the sources imply or explicitly state that "The legend of Lapot" is something so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a legend? With no other intention than due diligence and neutrality, i sincerely look for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.182.5 ( talk) 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I understand English very well, and that is why I'm concerned with a word like "legendary" that conveys additional meaning which may misrepresent the source's intent. The dictionary entry for "legendary" states:
If you are unwilling to discuss whether that the use of "legendary" to denote a myth may be misleading I must surmise that you are not acting in good faith. Do correct me if I'm wrong. 79.101.182.5 ( talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You can resort to Ad hominem and berate my English all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that "legendary" has a meaning that is misleading. Furthermore, I'm not the only one to point this out. But you seem to think we all don't know English. The praxis of Lapot is a myth, unproven, not widely known, not praised and hard to believe. Which is why I chose "apocryphal". Anyway, since you are "guarding" the article, I opened this discussion in order to find a more suitable word that correctly describes the practice. But why do you insist that legendary doesn't have additional meaning?
Thank you for your kind words.
109.93.18.94 ( talk) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
== Word "legendary" is deemed as a word that may introduce bias by the Wikipedia manual of style WP:W2W. Would you care to reconsider whether the use of this word to describe lapot is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.18.94 ( talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jez I have added a phrase explaining the term "sprinter" to the lead of Hever Golf Rose. I think that must have been the reason for the context tag. Please let me know as I want the article to be at least C class. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and support. I've taken the liberty of moving your bolded support to the start of the line; The delegates prefer this since it makes it easier to spot. Hope you don't mind Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jez. Thanks for the great review! Actually, I did notice the backlog for GAN and I have been thinking about possibly tackling a review or two. I'm going to try to see about trying to fit in the time sometime in the near future. Take care, Moisejp ( talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - No problem, thanks for the nudge - as the nominator appears to be inactive, if no one steps up to do the required edits I will assist if I can. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the subtopic for The Walking Dead (TV series) for the GA nominee. I didn't know which topic to file it under. Again, thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I have fulfilled all of your requests. Please have a look when you have time. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
Thanks for you astute review and for helping with the backlog at the GA nomination page. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
Really? Cause I've read and re-read the "instructions" and fail to see anything I did wrong, but it didn't work. So unless you are assuming bad faith on my part, then quite clearly the instructions are not clear to me.
Now, either offer to help me, or keep your "helpful" comments to yourself
Jasonfward (
talk)
22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I just say that I think it is really unfair that you chose to review this GAN just 42 minutes after it was nominated. 1). You should let more time go by, in case other people want to review it. 2) There are some GANs which are over 2 months old, yet you review one which is 42 minutes old. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the nature of how GANs are chosen. However, many thanks Jezhotwells for the prompt review - it has given me (and I am sure other editors who have had an input into the Joplin page) a good guide on how to improve it. The Peer Review done fairly recently didn't pick up many of the issues you have highlighed. Thanks again. Ben (Major Bloodnok) ( talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you check up on the facts before giving assistance here edit warring over the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland is covered by the AE sanctions doesn't matter what article it appears on be it sport or any other article. Mo ainm ~Talk 11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells, thank you for taking the time to read the article. I haven't nominated an article before, so I'm wandering if commenting beneath it on the 90210 discussion page was the correct thing to do? Also, I don't know how frequent you edit TV articles, but TVLine is the most reliable source for TV news and TVbytheNumbers is the only source for TV ratings and extremely reliable. I would request that you remove those two sites from the fail criteria. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI. Much improved, but something to be aware of. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for reviewing Dorival Caymmi! I've begun to make the changes you suggested on the review page. I have also left a question there for you. I've got to take care of some off-Wiki things right now, but I will be back within the next few days to continue working on the article. Armadillopteryx talk 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! FYI: Relapse (album)/GA1. Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:7arazred_-_disruptive_editing. Thanks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review. I've done what you have asked for. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I am trying to look at points that need addressing in the FA. I think you said that "No." needed to be changed to "number". I have pointed out on the FA page that MoS says to use the abbreviation "No." ( MOS:NUMBERSIGN). It seems a little strange that we could wind up using "number one" and "No. 68" throughout these articles.
Is it possible there has been some crossover in MoS recommendations? I cannot see where the use of No. is suggested to be changed. The abbreviations section seems to only apply to full titles which are commonly abbreviated rather than this instance.
I understand that MoS recommends using "one" rather than "1", and here "No. one" would obviously not make sense :¬) I did wonder if this was one of those cases where "No. 1" would be considered a 'general' exception "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words) when talking about chart positions - or more specifically "Proper names, formal numerical designations, and other idioms comply with common usage;"
The issue for me is that so many music related articles have this in them that I need to ensure this is addressed in my future copy-edits. Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've cleared up some issues and I left some questions on the GAN. Thanks for the review. Erick ( talk) 06:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that the article has been promoted. Well done on the extra work! Jaguar ( talk) 15:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Lagrange 613 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Lagrange 613 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells,
First,
Thanks for your lightning fast and thorough review. I have never nominated an article and this helps give those of us working on the page a baseline to work from.
Second,
I respect your analysis (need to add more references though that will be hard to find as this is a bit of a niche topic, ISBN number needs fixing, Lead needs to do a better job of directly reflecting each subtopic).
Third,
I do have one question about your POV analysis. In fact coming in neutrally (I think I own and enjoy gear from most of the manufacturers out there) I took on the job of fixing one potential bias favoring one of the manufacturers (DD Hammocks). What do you see needs fixing?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!