( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_15) - ( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_17}
Thanks for revisiting the FAC discussion. You may have noticed I gave an extensive response to your thoughts on overlinking. I also removed a few links. You did not comment on the issue.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse—good work pointing out the need to remove it from that article, both to reduce clutter and to retain the iconic US formatting of "Sepember 11" (otherwise reversed by many people's prefs). Often nominators won't remove the formatting themselves, but won't object to its removal by someone else. I target the ones that are heavily linked or that are full of dates. It's not mandatory to delined, BTW. Tony (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, Mattisse. In my view, WP has been fooled into using what was essentially a computer programmer's wonkery, developed back in ?2004. The campaign to ween editors off the bright-blue splotch is gathering pace. But we must be careful to target the right articles, at least initially. I go for the ones that are already pretty busy with links. I cleanse all autoformatting, which means month-day and month-day-year. I think people will get upset if only one of these categories is de-lemonned and not the other. We don't want a backlash—you know how resistant to change some WPians can be. Please see the second para here, which I've recently augmented to cover all-or-nothing and a recommendation for the use of hard spaces.
At the very least, removing lemon will allow our high-value links to breathe. And of course, lemon is hopelessly indulgent, since it formats for WPians only, yet forces all of those tens of millions of readers out there to see coloured splotches and underlines. As a reading psychologist, I'm painfully aware of how this makes the reading experience subtlely slower and less satisfying.
We need to keep in mind that MOSNUM doesn't deprecate; it merely no longer encourages lemon. I've already had one person say that it encourages, and had to quote this back at them:
Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.
Another issue that has come up is the need to recommend the insertion of non-breaking ("hard") spaces, although I can cope without, personally. You may be interested in the model text I sometimes paste into FAC or article talk pages, tweaking it for particular contexts:
It was overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting of dates whether autoformatted or not), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it [or "removed the date autoformatting] to allow your high-value links to breathe.
PS, also, if you cleanse an article, it's best to insert an invisible editors' comment at the top: , to forestall any well-meaning reverter who may come along without knowing the new context.
Thank you for the invaluable copyediting you did to the article - it was crucial for the FAC. JonCatalán ( talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You stated the following: "The only reason for linking dates at all was for the autoformatting function. " and a whole bunch of stuff that follows somewhat logically if this is true. However, I am not sure it is true. Can you tell me what do you mean by autoformatting and can dates be linked without autoformatting. I keep seeing dates linked in articles on the main page at WP:TFA and don't know what the fuss is about. For example, look at the first paragraph of yesterday's TFA, Guitar Hero (video game). That has a whole bunch of linked dates. How does autoformatting relate to these dates. Should the be delinked?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattisse, for taking an interest in this article. I've been discussing Steve Pastor's edits with him on his talk page, and I've just linked to there from Talk:Ring shout.
I started the article over a year ago because it was flagged at WikiProject:African diaspora as a needed article. Of course it is not "mine" and I have been hoping others would step in. Right now, though, I feel a little impatient. Would like to step back from the discussion until I regain my cool, so would be obliged if you would continue to give your views. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 16:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A few writers in the 18th century experienced concerns of "madness". Right now, I've been working with SandyGeorgia going over Samuel Johnson. In the 18th century context, "madness" was mostly just an excuse to lock people up, instead of an actual diagnosis as it is today. Now, Christopher Smart's case was more cut forward (see Christopher Smart's alleged madness for about 70% of the information) as there was not enough evidence to really suggest problems. However, Johnson's was more problematic. There were 18th century ideas of "madness" and many reports of actions. Then there are current diagnosis and actual arguments for him having Tourette syndrome. Now, I was thinking of having the 18th century view put into a style like Christopher Smart's, and having the medical view (actual diagnosis based on actual criteria) be given its own page. I was wondering if you could think this over and see if it would really "flow" properly. We are looking for many opinions on this, and I would appreciate yours. Here is where the most recent discussion happened. And excuse the tense language, we are working to move it to an FA and the amount of effort and work put strain on all of us, so, yeah. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse—I've alerted the writer of the script to this issue. Have you used the "import" string alone in a new monobook? Have you added it beneath the existing code in your existing monobook? Tony (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried your monobook setup and it worked for me. What articles did you try using it on? Gimmetrow 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, How are you? I wrote an e-mail to an English professor concerning the scholarly article on death and adjustment. I have sent a Cc copy to you too. Read it and tell me any opinion you might have. Shoovrow ( talk) 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize most people wouldn't care, but your comments made me curious, so I did a little original research and timed my copy of ABC's coverage. I started from the end of Sen. Kennedy's comments to the crowd. If you assume that Kennedy finished speaking at 12:15 PDT and was shot as 12:17, then the timing is as follows:
12:15:00 Kennedy finishes speaking; 12:17:00 Shooting; 12:21:44 Howard K. Smith relays report that Kennedy has been shot; 12:23:20 Live black and white footage of ballroom; 12:24:15 Chilling audio report from KABC's Karl George from the pantry area while Kennedy present, describes Kennedy's removal--picture is still of ballroom; 12:26:42 Live black and white footage from pantry area with Karl George reporting, Kennedy has been removed and other bodies are not shown.
ABC was the first to report the shooting, and it had some compelling interviews from the pantry. If you've seen the CBS and NBC footage (NBC's is available on hulu.com), you know that their footage was much more dramatic, but no one saw theirs for some time, because their color film had to be developed. Compson1 ( talk) 00:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Some 6,000,000 American TV households, most of them in the West and not yet asleep, got a chance to follow the beginning live reportage. [1]
— Mattisse ( Talk) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I corrected a couple of errors in my earlier comments. I don't mean to make a mountain out of a molehill, but Time's timing is incorrect. A have a recording of several hours of ABC's coverage beginning before Kennedy spoke, and ABC was not showing the Ambassador two minutes after the shooting. You may have been watching local coverage on the ABC affiliate, and it may have interrupted its broadcast to switch to ABC for what looked like a bulletin. On ABC's national broadcast, Smith signed off and they then held the studio shot for four and a half minutes while an announcer said, "Please stand by." During that time, ABC was waiting for a second report of the shooting to support information from its own people. Television was more careful then. The broadcast then resumed and Smith advised viewers: "Ladies and gentlemen, we've kept the air on because we've heard an alarming report that Robert Kennedy was shot in that ballroom at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles." Smith broke that news almost seven minutes after Kennedy finished speaking, about five minutes after the shooting. About a minute and a half after Smith first reported the shooting, ABC switched to a camera in the ballroom {not the pantry) and a minute later picked up audio from Karl George in the pantry. ABC definitely beat NBC on the air with the news (I can't time NBC precisely because my copy of NBC's coverage doesn't include Kennedy's speach, but 12:26 sounds about right for its first report of the shooting--four or five minutes after ABC), though NBC provided impressive coverage with its considerable resources in those days of Huntley-Brinkley, Frank McGee, Sander Vanocur, etc. Compson1 ( talk) 01:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
When you do an advanced search on flickr. Check the three boxes in the creative commons section at the bottom and it will isolate WP eligible photos. The best way to understand which individual license types are eligible for WP is to go to Wcommons. Click Upload file. Choose upload flickr. At the top there is an explanation of all license types.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for being a member of
WikiProject Cuba. If you would like to remain as an active member please note so
here, otherwise mark yourself inactive or semi-active. Thank you. |
— Navy Blue formerly iDosh 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey I am still in the middle of revamping. I do sleep you know. It took me a while to find a source for the video sculpture. Also, when I revisited the fountain, I realized the water only spouts for 30 seconds so I had to find a source. I don't know where to put those two paragraphs at the end of selection of the artist. However, the last one had been in critical review where it did not belong. I am headed to the gym. I will get back to work in a couple of hours.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You voiced an opinion against choice #1, without saying which of the other three choices you feel is appropriate.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you see chart positions formatted incorrectly in the prose of any Featured Article, feel free to go ahead and fix them. I distinctly recall fixing the formatting in Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, but not everyone is familiar with the manual of style for chart positions, so occasional fixes need to be made. Also, important to keep in mind is that all numbers ten and lesser should be written out ("reached number two on the Billboard charts") unless in a series. Check out WP:MOS for other things you want to make sure are taken care of in Frank Zappa. I'll take a stab at restructuring the article sometime soon. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits........Just 2 Questions
.How should I make it ^ Karnataka Coastal Project, Duraline Pipes Learning Centre, p. 1, <
http://www.duraline.in/newsletter/Q4%202004%20Newsletter.pdf>. Retrieved on 27 July 2008
replacing pp by p
This article is stuck at the FAC due to these minor issues. If you check WP:FAC the article doesn't even appear there. Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk)
Hi. SandyGeorge has closed the nomination. I made the request for a bit more time to do the legacy section, but the response (on SG's talk page) was that such additions are better donE outside an FAC. Well, I am of course disappointed, in particular by the endless type of comments on the lack of copyediting. You have done so much and others too, and theN still some editors JUST routinely throw off the remark about need for fresh eyes. I could take any FA and pick out ten sentences that needs copyediting if I would, so I think some was a bit quick on the trigger. On the other hand, there were not many offering support for the FAC, so the outcome was to be expected. I will finish the legacy section nevertheless, and then I think the article should be renominated quite soon.! -- HJensen, talk 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Matisse, I can understand that you are frustrated and disappointed by the archival of the FAC nomination for
Frank Zappa. You are doing your cause absolutely no good, however, in disparaging the FAC reviewers. We are only human, and, while I can't speak for all the reviewers, when I feel attacked by a nominator or article supporter, in the future I'm likely going to avoid articles where that person is involved. Why should I spend my time reviewing articles when if I say something someone disagrees with I'll be essentially attacked? Your comments maintaining that there is a clique/a cabal/a huge conspiracy of teenagers to trash excellent articles are insulting. Please
assume good faith and
remain civil. Constructive criticism is a good thing (give suggestions for improvement). Levelling baseless accusations is not. It may be helpful to avoid posting about FAC for a few days until you calm down.
Karanacs (
talk)
19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Our discussion over the past few days has allowed me to clarify my thoughts about wikipedia, and hopefully will help you to see a positive and personally fulfilling way that you can continue to contribute as well. WikiDragons and WikiHermits both need caves to live in, and that's what I've found WikiProjects to be. You can make a far greater difference at GA than you ever could at FAC, which really has become an outstanding example of the law of diminishing returns. Subject specfic projects can help a great deal as well. I'd have left wikipedia in disgust ages ago had it not been for the anchor of the Greater Manchester project. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I looked at the list. Kind of Blue is a possibility (probably the easiest); United States v. LaRouche is a possibility, as I write a lot of legal articles, but the title is all wrong and would have to be changed; Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe is a possibility (but seems like it needs reorganization); Lake Toba; any of the hurricane articles. I want the result to be something calm and pleasant. What do you think? — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice article, and another very competent review. Your FAC experience, painful though it may have been, is obviously paying dividends now. :-)
For me, one of the big differences between FA and GA, and one of its potentially more satisfying features, is the opportunity to roll your sleeves up and get stuck into the article yourself. So whereas you (quite rightly) drew attention to the {{cquote}} I'd just fix it, as I've done. Interestingly it hadn't been done right in the first place anyway. The citation requirement isn't quite so onerous either, so I don't expect to see a citation per statement, but one somewhere in the general area, perhaps at the end of the paragraph, for instance. For direct quotations though, you're quite right, exactly as at FAC. You drew attention in the review to a few examples, and there's that box with a quotation from Jimmy Cobb as well.
It's worth checking the links in the notes as well. Have you come across this tool? [1] At least two of the links look like they're dead. I've transcluded the review onto the article's talk page; not sure why the link at the top wasn't right, but I've fixed that now anyway. Another nice piece of work! -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. You've forgotten to flag the article as being reviewed/on hold on the WP:GAN page. I know it seems like an awful lot to remember at first, but it gets easier. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, will you please check your e-mail and reply by the same! Shoovrow ( talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)You haven't been reverted in Kind of Blue and Let's Get It On, it's just that there are two ways of inserting ndashes. the first is the use the html code, as you did, but some people prefer to choose the dash from the ndash symbol itself, which is the first of the dashes you see under the Do not copy text from other websites ... warning underneath the edit box. The effect is the same identical in either case, just a matter of personal preference. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
&
and &, i.e., no difference at all. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kind of Blue. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Editor437 (
talk)
15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note following your comments at WP:GAC, reviews are generally kept on hold for at least a week. I would give the initial nominator a little more time to address your queries. Peanut4 ( talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your GA review - it was much quicker than I expected! Looks like the backlog at GAN is almost gone. Plasticup T/ C 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, thanks for the review. I'm going to get to it in the next 24 hours. Viriditas ( talk) 10:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, could you finish the review ASAP? I have 2 other GANs to help and an FAC that is sort of struggling. Thank you, -- Lord ₪ Sunday 13:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this article on hold?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the forum reference. I also added a time frame to a couple of statements in the milestones section. I looked over the section, and it all seemed to clarify that the records are as of 2008. I'm a little bothered by the "Records" section, as several of the entries are unreferenced. Looking at the ones without references, though, they all seem to be listcruft that doesn't add anything to the article (Most Seasons by a non-pitcher since 1900???). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Issues have been addressed Gary King ( talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about the WTON article, you failed it because it lacks "critical reception, impact, or importance of this release". However, as I stated, the info isn't there because were lazy, it isn't there becuase I honestly do not think there is any. It contains the chart and sales info, so the only thing left would be reviews. But in 1999, without the internet we have today, how many magazines would review a VHS from somewhat known band, certainly not in the "mainstream" at that time, which contains two music videos and some interviews? There's not a lot there to review. I understand compared to most articles it is lacking, but I don't know what else we can do to it. Black ngold29 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks, been through after another editor (you?). My concerns were as you noticed the choice of words and wording. Ta Edmund Patrick – confer 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)How are you enjoying your GA reviewing? It's a bit different from FAC, I'm sure you'd agree. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Matisse. I'm looking forward to this as IMO this crittter was arguably the most important of the Burgess "weird wonders". I've responded to your initial comments. I've also taken the liberty of ordering the comments under sub-headings, in case we wind up having a lot - hope you don't mind. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your useful input into Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette. The extra pair of eyes and thoughts were very valuable. It passed . Ta. Edmund Patrick – confer 11:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not my article. I think you confused me with the other Gary :) On a side note, feel free to review some of the articles that I nominated :D Gary King ( talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I went through your comments. How does it look now? Nergaal ( talk) 03:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for such a thorough GA review! Emw2012 ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for choosing to review the article; I'm fully aware how much time an article of this size takes to read and review. It appears the article failed FA for no clear reason other than that the reviewers there lacked the time to fully assess it. user:Giants2008 suggested that perhaps the prose could be improved in parts. Internet research is all I've used as there are no books about the sprinter yet. I'll be doing minor prose fixes here and there on the article but it should largely remain static. Hope you have a good read! Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, I wonder if you could have a look this diff on Human bonding. The guy seems to have wiped out just about every theory on the subject. Some of it may be crap, but I can't beleive it all is. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse,
If you're interested, I've nominated for FAC the second half of the FA rongorongo, which you had commented on during its nomination. It's at Decipherment of rongorongo. kwami ( talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have attempted to address your comments, just let me know if there is anything else you would like to see tweaked or altered. -- IvoShandor ( talk) 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, checking up on the permission status of that image has been on my ToDo list forever, and I forgot about it when I started the GAN. I'll remove the image until I hear back from the actor (he has got a blog to interact with fans, and he was the one to post the image there originally). – sgeureka t• c 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, its fine. Thanks for the help. I actually passed the article without so much copyediting. I'm working on the suggestions. -- Efe ( talk) 07:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have finally installed the promised section on Zappa's legacy. Comments are most welcome! Cheers. -- HJensen, talk 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matisse. I was wondering if you could fix the dates to match up with the current MOS in Execution of Lucy and James Sample, like you did for Apple River Fort. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. -- IvoShandor ( talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for reviewing, I have made some edits now. :) Also, how can you not have seen a single Simpsons episode? Have you been living under a rock the past 20 years? ;) TheLeft orium 06:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the feedback. I posted some replies. Nergaal ( talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't my article, I just nominated it for the guy after he accidentally went about it wrong.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review on AT&T Plaza. The article nominator has expanded the article, but I am not yet quite sure if the article should pass. Your comments and opinions on the article would be much appreciated. The article Louvre Abu Dhabi is also in need of a review. If you have time, could you review this article? Thanks in advance, -- Jor dan Contribs 07:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
To let you know, Image:Amerie - 1 Thing - CD 2 cover.jpg, on which you previously commented during the GA for 1 Thing is at IfD. PiracyFundsTerrorism ( talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse! Thanks for the support for the Zappa article that have now become FA, and thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you very, very much for your major work on the previous FAC. You made tons of valuable copy edits and was energetic and supportive all the way through the process. You are a major asset for Wikipedia, and I am exceptionally grateful for your collaborative efforts. I hope that someday I can "repay" your kindness. (I had thought of awarding you some barnstar, but I never really have understood that stuff, and I felt that some honest words were more appropritate.) All the best, -- HJensen, talk 10:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me for eavesdropping; just now went to Malleus's talk and happened upon your aXXo thread. Replied here Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to review the article. I addressed the concern you brought up. When you have a chance, please let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattise, thanks for the copyedits to the page. I've also clarified on the terrorising villagers bit on Talk:Manu Sharma. Do let me know if it makes sense. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've delisted Manu Sharma. It was, in my opinion, way short of the GA criteria. If you don't agree with my decision to delist then we can take it to WP:GAR. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. Although I am not the primary author, I will work on your suggestions. Taprobanus ( talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I have addressed your concerns.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I left a message for you at WT:MEDRS: [4].
If you don't like my offer, and would still prefer to stay away for now, I can understand that. If so, please remember that you can always come back whenever you like!
If instead you choose to try a little longer, that would be excellent, of course. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you add {{ GAR}} to Carrier Air Wing Six? It was just promoted yesterday!!! — the_ ed 17— 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I have sorted all the problems.-- andreasegde ( talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Please accept this notice to join the
Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--
LAA
Fan
sign
review
02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}} |
I'm still working on it. Should be ready by Thursday at the latest. Gary King ( talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse/Archive 16, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop! You're messing up the references. We do not use first names. We use et al if there are six or more authors. You're wiping out changes I just made, and it's messing things up. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I'm done. I kept getting edit conflicts, and I kept losing my edits, and I couldn't figure out why. You really should use this tool. It formats the citations almost perfectly (it makes errors now and again). We do not use full names, and we use last name followed by first name and middle name initials. For example it would be Jones AB, Smith CD, Thomas EF. Commas between names, but not between first and last names. et al is used only when there are 6 or more names. The Diberri tool figures it out perfectly. Why are we anal about this? Partially if we're going to have well-done FA articles, then references should be consistent. Also, it saves space. Putting every name makes the article larger, if there are a lot of references. I think you put in the comment about edited books. If you did, drop me a line, and I can show you how to work with it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. My doubt is if there is additional work to do. I solved all the problems you mentioned but I thought it was strange not to leave the review on hold with only those problems. Could you tell me the other things? Thanks. Tintor2 ( talk) 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yo Mattisse, the remaining nits have been picked and the article awaits your final judgement. Regards, the skomorokh 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. An independent look at this article was exactly what it needed. Thanks for all your suggestion and criticism there. Protonk ( talk) 00:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I hearby award you the Barnstar of Diligence for your tireless copy editing of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism article. Taprobanus ( talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
Mattisse--thanks much for the helpful review and edits at Panic of 1907. I need to be a lot more careful with my commas. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and am very happy with how it's turned out! -- JayHenry ( talk) 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I share most of your concerns about this article, particularly the number and use of long quotations. The relatively large quotes from Orwell I find especially dubious. Ain't We Got Fun? was written in 1921, but The Road to Wigan Pier was written 16 years later, in 1937. So Orwell quoted a few lines from the lyrics of the song? So what? I'd like to see some material on the economic background that existed when the song was written, not during the 1930's depression. I'd also like to see an actual book source given, so that I'd feel more confident the editors appreciated the context of the quotations by having at least skimmed through the book.
As you also say, there seems to be a lot of missing information on context in vaudeville, orchestration, circulation, popularity, cover versions ... not a GA IMO. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your copy-editing on LaRouche criminal trials. You have a good eye for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse! I wanted to submit an article for GA, but I got it peer reviewed. Here's how it was BEFORE, and here's how it is AFTER. Is it better? I'd like your opinion. Thanks a lot! A talk 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times was reviewed (and passed at the same time) a few days ago, so don't worry about that :) As for GAN, I've got two short ones there right now ( Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Survivor), if you want something to review ;) Gary King ( talk) 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing it! I'm going to do some cleaning up like you suggested tomorrow. Thanks again! :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matisse, about 5 1/2 weeks ago you reviewed Marquis de Lafayette for GA class. I thought you may be interested that I have nominated it for FA. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA2. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Matisse - I just saw your post on the review page, and I will respond to it in just a moment. Before you take this article to GAR, would you please consider giving the lead editor and myself time to read your comments, discuss them, and perhaps act on them? After reading your comments, I find that I agree with several of your points, and I will post a reply to that effect on the page in just a minute. However, I believe that this can probably be fixed without going to GAR, if you will be patient for a little while. The lead editor and myself are both active editors, so I promise it won't be too long! If you wish to informally bring in other editors to comment, I would welcome that, but I ask you to please hold off on a formal process. Thanks in advance. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add delisted articles (with strikethroughs) to the recent GAs list. The list is for new GAs ONLY; it is inappropriate and misleading to add delisted GAs to the list. Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, when you delist an article from WP:GA, you need to cite the reasons for delisting. All you did for the Carrier Air Wing Six article was slap a delistedGA tag on it with no actual description or reasons for why you delisted it. I do agree with your decision, however, and have added comments here.
In addition to reasons, if the article uses the {{ ArticleHistory}} template, as well as update any wikiproject class ratings from class=GA to class=B, you need to update that as well. Failing to do so does not remove the article from the GA categories.
It might be best if you reviewed some articles at WP:GAR for awhile to get the hang of the delisting criteria and process instead of boldly delisting,... Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Individual GARs are a minefield, best to stay well clear. ;-) Dr Cash is not entirely correct in his advice to you above though. Wikiproject class ratings are nothing at all to do with GA ratings. Wikiprojects are at liberty to use whatever ratings they like, including GA, but that has nothing to do with the GA process. So when you delist an article you ought not to alter any wikiproject ratings. That's the responsibility of the projects themselves. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
For reasons I've already stated above, it is Malleus that is incorrect. GA and FA class ratings in wikiprojects are NOT to be used for non-GA or non-FA articles. Period. Dr. Cash ( talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Song here. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Matisse thats hardly fair just to say there's no response in 1 day. I have posted a response and explained I'm very busy today and tomorrow but will get to it on Friday. I do actually work for a living you know. Fainites barley 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(copied over from my talk page:) Mattisse, please believe me that I had no intention of pre-determining the outcome of the GAR. As I said, I hadn't even read the article with any great attention when I put it up for GAR. I then read it, and said that in my view it passed. I could well be wrong: I'm willing to be put right.
In saying that the prose was OK but not great, I was thinking precisely of WP:WIAGA which requires of a Good Article that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct." This is a lesser hurdle than the "professional" quality required of an FA. To say this is not a criticism of GA.
Now, again, I could well be wrong with my understanding of the current standards at GA. I have done plenty of GA reviews in my time, but not recently. This is why I pinged Geometryguy, an uninvolved editor who has great experience with GA, whose views I respect enormously. More generally, the point of GAR is to seek comments from the broader community.
Again, if I (or anyone else) wanted to ride roughshod over the GA process, we'd simply have reviewed the article and passed it forthwith. But no: my purpose in putting the article up for GAR was to defuse the conflict, and get a broader spectrum of views.
The purpose was also to separate out the question of the article review from the issue of the block. At GAR, we're judging the article, not the editor (or even the reviewer).
I'm sorry if for you this experience has been "horrible." I certainly have had no intention to "attack" or "bully" you, and indeed have not attacked or bullied you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Mattisse, your second opinion was fine, and I have no complaint with you about this, or as far as I know about anything else. Gimmetrow 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, to comment after reading the above discussion - I didn't pass the attachment article to GA status simply because SandyGeorgia had made a comment about the article being on a path to FA. I was willing to bend a little on one of my comments (regarding citations in the lead) because I didn't want the editor to have to put the citations back in at FAC after pulling them out for me at GA, when in reality it wasn't a bit deal. Overall, I think it is a very nice article (and this is coming from someone who, as I've said before, had very little knowledge in the field). It nicely described the subject, and left me with a clear understanding of the difference between the pseudoscience of attachment therapy and the mainstream therapies that are more commonly (and properly) used. I don't believe that one editor doing most of the work on the article should immediately make you suspicious of that article. I do a lot of solo work on some of my articles, but that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to see someone else's point of view when they pop it onto the talk page.
Now, onto the content you (and I) want removed. From the response that Fainite made to to our comments, it seems that they are more than willing to see our POV. Just because someone is busy in RL and can't get to something until the weekend is not a reason to immediately assume that they are stalling or not wanting to change the article. Let's give this editor a few days to work on the article, especially after their fairly positive response (agreeing with us, politely asking clarification questions, etc) that they gave in their initial reply. At the moment, I am more than happy to give Fainite a few days and see what happens. The article can always be taken to GAR later...it is not a danger to anyone right at the moment, and it is actually a better example of GA-level writing and referencing than many other articles currently listed on the GA page. Dana boomer ( talk) 12:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And just FYI, I'm a she. Dana boomer ( talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I just saw (and responded to) your initiation of a GAR on this article. I am disappointed that you did not give Fainite more time to respond to your concerns before submitting this article to GAR. When you request that editors make major changes to the article (seemingly without warning, as you did not post your concerns in the GAR review, even though the article had been at GAN for over two months and tagged for 2nd review for over a month), you really should give the editor more than a day to respond, and when they ask for a couple of days to make the changes, some leeway should be granted. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(copied from response on editor's page)
You or your bot tagged Morton (SEPTA station) extensivley for a lack of inline citiations, sources, etcetera. Do you think I can remove any of them now? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/2 - properly this time
. --
Avi (
talk)
15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm Dylan, GA nominator of the Rocko's Modern Life article. I was getting tired of waiting for comments on it, so I came to you for a GA review (I chose you over everyone else because the only GA reviews that I've seen so far were by you). If it fails the GA review, I have an additional source [6] given to me by WhisperToMe (a primary contributor to the article), and if that's still not enough, I suggest a peer review, to suggest ideas to improve the article to GA, or in time even FA. -- Dylan620 ( talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for the fixes you made on The Father, the Son, and the Holy Fonz - its been a fantastic help. Cheers, :) Qst ( talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the comments - I have left some replies. Nergaal ( talk) 23:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, you seem to be pretty active at GAN so I figured you might be knowledgeable on this. Anyway, an article I have worked on ( Gunnerkrigg Court) is up for review and 5 days ago a user put it on hold because there were two {{fact}} tags, saying he would start the review once the tags were cleared up. I fixed those issues on the same day, but the user has not begun a review in the 5 days since then; I've sent him a message asking if there is anything else I should do, but have not gotten a response in several days, even though that user has been actively posting in other areas. I thought about removing the "on hold" marker at GAN so that the article could get back in line to be reviewed, but I'm not sure if that would be rude to the user who originally said he would do a review. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on that matter. Thanks, — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
All of the changes you made to Astrophysics Data System were incorrect. The link to Astronomy and Astrophysics [1] is not dead, and the link you changed in the references was from an article in JASIST (correct) to a totally different article in a different journal.
Please change these back.
Best wishes,
Michael Kurtz
Note that I would prefer not to do this myself, as we often point people to the Wikipedia article as an independent view of the ADS, which it would not be if I started writing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkurtz ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_15) - ( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_17}
Thanks for revisiting the FAC discussion. You may have noticed I gave an extensive response to your thoughts on overlinking. I also removed a few links. You did not comment on the issue.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse—good work pointing out the need to remove it from that article, both to reduce clutter and to retain the iconic US formatting of "Sepember 11" (otherwise reversed by many people's prefs). Often nominators won't remove the formatting themselves, but won't object to its removal by someone else. I target the ones that are heavily linked or that are full of dates. It's not mandatory to delined, BTW. Tony (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, Mattisse. In my view, WP has been fooled into using what was essentially a computer programmer's wonkery, developed back in ?2004. The campaign to ween editors off the bright-blue splotch is gathering pace. But we must be careful to target the right articles, at least initially. I go for the ones that are already pretty busy with links. I cleanse all autoformatting, which means month-day and month-day-year. I think people will get upset if only one of these categories is de-lemonned and not the other. We don't want a backlash—you know how resistant to change some WPians can be. Please see the second para here, which I've recently augmented to cover all-or-nothing and a recommendation for the use of hard spaces.
At the very least, removing lemon will allow our high-value links to breathe. And of course, lemon is hopelessly indulgent, since it formats for WPians only, yet forces all of those tens of millions of readers out there to see coloured splotches and underlines. As a reading psychologist, I'm painfully aware of how this makes the reading experience subtlely slower and less satisfying.
We need to keep in mind that MOSNUM doesn't deprecate; it merely no longer encourages lemon. I've already had one person say that it encourages, and had to quote this back at them:
Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.
Another issue that has come up is the need to recommend the insertion of non-breaking ("hard") spaces, although I can cope without, personally. You may be interested in the model text I sometimes paste into FAC or article talk pages, tweaking it for particular contexts:
It was overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting of dates whether autoformatted or not), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it [or "removed the date autoformatting] to allow your high-value links to breathe.
PS, also, if you cleanse an article, it's best to insert an invisible editors' comment at the top: , to forestall any well-meaning reverter who may come along without knowing the new context.
Thank you for the invaluable copyediting you did to the article - it was crucial for the FAC. JonCatalán ( talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You stated the following: "The only reason for linking dates at all was for the autoformatting function. " and a whole bunch of stuff that follows somewhat logically if this is true. However, I am not sure it is true. Can you tell me what do you mean by autoformatting and can dates be linked without autoformatting. I keep seeing dates linked in articles on the main page at WP:TFA and don't know what the fuss is about. For example, look at the first paragraph of yesterday's TFA, Guitar Hero (video game). That has a whole bunch of linked dates. How does autoformatting relate to these dates. Should the be delinked?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattisse, for taking an interest in this article. I've been discussing Steve Pastor's edits with him on his talk page, and I've just linked to there from Talk:Ring shout.
I started the article over a year ago because it was flagged at WikiProject:African diaspora as a needed article. Of course it is not "mine" and I have been hoping others would step in. Right now, though, I feel a little impatient. Would like to step back from the discussion until I regain my cool, so would be obliged if you would continue to give your views. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 16:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A few writers in the 18th century experienced concerns of "madness". Right now, I've been working with SandyGeorgia going over Samuel Johnson. In the 18th century context, "madness" was mostly just an excuse to lock people up, instead of an actual diagnosis as it is today. Now, Christopher Smart's case was more cut forward (see Christopher Smart's alleged madness for about 70% of the information) as there was not enough evidence to really suggest problems. However, Johnson's was more problematic. There were 18th century ideas of "madness" and many reports of actions. Then there are current diagnosis and actual arguments for him having Tourette syndrome. Now, I was thinking of having the 18th century view put into a style like Christopher Smart's, and having the medical view (actual diagnosis based on actual criteria) be given its own page. I was wondering if you could think this over and see if it would really "flow" properly. We are looking for many opinions on this, and I would appreciate yours. Here is where the most recent discussion happened. And excuse the tense language, we are working to move it to an FA and the amount of effort and work put strain on all of us, so, yeah. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse—I've alerted the writer of the script to this issue. Have you used the "import" string alone in a new monobook? Have you added it beneath the existing code in your existing monobook? Tony (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried your monobook setup and it worked for me. What articles did you try using it on? Gimmetrow 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, How are you? I wrote an e-mail to an English professor concerning the scholarly article on death and adjustment. I have sent a Cc copy to you too. Read it and tell me any opinion you might have. Shoovrow ( talk) 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize most people wouldn't care, but your comments made me curious, so I did a little original research and timed my copy of ABC's coverage. I started from the end of Sen. Kennedy's comments to the crowd. If you assume that Kennedy finished speaking at 12:15 PDT and was shot as 12:17, then the timing is as follows:
12:15:00 Kennedy finishes speaking; 12:17:00 Shooting; 12:21:44 Howard K. Smith relays report that Kennedy has been shot; 12:23:20 Live black and white footage of ballroom; 12:24:15 Chilling audio report from KABC's Karl George from the pantry area while Kennedy present, describes Kennedy's removal--picture is still of ballroom; 12:26:42 Live black and white footage from pantry area with Karl George reporting, Kennedy has been removed and other bodies are not shown.
ABC was the first to report the shooting, and it had some compelling interviews from the pantry. If you've seen the CBS and NBC footage (NBC's is available on hulu.com), you know that their footage was much more dramatic, but no one saw theirs for some time, because their color film had to be developed. Compson1 ( talk) 00:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Some 6,000,000 American TV households, most of them in the West and not yet asleep, got a chance to follow the beginning live reportage. [1]
— Mattisse ( Talk) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I corrected a couple of errors in my earlier comments. I don't mean to make a mountain out of a molehill, but Time's timing is incorrect. A have a recording of several hours of ABC's coverage beginning before Kennedy spoke, and ABC was not showing the Ambassador two minutes after the shooting. You may have been watching local coverage on the ABC affiliate, and it may have interrupted its broadcast to switch to ABC for what looked like a bulletin. On ABC's national broadcast, Smith signed off and they then held the studio shot for four and a half minutes while an announcer said, "Please stand by." During that time, ABC was waiting for a second report of the shooting to support information from its own people. Television was more careful then. The broadcast then resumed and Smith advised viewers: "Ladies and gentlemen, we've kept the air on because we've heard an alarming report that Robert Kennedy was shot in that ballroom at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles." Smith broke that news almost seven minutes after Kennedy finished speaking, about five minutes after the shooting. About a minute and a half after Smith first reported the shooting, ABC switched to a camera in the ballroom {not the pantry) and a minute later picked up audio from Karl George in the pantry. ABC definitely beat NBC on the air with the news (I can't time NBC precisely because my copy of NBC's coverage doesn't include Kennedy's speach, but 12:26 sounds about right for its first report of the shooting--four or five minutes after ABC), though NBC provided impressive coverage with its considerable resources in those days of Huntley-Brinkley, Frank McGee, Sander Vanocur, etc. Compson1 ( talk) 01:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
When you do an advanced search on flickr. Check the three boxes in the creative commons section at the bottom and it will isolate WP eligible photos. The best way to understand which individual license types are eligible for WP is to go to Wcommons. Click Upload file. Choose upload flickr. At the top there is an explanation of all license types.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for being a member of
WikiProject Cuba. If you would like to remain as an active member please note so
here, otherwise mark yourself inactive or semi-active. Thank you. |
— Navy Blue formerly iDosh 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey I am still in the middle of revamping. I do sleep you know. It took me a while to find a source for the video sculpture. Also, when I revisited the fountain, I realized the water only spouts for 30 seconds so I had to find a source. I don't know where to put those two paragraphs at the end of selection of the artist. However, the last one had been in critical review where it did not belong. I am headed to the gym. I will get back to work in a couple of hours.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You voiced an opinion against choice #1, without saying which of the other three choices you feel is appropriate.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you see chart positions formatted incorrectly in the prose of any Featured Article, feel free to go ahead and fix them. I distinctly recall fixing the formatting in Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, but not everyone is familiar with the manual of style for chart positions, so occasional fixes need to be made. Also, important to keep in mind is that all numbers ten and lesser should be written out ("reached number two on the Billboard charts") unless in a series. Check out WP:MOS for other things you want to make sure are taken care of in Frank Zappa. I'll take a stab at restructuring the article sometime soon. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits........Just 2 Questions
.How should I make it ^ Karnataka Coastal Project, Duraline Pipes Learning Centre, p. 1, <
http://www.duraline.in/newsletter/Q4%202004%20Newsletter.pdf>. Retrieved on 27 July 2008
replacing pp by p
This article is stuck at the FAC due to these minor issues. If you check WP:FAC the article doesn't even appear there. Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk)
Hi. SandyGeorge has closed the nomination. I made the request for a bit more time to do the legacy section, but the response (on SG's talk page) was that such additions are better donE outside an FAC. Well, I am of course disappointed, in particular by the endless type of comments on the lack of copyediting. You have done so much and others too, and theN still some editors JUST routinely throw off the remark about need for fresh eyes. I could take any FA and pick out ten sentences that needs copyediting if I would, so I think some was a bit quick on the trigger. On the other hand, there were not many offering support for the FAC, so the outcome was to be expected. I will finish the legacy section nevertheless, and then I think the article should be renominated quite soon.! -- HJensen, talk 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Matisse, I can understand that you are frustrated and disappointed by the archival of the FAC nomination for
Frank Zappa. You are doing your cause absolutely no good, however, in disparaging the FAC reviewers. We are only human, and, while I can't speak for all the reviewers, when I feel attacked by a nominator or article supporter, in the future I'm likely going to avoid articles where that person is involved. Why should I spend my time reviewing articles when if I say something someone disagrees with I'll be essentially attacked? Your comments maintaining that there is a clique/a cabal/a huge conspiracy of teenagers to trash excellent articles are insulting. Please
assume good faith and
remain civil. Constructive criticism is a good thing (give suggestions for improvement). Levelling baseless accusations is not. It may be helpful to avoid posting about FAC for a few days until you calm down.
Karanacs (
talk)
19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Our discussion over the past few days has allowed me to clarify my thoughts about wikipedia, and hopefully will help you to see a positive and personally fulfilling way that you can continue to contribute as well. WikiDragons and WikiHermits both need caves to live in, and that's what I've found WikiProjects to be. You can make a far greater difference at GA than you ever could at FAC, which really has become an outstanding example of the law of diminishing returns. Subject specfic projects can help a great deal as well. I'd have left wikipedia in disgust ages ago had it not been for the anchor of the Greater Manchester project. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I looked at the list. Kind of Blue is a possibility (probably the easiest); United States v. LaRouche is a possibility, as I write a lot of legal articles, but the title is all wrong and would have to be changed; Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe is a possibility (but seems like it needs reorganization); Lake Toba; any of the hurricane articles. I want the result to be something calm and pleasant. What do you think? — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice article, and another very competent review. Your FAC experience, painful though it may have been, is obviously paying dividends now. :-)
For me, one of the big differences between FA and GA, and one of its potentially more satisfying features, is the opportunity to roll your sleeves up and get stuck into the article yourself. So whereas you (quite rightly) drew attention to the {{cquote}} I'd just fix it, as I've done. Interestingly it hadn't been done right in the first place anyway. The citation requirement isn't quite so onerous either, so I don't expect to see a citation per statement, but one somewhere in the general area, perhaps at the end of the paragraph, for instance. For direct quotations though, you're quite right, exactly as at FAC. You drew attention in the review to a few examples, and there's that box with a quotation from Jimmy Cobb as well.
It's worth checking the links in the notes as well. Have you come across this tool? [1] At least two of the links look like they're dead. I've transcluded the review onto the article's talk page; not sure why the link at the top wasn't right, but I've fixed that now anyway. Another nice piece of work! -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. You've forgotten to flag the article as being reviewed/on hold on the WP:GAN page. I know it seems like an awful lot to remember at first, but it gets easier. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, will you please check your e-mail and reply by the same! Shoovrow ( talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)You haven't been reverted in Kind of Blue and Let's Get It On, it's just that there are two ways of inserting ndashes. the first is the use the html code, as you did, but some people prefer to choose the dash from the ndash symbol itself, which is the first of the dashes you see under the Do not copy text from other websites ... warning underneath the edit box. The effect is the same identical in either case, just a matter of personal preference. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
&
and &, i.e., no difference at all. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kind of Blue. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Editor437 (
talk)
15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note following your comments at WP:GAC, reviews are generally kept on hold for at least a week. I would give the initial nominator a little more time to address your queries. Peanut4 ( talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your GA review - it was much quicker than I expected! Looks like the backlog at GAN is almost gone. Plasticup T/ C 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, thanks for the review. I'm going to get to it in the next 24 hours. Viriditas ( talk) 10:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, could you finish the review ASAP? I have 2 other GANs to help and an FAC that is sort of struggling. Thank you, -- Lord ₪ Sunday 13:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this article on hold?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the forum reference. I also added a time frame to a couple of statements in the milestones section. I looked over the section, and it all seemed to clarify that the records are as of 2008. I'm a little bothered by the "Records" section, as several of the entries are unreferenced. Looking at the ones without references, though, they all seem to be listcruft that doesn't add anything to the article (Most Seasons by a non-pitcher since 1900???). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Issues have been addressed Gary King ( talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about the WTON article, you failed it because it lacks "critical reception, impact, or importance of this release". However, as I stated, the info isn't there because were lazy, it isn't there becuase I honestly do not think there is any. It contains the chart and sales info, so the only thing left would be reviews. But in 1999, without the internet we have today, how many magazines would review a VHS from somewhat known band, certainly not in the "mainstream" at that time, which contains two music videos and some interviews? There's not a lot there to review. I understand compared to most articles it is lacking, but I don't know what else we can do to it. Black ngold29 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks, been through after another editor (you?). My concerns were as you noticed the choice of words and wording. Ta Edmund Patrick – confer 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)How are you enjoying your GA reviewing? It's a bit different from FAC, I'm sure you'd agree. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Matisse. I'm looking forward to this as IMO this crittter was arguably the most important of the Burgess "weird wonders". I've responded to your initial comments. I've also taken the liberty of ordering the comments under sub-headings, in case we wind up having a lot - hope you don't mind. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your useful input into Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette. The extra pair of eyes and thoughts were very valuable. It passed . Ta. Edmund Patrick – confer 11:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not my article. I think you confused me with the other Gary :) On a side note, feel free to review some of the articles that I nominated :D Gary King ( talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I went through your comments. How does it look now? Nergaal ( talk) 03:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for such a thorough GA review! Emw2012 ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for choosing to review the article; I'm fully aware how much time an article of this size takes to read and review. It appears the article failed FA for no clear reason other than that the reviewers there lacked the time to fully assess it. user:Giants2008 suggested that perhaps the prose could be improved in parts. Internet research is all I've used as there are no books about the sprinter yet. I'll be doing minor prose fixes here and there on the article but it should largely remain static. Hope you have a good read! Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, I wonder if you could have a look this diff on Human bonding. The guy seems to have wiped out just about every theory on the subject. Some of it may be crap, but I can't beleive it all is. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse,
If you're interested, I've nominated for FAC the second half of the FA rongorongo, which you had commented on during its nomination. It's at Decipherment of rongorongo. kwami ( talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have attempted to address your comments, just let me know if there is anything else you would like to see tweaked or altered. -- IvoShandor ( talk) 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, checking up on the permission status of that image has been on my ToDo list forever, and I forgot about it when I started the GAN. I'll remove the image until I hear back from the actor (he has got a blog to interact with fans, and he was the one to post the image there originally). – sgeureka t• c 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, its fine. Thanks for the help. I actually passed the article without so much copyediting. I'm working on the suggestions. -- Efe ( talk) 07:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have finally installed the promised section on Zappa's legacy. Comments are most welcome! Cheers. -- HJensen, talk 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matisse. I was wondering if you could fix the dates to match up with the current MOS in Execution of Lucy and James Sample, like you did for Apple River Fort. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. -- IvoShandor ( talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for reviewing, I have made some edits now. :) Also, how can you not have seen a single Simpsons episode? Have you been living under a rock the past 20 years? ;) TheLeft orium 06:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the feedback. I posted some replies. Nergaal ( talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't my article, I just nominated it for the guy after he accidentally went about it wrong.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review on AT&T Plaza. The article nominator has expanded the article, but I am not yet quite sure if the article should pass. Your comments and opinions on the article would be much appreciated. The article Louvre Abu Dhabi is also in need of a review. If you have time, could you review this article? Thanks in advance, -- Jor dan Contribs 07:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
To let you know, Image:Amerie - 1 Thing - CD 2 cover.jpg, on which you previously commented during the GA for 1 Thing is at IfD. PiracyFundsTerrorism ( talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse! Thanks for the support for the Zappa article that have now become FA, and thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you very, very much for your major work on the previous FAC. You made tons of valuable copy edits and was energetic and supportive all the way through the process. You are a major asset for Wikipedia, and I am exceptionally grateful for your collaborative efforts. I hope that someday I can "repay" your kindness. (I had thought of awarding you some barnstar, but I never really have understood that stuff, and I felt that some honest words were more appropritate.) All the best, -- HJensen, talk 10:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me for eavesdropping; just now went to Malleus's talk and happened upon your aXXo thread. Replied here Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to review the article. I addressed the concern you brought up. When you have a chance, please let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mattise, thanks for the copyedits to the page. I've also clarified on the terrorising villagers bit on Talk:Manu Sharma. Do let me know if it makes sense. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've delisted Manu Sharma. It was, in my opinion, way short of the GA criteria. If you don't agree with my decision to delist then we can take it to WP:GAR. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. Although I am not the primary author, I will work on your suggestions. Taprobanus ( talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I have addressed your concerns.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I left a message for you at WT:MEDRS: [4].
If you don't like my offer, and would still prefer to stay away for now, I can understand that. If so, please remember that you can always come back whenever you like!
If instead you choose to try a little longer, that would be excellent, of course. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you add {{ GAR}} to Carrier Air Wing Six? It was just promoted yesterday!!! — the_ ed 17— 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I have sorted all the problems.-- andreasegde ( talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Please accept this notice to join the
Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--
LAA
Fan
sign
review
02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}} |
I'm still working on it. Should be ready by Thursday at the latest. Gary King ( talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse/Archive 16, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop! You're messing up the references. We do not use first names. We use et al if there are six or more authors. You're wiping out changes I just made, and it's messing things up. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I'm done. I kept getting edit conflicts, and I kept losing my edits, and I couldn't figure out why. You really should use this tool. It formats the citations almost perfectly (it makes errors now and again). We do not use full names, and we use last name followed by first name and middle name initials. For example it would be Jones AB, Smith CD, Thomas EF. Commas between names, but not between first and last names. et al is used only when there are 6 or more names. The Diberri tool figures it out perfectly. Why are we anal about this? Partially if we're going to have well-done FA articles, then references should be consistent. Also, it saves space. Putting every name makes the article larger, if there are a lot of references. I think you put in the comment about edited books. If you did, drop me a line, and I can show you how to work with it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. My doubt is if there is additional work to do. I solved all the problems you mentioned but I thought it was strange not to leave the review on hold with only those problems. Could you tell me the other things? Thanks. Tintor2 ( talk) 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yo Mattisse, the remaining nits have been picked and the article awaits your final judgement. Regards, the skomorokh 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. An independent look at this article was exactly what it needed. Thanks for all your suggestion and criticism there. Protonk ( talk) 00:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I hearby award you the Barnstar of Diligence for your tireless copy editing of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism article. Taprobanus ( talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
Mattisse--thanks much for the helpful review and edits at Panic of 1907. I need to be a lot more careful with my commas. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and am very happy with how it's turned out! -- JayHenry ( talk) 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I share most of your concerns about this article, particularly the number and use of long quotations. The relatively large quotes from Orwell I find especially dubious. Ain't We Got Fun? was written in 1921, but The Road to Wigan Pier was written 16 years later, in 1937. So Orwell quoted a few lines from the lyrics of the song? So what? I'd like to see some material on the economic background that existed when the song was written, not during the 1930's depression. I'd also like to see an actual book source given, so that I'd feel more confident the editors appreciated the context of the quotations by having at least skimmed through the book.
As you also say, there seems to be a lot of missing information on context in vaudeville, orchestration, circulation, popularity, cover versions ... not a GA IMO. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your copy-editing on LaRouche criminal trials. You have a good eye for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse! I wanted to submit an article for GA, but I got it peer reviewed. Here's how it was BEFORE, and here's how it is AFTER. Is it better? I'd like your opinion. Thanks a lot! A talk 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times was reviewed (and passed at the same time) a few days ago, so don't worry about that :) As for GAN, I've got two short ones there right now ( Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Survivor), if you want something to review ;) Gary King ( talk) 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing it! I'm going to do some cleaning up like you suggested tomorrow. Thanks again! :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matisse, about 5 1/2 weeks ago you reviewed Marquis de Lafayette for GA class. I thought you may be interested that I have nominated it for FA. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA2. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Matisse - I just saw your post on the review page, and I will respond to it in just a moment. Before you take this article to GAR, would you please consider giving the lead editor and myself time to read your comments, discuss them, and perhaps act on them? After reading your comments, I find that I agree with several of your points, and I will post a reply to that effect on the page in just a minute. However, I believe that this can probably be fixed without going to GAR, if you will be patient for a little while. The lead editor and myself are both active editors, so I promise it won't be too long! If you wish to informally bring in other editors to comment, I would welcome that, but I ask you to please hold off on a formal process. Thanks in advance. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add delisted articles (with strikethroughs) to the recent GAs list. The list is for new GAs ONLY; it is inappropriate and misleading to add delisted GAs to the list. Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, when you delist an article from WP:GA, you need to cite the reasons for delisting. All you did for the Carrier Air Wing Six article was slap a delistedGA tag on it with no actual description or reasons for why you delisted it. I do agree with your decision, however, and have added comments here.
In addition to reasons, if the article uses the {{ ArticleHistory}} template, as well as update any wikiproject class ratings from class=GA to class=B, you need to update that as well. Failing to do so does not remove the article from the GA categories.
It might be best if you reviewed some articles at WP:GAR for awhile to get the hang of the delisting criteria and process instead of boldly delisting,... Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Individual GARs are a minefield, best to stay well clear. ;-) Dr Cash is not entirely correct in his advice to you above though. Wikiproject class ratings are nothing at all to do with GA ratings. Wikiprojects are at liberty to use whatever ratings they like, including GA, but that has nothing to do with the GA process. So when you delist an article you ought not to alter any wikiproject ratings. That's the responsibility of the projects themselves. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
For reasons I've already stated above, it is Malleus that is incorrect. GA and FA class ratings in wikiprojects are NOT to be used for non-GA or non-FA articles. Period. Dr. Cash ( talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Song here. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Matisse thats hardly fair just to say there's no response in 1 day. I have posted a response and explained I'm very busy today and tomorrow but will get to it on Friday. I do actually work for a living you know. Fainites barley 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(copied over from my talk page:) Mattisse, please believe me that I had no intention of pre-determining the outcome of the GAR. As I said, I hadn't even read the article with any great attention when I put it up for GAR. I then read it, and said that in my view it passed. I could well be wrong: I'm willing to be put right.
In saying that the prose was OK but not great, I was thinking precisely of WP:WIAGA which requires of a Good Article that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct." This is a lesser hurdle than the "professional" quality required of an FA. To say this is not a criticism of GA.
Now, again, I could well be wrong with my understanding of the current standards at GA. I have done plenty of GA reviews in my time, but not recently. This is why I pinged Geometryguy, an uninvolved editor who has great experience with GA, whose views I respect enormously. More generally, the point of GAR is to seek comments from the broader community.
Again, if I (or anyone else) wanted to ride roughshod over the GA process, we'd simply have reviewed the article and passed it forthwith. But no: my purpose in putting the article up for GAR was to defuse the conflict, and get a broader spectrum of views.
The purpose was also to separate out the question of the article review from the issue of the block. At GAR, we're judging the article, not the editor (or even the reviewer).
I'm sorry if for you this experience has been "horrible." I certainly have had no intention to "attack" or "bully" you, and indeed have not attacked or bullied you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Mattisse, your second opinion was fine, and I have no complaint with you about this, or as far as I know about anything else. Gimmetrow 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, to comment after reading the above discussion - I didn't pass the attachment article to GA status simply because SandyGeorgia had made a comment about the article being on a path to FA. I was willing to bend a little on one of my comments (regarding citations in the lead) because I didn't want the editor to have to put the citations back in at FAC after pulling them out for me at GA, when in reality it wasn't a bit deal. Overall, I think it is a very nice article (and this is coming from someone who, as I've said before, had very little knowledge in the field). It nicely described the subject, and left me with a clear understanding of the difference between the pseudoscience of attachment therapy and the mainstream therapies that are more commonly (and properly) used. I don't believe that one editor doing most of the work on the article should immediately make you suspicious of that article. I do a lot of solo work on some of my articles, but that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to see someone else's point of view when they pop it onto the talk page.
Now, onto the content you (and I) want removed. From the response that Fainite made to to our comments, it seems that they are more than willing to see our POV. Just because someone is busy in RL and can't get to something until the weekend is not a reason to immediately assume that they are stalling or not wanting to change the article. Let's give this editor a few days to work on the article, especially after their fairly positive response (agreeing with us, politely asking clarification questions, etc) that they gave in their initial reply. At the moment, I am more than happy to give Fainite a few days and see what happens. The article can always be taken to GAR later...it is not a danger to anyone right at the moment, and it is actually a better example of GA-level writing and referencing than many other articles currently listed on the GA page. Dana boomer ( talk) 12:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And just FYI, I'm a she. Dana boomer ( talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I just saw (and responded to) your initiation of a GAR on this article. I am disappointed that you did not give Fainite more time to respond to your concerns before submitting this article to GAR. When you request that editors make major changes to the article (seemingly without warning, as you did not post your concerns in the GAR review, even though the article had been at GAN for over two months and tagged for 2nd review for over a month), you really should give the editor more than a day to respond, and when they ask for a couple of days to make the changes, some leeway should be granted. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(copied from response on editor's page)
You or your bot tagged Morton (SEPTA station) extensivley for a lack of inline citiations, sources, etcetera. Do you think I can remove any of them now? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/2 - properly this time
. --
Avi (
talk)
15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm Dylan, GA nominator of the Rocko's Modern Life article. I was getting tired of waiting for comments on it, so I came to you for a GA review (I chose you over everyone else because the only GA reviews that I've seen so far were by you). If it fails the GA review, I have an additional source [6] given to me by WhisperToMe (a primary contributor to the article), and if that's still not enough, I suggest a peer review, to suggest ideas to improve the article to GA, or in time even FA. -- Dylan620 ( talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for the fixes you made on The Father, the Son, and the Holy Fonz - its been a fantastic help. Cheers, :) Qst ( talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the comments - I have left some replies. Nergaal ( talk) 23:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, you seem to be pretty active at GAN so I figured you might be knowledgeable on this. Anyway, an article I have worked on ( Gunnerkrigg Court) is up for review and 5 days ago a user put it on hold because there were two {{fact}} tags, saying he would start the review once the tags were cleared up. I fixed those issues on the same day, but the user has not begun a review in the 5 days since then; I've sent him a message asking if there is anything else I should do, but have not gotten a response in several days, even though that user has been actively posting in other areas. I thought about removing the "on hold" marker at GAN so that the article could get back in line to be reviewed, but I'm not sure if that would be rude to the user who originally said he would do a review. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on that matter. Thanks, — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
All of the changes you made to Astrophysics Data System were incorrect. The link to Astronomy and Astrophysics [1] is not dead, and the link you changed in the references was from an article in JASIST (correct) to a totally different article in a different journal.
Please change these back.
Best wishes,
Michael Kurtz
Note that I would prefer not to do this myself, as we often point people to the Wikipedia article as an independent view of the ADS, which it would not be if I started writing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkurtz ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)