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. |
Hey. I saw a thread on brianBoulton's page about checking hundreds of cites for missing values. I could easily whip up a little Python script that would do it, then share its results with you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I was asked and pinged to come here, but I'm not sure what exactly we're discussing – a link and/or more of a description would be helpful. In the meantime, Lingzhi, I can suggest that you might be able to run python scripts from WMF servers rather than your own laptop using Toolforge. - Evad37 [ talk 09:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) I would enjoy learning javascript and enjoy doing this, but the problem is that I will be traveling for 10 days starting about a week from now, and I'll probably be busy this week. After I return, it shouldn't take more than a day or so to finish it. If you know one programming language, others come much easier (except for Perl, which the UN should declare illegal for mental health reasons). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
.citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
to
Special:MyPage/common.css
Lingzhi ♦
(talk) 14:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) I left him a message. I hope he/she has the time to help (probably a he, "Dave" I assume). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be quite keen on assessing articles. While you are at it, why don't you join the Wikipedia:WikiCup? Might be fun.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the past couple of reviews. It literally takes months for some of these. I've been pretty low key lately except coming back to edit these GAs. I have one more left, Nani Alapai. Are you interested in taking a look at it? Thanks either way.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? It has already attracted a fair amount of commentary, but I think that one or two more comments from other contributors would be helpful. This will be my last FAC for a while, so I will not bother you about another one for a while lol. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for all your efforts in assessing articles for GA! Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC) |
If you get a chance pls add my script to your common.is and look at my sandbox again. I see one glitch that comes and goes, plus a sort problem because it puts de Camp last. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is no way to know if a website has a publisher or not. Aside from that it seems ready to go..Oh I also doesn't check for inconsistent date formats. I'll look at that later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I seem to recall a script used in PR that writes its output to the PR page... could you point it out, or its author, to me? Thanks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I am not sure whether you got the ping at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward the Elder#Source review by Lingzhi. Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike, as an uninvolved editor of the Final Destination 3 article, would you be willing to give comments on its FAR here? I read from the nominator's talk page during its first stab at FA that you were about to give it a prose review, which it badly needs right now IMO, only to find the candidacy withdrawn for some reason. Perhaps it's your chance to do it now while it's still awaiting comments from the coordinators. Regards, Slightly mad 07:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Fantastic (magazine) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 15, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for "probably the only magazine launched as a result of the Korean War. The war caused Ziff-Davis to cancel a proposed relaunch of Amazing Stories, and the plans were reformulated a couple of years later to launch a quality fantasy magazine. It lasted for twenty-eight years, making it one of the more durable science fiction and fantasy magazines, and was instrumental in popularizing the sword and sorcery genre."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes I'm trying to learn PHP (it's gonna take a while, also need to lear CSS). Yes I'll try to help with Legobot if I can. I have added a new variable to the script (if you're still using it, let me know if there are any problems with "Caution: Missing ref= anchor?" Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mike -- Thanks for your assistance with the Kimberly Anyadike article. I've been too busy with work over the past couple of days to properly respond to the GA re-review, but it looks like you and Codyorb have sorted everything out. I appreciate your time! Alanna the Brave ( talk) 16:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey you requested a warning for unarchived links. Now I actually ran IABot and even checked the box for adding archive links to OK links, but it all came up with nothing added. So, is archiving mainly for links that are already dead? Is it even worth keeping this error msg? I am tempted to remove it. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Duh! (Palm whacks forehead.) Sorry. Georgejdorner ( talk) 22:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Know where any are? Right now esp. interested in those reltaed to K-pop; trying to help a FAC first-timer etc. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
For all your work tirelessly reviewing GA nominations and thus helping with the backlog. It's as if whenever the bot updates the page, your name pops up multiple times. Keep it up! Regards So Why 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
The article is currently a GA nominee so if you would like to review it, feel free to do so. LovelyGirl7 talk 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike, if the article fails (which unfortunately think it will be based on recent comments) could you provide Flowerpiep a hand for a possible second nomination similar to 1989 in Naruto? My prose is not very good since English is not my first language so I only try working on GAs after asking help from the guild of copyeditors. Flowerpiep is a quite experienced edits with FA so I think he needs helps for such a big nomination and I fear I can't help him. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, this GA review appears to have been opened by someone who had a single issue with the article, rather than by someone who intended to do a complete GA review. They haven't edited on Wikipedia since January 5, which means this has very little chance of being completed anyway. I was wondering whether you would be willing to take over this review, since it seems to have been abandoned. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
My script is in relatively good shape; I killed a few bugs and added little more functionality. Sorry, I can't do Legobot, no more work on my script unless someone asks. I will be preoccupied with other issues, as I may have mentioned in a previous discussion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
My experience commenting on the Sasuke Uchiha FAC has pretty much confirmed that I'm not cut out for it. It just becomes that thing of listing problems and the editors dutifully addressing them and asking you to support. It's like having someone else brush your teeth. My urge is always to just go in and completely rewrite everything myself. (I mean no disrespect to the editors working hard on that article - it's nothing specific to those guys.) Popcornduff ( talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Owers sandbanks detail map 1780.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned map.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 21:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mike. I have nominated University of Washington station at FAC and I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. It hasn't been particularly popular with reviewers, so I am reaching out to editors who have reviewed my previous transit FACs for feedback. Thanks. Sounder Bruce 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.
Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I've addressed the issues on Talk:Time to Get Tough/GA1 and Talk:Midas Touch (book)/GA1. I sought assistance from the Donald Trump project on Talk:Why We Want You to Be Rich/GA1, but I don't know if it'll help any. If you want to fail it, I will re-nominate if it gets fixed. If you want to review Trump Revealed, I'd be happy to try my hand at it as well. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Amazing Stories Quarterly article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 10, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 10, 2018. Hope you're doing well.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for "a companion to the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. Critical opinions differ as to its quality: "important" according to one source, with the same work being described as "turgid" by another."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Ice drilling: 13,151 words; 686 edits, creating 248,593 bytes, 99.6% of the article...an unbelievable, incredible but inspring feat. Fantastic work. Thank you very much for it. —SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 15:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC) |
Mike Christie, this GA review has been open for 196 days. The reviewer hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two months, and was infrequently editing prior to that due to family health issues (see the review itself). I think it's time that someone else took over and finished this; I can't imagine that the reviewer will mind under the circumstances, and six months is far too long for a review to be dragged out. Do you think you could give this a look and see whether it's in your wheelhouse, and if you think you could finish it up? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, pardon if this comes at an inappropriate time, but you might remember that you did help me a while ago with the Lake Tauca article when I was trying to bring it to FA standard before giving up owing to a difficult-to-solve source usage problem you identified. I was thinking of trying again, this time with Tutupaca since that is an easier & more observational topic, and wanted to know if you think that the prose used in that article (I am going to ask elsewhere about sources and such) would be appropriate for a FA candidacy, seeing as you are one of the foremost prose reviewers in FAC I've seen. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
But my views on the wikiprojects wanting to help isn't really high. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources - they list about.com as a situational source. To be perfectly honest, about.com isn't even considered WP:RS - you'd struggle to get anyone at the RS noticeboard to agree to use about.com. Or this blog, which they recommend. Quite frankly, while YOU do look at sources as well as prose, I think you're the only one. When I was doing source reviews, I often felt that the pressure was on me to conform so that the people who had already supported wouldn't look bad. Some of the things that burned me out were Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Destination 3/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred Shout/archive1, and the twin Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2. You know me, we've known each other a long time, I'm not one to cry sexism. But the JV thing really really screamed sexism. Not just with the article either, but with the other participants. I can't speak for @ SlimVirgin:, but during those two FACs, I often felt less than fully supported by other reviewers. To be honest, I felt that way with Alfred Shout also. THen there's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia/archive1 - where we run into the problem of older sources. And where three very good mil-hist editors didn't even see the issue until I brought it up (and these aren't bad editors, they are great editors!) And again... And Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Bush/archive1, where I even had to argue with Brian about relying too heavily on a book written by the wife of the subject... Too many people at FAC still don't consider sourcing as important as prose. That's my opinion. And unfortunately, it's the feeling that you get as a source reviewer... that you're an impediment on the way to that fancy star and that rather than approaching the idea of sourcing as the bedrock of the article, the idea is to just do enough to get by. It's a blind spot and its going to take something, I don't know what, to get through to people that sources are the bedrock of an article. Prose is just the window-dressing. And I don't think making lists of sources that are okay is the solution - way back in the beginning of me doing source reviews under Sandy, I did that, and all i got me was people relying on that list rather than looking for better sources. (That's what happened with Jill Valentine - the editors used VG's list and didn't bother doing a further look into other sources ... that's a big problem with specialised lists for subjects - it makes folks neglect other possible sources). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I would also say that, other than Ealdgyth and perhaps going back to Awadewit, no one else really checks sources. I often had to hold up a FAC promotion while I screamed about bad sourcing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, and I apologize for interrupting the more serious conversation above my comment. I just wanted to thank you for all of the advice that you have given me through my FACs. I still remember when you first helped me during my first FAC for " Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" way back in July-August 2016 (sidebar: I cannot believe that much time has already passed). I will most likely continue to put articles through the FAC process, though I will probably stop doing reviews as I do not feel experienced or good enough to do them (especially given all of the discussion at the talk page there). Either way, just wanted to thank you as you have been a good help to me! Aoba47 ( talk) 23:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I am trying to implement a "consistent" reference/citation style. I was having a difficult time following the foot notes to the actual references. I am aware of the consistent style standard. I did not know that it extended to "method". I am not aware of a citation style that uses titles, only ones that use authors/date. I have seen many automated updates that change style or methods, e.g. automatically retrieving archive pages. Using a consistent method allows for easier updates.
I am working on another article, Battle of the Alamo, where I am also implementing "sfnp", this does not change the style, only the method, and it links the footnotes to the cited references. Also there were several references that were implement with a different style/method than most of the others.
I ran into a short article that consistently used bare URLs. Now I wonder if filling them out was correct. ;-) User-duck ( talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie. Unfortunately, I think the bot is having trouble adding the GA symbol to the top of article and combining the templates to signal multiple reviews. Would changing the template on the talk page of the article fix the problem, or is something else going on? Thanks again for the review. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your feedback over here.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018
Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
On 19 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane was praised by critics for its portrayal of strong and healthy sibling relationships? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Famous Fantastic Mysteries article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 18, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Wikipedia. Can you understand Thai? If so, I would like to have some input for a FA nomination of the article "Thailand" in the local wiki. Thanks. -- Horus ( talk) 13:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Wonder Stories has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 24, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, the nomination for Talk:2016 FIA Formula One World Championship/GA1 just passed the one-year mark, and original reviewer Harrias, who opened the review back in mid-November, has had very little activity of late, to the point of giving up on their own GA nomination.
I was hoping you might be able to take this one on. I'm not sure how much work might be left to do, but those issues that have been pointed out have been worked on. If this is not a good time, please let me know. Thanks for everything you've done this year. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the GA reviews that I dropped – life has got pretty hectic at the moment! Harrias talk 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Fantasy Book article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 6, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 6, 2018.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. An old bug that you reported was just resolved (if effects aren't visible, they'll be later this week). Please let us know (there, if possible) if things aren't working as they should/expected. Best, Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, this review has gotten stalled: the initial pass, by a new reviewer, was reversed, and it's been sitting there without anyone giving it a second review. I don't imagine this one will be too time-consuming, though I don't want to make any promises. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, you may remember that you assisted me on my work on pushing Tutupaca towards featured article status since . That article has not been passed so far but I was thinking that if it does, Taapaca may be another article to work on for FAC (it is currently at GAN but since I've already overloaded that process, sending it elsewhere would be no issue). I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a gander to the Taapaca article and see if it has some non-trivial issues to fix or only needs little prep work. Cheers! Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Mike, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this GA review, which was by a first-time reviewer who seemed to be approving it despite apparently not having checked for OR or copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and who also stated, I may recommend for another user to review this as well.
The review was posted on April 2 and never closed, nor was there ever a comment after the nominator confirmed adding the requested wikilinks the next day. I hope this is something you can review, as they were probably going to suggest. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC? I would be more than happy to review anything in return for your help. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on this topic.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I've started a talk page discussion, to which you may be interested in contributing. All the best, ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 08:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I have a quick question about my current FAC. During the source review, a user questioned whether or not NewNowNext is a high-quality reliable source ( here is the source in question). I was wondering if you could help determine the answer to this? I believe that when the source review is completed, the FAC would be ready for promotion. If necessary, I can remove the source from the article. Here is a link to the site's "About Us" page, which includes a list of its editors. I have posted a message on RSN a few days ago; while I understand that it may take time to get a response, I am concerned that it may be buried and ignored under other messages. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018
Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for Wonder Stories, "one of the earliest science fiction magazines"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's ice drilling, which "will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how to get through two miles of ice and bring back useful scientific information while doing it"! Cooling ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I've nominated Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography at FLC after overhauling it completely. While I've gotten a lot of helpful comments on the formatting, there hasn't been much review of the prose, and as one of our resident Sci-Fi experts, I wonder if you could take a look to see whether I've done the topic justice. Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Science-Fiction Plus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 10, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the article "about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray." -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I've scheduled Tales of Wonder (magazine) to appear on the main page as today's featured article on 25 August 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, pardon for pestering you so early again after the last time but I am wondering if you could take a gander at the prose of Wōdejebato I was thinking of sending it to FAC if Ubinas passed. Some of the comments on Ubinas's FAC gave me the impression that I still need some help at times with prose issues. Thanks in advance! Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are doing well, and I apologize for always messaging you about random topics. I am currently on a wikibreak, though I have recently expanded the Leah LaBelle article. I would like to put this article through the FAC process after my wikibreak. I was wondering if you could provide me with some pointers on how to find an image for the infobox. I attempted to upload an image, but it has already been deleted. Apologies again for the intrusion. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 01:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. Can you take a look at Jebel Irhoud. An editor keeps changing it in the text to Jebel Ighud, although so far as I can see it is always Irhoud in the sources. I have pointed out to them that if they think it is wrong they should propose a name change, not make the text different from the article title. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the removal of "heavy metal" from the infobox at Back in Black? Dan56 ( talk) 00:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I checked on a number of GA reviews that appear to have been stalled or abandoned, and there are two that need a new reviewer that I was hoping you could look at when you get a chance.
The first is Talk:Danny Newton/GA1; as you can see at User talk:BlueMoonset#Talk:Danny Newton/GA1, the editor who opened the review merely meant to comment on it (it was their first GA "review") and won't be returning to it, so it's been sitting there since being opened on May 8. That's a long time to wait.
The second is Talk:Warren P. Mason/GA1, which hasn't been posted to since the beginning of June. The reviewer has given up (see here for the reason why), so it's not going to get any further review from that quarter.
In both cases, they're happy to give over to another reviewer, so there shouldn't be any issue with you doing the reviews going forward. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. You know the drill. Hope you're doing well.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. I was thinking about possibly putting the Leah LaBelle article through the FAC process in the future, but I am uncertain about how it would fare. I cannot find much information on LaBelle's activities from 2014 until her death in January 2018, and I am concerned that would negatively impact its chances for an FAC. I was wondering if you could provide your opinion about this article in terms of a potential FAC? Apologies again for always asking you random questions. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for Tales of Wonder, the "first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018
Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not want to derail the conversation there at all, so asking here. The article passed A-Class review so it is close to FAC ready, but I had a few things I need to modify. I was going to wait until I was done with Glenn, but if you want it ready soon (end of weekend?) I can start working on it tonight. Let me know! Kees08 (Talk) 19:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll be utterly frank here (and it's not necessarily any one editor's fault that the FACs were so nasty, so I don't want to imply that it can be blamed on any one editor) but that first Jill Valentine FAC was a big contributing factor in why I'm not exactly interested in doing source reviews (a few others after it played into it also). There's no denying I am obscenely busy in RL ... but source reviewing used to mostly be interesting and rewarding. It didn't usually involve nastiness that wasn't reined in by the coords. Instead, now, it feels like no support is given and thus... I just don't need the stress and aggravation. Again, it wasn't just the JV FAC, and it wasn't just any particular editor at that FAC, but it did not help at all. Nor did the notes on my talk page that seemed to demand that I had to revisit the issue... nor was I thrilled that the coords told the nominators at later FACs that they needed to nag me to get me back to the FAC... when it was pretty clear I wasn't interested. That was REALLY annoying... I volunteer and the source reviews are definitely something I volunteered to do... and then over the years it seemed like everyone just expected me (and later Brian) to carry all the load so they didn't have to bother with figuring out whether something was well sourced or not. To put it bluntly, I felt (and still feel) very very much like I was taken for granted. And after a while, even a willing mule will protest and stop. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Amazing Stories article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 13, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! Apologies for always leaving random messages on your talk page. I am thinking about scaling back on new Wikipedia projects in the near future to focus more on off-Wikipedia activities (i.e. looking for work, doing my own creative writing, etc.). I have been toying around with possibly working on an article on a novel, and I was wondering if you could link an examples of high-quality articles that I could use as an example. Would something like The Left Hand of Darkness or The Hunger Games (novel) be an appropriate model? I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 07:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I apologize for always messaging you. I hope that I am not too much of a pain for you. I have been having mixed luck during the FAC process. I do not want to sound negative though, as I appreciate receiving constructive criticism, and I will hopefully try to do better in the future. I am considering a FAC for The Beautician and the Beast. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments and/or suggestions prior to the nomination to hopefully be successful with the process. I understand if you do not have the time or energy. I hope you are having a wonderful start of your week! Aoba47 ( talk) 04:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I just got pinged on my talk page by someone whose GA review has been abandoned. Reviewer QatarStarsLeague started a number of GA reviews in mid-August, finished some, and then vanished; it's not the first time that they have done this, though they eventually resurface a number of months later. (They made one edit in mid-September, but not with regard to their incomplete reviews.)
I was wondering whether you might be able to take over Talk:Reptiles in culture/GA1, which was opened and reviewed on August 14, the issues addressed later that same day, but the reviewer never reappeared. That's the most crucial one.
Of the other two I can find that were opened but not concluded, one was already taken over by another reviewer and completed, and the other was put back into the pool for a new reviewer by the nominator. (It's Talk:Henri-Thomas Lokondo/GA1, if you were interested in doing it; otherwise, someone else will eventually open the GA2 review page and continue from there.)
Thanks as always for any help you can give; if now is not a good time, then I'll probably just put the Reptiles in culture nomination back in the pool myself. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories, described "... about two science fiction magazines that have perhaps the most confusing bibliographic history of any magazines I've ever come across. They each bore the name of the other magazine at different points in their lives. The editor, Robert W. Lowndes, at one point suggested that sorting out the bibliographic details was no more confusing than understanding alternate time tracks. Normally I would create a separate article for each of these titles, but in this case I think it makes no sense to try to separate them. Lowndes managed to do wonders with the shoestring budget he was given by the publisher; the magazines never led the field, but were well-liked by their readers. They finally ceased publication in 1960, victims of a magazine distributor who abruptly abandoned the publisher's entire magazine chain."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Æthelbald of Mercia! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. An editor is going round redefining 'extinct' in Hominini and other articles. See Talk:Hominini#Not extinct. I do not see any point in getting into an edit war but leaving his edits in will mean inconsistencies both within and between many articles. Any views? Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'm opposing your recent proposal. I have nothing against you as an editor and I think your heart is in the right place. My concern is that it's not worth creating a new process when the existing process requires fact-checking and that requirement is honored in the breach as most of our editors prefer to pick over picayune MoS minutiae rather than the meat and potatoes of checking books out of the library. If you wanted to create a process, you'd have to actually design something rigorous; otherwise, you could simply fix FAC to put fact-checking at the start. It doesn't matter because nobody does fact-checking, Wikipedia is too partisan, and nobody holds their fellow editors accountable until a fight breaks out. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Aldfrith northern map.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned map.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Wiglaf of Mercia - 25 November 2018... you know the drill. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018
French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. I have recently opened an AfD and a reviewer cast a keep vote based on the following essay ( Wikipedia:CONSONANTS). I am uncertain if this essay is an attempt at trolling or created with a legitimate belief in its argument. I think that we can both agree that whether or not something has "a high proportion of consonants" has not bearing on whether it is real or notable. My question is: Is there a way to do an AfD for an essay, or draw attention to it to gather a consensus on whether it really belongs on here? Aoba47 ( talk) 06:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for coordinating Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC. Great idea, great topic of discussion, pressing issue, and of broad interest to many people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Mike Christie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Planar transmission line has been nominated as a Featured Article. Comments can be left on the nomination page. I am sending this message to everyone involved in previously reviewing the article. For those that are not familiar with the FA process, articles only become featured if multiple editors say they support its promotion, so your participation is important. Thanks, Spinning Spark 14:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey. I saw a thread on brianBoulton's page about checking hundreds of cites for missing values. I could easily whip up a little Python script that would do it, then share its results with you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I was asked and pinged to come here, but I'm not sure what exactly we're discussing – a link and/or more of a description would be helpful. In the meantime, Lingzhi, I can suggest that you might be able to run python scripts from WMF servers rather than your own laptop using Toolforge. - Evad37 [ talk 09:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) I would enjoy learning javascript and enjoy doing this, but the problem is that I will be traveling for 10 days starting about a week from now, and I'll probably be busy this week. After I return, it shouldn't take more than a day or so to finish it. If you know one programming language, others come much easier (except for Perl, which the UN should declare illegal for mental health reasons). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
.citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
to
Special:MyPage/common.css
Lingzhi ♦
(talk) 14:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) I left him a message. I hope he/she has the time to help (probably a he, "Dave" I assume). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be quite keen on assessing articles. While you are at it, why don't you join the Wikipedia:WikiCup? Might be fun.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the past couple of reviews. It literally takes months for some of these. I've been pretty low key lately except coming back to edit these GAs. I have one more left, Nani Alapai. Are you interested in taking a look at it? Thanks either way.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? It has already attracted a fair amount of commentary, but I think that one or two more comments from other contributors would be helpful. This will be my last FAC for a while, so I will not bother you about another one for a while lol. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for all your efforts in assessing articles for GA! Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC) |
If you get a chance pls add my script to your common.is and look at my sandbox again. I see one glitch that comes and goes, plus a sort problem because it puts de Camp last. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is no way to know if a website has a publisher or not. Aside from that it seems ready to go..Oh I also doesn't check for inconsistent date formats. I'll look at that later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I seem to recall a script used in PR that writes its output to the PR page... could you point it out, or its author, to me? Thanks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I am not sure whether you got the ping at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward the Elder#Source review by Lingzhi. Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike, as an uninvolved editor of the Final Destination 3 article, would you be willing to give comments on its FAR here? I read from the nominator's talk page during its first stab at FA that you were about to give it a prose review, which it badly needs right now IMO, only to find the candidacy withdrawn for some reason. Perhaps it's your chance to do it now while it's still awaiting comments from the coordinators. Regards, Slightly mad 07:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Fantastic (magazine) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 15, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for "probably the only magazine launched as a result of the Korean War. The war caused Ziff-Davis to cancel a proposed relaunch of Amazing Stories, and the plans were reformulated a couple of years later to launch a quality fantasy magazine. It lasted for twenty-eight years, making it one of the more durable science fiction and fantasy magazines, and was instrumental in popularizing the sword and sorcery genre."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes I'm trying to learn PHP (it's gonna take a while, also need to lear CSS). Yes I'll try to help with Legobot if I can. I have added a new variable to the script (if you're still using it, let me know if there are any problems with "Caution: Missing ref= anchor?" Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mike -- Thanks for your assistance with the Kimberly Anyadike article. I've been too busy with work over the past couple of days to properly respond to the GA re-review, but it looks like you and Codyorb have sorted everything out. I appreciate your time! Alanna the Brave ( talk) 16:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey you requested a warning for unarchived links. Now I actually ran IABot and even checked the box for adding archive links to OK links, but it all came up with nothing added. So, is archiving mainly for links that are already dead? Is it even worth keeping this error msg? I am tempted to remove it. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Duh! (Palm whacks forehead.) Sorry. Georgejdorner ( talk) 22:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Know where any are? Right now esp. interested in those reltaed to K-pop; trying to help a FAC first-timer etc. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
For all your work tirelessly reviewing GA nominations and thus helping with the backlog. It's as if whenever the bot updates the page, your name pops up multiple times. Keep it up! Regards So Why 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
The article is currently a GA nominee so if you would like to review it, feel free to do so. LovelyGirl7 talk 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike, if the article fails (which unfortunately think it will be based on recent comments) could you provide Flowerpiep a hand for a possible second nomination similar to 1989 in Naruto? My prose is not very good since English is not my first language so I only try working on GAs after asking help from the guild of copyeditors. Flowerpiep is a quite experienced edits with FA so I think he needs helps for such a big nomination and I fear I can't help him. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, this GA review appears to have been opened by someone who had a single issue with the article, rather than by someone who intended to do a complete GA review. They haven't edited on Wikipedia since January 5, which means this has very little chance of being completed anyway. I was wondering whether you would be willing to take over this review, since it seems to have been abandoned. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
My script is in relatively good shape; I killed a few bugs and added little more functionality. Sorry, I can't do Legobot, no more work on my script unless someone asks. I will be preoccupied with other issues, as I may have mentioned in a previous discussion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
My experience commenting on the Sasuke Uchiha FAC has pretty much confirmed that I'm not cut out for it. It just becomes that thing of listing problems and the editors dutifully addressing them and asking you to support. It's like having someone else brush your teeth. My urge is always to just go in and completely rewrite everything myself. (I mean no disrespect to the editors working hard on that article - it's nothing specific to those guys.) Popcornduff ( talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Owers sandbanks detail map 1780.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned map.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 21:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mike. I have nominated University of Washington station at FAC and I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. It hasn't been particularly popular with reviewers, so I am reaching out to editors who have reviewed my previous transit FACs for feedback. Thanks. Sounder Bruce 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.
Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I've addressed the issues on Talk:Time to Get Tough/GA1 and Talk:Midas Touch (book)/GA1. I sought assistance from the Donald Trump project on Talk:Why We Want You to Be Rich/GA1, but I don't know if it'll help any. If you want to fail it, I will re-nominate if it gets fixed. If you want to review Trump Revealed, I'd be happy to try my hand at it as well. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Amazing Stories Quarterly article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 10, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 10, 2018. Hope you're doing well.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for "a companion to the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. Critical opinions differ as to its quality: "important" according to one source, with the same work being described as "turgid" by another."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Ice drilling: 13,151 words; 686 edits, creating 248,593 bytes, 99.6% of the article...an unbelievable, incredible but inspring feat. Fantastic work. Thank you very much for it. —SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 15:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC) |
Mike Christie, this GA review has been open for 196 days. The reviewer hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two months, and was infrequently editing prior to that due to family health issues (see the review itself). I think it's time that someone else took over and finished this; I can't imagine that the reviewer will mind under the circumstances, and six months is far too long for a review to be dragged out. Do you think you could give this a look and see whether it's in your wheelhouse, and if you think you could finish it up? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, pardon if this comes at an inappropriate time, but you might remember that you did help me a while ago with the Lake Tauca article when I was trying to bring it to FA standard before giving up owing to a difficult-to-solve source usage problem you identified. I was thinking of trying again, this time with Tutupaca since that is an easier & more observational topic, and wanted to know if you think that the prose used in that article (I am going to ask elsewhere about sources and such) would be appropriate for a FA candidacy, seeing as you are one of the foremost prose reviewers in FAC I've seen. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
But my views on the wikiprojects wanting to help isn't really high. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources - they list about.com as a situational source. To be perfectly honest, about.com isn't even considered WP:RS - you'd struggle to get anyone at the RS noticeboard to agree to use about.com. Or this blog, which they recommend. Quite frankly, while YOU do look at sources as well as prose, I think you're the only one. When I was doing source reviews, I often felt that the pressure was on me to conform so that the people who had already supported wouldn't look bad. Some of the things that burned me out were Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Destination 3/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred Shout/archive1, and the twin Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2. You know me, we've known each other a long time, I'm not one to cry sexism. But the JV thing really really screamed sexism. Not just with the article either, but with the other participants. I can't speak for @ SlimVirgin:, but during those two FACs, I often felt less than fully supported by other reviewers. To be honest, I felt that way with Alfred Shout also. THen there's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia/archive1 - where we run into the problem of older sources. And where three very good mil-hist editors didn't even see the issue until I brought it up (and these aren't bad editors, they are great editors!) And again... And Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Bush/archive1, where I even had to argue with Brian about relying too heavily on a book written by the wife of the subject... Too many people at FAC still don't consider sourcing as important as prose. That's my opinion. And unfortunately, it's the feeling that you get as a source reviewer... that you're an impediment on the way to that fancy star and that rather than approaching the idea of sourcing as the bedrock of the article, the idea is to just do enough to get by. It's a blind spot and its going to take something, I don't know what, to get through to people that sources are the bedrock of an article. Prose is just the window-dressing. And I don't think making lists of sources that are okay is the solution - way back in the beginning of me doing source reviews under Sandy, I did that, and all i got me was people relying on that list rather than looking for better sources. (That's what happened with Jill Valentine - the editors used VG's list and didn't bother doing a further look into other sources ... that's a big problem with specialised lists for subjects - it makes folks neglect other possible sources). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I would also say that, other than Ealdgyth and perhaps going back to Awadewit, no one else really checks sources. I often had to hold up a FAC promotion while I screamed about bad sourcing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, and I apologize for interrupting the more serious conversation above my comment. I just wanted to thank you for all of the advice that you have given me through my FACs. I still remember when you first helped me during my first FAC for " Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" way back in July-August 2016 (sidebar: I cannot believe that much time has already passed). I will most likely continue to put articles through the FAC process, though I will probably stop doing reviews as I do not feel experienced or good enough to do them (especially given all of the discussion at the talk page there). Either way, just wanted to thank you as you have been a good help to me! Aoba47 ( talk) 23:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I am trying to implement a "consistent" reference/citation style. I was having a difficult time following the foot notes to the actual references. I am aware of the consistent style standard. I did not know that it extended to "method". I am not aware of a citation style that uses titles, only ones that use authors/date. I have seen many automated updates that change style or methods, e.g. automatically retrieving archive pages. Using a consistent method allows for easier updates.
I am working on another article, Battle of the Alamo, where I am also implementing "sfnp", this does not change the style, only the method, and it links the footnotes to the cited references. Also there were several references that were implement with a different style/method than most of the others.
I ran into a short article that consistently used bare URLs. Now I wonder if filling them out was correct. ;-) User-duck ( talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie. Unfortunately, I think the bot is having trouble adding the GA symbol to the top of article and combining the templates to signal multiple reviews. Would changing the template on the talk page of the article fix the problem, or is something else going on? Thanks again for the review. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your feedback over here.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018
Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
On 19 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane was praised by critics for its portrayal of strong and healthy sibling relationships? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Famous Fantastic Mysteries article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 18, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Wikipedia. Can you understand Thai? If so, I would like to have some input for a FA nomination of the article "Thailand" in the local wiki. Thanks. -- Horus ( talk) 13:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Wonder Stories has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 24, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, the nomination for Talk:2016 FIA Formula One World Championship/GA1 just passed the one-year mark, and original reviewer Harrias, who opened the review back in mid-November, has had very little activity of late, to the point of giving up on their own GA nomination.
I was hoping you might be able to take this one on. I'm not sure how much work might be left to do, but those issues that have been pointed out have been worked on. If this is not a good time, please let me know. Thanks for everything you've done this year. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the GA reviews that I dropped – life has got pretty hectic at the moment! Harrias talk 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Fantasy Book article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 6, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 6, 2018.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. An old bug that you reported was just resolved (if effects aren't visible, they'll be later this week). Please let us know (there, if possible) if things aren't working as they should/expected. Best, Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, this review has gotten stalled: the initial pass, by a new reviewer, was reversed, and it's been sitting there without anyone giving it a second review. I don't imagine this one will be too time-consuming, though I don't want to make any promises. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, you may remember that you assisted me on my work on pushing Tutupaca towards featured article status since . That article has not been passed so far but I was thinking that if it does, Taapaca may be another article to work on for FAC (it is currently at GAN but since I've already overloaded that process, sending it elsewhere would be no issue). I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a gander to the Taapaca article and see if it has some non-trivial issues to fix or only needs little prep work. Cheers! Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Mike, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this GA review, which was by a first-time reviewer who seemed to be approving it despite apparently not having checked for OR or copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and who also stated, I may recommend for another user to review this as well.
The review was posted on April 2 and never closed, nor was there ever a comment after the nominator confirmed adding the requested wikilinks the next day. I hope this is something you can review, as they were probably going to suggest. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC? I would be more than happy to review anything in return for your help. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on this topic.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I've started a talk page discussion, to which you may be interested in contributing. All the best, ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 08:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I have a quick question about my current FAC. During the source review, a user questioned whether or not NewNowNext is a high-quality reliable source ( here is the source in question). I was wondering if you could help determine the answer to this? I believe that when the source review is completed, the FAC would be ready for promotion. If necessary, I can remove the source from the article. Here is a link to the site's "About Us" page, which includes a list of its editors. I have posted a message on RSN a few days ago; while I understand that it may take time to get a response, I am concerned that it may be buried and ignored under other messages. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018
Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for Wonder Stories, "one of the earliest science fiction magazines"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's ice drilling, which "will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how to get through two miles of ice and bring back useful scientific information while doing it"! Cooling ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I've nominated Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography at FLC after overhauling it completely. While I've gotten a lot of helpful comments on the formatting, there hasn't been much review of the prose, and as one of our resident Sci-Fi experts, I wonder if you could take a look to see whether I've done the topic justice. Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Science-Fiction Plus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 10, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the article "about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray." -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I've scheduled Tales of Wonder (magazine) to appear on the main page as today's featured article on 25 August 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, pardon for pestering you so early again after the last time but I am wondering if you could take a gander at the prose of Wōdejebato I was thinking of sending it to FAC if Ubinas passed. Some of the comments on Ubinas's FAC gave me the impression that I still need some help at times with prose issues. Thanks in advance! Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are doing well, and I apologize for always messaging you about random topics. I am currently on a wikibreak, though I have recently expanded the Leah LaBelle article. I would like to put this article through the FAC process after my wikibreak. I was wondering if you could provide me with some pointers on how to find an image for the infobox. I attempted to upload an image, but it has already been deleted. Apologies again for the intrusion. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 01:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. Can you take a look at Jebel Irhoud. An editor keeps changing it in the text to Jebel Ighud, although so far as I can see it is always Irhoud in the sources. I have pointed out to them that if they think it is wrong they should propose a name change, not make the text different from the article title. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the removal of "heavy metal" from the infobox at Back in Black? Dan56 ( talk) 00:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I checked on a number of GA reviews that appear to have been stalled or abandoned, and there are two that need a new reviewer that I was hoping you could look at when you get a chance.
The first is Talk:Danny Newton/GA1; as you can see at User talk:BlueMoonset#Talk:Danny Newton/GA1, the editor who opened the review merely meant to comment on it (it was their first GA "review") and won't be returning to it, so it's been sitting there since being opened on May 8. That's a long time to wait.
The second is Talk:Warren P. Mason/GA1, which hasn't been posted to since the beginning of June. The reviewer has given up (see here for the reason why), so it's not going to get any further review from that quarter.
In both cases, they're happy to give over to another reviewer, so there shouldn't be any issue with you doing the reviews going forward. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. You know the drill. Hope you're doing well.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. I was thinking about possibly putting the Leah LaBelle article through the FAC process in the future, but I am uncertain about how it would fare. I cannot find much information on LaBelle's activities from 2014 until her death in January 2018, and I am concerned that would negatively impact its chances for an FAC. I was wondering if you could provide your opinion about this article in terms of a potential FAC? Apologies again for always asking you random questions. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for Tales of Wonder, the "first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018
Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not want to derail the conversation there at all, so asking here. The article passed A-Class review so it is close to FAC ready, but I had a few things I need to modify. I was going to wait until I was done with Glenn, but if you want it ready soon (end of weekend?) I can start working on it tonight. Let me know! Kees08 (Talk) 19:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll be utterly frank here (and it's not necessarily any one editor's fault that the FACs were so nasty, so I don't want to imply that it can be blamed on any one editor) but that first Jill Valentine FAC was a big contributing factor in why I'm not exactly interested in doing source reviews (a few others after it played into it also). There's no denying I am obscenely busy in RL ... but source reviewing used to mostly be interesting and rewarding. It didn't usually involve nastiness that wasn't reined in by the coords. Instead, now, it feels like no support is given and thus... I just don't need the stress and aggravation. Again, it wasn't just the JV FAC, and it wasn't just any particular editor at that FAC, but it did not help at all. Nor did the notes on my talk page that seemed to demand that I had to revisit the issue... nor was I thrilled that the coords told the nominators at later FACs that they needed to nag me to get me back to the FAC... when it was pretty clear I wasn't interested. That was REALLY annoying... I volunteer and the source reviews are definitely something I volunteered to do... and then over the years it seemed like everyone just expected me (and later Brian) to carry all the load so they didn't have to bother with figuring out whether something was well sourced or not. To put it bluntly, I felt (and still feel) very very much like I was taken for granted. And after a while, even a willing mule will protest and stop. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Amazing Stories article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 13, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! Apologies for always leaving random messages on your talk page. I am thinking about scaling back on new Wikipedia projects in the near future to focus more on off-Wikipedia activities (i.e. looking for work, doing my own creative writing, etc.). I have been toying around with possibly working on an article on a novel, and I was wondering if you could link an examples of high-quality articles that I could use as an example. Would something like The Left Hand of Darkness or The Hunger Games (novel) be an appropriate model? I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 07:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! I apologize for always messaging you. I hope that I am not too much of a pain for you. I have been having mixed luck during the FAC process. I do not want to sound negative though, as I appreciate receiving constructive criticism, and I will hopefully try to do better in the future. I am considering a FAC for The Beautician and the Beast. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments and/or suggestions prior to the nomination to hopefully be successful with the process. I understand if you do not have the time or energy. I hope you are having a wonderful start of your week! Aoba47 ( talk) 04:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I just got pinged on my talk page by someone whose GA review has been abandoned. Reviewer QatarStarsLeague started a number of GA reviews in mid-August, finished some, and then vanished; it's not the first time that they have done this, though they eventually resurface a number of months later. (They made one edit in mid-September, but not with regard to their incomplete reviews.)
I was wondering whether you might be able to take over Talk:Reptiles in culture/GA1, which was opened and reviewed on August 14, the issues addressed later that same day, but the reviewer never reappeared. That's the most crucial one.
Of the other two I can find that were opened but not concluded, one was already taken over by another reviewer and completed, and the other was put back into the pool for a new reviewer by the nominator. (It's Talk:Henri-Thomas Lokondo/GA1, if you were interested in doing it; otherwise, someone else will eventually open the GA2 review page and continue from there.)
Thanks as always for any help you can give; if now is not a good time, then I'll probably just put the Reptiles in culture nomination back in the pool myself. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories, described "... about two science fiction magazines that have perhaps the most confusing bibliographic history of any magazines I've ever come across. They each bore the name of the other magazine at different points in their lives. The editor, Robert W. Lowndes, at one point suggested that sorting out the bibliographic details was no more confusing than understanding alternate time tracks. Normally I would create a separate article for each of these titles, but in this case I think it makes no sense to try to separate them. Lowndes managed to do wonders with the shoestring budget he was given by the publisher; the magazines never led the field, but were well-liked by their readers. They finally ceased publication in 1960, victims of a magazine distributor who abruptly abandoned the publisher's entire magazine chain."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Æthelbald of Mercia! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike. An editor is going round redefining 'extinct' in Hominini and other articles. See Talk:Hominini#Not extinct. I do not see any point in getting into an edit war but leaving his edits in will mean inconsistencies both within and between many articles. Any views? Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'm opposing your recent proposal. I have nothing against you as an editor and I think your heart is in the right place. My concern is that it's not worth creating a new process when the existing process requires fact-checking and that requirement is honored in the breach as most of our editors prefer to pick over picayune MoS minutiae rather than the meat and potatoes of checking books out of the library. If you wanted to create a process, you'd have to actually design something rigorous; otherwise, you could simply fix FAC to put fact-checking at the start. It doesn't matter because nobody does fact-checking, Wikipedia is too partisan, and nobody holds their fellow editors accountable until a fight breaks out. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Aldfrith northern map.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned map.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Wiglaf of Mercia - 25 November 2018... you know the drill. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018
French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. I have recently opened an AfD and a reviewer cast a keep vote based on the following essay ( Wikipedia:CONSONANTS). I am uncertain if this essay is an attempt at trolling or created with a legitimate belief in its argument. I think that we can both agree that whether or not something has "a high proportion of consonants" has not bearing on whether it is real or notable. My question is: Is there a way to do an AfD for an essay, or draw attention to it to gather a consensus on whether it really belongs on here? Aoba47 ( talk) 06:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for coordinating Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC. Great idea, great topic of discussion, pressing issue, and of broad interest to many people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Mike Christie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Planar transmission line has been nominated as a Featured Article. Comments can be left on the nomination page. I am sending this message to everyone involved in previously reviewing the article. For those that are not familiar with the FA process, articles only become featured if multiple editors say they support its promotion, so your participation is important. Thanks, Spinning Spark 14:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)