![]() | 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. |
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 7, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 7, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The River Parrett flows through the counties of Dorset and Somerset in South West England, from its source in the Thorney Mills springs in the hills around Chedington in Dorset. Flowing northwest through Somerset and the Somerset Levels to its mouth at Burnham-on-Sea, into the Bridgwater Bay Nature Reserve on the Bristol Channel, the Parrett drains about 50 per cent of Somerset's land area. The 37-mile (60 km) long river is tidal for 27 miles (43 km) up to Oath. Because the fall of the river between Langport and Bridgwater is only 1 foot per mile (0.2 m/km), it is prone to frequent flooding in winter and during high tides. During the Roman era the river was crossed by a ford, and in Anglo-Saxon times formed a boundary between Wessex and Dumnonia. From the medieval period the river served the Port of Bridgwater, enabling cargoes to be transported inland. The arrival of the railways led to a decline and commercial shipping now only docks at Dunball. The Parrett along with its connected waterways and network of drains supports an ecosystem that includes several rare species of flora and fauna. The River Parrett Trail has been established along the banks of the river. ( more...)
You did a GA review of St. John's and said that the intro needed to be re-wrote for it to pass. I tried to get someone to re-write it but had no luck, I started to attempt it myself and I was wondering if you could give me some suggestions. What I have wrote so far is in my Sandbox, I have two paragraphs completed and wanted to do a third on the economy. I was wondering if you could check over what I have got written and possibly give me some guidance on where to go from here. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 20:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, re this cat change - putting G&SWR is one that I considered carefully. According to this map, the joint line ended within Gilmour Street station. According to Butt (p.180), Gilmour Street was opened by the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock & Ayr Railway (which was of course the direct ancestor of the G&SWR), and at Grouping was owned by the Glasgow & South Western. It's likely (almost certain) that the Caley trains to Greenock (etc.) called at Gilmour Street, but that doesn't imply joint ownership of the station itself. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Pyrotec: this review seems to have stalled. Is there some way I may be able to help with access to referecnes or in some other way? I am going to have little time for Wikipedia for the next couple of weeks. Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 16:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec. Just a word of gratitude for your GA review of the Mantra-Rock Dance article that became one of the article's milestones on its way to a TFA appearance slotted for July 16. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! | |
Thank you for taking the time and effort to award GA status to
Tefillin! Much appreciated! Chesdovi ( talk) 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC) |
Greetings Pyrotec! Thanks so much for the pass and the hold extension; I needed it. I'll be sure to fix those other issues asap. Cheers! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 22:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed you are taking this GA review. Since Racepacket has been banned for a year, I am not sure there is anyone to address any problems you might find. Best regards. -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ein Avdat/GA2. It appears that there are some copyright issues in that article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for undertaking the review of the ship canal. It's been a long while in the writing, and a bit of relief now to have that little green blob. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec! It's been a while, but Harry Randall Truman been's sitting at GAN for quite a while now, and I figured it could use a decent review from someone I trust as a reviewer. If you are able to find time, it would be fantastic if you could review it! ceran thor 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Ceranthor, I can review it, but it will be fifth in a queue five, so it might not be started for few days. Pyrotec ( talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, going down the list of sources, this one is used several times Phil Plait. "The Planet X Saga: Nancy Lieder". badastronomy.com, so throwing it into DD gives [1] that there's one match of a string of 204 characters/40 words. Which raises alarm bells. But checking back it seems that at least a portion of it is a quote being used in the article. Just to make sure, I throw the quote into a character counter and see that it's 210 chars, which means that this is indeed a false positive. The subsequent matches are 6 words or less so they're not copyvios.
Then go on to the next source which is used several times in the article: [2]. In DD: [3]. The first match is 14 words but its obvious that this is the citation title so not a copyvio. The next longest match is 8 words, "could be seen only from the south pole", but you can see immediately from the words around the bolded text that they're different from each other so that one's also ok. This one basically could use a little bit more rewording but it's minor.
Check two more that are used more than once: [4] DD and again it's easy to see that the longest match is to the actual citation. And [5] DD - this has a 14 word match but checking back in the article, it's another quotation, so ok.
So that's only 4 sources out of 54 and only about 10 citations but it looks like it checks out. Of course all 54 citations could be checked and that *would* take much longer than 10 minutes but, again, this is just meant as a spot check done to pick up the most obvious instances of copyvios. It's quite possible that something was missed.
Together with the writing of this message on your talk page this took me about 13 minutes.
Btw, I don't know what the standards for this kind of subject are, but with this article it seems like the main problem is the reliability of sources rather than copyvios. This for example appears to be a blog. But it's a weird subject so I guess you'll get weird sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, Pyrotec! I was wondering if you might do me a favor. I am under the impression that you're a native speaker of British English.... I myself am a Yank, and though I can recognize "colour" and "aluminium" well enough I'm still a bit rusty on the details. I am reviewing the GA nomination for Tiverton Preedy, and I'm a bit unsure about the word choice and tone. The prose seems stodgy to me in places, old fashioned, but I'm not sure if that isn't just the way I hear proper British English. Things like:
In your opinion, are these sorts of phrasings (a) perfectly correct for an encyclopedia article in British English, (b) a little quirky but not too much of a problem for GA status, or (c) problems that need to be fixed. Thanks for any advice, – Quadell ( talk) 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I read your comment here - that problem is usually caused by the appropriate language packs being disabled (see Tools>Add-ons) or not being installed (see [6]). Hope this helps :) EyeSerene talk 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thanks kindly for your GA review of Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, and consistent positive attitude! Ma®©usBritish talk 23:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
Would you mind providing a second opinion on the GA review of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador? I've been fairly liberal with suggested changes, particularly in the lead section. So I thought it best to invite another pair of eyes to take a look. I'm currently requesting four corrections, marked on the talk page with "Important" boxes. The rest of the article seems okay and I'm leaning toward GA if the "important" items are corrected. Folklore1 ( talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive work in Chief Mechanical Engineer. I especially appreciate "officers from the Corps" as a great improvement over my "royal engineer". While most everyone else (including me) is bickering about style, you are contributing real substance. Joja lozzo 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
My interpretation of WP:POINT is to apply policy in ways that are absurd or inappropriate. I am not trying to make such any point by applying the policy for job titles to the CME article. I am simply applying an unambiguous policy that titles are only capitalized when followed by a persons name, whether they are normally capitalized in the workplace or not. This applies equally to kings, emperors, popes and chief mechanical engineers. That's not disrupting the project and your accusation that I am doing so is inaccurate and edging close to uncivil. Joja lozzo 23:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Firstly I wanted to extend my sincere thanks for reviewing the above article and for awarding it a GA status. I have spent the best part of 2 and a half years researching it and feel like I have eventually reached the halfway point at last! Just a quick question. Now the article has reached GA I am very keen to start heading in the direction of FA. I have looked back at the GA review and feel encouraged by your comments that you consider this article to have FA potential. You have said that the filmography sections could do with some refs in order to head towards FA status. I wanted to know if you think its a good idea adding some refs to the filmography section using BFI (British Film Institute). Is this a good source? I will steer clear from IMDB most certainly. Your thoughts? Cassianto ( talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 7, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 7, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The River Parrett flows through the counties of Dorset and Somerset in South West England, from its source in the Thorney Mills springs in the hills around Chedington in Dorset. Flowing northwest through Somerset and the Somerset Levels to its mouth at Burnham-on-Sea, into the Bridgwater Bay Nature Reserve on the Bristol Channel, the Parrett drains about 50 per cent of Somerset's land area. The 37-mile (60 km) long river is tidal for 27 miles (43 km) up to Oath. Because the fall of the river between Langport and Bridgwater is only 1 foot per mile (0.2 m/km), it is prone to frequent flooding in winter and during high tides. During the Roman era the river was crossed by a ford, and in Anglo-Saxon times formed a boundary between Wessex and Dumnonia. From the medieval period the river served the Port of Bridgwater, enabling cargoes to be transported inland. The arrival of the railways led to a decline and commercial shipping now only docks at Dunball. The Parrett along with its connected waterways and network of drains supports an ecosystem that includes several rare species of flora and fauna. The River Parrett Trail has been established along the banks of the river. ( more...)
You did a GA review of St. John's and said that the intro needed to be re-wrote for it to pass. I tried to get someone to re-write it but had no luck, I started to attempt it myself and I was wondering if you could give me some suggestions. What I have wrote so far is in my Sandbox, I have two paragraphs completed and wanted to do a third on the economy. I was wondering if you could check over what I have got written and possibly give me some guidance on where to go from here. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 20:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, re this cat change - putting G&SWR is one that I considered carefully. According to this map, the joint line ended within Gilmour Street station. According to Butt (p.180), Gilmour Street was opened by the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock & Ayr Railway (which was of course the direct ancestor of the G&SWR), and at Grouping was owned by the Glasgow & South Western. It's likely (almost certain) that the Caley trains to Greenock (etc.) called at Gilmour Street, but that doesn't imply joint ownership of the station itself. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Pyrotec: this review seems to have stalled. Is there some way I may be able to help with access to referecnes or in some other way? I am going to have little time for Wikipedia for the next couple of weeks. Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 16:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec. Just a word of gratitude for your GA review of the Mantra-Rock Dance article that became one of the article's milestones on its way to a TFA appearance slotted for July 16. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! | |
Thank you for taking the time and effort to award GA status to
Tefillin! Much appreciated! Chesdovi ( talk) 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC) |
Greetings Pyrotec! Thanks so much for the pass and the hold extension; I needed it. I'll be sure to fix those other issues asap. Cheers! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 22:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed you are taking this GA review. Since Racepacket has been banned for a year, I am not sure there is anyone to address any problems you might find. Best regards. -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ein Avdat/GA2. It appears that there are some copyright issues in that article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for undertaking the review of the ship canal. It's been a long while in the writing, and a bit of relief now to have that little green blob. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec! It's been a while, but Harry Randall Truman been's sitting at GAN for quite a while now, and I figured it could use a decent review from someone I trust as a reviewer. If you are able to find time, it would be fantastic if you could review it! ceran thor 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Ceranthor, I can review it, but it will be fifth in a queue five, so it might not be started for few days. Pyrotec ( talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, going down the list of sources, this one is used several times Phil Plait. "The Planet X Saga: Nancy Lieder". badastronomy.com, so throwing it into DD gives [1] that there's one match of a string of 204 characters/40 words. Which raises alarm bells. But checking back it seems that at least a portion of it is a quote being used in the article. Just to make sure, I throw the quote into a character counter and see that it's 210 chars, which means that this is indeed a false positive. The subsequent matches are 6 words or less so they're not copyvios.
Then go on to the next source which is used several times in the article: [2]. In DD: [3]. The first match is 14 words but its obvious that this is the citation title so not a copyvio. The next longest match is 8 words, "could be seen only from the south pole", but you can see immediately from the words around the bolded text that they're different from each other so that one's also ok. This one basically could use a little bit more rewording but it's minor.
Check two more that are used more than once: [4] DD and again it's easy to see that the longest match is to the actual citation. And [5] DD - this has a 14 word match but checking back in the article, it's another quotation, so ok.
So that's only 4 sources out of 54 and only about 10 citations but it looks like it checks out. Of course all 54 citations could be checked and that *would* take much longer than 10 minutes but, again, this is just meant as a spot check done to pick up the most obvious instances of copyvios. It's quite possible that something was missed.
Together with the writing of this message on your talk page this took me about 13 minutes.
Btw, I don't know what the standards for this kind of subject are, but with this article it seems like the main problem is the reliability of sources rather than copyvios. This for example appears to be a blog. But it's a weird subject so I guess you'll get weird sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, Pyrotec! I was wondering if you might do me a favor. I am under the impression that you're a native speaker of British English.... I myself am a Yank, and though I can recognize "colour" and "aluminium" well enough I'm still a bit rusty on the details. I am reviewing the GA nomination for Tiverton Preedy, and I'm a bit unsure about the word choice and tone. The prose seems stodgy to me in places, old fashioned, but I'm not sure if that isn't just the way I hear proper British English. Things like:
In your opinion, are these sorts of phrasings (a) perfectly correct for an encyclopedia article in British English, (b) a little quirky but not too much of a problem for GA status, or (c) problems that need to be fixed. Thanks for any advice, – Quadell ( talk) 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I read your comment here - that problem is usually caused by the appropriate language packs being disabled (see Tools>Add-ons) or not being installed (see [6]). Hope this helps :) EyeSerene talk 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thanks kindly for your GA review of Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, and consistent positive attitude! Ma®©usBritish talk 23:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
Would you mind providing a second opinion on the GA review of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador? I've been fairly liberal with suggested changes, particularly in the lead section. So I thought it best to invite another pair of eyes to take a look. I'm currently requesting four corrections, marked on the talk page with "Important" boxes. The rest of the article seems okay and I'm leaning toward GA if the "important" items are corrected. Folklore1 ( talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive work in Chief Mechanical Engineer. I especially appreciate "officers from the Corps" as a great improvement over my "royal engineer". While most everyone else (including me) is bickering about style, you are contributing real substance. Joja lozzo 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
My interpretation of WP:POINT is to apply policy in ways that are absurd or inappropriate. I am not trying to make such any point by applying the policy for job titles to the CME article. I am simply applying an unambiguous policy that titles are only capitalized when followed by a persons name, whether they are normally capitalized in the workplace or not. This applies equally to kings, emperors, popes and chief mechanical engineers. That's not disrupting the project and your accusation that I am doing so is inaccurate and edging close to uncivil. Joja lozzo 23:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Firstly I wanted to extend my sincere thanks for reviewing the above article and for awarding it a GA status. I have spent the best part of 2 and a half years researching it and feel like I have eventually reached the halfway point at last! Just a quick question. Now the article has reached GA I am very keen to start heading in the direction of FA. I have looked back at the GA review and feel encouraged by your comments that you consider this article to have FA potential. You have said that the filmography sections could do with some refs in order to head towards FA status. I wanted to know if you think its a good idea adding some refs to the filmography section using BFI (British Film Institute). Is this a good source? I will steer clear from IMDB most certainly. Your thoughts? Cassianto ( talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)