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. |
| ||||
|
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
for a patient and thorough and educational history lesson, above and beyond the call of duty here. Pyrotec has persistently worked to improve Wikipedia with Good Article reviewing, but I am not competent to award a Reviewer's Barnstar. Instead I award the original Barnstar because I am competent to recognize a kind and I think successful effort to improve the understanding of an unenlightened editor. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can you review this?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for performing 8 reviews during the November/December 2012 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks for reviewing. Unless you didn't already know, the GA2 was withdrawn because of the quality of the review. I expected it to be reviewed in the same way as other GA-listed articles; John Dundas (RAF officer), Eric Lock, Hans-Joachim Marseille etc etc. The inexperienced reviewer was not following G.A nom' guidelines, hence why we're here. He was asking for the deletion of material that was 'inclusion-standard' in other G.A fighter ace reviews. This is the first instance I have had like this. There might be some issues with the second paragraph, but I struggled to find a great deal on him so I've pursued a strategy of inclusion and added everything I could though appreciate somethings may have to be modified. Thanks again. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If you have time, could you take a look at So God Made a Farmer and point out any improvements that can be made? I nominated it for a GA review, but would like to get as many issues fixed as possible beforehand. Ryan Vesey 23:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
Hi, can you review this one?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Yo are very welcome to express your point of view regarding the featured editorial :) I will take a look at your draft tonight and will give you a more thorough response by then. Thanks for showing interest on that editorial and I'm glad if you can, instead of adding it to the "discuss this story" section, add it inside the editorial as your own perspective. Or maybe, we can have your draft as next month's editorial.What do you think? Regards. — ΛΧΣ 21 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up, I've found the time to go through the sources you suggested and complete the GA review articles. I've left comments on the review page itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
You don't have enough of these for the amount of work you do in this area. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hey Pyrotec; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As an experienced GA reviewer would you be willing to take a look at (& possibly comment on) the attribution/sourcing issue at Talk:Monmouth Rebellion/GA1?— Rod talk 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 04:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, Pyrotec, but if you could either update the page "Good article statistics" or tell me how to do so, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty new here, so I don't know how to do it. I saw in the history that you were the last one to update the page, so I thought you might know how to go about doing so. Thank you. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If I have the approximate number of good articles at 0:00 UTC on 1 March and 1 April (16,915 and 17,167, respectively), should I just put those numbers in and make a note that they are approximate? I guess the problem might be finding the total number of articles and the number of featured articles. What do you think? AmericanLemming ( talk) 00:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the GA table now, but I didn't realize that the FA statistics table gives the total number of articles. I just guessed what the total number of articles was using Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia and interpolating, so at some point you or I should fix that. The tables do agree; it's just that the GA table is based on the beginning on the month, whereas the FA table is based on the end of the month. AmericanLemming ( talk) 04:44, 3 April 2013 (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. |
| ||||
|
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
for a patient and thorough and educational history lesson, above and beyond the call of duty here. Pyrotec has persistently worked to improve Wikipedia with Good Article reviewing, but I am not competent to award a Reviewer's Barnstar. Instead I award the original Barnstar because I am competent to recognize a kind and I think successful effort to improve the understanding of an unenlightened editor. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can you review this?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for performing 8 reviews during the November/December 2012 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks for reviewing. Unless you didn't already know, the GA2 was withdrawn because of the quality of the review. I expected it to be reviewed in the same way as other GA-listed articles; John Dundas (RAF officer), Eric Lock, Hans-Joachim Marseille etc etc. The inexperienced reviewer was not following G.A nom' guidelines, hence why we're here. He was asking for the deletion of material that was 'inclusion-standard' in other G.A fighter ace reviews. This is the first instance I have had like this. There might be some issues with the second paragraph, but I struggled to find a great deal on him so I've pursued a strategy of inclusion and added everything I could though appreciate somethings may have to be modified. Thanks again. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If you have time, could you take a look at So God Made a Farmer and point out any improvements that can be made? I nominated it for a GA review, but would like to get as many issues fixed as possible beforehand. Ryan Vesey 23:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
Hi, can you review this one?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Yo are very welcome to express your point of view regarding the featured editorial :) I will take a look at your draft tonight and will give you a more thorough response by then. Thanks for showing interest on that editorial and I'm glad if you can, instead of adding it to the "discuss this story" section, add it inside the editorial as your own perspective. Or maybe, we can have your draft as next month's editorial.What do you think? Regards. — ΛΧΣ 21 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up, I've found the time to go through the sources you suggested and complete the GA review articles. I've left comments on the review page itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
You don't have enough of these for the amount of work you do in this area. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hey Pyrotec; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As an experienced GA reviewer would you be willing to take a look at (& possibly comment on) the attribution/sourcing issue at Talk:Monmouth Rebellion/GA1?— Rod talk 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 04:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, Pyrotec, but if you could either update the page "Good article statistics" or tell me how to do so, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty new here, so I don't know how to do it. I saw in the history that you were the last one to update the page, so I thought you might know how to go about doing so. Thank you. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If I have the approximate number of good articles at 0:00 UTC on 1 March and 1 April (16,915 and 17,167, respectively), should I just put those numbers in and make a note that they are approximate? I guess the problem might be finding the total number of articles and the number of featured articles. What do you think? AmericanLemming ( talk) 00:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the GA table now, but I didn't realize that the FA statistics table gives the total number of articles. I just guessed what the total number of articles was using Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia and interpolating, so at some point you or I should fix that. The tables do agree; it's just that the GA table is based on the beginning on the month, whereas the FA table is based on the end of the month. AmericanLemming ( talk) 04:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)