Hi BritneyErotica! I noticed your contributions to Trisha Paytas and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 15:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey BritneyErotica, I was reviewing Talk:Federalist No. 5/GA1 for the GA drive and noticed that you haven't mentioned which references you checked in the review. Could you please confirm whether you conducted a source review before passing the article? — Golden talk 07:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for the concern. I realised I didn't make explicit comment but I did spot check at least four of the most inline cited. All links are live. I confirmed citation [9] with appropriate page numbers and engagement with the material when correcting the sentence. I cross-compared the reference sources to previous Good Article Federalist Papers to further establish a consensus on the type of sources used. Likewise, all pinpoint references of the pages in the books seem to be publicly available in the sources (such as from Google Books). BritneyErotica ( talk) 07:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I've gone ahead and fixed the issues you pointed out. Please notify me if there's anything you think could be improved.
Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 13:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not sure if you saw my reply on the GA talk page, specifically after certain tours in the Tours section to be referenced/cited inline.
- Also, citation [15] (to do with his biographical details from AllMusic) is an unreliable source (although including it for reviews is acceptable). Please consider removing it and replacing it with a more reliable source.
- In your references section, please maintain a specific style. Some a referenced in the format with "Retrieved 2023-06-24" while others are "Retrieved April 19, 2022."
- References require as much information as can be provided. This includes their author(s), which I've seen citations [59], [60] and [61] have authors that aren't included (despite the source including them). There may be more references that require this revision.
BritneyErotica (
talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. I'll be addressing these concerns in listed order:
- To be honest, I always had a hunch that AllMusic biographies were unreliable. I'll try to replace citation [15] with something better.
- I always use the latter format, which I find to be more readible, when handiling citations myself. However, auto-generated citations, and citations present in older versions of the article, use yyyy-mm-dd. I'll get to fixing that.
- Again, might be an autogenerating issue, or maybe I simply didn't see the author(s) list (in which case, my bad).
- Also (excuse my French), Monitor Latino is a f*cking pain to work with, so some of those links might be broken or not even there. The discography section is from older versions, but I'll still get around to fixing those. Thanks for the advice.
- Sincerely,
Dontuseurrealname (
talk) 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I must've missed your initial response on the talk page. I'm currently going through it and most looks good. Sometimes the auto-generator doesn't pick up on the authors, so it's a good idea to double check to make sure there is/isn't an author.
- A quick example is Citation 16 where it no longer leads to anything and Citation 17 which lists Rebecca Schiller as the author but isn’t provided in the references. I'm providing further feedback on the talk page shortly (although it's predominantly just ironing out the references before it's passed).
BritneyErotica (
talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the help. Also, some of the songs in the discography section have no citations in terms of chart positions, but I have those links already and will put them soon. They also list the wrong chart ("tocadas" instead of "impresiones").
- Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 15:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. I'll be addressing these concerns in listed order:
Hi BritneyErotica, thanks for the review at Hellé Nice. Can I check whether you assessed the article on criteria 3,4,5 and 6? From the way you have done the review there isn't any indication that you have for example checked the image licenses. Thanks Mujinga ( talk) 19:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concern. One of the first things I did was check the image licences due to failure in a fair use rationale for an image in the article's history. I was concerned that this mistake could've been repeated and so I assessed it first. As with other reviews, which have all been accepted and reviewed independently, if I've passed a category in the table template I use, that means I've considered each category and found no issues with it. So to answer your question, yes all elements were assessed.
- Usually part of criterion 3 is assessed in the first category when I completely read through and suggest changes. For example I'd suggest elements to delete, add, change etc. (although it depends on how good/bad the nominated article is). This has been quite followable for every other user. Likewise, I don't see a particular purpose in mentioning whether an article is neutral or stable if it's a very easy category to assess. Again, if there are neutrality issues then the table category would fail and suggestions would be made. Category 6 passed as per the table, and no additional comments were required consistent with other reviews I've made. I've explained at the beginning of this on why this was a particular concern and the first thing I checked.
- So to summarise, if the table template I use utilises a "yes" (See Template:GATable), then apart of acknowledging spot-checks of references and copyvios, I will not add additional comments for certain categories (as they've been considered and reached a "yes" verdict). Hope this helps and you're more than welcome to read through any of the 14 reviews (in progress or complete) I've done to understand this style. BritneyErotica ( talk) 03:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I still don't trust that the GA nomination talk is properly notifying you, so I'll leave a message here. I finished fixing the chart references, and the article might be eligible for completion. Please let me know if there is additional information I can add.
Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 12:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for letting me know. I'll have a final look within 24 hours if that's okay. I don't doubt it will pass soon. BritneyErotica ( talk) 13:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
|
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
| We really appreciate that you reviewed several GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm just making sure that you get notified. I fixed the reference errors and added a use mdy template, which should automatically turn all dates into mdy.
Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 14:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still active, but I've made some edits to this draft—to which you were the main contributor—and left a few words at Draft talk:Sapnap (YouTuber) § Mainspace?. Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 02:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi BritneyErotica! I noticed your contributions to Trisha Paytas and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 15:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey BritneyErotica, I was reviewing Talk:Federalist No. 5/GA1 for the GA drive and noticed that you haven't mentioned which references you checked in the review. Could you please confirm whether you conducted a source review before passing the article? — Golden talk 07:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for the concern. I realised I didn't make explicit comment but I did spot check at least four of the most inline cited. All links are live. I confirmed citation [9] with appropriate page numbers and engagement with the material when correcting the sentence. I cross-compared the reference sources to previous Good Article Federalist Papers to further establish a consensus on the type of sources used. Likewise, all pinpoint references of the pages in the books seem to be publicly available in the sources (such as from Google Books). BritneyErotica ( talk) 07:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I've gone ahead and fixed the issues you pointed out. Please notify me if there's anything you think could be improved.
Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 13:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not sure if you saw my reply on the GA talk page, specifically after certain tours in the Tours section to be referenced/cited inline.
- Also, citation [15] (to do with his biographical details from AllMusic) is an unreliable source (although including it for reviews is acceptable). Please consider removing it and replacing it with a more reliable source.
- In your references section, please maintain a specific style. Some a referenced in the format with "Retrieved 2023-06-24" while others are "Retrieved April 19, 2022."
- References require as much information as can be provided. This includes their author(s), which I've seen citations [59], [60] and [61] have authors that aren't included (despite the source including them). There may be more references that require this revision.
BritneyErotica (
talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. I'll be addressing these concerns in listed order:
- To be honest, I always had a hunch that AllMusic biographies were unreliable. I'll try to replace citation [15] with something better.
- I always use the latter format, which I find to be more readible, when handiling citations myself. However, auto-generated citations, and citations present in older versions of the article, use yyyy-mm-dd. I'll get to fixing that.
- Again, might be an autogenerating issue, or maybe I simply didn't see the author(s) list (in which case, my bad).
- Also (excuse my French), Monitor Latino is a f*cking pain to work with, so some of those links might be broken or not even there. The discography section is from older versions, but I'll still get around to fixing those. Thanks for the advice.
- Sincerely,
Dontuseurrealname (
talk) 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I must've missed your initial response on the talk page. I'm currently going through it and most looks good. Sometimes the auto-generator doesn't pick up on the authors, so it's a good idea to double check to make sure there is/isn't an author.
- A quick example is Citation 16 where it no longer leads to anything and Citation 17 which lists Rebecca Schiller as the author but isn’t provided in the references. I'm providing further feedback on the talk page shortly (although it's predominantly just ironing out the references before it's passed).
BritneyErotica (
talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the help. Also, some of the songs in the discography section have no citations in terms of chart positions, but I have those links already and will put them soon. They also list the wrong chart ("tocadas" instead of "impresiones").
- Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 15:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. I'll be addressing these concerns in listed order:
Hi BritneyErotica, thanks for the review at Hellé Nice. Can I check whether you assessed the article on criteria 3,4,5 and 6? From the way you have done the review there isn't any indication that you have for example checked the image licenses. Thanks Mujinga ( talk) 19:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concern. One of the first things I did was check the image licences due to failure in a fair use rationale for an image in the article's history. I was concerned that this mistake could've been repeated and so I assessed it first. As with other reviews, which have all been accepted and reviewed independently, if I've passed a category in the table template I use, that means I've considered each category and found no issues with it. So to answer your question, yes all elements were assessed.
- Usually part of criterion 3 is assessed in the first category when I completely read through and suggest changes. For example I'd suggest elements to delete, add, change etc. (although it depends on how good/bad the nominated article is). This has been quite followable for every other user. Likewise, I don't see a particular purpose in mentioning whether an article is neutral or stable if it's a very easy category to assess. Again, if there are neutrality issues then the table category would fail and suggestions would be made. Category 6 passed as per the table, and no additional comments were required consistent with other reviews I've made. I've explained at the beginning of this on why this was a particular concern and the first thing I checked.
- So to summarise, if the table template I use utilises a "yes" (See Template:GATable), then apart of acknowledging spot-checks of references and copyvios, I will not add additional comments for certain categories (as they've been considered and reached a "yes" verdict). Hope this helps and you're more than welcome to read through any of the 14 reviews (in progress or complete) I've done to understand this style. BritneyErotica ( talk) 03:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I still don't trust that the GA nomination talk is properly notifying you, so I'll leave a message here. I finished fixing the chart references, and the article might be eligible for completion. Please let me know if there is additional information I can add.
Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 12:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for letting me know. I'll have a final look within 24 hours if that's okay. I don't doubt it will pass soon. BritneyErotica ( talk) 13:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
|
|
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
| We really appreciate that you reviewed several GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm just making sure that you get notified. I fixed the reference errors and added a use mdy template, which should automatically turn all dates into mdy.
Sincerely, Dontuseurrealname ( talk) 14:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still active, but I've made some edits to this draft—to which you were the main contributor—and left a few words at Draft talk:Sapnap (YouTuber) § Mainspace?. Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 02:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)