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. |
How do, Eric? I'm seeking some advice about J. & N. Philips, an article that has been sitting in my userspace as a draft for a year or so. I've moved it now but it is far from complete. In particular, it is very lacking in information on developments in the 20th century, for which I have struggled to find sources despite there being no doubt in my ind that it continued to be a notable business.
One of the problems that I faced from the outset was how to structure the thing, bearing in mind that there have been numerous strands of business and of family descending from something that began in Tean in 1747. Would it be better to rename the article, given that it deals with so many strands? Would it be useful to create a Philips family article that put the various notable members in their place? You'll notice from the (poor) lead section that we already have articles for quite a few of the family members. - Sitush ( talk) 10:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
We did it! A considerable achievement if you consider what it was like only a few weeks back!! A text book example of how hard work and persistence/dedication can turn around a low quality article within a short period of time. Many thanks to yourself and all of the reviewers, especially Cassianto, who've helped improve it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I wish you a speedy recovery. sounds nasty!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I was going to write "you" up. Pity that Archdeacon of Liverpool doesn't seem to be a position with automatic notability, since I could find no reliable sources to write up anything on your namesake. What's funny is a Google Book search for your name (don't know if you'll see the same results) where on the second page I find the Broadview edition of The Man in the Moone listed. Google must have some algorithm that connects the search term via various internet hits (including Wikipedia, no doubt) to "likely" matches. Hope all is well: do you need another cat? I have one on offer. Drmies ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I see Fred Phelps died fairly recently. I remember him well on Louis Theroux's documentary. I'm sure God will be thanking him for his lifetime achievements :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping, this is going to be slow going for me as I am afflicted with a horrible virus and have to keep breaking off. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of
Enid Blyton to FA status recently. I know you know all about
WP:TFAR and
the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you.
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates similar to those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating an article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you.
Bencherlite
Talk 09:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eric Corbett. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Boleskine House, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Source is licensed under GFDL. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your fine work at Enid Blyton. It's looking pretty good. John ( talk) 23:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
Like Montanabw (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
You interested in doing a copyedit on an article I've been helping with that's had almost 70,000 hits since the first of the month? (Yeah, another race horse, just won the Kentucky Derby and it's vandal bait) Montanabw (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
One Mint Julep? Montanabw (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mistake there. I was distracted as a friend arrived in the middle of my edit. I will be off-wiki tonight, having a few ales. Is there any chance you could take a look at Talk:John Leckie and see what you think? There is even a (tenuous) Manchester connection, via the Stone Roses. -- John ( talk) 17:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you helped me with the GA and I will do all I can to keep the little sticker but I don't have access to any books here. Any help will be more than welcome. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It could use a lot more decent book sources but looks a pretty good article to me too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this is a good place to bring up a question that I have had for some time. As some of you know, Moni recently came out of retirement long enough to make a few posts on her page. One thing she mentioned was that her FA article, To Kill a Mockingbird, had been fiddled with to its detriment. Looking at the editing history, I found that since her last post when she left saying that all of her articles were in good order an editor came along and began an extensive editing process (starting here: [ [4]] ). I reverted his edits and we have an ongoing discussion on the talk page. I don't pretend to be an expert editor capable of writing an article that would meet FA standards, but this editor states that he has taught composition at a college level and certainly does write well enough to extensively improve an article with a FA rating. I'm not sure how to phrase my question, but what I want to know is to what extent do I have the backing of the author of the article and the decisions of those editors that reviewed the article "on my side" and backing me up, so as to speak? In the past when I have run out of arguments about writing style I have told another editor to take a look at Moni's page and tell me if they still knew more about writing than she did, and it has worked. I just can't see that a good editor should go to all the work of writing a FA only to have an editor that has never even brought an article to a GA level claim that their wording is preferable. Gandydancer ( talk) 12:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to take a look at King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge. It was promoted to GA following various comments and revisions and then immediately put on review at Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 with the comment that it is "full of basic grammatical errors". It has been copy edited by two other editors but the reassessment is still open and I can't see what else needs revisions.— Rod talk 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
As you may have seen the GA reviewer of St Andrew's Church, Chew Stoke has suggested at Talk:St Andrew's Church, Chew Stoke/GA1 that I ask you to look at my "choppy prose". It would be great if had the time and inclination.— Rod talk 20:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the extra work put into the article, you'll be happy to know that it meets the GA criteria and passed the GAN. The three of us promoting GAs - just like old times! ☠ Jag uar ☠ 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eric, I see you're very busy, but I wonder if you might have a very quick look to see if I'd be completely off my trolley to nominate Reculver as a FAC: I've done loads more to it lately, and feel as though I can't see the wood for the trees. Either it's Really Rather Good, or it's Terribly Wide of the Mark: I'm worried it may be seen as unbalanced or too heavily detailed, and there are acres of footnotes and references. If you are too busy or otherwise disinclined, would you forgive me if I extend the invitation the invitation to your esteemed stalkers? Cheers for now. Nortonius ( talk) 21:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey Eric, would be eternally grateful if you'd put the kind of copyediting scrutiny only you can do on the California Chrome article. I'm just totally getting bogged down in the minutia of this horse's story. Desperately need someone who is neutral to help with the NPOV. I'm a goner, I've become a #Chromie and have lost all perspective. I'll be back to normal after the Preakness and Belmont races, but until then... oh yeah, and you may want to look over Oxbow_(horse)#Remainder_of_season as most of it was added after the FAC; maybe check the lead again too. Given that the Oxbow article is TFA on Saturday, again, a quick copyedit would not hurt a thing! I owe you a GA review or something, just ping me and I'll tackle it! Montanabw (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Belle Vue has quite a few External links, maybe too many, but I think [6] might be worth including. The site has some really interesting images. I added a couple to Bradford Colliery's ELs.
I've never really believed the Wikimedia Foundation's claim that only 13 per cent of editors are female, particularly as editors aren't required to reveal their gender. Added to which I'd say that at least half of the editors I've collaborated with on top-end articles (GA/FA) have identified themselves as female. But why should anyone care whether another editor is male or female anyway? Eric Corbett 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I said a while back that it seems more 25% female on here, and at times it can seem 50-50 agreed. I certainly don't see wikipedia (at least in the circles I'm in) as this male dominated show, but as you say, it might be our masculine charms :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I think you're right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Eric (and stalkers), I've raised this on the BLP noticeboard but I thought I might get more of a response from here, as I've got a feeling The Nice would be a group you'd be more familiar with than most Wikipedians - a cult 60s band big in its time but not really well remembered these days. To sum it up, David O'List is upset about us citing a book in The Nice's article that claims he was fired from the band (as opposed to leaving of his own accord) and generally downplays his contributions to a lesser extent than he would like. I'm just a bit worried I won't get much out of the noticeboard than "well it's a commercially published book, ergo a reliable source, what's the issue", but I can't find any other source that goes into any depth about his career with the band as much as Martyn Hanson's. Despite the B class assessment, I don't think that's an accurate call, as there's just far too much uncited and questionable content anyway. Advice welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I stumbled across this ( Lancashire Witch) and thought of you. It's new to me, have you ever heard of it before? I'm wondering of a connection to my local witches? -- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
While searching (as tends to be the way) I found The Late Lancashire Witches which made me realise that the Edmund Robinson case is worthy of an article. Count me in if you find the time and or energy for it.-- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I was just ducking out of an edit war on Raleigh (don't ask), when I thought I'd take a look at its famous namesake, and was quite surprised to find no mention of potatoes in it. Given that Blackadder had an entire show on this premise, and I am pretty sure at primary school we were told he was the man who gave us potatoes and tobacco, I wondered why it wasn't in the article, even to debunk it. So if it's a complete myth, where did this whole thing about him and the potato thing come from? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. GILO A& E⇑ 15:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I only the person who chuckled at the irony of something directing Eric towards Wikipedia:Your first article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eric. I'm not quite sure if you're interested on the subject, but I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to take a look at Megadeth and leave suggestions on what should be corrected at the review page? I've noticed that you have an experience with this procedure, so I thought to give you a call. Everything the best.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 10:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Eric, can you take a closer look at the corrections I've made to the article? I know that sometimes discussions like these can be annoying, but I really think that you should re-evaluate your vote. I've been working hard on that page since October last year and it would be a pity if it's failed for one banal misunderstanding.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"After more than a year since its last concert, Megadeth returned as a live act in June 1997 .... That would be less jarringly written as something like "After more than a year since the band's last concert ...". There are still also some prose issues, such as
"... usually regarding feuds and problems with former Metallica bandmates. The feud stemmed from his ejection from the band ..."Why is feuds first plural and then singular? Eric Corbett 12:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've popped my head into the FA review, and if I have time I may comment more. It strikes me that it might be worth, if there's interest, of setting up A-class reviews on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music rather than trying to do the jump from GA to FA in one hit, which Megadeth would be an ideal candidate. I think it's obvious now my money's firmly in the "Eric is welcome here" camp, but equally I am not trying to give the impression I have my head stuffed up his arse either. He gets my vote from what he does, not who he is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Eric, don't get me wrong, I think your input has been really constructive so far and improved the article's quality (a bit). My thought was, if you truly believe the article isn't worth the FA standards, keep your word as it is. To Ritchie, when you have time, please finish the review. I know that this thing turned out to be a peer review, but what can you do, the previous one didn't receive much attention. Referring to Ritchie's previous comment, I intended to take the article to an A-class review, but those weren't available, as you know. I'm aware that the article is beyond the GA criteria, and not quite to the FA; but I'm not sure whether it is closer to GA or FA.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 19:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you have passed this as a GA Eric?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have passed it either. It's barely start class IMO. It doesn't have to be particularly long or comprehensive but the quality and depth of info presented should be a lot better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your critique. I feel like you are not sugar-coating anything and have a genuine best interest in seeing pages only deserving of FA status passing, so I'd welcome any further comments. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 22:44, 30 May 2014 (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. |
How do, Eric? I'm seeking some advice about J. & N. Philips, an article that has been sitting in my userspace as a draft for a year or so. I've moved it now but it is far from complete. In particular, it is very lacking in information on developments in the 20th century, for which I have struggled to find sources despite there being no doubt in my ind that it continued to be a notable business.
One of the problems that I faced from the outset was how to structure the thing, bearing in mind that there have been numerous strands of business and of family descending from something that began in Tean in 1747. Would it be better to rename the article, given that it deals with so many strands? Would it be useful to create a Philips family article that put the various notable members in their place? You'll notice from the (poor) lead section that we already have articles for quite a few of the family members. - Sitush ( talk) 10:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
We did it! A considerable achievement if you consider what it was like only a few weeks back!! A text book example of how hard work and persistence/dedication can turn around a low quality article within a short period of time. Many thanks to yourself and all of the reviewers, especially Cassianto, who've helped improve it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I wish you a speedy recovery. sounds nasty!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I was going to write "you" up. Pity that Archdeacon of Liverpool doesn't seem to be a position with automatic notability, since I could find no reliable sources to write up anything on your namesake. What's funny is a Google Book search for your name (don't know if you'll see the same results) where on the second page I find the Broadview edition of The Man in the Moone listed. Google must have some algorithm that connects the search term via various internet hits (including Wikipedia, no doubt) to "likely" matches. Hope all is well: do you need another cat? I have one on offer. Drmies ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I see Fred Phelps died fairly recently. I remember him well on Louis Theroux's documentary. I'm sure God will be thanking him for his lifetime achievements :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping, this is going to be slow going for me as I am afflicted with a horrible virus and have to keep breaking off. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of
Enid Blyton to FA status recently. I know you know all about
WP:TFAR and
the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you.
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates similar to those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating an article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you.
Bencherlite
Talk 09:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eric Corbett. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Boleskine House, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Source is licensed under GFDL. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your fine work at Enid Blyton. It's looking pretty good. John ( talk) 23:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
Like Montanabw (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
You interested in doing a copyedit on an article I've been helping with that's had almost 70,000 hits since the first of the month? (Yeah, another race horse, just won the Kentucky Derby and it's vandal bait) Montanabw (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
One Mint Julep? Montanabw (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mistake there. I was distracted as a friend arrived in the middle of my edit. I will be off-wiki tonight, having a few ales. Is there any chance you could take a look at Talk:John Leckie and see what you think? There is even a (tenuous) Manchester connection, via the Stone Roses. -- John ( talk) 17:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you helped me with the GA and I will do all I can to keep the little sticker but I don't have access to any books here. Any help will be more than welcome. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It could use a lot more decent book sources but looks a pretty good article to me too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this is a good place to bring up a question that I have had for some time. As some of you know, Moni recently came out of retirement long enough to make a few posts on her page. One thing she mentioned was that her FA article, To Kill a Mockingbird, had been fiddled with to its detriment. Looking at the editing history, I found that since her last post when she left saying that all of her articles were in good order an editor came along and began an extensive editing process (starting here: [ [4]] ). I reverted his edits and we have an ongoing discussion on the talk page. I don't pretend to be an expert editor capable of writing an article that would meet FA standards, but this editor states that he has taught composition at a college level and certainly does write well enough to extensively improve an article with a FA rating. I'm not sure how to phrase my question, but what I want to know is to what extent do I have the backing of the author of the article and the decisions of those editors that reviewed the article "on my side" and backing me up, so as to speak? In the past when I have run out of arguments about writing style I have told another editor to take a look at Moni's page and tell me if they still knew more about writing than she did, and it has worked. I just can't see that a good editor should go to all the work of writing a FA only to have an editor that has never even brought an article to a GA level claim that their wording is preferable. Gandydancer ( talk) 12:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to take a look at King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge. It was promoted to GA following various comments and revisions and then immediately put on review at Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 with the comment that it is "full of basic grammatical errors". It has been copy edited by two other editors but the reassessment is still open and I can't see what else needs revisions.— Rod talk 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
As you may have seen the GA reviewer of St Andrew's Church, Chew Stoke has suggested at Talk:St Andrew's Church, Chew Stoke/GA1 that I ask you to look at my "choppy prose". It would be great if had the time and inclination.— Rod talk 20:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the extra work put into the article, you'll be happy to know that it meets the GA criteria and passed the GAN. The three of us promoting GAs - just like old times! ☠ Jag uar ☠ 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eric, I see you're very busy, but I wonder if you might have a very quick look to see if I'd be completely off my trolley to nominate Reculver as a FAC: I've done loads more to it lately, and feel as though I can't see the wood for the trees. Either it's Really Rather Good, or it's Terribly Wide of the Mark: I'm worried it may be seen as unbalanced or too heavily detailed, and there are acres of footnotes and references. If you are too busy or otherwise disinclined, would you forgive me if I extend the invitation the invitation to your esteemed stalkers? Cheers for now. Nortonius ( talk) 21:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey Eric, would be eternally grateful if you'd put the kind of copyediting scrutiny only you can do on the California Chrome article. I'm just totally getting bogged down in the minutia of this horse's story. Desperately need someone who is neutral to help with the NPOV. I'm a goner, I've become a #Chromie and have lost all perspective. I'll be back to normal after the Preakness and Belmont races, but until then... oh yeah, and you may want to look over Oxbow_(horse)#Remainder_of_season as most of it was added after the FAC; maybe check the lead again too. Given that the Oxbow article is TFA on Saturday, again, a quick copyedit would not hurt a thing! I owe you a GA review or something, just ping me and I'll tackle it! Montanabw (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Belle Vue has quite a few External links, maybe too many, but I think [6] might be worth including. The site has some really interesting images. I added a couple to Bradford Colliery's ELs.
I've never really believed the Wikimedia Foundation's claim that only 13 per cent of editors are female, particularly as editors aren't required to reveal their gender. Added to which I'd say that at least half of the editors I've collaborated with on top-end articles (GA/FA) have identified themselves as female. But why should anyone care whether another editor is male or female anyway? Eric Corbett 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I said a while back that it seems more 25% female on here, and at times it can seem 50-50 agreed. I certainly don't see wikipedia (at least in the circles I'm in) as this male dominated show, but as you say, it might be our masculine charms :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I think you're right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Eric (and stalkers), I've raised this on the BLP noticeboard but I thought I might get more of a response from here, as I've got a feeling The Nice would be a group you'd be more familiar with than most Wikipedians - a cult 60s band big in its time but not really well remembered these days. To sum it up, David O'List is upset about us citing a book in The Nice's article that claims he was fired from the band (as opposed to leaving of his own accord) and generally downplays his contributions to a lesser extent than he would like. I'm just a bit worried I won't get much out of the noticeboard than "well it's a commercially published book, ergo a reliable source, what's the issue", but I can't find any other source that goes into any depth about his career with the band as much as Martyn Hanson's. Despite the B class assessment, I don't think that's an accurate call, as there's just far too much uncited and questionable content anyway. Advice welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I stumbled across this ( Lancashire Witch) and thought of you. It's new to me, have you ever heard of it before? I'm wondering of a connection to my local witches? -- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
While searching (as tends to be the way) I found The Late Lancashire Witches which made me realise that the Edmund Robinson case is worthy of an article. Count me in if you find the time and or energy for it.-- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I was just ducking out of an edit war on Raleigh (don't ask), when I thought I'd take a look at its famous namesake, and was quite surprised to find no mention of potatoes in it. Given that Blackadder had an entire show on this premise, and I am pretty sure at primary school we were told he was the man who gave us potatoes and tobacco, I wondered why it wasn't in the article, even to debunk it. So if it's a complete myth, where did this whole thing about him and the potato thing come from? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. GILO A& E⇑ 15:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I only the person who chuckled at the irony of something directing Eric towards Wikipedia:Your first article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eric. I'm not quite sure if you're interested on the subject, but I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to take a look at Megadeth and leave suggestions on what should be corrected at the review page? I've noticed that you have an experience with this procedure, so I thought to give you a call. Everything the best.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 10:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Eric, can you take a closer look at the corrections I've made to the article? I know that sometimes discussions like these can be annoying, but I really think that you should re-evaluate your vote. I've been working hard on that page since October last year and it would be a pity if it's failed for one banal misunderstanding.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"After more than a year since its last concert, Megadeth returned as a live act in June 1997 .... That would be less jarringly written as something like "After more than a year since the band's last concert ...". There are still also some prose issues, such as
"... usually regarding feuds and problems with former Metallica bandmates. The feud stemmed from his ejection from the band ..."Why is feuds first plural and then singular? Eric Corbett 12:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've popped my head into the FA review, and if I have time I may comment more. It strikes me that it might be worth, if there's interest, of setting up A-class reviews on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music rather than trying to do the jump from GA to FA in one hit, which Megadeth would be an ideal candidate. I think it's obvious now my money's firmly in the "Eric is welcome here" camp, but equally I am not trying to give the impression I have my head stuffed up his arse either. He gets my vote from what he does, not who he is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Eric, don't get me wrong, I think your input has been really constructive so far and improved the article's quality (a bit). My thought was, if you truly believe the article isn't worth the FA standards, keep your word as it is. To Ritchie, when you have time, please finish the review. I know that this thing turned out to be a peer review, but what can you do, the previous one didn't receive much attention. Referring to Ritchie's previous comment, I intended to take the article to an A-class review, but those weren't available, as you know. I'm aware that the article is beyond the GA criteria, and not quite to the FA; but I'm not sure whether it is closer to GA or FA.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 19:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you have passed this as a GA Eric?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have passed it either. It's barely start class IMO. It doesn't have to be particularly long or comprehensive but the quality and depth of info presented should be a lot better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your critique. I feel like you are not sugar-coating anything and have a genuine best interest in seeing pages only deserving of FA status passing, so I'd welcome any further comments. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 22:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)