Hi PhotoEditor123, and welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit to the population of Hanover, New Hampshire, because while you changed the date to 2020 and changed the total population, you left the other 2010 figures unchanged, which would cause confusion. A better technique would be to put a new paragraph in front of the 2010 paragraph and put the 2020 figures in there. If you would like to match the types of information found in the 2010 paragraph, you can look in a couple places for Census data: data.census.gov is a good source, as is the Census' Quick Facts page. Best wishes, Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Mr. Gallager, I was in the process of editing the stats of the page, but I had to leave. Thank you for doing that and contributing to the great state of New Hampshire! Best PhotoEditor123 ( talk) PhotoEditor123 ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello PhotoEditor, I notice you have jumped in to doing GA reviews quite quickly, including a quickfail of Ariana Grande. I'm not sure this is a reasonable quickfail, especially given the level of depth of your review, and your inexperience as an editor. You only have 100 edits, and that is rarely enough to give you a good idea of what's needed for a Good Article, let alone for quickfailing one as lengthy as that article is. I would recommend reverting your fail and asking for a second opinion from an experienced editor, which you can do by changing the GAN template to read "status=2ndopinion". ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello PMC, I will stop doing reviews and revert my quickfail. However, there are some things on that article that deserve a quickfail. Things like "Regarded as a pop icon, she is noted as an influential figure in popular music and as one of the most prominent vocalists of her generation for her four-octave vocal range and signature whistle register." And "'I was like, 'I want to make an R&B album,' They were like 'Um, that's a helluva goal! Who is going to buy a 14-year-old's R&B album?!'" In addition, many of the things said in this article are uncited. Thank you for reaching out to me about this, and maybe next year I will review articles!
PhotoEditor123 (
talk) 23:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- The statement in the lead about her being influential is backed up by sources in the body, so while the wording may require adjustment, I would not call it quickfail worthy in and of itself. Neither is the inclusion of that quote, which does not fail any of the Good Article criteria. Certainly the article isn't perfect - I just trimmed some detail from the section about her makeup line - but it deserves better than a two-sentence quickfail for non-quickfailable issues.
- Additionally, you claim here that the article has many uncited sections but on a brief skim, I don't see anything that jumps out at me. Can you be more specific? If you're talking about the lead lacking citations, you should be aware that lead sections are actually supposed to avoid citations, per WP:LEADCITE, except for controversial claims.
- This kind of thing is why I generally don't recommend reviewing articles until you've got far more experience under your belt. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 00:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will leave this to the more experienced people. Thank you for being kind and reaching out
PhotoEditor123 (
talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you blanked your review of John Higgins, which I assume means you're not intending to carry that on. I've deleted it as routine housekeeping, as is typical in these circumstances. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 00:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank You
- PhotoEditor123 ( talk) 11:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you blanked your review of John Higgins, which I assume means you're not intending to carry that on. I've deleted it as routine housekeeping, as is typical in these circumstances. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 00:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will leave this to the more experienced people. Thank you for being kind and reaching out
PhotoEditor123 (
talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an
edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be
quite brief.
The edit summary field looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks!
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 00:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello AirshipJungleman, thanks for the tip! I will remember that. PhotoEditor123 ( talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi PhotoEditor123, and welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit to the population of Hanover, New Hampshire, because while you changed the date to 2020 and changed the total population, you left the other 2010 figures unchanged, which would cause confusion. A better technique would be to put a new paragraph in front of the 2010 paragraph and put the 2020 figures in there. If you would like to match the types of information found in the 2010 paragraph, you can look in a couple places for Census data: data.census.gov is a good source, as is the Census' Quick Facts page. Best wishes, Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Mr. Gallager, I was in the process of editing the stats of the page, but I had to leave. Thank you for doing that and contributing to the great state of New Hampshire! Best PhotoEditor123 ( talk) PhotoEditor123 ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello PhotoEditor, I notice you have jumped in to doing GA reviews quite quickly, including a quickfail of Ariana Grande. I'm not sure this is a reasonable quickfail, especially given the level of depth of your review, and your inexperience as an editor. You only have 100 edits, and that is rarely enough to give you a good idea of what's needed for a Good Article, let alone for quickfailing one as lengthy as that article is. I would recommend reverting your fail and asking for a second opinion from an experienced editor, which you can do by changing the GAN template to read "status=2ndopinion". ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello PMC, I will stop doing reviews and revert my quickfail. However, there are some things on that article that deserve a quickfail. Things like "Regarded as a pop icon, she is noted as an influential figure in popular music and as one of the most prominent vocalists of her generation for her four-octave vocal range and signature whistle register." And "'I was like, 'I want to make an R&B album,' They were like 'Um, that's a helluva goal! Who is going to buy a 14-year-old's R&B album?!'" In addition, many of the things said in this article are uncited. Thank you for reaching out to me about this, and maybe next year I will review articles!
PhotoEditor123 (
talk) 23:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- The statement in the lead about her being influential is backed up by sources in the body, so while the wording may require adjustment, I would not call it quickfail worthy in and of itself. Neither is the inclusion of that quote, which does not fail any of the Good Article criteria. Certainly the article isn't perfect - I just trimmed some detail from the section about her makeup line - but it deserves better than a two-sentence quickfail for non-quickfailable issues.
- Additionally, you claim here that the article has many uncited sections but on a brief skim, I don't see anything that jumps out at me. Can you be more specific? If you're talking about the lead lacking citations, you should be aware that lead sections are actually supposed to avoid citations, per WP:LEADCITE, except for controversial claims.
- This kind of thing is why I generally don't recommend reviewing articles until you've got far more experience under your belt. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 00:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will leave this to the more experienced people. Thank you for being kind and reaching out
PhotoEditor123 (
talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you blanked your review of John Higgins, which I assume means you're not intending to carry that on. I've deleted it as routine housekeeping, as is typical in these circumstances. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 00:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank You
- PhotoEditor123 ( talk) 11:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you blanked your review of John Higgins, which I assume means you're not intending to carry that on. I've deleted it as routine housekeeping, as is typical in these circumstances. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 00:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will leave this to the more experienced people. Thank you for being kind and reaching out
PhotoEditor123 (
talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an
edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be
quite brief.
The edit summary field looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks!
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 00:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello AirshipJungleman, thanks for the tip! I will remember that. PhotoEditor123 ( talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)