User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jezhotwells. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Harold Pinter
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Pinter&action=historysubmit&diff=400425876&oldid=400212476 This includes the deletion of requests for page numbers. I am unwatching the Harold Pinter page, as I have no time to get involved with this at present. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 December 2010
- News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive
- WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak
- WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
- Features and admins: Birds and insects
- Arbitration report: New case: World War II
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Fernando Fernández Navarrete
We need to do better than IMDB and his personal web site, since neither are reliable. Any ideas? This one may be destined for AFD. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I haven't found anything else. I have no preference either way, but it would appear that he is notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 December 2010
- Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: The community has spoken
- Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Ref Question
Hello, I have seen your GA review for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). I understand the reason for marking the dubious links and am working on finding more reliable sources for them. I've even marked some fansies that were not marked as dubious. I just have a few quesitons:
- If a fansite, usually considered not reliable, conducts an interview, would it be considered reliable? (such as this, which was not marked dubious so I did)
- Possibly, these sort of things need to be examined case by case. WP:RSN can help. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) is currently a Good Article but it has refs from various fansites. Shouldn't it be delisted?
- So, you can assess it yourself. procedures are explained at WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- However, according to this, some fan sites are considered "reliable" because they are associated with Warner Bros. It may be fine for now. --Glimmer721 talk 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Please leave me talkback template when you have answers. Thanks, Glimmer721 talk 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Answers above. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster is unreasonable
The RFC didn't work and Loremaster continues to be unreasonable. Advice? 86.184.158.136 (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack
An editor is changing some code at the top of the talk page that is not working properly. Can you figure out what s/he is trying to do? BTW, what's happening with the GA? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, it looks like s/he fixed it now. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your statement. I have a little question placed on the discussion site of the article. I hope you can answer my question. I hope that you have the discussion on your watchlist. (-: By the way the German section of this article was not my idea, but now I have made this section shorter and now (after it) I like this section a little bit. (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please if you have time, please look on the article again, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. )-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 December 2010
- News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief
- Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland
- Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Majestic Titans
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Bristol Party for 10th Birthday
Hi Jez
Just seen your mention on Wikipedia 10 page - am organising event on 13th with help from a growing cast of many...would love your help...get in touch = steve.virgin@wikimedia.org.uk or steve@mediafocusuk.com Best Wishes Steve Steve virgin (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 December 2010
- Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting
- WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Romm
Thanks for finishing up the GA review. Now that that's over, is there any way to propose a guideline saying that an editor can only nominate an article for GA if that editor has either done substantial work on it or commits to do so? Or, if that won't wash, how about a simple rule that, if you are going to nominate an article that you do not work on, then you should *first* ask the primary editors of the article if they have a reason why it ought not to be nominated? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that something like this has been discussed, inconclusively, at WT:GAN. An archive search might turn up something. Personally, I am not in favour of instruction creep. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
UK Waterways in the Signpost
I received the invite below & was going to talk about Somerset canals & the Floating Harbour so I thought you might be interested.— Rod talk 08:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day.
- Thanks for the heads up, I have posted some responses on the draft wiknews page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
- 2010 in review: Review of the year
- In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux
- Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year
- Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Eric Cantor GA
Hi. You got the history of what happened here wrong. See Talk:Eric Cantor/GA1#Note. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Victoria Rooms (Bristol)
Well done for your work on the Victoria Rooms. I can't see anything else at present but agree it will not get GA by next week - looking forward to meeting you & others f2f. As we will be meeting at the Watershed Media Centre perhaps we should do the same job for that one!— Rod talk 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The main problem with Watershed is sourcing. There are very few non-primary sources available that I can find. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
- News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news
- In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project
- WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways
- Features and admins: Featured topic of the year
- Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Double Trouble (nickname)
You can't "delete and merge". That would change the authorship (because it wouldn't retain whoever wrote the merged content originally). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fair point, academic now. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Website links
Hi Jezhotwells,
Please can you add all of the links back on to Wikipedia that you have removed from my work today. These aren't spam links, they are community website links.
Many thanks Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpondsbristol (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, please read the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Mangotsfield
Hi Jezhotwells, Mangotsfield is not in Kingswood. The borough of Kingswood no longer exists. Mangotsfield is a Parish and so are all other areas in South Gloucestershire. This is an insult to local people.
Many thanks Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpondsbristol (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Paul Skinner
Hi Jezhotwells,
You put a clean-up temp on Paul Skinner in August 2009. I've had a little sweep-out of the contentious stuff. Improve/edit/add to what I've done if you like, but when all the fluff was removed there wasn't much left... how often do I find that? Best wishes,
Acabashi (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well the tags remaining are still relevant. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Favor
Hey. I see that Cirt has abandoned a chunk of articles that he tagged that he was going to review (10+) I knocked out several so far, but I was wondering if you could knock out a couple. Namely, if you can wrap up the three in culture and society, I'll do the remaining ones. That's the one flaw about the bot, there's no way to note an abandoned review. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked Cirt if they have actually abandoned, as a first step. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok; I asked him about a week ago about me taking over them, so that's buried in them somewhere. Not necessarily an admission of him not going to do them though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Fasci Siciliani
Thanks for reviewing the Fasci Siciliani article. I tried to answer your concerns, but I am not sure how to handle some of them. Maybe you could have a look again. Cheers. - DonCalo (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
- WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket
- Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons
- Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
- Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news
Talk:Homosexuality/GA1
Yep, you're quite right. It was something brought up in a review of mine so I thought it was a standard requirement - something someone finally told me a short time after reviewing the GA application for Homosexuality. In fact until your message, I'd forgotten I'd even put that in the review. Miyagawa talk 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jezhotwells. Thanks for taking on the Charles B. Pierce review. I responded to your specific comments there, and will do a more thorough top-to-bottom copy edit in the next couple days to try to address some of the general prose and phrasing items you mentioned. I'll let you know when that's done. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not talking about untranscluding
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Clarify_my_argument.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
GA per mill. graph
Hi, it seems to me the File:FA-GA-articles-per-million.png update is wrong; there's no change from the last one. It should have passed 3000 by now. Lampman (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I shall look at this over the weekend. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, good work with the graphs by the way. Lampman (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hutton GA
I've done the (slightly embarrasing) prose fixes you pointed out and thanks for the other copy-edits and review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
GA nomination of Church of St George, Kyustendil
Hi and thanks very much for the review! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
- News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more
- Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news
Homicide articles
Hey Jezhotwells. Since you had reviewed my Gone for Goode GAN back in the day, I thought you might be interested to know I've nominated several other Homicide: Life on the Street episode articles for GAN recently, including "A Dog and Pony Show", "And the Rockets' Dead Glare", "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" and "Night of the Dead Living". If you have any interest and would like to review them, I'd be happy to respond to any comments or problems you have. If not, no biggie. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Lighthouse GA review
If you feel like doing another quick lighthouse GA review, I've nominated Cape Moreton Light. The previous review was rather painless, thank you again. I wonder if GA ever beat DYK? Probably not often :) --Muhandes (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Alberto Henschel
Hi, I added some things in the article so that there is no new material in the lead. Could you take a look in the article to see if there are more things to be done for it to be a GA? Thanks, Idontknow610TM 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
British Library GA
Hi,
Some months ago you created a GA review for the British Library. As part of the WP:GLAM/BL editathon a number of British Library related articles have been created, improved or updated and a few improvements have been made to the main article. Would you be interested in revisiting and possibly refreshing the review you documented (I have added some citations to help address the main problem you identified, see Talk:British_Library/GA2#Tidy_up) or would you prefer I go ahead with a new request at GAN? Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- You will need to renominate at WP:GAN. Just place the template on the article talk page. Old reviews aren't reopened. Someone will review. I rarely review artcile more than once. Cheers and good luck. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. Fæ (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Two more abandoned reviews
Hey, got a couple more for you. I'm trying to limit my time at GAN for a couple weeks to catch up on other processes I help manage, else I'd do these myself: User:Sayantan m hasn't edited in a while, so the review on Fastra II needs a conclusion (writer is retired, so if there's further issues then it can just be failed, but I don't see any), and the review on Anders Johan Lexell needs to be, well, started. You're free to leave a note first of course, though I think they've waited long enough. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, will take a look. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like User:DeVerm is taking Fastra II over. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Anders Johan Lexell was a clear quickfail, extremely badly written. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like User:DeVerm is taking Fastra II over. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
- The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books
- WikiProject report: WikiWarriors
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Re: Red Line (Washington Metro)
I have reviewed the articles but have not filled out review pages for them. For this to be construed as vandalism would (I hope) be very unlikely since I have also included the oldid reference of the revision I reviewed. I know the process of the GA reviewing thank you, but will create these pages as a matter of urgency. Hugahoody (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not enjoy being patronised. I note your messages with thanks but ask that we now bring this discussion to a close. Hugahoody (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Juggle.com on Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Juggle is the one who performed a copyright violation of the Wikipedia content. Not the other way around. If you look at the bottom of the Juggle.com page it says "Some of the content on this page was provided by other sites, including Freebase (University of Miami) or others licensed under Creative Commons".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am just reporting what others have found about User:Racepacket's copyvios. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Opinion request
I am wondering what your thoughts are about Wikipedia:AN#User_passing_several_articles_without_doing_reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: Secret Truths
Thanks for letting me know. Hugahoody (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Thanks for your review at Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. I think we have rectified all the issues now and look forward to hearing from you soon.--Ykraps (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Jack Duckworth
Hello, I've added some more development info to Jack's article, as well as a little other info. What do you think of it?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Lolicon GA Reassessment
I've put several comments into the Lolicon talk page, as you may have seen. The conclusion is that the article needs a a major revision by some dedicated editors. I am reasonably knowledgeable about the topic, but I don't have the time to spend on the article. It won't be a few quick fixes. The Kinsella paper is out-of-date (1999) and the Diamond and Uchiyama reference is also old. It is also not really relevant, since Diamond's papers, including his 2009 paper, deal with sexually explicit pornography and not with "rorikon hentai." There is also a good deal of new material available today, and one editor has been adding material (more power to him!). I'll check the article from time to time, but only sporadically. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the reassessment - the subject matter is disagreeable to me, so I would not be the best person to check its neutrality, despite doing a minor cleanup on the article prior to the reassessment. I gave the project a poke two months ago about the article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please post a summing-up comment at Talk:Lolicon/GA1, outlining where the article still fails the GA criteria? --Malkinann (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
GA review
Thank you very much for your assessment of Hatt-i humayun, I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. I'll take care of the problems you listed and request a copy edit at WP:PR. --İnfoCan (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Lolicon
The article Lolicon is undergoing a community good article reassement as there are several reviewers who believe it was delisted improperly.陣内Jinnai 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your efforts in performing the Lolicon good article reassessment. As I'm sure you know, this article played a role in Lawrence Sanger's accusations that Wikipedia supports child pornography -- or so it has been said, here, for example: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=58987. It's a topic that generates much anger and concern in the United States, as you can also see from the current discussion surrounding Wikipetan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Active_discussions). So your calm has been most welcome. I have withdrawn from the discussion of Lolicon, although I will sporadically check in with occasional comments as time permits. So once again, thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Willie Nelson - GA review
Thanks for taking care of the review of the article. I think I have addressed the issues you pointed out and some others I found as well. Although you set a seven day period for a new look to the article, I want to know what you think about the changes I made recently. And, in case that I forgot something if you could point it out.--Gduwen (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Backlog drive
Hey. Was wondering if you'd be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. I'm actually surprised you hadn't been pinged about it since you're likely the most active reviewer. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_backlog_elimination_drives/March_2011#Pre-drive_discussions's talk page.
Thanks for the review and the minor copyediting. I believe I addressed the minor issue remaining. I also present a minor dilemma I have for your consideration at Talk:Cape Moreton Light/GA1. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Issue addressed. Best regards, and thanks again. --Muhandes (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your work at GAN, especially with the above review. I know long articles such as the above can be daunting to review. I believe I have now addressed all the issues you raised. Thanks again! Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your review of this article, I've gone through and made the changes you suggested. Let me know what else needs to be done. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: GA/recent
Um, no, that was more because I accidentally broke it :) Fixed now, I think, thanks for the note. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Article Tahash Timeline
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm rather busy with the GAN backlog drive - I see that other are commenting. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Single Ladies
Hi. I am Jivesh. We have never talked before. I was the one who nominated "Single Ladies" for GA. I want to thank you wholeheartedly for the review. I know it is not easy to review such a long article. I am very happy it passed GA. Thank you once again. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for the message. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Bye. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jezhotwells, I took over the GA nomination from Paralympiakos before Green-eyed girl had to move on (you can see this on Talk:Sako Chivitchian and on User talk:Paralympiakos). I hope that's ok with you. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine by me. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Megamaser
Thanks for reviewing megamaser for GA status! I am glad you enjoyed it. James McBride (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Indian Camp GAN
I've already replied. Looked it over when I saw you were reviewing and noted that Hadley wasn't linked or explained. I've fixed it. Thanks, by the way, for reviewing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
My Heart Is Calling GAN
Thank you so much. Oh, by producers, did you mean the credits? If so, yes, and I added them to a separate section. Should I write that out in prose? — Novice7 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I was commenting on the accompanying musicians, i.e. guitar, bass, drums, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. No, the liner notes doesn't say anything about that. I'll look around, and will surely add if I do find information on them. Thanks again. — Novice7 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Getty Villa GA relisting
Because you made the original attempt to review the Getty Villa article, I am contacting you to let you know that the original nominator has had his ban lifted and has returned with a "Coptright" mentor. I have notified both the nominator and their mentor of my review in process and felt I should contact you as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I genreally don't revisit reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Unhalfbricking
It may not be in the GA criteria, but note that the docs for {{Infobox album}} say "Formerly, a Reviews field was included in this template. Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section. See WP:Albums#Reception." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ta, I hadn't realised that that had changed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Camberwell Baths
Hi,
Your copyvio note seems a bit heavy handed in this context. The text was based on the Southwark website, however you will find none of the wording is a copy&paste and as Southwark Council are emailing me directly with this information trying to get it updated on Wikipedia, there seems to be little chance of a practical problem over copyright interpretation. If you disagree could you take it up on the talk page for my attention rather than flagging the article with large notices? You will note that Southwark link to the Wikipedia article from their official pages, so this gets a bit of attention from their side and I would not want our culture of notices to hamper their goodwill (which has already resulted in the release of the official recent photos used in the article). Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- My comments on your talk page are intended for this userspace, if I wanted to make a statement on the article talk page I would do so. Could you please change the text to a link to a diff if you still feel it is necessary to quote me rather than copying my words in their entirety without my permission to a different context? Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for removing your re-paste of my comments, however your additional comment (diff) seems excessive and it is unfortunate that you feel it necessary to make an ad-hom attack in the middle of your GA review when I was asking for common courtesy rather than your odd interpretation that I am claiming copyright over a discussion thread. I would like to remind you that I asked for a GAR in good faith, I did not expect it to be an excuse for an extended series of pointy digs.
- I am in a position of normally recommending the GA process as part of article improvement for GLAM activities, I'm afraid that my negative experience of your review and your behaviour here makes me concerned for the experience for other team members who may rely on feedback from reviewers such as yourself.
- Note that I have asked for independent feedback from one of our regular copyright experts on your opinion that the text of that article fails the paraphrasing guidelines and I will apply any recommendation she may offer. Fæ (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the critiques of my reviewing. I just raise problems as I see them. how nominators take them is up to them. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, though it seems pretty obvious that telling a OTRS volunteer that you believe they are acting with a conflict of interest and that they don't understand the copyright status of text on Wikipedia would be taken as a serious allegation of incompetence against the individual rather than as GA review comments about the article. If you wish to follow up your allegations, please do so using a proper process rather than leaving them as unresolved in the logged GA review record. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Imru' al-Qais GAN
Hi Jezhotwells,
I just checked in and saw that the GAN for the article on Imru' al-Qais had been put on hold pending some improvements. I will do my best to enact these improvements by tomorrow, 11 March, and I hope I can ask you for pointers if I run into anything I'm not sure about.
Thank you,
Maitham d (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update:
After reviewing the requirements more carefully, I have 4 questions:
(1) Is there any possibility for an extension of the 7-day period? I just saw the message today. It will be possible for me to make most, but perhaps not all, of the specified improvements before the deadline.
(2) Regarding the "Who?" comment on "Some have suggested... ...influenced by... ... Mazdakism...", I can refer back to the original source to get more precise information, but I might not be able to do it today (book is in a university library).
(3) Is the inclusion of an image required for Good Article approval in this case?
(4) Aside from the issues addressed above, and integrating "stranded sentences" into paragraphs, is anything more required for Good Article approval?
Thank you!
Maitham d (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: I propose that the lead in its current form complies with the intent of the Wikipedia criterion. The lead in this case is five paragraphs, exceeding the suggested limit by only 1. All of these paragraphs flow well, each has a well-defined purpose, and none of them are very long. Maitham d (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: The most egregious stray sentences have all been consolidated. Maitham d (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: "Different historians..." passage has been deleted. "Some have suggested..." passage has been modified to more accurately reflect the sourcing of the information. Maitham d (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, answered at Talk:Imru' al-Qais/GA1, please leave further queries there. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
"Notable"; puffery
When we call someone "notable" in wikipedia's voice, that calls for a citation. The material you added lacked any ref whatsoever. If you want to re-add it, find an RS statement that says as much, and re-add it with the ref reflecting the RS. Otherwise, it just looks like self-aggrandizing self-promotion, which sadly we have too much of in the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your uncivil and officious message. I expect that you know, though you seem disinclined to follow the rule, that the lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged (which I have clearly done here). This puffery is clearly not "non-controversial" -- instead, it is a matter of controversy. It has been challenged. As such, it should be deleted or a ref supplied. There is not, as you suggest, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time. As an editor with a number of edits under your belt, I'm a bit surprised by your having mis-stated what is clearly the rule. Also -- a question. The prime subject of the article (at one time) appears to have had a conflict of interest with the article. Have you ever had contact with the person in question?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have had one message from the subject on the talk page. It is there for you to read if you care. I have cited the lead although your challenging of the notability of the subject of a good article seems to me completely unnecessary as the facts therein are cited correctly. Are you going to challenge the leads of every BLP? I would have thought that you would have better things to do. Jezhotwells (talk)
- I would have thought that you would have better things to do than completely mis-represent what the rule is. Apparently, I was wrong. Either you were ignorant of the rule but still chose to act as though you knew what the rule was. Or you were acting in bad faith. AgF requires me to assume you were ignorant, but decided to speak in any case as though you knew what you were talking about. That's not very civil. You might want to re-consider doing that in the future. I'll take a look at the article again when I get a chance. You don't score any points, btw, by defending apparent puffery, of an article written in large part by the subject of the article, with misrepresentations and complaining that the rules are being applied to the puffery in the article. I haven't challenged the notability of the subject (in a wp sense). I've simply sought to delete clear puffery by a self-written (in part) self-promotional bio, where in wp's voice we strayed from the facts to have a reference-less self-promotional lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Although the article did contain six edits from the subject, you will find, if you care to examine the history, that the majority of content was added by others. Your categorization of the lead as puffery, when cited atements in teh artcile clearly supported the staements in the lead appears to be deliberatley antagonistic, and I find it hard to assume good faith on your part as it is cl;ear the the artcile as a whole was not examined by you. If you feel that it no longer meets the Ga criteria then please discuss on the artcile talk page. That is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article, I can tell from the talkpage, has had puffery issues for years. The subject of the article has been one of the primary editors of the article, and one of the primary editors arguing on its talkpage for the article's notability. Read the rule my friend -- it is as I indicated above. Your mis-statement along the lines of "the rule is that no refs are required in a lede, even where there is controversy, and even where it is a blp" -- that was completely wrong. 180 degrees. Your then -- on the basis of your wholly incorrect statement -- using the term edit warring to refer to my edits, which were -- in contrast to yours -- completely correct under the applicable rule, is what I would view as antagonistic. The rule does not as you suggest, even now, require that readers examine the article as a whole. (not that that would necessarily suffice here). It requires clearly that where there is controversy, there be an RS ref that supports what is stated. You ignored that, and argued that the rule was the opposite, and even now in your above posting fail to "get it". I'm not arguing to de-GA the article; I'm saying that the statement in the lede was not supported by an RS ref ... which remains the case, even now. As such, the puffery should go -- unless you can supply an RS ref that states what the text says.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Noteworthy=Notable - read a thesaurus. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cut the snarkiness. Cut the mis-stating clear rules, such as WP:LEADCITE, as you did while edit-warring. Tell me what RS you are referring to. And point me to what it says. Non-RS refs will of course be unavailing. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is all there, I have even provided quotes from the cites to help you. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cut the snarkiness. Cut the mis-stating clear rules, such as WP:LEADCITE, as you did while edit-warring. Tell me what RS you are referring to. And point me to what it says. Non-RS refs will of course be unavailing. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Noteworthy=Notable - read a thesaurus. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article, I can tell from the talkpage, has had puffery issues for years. The subject of the article has been one of the primary editors of the article, and one of the primary editors arguing on its talkpage for the article's notability. Read the rule my friend -- it is as I indicated above. Your mis-statement along the lines of "the rule is that no refs are required in a lede, even where there is controversy, and even where it is a blp" -- that was completely wrong. 180 degrees. Your then -- on the basis of your wholly incorrect statement -- using the term edit warring to refer to my edits, which were -- in contrast to yours -- completely correct under the applicable rule, is what I would view as antagonistic. The rule does not as you suggest, even now, require that readers examine the article as a whole. (not that that would necessarily suffice here). It requires clearly that where there is controversy, there be an RS ref that supports what is stated. You ignored that, and argued that the rule was the opposite, and even now in your above posting fail to "get it". I'm not arguing to de-GA the article; I'm saying that the statement in the lede was not supported by an RS ref ... which remains the case, even now. As such, the puffery should go -- unless you can supply an RS ref that states what the text says.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Although the article did contain six edits from the subject, you will find, if you care to examine the history, that the majority of content was added by others. Your categorization of the lead as puffery, when cited atements in teh artcile clearly supported the staements in the lead appears to be deliberatley antagonistic, and I find it hard to assume good faith on your part as it is cl;ear the the artcile as a whole was not examined by you. If you feel that it no longer meets the Ga criteria then please discuss on the artcile talk page. That is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would have thought that you would have better things to do than completely mis-represent what the rule is. Apparently, I was wrong. Either you were ignorant of the rule but still chose to act as though you knew what the rule was. Or you were acting in bad faith. AgF requires me to assume you were ignorant, but decided to speak in any case as though you knew what you were talking about. That's not very civil. You might want to re-consider doing that in the future. I'll take a look at the article again when I get a chance. You don't score any points, btw, by defending apparent puffery, of an article written in large part by the subject of the article, with misrepresentations and complaining that the rules are being applied to the puffery in the article. I haven't challenged the notability of the subject (in a wp sense). I've simply sought to delete clear puffery by a self-written (in part) self-promotional bio, where in wp's voice we strayed from the facts to have a reference-less self-promotional lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have had one message from the subject on the talk page. It is there for you to read if you care. I have cited the lead although your challenging of the notability of the subject of a good article seems to me completely unnecessary as the facts therein are cited correctly. Are you going to challenge the leads of every BLP? I would have thought that you would have better things to do. Jezhotwells (talk)
- No need to make you run around from tp to tp. I've started looking at your cites, and notice that you again use a non-RS. You have cites following individual words in the applicable sentence, but none following the word at issue. In any event, so that you don't need to respond in two places, you can respond there, indicating if you would what RS (it helps me not for you to point me to non-RSs) state that he is notable (not that he is a writer, or won award x or award y -- those statement are already in the lede, and are not the ones at issue).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Lympne Airport GAN
You stated that the article is on hold for 7 days. Following input from other editors, it is probable that the article will be split, with the military stuff going to RAF Lympne, leaving Lympne Airport covering the civil stuff. May I ask that the GAN remains on hold rather than failing at the end of 7 days if it takes a bit longer to achieve this? The GOCE are going over the article at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, but two weeks will be the maximum. As the GAn backlog is dropping rapidly, renominating won't really be a problem for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Chaosdruid has given the article a copy edit. I've gone back over it and re-added some punctuation and amended a few minor thing. Would you please go back over the article again and raise any new issues at the bottom of the GAN subpage? Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Pasty GAN
Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for the fast and positive review. I've removed the offending line, didn't find any sources. Care to have a look? WormTT 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the article, I fixed the recent linkrot that was noted and fixed the minor prose issues brought up, I also did a spell check on the reworked parts of the article. Finally, I merged those two small sections into larger relevant sections and it looks much more clean now. I think we're getting close to a GA but please let me know what else needs to be done. Thanks! Bhockey10 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the GA status. Myself and a few other editors have been working hard over the last year to bring the article up to GA status. This was my first GA article and review and you were very helpful in the review. I learned a lot, especially that peer review does not equal a copy edit- in the future I will have all the articles that I nominate for GA status copyedited before the nom., making it easier for the reviewer. Also, I noticed your GA review was quite a bit more critical and extensive than some other noms and I think that’s needed to maintain GA quality (and esp. with firs time GAers like myself, it was very helpful). Keep up the great work, and thanks again! Bhockey10 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
I appreciate the swift, deep and sure GA review you performed at Santa Maria de Ovila. Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem - an interesting article. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Ngwat-Mahop
I'm starting to improve the article, as per your instrucions, so it will meet the GA criteria. Hansi667 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I made the corrections instructed. Take a look at the article and the review page to check if further improvements are needed. Thanks for the review. Hansi667 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
American Arts Commemorative Series medallions GAN
Hi Jezhotwells! I addressed your concerns over at the GAN for American Arts Series Commemorative medallions. Thanks for reviewing it!-RHM22 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Failed HSR-350x GAN
I posted some comments and questions regarding the improvements you ask for at Talk:HSR-350x/GA1. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
Thank you
Thanks for your review of the Iranian _targeted subsidy plan and for your constructive criticism. SSZ (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
British R&B review
Pretty sure you will have this bookmarked, but just in case, there is a request there concerning feedback from the review for this article at Talk:British rhythm and blues/GA1. Thanks in advance.--SabreBD (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Mir
Just a quick note to say thanks a lot for your GA review of Mir - it's very much appreciated! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Please check again. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Replied to your comments. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Anything else needed??? --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Replied to your comments. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please check again. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed your comments. Please take a look. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
For the speedy review of Juliusz Słowacki! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I copyedited the article (quickly, since I know it's been in the cooler for a few days :-)). Thanks for your efforts as a reviewer! Wi2g 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: GA nomination of Stephen Lynch (politician)
Thanks for the review. —Designate (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| for work on Bristol articles — Rod talk 15:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
Svetlana Kuznetsova
hello,
I removed some copyvio and I think it is acceptable now. I forgot to delete it before, oh man! How about now?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, virtually the entire career section, year by year remains a copy-vio. I notice that you removed the copy-vio template. I have replaced it, do not remove it again, please read the instructions there about editing on a temporary page until this is resolved by admins. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is completely false. I made the career section by myself. Please give me the urls; per dispenser's coypvio tool, I can not see any copyvio ([1] and [2] are mirrors of Wikipedia). I will remove the tag, as I don't see any copyright issues anymore. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- The url is on the copyvio template. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this is copyvio, as I used the information of the website for this article. However, I changed some (please look down under):
- Text from http://svetlanakuznetsova.ru/en/biography-en
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad. Her father, Aleksandr Kuznetsov has coached five Olympic and world cycling champions. Her father's protégés include her mother, Galina Tsareva, a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records, and Svetlana's brother, Nikolay Kuznetsov, a silver medalist at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Kuznetsova also tried out cycling in her early years, but it bored her.She focused on tennis instead and was sent to Spain when she was 13 years old for better training and coaching also leading her to speak fluent Spanish. - Text from the "Personal life" section
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad. Her father, Aleksandr Kuznetsov, has coached five Olympic and world cycling champions. Kuznetsova's mother, Galina Tsareva, is a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records, and her brother, Nikolay Kuznetsov, is a silver medalist at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta and coach of the Russian cycling team Lokomotiv. She began to play tennis at the age of 7 and moved to Spain 6 years later for better training and coaching. While there she became fluent in Spanish. - Text from the "Personal life" section (changed)
Kuznetsova was born in Leningrad to Aleksandr Kuznetsov, who has coached five Olympic and world cycling champions, and Galina Tsareva, a six-time world champion and holder of 20 world records. Her brother, Nikolay Kuznetsov, is a silver medalist at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta and coach of the Russian cycling team Lokomotiv. She began to play tennis at the age of 7 and moved to Spain 6 years later.
- The url is on the copyvio template. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is completely false. I made the career section by myself. Please give me the urls; per dispenser's coypvio tool, I can not see any copyvio ([1] and [2] are mirrors of Wikipedia). I will remove the tag, as I don't see any copyright issues anymore. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- The number of world records and medals are facts and are not copy-vio.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- The place to discuss this is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_March_20. Please follow the instructions and edit on the temporary page. This matter will be determined by admins. The review has been concluded. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011! Mifter (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to there talk page with a friendly message.
Boise
Do you think the article would flow better if all the info on the plaza were in one section? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
Barnstar for GA reviews
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| I realise that you'll receive another from the people co-ordinating the GAN backlog elimination drive, but to review ~80 articles in under a month is a stellar undertaking. For your work, here is the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Thank you for your impressive efforts! AGK [•] 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks!
Hi again, Jezhotwells!
Thanks for reviewing Kepler-8b. I greatly appreciate it. :D --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for the pass of St Gallgo's Church as well - much appreciated! BencherliteTalk 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you also for the review of Kepler-9d. Though, I must say, based on the sheer size of list of exoplanetary host stars, I won't be running out of exoplanets in a loooong time. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nor will I be running out of Anglesey churches just yet! Thanks for the St Caian pass. BencherliteTalk 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you also for the review of Kepler-9d. Though, I must say, based on the sheer size of list of exoplanetary host stars, I won't be running out of exoplanets in a loooong time. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for the pass of St Gallgo's Church as well - much appreciated! BencherliteTalk 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift and diligent review. Your efforts on GAN is nothing short of outstanding. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Weather ship
After the review, I have several questions which I posted to the review page. Prose is something I need to work on, which usually requires help from others, even after 101 good article contributions. I need input about what is missing in the lead; that comment had me at a loss. Thank you for reviewing the article, and I look forward to your responses. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your follow-up comments were very helpful. It's amazing what a slight change in the search terms reveals. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm looking for more feedback on prose issues. I've read up more on the wikipedia criteria for GA and peer review, and the second seems to require passage of the first. I saw your comments below in one of your other GA failures. In my opinion, you need to be willing to work with editors who have issues with prose if you're going to be reviewing articles for GA status, because peer review does not appear to be meant for C class or lower articles. It would be one thing if we were given a week to improve the issues, but we were not. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well prose was not the only issue leading to failure. The combination of issues led me to believe that it would not be possible to to bring the article up to scratch in a week or so. As you will have seen below, I do not think that it is a reviewer's job to copy-edit articles, beyond correcting minor mistakes. Writing reasonably good prose is a skill that cannot necessarily be quickly acquired. Wikipedia:Use plain English is a good place to start, and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and its links also have a lot of good information and writing exercises. Writing good prose is an essential skill for Wikipedia editors who wish to get their articles up to GA and eventually FA standard.
- Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says
- I'm looking for more feedback on prose issues. I've read up more on the wikipedia criteria for GA and peer review, and the second seems to require passage of the first. I saw your comments below in one of your other GA failures. In my opinion, you need to be willing to work with editors who have issues with prose if you're going to be reviewing articles for GA status, because peer review does not appear to be meant for C class or lower articles. It would be one thing if we were given a week to improve the issues, but we were not. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
| “ | The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. Anyone can nominate an article and any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required. (Note, however, the subsequent paragraph on reviewer integrity.) A reviewer should be able to read the article critically, and apply the Good article criteria fairly. If the reviewer believes that the criteria are met, the article can be listed as a Good article. If any of the criteria are not met, the reviewer has two options. If the problems are minor or easy to fix, the reviewer can simply fix them, or the nomination can be put "on hold" for a week or so to give regular editors of the article time to address the reviewer's suggestions. If the problems are substantial or extensive, the nomination can be failed. In the latter case, regular editors should be invited to renominate the article once it has been improved; the Good article criteria are achievable in almost any article, and there is no minimum time between nominations. | ” |
| — WP:Reviewing good articles | ||
- In my experience, it is not possible to teach someone how to write good prose in a week or so. Copy-editing is one option, but I am not very impressed with the skills of some who call themselves copy-editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson Hogg
Hi Jezhotwells,
In your review of this article you mentioned that the lead needed some work. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on what was missing/extraneous in the lead if you get a chance. I'm going to try to take a shot at fixing up the article. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Simply I did not feel that the lead fully summarised the article. Your recent edits appear to have addressed this. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I always find the lead tricky to write for some reason. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Mario Balotelli GA Review
Please could you re-tag the dead links so I know which refs it is because I had to revert the edits to revert an IP edit which keeps on deleting the lead section, cheers, –LiamTaylor– 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think but correct me if im wrong, i have completed all the criteria for the GA apart from a copy-edit which i've already put a request for. Please could you give me a quick update to tell me if there is anything else that i have missed, cheers, –LiamTaylor– 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Somerset (again)
Thanks for all your help with Somerset Levels which got its little star last night. The next _target is a list. It's not quite ready for FLC nomination but if you had the time/inclination to turn your eagle eyes to the prose on List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset that would be great.— Rod talk 08:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for the review. Veriss (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review
Your doing a great job Jezhotwells. Another GA review under your belt, you'll win the top award at the backlog. Shame your reviews are not that detailed or fair..RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is also a shame that you are nominating poorly written articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- No one will help me improve the prose. I wish you would, your writing is better, your good at that. Mentor me, the copyeditors were unhelpful previously. I could benifit with someones knowledge who knows there stuff.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a good teacher. Have you asked at the Soaps project or the Australia project. You could also try Wikipedia:Writing better articles. It takes some time to learn how to write well. I suggest that you spend time looking for people who write well about subjects that you are interested in and team up with them to work together. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh well okay then. Thankyou for fetching those links for me. I appreciate that. I think it is my prose that is the only problem these days. I can most other things and I work hard on everything to make sure it is factual and correct... then my writing goes and ruins the whole thing. So I certainly have to raise the bar there.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 23:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your work on sourcing and organising is good. As you say your prose lets you down. It will take time to learn that. have been learning about writing for over 50 years! and I still have much to learn. Minor mistakes are usually not a problem, I am sure that you will become a good writer in time, but for now try and find a partner. You could try using the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user scheme explaining that you need help with writing style. Your contributions to Wikipediaare good, but GAs do need to be well written. Good luck! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have someone helping me now, he has started the copy edit on the article, so fingers crossed. :) Just a heads up about something, GI Joe is undergoing a big clean up because there are many articles with fansite refs.. We have been cleaning them up. G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) this article you passed for GA has multiple fansite refs than have been proved unreliable with the guys at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters. One ref is also a blogspot.Rain the 1 BAM 03:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your work on sourcing and organising is good. As you say your prose lets you down. It will take time to learn that. have been learning about writing for over 50 years! and I still have much to learn. Minor mistakes are usually not a problem, I am sure that you will become a good writer in time, but for now try and find a partner. You could try using the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user scheme explaining that you need help with writing style. Your contributions to Wikipediaare good, but GAs do need to be well written. Good luck! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh well okay then. Thankyou for fetching those links for me. I appreciate that. I think it is my prose that is the only problem these days. I can most other things and I work hard on everything to make sure it is factual and correct... then my writing goes and ruins the whole thing. So I certainly have to raise the bar there.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 23:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a good teacher. Have you asked at the Soaps project or the Australia project. You could also try Wikipedia:Writing better articles. It takes some time to learn how to write well. I suggest that you spend time looking for people who write well about subjects that you are interested in and team up with them to work together. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- No one will help me improve the prose. I wish you would, your writing is better, your good at that. Mentor me, the copyeditors were unhelpful previously. I could benifit with someones knowledge who knows there stuff.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering if you noticed my last message? I wasn't sure if I should challenge some of the fansite refs or wait until you looked it over.Rain the 1 BAM 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like they were added since my review. I don't generally revisit reviewed articles (I have reviewed over 600). Anyone is free to ask for re-assessment or reassess themselves. Details at WP:GAR. Or they can just fix it up themselves. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I know you have reviewed so many so - I wouldn't ask you to go back over it. :p Atleast I know that they didn't sneak past and they have added since. Actuslly though, It would have been odd for you not to notice because IMO your good at picking out sources. Have a good day. :).Rain the 1 BAM 13:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Bristol
As one of the major contributors to Bristol you might want to take a look at the recent edits by User talk:Sir Stanley - he ((I assume it's a he) has a bit of form. I've reworked them a bit but you may feel that more robust action is required... RedSquirrel (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
SS Great Western
I've sorted out the move as you suggested, will fix the redirect in the template. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings
Hello, its a pleasure to make your acquaintanceship. I'm the nominator for the article Lepidoptera, and its nice to see such a seasoned reviewer review the aforementioned. This isn't my first, and sure isn't my last, but what is the purpose of the neutral signs, does that mean you haven't decided yet? Oh, and God forbid I forget to say thank you for cutting of your own time. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still reading, the review will likely be posted within a few hours. The neutral signs will change as comments are added by me. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Bybrook River
I reverted your edit as the particluar Folly Farm referred to is very definitely in South Gloucestershire, as you would see if you read the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, but why did you then in this edit link it to Folly Farm located in Somerset? To create a disambiguation page today, I have now moved that article to Folly Farm, Somerset, and hence why I moved your incorrectly inserted link also. Can I suggest that you insert correct information in the information box, such as a Folly Farm, Gloucestershire article, than ranting at someone who merely multipled your original mistake. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As a fellow contributor (alc59) to the Bybrook River article, you (Trident13) have my whole hearted support on this. Corrections are fine, but they do not need to be overlaid with ill-judged and unnecessarily aggressive negative comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alc59 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Due to a quirk of the infobox Rivers template, sources are automatically converted into wikilinks. I have fixed it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks Jez for giving up your time, ever patient and helpful, to assist new users of Wikipedia at the Bristol Wiki Academy on 19th March 2011. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Tennis
Hey, yeah i know that but we had several times that someone tagged it unreferenced and then other users reverted him with the same argument and after ome discussion it was cleared. It is the bracket from the main article, so a link to the bracket is/should be enough. Kante4 (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Some sort of private consensus is not an argument for breaching guidelines and policy. Get it sourced properly, please. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is sourced. Don´t know what you expect to add to a tennis bracket article other than a link TO the bracket. Kante4 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Work It Out (Beyoncé Knowles song)
Hi. I really do not understand what you want to tell. Can you please do the copy-edit yourself? Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not the job of a reviewer to copy-edit articles to turn them into reasonably well written prose. It is the job of the nominator to make sure that a nominated article meets the good article criteria. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks anyway. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think he may be confused because whenever I and a couple of other reviewers (like Sasata (talk · contribs)) review GAs, we copyedit them and fix minor issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- So it means that Jezhotwells can do it? Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do fix minor issues, in my reviews. I do not copy-edit articles which are poorly written throughout. That should be done before nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the GA reviewer is in no way required to fix up the article. I only do so just to help users who may have less-than-stellar English. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do fix minor issues, in my reviews. I do not copy-edit articles which are poorly written throughout. That should be done before nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- So it means that Jezhotwells can do it? Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think he may be confused because whenever I and a couple of other reviewers (like Sasata (talk · contribs)) review GAs, we copyedit them and fix minor issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks anyway. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: Recent GA list
Thanks, I'll have a look into it. (Not sure what the problem could be, I fiddled with a load of my tools last night but not that particular script. Weird. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 09:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Scott Davidson (musician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable person. Does not meet the general notability guideline.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fages (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for casting your eyes over the Lympne Airport article, your constructive criticism and eventual passing of the article as a Good Article!
Ben Crowley
Thank you for the notice. I will try to find material to expand the article but it is possible that he just is not notable enough to justify an article. Juno (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 April 2011
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Talkback
Please see the talk page of Abraham Quintanilla Jr AJona1992 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive
On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.
During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
- 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
- 423 GA nominations passed.
- 72 GA nominations failed.
- 27 GA nominations were on hold.
We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.
At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).
While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).
If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.
Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Cal Poly Pomona
I checked the dead links at the start of the review. I did not recheck them, but I will check them now. Thank you for pointing them out. I removed the [citation needed] tag in the table of colleges, because citations would have been needed if the year that the college was founded was specified, but it was not. I failed to notice the third [citation needed] tag, and I regret that error. What is the procedure for correcting my mistake? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that the nominator has resolved the remaining issues. Racepacket (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems so, now. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Taylor series GAN
Hi, why is Talk:Taylor series/GA1 being requested for speedy deletion? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because it is a review page accidentally started by the nominator who left a note there. I transferred the note to the article talk page. If the accidentally started (non)review stays it just means the GANbot reports it as being under review, when it isn't. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the explanation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)
Hey Jezhotwells. I have nominated G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) for GA reassessment after much thought. I did challenge the information but they want to keep it and I feel that it does not comply with the GA. One editor made a point on the talk that the GA review was a month ago, but still you reviewed the article fair and square and there was not large sections of the article with unreliable refs. It is almost asif they wqaited until it passed, then created a firewall to keep me at bay. Because I have been reverted each time I tried to make a positive change. Anyway, on another note two editors have been helping me with the prose issdue I had. So I am glad I took your advice! And a big congrats on the GA Drive and all the articles you managed to over see.Rain the 1 BAM 20:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For taking care of this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 April 2011
- Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?
- Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news
From WikiProject Table tennis
Hello there. You have placed a template on a page I have recently created: Ruth Aarons. With this template you ask for more sources. However, I have included in the page a link to the official database of the International Table Tennis Federation listing the complete list of achievements of the player Ruth Aarons.
Since I've created the wiki page for several other table tennis players, it could be important to understand if the link to the International Table Tennis Federation database is enough.
Cialo (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- BLP articles usually require more than a cite to a stats database. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added two more references to her biografy. Cialo (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's much better, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
GAN-Q
Hi, I had a question that wasn't answered among the FAQ. Today an editor opened up a review page on an article I wrote and nominated for GA. The review was started, but he immediately said he wouldn't be able to do a "thorough review" until the weekend, then wrote a few recommendations based on the Lead section. This is only my second nomination, so my question is: Is this practice normal or acceptable? It seems odd to open a review page, then say "I'll review it later". Relevant discussion at: Talk:Coffin birth/GA1. Thanks. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, Spinningspark, is an experienced editor and has undertaken quite a lot of GA reviews. I suggest that you ask him, not me. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- An experienced editor? Good enough. Thanks. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive award
|
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
| For reviewing over 40 Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia. Congratulations! –MuZemike 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
The big award
|
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
| For the second consecutive drive, you have reviewed (by far) the most Good article nominations during the GA backlog elimination drive and hence is entitled to this Content Review Medal. Your reviews have gone a long way towards making the GA backlog elimination drive a success. Thank you, and congratulations! –MuZemike 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. I am glad that could help. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Moonrise
I've replied to your request to explain the usage of certain references in the article Moonrise (Warriors), so I thought I'd notify you in case you didn't notice. Thanks, Brambleclawx 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Responded. Brambleclawx 22:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
problem section
You need to review your edit at User_talk:Wizardman in light of how it messes up the new section I added after it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- It worked when you put a section heaqding in, so I really don't see a problem at my end. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- It didn't. But this guy fixed it by editing your section: [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, sorry about that. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Rcsprinter123
I've made a pledge not to review anymore GANs, or do any "bad" edits until this time next year. I'll just focus on writing articles in userspace, and then promoting them for a bit. I'm also going on a two week WikiBreak soon too. Userboxes can be misleading. Age. Sorry, Jezhotwells. RcsprinterGimme a message 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the apology. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)