Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I've swapped the pic around - any better?-- Seahamlass 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your review. I'll give the lead another look and maybe go for peer review. Can't go to FAC yet, nuthatch already there, might be my first ever FA fail! The Australian images of the tern are brilliant, much better than my SA one, but that was the only one of that ssp. thanks again jimfbleak (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made the final change you suggested, any other concerns about the article? Gran2 15:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I responded and am letting you know because I wasn't sure whether you were watching the page or not. Gary King (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts
This user helped promote Gene Derricotte to good article status. |
--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think your comments have been addressed, and the article is ready. RedThunder 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I got the concerns left at the GA review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peanut, not to sound annoying or anything, but I've recently started a discussion regarding the names of Brazilian clubs on wikipedia (here) and considering the scale and importance of the clubs involved and the fact that there is no formal move request, I thought it might be a good idea to inform some of the regular WP:FOOTY contributors in order to get a consensus and not just a few opinions. So if you could take a second to express your opinion, it would be appreciated, cheers. BanRay 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this I don't think I'm you're man for this one. I've nominated FACs before which I thought were cast iron and which ended up with 100% oppose. The only suggestion I'd make is ensure that every single reference is accurate.
Generally when I've seen FA revs they tend to check every single reference whereas in GA it tends to be a random sampling to check there's none that obviously don't work. Otherwise good luck. BigHairRef | Talk 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we're ready for another look at the article.-Wafulz (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted some players from the 'Scottish expatriate footballers' section because they've been put in there just because they have played outside Scotland. It's a page for Scottish footballers who have played outside Britian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.53.36 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been a few days or so since Songs for the Deaf was failed and that was for three reasons.
This isn't meant to be seen as a critique of your reviewing methods or a plead for Songs for the Deaf to get a second chance. You certainly improved the article and for that I'm thankful, but maybe be a little less harsh on future articles, as I'm sure if Songs for the Deaf was drawn against one of the reviewers for the two articles I cited earlier, it'd be a GA already. Red157(talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am ready for a review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief reply over on the talk page. Thanks for taking a look at it. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
With regards, I did not create this page, I have contributed several times. But was not the original article creator --Footballgy (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reviewing this article. As you could probably see, I've worked very hard on it, and appreciate the time you took to review it. I've addressed and fixed all the points of the review (covers section excluded), and have closed the Peer Review. I'd be very happy if you could make a final evaluation. All the best! Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Transparency | ||
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your comments at the FLC page of West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons. I think I have now addressed all your comments, but I'm still struggling with how best to phrase the lead, and in particular how to introduce the list without self-referencing or sounding too false. I'd appreciate any ideas you have with this. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently he (or a bloke of the same name :-) played on trial for us yesterday, which is more than enough for some editors to decide he's signed... I've got him on my watchlist, but you got there first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you've made a fair few edits to The Football League 2008-09 so I was wondering if you would take a look at this and see what you think of it? I'm just looking for thoughts at the moment, it's not a full-fledged proposition for change, but anything you add to the discussion would be great - even if it's just saying whether you like the idea or disagree with it. Thanks. Falastur2 Talk 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Peanut4,
Thanks for your extensive review. I've done my best to address your concerns, and I'm ready for a second look. Thanks a lot, Maxim(talk) 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this article. I think I've done everything you've asked me to do, so could you take another look? Thanks, Shrewpelt (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Peanut4, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew T.C. 23:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, very new to the wiki scene, I knew it was juanjo because I was at the game. but good work in finding the West Lothian courier article :)
(DieHardDiamond (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
I think we clashed on Simpson and Delilah... sorry about that. I didn't put myself as reviewer because... well I'm too inexperienced to be doing reviews on my own, and thought it best just to leave some comments. But if you don't think it'll be a problem? Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a list though! I have a substantial amount of background information that I believe makes it a stand alone article. It's not even titled "List of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks". Sure I know I list all the starters, but all the in-depth info should be notable. Sorry for misunderstanding if I am all wrong, though. conman33 (. . .talk) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Good Article Medal of Merit | ||
Thanks so much for all the great work you've been doing around GAN. It's really appreciated. —Giggy 10:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done on bringing Sam Cowan and particularly Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 to GA Status. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow thanks, I've been trying to find out the proper etiquete for ages - now I know. CharltonTilliDieTalk/Contribs 09:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed your issue about the venue of the second leg, sorry I didn't address it earlier, anyway more comments would be welcome thanks NapHit (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Howdy! I noticed you were listed at the volunteer's list, and have seen you on the WPF talk pages, would you be willing to contribute to the Alan Shearer article's peer review? Cheers, - Toon05 21:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedia-wide, listing cat page links chronologically is not a common practice, and what is wrong is for a particular wikiproject to assert a particular style at odds with wikip-wide practice. Having said this though, there is no fully established and accepted way to list cat page links, and the idea of listing chronologically is an intriguing one (I hadn t considered till your message). Cat pages should certainly not be listed by perceived importance, as this breaches WP:NPOV, but chronological listing obviously doesn t breach this in any way, and it also better addresses that the names of cat pages can change and listing them alphabetically is utterly random. Chronological ordering has an order that is non-bias - sounds like just the thing - the question though is can it become as widely accepted across wikip as alphabetical or by perceived importance? Mayumashu (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Noticed you cleaning him up. Sorry if I left him in a mess, I got so fed up with this IP systematically removing metadata and other stuff from Darlington-related articles that I just reverted all their edits without actually looking at what I was reverting back to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, glad you liked it. I think I'm gonna put Ronnie up for GA now, unless there's any more you'd like to add? I've been meaning to do so for a while but kept on finding new stuff to add. As you know the article has already been through peer review (thanks for your help there btw, I remember you addressed a a few of the comments), but maybe you could just check my last few edits, then if there's nothing major I'll put it up for GA nom. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm feeling generous today...
Football (soccer) barnstar | ||
For all the excellent Bradford City A.F.C. content you've produced and for your contributions to WP:FOOTY in general. Jameboy (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
I hope you meant this, if not, I'll keep looking. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I've fixed all your concerns at the GAN now, thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed some of you concerns in the first section. But I have one question. Please check. Others concerns will be addressed the soonest time possible. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and pass. Is there a minimum length for FA? This is certainly shorter than my previous FAs, but there isn't much to add to what's there jimfbleak (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is very common to list players as retired in this fashion "Playing Position (retired)". Is there some other reason why you undid this revision ? Aaron carass (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
All of your comments have been fixed. The article is now ready for GA status. —Wildroot (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for gettin back on the nomination of Talk:Hunter Mariners. I have dones the suggestions at the Talk:Hunter Mariners/GA1 page. Thanks The Windler talk 09:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the 1911 kit, have a look at Historical Kits, which lists every City kit they've ever used, whereas the same site has City's current kit, which I'll amend as soon as I can. GiantSnowman 11:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for responding to the nomination so quickly. I've addressed all your issues in one way or another - on a couple of instances I've left some comments/questions for you to help out on. The talk page where all this has been said is Talk:Glebe (rugby league team)/GA1. Cheers, MDM (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going on holiday tomorrow for (nearly) two weeks and so will be internet-less in that period, and I was wobndering if you'd mind updating the league stats in the 'Current players' section of the City players page? Cheers, GiantSnowman 12:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i expanded the article, took out pictures, is it GA quality yet? If not, please tell me what's still wrong with it. I hope the grammar is the only problem. BlueRed 23:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Howdy! I have responded to your comments at Talk:Calgary Cannons/GA1. Thanks for the review! Resolute 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is everything alright, I posted a comment on the David Morse talk page three days ago, you haven't replied yet. --Music26/11 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Peanut, I'll try to finish the review of the Bradford history tomorrow, hope it's been useful so far. I've a nasty feeling I've broken my ankle a bit so I may be busy tomorrow sorting that out, but I'll do my best to get back to you! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate very much your input at this article regarding reaching GA. I think all of the bits you suggested have been seen to and would appreciate your second opinion on what further (if anything) is needed. Best wishes.--VS talk 11:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peanut4. My previous project, the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix successfully became an FA last week. Having noticed your name on the peer review volunteers list, I was wondering whether you could review the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article, leaving comments on the peer review page. Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll do a B-class review on it as soon as I get chance, and happy to contribute to any further review, but just logging off now. I've been doing quite a lot of article assessment lately. I want to get the Unassessed articles down to zero for the England task force, although even that won't tell the whole story as I know there's a lot out there that haven't been tagged at all. But of the articles we have tagged at WP:EFTF, we are at around 95% assessed, which isn't bad. (btw I thought we deserved a shortcut, hence I grabbed WP:EFTF. Not sure if we're supposed to tell anyone, but the page didn't exist so it seemed OK to do) --Jameboy (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have repied at Talk:Albert White (basketball)/GA1. I also added back the header template for readers who may be arriving at the page from a piped link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Was looking at History of Bradford City A.F.C., one thing I noticed was the use of commas seemed a bit inconsistent in places (sorry, it's the sort of thing I do notice). E.g. in the Early successes section
etc. And in the cite-templates, you've fairly consistently put newspapers and club websites as publisher
rather than work
. I'd be happy to go through it and sort them out if you like (I don't mean re-punctuate the whole thing or anything stupid, just add the odd comma where one is obviously missing and fix the cites), or shall I mention it at the FAC so you can either disagree or do it yourself, or what? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks again, jimfbleak (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey sorry to bother you, but can you please review the Los Angeles Lakers article again, i made it longer and added sources, i hope its just the grammar this time. Thanks. BlueRed 08:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded at Talk:Michigan Wolverines men's basketball/GA1. If you are promoting GAs, please try to promote this article before Albert White. This is a much better 100th GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. If you give me a few days I would be happy to take a look at the article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your tireless efforts and meticulousness in reviewing for Good Article status the recent crop of articles relating to Singapore at the 2008 Summer Olympics, I hereby confer on you the Barnstar of Diligence. Congratulations! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) |
Just want to thank you for tackling the task of those three GANs I submitted. I know it can be rather dense, but it is greatly appreciated. I hate to ask anything more, but I'm also preparing 2005 Sugar Bowl to face the FAC gauntlet, and if you have a spare moment, I'd really appreciate any thoughts or comments you might have on that article as well -- particularly in regard to its readability. Again, thank you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say thanks for your comments at the Scott Carson peer review. I'll try to address the points you made sometime during this week. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - you recently contributed to this thread at WT:WPF. Could you possibly spare the time to contribute the same thoughts to Talk:Arsenal F.C.? I'm having to deal with one particularly zealous user there who is calling me a vandal (while themselves deleting the discussion) and more reasoned and measured contributions to the discussion would be very much welcome. Thanks. Qwghlm (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, very nice work, all your hard work is much appreciated! GiantSnowman 12:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I understand what your trying to say, but I still feel you may have a slightly blinded idea about the situation. I most likely will take this to GA if it fails FA now. But the fact remains that the nomination candidate page is almost deliberately being treated differently compared to that of other pages. It's similar to what I said on the talk page of the project. Some people merely react to a nomination based on the subject itself, not on the merits of the article. Surely one has to admit that there is a little bit of unnecessary flame going on. Countless issues were addressed on the nomination page and I fixed them all up completely. I even went through all the trouble to find extra references based on the most obvious and non-published rare information (regarding the volatility statement). On top of that, I tweaked everything to the way it was recommended, some of the users even edited the page themselves to fix it up. Yet there was still not a single support in return. The image issue is more ridiculous than anything I've ever seen! One user asked for an appropriate source on some of the images, and I clearly provided the sources with relevant links and author information etc. He then commented and said that some images may have inappropriate copyright tags on them. I asked him to specify such and recommend which tags should be added, his reply was an instant 'Oppose' based on 'inappropriate image use' even though I had clearly met all his stated comments and requirements.
Surely you can't call that fair. I assume good faith where I see good faith. I see good faith in you right now trying to resolve this situation, but I don't see or assume good faith in users who ruin the nomination with unstoppable 'Opposes' based on issues which are clearly already resolved. Don't even get me started on Fasach Nua. All I will say that as usual, it is evident that the majority of people (I'd estimate about 95%) disagree with his argument and it is therefore not an applicable one. Domiy (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading a few of the club season articles recently. The quality of these varies quite a bit, and many seem to attract new users who seem to use them as fan pages, though we all have to start somwehere I guess. But it's good to see that Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 is a Good Article and I think it sets a good benchmark for this type of article. Just a quick suggestion regarding the league table in the article though. As the article is about Bradford City's season, would a grey table with a single claret and/or amber band across Bradford's row not be more appropriate? All the other colouring is appropriate to the promoted/relegated/play-off teams only (fine for an article about the division/league as a whole), but in terms of this article I want Bradford's league position to leap out at me ... or maybe not :-) Just a thought. I've managed to tag another 60 or so lists for WP:EFTF since the last article count was run, which makes me wonder how many more are out there. Certainly there must be hundreds more articles untagged so I'll keep plugging away. I've also made a start on the PR comments for Scott Carson and should be done fairly soon hopefully, so thanks again for your comments. --Jameboy (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope I'm doing this right. His D/O/B is 21/11/1989, not 05/05/1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.84.48 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Just a little something to say many thanks for your valued help and advice with a wide variety of different articles, and especially those relating to the Mighty Bantams! GiantSnowman 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC) |
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
many thanks, just wish all the FAC reviewers agreed jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for the offer of assistance. Literally all I need is the page numbers from the 87/88 and 88/89 editions upon which the preceding season's appearance/goals data for Norwich City are found, so that I can reference those seasons in the table in Steve Bruce's article. If you were able to find those page numbers for me that would be fantastic!!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"To be honest, I much prefer yours." - that's just what Federer said to Murray.... --Jameboy (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am wondering if you could peer reviewed the following sport article Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy at Wikipedia:Peer review/Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy/archive1. Thanks—Chris! ct 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Created a very stubby stub for Thomas Farnall, who's one of yours. Maybe your books know more about him than mine do, suspect they can't know less :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this one:
This user helped promote Rob Pelinka to good article status. |
--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was just going with the British English way, since Coldplay are a British band and stuff. Totally sorry for my part. I've got the stuff for "In My Place". -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I did your changes, please check the note on the page Ctjf83Talk 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peanut, you have justed edited the Eugene Martinez article, and said that he played for Harrogate Town. However, Neil Brown says he played for Harrogate Railway...maybe he played for both? Cheers, GiantSnowman 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
His birth certificate says "Jamie Waite", as per a search on findmypast.com. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peanut, your issues within Real Madrid C.F. FAC have been resolved. Please check them as soon as you can. Thanks.--KSA13 08:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.