Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 8 April 2008

Home

Talk

E-mail

Watchlist

Contribs

Sandbox

Essays

Userboxes

Notices

Scripts

Awards

Menu

Archivebox

Quicklinks

messages

Talk archives
	Sep 06–Jul 07		Jul 07–Sep 07		Sep 07–Nov 07
	Nov 07–Mar 08		Mar 08–Apr 08		Apr 08–Jul 08
	Jul 08–Aug 08		Aug 08–Oct 08		Oct 08–Dec 08
	Dec 08–Feb 09		Feb 09–Mar 09		Mar 09–May 09
	May 09–July 09		July 09–Aug 09		Aug 09–Sept 09
	Sept 09–Nov 09		Nov 09–Dec 09		Dec 09–Feb 10
	Feb 10–Mar 10		Mar 10–May 10		May 10–June 10
	June 10–Aug 10		Aug 10–Nov 10		Nov 10–Apr 11
	Apr 11–Oct 11		Oct 11–May 15		May 15–

Click here to leave me a new message, or use the various edit tabs on the page. Don't forget to sign your message by including four tildes (~~~~) at the end - I like to know who I'm talking to ;)

Question on GA process

Hello, I have caught your name in the Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Mentors list so please allow me to raise a question. I am member of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chess that has its own formal process for review at this page. There are some articles, like Alexander Alekhine, that we have assessed as not of sufficient quality for FA-class or A-class, but good enough for GA-class. Thus, would it be possible somehow to immediately set this article as GA-class, without going through the whole GA-nomination process ? After all, it has already been reviewed quite extensively, as you can see in this review, so I do not see the point of doing another review again. What do you think ? SyG (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your great explanations on my Talk page! SyG (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic campaign

Thankyou very much for you message, I was wondering whether I was being unreasonable and I was glad to see that you didn't consider what happened to be entirely my fault. I must admit to feeling a little bruised after that, and it'll be while before I go back to FAC (partly as I am now involved with GA Sweeps). Nonetheless I will return at some point and when I do, twill be in triumph I am sure. Thankyou very much for all the help you gave me towards this series of articles, I couldn't have achieved as much as I did without the support of yourself and User:Carre. Many regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of a GA Review

Hi, thanks for the offer of checking out my review. I'd be interested on any comments you might have. The review is at Talk:Unforgiven (2004). There was also some discussion at my Talk Page. Thanks again! Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Joking Apart GA sweep

Thank you for your sweep GA review of Joking Apart. I especially appreciate your minor fixes: it's annoying, really, when reviewers point out a very minor issue that would have been quicker to fix themselves rather than type it out!

I'm aiming to improve the article to FA status in due course, so any other issues you picked up on that you think would help get it there would be appreciated. Cheers, The JPS 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your additional comments. I've expanded some parts, and rearranged others. I'm going to get round to rewriting the 'Episodes' section. More reliable sources should start to drip through with reviews of series two. Bathurst is making various TV and radio appearances on Tuesday too (The Wright Stuff, LBC, The One Show). I've requested a copyedit from LOCE. After that it should be ready for FAC. Thanks again for your work. The JPS 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The President is on hold

Hi, happy to do the review. I've left a detailed review on the talk page but basically the article needs more work on its prose before I'm comfortable passing it, otherwise there aren't really any serious issues. I'd recommend asking Carre to take a look too, he's good at picking up things other people have missed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A new Talk Venue?!

I will look into what happened with that refernce, I believe at one time it was complete... i have no idea how it degenerated... All the comments are a little bit overwhelming, I guess we maybe thought we would just get a GA stamp but we are trying to stay positive and work through all the comments!!! Thanks for all your time and help, I dont know where this page would be without you!--Mfreud (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried finding the source via google scholar and the university library webpage but couldn't quite locate it. I then went through the page's history and it turns out that it was added by Eecono so I have left a note on her talk page and so hopefully she can address where she got this source from, or I will ask her about it next time I see her. Thanks again for all your help, fingers crossed we get to GA in the next few days!--Mfreud (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulatory note but I have to say we would have never of made it without all your input! So, Congrats to you too, we did it!! Now onto Andewits comments and suggestions! The next couple weeks might be a bit slower as we have run out of english sources in the libraries so we are now going to start searching through the spanish ones which is a bit more arderous! Thanks again for all the help thus far and I hope you added the little decal saying you contributed to making the President (novel) a good article!!!  :)--Mfreud (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nebulous GA sweep

Thanks for giving the article a quick copyedit - I hadn't looked over the article for a while, so quite a bit of non-GA standard stuff had crept in. Thanks for cleaning that up. I've implemented the suggestions you made on the talk page. I'm a bit worried the lead is still a bit short - it's never been my strong point, but I've lengthened and clarified it a bit. Laïka 14:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

re-GA reviews

Hi, don't worry, it's a good thing to make sure these articles are kept to a sufficiently high standard. I think part of the problem is that a lot of them have had uncited stuff creep in during the time since they passed - quite a few of them were promoted in 2006, and articles like Mr Bean, due to the programme's target audience, seem to be quite attractive for children to edit! I've been adding quite a few references to that, so hopefully that will be sufficient by the reassessment date - the only problem I'm finding is that the article itself is probably the most detailed thing about it on the internet! But, no, it's good to have problems pointed out - the only reason I had to let Dad's Army slip was because I don't have access to any books about it at the moment, and it needed loads of work doing on it. I'll perhaps have to have a go at that when I have a free moment. Thanks for letting me know about One Foot in the Grave. Bob talk 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>° 00:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

copy editing

As it states on my user page, I do copy edits for those who ask. :) And you did. So nicely. :) Sometimes I don't have time or am overwhelmed by daily copy editing (grading!), so I haven't made myself available for that particular job very visibly, but I don't mind volunteering on a case-by-case basis. Working on The President (novel) is a pleasure. Awadewit | talk 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth

Eyeserene, you have been so magnificent and helpful and generous with your time regarding the WP:MMM. Thank you so much! I feel I shouldn't even think of imposing you any more. But I just thought I'd make you aware that the editors of The General in His Labyrinth are feeling a little overwhelmed. They've made some great progress, and the article is now one of our better ones. But I suspect that a fresh eye and a bit of encouragement would go down very well, if it were at all possible for you to provide them. But please don't feel pressured at all! Thanks again. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page:) Yes, many thanks for this. Seeing the list of the pages you've watchlisted, I note that they're among the project's most successful so far... I can't believe that's just coincidence! I agree that The General in His Labyrinth is pretty close to a GA. Its editors will be encouraged to hear you say that. And I'd say that I, the Supreme isn't all that far behind. Many thanks again! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page:) More thanks! I'm glad that you are also finding the process worthwhile. It has been (and still is) interesting indeed. Incidentally, you might be interested in this, which is the beginnings of a reflection upon this experience. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page:) Glad you're interested. And heh, I'm equally interested to see what my conclusions will be! It's a story so far without an ending... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page:) Heh, indeed. Though strangely, and in a rather febrile rush, I feel I've come to the end for now. (Though cf. the suitably wiki-like caveat in my final sentence!) Anyhow, I would be delighted to hear your, or anyone else's, responses. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding layout, we must have our wires crossed. I agree with you! It was changed to the way you suggested. Historical context first. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ES; I'll take that nice glass of wine to my herbal bath now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of The General and His Labyrinth editors, I just wanted to say thanks so much for all your help on our article! It is currently on hold for GA and we are still working hard to get it past that stage and onto FA. Thanks again! Eshiu (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you believe in these (and I'm not sure I do either)

But here goes, inspired by this diff (but it could have been so many others)...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your extraordinary thoughtfulness, kindness, and supporting mentoring of members of WP:MMM. Thank you and, again, thank you! jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Haha I'm glad you like my picture. If you'd like I can draw one of you for your main-page... Lincolnchan98 (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things

Sorry to hear you've been unwell, but isn't manflu a chance to get off work and edit Misplaced Pages :-)

Anyway, the two things are... First, you offered to write an article for the next GA newsletter on delisting. I can help if you want to write it, otherwise DC or myself will cobble something together. Second, any chance you could GA review Miguel Angel Asturias? It's been at GAN for a while now, and the first reviewer went AWOL. By the way, I have appreciated so many of your contributions that I have lost count. Geometry guy 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Man-flu can be truly debilitating. I'm glad you survived! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: your ga newsletter contribution

Thanks for writing that. I'll take a look at it in the next few hours and edit as needed. At first glance, most of it looks ok, and I don't really have major problems,... ;-)

I think we also need to put a few April Fools jokes into the newsletter. If you have any ideas, please add them to the draft version. ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Surnames

(Copied over from my talk page:) Heh, no problem. It would be like calling you Mr. Serene, rather than Mr. EyeSerene. Or something like that... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA?

I think that you would make a good administrator. If you accept, I will fill in the redlink. Please respond as soon as possible on my talk page, accessible by clicking the 15 in my signature. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've created the page. Once you are done answering the questions, please transclude your RFA onto the main RFA page. If you'd like me to change my statement, please contact me. Thanks, and good luck! bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the procedures very well, but I would like to do more than support: could I add a conomination? Geometry guy 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictator novel

Hi, EyeSerene; I wasn't sure whether you wanted my impressions here or on the article talk page, so I chose the former.

I agree with your review comments and share the concern that, even with complete rationales, the book covers would likely not qualify for fair use in this article. The images appear to be used as “eye candy”; I’m unable to discern or anticipate meaningful contributions beyond this malapropos function. I’m forced to wonder how seeing, for example, the cover of The President helps me to understand either that it was a classic novel in this genre or the genre itself. Fulfilling either of those purposes would be necessary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Other (perhaps now moot) considerations include the apparent ability of prose alone to convey meaning (which would be more so pertinent if this were up for FA) and the questionable necessity of all three covers; NFCC#3A requires as little use as possible in each article.

Hope this helps. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help on our page. Wondering if you could update on what still needs work. Would love to see what you think!--Abarratt (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-Review of an older article

Long time no talk EyeSerene! I seem to recall that you did an informal peer-review of an article I have done significant work on and had recently submitted for GA Nomination, the Battle of Verrieres Ridge, some time in June 2007 (I can't remember the exact date). Shortly after that review was given, it failed its GA Nomination. However, I have taken the last nine months to completely rework a majority of the article. Since you were the one who previously reviewed it before GA, would it be possible for you to have a quick "re-look" at the page within the next few days (if you've got time). I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks! Cam (Chat) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Whenever you've got time is fine by me:) Cam (Chat) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Misplaced Pages since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Misplaced Pages community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Misplaced Pages one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. Nominations: Climate change feedbacks (talk | history | start review) • Metropolitan Club (New York City) (talk | history | start review) • Interstate 85 in North Carolina (talk | history | start review) • Main Street Vehicles (talk | history | start review) • Rico Krieger (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: World Chess Championship 1972 • Green Lantern (film) • Cú Chulainn • Wings (1927 film) • Electric vehicle warning sounds • Vampire folklore by region • Henry VIII • British Library • Mikhail Gorbachev • Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Dictator novel GA work

For the two articles I've been working on, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento and Latin American Boom, I've done a "what else is needed for GA" section since there was a lot of material and it seemed easier on the students to condense it down to a short list when they'd made a lot of progress. I wonder if that would be useful on Dictator novel? It does look like they've dealt with most of them; I was glancing down the list just now and it's quite confusing with the multiple conversations embedded. Just an idea. Mike Christie (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I really am confused. Isn't it Facundo that Awadewit reviewed? Per WP:GAN you're the reiviewer for Dictator novel, or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fantastic job you're doing there. I'll be happy to take credit for it if you continue to deny it's your work. :) 86.44.26.69 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note on RfA

Dear EyeSerene, just so you are reassured, I am somewhat considering altering my stance in your RfA based on your thorough response to my initial weak oppose and I will not just draw a line in the sand and decide to continue to argue against you throughout due to any unconstructive remarks made by others. It seriously bothers me that some approach RfAs in that manner and I will do my best to keep in mind that you are not responsible for what others might say. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply here per you talk page preferences): Thank you for your comments. It's true that we've often found ourselves on opposite sides on AfD, but while I stand by both my delete and keep !votes and recognise that the former outnumber the latter, I also have great respect for your principled stance on rescuing and improving articles. Any editor that goes to some of the lengths you have to salvage an article clearly has the best interests of our encyclopedia at heart, and that makes you one of the good guys, regardless of differences in the interpretation of policy. I have no problem at all with your RfA comments - based on your experience of me, you simply raised some issues you feel are important and should be considered, and in the Misplaced Pages spirit of collegiate debate, everyone should respect that. I realise you're awaiting my answer to your question - I'm trying to work my way down the list when I get the odd moment, but it's entirely possible I won't reach the end before the RfA closes! You deserve an answer though, so just in case I don't get there, I'd say (as a gut reaction) that an obvious injustice has been done to those articles, and they should be restored and relisted to gather a valid consensus. I will try to provide a fuller answer on the RfA page if I get the chance. All the best, EyeSerene 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)