User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. 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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks for giving your thoughts on the nomination (again). You're like the energizer bunny: you never stop. Well, I've replaced ref. 7 and I've FINALLY removed all of the tough pigs references. Unbelievebale, huh? Well, now that everything's fine, I was wondering if you could you leave a Support or an Oppose at the nomination. If you can't, don't want to, or just don't want to, please leave a note on my talk page so I won't bother you in the future. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Augustus Jones GA candidateship
I've fixed all the sourcing issues on Augustus Jones - by and large just copyediting made it unclear what came from where, so that's easy enough. I've tried to clarify what was unclear, but if you could give it a parse and see what's still to be done, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WilyD 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing videos
Hello there. How can I use this as a source? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea (laughs). Is this an "official" video? Probably your best way to go is to ask over on the RS noticeboard for suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
GA review of Middlesex County Route 612
All finished with your comments. Thanks for the review!Mitch32contribs 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
E, thanks for your support of this article. It'd be my hope that three times would be a charm, but wait, it's the fourth time it's been nominated. It's been such a frustrating process getting this article passed, so I appreciate your input. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks!
|
RfA: Many thanks | |
| Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Source opinion
Moni3 has suggested that you might be willing to comment on my sources listed for White Mountain art. Would you be willing to give me some quick feedback? I'm not ready to go past GA at this point, but I'm trying to contact more wiki-experts to help me improve this article. Thanks. JJ (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Albert Bierstadt How could I not! One of my favorite painters... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt response. I will address some concerns, e.g. sourcing Champney's birth date/place. I appreciate your comments. For a great White Mountain Bierstadt painting, please see Haying, Conway Meadows. And, thanks again. JJ (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit I prefer his western stuff. Check out my main user page, I was inspired to switch out my painting... And no problem at all on the article, it was very well sourced. Feel free to grab me for any such concerns you have on other articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nice painting. I also am from Illinois - northern Illinois. I received my BSEE from U of I Urbana. It's a small world wiki-community! JJ (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Since JJ is planning to take this to FAC, my biggest issue was that two of his citations, #28 and #33, go back to a self-maintained website. I thought it a sensitive WP:RS issue, so I asked him to check with you on it. --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- On that, I think it's probably marginal on the second, and the first would be borderline as well. When I looked at the sources, I assumed that those two notes were "explanatory" in nature, and were not particularlly a source reference. It would probably be good to back up the actual information with a printed/outside source, but i have no problems with going to his site for the comparision of the photograph and the painting. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a lot for taking a look at this article, and your comprehensive review. I've made a start addressing your points and will work on the remainder when time permits! All the best, Smith609 Talk 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Cardiff PR comments
Hi, and thanks for your comment. I think I've caught all the references now for you to check. Bettia (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for striking one of your objections to the website sources. I believe that Allhiphop.com also meets this standard. See [1]. Let me know if you concur. Savidan 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Professional wrestling sources
Hi Ealdgyth. As someone who normally questions sources, could you comment on this RFC at the SummerSlam (2007) talkpage initiated by another user. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Video game sources
Hi Ealdgyth. I decided to be brave and look at a video game FAC. I remember vaguely that I've seen discussions between you and Sandy on VG sources and the VG RS page, but couldn't remember details. I asked about a lot of the sources on the FAC for The Orange Box, and I was basically told "it's on the VG sources list". How have you handled this in the past? Should I push back and ask what makes them reliable beyond a listing on the VG site or let it go? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, you should push back. Luckily, it usually doesn't get quite as verbose as RCC. I usually use the boilerplate off User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet under Websites in general. I've listed a few on that cheatsheet that are close to considered RS. Kotaku and joystiq at the moment are considered RS on a case by case basis, depending on the author of the item being sourced. If the author is a big name in the VG world, it can usually pass muster, if the information isn't contentious or violate a BLP. Of course, that's my opinion, but I don't trust the VG source listing very much. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks!!! Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome to the fun and wacky world of WP:RS. I'm trying to get up the energy to tackle the second FAC for Strapping Young Lad, which is still an RS minefield. (whimpers). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm having a go at it. <dons bullet-proof vest> --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am too, after a phone call from a client. Whee! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Talk:Elderly Instruments is having a rough go on the mainpage, due to common misunderstandings about notability etc. on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am too, after a phone call from a client. Whee! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm having a go at it. <dons bullet-proof vest> --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome to the fun and wacky world of WP:RS. I'm trying to get up the energy to tackle the second FAC for Strapping Young Lad, which is still an RS minefield. (whimpers). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks!!! Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dunstan
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- The only cases where its being done is in effect on those articles which I am adding new banners to and which already have quite a few Christianity banners, or have none, when I am adding the one banner which displays and assesses for all the relevant projects. John Carter (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seems it's only Venezuela and Catholicism, and it was a unilateral decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, looks like. And I'd still like for something to be said to the projects, but since I'm not a member of them, I don't think I can raise that much stink. (I stay away from the religion projects, they aren't my cup of tea.) Although I did find funny how many projects suddenly adopted Augustine of Canterbury after it made GA and then even more after it made FA. No one is adopting Easy Jet though! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seems it's only Venezuela and Catholicism, and it was a unilateral decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
GA review of Basilica Minore de San Sebastian
Thanks! I'll post my comments on the article's talk page. I'm leaving though in a few hours on a 4-day vacation, so I'll be able to devote fuller attention to this sometime early next week. But I think I have enough time to offer some preliminary comments before I leave. -- Anyo Niminus (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Bishops missing
Where have all the bishops gone? Haven't seen one around for ages. Have you given them up? Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was out of town for a good part of April and early May. Only had intermittant internet access. Should start seeing them again next week, when I go back to Texas for a month for a client. THIS time I'll have internet and the time to work on things. Hubert Walter is about ready to be at FAC, and Stigand will follow him shortly. (hint hint hint) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A music source for you
Ealdgyth, could you consider adding http://www.musicomh.com/ to your sources list. As described here, it's noted by Google News (amongst others) and appears on Rotten Tomatoes (amongst others)...I'm not sure how much you ask for before adding to your list, but that seems to have been enough for Spinner.com at this FAC.
Anyway, thoughts?
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like they mainly do reviews? For reviews, they certainly look good enough, from a quick glance. On news, I think other sources would be better (it doesn't look like they've gotten very far into doing news, which actually makes me trust them more, since they aren't trying to do everything all at once.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, just reviews (it's not useful for me for news, though others may use it...). Thanks! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like they mainly do reviews? For reviews, they certainly look good enough, from a quick glance. On news, I think other sources would be better (it doesn't look like they've gotten very far into doing news, which actually makes me trust them more, since they aren't trying to do everything all at once.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
train wrecks
It's like a train wreck, isn't it? No matter how hard I try to stay away from that FAC, I just can't seem to take my eyes off it, and then I get sucked into commenting again. It looks like you have too. I have lost count of the number of times I've been accused of being anti-Catholic (to be a non-Catholic and get married in the Catholic Church and attend mass at St. Peter's in Rome is apparently a glaring sign that one is anti-Catholic), anti-FAC, and just a generally bad person. It really makes me want to run away to the beach somewhere and clear my head, but then I remember that I hate sand.<sigh> Karanacs (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know the feeling. Ugh. It's just been a crappy crappy day and then to have that ... ugh... Amish are Zwinglians????? ... thing... ugh. I get tired of the sourcing stuff sometimes, it really gets me down that I have to fight tooth and claw to get some improvement when prose tweaks don't get near the attitude. It's not just the RCC thing, it's a bunch of them. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you need a nice trip to the beach to relax! At the very least, picture yourself in a nice quiet place with either a giant margarita or a giant brownie (whichever makes you happier). Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't like sand either. I think a nice beer and an evening spent playing Lord of the Rings Online will help. I did note that no one has replied to my statements yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. So now I'm in a good mood because I walked out the back door, looked on the bird feeder and saw a new lifelist bird. Even got it on film. Yay me! Rose-breasted Grosbeak. (Not my picture, but that's the bird!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for eavesdropping :) This evening I will forget things and relax by playing a Mozart Church Sonata on my clarinet. By the way, Mozart wrote it for the Archbishopric in Salzburg. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. Beer for me. And I'm tone deaf, although I played French Horn for eight years in school, I left that behind. You know... I got new bagpipe music the other weekend... The Rogues Maybe I can play that at loud volume... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for eavesdropping :) This evening I will forget things and relax by playing a Mozart Church Sonata on my clarinet. By the way, Mozart wrote it for the Archbishopric in Salzburg. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. So now I'm in a good mood because I walked out the back door, looked on the bird feeder and saw a new lifelist bird. Even got it on film. Yay me! Rose-breasted Grosbeak. (Not my picture, but that's the bird!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't like sand either. I think a nice beer and an evening spent playing Lord of the Rings Online will help. I did note that no one has replied to my statements yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you need a nice trip to the beach to relax! At the very least, picture yourself in a nice quiet place with either a giant margarita or a giant brownie (whichever makes you happier). Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um, this process is just as frustrating for those of us who have invested significant time and money into it to see it go down the drain because some people don't like one of my sources used for 13 stand alone cites of plain uncontested Catholic Church history fact. NancyHeise (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I put up my detailed look at the Vidmar usage on the talk page of RCC. However, I've not watchlisted the article, and I'm taking the RCC FAC off my watchlist also. The sources manage to squeak by RS, so I'm just not going to try to improve the article any more. That's all I really wanted, was for the article to be the best it could be, so that when it is on the main page, we don't get another dust up like happened yesterday over the Instrument shop. But, whatever. Ya'll wore me down, I'm done, and now hopefully I can get back to working on the English Pre-Reformation bishops, which ironically, will help the Catholic Wikiproject. Go figure. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Vidmar
Bokenkotter's review is a review by a historian. Bokenkotter teaches history at Xavier University and his book on church history is considered to be not an apologist but a critics viewpoint. His review of Vidmar's book constitutes a scholarly review and he clearly offers "faint praise" and does not state that it is inaccurate but actually recommends it to reader at the end of the review. Please provide any links to any bad review of Vidmar if you are going to persist in opposing my use of this source. Did you ever look at the 13 citations in the text where his book stands alone? They are to basic statement of uncontested Church facts. The other 20 citations in the article to Vidmar are doubled with other sources at the end of the same sentence. We did this to prove to reader that various scholars from different viewpoints came to the same conclusion on those points. We used Vidmar to balance the article against sources considered to be critical. NancyHeise (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the problem, there ARE no scholarly reviews of Vidmar's book. That's a concern, if the scholars don't review it, how can we know if it is accurate or not? But, as I said above, ya'll have worn me down, and I am done watching the article or the FAC. I left my concerns with the Vidmar citations on the talk page of the article, rather than bog the FAC down further. Good luck, and hopefully it'll pass. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bokenkotter is a scholar - his review is a scholarly review of Vidmar's book. His review ultimately recommends it to readers at the end of the review. NancyHeise (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your analysis. I will be addressing your comments and making appropriate changes as you have suggested. I have also responded to you on the article talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have finished making the changes necessary to address your comments. Thanks again for your review. NancyHeise (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ein Prosit, ein Prosit der Gemütlichkeit...
Please join me in a virtual weissbier. You did a fantastic job and I am very sorry I was not there due to the tyranny of time zones. Prost! --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've caught all the British/American spelling anomalies now, and I've made a few copyediting changes. I'm sure that more could be done to sharpen up the prose still, and I may take another run through it later, but apart from a couple of comments I made on the talk page I think it's up to an FAC nomination now. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, hi, I was curious about something. I've been reviewing the sources at this article, and having some questions. But I see that you already looked into them at the FAC.[2] Could you expand a bit on what exactly you checked? Do you have access to all those sources? Or did you just spotcheck the online ones? See also Talk:Elderly Instruments#Sources. --Elonka 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I checked into the online ones, the one website you're questioning is probably borderline, but since the information it was sourcing isn't exactly contentious, it fell on the "borderine but not a biggie deal" side of things. The printed sources, again, they look to be mainly smaller niche publications, that don't have a big online presence. Michigan Living I've seen a few times up in Michigan, it's kinda like Southern Living, Midwest Living, etc. Not quite as big, but does fluff pieces on cutesy local stuff. The others look to be print publications that deal with specific niche parts of the retail trade. In my retail years, I saw a lot of those, which are small things aimed at retailers and don't usually have a newstand presence. Kinda like how you can't expect to go to a newstand and buy English Historical Review either. As a general rule, I find that those sorts of publications would be reliable, although not for something like a person's biography. Understand, I don't have TIME to do an indepth line by line read of every source used against every statement. I just try to weed out the most glaring issues. For us to go into in depth verifying of sources at FAC, we desperately need more folks looking at sources. At the moment, I'm about it. Laser brain was starting to pick it up, but the whole flap over this article has sent him away on a wikibreak. I'm still trying to educate folks over there about the basics, that things like Encyclopedia Britannica aren't the best sources for an encyclopedia, that fan sites about TV shows aren't always the best sources, etc. etc. I can only do so much, and honestly, that article was better sourced than quite a few that come to FAC. Check out the page now, I'm still fighting over Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad which is a minefield. Hey, if you want to really have fun, go look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church. I've given up on it, it was just dragging me down too much. There are definitely problems with the article, but they are subtle, and hard to spot. I know you're upset over the Dirty Dancing FAC, and the tone you got from Tony, but please don't let it affect the fact that a lot of people at FAC are trying really hard (myself included) to at least try to put out the best articles possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply, and don't worry, I still love you. :) You're right though that I'm a bit irritated by the double-standard between how I was treated, and how LaserBrain was treated. BTW, I don't think he's gone, I think he's a sockpuppet. If you look into his contribs, you'll see he's a fairly new account that was created, perhaps with the goal of getting the Elderly Instruments article rapidly onto the mainpage. My guess is that the person behind the account is still around, even if the LaserBrain account is currently inactive. Whoever he is, he's obviously local to Lansing and probably knows the store owners personally. As for the problems with the FA reviewing, I agree with you that it's understaffed, but I think we need to look at it from a different angle. This isn't like a corporation where we can identify a department that needs more people assigned, because we're dealing with volunteers here, who wander hither and thither as they wish. Trying to push more at FA reviewing, is going to be about as frustrating as trying to herd cats. :) And, though I know that this may be depressing to hear, it's my opinion that the problem is going to get worse in the future (and I'm speaking as an online executive right now). Wikipedia is past its "novelty spike" of growth. It's still a hugely successful project which is going to continue to grow, but it doesn't have as many eager volunteers as it did maybe a year or so ago. So rather than lamenting that we need more FA volunteers to review things, I think a better angle would be to review the entire process, towards making it less labor-intensive. Right now there's a vicious cycle where the overworked FA reviewers are feeling (justifiably) overwhelmed, and as such, I believe that some of them are, perhaps unconsciously, doing things to reduce their workload, such as by subtly pushing other editors away from creating FAs in the first place. But that's a longer discussion on a tangential subject. :) In any case, thanks for your reply, and please, don't burn yourself out! Instead, I recommend trying to get more of a "high altitude" perspective on things, to see how the process can be improved in ways that doesn't require more reviewer burnout, but does encourage the creation of more high quality articles on Wikipedia. :) --Elonka 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I'll leave the "higher process" stuff for others, I'm just not into political infighting and stuff like that. That's the main reason I didn't go on for a doctorate in history, I love history, I hate history department politics. If I got involved in that sort of stuff on WP, I'd burn out quicker, honestly. For me, writing is the draw, and while I think it's important that someone go over sources (even if only to the amount I'm able to right now) at FAC, I'm not going to sacrifice my writing time to take on any more "political" tasks. As for DD, I suggest finding a good copyeditor to go over the article. It's hard to see your work cut to bits, but I've found that oftentimes that's the trick, it's so hard to see the stuff in your own writing. Of course, finding that copyeditor is hard. They are even scarcer than FAC reviewers! And no, I'm not naming mine, you might steal them! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply, and don't worry, I still love you. :) You're right though that I'm a bit irritated by the double-standard between how I was treated, and how LaserBrain was treated. BTW, I don't think he's gone, I think he's a sockpuppet. If you look into his contribs, you'll see he's a fairly new account that was created, perhaps with the goal of getting the Elderly Instruments article rapidly onto the mainpage. My guess is that the person behind the account is still around, even if the LaserBrain account is currently inactive. Whoever he is, he's obviously local to Lansing and probably knows the store owners personally. As for the problems with the FA reviewing, I agree with you that it's understaffed, but I think we need to look at it from a different angle. This isn't like a corporation where we can identify a department that needs more people assigned, because we're dealing with volunteers here, who wander hither and thither as they wish. Trying to push more at FA reviewing, is going to be about as frustrating as trying to herd cats. :) And, though I know that this may be depressing to hear, it's my opinion that the problem is going to get worse in the future (and I'm speaking as an online executive right now). Wikipedia is past its "novelty spike" of growth. It's still a hugely successful project which is going to continue to grow, but it doesn't have as many eager volunteers as it did maybe a year or so ago. So rather than lamenting that we need more FA volunteers to review things, I think a better angle would be to review the entire process, towards making it less labor-intensive. Right now there's a vicious cycle where the overworked FA reviewers are feeling (justifiably) overwhelmed, and as such, I believe that some of them are, perhaps unconsciously, doing things to reduce their workload, such as by subtly pushing other editors away from creating FAs in the first place. But that's a longer discussion on a tangential subject. :) In any case, thanks for your reply, and please, don't burn yourself out! Instead, I recommend trying to get more of a "high altitude" perspective on things, to see how the process can be improved in ways that doesn't require more reviewer burnout, but does encourage the creation of more high quality articles on Wikipedia. :) --Elonka 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is my firm belief that the main problem with Dirty Dancing isn't the copyediting, it's the politics. Or to put it another way: If someone like LaserBrain had nominated the article, I think it would already be on the mainpage by now. The FA culture has unfortunately got some cliquishness going on (not among all of them, but it does exist). Certain names are recognized as regulars, and their articles are quicker to get a pass, than articles by "unknown" names. For example, if you had nominated DD (and I'm not saying that I want you to, I'm just making a point), I think the tone of the reviewers would be quite different than it was for me. There might be some lessons here in terms of the future of the FA process, I'm going to have to think about it. In game language (which I know you'll understand <grin>), getting FAs is seen by some as equivalent to "scoring booty" in a quest. FA reviewers are a kind of guild, guarding the treasure, judging the worthiness of those who seek to pass through the portal. But right now there are a lot of clamoring adventurers outside the narrow gate, and the FA-guilders are reluctant to widen that bottleneck, because they'll get trampled. One possible way to address things might be to separate the throng... Just brainstorming here, but maybe we could split up FA reviews by topic? Just as we've split up RfCs and AfDs by topic, if we could sort out FAs into certain subject areas, that might help. And to help with balance, perhaps a general quota, such as, "Only 10 articles in this topic area can be approved as FA per month, so we're only going to pick the best"? That might also divert some editors who were "FA hungry" away from their favorite topics, over towards WP:CORE or some place that FAs were easier to get passed. I dunno, just something to think about. Feel free to brainstorm. :) --Elonka 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Politics and government aren't my thing, at least not after about 1500 or so. I'm a worker bee, not a queen. I don't really even want to be an admin, so I leave that sort of stuff to others. Write and review, that's my motto! (Feel free to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hubert Walter, that's my latest project) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
GA review for Indigenous people of the Everglades region
Done, per your suggestions. Thank you. Let me know if I need to change anything else. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Dorothy the Dinosaur (and me) have given you this beautiful rose in appreciation for your assistance in getting The Wiggles to FA-status. Yoo hoo! and Good on ya, mate! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You left some good comments on this article's FAC, but there's not that much interest either way. Are there any suggestions that you could make for improvements to this article that might better make it qualified for a Featured Article? If it doesn't get promoted (currently no supports, no objects), I'm looking for things that I could improve so that it would either be worth supporting now or worth a second pass through FAC later. Thanks for your assistance and comments so far. JRP (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Urf. I honestly don't know. Perhaps dropping a small note on the MilHist project saying that he's up for FAC and looking for comments might help? You can try asking some of the regular reviewers to review, if you're comfortable with that. Something similar to what you posted here would probably work, as long as you kept it to a few of the more regular ones. I'll try to give it a look see later, but somehow my day went elsewhere from my plans. I know it sucks to have an article up with nothing happening. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've found the missing reference and made as many of the other changes that you suggested as I can. (Not a lot of information on BFT's family in secondary sources that I have access to.) Can you please look it over and let me know if you would like to see other improvements? JRP (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Date retrieved
I'm reviewing Cold fusion at WP:GAN, and I'm not really sure what to read to answer questions on citations...I don't really trust WP:CITE to tell me how things get done at the FAC level. Maybe I can run one by you? Please? Some of the web cites don't have a "retrieved on" date, such as one that is a NYT story from 1989; but the story is probably the same today as it was in 1989. Should I stick a "retrieved on" tag with today's date, or ask the writers exactly when it was retrieved? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- give me a few? I'm about done with a PR pass... and then I'll check it. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer to see last access dates even for published articles when there is a link. My theory (and it's just my theory, I don't have any clue if there is a policy on this or not) is that anything with a link, whether it's a true website source or just a link to an online version, should have a last access date. While I was there, I noticed a format glitch up in the footnotes (current ref 37) and a number of the footnotes are lacking page numbers (current ref 53, 69, 70, 75, 76, etc.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll pass that along. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer to see last access dates even for published articles when there is a link. My theory (and it's just my theory, I don't have any clue if there is a policy on this or not) is that anything with a link, whether it's a true website source or just a link to an online version, should have a last access date. While I was there, I noticed a format glitch up in the footnotes (current ref 37) and a number of the footnotes are lacking page numbers (current ref 53, 69, 70, 75, 76, etc.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to deal with the objections to statements about the references at Talk:Cold fusion#GA Review; could you have a quick look, please? I normally don't pawn off work, but this review has taken about a week; it's a very contentious subject, and I want to avoid coming across as not knowing what I'm talking about...which would be the case if I try to say too much about reference requirements at the GA level :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected all the statements you listed. Thank you.—Wildroot (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
New article coming
Hi E, swiped your "articles to start" list on your user page and am working on cropout. Stay tuned for when the link turns blue and feel free to dive in and tweak! Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cropout done and up. Short, but I hope respectable. We need a photo, if you can find one. (Be nice to use a famous "cropout" Quarter Horse and not just some Clydesdale with high white. LOL) Feel free to expand, I pretty much exhausted my knowledge and sources. Montanabw(talk) 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You need this!
|
The Citation Barnstar | |
| A barnstar for you - the great goddess of citation! Montanabw(talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
Dropping a line
Since you made the offer[3], I'm working on two Carolingian manuscripts, the Utrecht Psalter and Ebbo Gospels. In the short term, what would make a good DYK hook for these? Gimmetrow 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- For the Utrecht one, maybe play up the fact that it's well traveled? Rheims to Canterbury to the Netherlands? Or maybe something off of "the style which developed from it is known as the 'Utrecht' style of outline drawing, and survived almost unchanged into the 1020s."? For Ebbo, maybe something off of "The illustration has its roots in late classical painting. Landscape is represented in the illusionistic style of late classical painting.... The vibrant emotionalism, however, was new to Carolingian art and distinguishes the Ebbo Gospels from classical art." Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Saint Sexwulf
Hello, me again - I've just left a comment on the talk page for Bishops of Lichfield, about mention there of "Saint Sexwulf". I'm curious about it, the linked page hasn't been created yet, and the article's history shows you as a recent editor so I thought I ask if you'd cast your eye over it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Already replied over there (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks, sorry to trouble you twice! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- You did kindly offer to look at my edit of Sexwulf, with OR in mind - have you had a chance? Just a thought, don't worry if you're too busy! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looks fine, if a bit rough on organization. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's great, thanks! It's one vote in favour then, it's really been bothering me... I haven't touched the organisation yet, as I was waiting for an opinion on the "OR" question - I'll probably attack it too, at some point soon. Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note that I don't have access to some of the sources, so I didn't check the information in the article against the actual source to make sure that everything was presented properly, but you have everything sourced well, and all statements are attributed well, at least to my eyes. Also, you need to change the "See Also" section to "Bibliography", since a See Also section is for Wikipedia articles that are related to the subject but aren't wikilinked in the article. As it stands, right now the two works in the see also section are actually used in the article's references. If you have more printed sources that aren't used as references, you put them in a "further reading" section, and websites that are relevant, but not used as sources go in the "external links" section. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's understood about sources, I'm 100% confident of those, having checked them myself. And thanks for the further tips, very welcome! Nortonius (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi - I've put together a trial revision of Sexwulf's article. You can see it here, and I'd be very grateful if you'd have a look if/when you get the chance. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note that I don't have access to some of the sources, so I didn't check the information in the article against the actual source to make sure that everything was presented properly, but you have everything sourced well, and all statements are attributed well, at least to my eyes. Also, you need to change the "See Also" section to "Bibliography", since a See Also section is for Wikipedia articles that are related to the subject but aren't wikilinked in the article. As it stands, right now the two works in the see also section are actually used in the article's references. If you have more printed sources that aren't used as references, you put them in a "further reading" section, and websites that are relevant, but not used as sources go in the "external links" section. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's great, thanks! It's one vote in favour then, it's really been bothering me... I haven't touched the organisation yet, as I was waiting for an opinion on the "OR" question - I'll probably attack it too, at some point soon. Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looks fine, if a bit rough on organization. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(undid indent)
I'm sorry - I'm beginning to feel like I'm really bothering you over this Sexwulf business - but I do appreciate your input, and you and Chzz are the only people who have answered my calls! The price you pay for being helpful, I suppose... Anyway, I've just done another edit at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox, and it's my final attempt at clarifying Sexwulf's possible identity, before throwing in the towel. So, I'd be very grateful if you'd have one last look at it: if you and Chzz still see OR - Chzz has said pretty much the same as you, understandably - then I'll give up all thought of it, and post the revision without it. But obviously I'll want to keep mention of the factual error itself. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Me again! I've just had a very favourable review of the OR issue from Chzz, saying that I've "erred on the side of caution", & should go live with my revision of the Sexwulf article: I'm going to work on that now. But obviously I'd still appreciate your input, both on the OR issue, & on any possible improvements that you might spot - I feel like I've got to a point where further inspiration would be helpful! But I know you're busy - where do you find the time?! ;o) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think I've responded to all your source issues at FAC. I hope I also might have managed to come up with a favourable compromise regarding abbreviations. If you had any further thoughts, I'd be most grateful. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Bradman
Gosh it took me a long time, but please review my responses at Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2. Thanks so much! --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
RE: Arabian
Looked it over, and it looks good, although I wouldn't set it in stone just yet. Longer reply on the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reviewed Hugh de Puiset at GA yesterday. Its not bad, just needs a few tweaks and a couple of questions answered before I pass it. I know how busy you get, so its likely you simply haven't had time to get around to it but I thought I'd officially notify you in case you missed the review. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressed your concern about RPGFan by swapping out the ref for one from Amazon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Arabian sources
Go ahead of the Arabian sources. I'm a bit busy at work today and don't have a lot of extra time, so don't worry about me interfering with your edits. If I feel the urge to play, I'll go work on Appaloosa some more! And, thanks for putting TB up for FAC...I've watchlisted it and shall keep an eye open for comments. Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have taken note of your comments, and hope the issues you have raised have been resolved. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
RCC
I have responded to your curious recent note on the FAC page. Perhaps you should check the responses to your points on the RCC talk page if it is of concern to you. Xandar (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
References for Noble gas
If you have time, could you take a look at the references for Noble gas and tell me if you think they are acceptable? Gary King (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "Noble Gas Geochemistry" is a college-level textbook and is used quite a few times in the article. There are also at least a few articles from related journals, including Science (magazine) and Physical Review. Gary King (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have yet to write a scientific FA, what with my other ones being mostly video game articles which used video game magazines and websites as sources, so this will be my first article with a more professional subject. Gary King (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Dispatch?
Hi. I'm trying to take a bit of the weight off Sandy on the dispatches. I wondered whether, per here, you would be able to commit to June 23 (which would mean a draft by the 21st) for a dispatch on sources? That would be fantastic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's already written (at least a draft in my marginal prose) User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You. I've offered it to Sandy a couple of times, she's said she wants time to work on it. If she's okay with that date, I'm fine with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me; if I forget (once I'm home), pls whack me upside the head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I should be able to help some, but I'll still be working, so it won't be all the time availability. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Grand. I'll put it in for June 23. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I should be able to help some, but I'll still be working, so it won't be all the time availability. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me; if I forget (once I'm home), pls whack me upside the head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind checking some sources?
Hi Ealdgyth, Francis Bok is a Good Article. User:Bless sins seems to think some of the sources are not reliable - things like interviews in Christianity Today. Would you mind taking a look at the sources and weighing in on the talk page? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm heading out the door shortly, I'll try to look at them tonight in the hotel, otherwise it'll be tomorrow night when I get into the client's site. That work? And thanks bunches for all the PRs, I greatly appreciate it. I've been trying to do a bunch of source stuff over there, it'll get started back up when I get in Tuesday night. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That would be fine - thanks very much in advance for looking at this. No problem on the PRs, although I keep waiting for one on a Bishop's horse ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the Bok sources. I fixed the Sudan Sunrise one. I am at a loss for understanding the users objections. Dincher (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks too - I was on a brief wikibreak and just got back. The article actually already passed GAN, the question was from a user who felt the sources were too POV. As Dincher said, I am also not sure what the objections were, but I do appreciate your weighing in and catching the dodgy ref no one else had. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Peer review limits
Hi Ealdgyth, since you have seven peer review requests currently open, I wanted to let you know about the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy which places the following limits on peer review requests: "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review, FAC, GAN, or A-class review. For more information on these limits see here." This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits.
The current requests you have made can stay open (they are grandfathered in), but I wanted to make you aware of the new limits for future requests. Thanks for all your work on checking refs, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I saw those, and planned to stick within them. Don't feel like you have to answer any of those that don't have replies, they can stand around without replies, no need for you to feel you need to do anything. I should be able to get back to reviewing refs a bit more soon, I'm working temp for a client, so we're still settling into work, so I'm a bit more pressed for time than I expected. (How come clients never really tell you how much they REALLY want you to do until you get on site????) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply and for being so understanding. I guess they don't tell you so that you'll take the job, maybe? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
RS for video games
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs suggested I contact you re whether Tea Leaves should be regarded as a Reliable Source for video games. You'll find additional info at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Boldly_added_TLeaves.com. Could you please post comments there. If you have time, I'd also be grateful if you could look over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Other_self-published_sources_that_are_worthy_of_respect. Many thanks. Philcha (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Would you take another look at Strapping Young Lad, and its FAC page? I have addressed many of your (and other) comments. Thank you very much. Gocsa (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded at the FAC page with the list of reliable sources. Gocsa (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to most of your RS concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help over at VG Sources as well, sorry I didn't realize you were a she (damn ingrained chauvinism, I guess :P) Hopefully I'll be able to sort out all the issues for Halo (series) within the next day or two, I'll drop a line here when I've sorted out the refs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, GuyInBlack beat me to the punch, apparently they've all got publishers now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Favour requested
Hi Ealdgyth - I'm working with User:Vintagekits on an article he would like to bring to FAC on boxer Michael Gomez. It's his first time at trying, and he's taken the "add every reference I can find" approach in sourcing the article; however, I know it's not particularly appreciated at FAC to see a long string of refs after a paragraph (or worse yet, a sentence). I'm also a little unsure as to how well some of the refs will hold up (reliable-source-wise) when you do your magic. I'm wondering if you might be so kind as to give this article a sort of pre-emptive online reference review, so that when the article appears at FAC there aren't any extraneous refs and the questions about sourcing are taken care of in advance. Thanks in advance for any assistance and feedback you're able to provide. Risker (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Be glad to, after lunch! It might be a bit before I can, work might call me away at any time. But will get to it within the next day or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for doing this, now I can better focus my attention on what to work on in copy editing without worrying that the references won't pan out. Your information and suggestions are greatly appreciated. Risker (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
RCC
Hi Ealdgyth. Just FYI, Sandy has restarted the FAC for RCC. NancyHeise notified most of the previous commenters, but it looks like you were left out because you didn't explicitly support or oppose. I'm sure you noticed already, but I wanted to cover all the bases. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I saw it when I was working on new FACs. I'm of two minds, honestly. I feel bad if I'm letting others down by not digging in on the sourcing issue, but I'm just too freaking busy with other things, both in RL and on Wiki, to deal with the stress over there. I occasionally check in on things, and I'm catching some of the drama. If you really feel you need support on the sourcing stuff, let me know, otherwise, I'd prefer to stay out of it, it's just too much. Ironically, while this whole FAC for RCC has been going on, I've shepherded another FA for the Catholicism Wikiproject, and about four more GAs for them. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I figured, but I wanted to be official and make sure you knew. Hope your stress level goes down. Karanacs (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When you have time
I'm working on another article for FAC, and I'm trying to make sure I have as little stuff to do once it actually hits the page. I put it up for PR, am going to get someone to help with the prose, hopefully, and I'm asking you if you could take a look through the sources when you have a spare moment to see if they are to your liking. Thanks for all your help.
P.S., yes, it's another video game. And yes, I have another one after that I want to improve and put up at FAC. On the plus side, though, I'm gathering up sources for an entirely different article after that, so hopefully you won't have to endure much more of this. (After that, I'll probably go back to video games again, but hey, at least you guys will have a respite.) Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and this is a great read so far. I popped a link to it in my own essay. It definitely takes the mystery out of your "dreaded" messages... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Alleyway FAC comments.
Just giving a shout, I've gone through and fixed the citations as mentioned and posted reasonings for the sources you inquired about on that page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Interviews as reliable sources
Hi, thanks for reviewing the references of Halo (series), your comments have led to my question however. I thought that interviews could be seen as reliable unless the interviewee was taken out of context. This is pretty unlikely for Halo seeing as video-games aren't usually contentious subjects (I would expect to find quotes out of context relating to politics and religion for example). What sort of thing should I look out for that would make an interview unreliable? This way I can avoid problems with sources in future. The only thing I could think of would be to make sure the person interviewed is an official, not just some-one with an opinion. Cheers, James086Talk | Email 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm watching this page so you can reply where you like :)
- For interviews, I want to make sure they are published by someone reasonably reputable, so that we're sure that the interview hasn't been skewed or misinterpreted. While I'm not as picky about the sites that host interviews, they should still be established places, not a personal website or a forum posting. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I'll keep that in mind in future. James086Talk | Email 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank your for supporting this article in the first (unsuccessful) nomination. I have recently renominated it. As the article has been somewhat expanded since you last saw it, would you mind re-reading it an ensuring that it still meets your high standards. Savidan 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Except for a few that I had minor quibbles with, I have done as you say. Savidan 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Per your comments I have double checked everything that you requested. I removed the dead links, and tried to fix all the errors and problems with all the links, including adding titles, access dates etc to references.
I hope you can continue your review for the FAC of London, located here.
Thanks in advance,
The Helpful One (Review) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Featured Article - Nimrod Expedition
The Nimrod article has been promoted. This is the fourth (and last) of the major British Antarctic expeditions that I have been working on since January, all now FA as are their leaders, Scott, Shackleton and Mackintosh. Sincere thanks to you, for the time you have given to reviewing and supporting these articles - it is very much appreciated. That project is over, but the Antarctic and Arctic still beckon, and I shall continue to toil away, though perhaps with less emphasis on FA status. Your keen eye and judgement will always be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank for the pretty new toy for my user page. I don't think that I earned it as you have done so much work here and elsewhere, including at Commons, thanks. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Montana class battleship
Hello. You commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montana class battleship, and after several days of work I do believe that I have adressed all current concerns of yours. I am therefore leaving this message to ask if you would be willing to give the article another look and reevaluate your position on it, or alternatively, present any additional problems or concerns you may have. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Replaced source
Hello! This is to inform you that I have replaced the Sify refs with other citations. I would be glad if you go through the changes to the article 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
May FAC reviewer award
|
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
| To Ealdgyth, For your superior reviews of at least 92 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for again being the top reviewer at FAC and for your careful work and thorough and exhausting reviews of sources to help promote Wiki's finest work. Your dedication to the Wiki—even when busy in real life—is astounding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award, and to Maralia for running the stats for May. |
Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey)! I've gone through the article and have addressed all of your concerns, with another user removing the IMDb source. I hope to gain your support. Thanks! – Nurmsook! (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good articles newsletter
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Just following up on my FAC. Sandy recommended that I reach out and see if there were any other improvements that you would like to see in this article. You have "Comment, leaning towards support", but if there's some tweaking that I can do to make you lean all the way over, please let me know. I appreciate your feedback and criticism. JRP (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Indigenous Everglades
Heya, Ealdgyth. (Dude, I have no idea what it is with readability/speakability and typability, but your username does not flow off the fingers...) Anyway, congratulations on Thoroughbred. Well done on that. My partner is a horse lover from Misty of Chincoteague, but she never could afford to actually work with horses. When she read Thoroughbred, she got all interested in Freisein, or whatever they are. So far, that's the only topic she's ever considered working on, though she uses Wikipedia for science all the time...
Ok at any rate, have a couple questions on Indigenous people of the Everglades region. I checked the Bureau of Indian Affairs website. Apparently they don't think it's worth their time to put a search engine on their site, so I couldn't change out the Seminole Nation source with another of a higher authority. You mentioned during the GA review that you kept yourself from making FA-type comments, and I was wondering (should have asked you at the time) if there was anything in particular you wanted to see for FA. On a similar note, BuddingJournalist has given it a look-see, and made all the blood drain from my extremities by suggesting I put exact page numbers for journal articles instead of ranges, like there are now. Normally, I appreciate a nutty difficult thing to do if it makes the credibility of my articles that much more concrete. I might grumble, but I'll do it. However, if this is a trend coming up in citations, I have hundreds of journal citations throughout all the articles I've worked on. It would take me months to track down the exact pages of each journal article citation. I wanted your opinion on this request before I run my head through drywall. Not that I'm being dramatic or anything... --Moni3 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
See this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-02/Dispatches
New MOS stuff. Montanabw(talk) 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, would you mind checking the sources of Ars Conjectandi (which is at peer review right now)? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
FAC for Go (board game)
Hi, At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Go (board game) you told me to get back to you when I had the references fixed. So here I am. I have check every reference on the page, replacing those that might be dubious, replacing all of the Sensei's Library references, adding publishers, accessdates, the works. As far as I can tell, all the current references should be ok. There are still some links to Sensei's Library, but these are footnotes provided for extra information, not citations. If you find the time to have a look, that would be great! Regards, HermanHiddema (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I will try to check it tonight, otherwise it'll be tomorrow. I'm busy today with a client, and need to take care of some other stuff on Wiki first. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! I'm busy myself too :-) HermanHiddema (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Minor help but much needed
Can you watchlist Mustang (horse) for a bit? Someone went in and deleted a bunch of sourced material and when I reverted the changes and got a bit snarky about it (like I do on occasion), they reverted back and got snarky too. Anyway, I tried to extend an olive branch by a third edit that tries to incorporate the ideas this person had and some of the new content they added, but who knows how they will take it. So asking for more eyes on the article. It's nowhere near GA yet, but it is heavily referenced and I put a lot of work into trying to keep it balanced between cattle ranchers and PETA sorts. (Sigh) May need a sane voice to look over the edits. I think Getwood has this on his list too, and I asked Dana to keep her eyes open as well. I am not opposed to improvements on articles, as you know, but I hate big messy rearrangements that I have to go through with fine tooth comb to fix. (whining) Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- you whine? Never! I have it on my list, (or did at some point) but I can't promise I'll be a lot of help avoiding the snarky. I'm tired, grouchy and HOT. (Texas. June. Horse Show. That's all you need to know). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Questions on search for journal articles
Hi Ealdgyth. Your offer of journal articles got me curious to check out my university library and I was pleasantly surprised that they had access to many online databases in English, despite the fact that the main language is not English here. I just checked out JSTOR and downloaded a few articles. As you appear to have conducted some research already, I was wondering if you could give me a few tips. How did you find articles in journals outside of JSTOR? For example, how did you find "Reformation and Renaissance Review"? Does your library has access to Equinox Publishing? Any other online databases that you recommend? --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think the Renaissance one came from WIlson Select Plus or EBSCO, both of which were very useful to me. Another would be Academic Search Premier. Keep in mind I'm not at home right now, and won't be until July sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Next library trip I will check out those databases. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
When you said that the citations in the Appaloosa article needed work, were you referring to the fact that, at that point, most didn't have author/publisher information, or something else? I've made sure that all of the current refs have proper formatting (noting that one link is dead). Are there verifiability issues with the refs? I think we've made the decision to wait until you get home to put the article up for FA, but if I knew what the main problems with refs were, I can add that to my pile of things to slowly work on over the next few weeks! I know you're busy this week, so I don't expect anything more than a brief answer :) Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know this
Even though I've done a ton of edits around here, there is always something new I learn. I didn't know that it was bad form, so please accept my apologies on that point. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
I don't know if you saw my latest Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) responses, but your feedback and/or support would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Worlds End State Park thanks
|
<font=3> Thanks for your careful checking of references in peer review and FAC and for comments on Worlds End State Park which made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|---|
Wilfrid et al
Hey, I saw you talking on Durova's talk page about the dfficulty of getting images of mediaeval lives in America. I live in Edinburgh, and have access to a lot of things thereby that you probably don't. Is there anything I can help you with? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
Creatures of Impulse | |
| Thanks for peer-reviewing Creatures of Impulse. With the help and support we recieved, we were able to raise the article up to FA a mere month and two days after starting it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
Oh!! I am very sorry... I had replaced the dead link at the same time when I had addressed other issues but forgot to mention Replaced or Done...(just realized this after your latest comment)... Apologies for keeping you in waiting and wondering...Please re-visit to check the links KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources dispatch
I did some; it's ready for a new look from you. Wikipedia:FCDW/June 23, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think I have addressed your concerns at the Space Pilot 3000 peer review but let me know if there are still any problems, I'm not very experienced with citation formatting. Thanks for your time and advice! Stardust8212 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Bradford City history sources
Thanks for your comments on the History of Bradford City A.F.C. peer review. I've amended two of the references. However, you ask about [4]. That site is recognised as a WP:RS by WP:FOOTY and is maintained by User:Richard Rundle. If there are any problems about using that, don't hesitate to either get in touch or ask Richard. I'm sure it may come back up, if I make it as far as FAC. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: PRs and sourcing
Thanks so much for all your work on this. Hopefully it will make FACs go a little better (and your life there easier) too. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth. Thanks for dropping by. I left comments there. --Efe (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done. One query left. --Efe (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth. I am wondering why you do not questions the reliability of http://achart.us? Here, Wackymacs questions about it. Was the source been approved in the WP:RS noticeboard? --Efe (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I've never questioned it because there is only so much I'm willing to question, and early on I got told it was considered reliable and shown some proof, before I kept track of exactly what was or wasn't shown reliable. To be frank, you're the one who uses it the most, most others use billboard, and it's a music chart, so it's not exactly the most contentious information available. I'll admit to not scrutnizing chart sites with the same amount of vigour that I might check things like biography sites or such like. You're welcome to ask on the RS noticeboard about it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- But I believe it would pass. Contents sourced are not contentious. Anyway, I'll try to drop a couple of questions on the noticeboard. Thanks Ate Ealdgyth. =) --Efe (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thriller
Ive resolved your points on the Thriller peer review, thanx for your helpful additions. Regards. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Wulfstan refs
Ealdgyth, I would like to do a thorough checking and clean-up of the sources for Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York, but I am not very proficient with the template reference system that you use. I would prefer to do it all 'free-hand', though I respect that you may have reasons for preferring the template style. If you could direct me to a cheat sheet on how to properly use the reference templates, I would be happy to learn. On the other hand, if it doesn't concern you too much, I would love to just re-type all the references without the templates. Whatever you decide, I like the "notes + references" approach so I'll keep that. BTW: any thoughts on separating Wulfstan's works into its own article? I would love to see this, but then I am a little Wulfstan-crazy and realize it may be unwarranted. I am also aware that the long list I added to the Wulfstan article is a little ridiculous; couldn't help myself.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to do the refs all over, that's fine with me. They just need to be consistent and have the usual information one gives in bibliographical entries. The reason I use the templates is that I could never be bothered to learn where the periods go and which goes in what order... the templates format everything consistently for me. I also cheat and store the filled in templates on a subpage of my userspace (User:Ealdgyth/History References) so I don't have to constantly retype things. I do like the idea of putting the list of his works into a separate article, and just discussing the importance of them etc. in the main article. I've just been super busy this month and not able to tackle it. I will say you're doing great work on the article, it'll probably be ready for Featured Article status at some point, which I'm sure you wouldn't mind at all! And no, I hadn't noticed that you were at all Wulfstan-crazy! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't start hiding already-I promise this won't hurt! I can't seem to let go of this article (the topic deserves to be featured and I don't want to see it back at FAC more than once more because it makes my head hurt). This time, I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since you have experience in Catholic history topics I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
PS Your user name is very hard to spell. Would you mind if I put a link to your talk page in itty bitty letters at the very bottom of my user page so that I don't have to search for pages we've both edited to find you again? Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't mind the link at all. (For the record, I just watchlisted your talk page, so I don't have to hunt, since your name is almost as hard for me to spell as you find mine. Different fields!). I'll try to look at it later, I'm running to the airport shortly and then some errands. It might be tomorrow night before I can get back to you. And I totally sympathize with the "don't want to see it again" thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have your page watchlisted too, but apparently I have way too much watchlisted because I can never find you when I want to talk (either that or you hid when you knew I was coming ;)) No hurry on the proposal - it can sit a while. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of COURSE I hid, it's that FAC... the one that alternately fascinates us and scares us. Did you want to stick with just the sources in the article for a reason? It's still not going to resolve some of my concerns if they are still in it. (And watching the Ehrman debacle is just.. ugh.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- And only 3000 books? You're slacking. (Last count was approaching 6000 here...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I bet I'd like your house :) I haven't counted since we moved three years ago. Judging by the number of recent Amazon deliveries it's probably gone up (I think my two-year-old has over 100 books now). As for the article, I'm sticking with the sources that are there simply because I've checked out my limit of books at the library right now for my Texas Revolution projects. (that and I'm afraid if we ditch some of these sources now I won't be able to get the page supporters to consider the changes because they'll be mad about it) In my grand plan, te first step is to see how close we can get to a more neutral article (at least according to the opposers), then get supporter buyin that it is neutral, then maybe we can tackle some of the sourcing issues. There is a high probability that it won't work, but at least I feel like I'm being productive. Karanacs (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- And only 3000 books? You're slacking. (Last count was approaching 6000 here...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
William Speirs Bruce Peer Review
Thanks for looking at the sourcing/referencing. I presume these were OK since you didn't comment. As for the two columns, I've put a reflist|2 tag in, but you'll have to tell me if it now shows the notes in 2 columns, since I use Internet Explorer which can't show the 2-column format, per discussion on FAC talkpage. If you can get to read the prose, you will find that no animals were harmed during any of Bruce's expeditions. Worth a cheer. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, things were good. As you can see, I'm working on the backlog of PRs I hadn't gotten to in the last two weeks, thus my neglect of telling you that things were good. (Like you're suprised...) If I haven't made it back to him in a week, bop me on my talk page. Things should be a little less busy now.. hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The saintly Ruhrfisch has done a full review on the prose, so I won't hassle at this stage for further comments. You may want to come in on FAC, if it gets there. Maybe next month. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Planning on FAC'ing soon, so I was hoping you could confirm/deny that my responses to you there suffice? Cheers, giggy (:O) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Look fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. giggy (:O) 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
X Club Peer Review
Thanks for reviewing X Club! I had a question at the Peer Review regarding one of your comments. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; I've replied there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any comment of yours have not replied to? Is there anything else you'd like me to do before supporting the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. I'm going to try to find the time, but I can't promise it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Harry Trott
Hi Ealdgyth. I believe I have addressed any issues with the sources you queried. Would you be able to take a look and let me know if you are satisfied. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 23:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I'd just like to let you know that we've addressed all of your concerns (as far as I can tell) over at the FAC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take another look to see if we've dealt with everything satisfactorily. Thanks for your time and review. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thorough review of the refs, much appreciated. :) · AndonicO Engage. 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming I find time tomorrow, I'm hoping to be able to read the article fully and support it. It looked very interesting to me! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I handled all your concerns at [[5]]. I'd be grateful if you'd run an eye over the links again for me and post to my talk page if you find anything outstanding. I'm planning to go to FAC in about a week. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your comments at FAC. The FAC is getting very bloated, so if you're happy with what we've done, please hide the comments like Bole and Gary King have done. If you're unhappy, of course, please ensure I know what I still need to do. Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)#
- Cheers muchly. That was harder work than I thought it would be! I was also surprised to see non RS had popped back in since PR. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia References
A quick question on references...your favorite area :)
I know you don't usually like the use of encyclopedias as references for Wikipedia (which I completely understand). I recently acquired a book called The Encyclopedia of the Horse by Elwyn Hartley Edwards, published by Dorling Kindersley in 1994. Despite the title, this does not appear to be a typical encyclopedia, but instead more of a general compilation of horse information, separated into sections on evolution, early uses, breeds from various areas, different uses, etc. Would you mind taking a look at this and seeing if you think it can be viably used in our GA/FA articles? It looks to have a lot of good information in it that I think would be of use, especially in the main horse article to finish all of the referencing that is needed! Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth is the goddess on this, but IMHO, just because "encyclopedia" is in the title doesn't inherently make a work an "encyclopedia" of the type that is of concern here (i.e it isn't World Book, Compton's, Britannica, etc.) I will also confess that E knows the ins and outs of citation politics better than I, however. Montanabw(talk) 03:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- My main concern is generalist encyclopedias. You know, Britannica, World Book, Comptons. The ones that try to do everything. Specialist encyclopedias, like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or one on the Middle Ages aren't such a concern. Btw, I have that book, and I'd only use it for generalist information, nothing controversial. Would be great for definitions, etc, but nothing contentious. I find the DK books to be reliable, but somewhat simplistic in their approach, even the ones written for adults. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! I wasn't planning to use it for anything controversial, mostly just the stuff that is such common knowledge that most authors don't bother to write it down :) I'll probably start tossing some cites from it in this next week, if you start seeing me cite anything you don't like, just drop me a note or toss in a verify cite tag. Thanks again... Dana boomer (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me, too. We do get the oddest fact tags on things that are universal knowledge amongst horse people but gibberish to non-horse people. Sigh. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Peer_review/Marcellus_Formation
Thanks for your help. I left a reply at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Marcellus_Formation/archive1. Dhaluza (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
BATGIRL FAC
I believe I've corrected all your issues, with the exception of the Newsarama blog. Would you mind double checking? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Multiple-page Web articles
An online article (reliable of course) that I'm planning to use as a source has the desired information on the second page. What is the proper way of handling this? Should I link to the start of the article or the important page? I figured that you would be the right person to ask about this, and I would appreciate your feedback (if you ever get a break from FAC :-) ). Giants2008 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd link to the relevant page, but title it something like "Article name, page 2" or something like that, making it clear that it's the second page of a multi-page article. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- That works fine. For future reference, what should I do if an article has relevant info on multiple pages? Would I link to the start or seperately link the needed pages. I'm not doing this now, but am curious about this. Thanks! Giants2008 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would treat it just like you would different pages in a printed work, and do a separate ref for each page. I'm sure others would disagree, but I try to treat web pages as much like printed sources as possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your great advice. Giants2008 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I spent an entire day walking them through this because I wanted an example of how to comply with WP:SPS. See the talk page of the FAC, and let me know if you think this is tight enough to link in our upcoming Dispatch: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- That looks like an excellent way of putting it forth. I'm glad you had the energy! I didn't yesterday, spent almost four hours going to and from the airport... whee! This morning was clipping foals... I'm pooped! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll add it in, and we need to make our final pass, as publication will be end of this week. I love your descriptions of your days :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully the references are better than they were last time now :) Gary King (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
William Speirs Bruce at FAC
I didn't take up your colorful invitation to remind you to revisit Bruce's peer review ("bop me one next week" - your words), because I guessed you were busy. But he's gone to FAC now, & if you can find a moment to check him out, he's be very pleased. I can absolutely promise that he treated all his animals impeccably - he was a civilized Scot, after all. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out that I hadn't completed the listing process for the above. It is properly listed now. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
FAC question
I saw your suggestion about including my responses to the links you listed for review line by line. Is it kosher to follow up with this format and delete the previous list of responses I left or should I use strikethrough? Mrshaba (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever is easiest for you. I prefer to keep things together, but if it's too much bother I can work around. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
... is getting long ... is there anything you can cap at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War? As far as I can tell, sources seem to have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Bishops lists
Should be possible for anyone to move them back. Even before the moves, there does seem to be a bit of a mish-mash. I did a couple but didn't want to get invovled in a protracted edit war across a whole range of articles. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
ICP FAC
Hi. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but I responded to your comment at the Insane Clown Posse FAC a day ago. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
Review of First-move advantage in chess
Many thanks for your constructive comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First-move advantage in chess, which helped to improve the article and reach the FA level! SyG (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess you think I capped the comments? :( Gary King (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
PR link checker
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for checking the refs in Forksville Covered Bridge. I think there are 5 or maybe 6 total covered bridge articles I could get to FA without too much trouble. Of course there are over 200 covered bridges on the NRHP in Pennsylvania.
As for the link checker, I would ask User:Geometry guy about this (I am not as technically hip). I know one concern is just the amount of space anything included in every review takes. Thanks for all your work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is technically easy to do, so the only concern is space, as including a link to this tool for each peer review will add to the length of WP:PR, and hence will increase the workload involved in keeping WP:PR within page limits. This makes me somewhat reluctant to add it. But I open to being convinced, especially if Ruhrfisch (who does most of the work maintaining WP:PR) is in favour. Geometry guy 12:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Well, if it's going to cause problems like the FAC archive pages, we certainly don't need it. It's just a nice tool to use to check sources and for dead links also. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Bishops lists
Should be possible for anyone to move them back. Even before the moves, there does seem to be a bit of a mish-mash. I did a couple but didn't want to get invovled in a protracted edit war across a whole range of articles. OUP usage does seem to favour the lower-case — ODNB articles always seem to use it, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. David Underdown (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The mover has said he doesn't particualrly care which they are at, so long as there is consistency - so should we plump fo rth eupper-case version? David Underdown (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- We probably need to standardize the naming of them. Some are "Bishops of X" others are "List of bishops/Bishops of X" some are "List of bishops of the diocese of X". I favor "List of Bishops of X" myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- To some extent it depends on the state of the article for Bishop of X (and how many such bishops there have been). Where it's a short lsit, it can probably be included in the main article (though perhaps we shoudl create a redirect from the List of ... version too). Certainly for CofE bishops there's no need to have "of the Dicoes of" in there, though it might possibly be correct form for some other bishop some wehre, I don't know. David Underdown (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm mainly dealing with medieval bishops, but it seems like most of them are "List of Bishops of X" with sometimes it being "List of Bishops of X and precursor offices". The ones that differ are List of the bishops of the Diocese of Lichfield and its precursor offices, List of the bishops of the Diocese of Hereford, England and its precursor offices, List of the bishops of the Diocese of Norwich, England and its precursor offices, List of the bishops of the Diocese of Leicester, England and its precursor offices. The Welsh bishoprics are still under "Bishop of X", since I haven't started expanding those. The old Anglo-Saxon bishops are mostly at "Bishop of X" with only a couple at "List of Bishops of X". So I think it's pretty clear that, at least where the medieval to modern bishoprics are concerned, more are at "List of Bishops of X", which means they should be capitalized. No clue on the modern CoE and RCC bishoprics that didn't get their start in the Middle Ages, I quit worrying about bishops at 1500 (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Lichfield's a little peculiar since it wandered a little between Lichfield, Coventry and Chester (Norwich wandered a little too didn't it?), and Leicester's awkward because it eventually became a See again (should the list include both the ancient and post-1914 bishops?) - but I certainly don't think any of them need "England" there, there's no need to disambiguate in the title like that. David Underdown (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. Just sticking my oar in here, and maybe about to make a complete fool of myself by mentioning old news, but - has anyone considered looking at Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology, as a possible model? I haven't used it for ages, but it has this issue of mobile sees covered, at least in a printed format, and might suggest a way to go. Lots of dioceses moved around, came and went, whatever - Lichfield's not peculiar in that at all. Lichfield was previously Repton, incidentally, but maybe that's also known... (it is at Repton, anyway)! About capitalisations, when I saw the capital "B" for "Bishop" disappear in the name for the Lichfield article, I thought it made the capital "D" in "Diocese" look very odd! Just a thought - butting out again now, take care! Nortonius (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the bishops lists to 1500 are built off Fryde's Handbook. I originally had the 2nd edition, and used that at first, but have been slowly updating them as I work my way through the articles. I'm currently in the middle of Hereford, to be exact. A good example of having the sees that moved handled is List of bishops of Chichester and precursor offices or List of the bishops of the Diocese of Norwich, England and its precursor offices, where it gives the names of the previous bishoprics and shows how they moved. Someday, I'll make a chart to show how they moved around, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought you'd have that covered! Just thought it might be helpful to introduce people to some of these ideas if they weren't aware of it, is all! You're getting perilously close to Lichfield there in Hereford, keep an eye out for St. Sexwulf lol! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the bishops lists to 1500 are built off Fryde's Handbook. I originally had the 2nd edition, and used that at first, but have been slowly updating them as I work my way through the articles. I'm currently in the middle of Hereford, to be exact. A good example of having the sees that moved handled is List of bishops of Chichester and precursor offices or List of the bishops of the Diocese of Norwich, England and its precursor offices, where it gives the names of the previous bishoprics and shows how they moved. Someday, I'll make a chart to show how they moved around, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. Just sticking my oar in here, and maybe about to make a complete fool of myself by mentioning old news, but - has anyone considered looking at Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology, as a possible model? I haven't used it for ages, but it has this issue of mobile sees covered, at least in a printed format, and might suggest a way to go. Lots of dioceses moved around, came and went, whatever - Lichfield's not peculiar in that at all. Lichfield was previously Repton, incidentally, but maybe that's also known... (it is at Repton, anyway)! About capitalisations, when I saw the capital "B" for "Bishop" disappear in the name for the Lichfield article, I thought it made the capital "D" in "Diocese" look very odd! Just a thought - butting out again now, take care! Nortonius (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Lichfield's a little peculiar since it wandered a little between Lichfield, Coventry and Chester (Norwich wandered a little too didn't it?), and Leicester's awkward because it eventually became a See again (should the list include both the ancient and post-1914 bishops?) - but I certainly don't think any of them need "England" there, there's no need to disambiguate in the title like that. David Underdown (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm mainly dealing with medieval bishops, but it seems like most of them are "List of Bishops of X" with sometimes it being "List of Bishops of X and precursor offices". The ones that differ are List of the bishops of the Diocese of Lichfield and its precursor offices, List of the bishops of the Diocese of Hereford, England and its precursor offices, List of the bishops of the Diocese of Norwich, England and its precursor offices, List of the bishops of the Diocese of Leicester, England and its precursor offices. The Welsh bishoprics are still under "Bishop of X", since I haven't started expanding those. The old Anglo-Saxon bishops are mostly at "Bishop of X" with only a couple at "List of Bishops of X". So I think it's pretty clear that, at least where the medieval to modern bishoprics are concerned, more are at "List of Bishops of X", which means they should be capitalized. No clue on the modern CoE and RCC bishoprics that didn't get their start in the Middle Ages, I quit worrying about bishops at 1500 (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)