User talk:Ed!/2

Talk Archive
Archive 1: 08/2006 - 02/2008 Archive 2: 02/2008 - 05/2008 Archive 3: 05/2008 - 08/2008 Archive 4: 08/2008 - 05/2009 Archive 5: 05/2009 - 08/2009 Archive 6: 08/2009 - 11/2009 Archive 7: 11/2009 - 03/2010	Archive 8: 03/2010 - 04/2011 Archive 9: 04/2011 - 12/2011 Archive 10: 01/2012 - 07/2012 Archive 11: 07/2012 - 12/2012 Archive 12: 01/2013 - 01/2018 Current Archive: 01/2018 - Present

Don Kent (wrestler)

Hello, you placed this GA review on hold on February 21. I believe that the concerns have been addressed. The only excpetion seems to be the lack of a picture. As the main editor said, the pictures that were included were deleted without much of a reason given. Since pictures are not a requirement for GA, though, could we agree that the hunt should continue but that a picture is not required until this article is nominated for FA status? Thanks for the review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, I apologize about the delay. -Ed! (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 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) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GACs on Hold

Is there a reason you are ignoring the articles you have put on hold, but continuing to edit actively?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had been hoping that other users would contribute their opinions to the reviews since I'm new to the reviewing process. I'm hoping that giving first opinions for improvement will make the GA's go faster and help clear up the clog of GACs. I wouldn't mind re-reviewing your article, I was just afraid that someone else might come along later and reverse the decision for some reason. But I will look at it again if you wish. -Ed! (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be very helpful if you could also complete the review for Don Kent (wrestler). Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I did not know you were a rookie. You may want to acquaint yourself with {{ArticleHistory}}. I finished up your promotion. Also, if you look at WP:GA you will see that there is a list of the last 15 new GA's. I updated this as well for you. Thanks for taking time with the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you finish the review on Henry Timberlake as well? It's been nearly a month since your initial review put it on hold. -- PEPSI2786^talk 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys in the Sand

I have requested a reassessment of the GA fail. Comment here if you wish. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

173rd

Hopefully the copyedits are an improvement. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rearrange the VN War section so that the article is in chron order. The aritcle skips around a bit from 66 to 67 and back and forth. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll try to do that. -Ed! (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was away over Easter and it got closed. I'll get back to it. Can you chrono the artilce please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll take care of that, there are a few things that need doing before it can pass a FAC, apparently. -Ed! (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There it is. There were a few stray sentences about '67 that appeared too early. It should be completely correct now. -Ed! (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I've done a copyedit. There are some things like acronyms, that need to be expanded in the first-usage and wikilinked preferably for the benefit of laymen like me like MAIC and SETAF. Also, some of your refs are inconsistent. I tend to use citation templates because its easy, so that might make things easier for you. Some have "retrieved DATE" while others have "retrieved on DATE" - also, with the movies, I think per {{cite episode}}, you should put in the ref, who wrote the script for the film, eg some person who added a similar thing to my Thich Quang Duc FA put the same details for a South Park episode. I think the article should be a better chance of FA now, although people might still ask for more info, but it might be worth a try to give it another go. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, looking at your GACs, it might be quicker to use the inhouse MILHIST service. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'll have to fix the source format still before I renominate it for GAC, but that should help immensely. As for my GACs, is there some way I can put them through GAC in the MILHIST service? I don't think either of them is quite A- or FA- quality yet, but they have a shot at GA. -Ed! (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised. A proper GA review is about the same standard as an A MILHIST review, although I know Kirill has a rather dim opinion of GA. Anyway, I have a book here about AUS in VN, and that has a bit about the Iron Triangle and Tuy Hoa battles that the Americans also took part in. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to FAC this? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to, but I've been distracted with GAs and so I havent had time to fix the source problem. Does it look good for FAC in its current state? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think converting all the refs into the template for uniformity will make it ok. I'd guess that Tony1 is the only user who would have a strongly held objection. It would be better to get a textbook and sub out the webpages though. There must be a book in the US about it somewhere. Maybe even in Aus. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess I'll nominate it, and, if the references become an issue, then I'll deal with them then. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pre-empted things and made everything consistent with the ref citation templates, which fixed a few things. Something to keep in mind when you are writing is to add the day the news report was published (if it is listed), not just the accessdate - I had to add some manually. Yeah, the citation templates just make things a lot easier. I also used book refs and eliminated some of the less reliable sources by finding more reliable alternatives. Also there are a few picture queries - we might have to get rid of a couple of them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abput the images, I wasn't the original uploader, so I don't know their sources. I presume that I could remove them and upload some more from the US Army homepage, but it seems like it would be an awful waste considering those images are already good. Still, if it has to be done to satisfy the FA, I can do that. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind if I expand the VN War stuff, since the magnitude of the battles and body count and destruction in those battles were much higher than the Iraq/Afghanistan stuff, as well as the fact that so many of their battles are in books 40 years later...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Please expand it any way you can; where I am at I do not have access to many books related to this material. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say I had to prune a few battles that seemed rather minor, as I couldn't find info about them in textbooks, compared to big ones like Dak To, Crimp etc. This was because I couldn't find independent refs about them and they don't appear in teh major VN War encyclopedias - there have been complaints on FAC about htis. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. The whole COI thing is kind of understandable. Sould I go find more independant references for this, or is it fixed? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coup GA pass

Hello, thanks for reviewing 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état. I just wanted to ask you if you think the article is good enough for a FA? Renata (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't hurt to give it a try. After all, the worst that could happen is that you could get some advice on how to improve the article. I'd recommend giving it a peer review first, though. -Ed! (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Liberty Vernon

Hi. Just a question about the listing of the above article for Good Article rating. One of your comments was that the redlinks are disruptive to the article's format. What is the problem here? Does this mean that internal links should be kept to the minimum or something like that? Also, what is the difference between redlinks and bluelinks, and why do some come out red when others come out blue? Would be nice to know more about this issue for future reference.

Sardaka (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you see, a "bluelink" links to an article that exists, whereas a "redlink" does not. For example, 1999 is a bluelink because when you click on the link, you go to an article titled "1999", however sdfgdfvdf is a redlink because when you click on it, Wikipedia takes you to a blank page (it invites you to create a new page, but this is probably a bad idea). Too many red links in an article is a bad thing because red links make the article look obscure and/or incomplete. Red links are sometimes caused by misspelling a word or something like that, but most often they exist because the thing you are linking to does not and should not have an article on Wikipedia. So, it would be best to either remove most of the red links or find other things to link them to. -Ed! (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lachine massacre

Hey Ed! Thanks for the insightful comments in your Lachine massacre GA review. I've made all the changes as indicated and think the article is ready to withstand a second round of review. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. No need to do another formal review, the article looks like GA quality. -Ed! (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias

Hi Ed! This is just a note to ask you whether you meant to add in the B class checklists with "no" as the default. Looking at your contributions, this seems to have ben added automatically. With Battle of Cartagena de Indias it actually meets all of the criteria. Could you please make sure this is what you intended? Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. -Ed! (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Checklist

May I ask you stop your automatic 'review' of the B-class checklist on battles. You are marking every entry as no when most of the articles should at least have a tick against Grammar. It is clear that you are not actually taking time to review the article (the time between edits is FAR too short to give a proper review). Centy – reply• contribs – 22:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pages with incomplete B-class lists don't conform to any of the B-class criterion, in my opinion. As a journalism student, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of them have grammar errors, too. Unless an article is gone through with a fine-tooth comb to review every sentence, I will not mark grammar as "automatically ok" just because people don't bother to notice minor grammar errors. Otherwise, it really is not difficult to change the "yes/no" section of the B-class checklists on the articles as they progress. -Ed! (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* B-Class articles...[are] free from major grammatical errors. *cough*. So for the four articles I've written, you've dismissed as not meeting a single B-Class criterion:

Tell me where my major grammatical errors are, for the longer articles, my lack of article structure. I am yet to be convinced you aren't just tagging these redundant (and rather derogatory) 'reviews' just for the sake of tagging these reviews. It doesn't strike me as helpful when someone comes along, spends 5 seconds looking at an article and just reviews almost bot like without even leaving comments on the talk page - its pointless and best removed.

Oh and another thing Unless an article is gone through with a fine-tooth comb to review every sentence - for heaven's sake this is B-Class review NOT FAC or even GAC. If an article fails the grammatical criteria, you should then follow it up by tagging the article with a copyedit required template; it shouldn't fail because it's not up to the FA or GA standard of writing. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go through the five points and explain why I do not think any of the four articles pass them:

It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
None of the articles have inline citations. Source lists at the bottom of the article are not adequate.
It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
They're rather short to merit this claim. There are many more details which could be added about them.
It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
Only two of the articles have a section, which is for background. A lead and an "everything else" section does not constitute a "defined structure", in my opinion.
It is free from major grammatical errors.
No, these articles do not currently have any major grammatical errors. However, because of their lengths, they are not stable. Articles of this size are prone to rapid expansion over a short period of time, and the grammar of each major edit would have to be reviewed a second time before promoting the article to B-class. In my experience, grammar should be the last criterion checked, after all the other B-class criteria are met, because any one edit can pass or fail this one.
It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
They all have infoboxes which are well put together, but no images. Some believe an infobox is all that is needed to "illustrate" an article, I do not.

I have been looking over articles in groups and then grouping and tagging them togetherm all at once; I am looking at what I am doing. However, I am also part of Wikiproject Military History's B-class Assessment Drive (BCAD), and I am currently in charge of reviewing 400 articles for B-class, so yes, I haven't been giving each individual article a large amount of time. But B-class is not a formal review, I'm just putting my opinions in there because the B-class checklists need to be filled out. Feel free to change them; your opinions on the articles are just as good as mine. -Ed! (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April GA Newsletter

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

173rd Airborne Brigade Realism Unit

I would adivse you NOT To remove the 173rdABCT Realism Unit Clan link from the page. It is run by retired 173rd Airborne Soldiers, Retired, who created the clan in 2005. It should be honored as a link to honor the soldiers.

Dell970 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. But this link is both unencyclopedic and unofficial, it has no official relation to the brigade, and wikipedia is not a collection of links. The site also suffers from severe notability and creditability issues. It goes. -Ed! (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulme Arch Bridge

Hi. Thanks for your GA review of Hulme Arch Bridge. I think I've now addressed the issues you raised: would you mind checking the article again? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'll look at it now. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCAD - thank you!

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work assessing B-class military history articles, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your great work assessing B-class military history articles, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shiny stuff

		The Original Barnstar
		For you diligent work in the creation of dozens of US Army Unit articles. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, its nice to know my work is appreciated. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William King GAN

I went and took care of everything if you wish to double-check William King (Royal Navy officer) now. Wizardman 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just a few nitpicks more and it should pass. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I went and finished it a while back, just letting you know. Wizardman 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Stripe (200 articles)
Two Stripes (400 articles)
Three Stripes (600 articles)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles)
Chevrons (2000 articles)
Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles)
Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles)
Third place overall
Second place overall
First place overall

GA Reviews

Hello, Ed!. You have new messages at Redmarkviolinist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ed!. You have new messages at Redmarkviolinist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 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) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Arab Wars (780 - 1180)

Thanks for waiting for my improvements. Right now, I need another day to make the changes at leats, so please let it be on hold until Sunday is over, by then if I haven't done anything I probably won't. Thank you Tourskin (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll finish up the review now. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William King (Royal Navy officer)

Hello. I was wondering about the status of William King (Royal Navy officer)'s Good Article nomination. It appears that all issues have been addressed, so I was wondering if you'd be willing to pass the article. Thanks. Nikki311 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I just made a number of MoS corrections, did link checking, and fixed some awkward sentences, but I think it's ready now. Choess (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good work, everyone! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180)

I am not happy with the GA listing of this article. I have made a few comments on the talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So put it up for review. I don't think it is particularly bad in the areas that I checked it, but my reviews are not infallable. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already up for review, and it has been delisted. You may wish to comment here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]