User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2017

Military Historian of the Year

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For "...[your] continued high quality content work (especially with our biographies), as well as [your] ongoing project work as a coordinator and with the Bugle", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, and Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ian Rose!

Happy New Year!

Ian Rose,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Donner -- best to you and yours too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Siberian accentor

Hi Ian, I'm going to Cornwall for a few days next week, and I intend to nominate the above article shortly after I get back. I've included a weather map for the first time, created by me using the NOAA/ESLR database. I don't think there are any issues with copyright since it's self-made using a PD database, but I'd welcome your advice on two issues

• Have I licensed File:Noaa wind map 20161016-2.jpg correctly?
• The weather map is used as reference for "with a further anomaly producing easterlies in western Asia.[23]", which it clearly supports. Do you think that the way I've referenced this is correctly formatted?

I'm assuming that you see enough image and source reviews to be able to guide me on this, but if you think I should ask elsewhere, please point me in the right direction, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jimfbleak: With regards to licensing, correct me if I'm wrong, but the image is produced when you select data from the NOAA/ESLR database and an algorithm of their site produces the map output based on that data? In other words, your only input was to select the data from the dataset? If so, I'd suggest adding a NOAA tag, as dual credit to you and NOAA would be more appropriate. (I'd also suggest scaling up the map in the article itself, as it's difficult to read at default size). As to citation, the formatting is fine, but in context I'd question that cite. The full sentence is "The UK Met Office suggested that the influx of accentors was driven by strong and persistent easterly winds from Siberia,[21] partially driven by a high-pressure area centred over Scandinavia,[22] with a further anomaly producing easterlies in western Asia.[23]" This wording suggests that the entire sentence is the interpretation of the UK Met Office, but the last cite at least (I haven't checked the middle one) is a primary source. If the Met Office said all of that, just cite them for the whole thing; if they didn't, we need to be careful about what sort of interpretation we're applying to the primary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, many thanks!. I've changed the source line of the image file to "Own work using NOAA data and algorithms", is that what you had in mind, or is there a special template? I've separated the last statement from the Met Office sentence, "Another weather system produced easterlies in western Asia during the same period." which is, I think, an interpretation-free description of what the weather data shows. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}? The wording isn't quite right though... Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, that looks good, although I take your point about it not being a 100% fit. I think it covers attribution and transparency though, which is what I'm trying to achieve here, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What can I say? Thanks Jim for thinking of me with this query, and thanks Nikki for jumping in with your greater knowledge of the situation -- Happy New Year to you both... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

2016 Year in Review

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your contributions to No. 90 Wing RAAF, Reg Pollard (general), No. 91 Wing RAAF, and Dick Cresswell, all of which are related to Australia, you are hereby awarded The Australian Barnstar of National Merit. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Ian Rose by TomStar81 (Talk) on 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

		The World War Barnstar
		For your contributions to the Featured Articles Reg Pollard and Dick Cresswell, both of whom served in World War II, you are hereby presented with this World War Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For you contributions to No. 90 Wing RAAF and No. 91 Wing RAAF, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your contributions to No. 90 Wing RAAF, Reg Pollard (general), No. 91 Wing RAAF, and Dick Cresswell, all of which were promoted to Featured Article status in 2016, you are hereby presented with The Featured Article Medal. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You are very thoughtful, Tom -- thank you so much. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)

This FAC, which you commented on, was archived yesterday. What are your suggestions for material to be added to the article to make it FA? Kges1901 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kges, I don't have too much time to add to my FAC comments right now but would like to revisit as soon as I can -- pls give me a few days and ping me if you haven't heard from me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Comments? Kges1901 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, tks for the ping. I'll comment here for now but pls feel free to transfer this to the article talk page to centralise if you like. Having stopped pre-war in my FAC review, I quickly went through the rest of the article just now and made a couple of small edits. I think the flow and the level of detail in the WWII/death section is adequate but my concerns re. the lack of career info from 1925 to 1932 and the confusing account of 1937 are still an issue for me. I realise that you may simply not be able to find the info for 1925-32, or to reconcile conflicting info for 1937, but in that case I have to question whether this is ready for FAC (to be honest I don't think it was really ready for ACR with those issues but I didn't participate in that review so it's a bit of a moot point). Not being very well-versed in Soviet military history, I can only compare the article to what I'd expect (and generally see) in say Allied or German military FA-level bios. If you are able add material or tweak what's there I would be happy to revisit and make further suggestions before another FA nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I can't add the information now, I'll wait for the necessary information to be added on the Russian sources I use. Perhaps some Russian will obtain Petrov's record in the CAMD archives and post it on the internet. For now, I'll let it sit at GA/A, which is also the highest level it got on the German wiki.Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Source reviews...

I'm not sure that people will be happy with me returning to source reviews.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm happy if it makes you feel any better... ;-) Seriously, it's very good to have you back to augment Nikki's and others' efforts, especially as Brian's had to cut down recently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 14 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugle Article?

@Nick-D: I don't know if The Bugle is the place for this, but do y'all be think there would be interest in an article on copyright?

Background: Since becoming a coordinator, I have done much/too much Wikignome work focused on editing references (with some weight on those that are linked to the internet). In the course of this, I have come across a lot of (what I believe to be unintentional) failure to comply with Wikipedia's copyright rules. Two thirds of these rules (and the ones most editors are usually familiar with, even if they are violated) has to do with not quoting copyrighted information and with giving citations to copyrighted sources in general. There are other Gnomes who patrol this issue, and compliance is good, if not ideal. There is another element, however, and that is giving proper credit for the use of the material. I have found in the process of verifying, adding archives, etc. that it is rare for the author to be properly credited (which is a requirement). I have found this is true not only for IP editors, who may use the styles [http://website] or, at best [http://website Name of Website], but editors who have enough experience to use templates.

I would include a couple of other items in the article, that I have noticed and are associated (even if not, like the general subject contrary to copyright): 1) Making up your own name for the website (an example would be citing 56 OG Fact Sheet, when the page cited was Factsheet: 56th Operations Group) 2) Using the Wayback Machine -- since I've noticed a lot of articles have a short half-life and this can create a "permanent' link.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a great topic for a Bugle article. If you wanted to narrow in on frequent areas of copyright problems in military history articles, you could cover the problems with copying and pasting news stories (a major problem in articles on modern topics) and material from websites in articles on historic topics. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alan Rawlinson

On 11 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Rawlinson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian World War II fighter ace Alan Rawlinson had "Sweet FA" in the Middle East before he got "up you" in the South West Pacific? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Rawlinson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alan Rawlinson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

a question, part deux

Hello Ian. Sorry to bother you. If I may ask... I am really unable to decide between text options. The list of "causes" of the Bengal famine of 1943 is very distressingly long. I have two overlapping, alternate versions of a summary, either for the lede or.. for little intro sections I have sprinkled throughout the body text. One version is boring and tends to induce googly-eyed torpor, but is also somewhat more accurate, at the expense of detail. It is the first para here. The other is more interesting but less accurate. It is "The demand for rice was..." here. An example of the "little intro sections I have sprinkled throughout the body text" is the first para of Background, beginning with the words: "From the late nineteenth century..."

Um. So. Do you... have any thoughts or suggestions? A million thanks, and sorry again for pestering you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hiya, no bother, let me try and have a look later today or on the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

...only if you have free time, and "thanks!"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi, had a look. Have to admit I'm a bit out of my depth here but I don't see a particular issue with the sandbox version -- when you characterise it as "less accurate", do you perhaps mean "more general"? I don't think we ever want "less accurate" info in WP but I think it's fine for a lead to discuss things at a high level or in a general sense, as long as the main body goes into appropriately nuanced detail. One other thing if this is going to FAC eventually, I think one should always clearly attribute quotes, e.g. who says "a vast cremation ground", "bodies in all states of decay...[were] dragged through the lanes of abandoned villages by hungry jackals", "massive escalation", etc? As it is one can't be sure if the author of the source says it or if it's someone the source is quoting... An alternative would be to paraphrase some of these, e.g. "vast cremation ground" is a graphic phrase that I think you might well retain, but unless the other two were said by someone notable, perhaps they could be put in your own words (just a thought). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for spending time on this, and for your comments. I think the misc version is... more compact... and more academic... so it covers ground more efficiently but does not read as well... I like the idea of having a higher proportion of quoted text than is perhaps considered standard or average in WP, for two reasons: 1) I live in fear of POV warriors, and quoted text is relatively less assailable. 2) More importantly to me, quoted text... seems to... lend a sense of immediacy (without shrillness); it seems to personalize the text without POV-ifying it. Or at least I think so. [But I will try to clarify ambiguous citations, at least to some degree].. I will probably resist more than a few attempts to impose a standard format on the article. Another forex, the lede is long. Well, [insert exclamation here], the topic is über-complex, and many people will read only the lede. And so on. Many thanks...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

History of science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, again

Ian, if you have time I'd appreciate your input on this. I've followed your earlier advice and kept it all in a single narrative, rather than separating the publishing and reception histories. The article isn't done yet, but it's getting closer (no images or copyedit pass yet). I have a couple of questions.

• The article is already 7,412 words of prose, and that doesn't include the table, which is huge. I haven't done overseas (non-English-language) magazines yet, nor have I done much on UK magazines or on the period 1945-1950, which would be a few hundred words more. Should I cut it to end at 1945? Ashley ends at 1950 for good reasons: that's the best date to pick for the pulp/digest switch, with F&SF launching at the end of 1949 and Galaxy the following year. But it would be awfully long. Or should I cut the UK and non-English stuff to another article, and take it up to 1950, and change the title to indicate it's North America only?
• If you have time to skim the article and tell me if the structure works as I have it, that would be much appreciated too.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I think I'd stick with the 1950 end date because although 1945 would make perfect sense to the uninitiated, I think 1950 is more appropriate in the life of the field, and the fact that a key source, i.e. Ashley, uses it makes it an even easier decision. I don't think including the extra five years should make it too detailed. If you felt you had to cut then I would reduce the scope to the US rather than reduce the timeframe, but my feeling is that even with the UK and non-English sections you can justify the length. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, 1950 it is. I think I knew that was the right answer; I was just worried about the length. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to see it today, "the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse", service in collaboration, thank you! - Never too late to say happy new year, I guess. Thank you for keeping Yunshui's peace bell all last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Hey!

I wanted to ask something about FACs. Am I allowed to nominate another article for FAC if another one have multiple supports like FLCs? BTW Snuggums has given his support to the FAC and the image in question was recently verified.Krish | Talk 20:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey! There is a new problem. The picture which was reviewed yesterday, now has been nominated for deletion. So I removed it from the article. Is is okay? I don't know what to do now.Krish | Talk 06:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Krish, I ended up copyediting and therefore recusing from coord duties so I'll have to defer to fellow coords Laser brain or Sarastro1 on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!: Given that there has been a fair amount of recent activity on your nomination and there is potential for more attention, I would prefer that you stick to one open nomination at this time. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I don't understand. Does it mean the article will not pass? I was hoping otherwise. Since everything has been resolved and the article is in good shape. Is there something which I am missing here?Krish | Talk 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!: No, I'm not making any statement about ongoing consensus at the nomination. I'm just saying that you've had a fair bit of activity there and I think there's a potential that reviewers may add comments that will require more attention from you. When that is the case, we'd generally prefer folks have just one nomination open. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Now I understand. I misunderstood it earlier, sorry.Krish | Talk 16:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For how long you think the FAC will be kept open? Nothing new is happening there.Krish | Talk 22:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviews?

Ian (and also pinging Laser brain and Sarastro1): I'm able to do at least three more FAC reviews over the next week or so; is there anything you'd particularly like to see another reviewer on? Looking at counts of support it looks like nothing is being ignored, from the older list, at least. I've done three of the four urgents -- I see Laser brain is in the middle of reviewing the remaining one so I was going to wait for him on that. Or I can pick something from the top half of the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, tks for grabbing the Russells, which I felt needed more work -- as well as the others you've done recently of course. I wouldn't mind you checking Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) from the top half of the list, as it's the third time at bat. God of War: Ascension also comes to mind -- I'll leave Andy and Sarastro a recommendation or two now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: If you get a chance, could you have a look at Yesterday's Enterprise (FAC here). It's nearly there, but I think the prose needs a last look/polish. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure; probably tomorrow or the next day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1: Just FYI, it might take me longer than I thought to get to Yesterday's Enterprise; I've signed myself up to try to help out with the source review issues at Nike-X, which I'd like to see promoted, and I think that will slow me down a bit, so you may want to ask someone else to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie: No problem, I'll see what we can do tomorrow. My weekend has been a little more hectic than I'd expected! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Prince Romerson

Hello, Ian - I saw your recent edit to Prince Romerson, and I'd like to ask you about something. I saw you changed "a number of" to "several". In the course of a lot of reading and copy-editing articles, I have several times seen people changing "a number of" to "several", and maybe even a few discussions about it. I know that, for the sake of conciseness, using one word instead of three is often a good choice, but at the same time I have always thought of "a number of" as an acceptable alternative to "several". I'm just curious to know whether you consider it an unacceptable alternative to "several" or are merely changing it because it reduces the number of words. If the former, I would be interested in knowing why you consider it unacceptable. I often think the prose in WP lacks variety, and the same words are used over and over again, and if a bit of variety in the vocabulary could be introduced here and there, it would be a good thing. I'm interested in your point of view.  – Corinne (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, thanks for asking. I like to see variety too and I don't consider "a number of" to be unacceptable, it's just something I see so often in the course of walking through articles as a FAC coord that I do like to consider other -- and, as you rightly surmised, shorter -- possibilities. Of course it's not as a bad as "a large number of" (why not "many"?) or "a small number of" (why not "some" or "a few"?). So you may well find me leaving "a number of" when there's already a "several" in the vicinity, because repetition is something else I tend to pick up on! I guess the bottom line is that I consider word usage to be a somewhat subjective thing anyway, so I try not shoot any expression "on sight" and am always happy to discuss copyedits if people have another point of view. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, Ian!  – Corinne (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Henry III

Please do not revert my edit to say "discuss". Leave it in place, and then say "discuss" Wjhonson (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not the way it works, mate, especially regards a featured article -- when there's disagreement the status quo should remain while discussion takes place, and change afterwards if/when there's consensus for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Spot checks

Hi Ian, I'm having trouble persuading someone to take on the spot check on the Henry Morgan FAC; HJ Mitchell pencilled himself in, but it looks like RL has kept him away from WP for a while. As I wouldn't like to see this fall off the bottom of the page over this additional step, do you know of anyone I could ask to step in to undertake it? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bounder, as a rule, if a nom has a fair amount of commentary and support then it won't be archived while it awaits image or source checks. I know we'd all like to see it wrapped up though -- Nikkimaria or Laser brain, would either of you have a chance to take on a spotcheck for this first-time nominator? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both so much. Laser brain, If you need me to send over scans of pages, please message me and I'll email them across. Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FA sourcing

I've posted a response to you on The Bounder's page, but he usually removes posts he doesn't like, so I'm repeating it here.

The Daily Mail is used in that article as a key primary source. The Daily Mail and Guardian published early photographs of Tomlinson showing him in contact with the police just before he died. This was important in the early investigation—which for a week was journalist-led—because the official story was that Tomlinson had simply had a heart attack.

Ian, I'm surprised to see you respond to his attack as you did. If the coordinators won't stand up for reviewers under attack, then no one is going to want to leave a negative review. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarah, if by "his attack" you're referring to his characterisation of your comments, a coordinator (Andy) had already responded to that and it's pretty evident that he is set in his opinion, whether we like or not. This coordinator was moving on and pointing out there's a process for raising concerns about sources (or any aspect) of FAs if he truly believes that other articles are not receiving -- or have not received -- the same scrutiny as his. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You implied that his comment had merit. The point is that nominators shouldn't act vengefully against reviewers. It's normal to be upset, and everyone understands that (I've been in both positions, so I understand it very well), but acts of revenge against a reviewer's FAs or searching their edits from years ago to find things to disagree with, cross the line. The Bounder is not a new editor; he understands the FA process. Editors who leave critical reviews are your most precious commodity as an FA coordinator, and they need your strong defence. It isn't easy to leave one. But without them you'll be waving through problematic articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you inferred that, Sarah, the observation was intended to point out, as even-handedly as I could, that sources that might be considered controversial now (i.e. the Daily Mail, as evidenced by the current RFC) were not necessarily so in 2009. I value all participants at FAC, whether they be critical commentators like yourself, in-depth source reviewers (see my response to Ealdgyth above), image licensing experts, experienced nominators, or first-time nominators (like The Bounder). IMO, if FAC is to maintain its quality and relevance we can ill afford losses among any of these groups. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bounder isn't a first-time nominator.

The use of the Daily Mail has nothing to do with standards having changed since 2009. I keep the article reasonably well updated, so if there were inappropriate sources I'd remove them. The tabloid images [1][2] were used because they're primary sources showing Tomlinson's contact with police shortly before he died.

But we shouldn't be discussing my FAs as a result of my review of an FAC. That is the point, and it would be nice if coordinators would put a stop to that kind of linkage as soon as they see it. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I'm not sure much of this is ideal, and I'm not sure there are too many wrongs to right, but can I just check "The Bounder isn't a first-time nominator" and he "is not a new editor". I'm possibly being thick, but which other articles has he nominated? And the account is only 4 months old. Am I missing something? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, this isn't his first account. If someone wants a clean start, I don't want to get in the way of that. On the other hand, when an editor claims to be a first-time nominator, it means reviewers might treat him differently. It also means that editors who might otherwise have chosen not to interact are denied that choice. That's all I want to say. I'm obviously wishing at this point that I hadn't reviewed the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Garage rock article

I thought you could take a look at the Garage rock article and see how things are coming along there. Do you think it is near ready for review? I could take a little time and wait if need be. But, I'd be interested in any feedback you could provide. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have a quick look now, and if I feel I can spend longer on it later then I will. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

About the revert on Marvel Science Stories

To explain my edits:

• sf was SF for clarity in the title of the person. It might otherwise be mistaken for a typo of "of". It's also because when I google "sf," it pops up the abbreviation capitalized, so I acted accordingly.
• The placement with the punctuation in the quotation is to be consistent with the American English spelling and punctuation style on the page as it is an American pulp magazine. In American English, the punctuation is within double (") quotations, if that helps clear things.
• I can understand the table formatting being unnecessary, though I do want to space the text from the file embed link so it doesn't look fused together.

Anything to add? Cheeseskates (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cheeseskates, appreciate the opportunity to discuss the edits further:

• Perhaps I missed something but not sure what you mean by "in the title of the person"... In any case I grant you "SF" is valid, but so is "sf" (just checking the two detailed histories of science fiction I have, one uses SF and the other uses sf). The lower-case format seems to be the style that's been adopted and accepted in not just this article but most or all of the similar articles in WP.
• Being Australian I wouldn't presume to debate AmEng conventions with you, but I believe that MOS:LQ recommends that while full sentences should always be wholly within quote marks, fragments should take quote marks before punctuation.
• Sorry, I didn't see that you added the spaces in a few cases, no objections to that.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Hello, I noticed you reverted an IP when he removed the mention of the "Wehrmachtsberichte". Actually there was a discussion at Talk:Wehrmachtbericht#Military commendation?. I am with the IP here, as the Wehrmachtsberichte are primary sources. I took the liberty of undoing your edit. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, primary sources are not forbidden in WP, especially when used to cite simple facts (they should not be used to interpret facts). The Rudel article has been through peer review and MilHist A-Class Review, and the mentions in the Wehrmachtsberichte were considered acceptable. Consensus can of course change, but you need to discuss that on the Rudel talk page, or bring it up at a wider forum (e.g. the MilHist talk page). Until the consensus does change, the article should remain as it was, so I've reverted to the earlier version. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that primary sources are allowed, with caveats; the problem I see here is in labeling being mentioned in the Wehrmachtsbericht as a military award (which imho is an interpretation of the primary source which should not be done; neither the English nor the German article Wehrmachtsbericht does make a mention of it being a military award (as a sidenote: this is different from being Mentioned in dispatches, which is explicitly one). That is why I linked to the discussion above). Just passing peer review for a "good article" and being A-graded in a Wiki-project does not concensus make for every detail in the article. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Promotion

I see that you have promoted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corvus (constellation)/archive1 but several of my comments in my source review remained unresolved/not replied to. Had it been in a nomination of someone like me, it would have been a very big deal, big enough that, if unresolved, could even result in archival. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, three outstanding formatting questions isn't as big a deal as say a reliability issue, and wouldn't result in a nom's archival, but I admit I had formed the impression that because Casliber had responded to most points, and you hadn't followed up after several days, that they had all been actioned. If not, I'm sure Cas can revisit them and either action them or discuss with you on the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks, I have been really busy so answered there to tidy up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Consolidated PBY Catalina in Royal Australian Air Force Service

Ian, you will be interested in the new article Consolidated PBY Catalina in Royal Australian Air Force Service. Just wondering also whether it be renamed Consolidated PBY Catalina in Australian service for consistency? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to see someone working on such an article... I agree it should be renamed though -- we have the following already utilising the alternate wording:

• Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service
• Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service
• Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service
• McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service
• McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks for creating this article Newm30! Regarding the title, given that Qantas also operated Catalinas during the Second World War ([3]) a RAAF-specific title is workable if that's all the article will cover. I'd suggest extending it and tweaking the title to also cover the Qantas aircraft though given they were a part of the war effort. As a random note, there's an interesting display on the Qantas Catalinas in the Qantas museum at Sydney Airport. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Credit for the creation of the article belongs to @SamHolt6: Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cricket books

I don't suppose you happen to have a local library with a (very) well-stocked cricket section do you? I've been looking at an article that could potentially be very good, but the lack of access to two or three books on Australian cricket are rather hampering things. Sarastro1 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of major libraries in Sydney I get to every so often, as well as the local up the road -- what are you after? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This and this. The article would survive without them, and they might not have anything in, but you never know! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro, I checked the online catalogues of the major libraries in my general area and Pollard's book should be available from Macquarie University, while 200 years looks like it's in the State Library (which also holds his Complete Histories of Australian cricket, 1803-1989 and 1803-1995, if they're of any help). I may not be able to borrow either book but if you let me know what you're after specifically I can try and look at them in the next week or so... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Anything at all about the Tasmania v Victoria cricket match of 1851; the first intercolonial game and apparently the first first-class game in Australia. Anything on the game, or the teams in the built up to it. Thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Active editor with song FAs?

Do you (or a TPS) know an active editor who has a string of FAs on popular songs? I'm working with Carbrera on improving Make Me Like You, which has failed at FAC a couple of times, and I'd like to get additional input on the talk page from someone who's done several of these to FA level. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dan56 has taken quite a few popular music articles to FA... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being thick...

Although we restarted Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin and moved it to the top of the list at FAC, and I've reset the dates of the nomination, FACbot keeps moving it to the top of the Older Nominations section. Possibly I'm missing something, and maybe Hawkeye7 can tell me where the bot looks to decide where to put the nomination, but we might have to leave it there as we can't keep putting it back! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing jumps at me, I might let Hawkeye take the first pass at this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The FACBot looks at the date on which the nomination was created. In this case, that was 5 December 2016. So it's an older nomination. Normally when you create a new nomination, it would be archive2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, I suppose we'd better leave it at the top of "older nominations". Sarastro1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg FAC

Ian, I happened to look at the nominator's talk page. this charming edit suggests that Nikkimaria got off lightly! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the attitude doesn't seem like a recipe for longevity at WP in general, let alone FAC...! Cheers, 00:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

BMPL

Hey you might have been eyeing that the Briarcliff Manor Public Library fac has been open for just over a month. At the very least it still needs a source review, and nobody's seemed to come. Any ideas on people I should reach out to? Much appreciated, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As well I have oft wondered about family. A few of my relatives, some immediate, have Wikipedia accounts. I don't think I ever spotted a rule against such users contributing to GA or FA reviews, and the quality of work always matters while identity doesn't, on Wikipedia at least. What are your thoughts on this? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, I hadn't seen it because it looks like you didn't transclude the page to WP:FAC... Before we look at doing that, though, a formatting issue: L4 headers should be used to demarcate reviewer comments, not L3. Even then, we wouldn't be at the stage of seeking a source review because the opposing reviewers from the previous FAC need to have a chance to check and see if their concerns have been addressed. Lastly, re. family and friends reviewing, I couldn't see where WP:COI went into that (it seems to focus more on editing articles about family and friends) but I certainly wouldn't be soliciting input from WP editors who happened to be family or friends; happy to hear thoughts from my talk page stalkers on this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I could've sworn I had transcluded, that's odd and somewhat silly. Should I reformat the headers? The reviewers did that, so I didn't want to touch it. Done, as the transcluded copy messed up the TOC w/ L2 headers. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Eve Russell - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the episode Eve Russell for Featured Article consideration. The FAC currently three "support" votes and image and source reviews, but I have received a note that it could use more commentary on comprehensiveness and source reliability. I was wondering if you could help me with this. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eve Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Tks for asking, Aoba, I might be able to recuse coord duties and review, let me see how I go in the next day or two. Just keeping my coord hat on for a minute, though, I think I may have mentioned once before to try not to think in terms of "votes", as the depth of commentary is considered more important than a simple declaration of support (or opposition). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will be more considerate of it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Allan Moffat

Don't have a reliable source regarding Allan Moffat's wife as he's a famously private person. His sons Andrew and James are half-brothers and a real estate website said Moff's wife was called "Sue" in 2011. He's not been with Pauline for awhile. --Falcadore (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Tks for taking the time to explain -- I have to admit I haven't followed things for several years, it was still Pauline last I time I did... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well James Moffat is 32 so it has been at least that long since they were married. --Falcadore (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh, well it hasn't been quite that long since I was following Moff's career (though admittedly most of my interest in professional sport was a childhood thing) but clearly I missed that bit...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

FAC William Pūnohu White

Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again. I will only go ahead once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested, Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) KAVEBEAR, the best way to attract reviewers is to return the favour. Your previous FAC attracted several reviewers, but it's a fact of life that good will is limited. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Do I have to ask for more reviews for my FAC? It has 5 supports and a withdrawal oppose, and it's almost a month since it's been open. I ask because I have another article in the queue that I've been working on. MCMLXXXIX 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1989, sorry I took a while to respond -- RL intruding...! On a quick scan it looks like you could probably sit tight on it, I'm sure one of the coords (perhaps me) will be able to look it over in more detail soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Simone Russell - featured article candidate

Thank you again for your help with the Eve Russell FAC. I have recently nominated the Simone Russell article for Featured Article consideration, and it has received a lot of attention already (and I am very grateful for their suggestions/comments). I was wondering if you could possibly help me again by provide a more thorough commentary on the comprehensiveness, source reliability, and general prose for the article. I think that everything is up to shape, but I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. I am only going to be nominating one more article from this topic, and I apologize for putting a lot of these articles up for FAC in such a short time frame. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Aoba, tks for asking -- yeah, things are very busy but I'll have a look if I find time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, I apologize again for the intrusion. I was wondering if you could possible look at my FAC to gauge the commentary on it? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Gibbes

Hi Ian, While out and about today, I was interested to see that Bobby Gibbes is interred at St John the Baptist Church, Reid in Canberra, in a plot shared with many other members of this family. I can't find a reliable source to back this up to add so it can be added to the article though... I've uploaded a photo of the grave stone at File:Gravestone of Bobby Gibbes April 2017.jpg, though unfortunately the plot needs a bit of maintenance. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Tks Nick -- very nice shot, clear and crisp. I don't think we can fit it into the article but at least people can find it in the Commons link. Yeah, bit unusual none of the papers mentioned where he was buried... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC source review fyi

Hey there Ian! Long time no talk. Hope all is well in the land down under. I'm here with regards to the sourcing review in the recent FAC for Sino-Roman relations, which was ... well, possibly not as strong as it could have been. See Talk:Sino-Roman relations#Ref issues and [4]. No blame being assigned, just an FYI. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that in the spirit of SOFIXIT, I went ahead and reviewed Pericles' current FAC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Tks Ed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)- featured article candidate

Thank you again for all of your help and feedback from my FACs. You have definitely helped me and encouraged me to be more active in the FAC process (though I have a lot more to learn and I am still a novice). I would be extremely grateful if you could provide any comments or suggestions to my current FAC? I am very fortunate to have received such extensive feedback after only putting the FAC up a couple of days ago. I was wondering if you could possibly help me again by provide a more thorough commentary on the comprehensiveness, source reliability, and general prose for the article. I think that everything is up to shape, but I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, tks for asking, I have it on my watchlist, will see what I can do time permitting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I believe the nomination has received enough feedback/commentary for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Word count

Hey Ian, can you give me a link to the word count template? I had it installed on my user page while ago and I want to implement it on the Macedonian wiki edition. Thanks for the help.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, do you mean the page size script? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Though I'm not sure it can count prose written in Cyrillic script. I tried passing prose from articles in Cyrillic here, but the DYK counter only shows number of characters in the text. It seems it can't count the words.--Retrohead (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrohead, very sorry for not following up sooner -- if you're still interested, this is the page size script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Kom (film)/archive1

Would you please take a look at the FAC? Thank you!Krish | Talk 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Hi Ian! I'm a student working on a wikied project, and my group is hoping to get the page we edited onto the featured content page. We've put a lot of work into the Indigenous Environmental Network page, and would greatly appreciate if you could look it over and give us some feedback. Thanks!

Gmhardesty (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

William Henry Bury scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the William Henry Bury article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 18, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. Note that as per the discussion on the TFAR page, I have not deemed it appropriate to run it on his birthday. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I have notified the other main editors. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Just noticed your comment here, while putting together the April stats; thanks -- I appreciate it. I do think the increased discussion of reviewing has helped. As with so many things in life, the things that get talked about are the things that get done, so I suspect that periodic renewals of the discussion will be necessary to keep up the review volume. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I daresay. Tks again for your efforts, and for stopping by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I'll have time for more source reviews...

But I'm still going to avoid pop culture stuff if I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No prob, anything you can manage will be a big help! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Naruto

Hi Ian Rose,

I'm having trouble with how the prose is supposed to look in Naruto for FA standards. Would you be able to help me with it and add comments to the FAC if needed? If not, please reply. Thanks. -- 1989 01:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I will be fairly busy this week but will try and take a look in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a lot of copyediting over the last 2 days, so it should look okay. -- 1989 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Mike is going to comment any further on what's wrong with the prose, that's why I'm asking for your help. Hopefully you'll be active soon. -- 1989 11:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

FAC for The Demi-Virgin

Hi, Ian. Normally I would wait my turn for FAC closings, but I started thinking ahead to possible TFA dates for The Demi-Virgin and realized that one option is as soon as June 3. Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Demi-Virgin/archive1 has three supports with no opposes or unresolved comments, plus completed image and source reviews, I'm hoping it might be promoted sooner rather than later, so I can jump into a TFA/R discussion before it is too late. But if it needs longer, then I can focus on other date options. --RL0919 (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I did check it when I was doing the rounds over the weekend and, although everything is going very well, I felt it was a bit soon to close given it's only been open around ten days. I'd prefer to give it at least another week to see if anyone else has thoughts -- if we still have consensus for promotion then and it's closed, I think you'd still have time for the TFAR you mention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, we'll see how it goes. It's not a dealbreaker either way, but I thought I should at least ask. Thanks for the prompt reply. --RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Evita FAC

Hey Ian, how are you? I was wondering did you get a chance to look at the spotchecks for the above FAC? I had pinged you there while writing a response, but not sure whether you got the notification. Or maybe you got it and will look at it afterwards (in that case please feel free to ignore this message). I know with Laser brain retiring, FAC load might be more for you and Sarastro. Thanks for all that you do. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm well, tks for asking -- a lot on this week RL-wise though so I may not be able to get to check things properly till the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a little nudge on this one! If you don't have time to do another spot-check, Giants2008 had a look and found no other problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, was preparing to have another look at sources when I found several new issues with the prose, but will try and button everything up tonight... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ian, just gently reminding you, this one was addressed long ago. Perhaps you missed the notification. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I saw it, just forgot that I hadn't struck the oppose since -- done now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Roy Phillipps scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Roy Phillipps article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 12 June 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 12, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for another one! - I don't know what to say (probably nothing) in a thread that has "Which confirms once again how meaningless FA review often is." on WT:RSN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Captains Table IJN Soryu

Do you want English Sources or if I copy the ones from the Japanese page is that sufficient?

-JustRadical 29 May 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.52.188 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

IN case you didn't see....

this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Belated tks mate-- not too much free time lately, hope everyone had a good time! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A nice dinner at the East Ocean was had by all...and plenty of Carlton Black draught beers...but did get a tad soaked by the deluge....sighCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Marvellous Spider-Man 03:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

strategy

At this stage I am in process of writing a report about discussions in Australia about https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017 the cycle 2 of the broader wikimedia strategy -

You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks JarrahTree 05:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne Castle

Hi there, I just want to draw your attention to my question at Talk:Melbourne Castle § Unexplained revert as I have yet to hear from you. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)