User talk:Mike Christie/Archive13

Source checking

Hey. I saw a thread on brianBoulton's page about checking hundreds of cites for missing values. I could easily whip up a little Python script that would do it, then share its results with you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be great; thanks! I've been thinking more about this and will drop you a note with some more details, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I should tell you, this would not be a bot, but instead would run on my laptop. So if you know anyone willing/able to make a bot, that would be a better solution. But I am very happy to help if my laptop option is the only way. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, a bot would be ideal, but if we get a working script I think it would be a lot easier to pass it to someone at BOTREQ; if the work's mostly done they would probably be fine with it. Though for it to function as a script it would probably be better in JavaScript. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I use Python exclusively. I took a couple of javascript classes years ago, and would love to be able to learn how to do this (it would not at all be impossible for me to do), but if you want something done soonin javascript, you might be better off asking Evad37. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I was asked and pinged to come here, but I'm not sure what exactly we're discussing – a link and/or more of a description would be helpful. In the meantime, Lingzhi, I can suggest that you might be able to run python scripts from WMF servers rather than your own laptop using Toolforge. - Evad37 [talk] 09:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Evad37; Lingzhi is referring to an idea for a bot or script I mentioned on another page. I was reviewing Marilyn Manson (band) for GA, and checking the footnotes and sources was quite an onerous task just because there were so many of them. For GA the consistency requirements aren't as strict as FA, so it wasn't too bad, but there are some things I was wondering if a bot could check, some of which are probably only possible if the source is formatted using templates. A script that either highlighted these errors or produced a list of them would be a huge timesaver.

• In the footnote, if the page range given includes a dash or hyphen or comma, it should say "pp." and not "p."; and vice versa
• Are any of the key parameters missing? The templates will complain if some of these are missing, but some won't cause an error, and they should be checked: Publisher, location, both names, title, a year, and ISBN if the year is greater than 1970 (although for this we'd have to be confident it's a book which may not be possible).
• Web citations that do not have an archived link.
• Inconsistent date formats.
• Hyphens used instead of dashes in page ranges
• Sources not in alphabetical order
• This one is a bit of a reach, but: some projects keep a list of what sources are definitely unreliable. If those lists were machine-readable, it would be great to be able to highlight their use. For example, see here and here.

A script that could highlight even one or two of these issues would be very useful indeed for those of us reviewing sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I ran Citation bot on my monster project; it made a few fixes (diffs in article history). All of the things you ask for would probably be easily-peasily for me to check via Python but I have exactly zero idea how to use Toolforge so that it would be available for anyone anytime. I can look into it, but it might take a while... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of Citation bot; perhaps it already does some of these things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you know, I think I can fork Ucucha's Harv error script and do most or all of what you're asking for. It wouldn't change anything; only flash warnings. People would of course have to add it as with all scripts... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be great! Warnings or highlights on screen is exactly what I was hoping for. Let me know if you get it working! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) I would enjoy learning javascript and enjoy doing this, but the problem is that I will be traveling for 10 days starting about a week from now, and I'll probably be busy this week. After I return, it shouldn't take more than a day or so to finish it. If you know one programming language, others come much easier (except for Perl, which the UN should declare illegal for mental health reasons). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree on learning second and third languages, but I actually like Perl. How can you not like a Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a difference between what's required for a cite book and for a cite web? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes -- the list of fields I mentioned above is what's needed for a book. For a web site we need publisher, URL, author, title, access date. I would think those are the basics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For books at least (haven't checked web yet) if title is missing it'll generate a CS1 error. Catch it by adding .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */ to Special:MyPage/common.css Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice; done. Thanks! I should have realized there'd be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds like you guys have it under control now, so I'll leave you to it, but feel free to ask me any questions if you have problems with the javascript. - Evad37 [talk] 01:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • javascript itself is mildly challenging, but very manageable. But navigating around the DOM is the real bear... just now finished the check for errors like "pp. 123" or "p. 123–4". It was a bear, because {{sfnm}} made me dive into parents and children and so on... still much to do but making progress. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

    Glad to hear it. It's been a while since I've written much Javascript, but if I recall, once you get familiar with the DOM, it becomes pretty obvious how to do most things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

    • Would it be useful to have an OCLC error if pubdate < 1970 & no OCLC? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

      Definitely. I always forget to look for OCLCs and I'm sure I'm not the only one who needs to be reminded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

      • I take back everyting I said about javascript being unchallenging. Python is 10,000 times easier and thus better by the same order... I have no idea why User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js (a fork of Ucucha's HarvErrors script, which I am also using concurrently) seems to work correctly on the Notes section for all articles, but on the References section it works for some articles but not others. I have spent literally hours and hours trying to walk through the history to see where the bug began... Oh and occasionally the error messages in the Notes section (generated by Ucucha's script) are duplicated, but if I clear the browser's cache, they usually but not always fix themselves. So yes you can say I'm a sh*tty programmer, but a good language wouldn't let me be shitty. I would've had this done and dusted in Python many many many many many hours ago... Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

        Been there, sympathize with that. Maybe Evad37 could take a look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) I left him a message. I hope he/she has the time to help (probably a he, "Dave" I assume). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I see he responded. I went ahead and installed your script; I see some useful red hints already on a couple of random articles. Thanks for working on this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me examples of what you mean by "Inconsistent date formats"? What are the most common probs, where do they occur, etc.? If necessary or helpful, you could also go to my sandbox page and create some errors if you would like to..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing about inconsistent date formats that will be difficult is that it may not (in fact often doesn't) occur inside a single citation; it's across all citations. For example, all the citations are in December 1, 2008 format, but someone has added a new ref and put it in 2008-12-01 format. You do often see that within a single citation, most often because the archive bot uses YYYY-MM-DD by default, which humans rarely do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And while you are it...

You seem to be quite keen on assessing articles. While you are at it, why don't you join the Wikipedia:WikiCup? Might be fun.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've thought about it, but I like not feeling any sense of obligation. I edit when I enjoy it and stop when I don't. If I signed up for a year I'm sure there'd be a time when I felt impelled to edit because I was in the competition, and I'd find that demotivating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I get that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ga Review

Thanks for the past couple of reviews. It literally takes months for some of these. I've been pretty low key lately except coming back to edit these GAs. I have one more left, Nani Alapai. Are you interested in taking a look at it? Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I might; I've been trying to focus on reviewing the oldest nominations, but yours are easy because they are well-prepared, so I can get them done quickly. At the moment I have several reviews active, but I might take a look at it once that slows down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for Help with Current FAC

Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? It has already attracted a fair amount of commentary, but I think that one or two more comments from other contributors would be helpful. This will be my last FAC for a while, so I will not bother you about another one for a while lol. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Aoba47; I'll keep an eye on it, but it has enough support that I think the coordinators would give some notice if it were in danger of being archived. I do try to respond to requests for reviews from the coordinators, so I may end up reviewing it if asked, but at the moment I'm focusing on GA reviews. Best of luck with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quick response, and good luck with the GA reviews! Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all your efforts in assessing articles for GA! Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Try try see

If you get a chance pls add my script to your common.is and look at my sandbox again. I see one glitch that comes and goes, plus a sort problem because it puts de Camp last. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That looks pretty good! I installed the script a few days ago and have been using it on GA reviews; it's already proved useful. The most useful so far has been the pp/p error, but that's partly because I've been doing GA reviews so consistency and archive links are less of an issue. Haven't seen a sort error in the wild yet; lots of missing archive links, and quite a few publishers and locations. Thank you for doing this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC

As far as I can tell there is no way to know if a website has a publisher or not. Aside from that it seems ready to go..Oh I also doesn't check for inconsistent date formats. I'll look at that later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No hurry -- it's very useful as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Does a journal article which has a weblink need an 'archive url if it has a DOI and/or an ISSN? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be called out as an error, but if there's an error message I can always ignore it if I want to, so it might be best to err on the side of over-reporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think I finally got this sort order working. It should even sort different sections of references separately/independently. It will, however, give false positives in a section that is unsorted (or sorted by order of occurrence, if you will), like the "references" section of Bede... try try see. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  Looking at a few articles now. Highland Clearances has "Further reading (with bibliography)", which it looks like you don't check -- worth adding that one? In Wat Phra Dhammakaya it gets confused by the Thai references -- any way to ignore citations that don't have A-Za-z first character? I'm also noticing that practically every article I look at has "References" for the footnotes. Aha! It catches a sort error in Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See slavery for more possible section headings. Looks good! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria sez that Location is actually optional. So if you look at slavery, with (looking at last instance in running total) "Inconsistent Location (16 with; 141 without)" if that article were in FAC it would probably be best to delete the 16 locations... will look at all else too... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Also look for Hyphen in pg. range Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• OK, I think I fixed the annoying "sorting" of sections that are not sortable or meant to be sorted at all, but are displayed in order of occurrence. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

pr script writes output to page?

Hey, I seem to recall a script used in PR that writes its output to the PR page... could you point it out, or its author, to me? Thanks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know that one. WT:PR is probably the place to ask, or Ruhrfisch might know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you get ping?

Hi Mike. I am not sure whether you got the ping at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward the Elder#Source review by Lingzhi. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't; not sure why. I've replied there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

FAR for Final Destination 3

Hi Mike, as an uninvolved editor of the Final Destination 3 article, would you be willing to give comments on its FAR here? I read from the nominator's talk page during its first stab at FA that you were about to give it a prose review, which it badly needs right now IMO, only to find the candidacy withdrawn for some reason. Perhaps it's your chance to do it now while it's still awaiting comments from the coordinators. Regards, Slightlymad 07:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm a bit busy at the moment, having just picked up three re-opened GA reviews that need another pass; and I'm currently trying to focus on helping with the GA backlog. I'll put it on my watchlist, but I can't promise I'll get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. Thanks anyway. Slightlymad 11:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic (magazine) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Fantastic (magazine) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 February 2018. Please check that 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/February 15, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for "probably the only magazine launched as a result of the Korean War. The war caused Ziff-Davis to cancel a proposed relaunch of Amazing Stories, and the plans were reformulated a couple of years later to launch a quality fantasy magazine. It lasted for twenty-eight years, making it one of the more durable science fiction and fantasy magazines, and was instrumental in popularizing the sword and sorcery genre."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

yes php yes legobot; added a new variable

Yes I'm trying to learn PHP (it's gonna take a while, also need to lear CSS). Yes I'll try to help with Legobot if I can. I have added a new variable to the script (if you're still using it, let me know if there are any problems with "Caution: Missing ref= anchor?" Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent news. Will look out for the new tag. I've been on a GA reviewing jag for a while and your script has been very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Kimberly Anyadike

Hello Mike -- Thanks for your assistance with the Kimberly Anyadike article. I've been too busy with work over the past couple of days to properly respond to the GA re-review, but it looks like you and Codyorb have sorted everything out. I appreciate your time! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and no problem -- I understand being busy. Congratulations on the GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

archiving links

Hey you requested a warning for unarchived links. Now I actually ran IABot and even checked the box for adding archive links to OK links, but it all came up with nothing added. So, is archiving mainly for links that are already dead? Is it even worth keeping this error msg? I am tempted to remove it. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not know why it did work as I just ran it at [1] and it worked fine. The bot should link to existing archives where they exist and create new ones if they do not. It seems to work better on the first part, adding 155 archive links, but not on the second, creating four new archives and leaving several unarchived. I previously queried this problem with the bot author and he said that the bot has trouble archiving some pages. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there some secret magic handshake or shibboleth I need to know? how did you get it to work, sttep by step? Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not do anything special, just enter the article name, tick add archive and click analyze. You might try running it on several different articles in case there is problem with the links on the article you are testing. Otherwise I can only think of doing a {{helpme}} on your talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Georgetown Penang GAN debacle

Duh! (Palm whacks forehead.) Sorry.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

:o) No worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lists of unreliable websites?

Know where any are? Right now esp. interested in those reltaed to K-pop; trying to help a FAC first-timer etc. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't, sorry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For all your work tirelessly reviewing GA nominations and thus helping with the backlog. It's as if whenever the bot updates the page, your name pops up multiple times. Keep it up! Regards SoWhy 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

David Meade (author)

The article is currently a GA nominee so if you would like to review it, feel free to do so. LovelyGirl7 talk 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to help clear up the GAN backlog, so I'm focusing on the oldest nominations at the moment. The backlog is starting to shrink, but we're still at about eight months for the oldest studies. With luck someone will pick the article up for review before then; best of luck with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you! I'm ready for comments on the article so hopefully I get lucky. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sasuke Uchiha

Mike, if the article fails (which unfortunately think it will be based on recent comments) could you provide Flowerpiep a hand for a possible second nomination similar to 1989 in Naruto? My prose is not very good since English is not my first language so I only try working on GAs after asking help from the guild of copyeditors. Flowerpiep is a quite experienced edits with FA so I think he needs helps for such a big nomination and I fear I can't help him. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2, your English is outstanding for a second language; I'm impressed. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll have time to help work on the article -- I'm focusing on GA reviewing at the moment, and in any case I try to avoid taking on large projects like that. Everyone now and then I do get tempted though, so no harm in asking.

Best of luck with the article. I have to say I think it's a very high bar for you to get prose to FA level in a language not your own; it's beyond the reach of many native speakers, to be honest. If you can find a good writer to work with then you do have a good chance of success; I've never interacted with Flowerpiep, so perhaps they can help get the article over the line. I will say, though, that even a good copyeditor together with someone who knows a subject well is often not enough. The problem is that if a thought is unclear in the prose, the copyeditor may not realize, because they're focusing on the grammar and syntax; and the subject matter expert may not realize, because they know the subject too well to see what's obscure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mohammad bin Salman/GA1

Mike Christie, this GA review appears to have been opened by someone who had a single issue with the article, rather than by someone who intended to do a complete GA review. They haven't edited on Wikipedia since January 5, which means this has very little chance of being completed anyway. I was wondering whether you would be willing to take over this review, since it seems to have been abandoned. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Can it just be put back in the queue, with the comments transferred to the article talk page? As you say, it looks like it was never intended to be a GA review in the first place. If you think it really needs to be picked up, I can do it, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I can close the review as abandoned and put the nomination back into the pool with no loss of seniority. I'd feel uncomfortable transferring the comments to the talk page, but can leave the review transclusion there so people can see the comments that were made. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that's OK; I'll pick it up. I was thinking that since it wasn't that old, compared to the end of the queue, it should wait its turn, but now it's started we might as well deal with it. I'll probably review it tomorrow; I suspect I won't get to it tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this one. I see that it had severe issues indeed, and it's good to know those sooner rather than later.

I was wondering whether you could take a quick look at Talk:Peter Lombard II/GA1, which was passed today. My initial thought, on reading it, is that it isn't very well written, and there isn't that much to it. It seems more a chatty report than an encyclopedia article, much less a GA, and the lede is tiny. On the other hand, I'm not at 100% today, so I don't trust my judgment. I'd very much appreciate your thoughts. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure it fails the criteria. The sources seem OK, and GA writing just has to be clear and concise, not great prose. I haven't checked the article text against the sources. It seems to pass WP:GNG. Did you have a specific criterion in mind? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, nothing specific at the time, though I wonder whether Words to Watch fits. You have to wonder about "quality of life", and there's a lack of clarity about timing in terms of when he was at medical school and then returned to take up cycling. Just reading it, I'd say it was maybe C-class, and the lede was too short. The tone just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. But that may not be sufficient. (Oddly, notability is not a GA criterion; I've seen articles pass GA and subsequently be deleted at AfD due to notability issues.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think to say it's C class we'd have to show expansion was possible. "Quality of life" is direct from the source, and I think is a neutral term in this usage. The sense that this is a thin article about a minor topic persists, I know, but in turn that means expansion is probably not possible, so... not C class, or not for coverage reasons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do Legobot, no more work on my script unless someone asks

My script is in relatively good shape; I killed a few bugs and added little more functionality. Sorry, I can't do Legobot, no more work on my script unless someone asks. I will be preoccupied with other issues, as I may have mentioned in a previous discussion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries on Legobot; GAN is getting along fine. And your script is in great shape -- I use it all the time. Best of luck with your editing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The futility of FAC

My experience commenting on the Sasuke Uchiha FAC has pretty much confirmed that I'm not cut out for it. It just becomes that thing of listing problems and the editors dutifully addressing them and asking you to support. It's like having someone else brush your teeth. My urge is always to just go in and completely rewrite everything myself. (I mean no disrespect to the editors working hard on that article - it's nothing specific to those guys.) Popcornduff (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's not the best experience. I left a note on WT:FAC explicitly saying I'm not going back to the review for a few days; I'll probably revisit it this weekend. It would be easier to disagree on article quality if editors were less invested in the outcomes, but the editors who are the most likely to be disappointed or upset are usually the ones who are newest at it and so are the most likely to have trouble. A couple of years ago I did an analysis that found that new nominators' FACs failed 85% of the time.

If you believe, as I do, that the GA and FA processes are worth supporting, it's a dilemma, because we all want better articles. Currently I'm focusing on reviewing at WP:GAN, which has fewer issues like that, though it can happen. Have you tried GAN reviewing? The lower bar for writing -- clear and concise is what's needed -- means that a detailed critique is needed less often.

One other observation about FAC: I suspect that when an article such as Sasuke Uchiha is not well written, some of the better prose reviewers stay away. This is probably partly because they know a review would end up in back-and-forth improvements, and partly because poorly-written articles are not much fun to read.

I'd like to make one more suggestion, before you give up on FAC reviewing: glance down the list of FACs and see if you can find an article that doesn't have at least three supports, and which seems to you quite well-written, and consider reviewing it. I like getting articles over the line if they're close to it. My own ice drilling is near the bottom of the list right now, though please don't feel obliged to look at it. I haven't read it yet, but the article on the siege of Thessalonica is probably well written; the nominator is very decent writer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice job on the statistical analysis. That's interesting to know.

I'll take a look at some other nominations once I've got the motivation back, but I'm leaning towards taking a hard stance. If I don't think a FAC has good enough writing - writing that can only be corrected with an extensive rewrite - I'm just going to oppose and not come back. If someone goes ahead and does that thorough rewrite and miraculously the thing scrubs up into a perfect article, then great, but this going round in circles thing is a nightmare. Popcornduff (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It is. I think that approach is reasonable. Fortunately, most articles at FAC are in better shape than that, though since you're interested in video games you may not find it so; the writing in media and gaming articles tends to be weaker than for the liberal arts and science articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with a lot but not with "oppose and not come back". I remember one article where that approach required something like four more supports, and finally made it after the date it should have appeared on the Main page. Those four extra reviews could have better spent on other articles. - Make it "Strong comment and not come back", perhaps. - I usually don't review when there are already three+ supports, unless I am particularly interested in a topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, I started to disagree with Popcornduff on this, and then realized they'd said they wouldn't come back if the writing could "only be corrected with an extensive rewrite". In my experience not only is that relatively rare at FAC (maybe 5-15% of nominations), but I've never seen it successfully fixed while at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's perhaps just me, but when "my" article, which had been dear to my heart from the beginning in 2012, didn't make it in the Reformation year (when it would have made a lot of sense) because of that one oppose, it hurt. I'd like to spare others that experience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Isn't the logical end result of this that no one should ever oppose? Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Owers sandbanks detail map 1780.gif

The file File:Owers sandbanks detail map 1780.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me; Aelle of Sussex was going to use it at one point, but the detail is not as useful as the map we have there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC review needing feedback: University of Washington station

Hello, Mike. I have nominated University of Washington station at FAC and I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. It hasn't been particularly popular with reviewers, so I am reaching out to editors who have reviewed my previous transit FACs for feedback. Thanks. SounderBruce 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look over the next two or three days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecated

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sagecandor's GAs

I've addressed the issues on Talk:Time to Get Tough/GA1 and Talk:Midas Touch (book)/GA1. I sought assistance from the Donald Trump project on Talk:Why We Want You to Be Rich/GA1, but I don't know if it'll help any. If you want to fail it, I will re-nominate if it gets fixed. If you want to review Trump Revealed, I'd be happy to try my hand at it as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

OK -- I'm a bit behind as I'm recovering from a power cut over the last day and a bit, but should have time tonight or tomorrow to start catching up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Bad weather in your area? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It was -- I'm in central Long Island, and we had a spring blizzard -- took out a lot of trees and hence a lot of power lines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I caught some of that nor'easter on the news. I hope the power outage was the only trouble you had with it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Argento Surfer: Passed two of them and failed the third one; if the WikiProject comes through it can be renominated. Iazyges has picked up the review of Trump Revealed, so if you want to handle those issues the review should be coming, though I don't know how soon -- I think Iazyges picked up a couple of dozen reviews today so it might take them a while to work through them. Thanks for all your help with Sage Candor's nominations -- I was afraid I'd have eight fails on my hands, but seven out of eight is a pretty good result for abandoned nominations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

TFA

This is to let you know that the Amazing Stories Quarterly article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 10, 2018. 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/March 10, 2018. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for "a companion to the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. Critical opinions differ as to its quality: "important" according to one source, with the same work being described as "turgid" by another."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Ice drilling: 13,151 words; 686 edits, creating 248,593 bytes, 99.6% of the article...an unbelievable, incredible but inspring feat. Fantastic work. Thank you very much for it. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Transcriptomics technologies/GA1

Mike Christie, this GA review has been open for 196 days. The reviewer hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two months, and was infrequently editing prior to that due to family health issues (see the review itself). I think it's time that someone else took over and finished this; I can't imagine that the reviewer will mind under the circumstances, and six months is far too long for a review to be dragged out. Do you think you could give this a look and see whether it's in your wheelhouse, and if you think you could finish it up? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There's another one that's been open for over two months (72 days), Talk:Microsoft Office XP/GA1. I checked with the reviewer on their talk page, after they had been unresponsive to pings, and they won't be coming back to it (and were a first-time reviewer), so if you have time to take this one over as well, it would be very helpful. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I can look at both, but it might be several days, though I suppose speed is not of the essence here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No, no immediate rush... Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking both of these on. There's a GA review, Talk:Hachijō-jima/GA1, where the reviewer ended up taking on the task of making significant improvements to the article when the nominator didn't show up (many months after nominating) to work on issues raised in the review. I was wondering whether you could do a review pass to see whether there are any issues remaining now that the work has been done. If you think that will be possible, I'll post there to let them know you've agreed to take this on. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I'm trying to avoid taking on anything new till I've cleared my current list -- I have four active at the moment, and two other commitments, and I suspect I'm coming to the end of the GA reviewing spree I've been on. Once my plate is clean I'll see if I am up for doing more reviews, and if so I can look at this one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely understandable that you'd want to slow down—you were thinking of doing so over a month ago—and we're all very lucky that you've had the energy to do all that you have done: the oldest nomination is now seven months old, as opposed to over ten months when you started taking on the furthest reaches of the backlist. I'll post there that there may not be someone right away—I may suggest they put in a request for a second opinion—and mention the fact that the lead is five paragraphs, when guidelines say one to two given the article's current length. Thanks for considering it if you're still in a reviewing mood when you're caught up. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Prose help request

Greetings, pardon if this comes at an inappropriate time, but you might remember that you did help me a while ago with the Lake Tauca article when I was trying to bring it to FA standard before giving up owing to a difficult-to-solve source usage problem you identified. I was thinking of trying again, this time with Tutupaca since that is an easier & more observational topic, and wanted to know if you think that the prose used in that article (I am going to ask elsewhere about sources and such) would be appropriate for a FA candidacy, seeing as you are one of the foremost prose reviewers in FAC I've seen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure; and thanks for the compliment. I should have time to look this weekend if not before -- I have a couple of GAN reviews and a FAC I need to pay attention to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus: about to take a look; I'll go ahead and copyedit directly, and will leave any questions on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall reply there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I already said so on the talk page, but: Thanks for all the work so far. One thing I was wondering, if I had proffered that article immediately on FAC, would the issues you've identified been considered something that can be fixed during the course of the FAC, or substantial enough to merit archiving a FAC? I was thinking of the discussion Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Problem Regarding The FAC Process where you argued that there are articles with problems that can be fixed at FAC and articles with too many problems which need to be patched up before FAC, and wanted to get an idea of where this article would land. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I would have opposed; I would have made some of the copyedits myself and asked about the other points. The prose wasn't that bad, but it often felt like technical writing, so the main thing was making it flow a bit more smoothly. The questions I've asked about sources were because I couldn't figure out how to deal with something without knowing exactly what the sources said; I don't think the article was inaccurate, but there were a couple of places were more clarity was possible. The situation I was talking about in that discussion is where that happens so much that a copyeditor can't really help. That's definitely not the case here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Going to reply here...

But my views on the wikiprojects wanting to help isn't really high. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources - they list about.com as a situational source. To be perfectly honest, about.com isn't even considered WP:RS - you'd struggle to get anyone at the RS noticeboard to agree to use about.com. Or this blog, which they recommend. Quite frankly, while YOU do look at sources as well as prose, I think you're the only one. When I was doing source reviews, I often felt that the pressure was on me to conform so that the people who had already supported wouldn't look bad. Some of the things that burned me out were Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Destination 3/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred Shout/archive1, and the twin Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2. You know me, we've known each other a long time, I'm not one to cry sexism. But the JV thing really really screamed sexism. Not just with the article either, but with the other participants. I can't speak for @SlimVirgin:, but during those two FACs, I often felt less than fully supported by other reviewers. To be honest, I felt that way with Alfred Shout also. THen there's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia/archive1 - where we run into the problem of older sources. And where three very good mil-hist editors didn't even see the issue until I brought it up (and these aren't bad editors, they are great editors!) And again... And Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Bush/archive1, where I even had to argue with Brian about relying too heavily on a book written by the wife of the subject... Too many people at FAC still don't consider sourcing as important as prose. That's my opinion. And unfortunately, it's the feeling that you get as a source reviewer... that you're an impediment on the way to that fancy star and that rather than approaching the idea of sourcing as the bedrock of the article, the idea is to just do enough to get by. It's a blind spot and its going to take something, I don't know what, to get through to people that sources are the bedrock of an article. Prose is just the window-dressing. And I don't think making lists of sources that are okay is the solution - way back in the beginning of me doing source reviews under Sandy, I did that, and all i got me was people relying on that list rather than looking for better sources. (That's what happened with Jill Valentine - the editors used VG's list and didn't bother doing a further look into other sources ... that's a big problem with specialised lists for subjects - it makes folks neglect other possible sources). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I agree with everything you just said, except that I'm unqualified to speak to the sexism issue. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  I'll think about this and try to reply in more detail later -- I only have a few minutes between shovelling snow and heading off to work. A quick response is that the WikiProject lists idea is a really a red herring; my main point was that specialist source reviewing takes the burden off other reviewers to check sources, and we agree that that's a bad thing. I was hoping that splitting off the mechanical part would allow us to put the onus back on all reviewers to check sources. I agree with your other points in general; I will look through the FACs you link to later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth, I've looked through the links you left and I sympathize. I don't have a solution, of course. I do think it's a mistake to restrict source reliability to a single reviewer; if more people participated we might get more consensus and less pressure on individual reviewers.

  Out of curiosity I just counted the number of (unstruck) opposes over the last twelve months; there have been 99. Four opposes were registered against articles that were promoted: 2 by John, and 1 each by Lingzhi and Trappist the Monk. Of the articles that were archived, the most frequent opposers were Nikkimaria (6 opposes of 226 reviews), me and Dank (5/48 and 5/135), SlimVirgin (4/14), Sarastro1 (4/21), Ceoil (4/32), and Syek88 (4/19), and eight more with 3 opposes each. Many of those were quickfails; if I get the data together it would be interesting to see who opposes the most when it's not a quickfail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Mike, it would help to know who is opposing, without counting the quickfails; it would also be good to know who is supporting, rather than just commenting. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  Would you (or any TPS) be willing to do a bit of data gathering to answer that question? I have a spreadsheet I can send which contains all the information about who did what review when, back through mid-2016; if someone could add "O" or "S" or a blank in a new column, I could report on the results. I should also add that I saw plenty of struck opposes that are not included in the counts I gave above. Tracking initial opposes vs. unstruck opposes might also be interesting, but it would be more work to gather that data. Filling in the gaps means opening up each of the monthly archive/featured logs, and scrolling down them to find each review in turn -- that's the order the data would be in on the spreadsheet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  If we confine it to the previous 12 months, as you did, that would make it easier, as would confining it to unstruck opposes (not counting quickfails). SarahSV ^(talk) 18:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be faster, since you can just Ctrl-F for "Oppose" in the browser and quickly find the opposes. I will see if I can get to it if nobody volunteers to do the data entry. It would be ideal to get the supports too, though; I'd like to be able to ask questions like "who has frequently supported a nomination that was not promoted?". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Ealdgyth that "[t]oo many people at FAC still don't consider sourcing as important as prose", and that high-quality, secondary (and appropriate) sources, summarized well, are the article's scaffolding. There are experienced editors who have difficulty with this, and very few reviewers check it. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to chime in about MilHist sexism, and say that the sexism I experienced is why I rarely participate at FAC. And all of the "coordinators" know this. The lack of FA leadership is a real problem-- evidenced by the loss of someone as invaluable as you, Ealdgyth, as a FAC reviewer, but even a bigger concern from me is the evidence of a non-functioning FAR, and an isolated TFA.

I would also say that, other than Ealdgyth and perhaps going back to Awadewit, no one else really checks sources. I often had to hold up a FAC promotion while I screamed about bad sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"other than Ealdgyth and perhaps going back to Awadewit, no one else really checks sources". That is too sweeping and rather denigrates the efforts that have been made, imperfect though they may be. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: You are correct, and I apologize ... I realize that you have also been carrying the burden in the time I have been absent (which is quite a few years), and I was (unconsciously) speaking only of the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The timing of this thread is a happy coincidence for ne. I am just recently getting more and more discouraged.... I used to spend a long time checking the text of sources. I am way beyond that (in the negative sense) now. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• You, too :) Heck, I left FAC originally not only to try to get one group off of Raul's back, but more importantly for me was to focus on medical articles to keep a promise to @Colin: returning to find of late that there are some really, really bad trends and structural issues going on in medical editing, that seriously compromise all medical articles. Also, probably about half of the medical FAs aren't. Quite discouraging. I should FAR the lot of them, but with FAR not working, it doesn't feel helpful-- unlike the days where saves at FAR were a big thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The blasting I've gotten a few times when challenging sources that wikiprojects have deemed acceptable has been intense. --Laser brain (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for FAC Help

Hello again, and I apologize for interrupting the more serious conversation above my comment. I just wanted to thank you for all of the advice that you have given me through my FACs. I still remember when you first helped me during my first FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" way back in July-August 2016 (sidebar: I cannot believe that much time has already passed). I will most likely continue to put articles through the FAC process, though I will probably stop doing reviews as I do not feel experienced or good enough to do them (especially given all of the discussion at the talk page there). Either way, just wanted to thank you as you have been a good help to me! Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while; I think you count as experienced by now! And I'm glad I've been able to help. I don't think you should stop doing reviews, though; you do understand the criteria, and if you're not perfect, well, nor is anybody else. The coordinators figure it out, and the more input they have the better. As it happens I think you're knowledgeable enough about the criteria to be a very helpful reviewer; I've been doing GA reviews recently so I've run across the numerous reviews you've done there, and you seem to be a thorough and cautious reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words. I think that I just need more confidence in myself, and to just take GA reviews, and especially FAC reviews, slowly and make sure that I address everything that I can possibly find to improve the article as a whole and help the editor to the best of my ability. I hope that you are doing well, and congrats on all of the work with the ice drilling article and its recent promotion. I could tell that it took a lot of work, and it actually inspires me to maybe work on something more science-related in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation style vs. method

Thanks for the heads up. I am trying to implement a "consistent" reference/citation style. I was having a difficult time following the foot notes to the actual references. I am aware of the consistent style standard. I did not know that it extended to "method". I am not aware of a citation style that uses titles, only ones that use authors/date. I have seen many automated updates that change style or methods, e.g. automatically retrieving archive pages. Using a consistent method allows for easier updates.

I am working on another article, Battle of the Alamo, where I am also implementing "sfnp", this does not change the style, only the method, and it links the footnotes to the cited references. Also there were several references that were implement with a different style/method than most of the others.

I ran into a short article that consistently used bare URLs. Now I wonder if filling them out was correct. ;-) User-duck (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually CITEVAR explicitly exempts bare URLs, so no need to worry about that. As a general rule, I think if you leave a talk page note first about your plans and wait a few days you should be fine. You will get some people asking you not to make the change, but it's better to find that out before you start, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Heads up..

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, since I don't watch those boards. Commented there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I know not everyone reads the drama boards so I try to point out when things of interest pop up. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Technical error in listing of Hudson River as GA

Hello Mike Christie. Unfortunately, I think the bot is having trouble adding the GA symbol to the top of article and combining the templates to signal multiple reviews. Would changing the template on the talk page of the article fix the problem, or is something else going on? Thanks again for the review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

BlueMoonset is the expert on GA bot behaviour; BlueMoonset, any idea why the bot isn't adding the star? Any reason not to do it manually? I know the instructions say not to do that normally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

PointsofNoReturn, congratulations on your new GA! I've added the good article template manually to the article, so the icon should appear there. And I've created an Article history template that includes all of the information that had been in the FailedGA and GA templates, so that's all set.

Basically, the bot has a known bug where it will misidentify a passed GA as a failed one if there is a previous FailedGA template on the article talk page. When that happens, the bot isn't going to add the {{good article}} template to the article because it thinks the article failed rather than passed, so adding the template would be wrong. It will only ever try the once, when it determines that the review has concluded, and then only if it thinks that the nomination passed. We finally have a volunteer to make a new bot for the GA process to replace the current one, so I'm hoping it won't be too terribly long before this bug, and several others, are fixed, and some long-awaited updates are made. Fingers crossed.

The bot, so far as I know, doesn't ever deal with the Article history template; my understanding is that it is only ever done manually. As I just did. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I just realized that I didn't really answer the "any reason not to do it manually" question you posed, and in this case, the answer was "no reason at all". Always be sure to give the bot a chance to do its work first, but if it has sent out an erroneous "failed" message to the nominator, or if it hasn't sent any messages but an hour has elapsed without any action, there's no reason not to manually intervene. The reason you don't want to preempt the bot is that manually adding the icon will prevent it from posting a "passed" message notifying the nominator, and adjusting the GA template to add the "oldid" field, which adds a link to the article as it was when the review concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The change looks good. I'm glad to see everything is fixed. Thank you for the help, BlueMoonset. And thank you for referring BlueMoonset to me, Mike Christie. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dhammakaya movement as good series

I'd appreciate your feedback over here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mike, i was wondering whether you'd like to review a couple of more articles on the Dhammakaya tradition. I'm about to submit the entire series as a good series. In particular, the articles in the series that are not yet at GA are Luang Por Dattajivo, Global Buddhist Network, Luang Por Dhammajayo and Dhammakaya Movement UK. What do you think?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've stopped doing reviews for now; I may have another streak of GA reviewing in the future, but I don't know when it would be. Best of luck with the featured topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, Mike.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane

On 19 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane was praised by critics for its portrayal of strong and healthy sibling relationships? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane), 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.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Famous Fantastic Mysteries scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Famous Fantastic Mysteries article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2018. 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/April 18, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for "one of the most popular science fiction pulps. It was created as a vehicle for reprinting old classics, but published a little new material too. It was generally regarded as one of the most attractively illustrated pulps: Virgil Finlay, one of the most popular pulp artists, was a frequent contributor."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Needs Thai review

Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Wikipedia. Can you understand Thai? If so, I would like to have some input for a FA nomination of the article "Thailand" in the local wiki. Thanks. --Horus (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't speak or read Thai. Farang Rak Tham and Kudpung both are fluent in Thai, I believe, and if they are not able to help they may know others you could ask. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Horus, you could ask Taweetham. My Thai is good but not fluent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty fluent in Thai, but I'm not experienced with the FA process , only GA. You could also try Paul 012, who has native language skill and is an experienced editor.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Well, at least please consider look into it (th:ประเทศไทย) and suggest what I can improve. I would like to know if something very important is missing. I will be very appreciated. :) --Horus (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but it'll need some time, Horus.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. --Taweetham (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wonder Stories scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Wonder Stories has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 24, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you finish off a GA review?

Mike Christie, the nomination for Talk:2016 FIA Formula One World Championship/GA1 just passed the one-year mark, and original reviewer Harrias, who opened the review back in mid-November, has had very little activity of late, to the point of giving up on their own GA nomination.

I was hoping you might be able to take this one on. I'm not sure how much work might be left to do, but those issues that have been pointed out have been worked on. If this is not a good time, please let me know. Thanks for everything you've done this year. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I should be able to take a look at it this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I just wanted to let you know that the article and review page have been moved, the latter to Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship/GA1. I was wondering, while I'm here, whether you'd be willing to take on the other review left dangling by Harrias, Talk:Diver communications/GA1. This review was opened three days after the other one, and was nominated a week short of a year ago. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Peter's diving articles so I'd be glad to, probably one night this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you pinging Peter just now. You can always send an automated message to a nominator's talk page is if you put an article that's "onreview" to be "onhold". I was also pleased to see that Tvx1 has added a "Done" checkmark to the issues you raised on the Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship/GA1 page, so it'll be ready for you the next time you have a chance to look at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I rarely get around to putting something on hold; I think it implies that I might fail it after X days, which is not the case unless the nominator is unresponsive. I should probably use it more often. Yes, I'm about to pass Tvx1's article; I saw the fixes at work today, but I don't like to do much more than the occasional rvv from work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

GA reviews

Thanks for taking on the GA reviews that I dropped – life has got pretty hectic at the moment! Harrias ^talk 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I understand about life crowding out other things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fantasy Book selected as TFA for June 6, 2018

This is to let you know that the Fantasy Book article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 6, 2018. 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 6, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Also Ice drilling on June 29. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. Yes; a bit too busy with a temporary (I hope) video game obsession to spend much time on Wikipedia, but I expect to be back soon. Those glacier articles aren't going to write themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there. An old bug that you reported was just resolved (if effects aren't visible, they'll be later this week). Please let us know (there, if possible) if things aren't working as they should/expected. Best, Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Royal Tenenbaums/GA1

Mike Christie, this review has gotten stalled: the initial pass, by a new reviewer, was reversed, and it's been sitting there without anyone giving it a second review. I don't imagine this one will be too time-consuming, though I don't want to make any promises. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm out of town this coming weekend, and am not much on Wikipedia at the moment, but next week I should be able to take a look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it on and getting it to GA status; I'm not surprised that some improvements were needed, since it's the rare article that has nothing needing adjusting, at least in the prose department. I always feel nervous when a brand new reviewer passes a nomination without any requests for changes. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Taapaca

Greetings, you may remember that you assisted me on my work on pushing Tutupaca towards featured article status since . That article has not been passed so far but I was thinking that if it does, Taapaca may be another article to work on for FAC (it is currently at GAN but since I've already overloaded that process, sending it elsewhere would be no issue). I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a gander to the Taapaca article and see if it has some non-trivial issues to fix or only needs little prep work. Cheers! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. If I don't get to it tonight I can probably look at it over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:B. V. Sreekantan/GA1

Mike, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this GA review, which was by a first-time reviewer who seemed to be approving it despite apparently not having checked for OR or copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and who also stated, I may recommend for another user to review this as well.

The review was posted on April 2 and never closed, nor was there ever a comment after the nominator confirmed adding the requested wikilinks the next day. I hope this is something you can review, as they were probably going to suggest. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mike, I don't mean to pile on, but there's another GA review that needs someone to take it over, Talk:Schloss Bruchsal/GA1. The reviewer there is also a novice, and terms themselves "totally lost", and is hoping to learn from the person who takes over. See User talk:BlueMoonset#Kobanya cellar system is now a Good Article for more details. Thank you for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. I think I can get both these done today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I see the first of them has taken quite a bit of work; whenever you can get to the second will be fine. Incidentally, the average time for a GOCE request to be handled is currently about 20 days (down from a month), so it isn't as much of a burden to ask a GA nominator to request a GOCE; sometimes one of the editors will prioritize a request that mentions that the GA review is waiting on a GOCE edit, but even if not, if the reviewer is willing to put the review on hold for two or three weeks, the copy edit should be completed in that period. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Good to know; I might consider doing that in the future. I've reviewed several of that nominator's articles, and all needed some copyediting, but none as much as this one. I had to work most of the weekend which is why the delay on the reviews, but the emergency is over now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

When reviews have been stalled this long, a minor delay is not a problem at all. You've been very good to take on these incomplete or second-opinion-needed GANs. I hate to add to your load, but Talk:Eddie Ryan/GA1 was first opened three months ago, and has been abandoned. Is there any chance you might be able to give it a look at some point after you're done with Schloss? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look this weekend if I have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

...but it looks like Aircorn has stepped in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it didn't seem like he would, but he did. Glad that's sorted. I hope you don't mind, but I just put the Schloss Bruchsal GAN "on hold" from "on review". This was primarily so Prioryman would get a message from the bot on his talk page; he hasn't edited for nearly two months (a few weeks after the review was started but stalled), and I thought he'd be more likely to see this than a ping, since pings don't always go through, but talk page messages are very apparent. If there isn't a response, maybe we can see if someone else would be willing (and able) to address the few issues you raised. 17:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, of course. When I see a nominator is not very active I'll try to remember to place the review on hold for the reason you give. And naturally it would be great if someone else could do the minor clean-up needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for Help with Current FAC

Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC? I would be more than happy to review anything in return for your help. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- I don't think I'm going to be able to get to it, I'm afraid; my time on-wiki is pretty limited at the moment, and I'm restricting myself at FAC to just articles I have had some prior involvement with. Best of luck with the nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• No worries. Thought I might as well ask. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dhammakaya movement as good topic

I would appreciate your comments on this topic.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Æthelflæd's portrayal in The Last Kingdom

Hi Mike, I've started a talk page discussion, to which you may be interested in contributing. All the best, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about Source Reliability for FAC

Hello again! I have a quick question about my current FAC. During the source review, a user questioned whether or not NewNowNext is a high-quality reliable source (here is the source in question). I was wondering if you could help determine the answer to this? I believe that when the source review is completed, the FAC would be ready for promotion. If necessary, I can remove the source from the article. Here is a link to the site's "About Us" page, which includes a list of its editors. I have posted a message on RSN a few days ago; while I understand that it may take time to get a response, I am concerned that it may be buried and ignored under other messages. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it getting archived just yet; if that's all that's at issue after another week or two you might ask the coords what the best way to resolve it is. Perhaps a post for a second opinion on the source at the page where the image and source requests are listed? I'm no specialist in sources; I'm actually about to post at RSN myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestion, and good luck with your post on the RSN! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Wonder Stories, "one of the earliest science fiction magazines"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And today for Fantasy Book, a "a semi-professional science fiction magazine that appeared at the end of the 1940s, published by William Crawford, a fan who went into publishing but never had much money to invest in the business. He occasionally managed to print some surprisingly good material, though."! - I have a FAC open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. I am not doing much FAC reviewing at the moment, since I'm pretty busy in real life, but if I get back to it will take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Understand. No rush, I have a 2026 date in mind, but can't promise to be able to work then, so started early. ;) - You may have noticed that I like to show Bach cantatas that are 300 years old, only - nothing in 1718, so I looked ahead. - If you find the time, please just look at the article, not what others said. Some independent view is what I'd like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Next round, and not anytime soon, - two others are on my mind before I'll consider it again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's ice drilling, which "will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how to get through two miles of ice and bring back useful scientific information while doing it"! Cooling ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Review request

Hi Mike. I've nominated Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography at FLC after overhauling it completely. While I've gotten a lot of helpful comments on the formatting, there hasn't been much review of the prose, and as one of our resident Sci-Fi experts, I wonder if you could take a look to see whether I've done the topic justice. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

And done. Looks good! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Science-Fiction Plus scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Science-Fiction Plus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 10, 2018. 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/July 10, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the article "about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tales of Wonder (magazine)

This is to let you know that I've scheduled Tales of Wonder (magazine) to appear on the main page as today's featured article on 25 August 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and query

Greetings, pardon for pestering you so early again after the last time but I am wondering if you could take a gander at the prose of Wōdejebato I was thinking of sending it to FAC if Ubinas passed. Some of the comments on Ubinas's FAC gave me the impression that I still need some help at times with prose issues. Thanks in advance! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I'll also review Ubinas. Might be a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about Images

Hello again! I hope that you are doing well, and I apologize for always messaging you about random topics. I am currently on a wikibreak, though I have recently expanded the Leah LaBelle article. I would like to put this article through the FAC process after my wikibreak. I was wondering if you could provide me with some pointers on how to find an image for the infobox. I attempted to upload an image, but it has already been deleted. Apologies again for the intrusion. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't much experience in finding pictures of living subjects, but I do know that for people who are still alive it's hard to justify fair use for non-free images, since you can rarely meet the "not replaceable" criterion. I've never done it myself, but I've seen license tags showing that a picture taken on Flickr was confirmed to be freely licensed -- that might be a way to go. I assume that in those cases one has to contact the picture taker and get permission from them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Leah LaBelle died on January 31, 2018 so she is no longer a living subject. I tried looking through Flickr for an image, but I would not find anything that was freely licensed. I will try to contact the picture through Flickr. Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  I hadn't realized she'd died. I would have thought you could get fair use on an image in that case. Is there an image that got deleted that you think could have been kept? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just contacted a user on Flickr, though the image (here) is not exactly ideal; there is only a few images of this person on Flickr unfortunately. I used this image here, but a user tagged it for speedy delete because it is from Getty Images. I tried talking to the user on the image's talk page and I got some responses, but the page was deleted before the conversation could be completed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, the thing about Getty Images is that WP:NFCC#2 means that we need to respect commercial opportunities and since Getty sells images for money that pretty much disallows images from there. I don't think that Flickr image is so bad, as an aside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. I contacted the Flickr contributor. While they did not want the image in question to be used, they said that they would send me a few images taken from the same night as options. Aoba47 (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Jebel Irhoud

Hi Mike. Can you take a look at Jebel Irhoud. An editor keeps changing it in the text to Jebel Ighud, although so far as I can see it is always Irhoud in the sources. I have pointed out to them that if they think it is wrong they should propose a name change, not make the text different from the article title. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you're right to me; I've reverted and left a note on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment for RfC involving genre in the infobox

Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the removal of "heavy metal" from the infobox at Back in Black? Dan56 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

GA reviews that need a new reviewer

Mike Christie, I checked on a number of GA reviews that appear to have been stalled or abandoned, and there are two that need a new reviewer that I was hoping you could look at when you get a chance.

The first is Talk:Danny Newton/GA1; as you can see at User talk:BlueMoonset#Talk:Danny Newton/GA1, the editor who opened the review merely meant to comment on it (it was their first GA "review") and won't be returning to it, so it's been sitting there since being opened on May 8. That's a long time to wait.

The second is Talk:Warren P. Mason/GA1, which hasn't been posted to since the beginning of June. The reviewer has given up (see here for the reason why), so it's not going to get any further review from that quarter.

In both cases, they're happy to give over to another reviewer, so there shouldn't be any issue with you doing the reviews going forward. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started the first one and will take a look at the second one after that. Might be a bit slower than usual as my daughter is in town for a week which is keeping me occupied in the evenings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. These can certainly wait until after your daughter's visit is over. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, just a quick ping to remind you about the Warren P. Mason GA review; I hope you can start on it in the next week or two, but whenever you can do so would be lovely. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I forgot about this and started reviewing emo, which is probably going to be time-consuming. I might have a bit more time this week and will see if I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories selected as TFA for September 21, 2018

Hi. You know the drill. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Also Æthelbald of Mercia on 9/25.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about article/potential FAC

Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. I was thinking about possibly putting the Leah LaBelle article through the FAC process in the future, but I am uncertain about how it would fare. I cannot find much information on LaBelle's activities from 2014 until her death in January 2018, and I am concerned that would negatively impact its chances for an FAC. I was wondering if you could provide your opinion about this article in terms of a potential FAC? Apologies again for always asking you random questions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem -- I can't always respond quickly though! Re LaBelle: if you're confident that there are no reliable sources that cover the time from 2014 to 2018, then you should be fine. It's hard to be confident about a negative, so you may get asked what searches you've done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Makes sense. Thank you for your help as always! Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Tales of Wonder, the "first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

• New partners
  • Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
• Wikimania
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

FAC Workshop

I do not want to derail the conversation there at all, so asking here. The article passed A-Class review so it is close to FAC ready, but I had a few things I need to modify. I was going to wait until I was done with Glenn, but if you want it ready soon (end of weekend?) I can start working on it tonight. Let me know! Kees08 (Talk) 19:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No hurry; I don't think there's any time limit on this. We still don't have anyone who's willing to be the coordinator for the duration of the workshop. Once we have that lined up I'll check in with you; I don't think there'll be any urgency but we can talk then, if you're still working on it. Thanks for volunteering, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. It will be the Roger B. Chaffee article. I plan to convert the rp to sfn, to align more with what FAC prefers (I know both are acceptable, but perception is good too). It is one of the first articles I truly expanded, and I have a few other sources I want to comb through first. Anyways, if we are ready to go and you have not seen any edits from me on the article, feel free to ping me and tell me to hurry up. Kees08 (Talk) 23:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Kees08: looks like we have enough to get started, so I've created the subpage and will shortly post at WT:FAC. Go ahead and add the workshop nomination section for Chaffee whenever you're ready. I think the discussion is likely to go on long enough that you'll have time! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine...

I'll be utterly frank here (and it's not necessarily any one editor's fault that the FACs were so nasty, so I don't want to imply that it can be blamed on any one editor) but that first Jill Valentine FAC was a big contributing factor in why I'm not exactly interested in doing source reviews (a few others after it played into it also). There's no denying I am obscenely busy in RL ... but source reviewing used to mostly be interesting and rewarding. It didn't usually involve nastiness that wasn't reined in by the coords. Instead, now, it feels like no support is given and thus... I just don't need the stress and aggravation. Again, it wasn't just the JV FAC, and it wasn't just any particular editor at that FAC, but it did not help at all. Nor did the notes on my talk page that seemed to demand that I had to revisit the issue... nor was I thrilled that the coords told the nominators at later FACs that they needed to nag me to get me back to the FAC... when it was pretty clear I wasn't interested. That was REALLY annoying... I volunteer and the source reviews are definitely something I volunteered to do... and then over the years it seemed like everyone just expected me (and later Brian) to carry all the load so they didn't have to bother with figuring out whether something was well sourced or not. To put it bluntly, I felt (and still feel) very very much like I was taken for granted. And after a while, even a willing mule will protest and stop. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the FACs in detail, though I did glance at them, so I'll take your word for it. I don't have much of an opinion on how much the coords should get involved with messy FACs, though generally I feel they should be archived as soon as it's clear there's not going to be consensus. I don't know how soon that point came at the JV FACs.

I completely understand your point about the source reviews, and I see no reason why you or Brian should ever do another one; you've done far more than your fair share. I think one reason why many others don't jump in is that copyediting is fun, and satisfying, for a lot of people. Many FAC reviewers are very good writers, and they know it; it's (usually) pleasant to exercise a competence, so prose reviewing is the path of least resistance. And when experts like you and Brian (and a few others) are handling the source reviews, why should they bother?

I really believe that splitting the source reviews from the rest of FAC will help address this. I've only done a couple of FAC source reviews, and it's partly because I do more than my share of prose reviews -- I keep track of them on my user page, as you probably know, in order to keep myself honest. I have been able to convince myself this is OK because a review is a review, right? Well, no; source reviews are different work than prose reviews, and the burden of those should be shared too. If we split source reviews, when I next submit a FAC, I'll have to do two or three source reviews to convince myself I'm giving back to the process. Prose reviews won't feel like the same thing, because that's a different process. I believe others will have the same mindset, and people will start doing source reviews at FQSR (or whatever it might be called) and prose reviews at FAC and not thinking of the two things as interchangeable. If a backlog develops at FQSR, and the bottleneck actually speeds up FAC itself, because fewer articles get through, that in turn will free resources to devote to FQSR. The current structure doesn't do that because the "stuck" articles, waiting for source reviews, aren't as visible.

While I think the above is all true, it's not why I came up with the idea. I was inspired by your post at WT:FAC about the problems in sourcing you found in a review, and by your comment that prose editing was a waste of time if we didn't worry about the content. I'm hopeful that a separate source review process, with a knowledgeable coordinator, will focus more attention on sourcing issues, and at least partially address the concerns you raised. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Amazing Stories scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Amazing Stories article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 13, 2018. 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/October 13, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Random question

Hello again! Apologies for always leaving random messages on your talk page. I am thinking about scaling back on new Wikipedia projects in the near future to focus more on off-Wikipedia activities (i.e. looking for work, doing my own creative writing, etc.). I have been toying around with possibly working on an article on a novel, and I was wondering if you could link an examples of high-quality articles that I could use as an example. Would something like The Left Hand of Darkness or The Hunger Games (novel) be an appropriate model? I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- I haven't read the article on The Hunger Games, but The Left Hand of Darkness is certainly a good model. What you'll have to do depends on what book you're considering -- if you pick a classic, like Uncle Tom's Cabin, there are innumerable sources out there, and getting familiar with the literature would be a major challenge. Even for a relatively recent work like The Left Hand of Darkness there are a huge number of sources. For a more recent work like The Hunger Games there's probably not all that many scholarly references yet, so it would be a bit more manageable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! It will probably be a while before I start doing this type of project. I am trying to different types of things on here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike Christie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:38, 13 September 2018 (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.

—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for FAC Help

Hello again! I apologize for always messaging you. I hope that I am not too much of a pain for you. I have been having mixed luck during the FAC process. I do not want to sound negative though, as I appreciate receiving constructive criticism, and I will hopefully try to do better in the future. I am considering a FAC for The Beautician and the Beast. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments and/or suggestions prior to the nomination to hopefully be successful with the process. I understand if you do not have the time or energy. I hope you are having a wonderful start of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- no worries on messaging me; I never mind being asked. I assume you're thinking of Endless Night? Tony can be a tough critic, it's true, but he wants what we all want -- the best possible prose. Of the skills needed for FAC, professional writing is both the hardest, and the slowest to learn, so it can get discouraging. I'll see if I can dig up an example of Tony critiquing my prose just to show you we all go through this.

As for helping with a FAC, I can't commit right now -- I have several commitments in real life, and am also trying to make progress on data capture from past FACs (so we can be less anecdotal and more specific when we debate at WT:FAC whether things were better or worse in the good old days of 2008). I did have a quick look at the reception section and it's much better than most that come to FAC -- I know you cite WP:RECEPTION to others and it's clear you have applied that here.

At the moment I'm only commenting at a FAC when one of the coordinators asks me for another opinion or when an article comes up I have some connection to -- e.g. I did a talk page review of Jo-Jo Eumerus's current nom, so I may comment on that. If I get some spare time over the next few weeks and your nom is still up, I will try to take a look, but I'm afraid I can't promise anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. I do not mean to sound negative toward Tony, as it is all about improving the prose to the best that I can be. Thank you again! Good luck with your real life commitments, and with all of the work going on at the FAC talk page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Might you be able to take over an abandoned GA review?

Mike Christie, I just got pinged on my talk page by someone whose GA review has been abandoned. Reviewer QatarStarsLeague started a number of GA reviews in mid-August, finished some, and then vanished; it's not the first time that they have done this, though they eventually resurface a number of months later. (They made one edit in mid-September, but not with regard to their incomplete reviews.)

I was wondering whether you might be able to take over Talk:Reptiles in culture/GA1, which was opened and reviewed on August 14, the issues addressed later that same day, but the reviewer never reappeared. That's the most crucial one.

Of the other two I can find that were opened but not concluded, one was already taken over by another reviewer and completed, and the other was put back into the pool for a new reviewer by the nominator. (It's Talk:Henri-Thomas Lokondo/GA1, if you were interested in doing it; otherwise, someone else will eventually open the GA2 review page and continue from there.)

Thanks as always for any help you can give; if now is not a good time, then I'll probably just put the Reptiles in culture nomination back in the pool myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I can take Reptiles in culture, but that's probably it for now -- I'm a bit busy right now and for the next couple of weeks at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Mike, many thanks. I note your continuing slight discomfort, and wonder if it's not mainly to do with the title? We could rename the article 'Human uses of reptiles' or even 'Humans and reptiles' which might make the simple nature of the subject more apparent. Just a thought. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this off and on today, trying to articulate just what is bothering me. (I don't think the title change would help, by the way.) Let's say you're working on a biographical article, and you have three full-length biographies to hand; you would naturally merge the information, picking whatever source you need to best cover any particular point. Here what you're doing is similar: you're taking information from (many more than three) sources, and combining it to fit a natural article organization.

So SYNTH is not the problem; you're assembling material, you're not synthesizing. But with a biography, everyone agrees what the scope is -- the life and notable achievements of the subject. That's not the case for this article -- we can imagine what sort of material would be included in Reptiles in culture, but we could also imagine reading a book on the topic that surprised us by covering material we had never heard of. For a biography that's not so much of a problem -- if you've found all the bios of your subject, you've got your source material. Here it's less well-defined. I can't think of anything obvious you've missed, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some Australian ethnoherpetologist popped up and said "You're missing all of this important material!" With a bio that's just not likely to happen if you've done your research. Here's there's no way to research enough to resolve the issue.

To try to put it in a single sentence: I'm concerned that assembling all the material we can find, using all the search terms we can think of, is not equivalent to "comprehensive" in FAC terms. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thoughts. On the FAC front, I've never had any thought of going there. I'll keep an eye on those pesky ethnoherpetologists, however! Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories, described "... about two science fiction magazines that have perhaps the most confusing bibliographic history of any magazines I've ever come across. They each bore the name of the other magazine at different points in their lives. The editor, Robert W. Lowndes, at one point suggested that sorting out the bibliographic details was no more confusing than understanding alternate time tracks. Normally I would create a separate article for each of these titles, but in this case I think it makes no sense to try to separate them. Lowndes managed to do wonders with the shoestring budget he was given by the publisher; the magazines never led the field, but were well-liked by their readers. They finally ceased publication in 1960, victims of a magazine distributor who abruptly abandoned the publisher's entire magazine chain."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Æthelbald of Mercia! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Amazing Stories, the "first magazine devoted to science fiction, founded in 1926"! Quite some stories that you tell us about these magazines! - I have music on the Main page, but don't fall asleep with the lullaby ;) - I have a FAC open, also music and short, - can I interest you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Extinct

Hi Mike. An editor is going round redefining 'extinct' in Hominini and other articles. See Talk:Hominini#Not extinct. I do not see any point in getting into an edit war but leaving his edits in will mean inconsistencies both within and between many articles. Any views? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at that page, and will watchlist it, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable in that area and will probably not contribute unless there's an informal RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

quick explanation of my oppose

Hi. I'm opposing your recent proposal. I have nothing against you as an editor and I think your heart is in the right place. My concern is that it's not worth creating a new process when the existing process requires fact-checking and that requirement is honored in the breach as most of our editors prefer to pick over picayune MoS minutiae rather than the meat and potatoes of checking books out of the library. If you wanted to create a process, you'd have to actually design something rigorous; otherwise, you could simply fix FAC to put fact-checking at the start. It doesn't matter because nobody does fact-checking, Wikipedia is too partisan, and nobody holds their fellow editors accountable until a fight breaks out. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree on the problem, so we want the same thing. (Thanks for the explanation and the AGF, by the way; I appreciate both.) I'm surprised by part of your oppose: we appear to agree that implementing MoS is not the only important thing to do, but I think a new process focused on sourcing is a natural vehicle to improve that attitude. By opposing, aren't you refusing an opportunity to focus on the problem? Or are you saying that the perfect (what you want done) is the enemy of the good (the proposal)? Or that the problem really should be solved inside FAC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought I've answered that. I admit, opposing your measure is foolish insofar as I'm asking for no progress at all rather than a little progress, hence why I mention perfect being the enemy of good. I could not support your measure because the problem should be solved within FAC (and WP:GA) but I explain that it won't be because I see too many editors simply don't think they want to crack down on Wikipedians pencil-whipping reviews. I made a proposal last year which never got traction. Sure enough, I got blown out of the water during the 4th GA Cup and I've wondered if all those reviews were legitimate. We don't need a new process but if I were to support a new process, I'd need to see a regime of verification and punishment for rule-breakers. It can't simply be good enough for government work; it's gotta be tight as a drum for the juice to be worth the squeeze. It'll never happen on Wikipedia which is why it's pointless to pursue. I totally identify with your frustration with the process and I wish you well. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly clear enough. I looked at the proposal you linked to that you made last year and I think we're on more or less the same page. If it passes, I believe it will lead to an improvement in sourcing verification, but we'll have to wait and see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Aldfrith northern map.gif

The file File:Aldfrith northern map.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

TFA ...

Wiglaf of Mercia - 25 November 2018... you know the drill. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I do. Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello again. I have recently opened an AfD and a reviewer cast a keep vote based on the following essay (Wikipedia:CONSONANTS). I am uncertain if this essay is an attempt at trolling or created with a legitimate belief in its argument. I think that we can both agree that whether or not something has "a high proportion of consonants" has not bearing on whether it is real or notable. My question is: Is there a way to do an AfD for an essay, or draw attention to it to gather a consensus on whether it really belongs on here? Aoba47 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's probably just an attempt at humour, and will end up being marked that way. I'd ignore it -- Doncram didn't even !vote keep based on it, and your reply at the AfD takes the right tone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for coordinating Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC. Great idea, great topic of discussion, pressing issue, and of broad interest to many people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mike Christie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Planar transmission line

Planar transmission line has been nominated as a Featured Article. Comments can be left on the nomination page. I am sending this message to everyone involved in previously reviewing the article. For those that are not familiar with the FA process, articles only become featured if multiple editors say they support its promotion, so your participation is important. Thanks, SpinningSpark 14:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi — I noticed the nomination and plan to review in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)