User talk:Mr.Kennedy1/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Adoption

Hi! Thanks for the adoption offer. I'm back from my Wikibreak now, and still interested. I don't know how this works, what happens now? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, i'll put the UBX's on our userpages. And, depending on how your skills are, i'll take you step-by-step through editing etc. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, editing I know already. I've been told to get a mentor by User:Georgewilliamherbert. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Adoption of OpenFuture

Hi, Mr. K. I see you adopted OpenFuture. You may wish to look at his edits and comments at Viking Altar Rock for an example of how his editing might be made more positive and constructive. In this case, he began to tag and object to material without reading the cited source, for which a link was provided. I believe this is called "drive-by editing." If he would like to improve an article, instead of engaging in a long pointless discussion on the talk page, he might first read material that has been cited and linked to see whether it answers his questions. Demanding that others respond to his tagging without rewriting or adding content himself makes him difficult to work with. This is an innocuous little article about a local landmark; the article states very clearly that the claims about its supposed connection to Vikings in North America are dubious (and these claims are themselves highly controversial, as indicated in the article Norse colonization of the Americas). However, the claims explain why the landmark is touted as a tourist attraction on the so-called Viking Trail.

OpenFuture's methods of editing can make it seem that he's only interested in picking at others' work and arguing, rather than actually writing and developing articles. I truly don't want to be unfair, and I appreciate that he took a break in order to reflect on how he wishes to contribute. I've found him extremely difficult to communicate with in the past, and would like to avoid conflict again, as I responded to him in ways that were extraordinarily uncivil. But his approach to this little article suggests that he still doesn't quite get why other editors can react badly to him. Tagging and deleting are of course valid ways to edit, but to edit only by tagging, deleting, and trying to block others' work is a negative and unhealthy approach. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe is stalking me and trying to bait me so I'll get blocked. It worked once before, so she is naturally trying again. One thing I would need mentoring in is how to handle people like that, because I'm clearly not very good at it. I'm trying to ignore her, but when she does attacks like the above it's very hard. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as an attack. I posted to your mentor's page so he could offer guidance. If I'm wrong in my perception, I thought it was better for Mr.Kennedy1 to look over the situation, because he's your advocate. I chose not to complain to an outside party.

If OpenFuture is committed to editing, I hope that it's for the good of Wikipedia. I think one of the problems is that OpenFuture lacks experience in writing articles, so he doesn't understand how they're put together and how to use sources. When we were having our previous difficulties, I was trying to figure out where OpenFuture was coming from in terms of his expectations for sourcing and article structuring. I checked his latest 3,000 edits and his first 2,000; among these, I found no new articles he had contributed, not even a stub, and I couldn't even find a single continuous paragraph he had written. IRL, editing and writing are often separate job duties in publishing and journalism; however, editors have all had experience in writing, and usually in the kind of writing they edit (this is to distinguish editing, in the sense of development and criticism, from mere copyediting or proofreading). That's why I think it would be beneficial if OpenFuture learned more about article construction in a positive way, by writing at least a section for an article. If I were trying to get him in trouble, I wouldn't have posted to his mentor's page. If he's supposed to be learning better habits, I think he should try out other ways to contribute, and not keep doing the same things that cause people to react badly to him. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have very negative experiences with using the various forms of incident reports and processes, they are painful and exhausting to me. But at this moment I don't see much options but to report Cynwolfe for stalking and personal attacks if this continues. If you have any other recommendations that would be appreciated. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to take up more of Mr. K's time and talk page, but I don't think this is a fair characterization. OpenFuture can do what he thinks is necessary, and I'll address his complaints at that time. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see where the both of you are coming from. If OpenFuture's editing is not that great, I will teach and set tasks for him/her and he/she will benefit from it. I doubt that Cynwolfe is actually trying to get OpenFuture blocked but their might have been disagreements in the past between you two. I will set tasks that for OpenFuture soon to improve their editng. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 14:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I bizarrely get criticized for not starting articles, maybe I should start one on one of the few topics I think deserve an article that doesn't already have one, namely BFG (web framework). I've been wanting to create this one for a while, but I've found it hard to find links that prove notability. That's the case in the open source world, unfortunately, you will not generally find any mainstream magazines writing a lot about open source web frameworks. It's all just blogs, and those people who are generally seens as experts in a field tend to not have time to blog much. :) I've been collecting links for a while now and maybe it's time. So I made a draft in User:OpenFuture/BFG. It would be appreciated if you took a look at that. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look.

• When published, this article would defenitely be tagged as a stub.

To be honest, there is not much to say. Is there no other information on the subject? It is well referenced and the prose is OK. Maybe you should find more information before you put it live. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 15:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I can put in more information, but it's hard to do that without sounding like a sales brochure. :-) I'll make a final effort and see later. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A new article on twitter

Kennedy, I was wondering if a page about the recent major security breach on twitter, redirecting thousands of webpages to various innappropriate sites, might make a good article, and if you would like to co-edit such a page on them. I don't have enough resources on my browser to backtrace all fot he documents related to the breach, and the security flaw seems to qualify as a notable article, but I need addtional help. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a major topic when it happened so it would probably be notable enough. You would also find alot of information because of how big it was on the news. I had a look at the section on it in the Twitter article, and there is not much info there. Create it in your sandbox first and i'll help you develop it. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 15:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Craig Snyder

Mr Kennedy, I will gather a photo and some old newspaper clippings to help with the Craig Snyder (Boxer) article but am preparing to leave town on vacation for 1 week so it will be during the first week of October that I will be able to furnish you with the articles you need. It would be a large help if you could furnish me with instructions on uploading images to you. Thank you sir, Craig Snyder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAOArtist (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

I'd be happy to take up the offer. Thank you.--Cymbelmineer ([[User talk:Cymbelmine--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)er|talk]]) 08:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my offer. You are my first adoptee and I am excited by the opportunity to share my experience with you. First, let me introduce myself; I have been on Wikipedia since 2007, have made over 2,700 contributions, created 39 articles, and also fight vandalism on Wiki. I am also the creator of WikiProject Darts (and made most of the templates etc).

Now, on to you. I have been looking at your stats on Wiki and will take these into consideration during the course of the tutoring. OK, you have over 200 edits so you know the basic components of Wikipedia, which is good. You have also created four articles and I see you have draft pages which is a very good idea as this gives your page a smaller chance of getting deleted once you go live. I also see you are very active recently (and so am I).

I am going to ask you a couple of questions now:

1. What are your main points of interest on Wikipedia?
2. Is their any things you need immediate help with?

Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In answer to question 1. my interests in wikipedia are in a primary way to do with editing English Literature articles and Philosophy, so my chief reason for setting my account is to do editing in the humanities.
In answer to your second question, not really, my help requests would be more long-termist, in terms of critiquing my articles before they move into mainspace, and adding extra insight within articles and editoring articles which I might put on wikipedia.
I have no bete noirs, or, articles, I would not work within or edit. Though primarily interested in history or literature, including adding citations from literature to pre-existing articles, I hope to increase reliable sourcing throughout wikipedia, and increase the project in general. Essentially, I wish to mark up wikipedia to a greater ideal of academic accuracy. This is a team thing, and that's why I require extra understanding being brought to what I consider an important task. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, now we have established where we are and can start tutoring. Please leave me a message if you want help with absolutely anything, I might not respond as quick to messages for a couple of days because as you can see, the message below is about photo's and i'm trying (but failing) to learn how to upload them. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks for the adoption offer! sorry for the late reply, is it too late to accept? i'm a wikipedia contributor living in india, and i also hope to join the ranks against vandalism. we have our work cut out for us here, especially with respect to the india related articles. due to regional chauvinism, there is a lot of random foolishness on articles related to indian history and religions. your help is most appreciated. --Gñāna (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not too late, i'm willing to take up two at once. Welcome aboard! Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 06:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! Sorry for the late reply. I'm hoping to start an article entirely devoted to Telugu grammar. I feel that the current state of the Telugu article is poor, due partly to neutrality concerns (in my opinion) as well as the "crowded" feeling one gets from it, not to mention how wholly incomplete it is. For instance, the English language article is concise, but it also internally links to its respective sub-topics, which is not seen in the Telugu language article. I suppose I ought to present something substantive for you to see first, so I hope to have something within a week's time. If you could take a look at the Telugu article and tell me what your thoughts are on its presentation, I'd greatly appreciate it. My neutrality concerns stem from what I believe to be the hyperbolic claims of "Sanskrit influence" in Telugu made by editors who may, in my opinion, do so with bias. Phrases like "enormously influenced by Sanskrit" as well as using folk traditions (that too without citations!) to explain the historical development of language are replete in most of the articles related to India. I avidly read Wikipedia, but became so disgusted with the dichotomy between the non-India articles and the India articles that I felt some need to fight back (with the keyboard) against those who would use Wikipedia as a partisan "forum"- hence, my interest in "wikifying" articles concerning Indian history and Indian languages. --Gñāna (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, i'll have a look. Here is a list of suggested improvements:

• Obviously, the article needs more citations
• The table in the section "Numbers(Ankelu, అంకెలు)" is written in Teluguian (is that how say it?), for me, who didn't even know the language exsisted until now dosen't have a clue what this table is about. It should have an English translation beside it.
• Most of the sections are very short. Could some of them be merged together?
• In "Carnatic music", it suggested that another article should be created, but it is already created. Change it to a note to the article.

Overall, this article needs alot of improvement that will take some time. When you fix the article using these suggestions, you can ask me for another (more thorough) review. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well...

..since you asked, getting Camp Nou to GA status would be a tremendous help. That's pretty much the final rock I believe. Sandman888 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure i'll give it a go. I should get a PR on it first, should I? Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah if you'd like. Go ahead. Sandman888 (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this page is spam

The page LOLcat Bible Translation Project could be intepreted as minor spam. It basically links to spam. Could you talk to anyone you know who is a mod viz it's deletion cheers. Kind regards.

Actually, it was nominated for deletion before but it was decided that it would be kept. See here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLCat Bible Translation Project. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh, seems odd, I will check it out.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dartboard

I do not understand your reasoning to eliminate the Dartboard redirect to Darts. Please explain. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because im going to put "Dartboad" in the requested articles page and I can't put a blue link in that redirects to darts. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 06:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got it. Done. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you are one of the few reasonable admins. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Curiosity

I saw the banner on Talk:Phil Taylor and thought I might as well sign up and do what I can (which won't be much – I warn you now!). —Half Price 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I was making a new article on

gender double standards, and I am trying to up-load a free image, but I can't. Can you help me up load it? thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me a URL of the image and what website you found it on? Also, do you have an acount Wikimedia Commons as you should upload it there instead of here. Do this and I will tell you what else you should do. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christabel_Pankhurst.jpg Thank you. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thougth you were trying to upload an image to commons, you just want to use the image, is it? Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I originally planned uploading an image, but was prosyltized in that attempt by finding archived footage of a noted feminist, which looked better. All I need is help with the gross business of downloadin gthe thing!--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what article do you want to add it to and where abouts in the article?

PS Please stop using those big words like "prosyltized" as I don't have a clue what they mean. I know I am meant to be your tutor but I am useless at English. You should probably be my tutor, eh? LOL. Oh, and thanks for signing my guestbook. :) Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 10:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You can get to it by typing into the search bar; User:Cymbelmineer/Gender double-standards. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the page and put it as a right-hand side thumb instead of in a gallery. If you want it changed, just ask. By the way, you don't have to say what to type into the search bar, you can just put [[]] at either side of the link eg. [[User:Cymbelmineer/Gender double-standards]] would look like this: User:Cymbelmineer/Gender double-standards. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 14:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help; it looks perfect.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phil Taylor

The article Phil Taylor you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Phil Taylor for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Brad78 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona GAN

Added some thoughts on the GAN page. Brad78 (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, when these are fixed, do you think I should pass it? Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's close to a pass. If you want me to have a look once they are fixed, just send me a message. Brad78 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DARTS and lead formatting

Happy to help! I don't have any great interest in Darts, as such - though I've played and enjoy the game - but feel free to leave me a message if you need an admin for some heavy-lifting. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of the prod tag on Hybrid pheasant

You removed the prod tag I placed on Hybrid pheasant with the edit summary "This should not be deleted, it has three references and is a stub; why should it be deleted?". If you take a look at the sources that were there at the time, you will see that there were actually only two sources (one is listed twice) and one of those is not likely to be considered reliable for these purposes. The term "hybrid pheasant" is a generic descriptor of any hybrid involving a pheasant and does not refer to a specific breed or type of pheasant, which is not at all the impression the reader would get from that article. You should likely have taken more time looking at this.

On a related note, perhaps you can take a more active role your mentorship of User:Cymbelmineer? They might be advised to steer away from controversial articles and subjects until they are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and norms. And not trolling would be good, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't start telling me what to do with my adoptee, did you ever think that I might not have time to constantly watch over my adoptees? As you can see from above, I give them help when they want help. Also, I was looking over your talk page and seen you have getting involved in personal attacks and giving cheek to people, maybe you should look at your own editing before you start critising mine. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What a delightful response, and what a positive attitude toward constructive critcism. I look forward to working with you in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, i'd rather work with people with a bit of decency. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'd rather work with trained chimpanzees dressed in suits for comic effect, but on Wikipedia you don't get to choose with whom you collaborate. Perhaps when you stop being so indignant, you'll read reconsider my suggestion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you teach me how to archive my page?

I don't know how to archive my talk-page, it's getting unwieldy, you seem quite well-versed in wikipedia and I was wondering if you could help me archive. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, i'll do it for you now and show you how I did it. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added the bot template and archive box which will add an archive when it runs again. Here are the two templates I used – Template:Archives and User:MiszaBot/config. You do not have to change any of these templates at all at any time as the archive box updates itself and the configuration does not need to be changed unless you want a setting changed (how often it archives etc.). Here are the main settings at present:

• Archives threads that are older than 31 days
• Archive pages has a maximum capacity of 100K

If you want any setting changed, just ask. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The settings are very good! They work well, thank you again.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MSE

Was looking at WP:DARTS and I have to say its pleasantly organised. We can definitely pick up a thing or two from there. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

About the personal attacks by Delicious Carbuncle

I just wanted to bring to your understanding that I won't be responding to the attacks. It is abundantly clear to me, that quantity of admin> quality of admin at some times. Obviously, I would strongly urde you not to write any attacks back, more than what could be inferred to be an attack, already. The fact is, that the admin User:Delicious carbuncle might then wantonly attack your character, as he appears to be something of a possible assassinatory influence. I felt compelled to write a message to you, so that I don't harm you by proxy, thank you, --Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) .

Thanks, I am just going to ignore them if they write anything to me again. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 10:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hi there, first I just want to say again that it's great you're doing some reviews. the GA assessment process certainly needs more reviewers! I'll go through each one you linked to and make some comments.

Atlético Madrid

• The first thing I thought was that the review is a bit sparse. GAN is not peer review, but I did wonder if you've gone through the article thoroughly.
• One of your first comments is "there are far too much bare URL's". This is not actually a GA requirement, so be careful about asking for things beyond those criteria. It's still a good idea to make suggestions for improving the article, but make it clear which ones are necessary for passing GA. You'll find that some editors have done just about as much as they want to do on an article, and want you just to tell them the things they need to pass GA. Others will be wanting to improve it as much as possible and see GA as a stepping stone on the way to FAC. They'll want more of a detailed review from you (if you're happy to do that - you don't have to!) If you're not sure, you can ask the nominator.
• having said bare urls are ok, the references need to have enough info to be verifiable. I see one reference (currently no. 44) is to the Guardian, but there is no other information, The link is dead (or moved), so it is very difficult for a reader to find that article. I don't know if that was the case when you reviewed it, but I would require more information in the refs - at least title, date & name of publication/work.
• This article had a failed GA nomination not long before your review. Did you check that the issues from that review had been dealt with?
• I can't tell from the review whether or not your concerns were dealt with. If they weren't, then I don't think you should have passed it. Bare urls are ok, but not enough references aren't. Particularly as you said there are quotes without references. Quotes need references per the criteria.
• I'm also not sure, did you put the article on hold? If there are issues, don't be afraid to put it on hold for about a week to allow the nominator to work on it. I think that happens more often than direct passes or fails to be honest. Far better that than to see that the article doesn't fully meet the GA criteria and pass it anyway.
• Overall, it'd be nice to see more evidence that you've gone through the article—and criteria—more thoroughly. Even if things check out ok, you can say so. You can comment that you've checked that images are appropriately licensed, or that links are working. This is helpful to you to, especially as you're starting out reviewing. Sometimes you see very short reviews from experienced reviewers reviewing nominations from experienced nominators. Both parties know the criteria inside out and there's nothing to be done, so that's ok, but when you're not so experienced, and neither is the nominator, its best to make sure you're covering everything.
• it's ok to make minor improvements to the article yourself. Some reviewers like to, copyediting or whatever, some prefer not to touch it and just make the suggestions in the review. For example, I personally hate bare URLs, but it's not really fair to ask for them to be sorted when that's not one of the criteria, so I'd probably put a bit of work into it myself to tidy them up. Or, alternatively, you could make a separate list of suggestions for general improvement beyond what is required to tick the GA boxes, just make it clear which is which.

Thomas Müller

• Ok, I'm glad to see you put this one on hold. It's perfectly fine to say that you're a new reviewer. Some nominators are very familiar with the criteria themselves and will speak out if they disagree with you. Others will simply do what has to be done to get the green circle, and won't question anything.
• I see this article uses a lot of German sources. If you don't speak the language, you really have to accept these on good faith, but careful checking of the other sources can help to reassure you that the ones you can't read are ok too. Again, try to be rigourous about the sources used. Here, it helps to have some experience writing articles on similar topics. I personally don't know much about the sources used for sports articles. Make sure that they would all meet WP:RS though. Things to look for are "is the source (eg. website) owned by a major company, or media network?" "is the source written by someone who is demonstrably an expert inthe field?" "has the source been used as a source by other sources that we know are reliable? Eg. has the source ever been used by the BBC, or the New York Times?" If you're not sure, ask the nominator what makes a source reliable. If they're not sure, you can always try asking at WP:RSN. At the end of it all, if there's still doubt, look for/ask for a better source.

History of FC Barcelona

• I see you asked for a second opinion; good for you! I think you're getting the hang of it, but if you're still unsure, one thing I have recommended to someone else in the past is to see if someone (a regular reviewer) will allow you to do a joint review, where you start the review off, and they come along and add any thoughts they have, and let you know how you're doing. I'd offer my services, but sports articles are really not my thing. I only reviewed your original Phil Taylor nomination because I could see it needed a lot of work before it got to GA. I hope you don't mid me saying that—I think you've done a great job with it now and hopefully will make it to GA before long! :)

So, well done, you're certainly getting there. I always recommend people read other GAs and FAs when they're working on their own. In this case, I'd recommend reading as many GA reviews as you can, to get a feel for what is expected. Watch the reviews that happen at WP:GAN, and some people have lists of reviews they've done that you can peruse: here, here, here or here, for example. Anyway, keep up the good work! :) --BelovedFreak 12:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm replyng here because.. well it goes with the big long reply above! :) I'm not sure what you mean by "changing the criteria"; do you mean the way you asked for a few more things to be fixed after you'd gone through it once? That's fine. I can imagine maybe someone getting annoyed if you say "just fix a, b and c and it's a GA", and then you go back and say "actually you need to fix d, e and f too", but the way it played out in that review didn't seem unreasonable at all. If anyone gets annoyed you can just say that you're still a bit new at reviewing and you just noticed a couple of things that you didn't notice at first, and you aren't comfortable with letting them slide. Another way around it is to state at the beginning that you'll go through it once, say what needs to be fixed and then go through it again after changes have been made, to tie up any loose ends. That gives you room to go back and see if you've missed anything. It's a good idea to do that anyway if nominators are making quite a few changes.--BelovedFreak 19:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Or... did you mean changing the symbols on the criteria list in your review? If so, that's fine too! --BelovedFreak 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)