Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Declined "HDL-BUS (Protocol)" article

Hello, Ritchie333

  • Thank you for your time you spend on reviewing my article about HDL-BUS Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HDL-BUS_(Protocol) ). But, I guess, there were no reasons to decline it because in my article I pointed out two fully reliable web-sources: official web-site of actual manufacturer and official FTP-server with official and free technical documentation about HDL-BUS protocol. Please, if you wish, you can match all info via specifications, catalogues and leaflets (so anyone can do as well). That sources work 24/7 and are accessible at any time. What source can be more reliable and authentic if not the source of manufacturer itself? I know all requirements posted at "Identifying reliable sources" page of Wikipedia.
  • Also I put references to technical definitions allover the article. So they are reliable too.
  • Please, take a look at some previous articles, that was done same way:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Bus_(protocol)
  • or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNX_(standard)
  • or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bus
  • They have same types of sources, same style and same structure.
  • So, dear Ritchie333, if you don't agree with me, please, tell me what exactly should I edit or add to the article. Or if I convinced you, also I would much appreciate, if you accept my submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim.Sorokin.Wiki (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It's not a question of reliable sources. A suitable source that can demonstrate notability (and hence get an article to pass) doesn't have to be just reliable - it has to be a source that is independent of the subject (it also has to be sufficient coverage but I think we can agree that's the case here). The official website of a protocol's manufacturer isn't an independent reference for an article about a protocol! It's a primary source. A commonly cited argument to watch out for is "Other stuff exists", which means you shouldn't point to another article as a reason to do something with this article. In this case, C-Bus (protocol) is tagged as "not enough sources" so it is a poor example of an article. RS-232 is a slightly better example, as it cites a book published by Newnes, and a book by Cambridge University Press. These are the sort of sources you should be looking for. It also cites the original specs from the EIA for fleshing out some details, which is fine, but it wouldn't be an acceptable article just citing that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The unnamed diamond

Hi Ritchie333, thank you for your time. I fixed my references and added pictures if you could allow me to submit my article I would really appreciate it. if you want to review it as well that would be great. thank you! zemer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Unnamed_diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zemeroo (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Before we get to that, there's a small issue of File:The unnamed diamond- Guiness world records.png which you uploaded to Commons as "own work". You don't own the copyright to Guinness World Records and incorrectly attributing files as such is frowned upon. I would strongly recommend you ask for the file to be deleted, otherwise somebody may do it for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Template editor

Hi, I saw that you just received the protected template editor userright. Are there any full protected templates that you'd like to edit? Let me know and I'll downgrade the protection so you can do so. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I took care of some of them. Let me know if any more come to mind, or just list them at RFPP. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Will do. The AFC submission ones came to mind because they used to be semi and were upgraded to full not too long ago, and I think Template Editor is a better option for them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC/Carbon Tissue

I made some changes. Is it ready for resubmit.-- 117.221.227.138 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for a bit more of an overhaul, to be honest - the best thing to do, I find, is to write an article about somebody who hasn't got anything more than a cursory understanding of the topic. For example, in Hammond Organ, we removed a lot of technical jargon and restructured it so it starts off by simply comparing the instrument to a piano, which makes it much more accessible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I am no expertise in this field; i was searching for carbon tissue and found [www.printwiki.org] which is licensed under a Creative Commons License, tried to copy it to Wikipedia and add some extra details. I will try to simplify it.-- 117.221.227.138 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I had a quick look at PrintWiki - I think it's tailored more towards a specialist audience rather than Wikipedia, which is for the layman reader. Plus the popularity of English WP in particular means that the quality requirements tend to be a lot higher than elsewhere. A WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology might be able to give you some more ideas, but other than that I'm not sure what else to suggest. Sorry! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Medium (service)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

regarding Vision Four 5 (band)

Dear Richie333,

I have noted your comment and basis for rejecting the article on Vision Four 5 as being: "A band signed to Sony and releasing two albums should be an acceptable article, but the information needs to be cited to reliable sources first. Discogs is generally unsuitable as anyone can edit it. I would have suggested Allmusic, but the band doesn't appear to have a page there."

Whilst I understand the principle of what you outlined you are not acknowledging that discogs is multi-sourced and the wide range of contributors is credited for each entry. You would also note the multiple sourcing of the band name and members of the band engaged in similar activities across multiple wiki articles. Likewise with the web of cross referencing in Discogs that paints the legitimate picture of the role both the members and the band played historically in a particular style of music and region.

This brings me to the comment regarding Allmusic. The article states the historical significance of the band and clearly outlines the period it was active which may note was pre-web. This means that all of the publications discussing the bands activities and releases were print based and were not readily archived in a digital medium and therefore not readily available in 2013. Allmusic, whilst it has some historical references I find is considerably lacking in detail regarding artists, full credentials and anything like a catalogue number reference but also significantly incomplete with regard to releases relating to the listed artists.

What would you recommend as more substantive sources for such an article? You appeared to focus your comment on legitimacy of the discography, so would the Sony catalogue numbers assist in this regard? There are boxes and boxes of print media articles relating to the band, it's activities and releases, although highly inconvenient, is this the only referencing you would consider sufficiently legitimate to approve the article.

I find this style of comment somewhat inconsistent with status of references that are associated with similar listings and significantly other listings from the same stable of acts and period that are cross referenced, but am keen to improve the article through your advice.

Regards,

Vision645 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Just to be clear, I would describe your submission as a "near miss". Any article that states "The rave hit "Everything You Need" was one of the highest selling Australian 12" singles" will unquestionably pass our notability guidelines for musicians - if and only if that information is verifiable to a reliable source.
The principal problem with Discogs is that anyone and everyone can edit it, so there's no guarantee whatsoever that information in it is true or accurate. Allmusic, however, has a policy that any information you submit has to be checked by an editorial team, so while there may not be much information, the Wikipedia community has generally trusted it to be acceptable. Just citing the albums were released on a major label will be sufficient.
As for what sources will pass - Sony's official website is fine, or any newspaper or magazine report. For an example of what sources you could include, Blue Monday (New Order song) has citations to the BBC and The Guardian. The Independent and Rolling Stone have also started to put their back catalogue online, and I've seen articles from the 70s and 80s appear on their website. In any case, sources don't have to be on the web - an old copy of a music magazine is absolutely fine to use as a reference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William Harvey Hospital

Hello! Your submission of William Harvey Hospital at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have given a detailed response to the issue on the DYK. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

jb423 it's only me (again)

Graham Deakin's web page said that Entwistle had used Deakin to play drums on "Sally Simpson" but that has been taken away from his wiki page so sorry.

P.S Why did you take the interview with entwistle from A Quick One claiming it's not a good source well i would not put that source on my chips anyway, i'm stering away from what i'm asking anyway so the articals archive is from the liner notes page that all the editors use for making the pages have good sources (And great chips).

  • Hi Jay. I've explained before, but to re-iterate, thewho.net is a self-published source, but more importantly, a large quotation such as the one you added may be sufficiently large to be considered a copyright violation, hence the requirement to remove it rather than merely tag as {{unreliable source}}. If you know that the quote is in the sleeve notes, use the {{cite album-notes}} template to cite them directly. You really ought to get hold of a copy of Neill & Kent's book to see what sort of other sources are out there.
Regarding Deakin's performance on "Sally Simpson", I've never seen a source for it and the official word is that every note on the album is by the four members of The Who. However, I just listened to the track and the drumming is very un Moon-like, restricting itself to the snare with simple timing. It might be Townshend himself drumming. I'll have a look around and see what else I can uncover. Edit : I know what the problem is - Deakin played on the film soundtrack. Simples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

CP-6 Article Discussed in Tea House

Greetings. Just wanted to let you know that the CP-6 article you reviewed came up in the tea house, the editor brought up a point that IMO seems as if it may be valid. Don't mean to intrude or over ride anyone's decision, just thought you might be interested in my input. I'm retired but made my living engineering large computer systems. I thought he kind of had a point that the CP-6 is big enough and has at least as much if not more content than the UTSS article so it seems to merit it's own page. Also, from my quick read the article seemed very well written, sourced, etc. RedDog (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I would personally define "well sourced" as "has all information attributed via inline citations to multiple, independent, reliable sources, optionally using shortened footnotes with Harvard referencing". I thought, and it appears to be backed up in the teahouse discussion, that there wasn't sufficient sourcing supplied to justify the article from that alone, but there was possibly enough to expand into the article on UTSS, say, a few paragraph's worth. Gtwfan52 appears to have agreed with that assessment. The problem with declining an AfC submission as "not notable, do it again" is that often the editor gives up in despair, so suggesting an alternative approach of integrating content with another article is a way of avoiding that while still getting good contributions from them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Brussels Philharmomic - advice on submission

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for reviewing my article on Brussels Philharmonic. I answered to your comment on the declined submission on the [article page] but I guess you didn't see it or I was not supposed to answer there. Anyway, the point is that Brussels Philharmonic and Brussels Philharmonic Orchestra are two separate institutions so I cannot merge their pages; can you please have a look at it?

Thank you and have a nice day! Giuliettadp (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hoi, hoe gaat het met u? I don't think there's any rule that says you can't respond via the comments, but it doesn't happen very often (new editors get directed towards the reviewer's talk page, the teahouse or the help desk). Anyway, you're quite right, the two are separate entities (how confusing!) and the article is reliably sourced so I have now passed the submission. Sorry! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333! I will take a look at the resources to improve the article :) One thing I don't know where to start from: how to connect it to the Dutch, German and French translations? Can you help me, please? Giuliettadp (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added the {{expand Dutch}} template, which informs the reader that there may be corresponding information in the Dutch Wikipedia. However, looking at the page in question, there doesn't seem like there's much in the way of sources, which is sadly often the case outside of English and German Wikipedias. Drmies has translated a few things from Dutch so he may be able to offer further advice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, indeed. Treurig maar waar. I don't see anything in the Dutch version that's helpful here. But there are some hits in Google Books and Google News. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the orchestra is definitely covered sufficiently in reliable sources to have an article. I have also nominated the article for the "Did you know" process here, which if accepted will mean a mention of this article will appear on the front page shortly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handsworth F.C.

Apologies, I stand corrected - I have reverted myself. Would help if the user actually signed their posts... GiantSnowman 14:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Would help if every edit from everyone ever complied with WP:WIAFA and WP:ANI got successfully killed via WP:MFD ... but we just have to work what we're given with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding regarding deleted page Iron_Projects

Hi mate i didnt get a chance to sign on and reply before the page was deleted and just wanted to clear up a couple things and unfair conclusions made.

I didnt intend to "spam" with youtube links, that cyberphoid admin was antagonizing and requesting types of evidence that werent applicable so i asked if posting youtube links would help? I was just showing that the group had been involved with many up and coming now successful artists... In videos i didnt actually include in the wiki page.

The discussion page concluded the band isnt mentioned on the "reliable" government website, but the band members ARE clearly credited in the video. The video wasn't just a user-submitted "freebie " as portrayed by admin cyberphoid, it was completed at the ACMI museum exclusively to represent the music genre on a government website.

The conclusions (while possibly discrediting some or many sources) completely ignore the reliable inthemix.com.au music magazine that does mention the group more than once.

Most importantly, the entire notability of the group is placing 2nd in a "best live act in australia" award. The criteria for notability states "placing" in an Award or competition.. If it intended to be interpreted as only coming first, wouldnt wikipedia phrase it as "win an award"? The group DID NOT record music but were notable for regularly playing live in the Melbourne and Adelaide hiphop scenes so billboards charts etc aren't relevant, cyberphoid failed to responsed to any of these points.

Thank you for your time Sketcher man (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I know it's unpleasant when your favourite band's article gets deleted, and when editors are claiming that the group is non notable, but the best thing to do is stay calm and make sure you give concise replies that tie in with policy as best you can. Unfortunately, just playing live around a relatively local area isn't really sufficient to get a standalone article on Wikipedia - you might think that's unfair, but it's consistently unfair for all bands. You can generally ask the admin who actually deleted the article if he will restore it to your userspace, or in Articles for Creation so you can work on it further. Possibly if you have sustained news coverage over a number of years that might tip the balance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Farnham Hospital

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Brussels Philharmonic

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Who

The article The Who you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Who for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Harvey Hospital

Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Epsom General Hospital

The article is pretty much ready for mainspace, but I'd like to get it to 1,500 characters before I submit it. Could you help me out with it?--Launchballer 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, the DYK nomination is here if there is anything you'd like to add.--Launchballer 00:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Keith Moon


Now run full speed to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keith Moon/archive1 and have your say. Do FACs normally take 6+ weeks? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; we don't have enough copyeditors. I polished the lead and the first two sections; would've done 'em before, but I don't want to step on anyone else's toes. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 18:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Slut" at Malkin Tower

As the user's talk page I was previously speaking to you on decided that he would delete and revert any comments I left there, I'm commenting to you here. The issue is not the use of the word slut but its presentation in the prose. We're referring to semantic values (meaning), and thus the discussion is about mark up to keep the word from appearing to be a simple moral judgment. Corbett was not pleased by this. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not censored, and if "slut" is the most appropriate word to use in the prose, and consensus decides it conveys it represents the most informative content to the reader, it should stay. I took The Who to GA status containing the quotation "fuck off my fucking stage", but I don't see a crowd of people questioning that. As it stands, I don't think you're going to get the change you want, so it's probably best to look at a different article to edit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Please read what I am typing to you. Not a soul said anything about removing the word "slut". What is in question is using the standard apostrophes to denote "semantic value", which is standard, rather than to simply throw it in the prose as if it were a reflection of some sort of narrative value judgment, which is not objective. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The article's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. Without direct access to the source in question, or alternative or better sources, I'm afraid I can't advise you further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I didn't come here seeking your "advisement". I came here to correct the inaccurate things you said on Corbett's talk page. In the future, I will thank you to please pay closer to attention to what is being discussed before tossing yourself into it and inventing credentials for the user you've decide to side with before even understanding what is under discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Talk:Doug_Stone/GA1#GA_Review.
Message added 21:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I addressed most of your concerns. My replies are in green and italic so you can discern them better. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Music book sources.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Music book sources.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD?

We can bring it to AfD. But do you think there is a "credible" assertion here? I thought bald assertions of this sort were not sufficient. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, the credible assertion is that he is (or may be) nationally famous in Chechnya, which a search for sources from a native English speaking area may be difficult to prove. I removed some dubious content about murder which should be removed unless very well sourced, but it won't hurt for the remainder of the article to stay around for another week, particularly when it's been requiring attention for years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I saw that there was an assertion, which you also flagged. I just don't see anything to support the notion that it is credible. If we re-construe the requirement that the assertion be credible to mean "any assertion," I wonder if we don't re-write the requirement. Unless one thinks that the only non-credible assertion would be an unreferenced assertion that is also an absurd assertion -- such as "Person x was the first female Martial President of the United States." I don't read it that way. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's from past experience of non English subjects, that I get slightly twitchy deciding that claims of importance are blatantly false. For instance, had you looked at this revision of Rubberen Robbie when it was the most recent one, you might conclude that it's a good candidate for tagging with {{db-band}}, particularly when a search for sources brings up the usual pile of YouTube / Facebook / Soundcloud / other WP articles as the main hits. A search through Dutch sources, however, found the band was not only notable after all, but worthy of a did you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Doug Stone

I've addressed most of your other issues so far. My latest comments are in orange. Anything else you think this needs? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhodes piano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

New RFC on draft namespace

Hello,

As one of the participants in the previous related discussion, you are requested to comment on the RFC on creating a new Draft namespace at the Village Pump.

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical)

I'll give you my thoughts here. It is kind of distressing that he doesn't go through peer review before doing GA, because that would be much easier on the reviewers. Feel free to use/mention any of this in the GA review, but it's up to you.

  • Overall: See [the Article structure guidelines from the Musicals Project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Lead. I do not consider this adequate. After the article is expanded to the GA level, the Lead will need to be similarly expanded to give an overview of all the new material in the article. So, I think it is premature, at best, to say that the Lead is ok.
To be precise, I said (or at least meant) that the size of the lead looked sufficient for the prose. However, I tend to go back and make more comments on the lead later in a review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Background. There's not much about the writing process. For example, how did Lauper go about writing the songs for her first musical? I am sure she was interviewed extensively. The show's website also has more information and links that could help fill out this section.
  • Productions. Tony is obsessed with theatre awards. Half of the first paragraph of the productions section is devoted to the past awards of the creative and design team. The part of the sentence that follows the colon could go in a footnote. On the other hand, there is no actual description of the production - what is the set like? How do the title "kinky boots" figure in the costume design? (Hint: they are important). The study guide on the show's website has interviews of the designers: http://digital.turn-page.com/i/131604. Is there any new information on the box office? It is hard to understand why we talk about July and no other months.
  • To be continued. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
If the other editors are resisting your changes and reverts are going on, then that is reason enough to quickfail the GA, which I have just done. If Tony feels hard done by, he can ask for a re-assessment at WP:GAR but I think you've made your point that GA candidates should be improved to be at or near the criteria first before nominating, and it would be better to work on an existing B-class article like West Side Story to GA status. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I wish you wouldn't quick fail it. It's not Tony, but BletheringScot who is being difficult. I suggest that you let Tony keep working. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've certainly got no problem with Tony continuing to work on it, but he can do that away from the limelight of a GA review. Hopefully when it is ready, the silliness will have gone away and we can regroup. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Synopsis - I would put this above productions. That keeps all the "show" information together, and all the "productions" info together. Plus, most readers want to see the synopsis first. Also, the song titles of the major songs in a musical are normally places in the Synopsis where the song appears in the story. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Difficult you can hardly talk. Your edit warring not me. You made the article unstable not me. You should of self reverted and discussed per the policy you tried to hide under. Article is nowhere near GA standard anyway and not because it needs copy edits, but because its incomplete.Blethering Scot 21:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Musical analysis - Tony added a sentence from the New York Times about the music. There should be probably a whole paragraph analyzing the music, as I believe that more reviewers mentioned it - is it pop, rock, folk rock, a mix of genres, or what? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Textual analysis and themes. Some of these, such as the economic parallel to today, are hinted at, but there could certainly be more discussion of the themes in the text. For examples, see Carousel (musical) and Hair (musical). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Critical reception. This section is a little thin. I would ask Tony to survey the reviews from Chicago and New York and to try to make sure that all the major critics are covered, including the positive, negative and lukewarm ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Awards - About a quarter of the body of the article is take up by this bloated awards section. First of all, everything is there twice - first in narrative form, and second in tabular form in a table that has lots of white space (I wonder if it can be compressed at all). Secondly, the Outer Critics Circle awards and Drama League awards are minor awards, as compared with the Tonys and Drama Desk awards. In my opinion, once a show has won Tony awards, and also Drama Desk awards, these others are no longer of encyclopedic interest. In 10 years, will anyone care how many Drama League nominations the show received? I think not. Also, see [the Article structure guidelines (see awards section) from the Musicals Project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes people will care how many notable award nominations a show receives. Its preposterous to suggest an encyclopaedia shouldn't produce an accurate overview of the notable events that occurred to a production. Drama League nominations are notable.Blethering Scot 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Statutory Instrument

I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia:Summary style, and I cannot find anything in there that supports this edit of yours. There are plenty of long standing articles that adopt this approach, such as Lost film. Can you please explain your reasoning as I cannot see what objection you could possibly have to what I wrote, since that list is clearly a daughter article. James500 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi. The {{main}} template is used when you have a section of prose that another article expands in more detail. In your instance, the link to the list article is in a "See also" section - there is no prose to go with it. Have a look at Hammond organ - notice the section "Leslie speaker" has a "main" link to Leslie speaker, but List of Hammond organs does not, as a subset of the list itself does not appear in the article. Incidentally, that article has passed Good Article Status, while Lost film is assessed as Start class and is tagged for attention, so I wouldn't recommend using it as an example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 12:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Doug Stone

Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hi I am new to wiki and but have been reading for years and years as a consumer, never realized what it takes to edit articles, Just started and spent so much time researching and looking at things, before I can comment, each edit takes hours of research. this just makes me appreciate what you guys have contributed and how much personal time and effort has been spent. my heartfelt appreciation to your contributions and all the hard work you are doing on wiki making it a great platform for the whole world. Nlfestival (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mini backlog brownies

Davidwr has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. This brownie is your reward for accepting two articles, Ode (album) and Isle of Man Pure Beer Act, as part of the special unofficial 1-week mini-drive for ACCEPTING articles at WikiProject:Articles for creation. See also: [1] and [2]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)†

Re: Declined Article for Creation: Pallas Management Group (PMG)

Hi there,

Thank you for your reviewing the article - when you declined the article for publication, your main point is that the articles we used as references do not name Laura Pallas specifically.

I want to note that this article is for Pallas Management Group (PMG) - in each article from Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter, etc., Pallas Management Group or PMG is indeed named as the company that represents the actor(s) named in those articles, thus making it clear that the company is legitimate and worthy of an article.

The section that names Laura is in discussion of her as the founder/CEO of PMG. The bio that we provided does have a substantial reference.

Please check back and let me know if you have any specific notes that we can address. In creating this article, I was very thorough in making sure that PMG or Pallas were named in every article.

I look forward to your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurapallas1 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the submission, and I think my main comment was more along the lines that you didn't have particularly good sources that proved either Pallas, the group or any similar term were covered substantially enough in any reliable sources. In order for a submission to pass, it must generally have significant coverage in an independent source. None of the coverage in any of the sources is in my view significant and merely states that the company exists, which unfortunately isn't sufficient. A biography that you provide is not independent - it may be biased towards the positive and leave out controversial or negative details, which Wikipedia requires in order to display content with a neutral point of view.
In my honest view, you will probably have more of a success writing about another topic to write about, as you are unlikely to be able to write about this with a clear lack of conflict of interest. I am also concerned that your language refers to "we", and refers to Pallas in the third person despite the above message being explicitly signed as such. If you have multiple people using the same account, you need to stop now otherwise you may be blocked for sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Geoff Unwin

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Isle of Man Pure Beer Act

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Geoff Unwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chelsea
Rhodes piano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Wah wah

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sapience

Hi Ritchie,

Thanks for evaluating the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sapience

Request your help to understand what all corrections are to be made so that it does not sound like an advertisement.

I tried to model the page on lines of a similar company DeskTime - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/desktime which has a wikipedia page.

Your inputs will be greatly appreciated.

VirtualAvi (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take the second paragraph : "Sapience sources work effort and patterns in a highly automated manner with virtually no manual intervention. Sapience delivers actionable trends and reports for employees and managers which results in increase in work output." Pretty much nothing in that says anything about Sapience is or what it does, and is loaded with puffery that make the product sound more important than it is.
Using DeskTime is not a particularly good example, as the article is a short stub. I would recommend TuneUp Utilities as a better example, as it has passed our good article review procedure.
I take it that English is not your first language? You might have more success writing the article in the Marathi Wikipedia and getting somebody else to translate it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Ritchie333! You're receiving the Working Man's Barnstar because you reviewed 61 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 

‎

DYK for US 27 in MI

Can you pop back to Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Route 27 in Michigan? Your comments about the source and the suggested hook need some form of resolution. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 12:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another ping. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any further comments on this issue at present. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be nice, since you are the reviewer, then to comment to that effect in the review. Otherwise, I could be left waiting for weeks or months as the other nominations are cleared until someone else comes along to take over. Imzadi 1979 → 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This really smacks of a hit-and-run; oppose and then be unwilling to reconsider your position even when proven wrong. --Rschen7754 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Charlie Chaplin

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Minories, Colchester

Hello! Your submission of The Minories, Colchester at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well done for spotting the issue - it's now been sorted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rainthorpe Hall

Hello! Your submission of Rainthorpe Hall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to reply, but BlueMoonset has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jade's Crossing

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I know there is no deadline, but this was such fortuitous timing that I managed to mention this on my radio show and gave Wikipedia a bit of a plug. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Festival Theatre, Malvern

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Ritchie333, many thanks for your help with The Minories, Colchester page. Much appreciated.

Claire and Iris 16:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. How did you know I love cats? I have sent you an email (containing some personal facts I don't want to reveal on-wiki) explaining my interest in The Minories in a little more detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Poop Afc submission/acceptance

Thechemistryguy, I've moved your comments to Talk:YouTube Poop as more people will be looking there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leslie speaker

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leslie speaker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_11&oldid=1087840401"