User talk:RyanAl6

Thanks

For this. And other edits. English is not my native language, and I do not always understand such features;) — Werter1995 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries man. I'll keep watching the article and make any changes if you need it. RyanAl6 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source at Inverted roller coaster

Just wanted to mention that the source you cited in this edit wouldn't likely pass the reliability test. That page looks like a self-published source to me, which are generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia's standards. The rare exception is when the author/publisher is a subject-matter expert whose work has been published in reliable, independent publications. I couldn't find an "About" page to learn more about the author, so doubtful that's the case here. I recommend replacing that source with a better one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I pulled the source from the article for the coaster itself, which is already a GA, so I just assumed it was good. I'll see if I can find alternatives for both articles. RyanAl6 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes that source does appear to have been in the article back in this 2012 version when it was promoted. Of course, GA reviews aren't too stringent and only involve 1 reviewer, so it might have been overlooked. Also the reviewer in this GA review wasn't too familiar with coasters and their sources to begin with. So yeah, in a nutshell, I wouldn't put too much stock into a GA review, although I completely understand now why you made that assumption. Cheers! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found you one that's pretty close. I would cite this one from the Sandusky Register as a complementary source, which confirms most of the same claims and would allow you to keep the other source. The only thing I would be careful of is the way you phrased, "facilitating the inclusion of". Neither source really says that the expanded length of the ride allowed for elements like the cobra roll, although we assume that to be true. Might want to consider dropping that from the text, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for going through the effort to find that source. I'll add it in and rephrase that sentence. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome! THANK YOU as well for helping to improve amusement park related articles! WP:APARKS can always use the extra help! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! What can I say – amusement parks are fun to write about. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saltburn

Thanks for your edits, but you really need to give a chap chance to check his work when it goes live. MartinOjsyork (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I'll back off :) RyanAl6 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you haven't done anything out of order. All quite necessary.

I'm just a bit rattled as I have a chap consistently editing and replacing my work.

And making a mess.

Best wishes

MartinOjsyork (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of Judiciary of Italy's wikipage

Hello,

I noticed you have moved the Judiciary of Italy's assessment from "stub" to "C-class" rating. I have been working on this page for quite some time now, but never dared to change the assessment in order to avoid "self-referentialism".

Let me express my appreciation for your contribution, as very few users are actively contribute to this page. I look forward to hearing from you any thought on how the information about Italy's judiciary may improve, be more suited for encyclopedic purposes. I would also like to hearing from you what made you strike the balance for a C-class rather than a B-class assessment, in order to better understand the page's shortfalls and other areas for improvement.

Have a great day,

PC ParadiseCity (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I will be honest, I am a newer editor, and I may not yet have a solid sense of the standard interpretation of article class rules. While reading through the article I was between B and C class. Really the only thing was that there were a number of paragraphs that didn't have in-line references, and while I assume the information comes from in-line references elsewhere in the article, it's a little unclear. The "Tax circuit" section is one of the more glaring examples.

The depth of the article is certainly not the issue, and it is very well written. Now that I think about it, C is pretty harsh, but there are still those unreferenced sections which would be a quick fix to put it solidly in B. RyanAl6 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) ParadiseCity, you may want to have a look at WP:ASSESS. Any editor can rate articles, including those that actively contribute to the article they're rating. You can rate from Stub all the way up to B class. The main difference between B and C, aside from missing inline citations, is that a C-class article has gaps in coverage and may contain trivial details. Its overall presentation likely still needs work (e.g., flow from one aspect to another may not be fluid, chronological order is off, WP:NPOV concerns, etc.).
A B-class article is basically error free, or has only minor issues, but is well-written and adequately sourced. It might be ready for the next step to be promoted to GA status, or it might just need a little bit more expansion to get there (adding images and a few scholarly resources helps).
In the end, these are mostly subjective ratings that aren't really all that important. Feel free to tinker with them as you see fit. What really matters is working toward promoting the article through the Good Article nomination process. Beyond that, some really well-written and well-researched articles qualify for even higher promotion to WP:FA. Every editor that sticks around long enough hopes to eventually get their favorite articles up to FA status. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]