User talk:Sportsfan77777/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sportsfan77777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Your GA nomination of Simona Halep
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simona Halep 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Simona Halep
The article Simona Halep you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Simona Halep for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Simona Halep
The article Simona Halep you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Simona Halep for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Markéta Vondroušová
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Markéta Vondroušová 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Markéta Vondroušová
The article Markéta Vondroušová you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Markéta Vondroušová for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Markéta Vondroušová
The article Markéta Vondroušová you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Markéta Vondroušová for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Infobox pictures
Infobox pics are usually reserved for head shots or upper body shots. Sure there are exceptions throughout wikipedia, but they are not the norm. I don't care what head or torso shot you want to use, but I do care about the whole body in the infobox. It is also a huge long photo that you used on Osaka. Crop it yourself if you didn't like my crop. That photo is not a bad one to use if it's the proper size. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Performance charts on main pages
Per guidelines "For article main pages where players have a separate career statistics article, the ATP bottom chart example will usually only contain the Grand Slam tournaments section with it's win-loss row. The wording of "Grand Slam tournaments" would usually not be needed in this case. The Year-end and ranking sections should be reserved for the career statistics article and is mostly obsolete for main articles."
Obviously there are exceptions and I see what has also been done (like on Nadal's article) is to include a completely separate yec table away from the grand slam table. The standard table is only the Majors, and that works for almost all players... maybe the superstars of the sport get graded on a different curve. Now, Barty is number 1... so maybe she is one of the exceptions, but most players should be Major tournaments only on a main page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly you can delete the long-standing consensus chart usage which I clarified upon request from another user, but the chart on the bottom is what is used throughout tennis articles (except mostly old archaic articles). I'll bring it up at tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is the guideline chart for the main pages:
| Tournament | 1977 | 1978 | 1979 | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | SR | W–L | Win % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||||||||||||
| Australian Open | A | A | A | A | A | A | SF | A | QF | NH | A | A | QF | 4R | A | QF | 0 / 5 | 18–5 | 78% |
| French Open | 2R | A | A | 3R | QF | A | QF | F | SF | A | 1R | 4R | A | A | 1R | 1R | 0 / 10 | 25–10 | 71% |
| Wimbledon | SF | 1R | 4R | F | W | F | W | W | QF | A | A | 2R | SF | 1R | 4R | SF | 3 / 14 | 59–11 | 84% |
| US Open | 4R | SF | W | W | W | SF | 4R | W | F | 1R | QF | 2R | 2R | SF | 3R | 4R | 4 / 16 | 66–12 | 85% |
| Win–Loss | 9–3 | 5–2 | 9–1 | 15–2 | 18–1 | 11–2 | 18–3 | 20–1 | 18–4 | 0–1 | 4–2 | 5–3 | 10–3 | 8–3 | 5–3 | 12–4 | 7 / 45 | 168–38 | 82% |
| Year-end championships | |||||||||||||||||||
| The Masters | A | A | W | SF | RR | SF | F | W | W | RR | A | A | SF | A | A | A | 3 / 9 | 19–11 | 63% |
| WCT Finals | A | A | W | F | W | F | W | W | QF | A | F | A | W | A | A | A | 5 / 9 | 21–4 | 84% |
| Win–Loss | 8–0 | 4–3 | 3–3 | 4–3 | 5–1 | 6–0 | 3–1 | 0–1 | 2–1 | 5–2 | 8 / 18 | 40–15 | 73% | ||||||
| Year-end ranking | 21 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 10 | 11 | 4 | 13 | 28 | 20 | $12,547,797 | ||
- It includes the YECs and the year-end rankings, and for good reason too. The editors that have been removing them are the same ones as the type that aren't aware that the guidelines even exist. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why should we include the rankings? To answer that, you would have to think what a reader would want to use the performance timelines for. Most readers probably use the timelines to figure out which years a player was playing the best in their career, and when they weren't. Unfortunately, you can't always tell that from just a player's Grand Slam results. Wozniacki was No. 1 for two years when she didn't reach a Grand Slam singles final. She also finished outside the top 5 in one of the years where she did have a US Open runner-up finish. The rankings give that away. The Grand Slam tournaments aren't the only thing that is important. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is not the guideline chart for main pages. That is one of the approved charts for players bios when all they have is a main page. But once they get a separate career stats page we use the one at the bottom of the WTA section. We have done that for years and years. I haven't seen that older chart used in a decade because we now add all the masters 1000 events and National representation tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a real chart on a main page from a player with a career statistics page. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't say it wasn't real. I said that's not the way we have done it in a long time. We do it the way we have it on Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Serena Williams, etc... The simple standard grand slam only chart is so current consensus I didn't even know anyone thought differently. Obviously you do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a real chart on a main page from a player with a career statistics page. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is not the guideline chart for main pages. That is one of the approved charts for players bios when all they have is a main page. But once they get a separate career stats page we use the one at the bottom of the WTA section. We have done that for years and years. I haven't seen that older chart used in a decade because we now add all the masters 1000 events and National representation tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why should we include the rankings? To answer that, you would have to think what a reader would want to use the performance timelines for. Most readers probably use the timelines to figure out which years a player was playing the best in their career, and when they weren't. Unfortunately, you can't always tell that from just a player's Grand Slam results. Wozniacki was No. 1 for two years when she didn't reach a Grand Slam singles final. She also finished outside the top 5 in one of the years where she did have a US Open runner-up finish. The rankings give that away. The Grand Slam tournaments aren't the only thing that is important. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sofia Kenin pageviews
Hi! I was getting a different view count for Sofia Kenin and wanted to check if I was doing something wrong. For the year before promotion, I only found 348,416 pageviews, and a lot of that was from a spike. Did you use a different method? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Reidgreg, I was using the page view count from the last 365 days from today, not the promotion date. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I see where you get it (1.4 million). For that period, the median views (views for a typical day, discounting the very high and very low values) is 254 views per day, so most of the total is from spikes. Just FYI. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is typical for tennis players to get most of their views during the Grand Slam tournaments (in January, June, July, and September), but many of the top players still get one million views annually as long as they stay at or near the top. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I see where you get it (1.4 million). For that period, the median views (views for a typical day, discounting the very high and very low values) is 254 views per day, so most of the total is from spikes. Just FYI. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, you opened this GA review on January 8, and have not returned to it since. Are you still interested in pursuing the review and able to start it up soon, or should I delete the review page and put the nomination back into the pool of those looking for a reviewer? Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- I still plan to get to it. I started the review in my sandbox. I've just been busy in real life this month. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Suzanne Lenglen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Suzanne Lenglen 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 Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Clijsters rivalry pov
If you don't want me to do it, write out a new rivalry section for Kim Clijsters with all five women having their own headings... Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Venus, and Serena. Put it on a sandbox page and we can go over it till we feel it's correct (or as correct as we can agree on). Then we don't have the back and forth changes that neither of us want. I'm sure if we work together we can get something non-pov that does justice to the article that our readers will like. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Suzanne Lenglen
The article Suzanne Lenglen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Suzanne Lenglen for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ons Jabeur
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ons Jabeur 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Dayana Yastremska
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dayana Yastremska 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Dayana Yastremska
The article Dayana Yastremska you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dayana Yastremska for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Dayana Yastremska
The article Dayana Yastremska you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dayana Yastremska for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ons Jabeur
The article Ons Jabeur you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ons Jabeur for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ons Jabeur
The article Ons Jabeur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ons Jabeur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Sofia Anna "Sonya" Kenin in the lead
There was no sourcing in the article for either Anna or Sonya so I removed the additions. Feel free to put it back if it's mentioned in her early life and background with sources. I didn't really see any reliable ones in google but I didn't look hard. Even if her nickname is Sonya per MOS it should not go in quotes in the middle of her name. It should be in parentheses (also known as Sonya Kenin). The only time we put Sonya in quotes is if she is mostly known as Sonya and the article title is Under "Sonya Kenin." Then you would write her real name with Sonya in quotes in the middle. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Suzanne Lenglen
The article Suzanne Lenglen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Suzanne Lenglen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erin Phillips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cahill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bianca Andreescu
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bianca Andreescu 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bianca Andreescu
The article Bianca Andreescu you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bianca Andreescu for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bianca Andreescu
The article Bianca Andreescu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bianca Andreescu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Erin Phillips
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erin Phillips 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Erin Phillips
The article Erin Phillips you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Erin Phillips for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Erin Phillips
The article Erin Phillips you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erin Phillips for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Erin Phillips
Hello! Your submission of Erin Phillips 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! Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Erin Phillips
On 8 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erin Phillips, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after not having played Australian rules football competitively since she was 13, Erin Phillips won the inaugural AFL Women's best and fairest award in 2017 in her first season back at age 31? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erin Phillips. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Erin Phillips), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry
I made a mistake I was vandalism patrolling and I accidentally thought you vandalized. Sorry DerianGuy40 (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's no big deal. Usually section removal is vandalism, haha. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Haha yeah DerianGuy40 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Erin Phillips
Congrats on the new FA! Very nice work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Alanna the Brave! Seems like we're on track! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Erin Phillips TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 24,, 2020. 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/September 24, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Althea Gibson
Hi Sportsfan77777, I was looking for where, in either source, it stated she made her debut on her 23rd birthday, as both sources confirmed she was 23 but not her debut was on her birthday. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I think you're right! SI says the match was on 28 August (the tournament itself began on her birthday, 25 August). I'll change the wording. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Removing accessibility features at Naomi Osaka
Why are you reverting the insertion of semantics for the blind? How does that make the encyclopedia better? Have you read MOS:TABLECAPTION or MOS:SMALL? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Frank Gore - Good article nomination
Thanks for the kind comments on the Frank Gore article. I definitely need to work on my prose to make some lines not sound so robotic. That will eventually be one of the steps I take in the future to improve the articles and those like it. Red Director (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Red Director, sure, no problem. Just noting that the main reason I had failed the nomination was because the nominator had never edited the article before nominating, not because of the quality. I thought the article was actually in pretty good shape. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Good deal. I found that interesting that the nominator never edited it. Red Director (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Professional carrer summary
Hey man,
I am so delighted with the way you wrote summary for Elena Rybakina. I'm really thankfull cause of that. I'm wondering, if you are able to do something similar to Marie Bouzkova page? I wrote some summary, but I'm not so good with writing such things, and also not so skilled with writing references, so if you're able to do this, I will appreciate it. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- JamesAndersoon, thanks! I'll try to get to it before the end of the year. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sportsfan77777 Thanks! I really appreciate it! :) - JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Elena Rybakina
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elena Rybakina 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Elena Rybakina
The article Elena Rybakina you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elena Rybakina for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Elena Rybakina
The article Elena Rybakina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elena Rybakina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for substantially beefing up this article. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Iga Świątek
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iga Świątek 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Iga Świątek
The article Iga Świątek you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Iga Świątek for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your reverts of my nominations (PAFC and Australian Rules Football)
Hi Sportsfan,
Whilst I do believe you were acting in good faith with the dual revert of my two nominations, there was actually no reason to do so. There is no rule stipulating that an editor nominating an article must have contributed significantly to the page in question. In fact, the contrary is stated on multiple occasions - "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." (Under Good Article Nominations/Instructions) and "Anyone may nominate an article" (under Good Article Nominations/Nominations). Whilst preferable, yes, it does not exclude me from performing a nomination of the two pages I have. I hope you understand.
Thanks, Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Empoleonmaster23, you are right. You are welcome to nominate. Often when someone nominates an article they haven't edited much, they aren't willing to follow up and address the issues brought up in the review process. If someone reviews the articles you nominated, are you prepared to make the necessary changes to get those articles to GA status? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I am! I'm more than aware of the fact that more often that not, changes are needed before a GA nomination can be approved (PAFC previously failing back in 2015 can be a good example of this.) Despite not editing on those specific pages too often, I have been fairly active on other related pages. I'd be more than willing to shift my focus onto those pages to help achieve a more global recognition that they deserve. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Your GA nomination of Aleksandra Goryachkina
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aleksandra Goryachkina 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 Sanfranciscogiants17 -- Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Aleksandra Goryachkina
The article Aleksandra Goryachkina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aleksandra Goryachkina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sanfranciscogiants17 -- Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Thanks for your edits to women in chess. If you would offer feedback on the talk page I would greatly appreciate it. Also I think that comments would make it easier for more people to address the problems. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
- Bluerasberry, I appreciate your interest in creating a women in chess article, but I assure you that you are doing more harm than good in trying to write about such a broad topic if you don't know anything about chess and aren't willing to do adequate research (at least 20 hours worth). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: In general, I would encourage you to read WP:Writing about women as I worry you are contributing to sexism on Wikipedia. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I hear what you are saying. If you want to talk more then I would like that, but you have already given a lot of good feedback and I will not ask for more.
- I am unsure if I should say more now, or if I should step away, or if another course of action is better.
- I should think for a while and talk things over with other people. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women
Hi Sportsfan77777, I'm new to Women in Green (only joined yesterday), so I'm still finding my way around. I am currently working on getting a GA article about a WSL match, Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women, into a good enough shape for FAC, and one issue that has come up is the club names in the article's title. I just started a discussion on WT:FOOTY and would appreciate your views on the matter. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
creating see also or main article links
I noticed new red links in tennis great Suzanne Lenglen's article. Those links should exists before creating the links. And I also thing the Lenglen incident at Wimbledon is far too trivial to be in an article of its own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's more straightforward to create the page if it is redlinked. I don't agree with the latter point; there are too many things going on to fit everything into the main article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I still think it's incredibly trivial for a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)