User talk:Stivushka

Welcome

Hello, Stivushka, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

This is Stivushka's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharjah National Oil Corporation (SNOC) (March 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires more significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability - the first 3 sources are not independent

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sharjah National Oil Corporation (SNOC) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sharjah National Oil Corporation (SNOC), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stivushka! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sharjah National Oil Corporation (SNOC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Sharjah National Oil Corporation (SNOC), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Stivushka. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. creffett (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNOC Page

I am employed by the Sharjah NationalOil Corporation (though not to create a wikipedia page), I have listed this on my page. I am not trying to create an advert and I think the original submission was balanced it was certainly not significantly different from ENOC page (The state oil corporation next door in Dubai).

I would be delighted if somebody unconnected to SNOC would write a page but its been 9 years since the corporation was founded and 5 years since SNOC took over all the onshore oil and gas assets in the the UAE's third largest Emirate ... and still no page. If I don't create a page then who will?

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharjah National Oil Corporation has been accepted

Sharjah National Oil Corporation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

– Ammarpad (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MV Fingal (May 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:MV Fingal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:MV Fingal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two reference articles from well known Scottish newspapers. Both articles are exclusively about this ship.

In addition to its history as a working lighthouses ship, the MV Fingal is a key part of a major tourist attraction in Edinburgh and was voted as one of the UK’s best attractions at the 2022 TripAdvisor awards. Given the ships history and public prominence I think it qualifies for a Wikipedia article .. frankly I was surprised it doesn't have one already. Stivushka (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Stivushka (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted with additional citations ... both citations are from major Scottish newspapers and both articles are exclusively about this specific ship.

In addition to its history as a lighthouse ship the Fingal is now part of a major tourist attraction in Scotland which I think more than justifies a Wikipedia page.

Stivushka (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had also added paragraph covering the 2016 painting of the Fingal as a Dazzle ship to mark the 100th year anniversary of the battle of Jutland. Paragraph has citation from the Financial Times.

I think at this point I have added more than enough citations to show that this ship warrants a Wikipedia page. Stivushka (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:MV Fingal has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:MV Fingal. Thanks! RPSkokie (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO number added. 5419957.

As the ship is now a hotel it no longer actively tracked which was why I did not initially include it. Stivushka (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Number added Stivushka (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MV Fingal has been accepted

MV Fingal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Le Rhône 9C

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Le Rhône 9C, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Armengaud-Lemale Gas Turbine

A tag has been placed on Armengaud-Lemale Gas Turbine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Article should gave been created in draft. Article moved to draft as soon as error spotted. Stivushka (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Humphrey pump

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Humphrey pump, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For making sense of the article on the Renault 70hp aero-engine. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Hi, I noticed in an edit summary that you have completed the switch from a deprecated system. To my knowledge the system in use is not deprecated. Wikipedia:CITEVAR advises against change of style without good reason, the article used the non-templated form of citation when I created it (if in doubt when there are mixed styles refer to the style used at the creation of an article). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I was confusing what Wikipedia calls Footnote3 with shortened ref. In any case the purpose of the edit was to get the article into a consistent format as I had added several sources in one style and there was only one left in the short/bibliographic style.

In cases where I have added one reference I always go with the style used majority of the references. Both systems look okay but I try to avoid mixed. Stivushka (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Stivushka. Thank you for your work on Peugeot 8Aa. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SunDawn, much appreciated. Stivushka (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive!

You scored 138 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this cleanup barnstar. Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Holzwarth gas turbine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Holzwarth gas turbine 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Holzwarth gas turbine

The article Holzwarth gas turbine you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Holzwarth gas turbine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holzwarth gas turbine and page numbers.

Hey I just wanted to reach out to you in regards to my request that you use more specefic page numbers for the page Holzwarth gas turbine. I realize I didn't give much guidance on this. If you have multiple citations from the same source that take info from different pages it might be useful to use either the rp, sfn, or harvnb templates. sfn and harvnb come with a bit of a learning curve but if you want to learn more about them User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates is a really great introduction. rp may be easiest for you. how it works is you use your referance like you normally would:

information blah blah blah.<ref name="s799">{{cite book | last=Eckardt | first=Dietrich | title=Jet Web | publisher=Springer | publication-place=Wiesbaden, Germany [Heidelberg] | date=2022-11-14 | isbn=978-3-658-38530-9}}</ref>

But then after the final ref tag you add the template {{rp}}. So it should look like this:

information blah blah blah.<ref name="s799">{{cite book | last=Eckardt | first=Dietrich | title=Jet Web | publisher=Springer | publication-place=Wiesbaden, Germany [Heidelberg] | date=2022-11-14 | isbn=978-3-658-38530-9}}</ref>{{rp|p=23}} With |p= whatever page number you're using.

This is by no means required but I thought it just might be easier for you. The page is looking much better already, keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I’ve never seen that method before. It's a much better option than having to use the short/biographical style if using widely scattered information from the single book. Stivushka (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Holzwarth gas turbine

The article Holzwarth gas turbine 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:Holzwarth gas turbine and Talk:Holzwarth gas turbine/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Holzwarth gas turbine

The article Holzwarth gas turbine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Holzwarth gas turbine for comments about the article, and Talk:Holzwarth gas turbine/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Peugeot 8Aa

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peugeot 8Aa 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA backlog drive

Hi! I wanted to let you know that unfortunately, I've removed some of your listed reviews in the ongoing backlog drive. This drive is focused on reviewing articles by newer nominators, and while Chiswick Chap is a great writer, he's very experienced at GA and so none of his articles were eligible for the drive. You can see the lists of eligible articles higher up on the page. In addition, your reviews were very perfunctory (or "checklist"). Even if you don't find anything needing changed (and that's a very rare case indeed), you should still write a little in the review about what your review found, and especially mention that you have spot-checked or looked at the sources to be sure they're being used accurately. I'm happy to give more advice about what makes a good GA review or share some examples if you are interested. Thanks for contributing - happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ganesha811, as stated in the review I did find several issues. In total I made

Goat - 2 edits

Lemon - 3 edits

Citrus - 1 edit (this one had very little that was wrong)

As these edits were not controversial (dead links, adding ISBN, and some minor changes to text) I simply did them without much back and forward with Chiswick Chap which is why its looks "perfunctory". As you said Chiswick Chap is an experienced writer and the articles are already at a high standard. If you look at the review done on the Lockheed Martin FB-22 earlier, you will see a different pattern.

Your point on GA reviews from experienced editors not counting towards totals is noted. Stivushka (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were already at a high standard for sure, but there are still things which could be improved, and should have been caught in a GA review. From a quick glance at one of them (lemon): there's an error in citation formatting (#30, title given twice), a possibly unreliable source (Buzzle.com), a citation to a 7300 page book without a page number (Comprehensive Natural Products) in the citation, a malformed author/title field (#24, "says, 3 easy tips"), a typo ("vaiegated" instead of "variegated"), and a link which leads to a missing table (#18, FAOSTATS), etc. And that's just from looking at about ⅓ of the cites in that article and not reading any prose or considering comprehensiveness/detail. I recommend you re-open the reviews and go through them again with a finer-toothed comb.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a quick review, or with performing fixes directly to the article yourself (I usually do that with prose for my own reviews). But describing your process in the GA review is an important part of the work, because it lets everyone else see *why* the article made it to GA. It gives them confidence in the distinction. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay noted will reopen Stivushka (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I reopen? Stivushka (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it manually - revert the GA review page to the prior version before you passed the article. That's done by going into 'View History' for the GA page, then clicking on the old revision, and clicking [restore this version]. You can do the same on the article's general talk page and on the article itself to remove the GA button. You'd then also remove the articles from the list at WP:GA. I don't think there's a way to do it automatically, unfortunately. Happy to help if you need it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to be thorough - there are issues beyond the specific ones I pointed out, for all 3 articles! Thanks for going back and revisiting these reviews. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ganesha811. I went through the Lemon review and fixed the reference issues you spotted, and I wasn't able to revert the article ... I don't see an option to do this. Stivushka (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can re-open the reviews, if you aren't able to - let me know. I described the process earlier in the thread. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell I am not able to reopen the reviews. Stivushka (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once they are reopened I will go through with a fine tooted combe and will invite second opinion. Stivushka (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened Goat and lemon - citrus is still open, so no need to reopen. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks again. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I held off on the Citrus after your comments.

For the Lemon and Citrus articles is there a particular “big issue” that I should focus on … I have to say the the prose looks pretty slick

The only concern I had was the reliance on websites which will result in dead links and high maintenance needs down the line … but this is not grounds for fail. Stivushka (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could take a look at some of the GA reviews done in the drive by others like Sammi Brie or voorts to get an idea - everyone reviews differently, so there's no one right way. You can also ask for advice at the GA talk page or by asking for a second opinion, as you mentioned. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal suggestion is simply to list items to be fixed by the GA nominator (such as me), rather than using the table. The list demonstrates both that you have had a careful look at the article and found some items, and documents nom's responses. In contrast, the table format quickly becomes awkward to navigate when there are many items with responses; it works best used as a summary at the end. Just my twopence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Peugeot 8Aa

The article Peugeot 8Aa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peugeot 8Aa for comments about the article, and Talk:Peugeot 8Aa/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon review

I'd say you were making good progress reviewing both Goat and Lemon; if you carry on like that, there'll be no need for a second opinion really (a major holdup). You could always just take one of the other suggestions, such as asking one of the GAN crowd to have a look over your review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will look at other comparative reviews to ensure consistency (but not Strawberry) instead of bringing in another editor. Stivushka (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]