User talk:Tomcat7/2014/April

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Church of the Saviour (Tyumen)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Church of the Saviour (Tyumen) 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Church of the Saviour (Tyumen)

The article Church of the Saviour (Tyumen) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Church of the Saviour (Tyumen) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review assistance

Hello Tomcat. Looking at the list of peer review volunteers, I noticed that you were the only one interested in reading articles about rock music, so I was thinking if you could have give Megadeth a look and make a comment on the review page about what keeps the article short of becoming a FA. Thank you for your time and hope that we will have a fruitful collaboration.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Me again. I slightly re-worded the article you've nominated, but I have found some things that are not completely clear to me. The sentence "Chernomyrdin resumed chairing the government, later switching to the party Our Home is Russia" would sound better if you write "After his move to the party Our Home is Russia, Chernomyrdin resumed chairing the government." However, this is somehow confusing because Chernomyrdin's transfer to another party is not related to the theme. Second thing, "The new constitution of the Russian Federation, which was accepted on 25 December 1993, separated those two entities." would be better if "According to the new constitution of the Russian Federation, which was voted on 25 December 1993, those two entities were separated." If you're not satisfied with the review, you might ask another editor to go through the article, since I'm not into this theme. All the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I shortened that sentence. Your proposed sentence might have been understood differently (Chernomyrdin only resumed office after switching to another party). As far as I know, constitutions are not voted, except if you mean the Duma and the Senate voted on plenary meetings to accept it. I will slightly change your formulation. Thanks for the copyedits and comments. Regarding the above peer review, I don't have anymore that knowledge in popular music I had previously, so I won't perhaps review that article. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, forget it, I already found another guy. Anyway, it was nice working with you. Cheers.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Premier League Golden Boot FLC

Hi Tomcat! Long time no hear. Could I trouble you to review my FLC nomination? It's been opened for more than a month now and is in desperate need of reviews. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tomcat7. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
Message added —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2014; 16:19 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.