User talk:UndercoverClassicist

Reply

Hi. I do not want the FAC to be flooded because of my ignorance since this is my first time. But yeah, I actually followed the pattern at the FA Jill Valentine. Since you said that it needs a good look, I guess the only thing I can do is wait for the spot-check/source reviewer. Anyway, I really appreciate your feedback, and many thanks for your time. I'm so sorry for that. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for -- I think you've done a good job with the article, and FAC is always about finding areas where it can be further improved -- as it says at the top of the page, it's taken as read that the article has lots of good things about it, because it would hardly have got to a nomination if it didn't! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! Well, I guess all I had to do was hope that the spotchecker wouldn't find significant issues since we all tried our best with it. Regards. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

When I said it "needs a good look", I had in mind that you would be the one to carry it out -- I'm talking about the next step in writing/polishing the article, not in reviewing it. If I were you, I would read over again the sources that talk about sexuality/sexualisation, find out what they base their comments on, and build that into the article. If you find that it's not based on a whole lot, then the article itself needs to reflect that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The sexuality/sexualisation part is at 2nd and 3rd paragraph right? I will admit that these sources are kinda complicated, but I will try to take a look and check it again for the 3rd time. Thanks again 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is the overall flow of what is and isn't in the article, so I would look at the article as a whole, once you've reviewed the sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I already checked the sources from 2nd-3rd paragraph and made several changes. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: My co-nominator already checked what I rewrote and he is already satisfied. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Would you able to continue your review? People might wonder why we haven't finished yet. Sorry for badgering. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviews don't necessarily end in a statement of support or opposition -- here, I don't think I have anything to add to what I've already written. It's good that your co-nominator is satisfied with the text, but in my opinion the substance of what I wrote in the review remains true. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Thanks. Your feedback was very helpful since you were absolutely right that some sentences at the reception before needs to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Hi again. Hope you're fine and sorry for badgering you. The reception section went a lot of changes because other reviewers and I thought that you might want to recheck if you can? Thank you! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen David Fuchs' comments in the review -- he is an excellent reviewer (and indeed writer), and I would encourage you to look carefully at his advice. On the reception section itself, I think what I wrote previously remains true, though David has put his finger on some points that I had not articulated so well, such as the balance between quotation and synthesis: there's a lot of voices but not really enough supporting material for the reader to make sense of the conversation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We did made some changes at his main concern about the design and appearances section though. If he still disagreed then I guess I'll give up. Also, tagging SchroCat 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see those issues in the most important comment he has left you -- I'll take the liberty of breaking it into bullet points.

I'm not sure most of my issues above have been addressed.

• The tense issues in the reception section remain.
• The point that Ada was just a random name thrown into RE1 that was repurposed is still unclear.
• The article as a whole repeats itself heavily, with the Concept and design section mostly being an in-universe description of the character in its appearances, before those appearances are elaborated on further afterwards in the Appearances section;
• The changes to this section just make it more confusing since:
  • It spends its time talking about the games in a non-chronological sense
  • It's missing a lot of context ("Ada's red side-split dress, choker, and high heels from the original version of the game were replaced for the 2023 remake of Resident Evil 4" for instance, tells us what her revised design was not, rather than what it was.)
• I think there's an overuse of quotes that obfuscate the meaning rather than clarify. * I'm not sold the layout of the article is the best way to present the information to a casual audience. I'm regretfully going to oppose since I don't think this is something to be addressed in the scope of FAC.

It's entirely your right to disagree, of course, but you're not going to change anyone's mind by simply doing so. I noticed with a few of my suggestions, you replied to the effect of "I and my collaborators think it's fine" -- that's as may be, but to get an article through FAC, you need to bring the reviewers on board as well. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but I think some nominators see FAC comments as challenges that need to be met (or dismissed, or otherwise "beaten"), rather than as ideas to work with and opportunities to build support for promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Boneless Pizza!, I am travelling from tomorrow, but I will try to get a review done today. I have had one quick readthrough and I think I probably support what both Dave Fuchs and UC have both articulated, but, of course, I could be wrong. If I do agree with them both, it would leave the nomination a long way short of a consensus to promote, which is, I am sure, not what you want. I really do advise you to withdrawn and go through the comments you've had up to now to see what can be used to improve and strengthen the article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess you guys were right as I don't think continuing this discussions would help us but waste our time. But, can I perhaps wait for Fuch's reply before withdrawing it in order for us to resolve the issues outside of FAC after withdrawing? I aplogize that I ended up wasting a lot of people's time here. I really doubt we can pull this up like it did with its related article, Jill Valentine. I'm not so sure if setting up peer review would attract more attentions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you will have wasted people's time if you use their reviews to improve the article further. Use the comments from the PR and the FAC as a "basis for an improvements list" and you will be able to bring this up to a much higher level than it is now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed -- it's not a failure if the article doesn't get through FAC on a given nomination, and the process almost invariably does a lot of good for the article and, hopefully, the people involved in working on it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing it now. But yeah, despite the concerns above I still don't understand what to fix exactly. I feel like I really want reviewers to be really specific in every detail for me to figure it out. I would like to thank you all for being sincere. I will set up the peer review again soon as its too unhealthy for me to continue again and perhaps pinged all the opposing reviewers first before re-nominating it again soon. If you guys want to share your issues, feel free to put it into Talk:Ada Wong. Thanks and regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

(Replying here versus my talk page) Boneless, I'm first going to point out first that there's no "FAC policy". FAC is a user-driven process, it's not a part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beyond that, there's no requirement that a reviewer list every single thing they take issue with. There's cases where FACs stall out because a reviewer finds issues, the nominator responds, the user finds more issues, and it goes on in a death loop. That's very much not what FAC is supposed to be about—it's supposed to be a way of polishing up articles that are nearly there and are presumed overall quite good. The process tends to drag these days from when I started participating years and years ago for a bunch of reasons, some very good (standards have risen dramatically) and not good (people I think are afraid of registering opposes because they don't want to feel harsh or judgmental of others' work, peer review as a process often isn't actually an effective place to get cold feedback) but ultimately it's not supposed to be peer review, and if there are issues that reviewers think are substantial that's a sign that it should probably get workshopped outside of FAC (and GAN to a lesser degree.) If you do fundamentally disagree with a reviewer, you can also note that on the FAC and coordinators will factor that in; there are times when you simply won't see eye to eye with others and it makes more sense to leave it as is and solicit other opinions rather than trying to go back and forth.

Like Undercover mentions, FAC is about the nitpicks and the criticisms, because it's assumed you already have a good article to start, and it's an issue that lots of people have and burn out on the process because of it. I don't think the Ada Wong article can never become FA-quality. Character articles are hard—probably the toughest video game-related articles to write. Reception sections are tough for virtually any subject that has them. There's no one-size fits all approach and FACs also depend on who shows up to them, so some are going to be better articles with a more rigorous process than others, so I would focus less on Jill Valentine and more on what sources and content you have for this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I already knew before that video gane characters tend to be more harder than just other fictional character articles. Sometimes its ridiculous that articles like Mario Party DS wasn't really scrutinized and the it was promoted despite that there are visible issues like ref bombing and etc. I can see that both you and UC are getting busier when the day progress. Hopefully both of you can weigh in soon when the peer review started after pinging all the opposers in that page soon. Many thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi again UndercoverClassicist and David Fuchs, sorry for bothering. I recently finished Aoba47's review at peer review and thought that the reception has improved and could you use some eyes. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind Request for Review; Article: ARISTOPHANES; BIOGRAPHY | 3rd Review COMPLETED;

@UndercoverClassicist,

I have been addressed to you by Gerda Arendt . She kindly suggested your name, because I wish to edit the article on Aristophanes, but it is my first contribution to Wikipedia, after a long time. I would start to review and edit the Aristophanes Biography, and I kindly ask if you are available to review my draft before I publish it. With Kind Regards HeracleonGelensis. Thank you. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely -- send me a link when it's ready and I'll have a look. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed.I will proceed. --HeracleonGelensis. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear UndercoverClassicist, here is the link to my sandbox. I have completed to edit the Biography of Aristophanes. Please review it and tell me your opinion about it. Thanks in advance and Kind Regards --HeracleonGelensis

User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

OK - a few thoughts as I give it a first read:

• The structure could be refined to make it easier on the reader. In general, try to make paragraphs consist of 3–6 sentences or so, and sections consist of around 3–5 paragraphs. We have a lot of material in a single big section: can you add some subsections to break it up and create structure?
• Equally, try to make sure that a paragraph expresses a single idea -- if you're going to carry on talking about the plot of a play, for example, you generally want to stay in the same paragraph, unless you can find a way of changing the focus for a new one.
• Primary sources, such as Aristophanes' works, are not generally considered usable for most of what we want to do. Presumably, you found most of these references in other scholarly works, so cite those directly -- there's nothing wrong with then including the primary reference as well to allow interested readers to follow it up.
• Formatting: citations go after the punction, in general, like this.. See MOS:CITE for details. The formatting of the footnotes is quite inconsistent -- using citation templates would help here.
• Images need captions and alt text. Given the quantity of material here, it would be good to find a few more.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much for your suggestions: they are very precious indeed. I will start review the text taking into account the good points that you reported to me. I will need some days; then, when I am done, I will write to you back. Thanks, in the meantime, for your kind help --HeracleonGelensis 151.38.159.182 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear Mentor, Thanks indeed for your insightful proposals. I have made a 2nd revision of the draft of Aristophanes, Biography. You can find the revised text at User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox.

I have divided the text in sections, as you stated well; added illustrations; amended citations, finding other more recent comments to Ar. works. I have not gone into much details of the surviving plays, because there are other sections of the article "Aristophanes" to be worked on. Indeed, I was afraid that the whole article would become too long; moreover, there are several separate articles on the surviving plays (Acharnians, Frogs. Clouds etc:): I preferred to give a complete but not over-detailed biography of the poet. Please, let me have your comments, at your earliest convenience. Kind Regards --HeracleonGelensis. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This is getting much better -- still a few things to look at on formatting, particularly of subheadings and references. I would also try to make those subheadings as concise as possible -- it's unusual to use a subheading longer than five words. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear Mentor, Thanks for your useful advices. I have revised the text according to them. The revision of subheading has made the system generate the Biography index by itself. I have also reviewed and grouped the citations as much as possible. Please tell me if the overall configuration needs an upgrade or it is ready to be published, in your opinion. Last, but not least, I have inserted several pictures, that I have made on my own, instructing Dall.E: when I uploaded then, the WIkipedia system accepted them. I would ask if you find appropriate that I add "made with AI assistance" in the picture description, or if it is immaterial. Thank you. --HeracleonGelensis

Here is the link to the revised draft. User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

AI images are likely to be controversial, put mildly -- there is limited consensus on them at the moment, but in previous reviews, the general view has been that they should not be used when good images of real objects exist. In this case, there are plenty of artefacts, vase paintings, ancient sites and so on that can illustrate the article, so I would advise against including AI-generated images at all.

As for the substance of the section, it looks pretty good. A good proof-read, for formatting, MoS compliance and natural English, would benefit it greatly: I'm happy to volunteer to do that, but as it would involve making more than trivial changes I would want to do so once you're happy that you've done most of what you wish to with it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist

Thanks again for your precious suggestions. I will do as you told me: either for the images and for the proof-read. I will try to improve the text by some attempts of mine first; then, when I am done, I will leave it to your final revision, if you agree. Thanks, in the meantime --HeracleonGelensis HeracleonGelensis (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist

I have completed the 3rd review according to your suggestions (MoS and natural English) as much as possible; I have also modified the titles of Aristophanes' works, deleting "The" as it is incorrect (in Greek they do not have article, nor the scholars use "The" in translation: therefore, "Clouds", not "The Clouds"). I have completely revised the citations, grouping and simplifying and now.. I wait for your opinion. Thank you. --HeracleonGelensis. The link to the draft is User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll give it a look. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, two things to look at, one easier to fix than the other:

• Don't use punctuation or bold font in titles -- they should simply be e.g. ==Early years==.
• Much of the draft is uncited, which will pose a problem. Each sentence needs at least one citation to a reliable work of scholarship. If two sentences use exactly the same work and page, you can save the citation until the end of the second one, but there always needs to be a citation no later than the end of the paragraph (see WP:CITE for detail).

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much indeed: instructions are very clear! I will proceed as per your suggestions; then, I will revert to you by the end of September. Kind regards. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Consultation

Greetings! I've been working on the article for The Importance of Being Earnest, which was promoted to Good Article in 2010 and to my eye in 2024 didn't look anything approaching Good. Whether it is now Good or thereabouts after my ministrations is something I'm not sure about. I've filled in lots of gaps, deleted trivia, and fixed the references, but I wonder is it too bitty? Cogent enough? Too many sections (mostly not by me) of analysis? If you have half an hour to spare at some point I'd be glad if you'd look at the article and give me your opinion. I take the liberty of hitching a ride on your talk page to flag the same request up to SchroCat. Comments, if any, perhaps best on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 18:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Steve Jobs Of Africa (16:43, 23 August 2024)

Hello, I am Abu David from Nigeria.

I am super excited to know you'll be my mentor in this space, I have always seen a lot of great people who do great things in society go unrecognised.

I want to take it as a personal mission to spotlight people from Africa to the world through a global platform like Wikipedia.

I'd greatly appreciate your mentorship on this platform --Steve Jobs Of Africa (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Broun

The article Thomas Broun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Broun for comments about the article, and Talk:Thomas Broun/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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Gilliéron

Hi there. I've added a handful of sources to the reference list of the Gilliéron article, which I expect to cite over the next few weeks as I add some of the information I've learned from reading the essays in the Olympisme catalogue. Feel free to adjust anything that you think needs fixing to bring it into line with WP style, both in the citations and in the prose, when I get around to adding it. No need to consult with me first; I trust your judgment. All I ask is that you give me a heads-up if you disagree about the actual content (on grounds of accuracy, appropriateness, weight, etc.).

Citation question: Does the cite book template provide any way to cite the author of a chapter within a book that is authored (not edited) by someone else? Paul Wolters wrote the foreword to the first volume of Die Antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen by Graef and Langlotz, but the only way I could find to include Wolters's name as the author of the forward was to list Graef and Langlotz as the editors of the work, which is incorrect. (Graef was already dead when the first volume appeared, so he certainly wasn't an editor.) The main body of the work was prepared by Graef and Langlotz, and it is always cited that way, even though Wolters (and others) helped to see it through publication. But if I list Graef and Langlotz as the authors, there seems to be no way to credit Wolters specifically with the foreword. I guess what I'm asking is if there is any way to suppress the notation "(eds.)" in the listing of the volume authors (as opposed to the chapter author). I suspect this is just a limitation of the template, but I figure if anyone knows a workaround, it would be you. Choliamb (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi -- excellent job there; I had half a mind to polish that article up for a future FAC, and had tentatively put it on my to-do list to go through the sources you'd flagged up and see what can be added from them.

On the citations, yes -- use the |contributor-last1= (etc) and |contribution= parameters, and then keep |author-last1= etc and |title= for the author of the main work. For example: Knox, Bernard. Introduction. Aeneid. By Virgil. Fagles, Robert (ed.). Penguin Classics.. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) and (edit conflict) You beat me to the explanation, UC! Choliamb, you can use the following:

{{cite book| contributor-last=Wolters| contributor-first=Paul| contribution=Vorwart| last1=Graef| first1=Botho| last2=Langlotz| first2=Ernst| title=Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen| publisher=De Gruyter| place=Berlin| volume=I |date=1925| at=cols. i–xxxvi}}

this renders as

Wolters, Paul (1925). "Vorwart". Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen. By Graef, Botho; Langlotz, Ernst. Vol. I. Berlin: De Gruyter. cols. i–xxxvi.

Then you can use sfn|Wolters as before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Contributor it is. Thanks to both of you. Choliamb (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

FAC

You kindly made a suggestion or two on my talk page while I was preparing the article on The Importance of Being Earnest for FAC. It is now at FAC, and any further comments you may have will be greatly appreciated, if you are inclined to look in. Tim riley talk 21:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments left -- I think the only "big" one is the treatment of Craft and the literature on the play as queer literature; most of the rest are the usual nit-picks and pedantic bits of MoS. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Biliotti

On 3 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Biliotti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Biliotti. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Biliotti), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kbsknives (15:24, 3 September 2024)

how do i post a article about my brand or website? --Kbsknives (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- this is generally considered not to be a very good idea, and most people who do it end up disappointed, either because the article is deleted (as it usually is) or because it does not turn out as they would like it to. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Apocalyptic comments

Although you got quite a bit of pushback from the author, your FAC comments on the Apocalypse of Peter were stellar, both on content and on points of style. I was doing a little aimless bedtime browsing just now and I ended up reading them all. I don't know how you find the time to do such thorough, sensible reviews for what seems like every second or third nominated article, no matter what the category, while still writing so much excellent content of your own. I have too many reservations about WP to donate much time and energy to it, and most of the classical and archaeological articles are such absolute crap that it seems pointless to try to improve them. But your contributions are always an exception, and the amount that you've accomplished in just a couple of years is really impressive. As I'm sure you've noticed, I usually take the time to comment only when I have criticisms or suggestions for improvement, which can make me seem even more churlish than I actually am, so I thought I'd make an exception and tell you straight out how much I admire what you do here, even when I nitpick over some of the details. Choliamb (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you -- and if I could return the compliment with a completely unsolicited one, can I put on record how much I enjoy and appreciate your reviews, corrections and explanations when they come in. It's very rare to have a reviewer who knows the topic well enough to pick up the sort of points you do, but you do a remarkable job of being thorough and rightly critical without ever being unkind, and of pointing me in the right direction to fix things.

It's definitely a fair observation on Wikipedia's classical articles, and perhaps on our articles more generally -- when they're good, they're very good, but the best of them tend to be obscure little articles on someone's particular interest: paradoxically, it often seems to be the most important ones that need the most work, and those are also sometimes the hardest to improve. I've been slowly working on a sort of audit, based on the sources required for the British GCSE in classics (an exam offered to school students at the age of 16) -- it's quite sobering how much work would be needed to turn that list into a really useful introductory resource to the subject. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

• News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

• In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

• Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

• News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

• Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

• Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

• Traffic report: After the gold rush

• Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Creativeshaku (20:15, 5 September 2024)

hello, i want to edit pages related to education and mathematics, how can i start doing that --Creativeshaku (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Proskatka (06:31, 6 September 2024)

I m not able to publish edited article --Proskatka (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Church of St John of the Collachium

On 9 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Church of St John of the Collachium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Church of St John of the Collachium was said to contain the hand of John the Baptist, a bowl used by Jesus, and a piece of the True Cross? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St John of the Collachium. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Church of St John of the Collachium), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Michel Barnier

On 10 September 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Michel Barnier, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 00:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Acosnath (21:44, 10 September 2024)

Hi, I made this account with the purpose of working to update my college professor's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Regal Is that acceptable in regard to Wikipedia rules? Additionally, I'm aware I can't go off of just what he says for it without sourcing, but is his personal website acceptable to pull info from(such as at least from gathering references)? https://sites.google.com/a/kean.edu/brian-regal-phd/welcome And how much can I take details from speaking to him personally? Finally, can you give any advice as to how I'd undertake this project? To be clear, this isn't for any sort of assignment or anything, and I don't plan to go super in-depth, but I would like to update things at least as it's out of date. --Acosnath (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- fair warning first, it's generally very difficult to write about people you know personally, for various interlocking reasons. There's also a very real risk of the article ending up not to your taste, particularly if you do (or indeed don't) particularly like the person it's about.

With that said:

• In principle, there's no reason why you can't update the page of someone you know, as long as you make sure all of your edits are neutral in their point of view and verifiable from good sources. In particular, make sure you avoid promotional or vague language.
• In general, a person's own website is not a useful source -- there are some exceptions, such as verifying absolutely trivial information (like a date of birth, dates of employment and so on) or if it's useful to quote their own views on a topic (for example, how somebody describes their own areas of academic research).
• You won't be able to include anything that can only be sourced from speaking to the person, but that might help you if a source is unclear, or if two of them appear to be contradictory.

I hope this is helpful -- in all honesty, it is meant to sound slightly discouraging, but do let me know if I can help with this or another project on here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

• The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
• Wikimania presentation
• New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Freston

Hi, UC. You expressed some interest in Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) when I brought it to FAC, and were kind enough to review it. I'm thinking of nominating Freston (causewayed enclosure), perhaps after my current nomination comes off the FAC page, and I was wondering if you had any interest in taking a look at it before it gets to FAC? If not, no worries; and either way I'd be glad to do a review for you if there's anything you'd like another pair of eyes on -- I've had the benefit of more than one of your detailed reviews and would like an opportunity to return the favour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course -- I'll give it a read and leave some comments on Talk. Looks like another interesting site -- I'd be fascinated to know how it came to be that a Canadian university ended up as the one digging a site within spitting distance of both Cambridge and London! I've had Ove Jørgensen sitting at FAC for a while: it's already benefitted from a few reviews, but hasn't had much movement in a couple of weeks, so I wonder if the coordinators are waiting to see if more people can chime in on it. At any rate, your reviews have always been incisive and greatly appreciated. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure -- I'm a bit surprised that hadn't been promoted yet, but perhaps as you say the coords were looking for another set of eyes. I've posted the few nitpicks I could dredge up on Jørgensen; feel free to ping me again if you need another review somewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Broun

On 14 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Broun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Broun has been blamed for inflating the number of beetle species in New Zealand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Broun. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Broun), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Fremantle, 4th Baron Cottesloe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Bird.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A Four Award for you!

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Ove Jørgensen. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Ove Jørgensen

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Ove Jørgensen, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Church of St John of the Collachium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Church of St John of the Collachium 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 Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Church of St John of the Collachium

The article Church of St John of the Collachium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Church of St John of the Collachium for comments about the article, and Talk:Church of St John of the Collachium/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 Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)