User talk:Will381796/Archives/2008/May

To someone well-deserving

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For being a straight-talking, impartial, and eloquent editor who actively supports the pursuit of truth. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi. You seem like a rather experienced editor, but you are on a list of editors seeking adoption. Can you explain what you'd like to get from adoption? Perhaps I could help you out. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA review tips

A good GA review is one that can provide helpful information towards improving the article. Unlike FA, GA isn't at the top of the article quality hierarchy, so it's not necessary for articles to be completely combed over and for reviewers to be totally "anal-retentive" about every minute detail. However, the article should still look reasonably good, and mostly adhere to the manual of style. Generally, the more information that you can provide towards improving the article, the better. Even if the article mostly meets the criteria, if you can provide further insight into how the article might become featured at some point, that would help as well.

It helps to structure a review based on the six items listed at WP:WIAGA, and even link to that page in the review itself. You might also be able to point people to some other wiki help pages as well, based on other deficiencies in an article:

• If an article lacks reference citations, or if the citations don't follow consistent formatting, point them to WP:CITE. Reference citations should not consist solely of a link to a website; full citation information should be included (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL was retrieved). This is actually important so that, if the URL ever disappears (like they do quickly with Yahoo news links), the URL is not rendered useless and someone can still use the citation to track down information and perform additional research.
• If an article lacks a good, cohesive, and catching lead section, or the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article, point them to WP:LEAD.
• If there are section header issues, such as really long section header titles, or style issues, point them to WP:MSH.
• General style issues should be directed to the general manual of style page (WP:MOS).
• If there are a lot of external links that can/should be pruned, you can direct them to WP:EL.

Some other common issues that I've seen when reviewing GAs:

• Some really short sections. If there are a lot of sections or subsections with only 1-3 sentences, that's an indication that the article may have completeness issues (criterion #1).
• Many editors like to seriously overuse subsection headers. I've seen some articles with section, subsection, subsubsection, and even subsubsubsection headers. Such overuse, particularly if some of these subsection headers are very short and contain little information, are an indication of a general lack of organization.
• I come across some spelling and minor grammatical errors from time to time. If the article is overall good and only requires from 1-5 edits or so, I usually just make the correction and pass it (this is perfectly acceptable, as long as you don't make major contributions to the article; then you move from being a reviewer to being a contributor). But if I start making too many minor edits, then I stop and just start making notes about things, and pass them on to the editors.
• Editors love the {{main}} and {{seealso}} templates. These tend to be a bit overplaced in the article. Sometimes, you'll find them in between sections and paragraphs, and sometimes, you'll see two or three of these stacked up at the top of a section. Generally, these links only go at the top of a section (see WP:MOS), and links should be combined into one 'see also' statement if there is more than one link; not two separate 'see also' statements.

Hopefully, this gives you an idea for some of the more common things to look out for. You will probably be able to add to this list as you become more experienced. If you're not sure whether to pass or fail an article, there's the option to put a '2nd opinion' template up at WP:GAN, asking another reviewer to add his/her opinion.

Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your GA review

I have taken your suggestions and completed several of the suggestions for your review of Lane Tech. Since I need proper permission to obtain photos of the school, I will not be able to obtain pictures for some time, but I will be happy to put up pictures of the school and events related to the school up asap. Mapletip (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and finished up those citations. Hope it looks good now :) Mapletip (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor removing the citations was me as I wanted to clean it up a bit, they should all be cited now. Also, I have gone ahead and removed the clubs section and added information about clubs at the introductory paragraph. Let me know what you think. Mapletip (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Midget Gems

Hi there. I've rewritten the Midget Gems article (having moved it from Maynard midget gems) and I think it now asserts its notability quite well. I've also got rid of all the unreferenced text (which I'm sure people will complain about, but I think it actually improves the article). I'd be grateful if you'd take a look - hopefully it might change your opinion stated on the AfD!. Take care. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the withdrawal. Thank you also for nominating the article in the first place, otherwise it would probably have remained in its unsourced state for some time! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent image upload to Marriott School

Eustress, I just wanted to let you know that I there might be a problem with the image you recently uploaded (BusinesswithIntegrity.JPG) and placed into the Marriott School article. You state in the image descripting that it is a low resolution scan, which is a requirement for the use of non-free images under fair-use rationale. But, the image itself is a very high resolution (2,304 × 3,072) image. I would suggest reducing the resolution of this scan to avoid any copyright violations. These things tend to get tagged pretty quickly. will381796 (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Never tried this before, but I saw it used on another article. I just took a picture of the book cover...would saving the file as a smaller file do the trick? Do you know what the resolution requirement is? Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Review of my review

Overall, you hit the most important things, and I concur with your decision to fail it. I added a few more comments to the article on some additional things to look for. It's always tough trying to decide between on hold & failing; the general rule to follow is if it's a couple of issues, maybe just one section that needs fixing up, or manual of style stuff (e.g. if it can be fixed within one week), put it on hold. If there are lots of things wrong with it, and it looks like it will take more than a week to fix, fail it. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Plasmodium

Thank you for agreeing to review this article. If you have any suggestions for this page that you would prefer to discuss with me before including them in your review please contact me on my home page. DrMicro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMicro (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebright (chicken)

Thanks for volunteering to review the article. Regards, VanTucky 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, all redirects to a page should be bolded the first time they appear. Since the name of the developer redirects to the chicken article, it must be bolded. VanTucky 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely response and review. I've commented on the review on the article talk. Thanks again, VanTucky 01:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Plasmodium

Thanks. Some advice from a non expert in the area seemed useful at this point. The material is now quite extensive and probably the most complete listing ever established. Details are needed for many of the species but most of us have other things to do also. Since the article had reached something I hope close to completion of its major features it seemed time to seek a non expert review. An encyclopedia has to aim at both experts and non experts. Experts expect completeness while not experts desirable greater readability (long lists are not very readable even for experts!).

From the phylo trees a division into 4 articles seems reasonable. I have to disagree with you over the references to the life cycle in the evolution. Evolution is an attempt to tell the life story of an organism. The life cycle of many parasites - tapeworms are an excellent example - currently cannot be explained by even the best in the business - and thats saying soemthing!

The life cycle has to be explained by its evolution or the evolutional story is simply wrong.

I admit there are a few passages that need editing. Even to my eye they look choppy - partly as a result of thier evolution - bit by bit. Lots more work to do.

Thanks. The article lay out is probably more important than the content. The content is now fairly encyclopedic :-) - admittedly with some species details still lacking. I do have other things to do as well as Wikipedia so these details may have to wait a while before I can organise them. Its the lay out to non Plasmodium experts that really needed feedback. DrMicro (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the recommended changes have been carried out - I think. Rather than re nominate Plasmodium again I would be grateful if you could look it over and see what else needs doing before its worth renominating. Thanks in advance DrMicro (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: April 2008 GA Review

Thanks for the review. I am currently waiting to receive a book I purchased which is all about MacPaint, which will help me greatly when I add a 'Features' section. It will be 1-2 weeks until I can address all the issues you mentioned. Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Link of SQL Server PDF FAQ

One of the most popular request I have received on this blog is to create one page which list all the SQL Server FAQs. SQL Server technology is very broad as well very deep. This is my humble attempt to list few of the daily used details in one page. Let me know your opinion and suggestion. Download SQL Server FAQ Sheet in PDF format http://www.pinaldave.com/blogfolder/faqx.pdf I think this should be allowed on the page of SQL Server http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SQL_Server Pinaldave (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Pinal

PS. I have never used talk page before so let me know if this is incorrect.