This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
This is MSincccc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page William, Prince of Wales, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
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) 08:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
You have been tagged to
this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey MSincccc, please be careful with the way you reach out to other editors for reviews like you did here. Your repeated calls for the nomination to be supported could be interpreted as canvassing, which can undermine the integrity of consensus-forming discussions like FAC. Please make sure you phrase your invitations neutrally and without influencing editors to leave any particular !vote, should you even choose to solicit participation at all. Let me know if you have any questions. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earthshot Prize 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 Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 15:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Notification of noticeboard discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) ——Serial Number 54129 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You wrote at the FAC that you look forward to my further response. I don't think you want my response there, as I continue to have concerns about the article's prose, the vagueness in the Lead (have none of her public appearances been important enough to mention there?) and agree also have concerns about the sources (while The Telegraph and some of the other newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, not so much with respect to controversial aspects of the Royal Family). IMO, also, unless at least one or two very good book sources exists about a topic, it probably should wait to go to FA). Also, as you did not accept or respond to the substance of either of my examples of the prose issues (which I feel is, throughout the article, not appropriate for an FA article -- passive voice, vagueness, overly idiomatic British phrasing, etc.), I cannot devote the time to do a full review of the prose. I have no desire to stand in your way, and I hope my comments have been helpful. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)