This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Noble Story, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
V60
干什么? ·
VDemolitions 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look at the Charles Swift article. I can definitely use them in my next round of editing. I wanted to ask though, did you mean to delete your comments from the talk page? (diff) It looks unintentional, so I'll probably restore them (If it was on purpose, feel free to fix it back). Well, thanks again. R. Baley 06:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it was an accident. Thanks for changing it back. Noble Story 06:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Assessment is ultimately a subjective exercise, of course, which means that people won't always agree. I believe that there's a trade-off between a player's importance and how substantial an article they merit. If a player has only appeared in a handful of first-class games, there is little that can be said about him. Thus I reckon that the article about Clayton Robson covers his career very adequately for a player who only made 6 first-class appearances. It has an infobox, which I regard as desirable. What more could one say about him? My rating of Geoffrey Udal is more marginal, but for a player who played only one f-c match I reckon that it just about merits Start. To leave it as Stub would encourage people to look on it as an article needing expansion, which would be misleading. Obviously for a major player it would be totally inadequate at five times the length. If you are still unhappy, I suggest raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment. JH ( talk page) 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've kept it at Start-class. Since you asked for some pointers on how to further improve, here are some:
I hope this helps. Er rab ee 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Noble, thought I would add a couple of suggestions. . .
Hope this is helpful. R. Baley 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
in the Beaumont Tower article including changing the "i" in iota to "I". Probably it should be the Greek letter iota (if there is a Greek letter iota) but I am including a scam of the book publishing information so that you can at least make an informed decision. Carptrash 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If you click on the image you'll note thta the "i" is the same size as the neighboring "o". Anyway, thanks for correcting the spelling of Michigan - that did need to happen. The other , I don't really care. Carptrash 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the
WikiCookie to the great
Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the
drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.
Hi, I have to disagree with your rating of the article Scott Dobie as Stub class. Are you happy for me to amend this to Start class? If not please could you explain your reasoning and what you would require to move it on from Stub? Thanks. -- Jameboy 22:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The
Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia
Congratulations to our 225 new members |
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Complete To Do List
Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •
Assessment Progress
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
Hi, I noticed that you took this article off of this list of unreviewed articles. On the article's talk page, calbear gave some suggestions for improvement but stated that he was not committing to a formal review. Because the article still has no reviewer, I have added it back to the list. Thank you for your suggestions on this article; I have fixed both of them. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm currently working through your comments at the GA review. I'll add my responses in bold to the changes I make. Peanut4 ( talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be taking another pass at the article and posting my review Part 2 soon. Thanks for your work correcting, by the way, I think it's improved a lot so far. Noble Story ( talk) 04:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is one more thing: "It was Bradford's home form—they earned 26 of their 36 points at Valley Parade...City were relegated with just 26 points." The contradiction should be addressed
Hi Noble Story. Please read the talk page on Bouncer (doorman) regarding your assessment. This note placed only because you may not watchlist the page. Cheers. Ingolfson ( talk) 08:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You removed Bonds for having been failed previouly. It has been revised significantly since failing.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. In the past, I have wikified quite a few of the above (the latest batch of which I note you claim need references at WikiProject Biography/Assessment). I think you'll find they are referenced adequately, but mostly limited to Scandinavian book biographies or websites (given that they are usually set in folklore in the distant past).
The fact that they are not English language sources does not discount them from English Wikipedia. What is of concern to me regarding assessment is that User:Aciram admits he/she does not have the confidence to formulate them properly to Wikipedia standard (sections, grammar, spelling, infoboxes, general wikification, etc.), so, as I say, I have transformed quite a few in the past.
Believe me, if I believed that they were pure fairy stories, I would have sent the lot to AfD by now, but the editor manages to include a ring of truth in all he writes, and is a good faith editor, not a fiction novellist. When I am able to send the reference webpages through a translation program, they do verify most of what is written.
If you feel able to better reference them, or help in any other way, please feel free. I personally have let Aciram know that I do not have time to improve them for English Wikipedia at the moment. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks very much for the review. I think it is broad in its coverage. However, I do have another book, I'm going to take a read through to find if there is anything I've missed, so if you want to keep it on hold for a day or two more, it makes no difference to me to wait on a little bit. My overall aim with this article is to go for featured status anyway, so I'll have to ensure it's in perfect state for that anyway.
On an aside note, your two reviews have been superb. I'm also working on the article Valley Parade and my aim is to go straight to FAC rather than through GAN. It's pretty much finished as it is, and wondered if you would give a quick review of the text, to see what needs changing. Don't feel any pressure to do. If you do get time, then feel free to leave any comments on my talk page. Thanks so much for your excellent work. Peanut4 ( talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time to review this article. I have responded to your comments. Please let me know of anything else that you feel needs to be fixed. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you are a good GAN reviewer. Do you think you can review WrestleMania X? iMat thew 20 08 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of Francis Bok I believe that I have addressed your concerns. See the sandbox for my comments. Thanks again and I am waiting further feedback. Dincher ( talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and the promotion. Dincher ( talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think all peer reviews should be done in the article talk pages and not in sandboxes. When the GA review is done, the sandbox is cleared and used for the next review(s), so that someone looking for the GA review details would have to dig through the sandbox history. This defeats the purpose of having the GA review on the article talk page. Such reviews are helpful for future editors and for things like FAC. Please see and comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Odd_method_of_reviewing. I appreciate your review work and all the care and time you take with it, but the use of sandboxes seems to me to be problematic at best. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I spent 3 days with no internet at home, I couldn't do anything at the Portland Trail Blazers article - but I recently did a huge edit trying to adress your requests, see what else is needed in the article (you probably won't pass it, but maybe I'll put it at GA/R after hearing your thoughts). igordebraga ≠ 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed all of the points you brought up on the talk page. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I have addressed your concerns.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all of your concerns for Talk:Zentatsu Richard Baker, except for this:
"The whole second, third, and fourth paragraphs in the Biography section need extensive referencing."
Because these paragraphs are fully referenced, perhaps you will understand my confusion. What do you mean by this? ( Mind meal ( talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC))
Hi there again, I'm about ready to go to FAC with Valley Parade. It's under peer review, but nigh on everything has been addressed - I've just one tiny little thing, which I can't find a source for, so may not appear anyway. I know I asked if you got chance, whether you could go through the article just to read through the text. If you do get chance, I'd fully appreciate it, because as expected, one reviewer suggested it be given a copy-edit. Peanut4 ( talk) 01:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Noble Story. Thank you for reviewing the Oil shale industry. I hope I fixed all problems you mentioned. Please let me knew if there is something else which needs to be fixed for the GA status. Beagel ( talk) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your excellent reviews and your help on Valley Parade. It's been extremely appreciated. Peanut4 ( talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
Thanks for two fantastic Good Article reviews, and your Peer Review. Not only has your work improved the articles a million more times than I expected, your input will keep on improving more of my work. Peanut4 ( talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you very much for reviewing the article, if it is not too much trouble could you possibly have another look based on the changes I have made following your suggestions as it would save another month on the waiting list. -- FGWQPR ( talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I was committing the cardinal sin of editing whilst on holiday, wasn't I?! I'll get to it now. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to shoot over a quick thanks for the review of my Sanja Matsuri article. You made some great points and will attempt to fix many of them as soon as possible. Thanks again! Torsodog ( talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you are an active GAN reviewer. Is there any change that I can get you to give Cyber Sunday (2007) a pre-GA review? iMat thew 20 08 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The NBA WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 1, Issue 1 • April 9, 2008 • Written by: Basketball110 | ||
Project and league news:
|
Featured NBA articles of the week: |
|
Archives • Newsroom |
Thank you for the detailed set of comments. I do appreciate it as this is the first article I have worked on by myself to bring up to GA status. I have addressed your comments, and look forward to your reassessment. Thanks! Patriarca12 ( talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your star -- here's one for you too, not so much out of reciprocity since I'd already intended to commend you for the good work on Yi and Yao. The NBA wikiproject has seen a steady increase of GAs and FAs since its inception, and here's to more of those. Chensiyuan ( talk) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
The Good Article Medal of Merit | ||
Congratulations! Based on the number and thoroughness of reviews, I have chosen you as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 6 April 2008. Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot ( talk) 08:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:ATHLETE. Athlete must have played in at least one professional league game. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your GA review and helpful comments on Joe Rice; it's made it a better article. I know that reviewing is time-consuming and often thankless, and I appreciate all your efforts. -- 16:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Noble Story,
Thanks for your comments on improving the aricle. I really do appreciate the time you have taken to give such extensive commentry, rather than just refusing GA. I have to be honest that I didn't actually know about peer review thing and my GA nomination too was after another user suggested me to do so. I have done the changes that you have recommended. Hope it meets the GA standards now. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your GAN review of the article to Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing).
You said: "The obvious thing about this article is that it is way too short. You mention the code, but you never say exactly what the code says."
The previous version of the article contained the core of the code, but it was removed as a result of the previous review.
The previous GAN Reviewer said: "Text dumps are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please summarize the Code, rather than putting the whole thing in the article. Provide a link to the full text, perhaps in the external links section."
Now the problem is that the core of the code by itself is only four short paragraphs that hard to impossible to shorten. Since making them shorter was not a feasible option, did I go with the removal of the code and adding a reference to the full text of it instead. You can find it here [1]
You said: "Plus, you don't really say what the effects of the code were, and why is was really notable.".
The notability is given by the fact that this is the first self-regulating guide and restriction that the industry imposed on itself, without federal or state lawmakers being part of it. I did not add this statement to the article, because the only proof of this is the fact that you can search as long as you want to and not find one that is older. I had the same debate about a similar case for another article. We have to wait until a reliable source mentions this fact one day. Maybe when there is a second time of something happening like this (yeah, the code was the first and only time so far that the industry imposed restriction on itself on a somewhat industry wide level).
Describing the effects of the code is possible, but finding references to back them up is not. Several companies that were in violation with the code changed the way how they conduct business to be compliant, but everybody was trying to keep things as quiet as possible. Being not compliant in the first place was nothing to be proud of and drawing attention to the fact that you were not via a public statement or published story about it was avoided whereever possible. Considering the size and importance of the affiliate marketing industry at that time, it was hard to get any main stream media coverage for almost anything related to the industry, thus avoiding coverage was very easy. There are some blogs of industry acknowledged experts and activists who reported on those things, but they do not make a good reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
Its tough with articles that are about a subject that is not niche anymore and at the brink of becoming part of the mainstream, but isn't just yet. Too large for the one thing and too small for the other. :)
If you have any tip, idea or advice how to solve my dilemma, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked Coz 11 not to engage in accussing other editors of bias on talk pages. I asked him not to refer to David Stern has a liar or a man with no credibility (as he did on a talk page). Now, over at the Clayton Bennett article he has referred to Bennett as a "liar" on the talk page. Am I overreacting, or has this guy crossed the line? It's gotten to the point where almost every single day his biased edits have to be reverted or he has to be warned not to violate policies regarding personal attacks, conflicts of interest, assuming good faith, proper use of edit summaries, reverting pages, etc. I asked earlier if people thought something should be done about him, and the consensus seemed to be that I overreacted and he should be worked with. It seems to me that continually calling people liars is just going too far. I don't know what should be done about it though. Chicken Wing ( talk) 08:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Sorry, but just wondering if you forgot about the GA nom on the above article that you left on hold. :D Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What you think of the idea on User:Globalecon/Global_Economics? I'm just hoping I don't need to resort to ;) -- Bfigura ( talk) 04:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash ( talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed your concerns on the above discussion. Any more comments or suggestions are welcome. I am about to go to bed, so I will will address any farther concerns you may have tomorrow. Thanks again for the review. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he may be inactive for some period, sort of like a Wikibreak. Go ahead and start, seeing as it is May. We may need more than one this month, due to the playoffs. Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please create the pages a little bit more accurately. Take 2008-09 Charlotte Bobcats season or 2008-09 Boston Celtics season as examples. Also, after creating an article, please update the seasons template of the respective team. ● 8 ~ Hype @ 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can deliver the newsletters with my bot. Just let me know when they're ready. Thanks! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the section is okay; moreover there was a ref name deleted, leading to invalid cite tags. It is commentary that is attributable, and there is some value (and indeed validity) in such commentary. It is a biography after all. Chensiyuan ( talk) 05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled as to why you removed your GA on holds. I wrote Maria de Lujan Telpuk. Can you drop a note to my talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't figure out why you've created a new section called "footnotes" when there's already a "references" section. Some of the references also have newly created problems.-- John Foxe ( talk) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |