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.

Benzband ( talk) 19:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. OK, I've had a look. Here are some comments. Footnote numbers relate to the current version at this moment, which is at [1]:

(1) I think the new species descriptions look good. With those "main article" pointers, it's best to have a section heading too, so I've added them. Note that binomial names of species, like Phodopus campbelli, have both parts in italics, and that the second word is never capitalised, even when it derives from a name (like Campbell).

(2) In the species sections, you should improve the formatting in the following way. Instead of

a hind foot length of {{convert|12|mm|in}} to {{convert|18|mm|in}}

which gives

a hind foot length of 12 millimetres (0.47 in) to 18 millimetres (0.71 in)

you should use the range form of Template:convert, like this

a hind foot length of {{convert|12|-|18|mm|in|abbr=on}}

which gives

a hind foot length of 12–18 mm (0.47–0.71 in).

This makes it much less wordy and more readable. Optionally, you can miss out the "abbr=on" parameter from the very first instance only, if you want "millimetres" to be written in full the first time. But only the first time.

(3) In the rest of the article, you don't appear to have done as much as you need, and the citations are still in a mess:

• Clarifications of weasel words are still needed in the "Skeleton" and "Skull" sections.
• There is still a page number needed at the end of the Skull section. FN11 lists too many pages; I want to know which page talks specifically about the mandibular body. To save making an extra citation, you could use Template:rp for this.
• FN5: When you are citing a single page, write "page=621", not "pages=621".
• FN9: Needs its ISBN, and preferably link to Google books, not amazon.de, which is a commercial site.
• FN11: The title should have capitals on the right words; it needs its ISBN (available on amazon.co.uk if it's hard to find on Google books); also, it's a book, so use {{ cite book}}, not {{ cite web}}.
• FN12: You should not be using this, as explained in the peer review, under Ref 6. It doesn't support the cited statement, so you need something else.
• FN15: need ISBN and page numbers, and the title is all messed up.

-- Stfg ( talk) 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback, I have not finished the rest of the article yet and now I know what I have to do to improve it. Thank you again! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! good luck. -- Stfg ( talk) 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected all of the issues you raised here. Do you think it's ready for a GA nomination now? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

( ←) I've given it a further copy edit. There are still a small number of issues:

• Behaviour section, para 2: "20°" needed disambiguating, and the source's abstract is written using degrees Celsius, so I've made it "20 °C", but it's a bit strange to talk about this being cold for an animal that can withstand -35 °C. Please could you check this?
• Skeleton: the tibia can't be "comparatively long compared to" itself! You keep on changing the reference for this statement so I never get to find out what you're really saying. The current source only describes P. cambelli anyway, so I doubt it serves. You really need to find a source that actually says something clear about this, and to tell us what it says, or else delete the statement.
• Skull: "The Phodopus skull is relatively small, compared to brain casing." Wha'? They must get dreadful headaches :)) You can't possibly mean that. We're in rather the same situation as with the tibia. What exactly does the source say?

After you've dealt with these, I don't know enough about how the GA people think to know whether it would pass it, but I do think it needs a thorough citation check by another editor first. Best, -- Stfg ( talk) 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen your latest changes. Looking good now. Cheers, -- Stfg ( talk) 21:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Puffin. I've been checking citations on Phodopus, and am a little concerned. Compare "A well pronounced dorsal stripe runs from the nape of the neck to the base of the tail. The throat, underside and legs are white and the upper surface of the hands and feet are silvery white. Internal cheek pouches extend back to the shoulders when full" in the article with "A well-defined mid-dorsal stripe runs from the nape of the neck to the base or up to 2.5 cm anterior to the base of the tail. The throat, underparts and legs are creamy buff...The upper surface of the hands and feet are silvery white...Large internal cheek pouches extend back to the shoulders when full." That comparison shows WP:Close paraphrasing, and any GA reviewer who spots it is likely to fail the article. There are also some more minor issues with sourcing and citation formatting, but this is a biggie. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, I think I have changed it enough so it doesn't seem so similar to the source. Please check the article to see if you agree. What are corrections I need to make to the formatting? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Need to be consistent in how you notate pages - both in terms of ranges and p. vs pp.; foreign-language sources should be identified as such; FN 23 should use a smaller page range for verifiability purposes if possible; multi-page PDFs should include page numbers; be consistent in whether or not you include locations; FN 6 needs page numbers; FN 14 needs volume number; FNs. 16-18 need publisher. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed all of these issues above except the multi page PDF referncing because its not possible and I can't recall putting in any locations and I don't see any. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are locations in FN1 (Baltimore) and FN13 (Tientsin, North China). The three Mammalian Species PDFs have page numbers alternately at top left and top right (except p.1). By the way, FN9 is still pointing to amazon.de. The Google Books entry is here. -- Stfg ( talk) 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I believe I have corrected these issues now. Do you think I should nominate it for GA now? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a copyedit later today. ~ Lhynard ( talk) 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Finished copyedit. Good work on your part. I'll try to make the Skeleton section less jargon-y a bit later. ~ Lhynard ( talk) 21:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know what happened, I just don't know how. I don't recall clicking rollback at all. I had the GA on my watch list. I don't know. I blame my Magic Mouse. Yeah, that'll work. Hazardous Matt ( talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I was trying to remove myself and I suppose that I also removed 1 of your pages. ~~ Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your earlier revert. I hadn't left an explanation that quote content had been moved to WikiQuote. Itohacs 18:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itohacs ( talk • contribs)

I believe I have addressed all complaints with the GA nomination of Dark Fantasy (song), if not tell me what else needs to done. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 17:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Puffin, I think the IP there had at least some good faith edits in mind. The discography has been split to a standalone article so it's customary to not have all those detailed tables in the artist's main article. See also my edits along that line. Regards, De728631 ( talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at Talk:Paloma Faith#discography page where we are discussing whether to keep the singles and the only album as a list with a hint at the main discography page. That IP above has been edit-warring about it. De728631 ( talk) 22:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Puffin. I've resolved the non-breaking space issue. Also, thank you for the copyedit. Is there anything else that should be addressed? -- Starstriker7^{( Talk)} 03:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the WikiLove; thank you, also, for taking on the review. Best of luck as you continue with your efforts in WP:GBED. :) -- Starstriker7^{( Talk)} 05:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your requests at Talk:The Hungry Earth/GA1. Please elaborate on what you mean by "non-breaking spaces" and how I can create them. Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 17:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have done the remaining fixes. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I put in the requisite disclaimer about non-free usage. HotHat ( talk) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Puffin, Did you mean to get a partial post at my page or was that for someone else? Since it doesn't look completed, I'm not sure. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

MONGO was desysoped quite a bit ago, actually. Toa Nidhiki 05 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2999 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	With great appreciation, I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Puffin, you didn't approve the submission of the iGrafx wikipage due to missing inline citations. There are inline citations included already, is there something wrong with them? Thanks, Gretchen

Gretchenburthey ( talk) 01:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to have a few more citations to clarify within the article. For example, you say:

iGrafx also offers solutions for modeling in an SAP environment as well as measuring process performance.

This is likely to be challenged, so it's best to provide an inline citation for this.

Also, all the sources listed are connected with iGrafx, so none are substantial, reliable, independent sources and the article needs to have third party sources to establish notability.

Finally, the article seems to read like an advertisement, so I would suggest reading WP:NPOV to help you improve the article. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The recent comment on my article is that it is not supported by reliable and independent sources. I already included interviews on TV and newspapers. Please help.

thanks!

Fasyonabol ( talk) 12:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's best to ask User:Chiswick Chap or User:Dcshankabout the sources, as it seems that they are closely working with you on the article. However, I declined your article as it seems to be written like an advertisement. It needs to be written from a neutral point of view. For example, in the first sentence you say: "Clozette is a Fashion Social Network where users can organize their beautiful closet possessions, share fashion finds & shopping desires" What makes the possessions so beautiful? Can you support this with a source?

Later in the article, you say: Everyone can browse photos shared on Clozette but users will have to sign up an account to organize their fashion photos and socialize with the Clozette community.

This seems like you are promoting the website, maybe you could re word it to something along the lines of:

On the website, users can browse photos shared after creating an account. Doing so enables the users to organise their photos and have more access to the website.

Of course, this is just a suggestion, but it's up to you how you word it. Puffin : ^{Let's talk!} 18:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, thank you!

05:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasyonabol ( talk • contribs)

I realized I did not read your latest comment on the article and what I read was the previous comment about the sources.

Thank you for your suggestions. Fasyonabol ( talk) 05:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You just created a couple of redirects from various non-English terms to Acre. I have my doubts about such redirects in general (actually I was about to decline them but you were faster than me), but in particular, AKR and ERV are disambiguation pages, and ERW redirects to Electric resistance welding. I'll change the targets of Akr, Erv and Erw accordingly. Huon ( talk) 20:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The references can be too informative of identical sources with External Links, however, I have tried to use the "reflist", however, the External Links may do, although, if you may have checked the The Christmas Hope and The Christmas Shoes are just some of the edits I am trying to produce for this article in creation. Any explanation, please?-- GoShow ( ...............) 18:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to cite the sources for statements which are likely to be challenged. For example, you list the cast of the film in the article. Where did this information come from? Do you have a reliable source to cite as it may be challenged. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Puffin, Thanks so much for your feedback regarding the article "12 Peers Theater." I'm a little confused about why it was rejected though; the theatre company received two significant mentions in Pittsburgh Magazine as well as other brief mentions in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. A similar article I created, Organic Theater Pittsburgh, had a comparable amount of coverage in its earliest stages and was considered notable when it was nominated for deletion. Could you please explain why this article is different so that I can improve it? Thanks! -- Frankgorshin ( talk) 19:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that it wasn't notable, it needs to be expanded as there isn't much information in the article. Try asking User:Mrmatiko as to why they thought it wasn't notable, as they are the person who declined it for that reason. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I did talk to User:Mrmatiko after they first reviewed it, and have revised the article since then. My point is that the article contains about as much information as Organic Theater Pittsburgh, and yet that article has been found worthy for inclusion while the 12 Peers Theater article hasn't. There are other articles about theatre companies of similar length such as Off the Wall Productions and Terra Nova Theatre Group that have not been considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is highly likely more information will be added to the 12 Peers article as time goes on and the theatre continues to have more productions, but at the moment it seems to have as much information as any short article about a theatre company on Wikipedia, so I'm still kind of confused about why it's not ready for publication. I'm not sure what else I could add to it to meet the basic requirements for inclusion. Do you have any suggestions as to how I could expand it to meet the same level of acceptability as the articles about theatre companies that I've mentioned? Thank you! -- Frankgorshin ( talk) 15:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mlpearc ( powwow) 18:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed all of the anti-vandalism work you've been doing this morning. Keep up the good work, and have a snack!

Sophus Bie ^{( talk)} 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiPuppies! ( bark) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank You For All Your Anti Vandalism Work Andrew Kurish ( talk) 20:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Jeremy ( talk) 12:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at yasht101's talk page. Yash t 101 :) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (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.