User talk:ProgrammingGeek/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

"Draft:Sinfonia da Camera" review

Hi, Thanks for the quick response to our "Resubmit" request for "Draft:Sinfonia da Camera". And thanks for saying that it is almost ready to be accepted. Could you clarify your objection to the wording "simply a joy to hear"? This is the last few words of a direct quote from reference 8. The reason I quoted from this particular reference, rather than leaving it to the Wikipedia reader to simply go to the reference, is because this reference is hidden behind a paywall. Wagneroperafan and I want to move this from "Draft:" to article soon, so I will simply take out the quote if you think that is necessary. However, before doing that I wanted to check with you, to see whether you noticed that this was a quotation from a source. Maybe you are saying that a quotation from a source should only be put into a Wikipedia article if the quotation comes from a url, e.g., not a book, and only if the url is freely available. Thanks. CWBoast (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @CWBoast:, what I meant was having the quote in the article is unnecessary, and a summary of reviews would be more encyclopedic. Thanks, ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 20:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the two "evaluative" quotes. What is the next step? Do I hit the "Resubmit" button again, or wait for a response from you? Thanks. CWBoast (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

looks good to me. Go ahead and resubmit. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 21:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Sinfonia da Camera is now an article. I'm pleased. A request: Is there any way that you could make the "Your submission at Articles for creation: Sinfonia da Camera has been accepted" message which appeared on my Talk page also appear on the Talk page of Wagneroperafan? I'm sure Wagneroperafan would appreciate it -- since the process of creating this article has been a truely joint effort. Thanks CWBoast (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@CWBoast:  Done ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 12:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

One last question: In your opinion, would it be appropriate to display the quoted material (which I removed from the article) in the ref itself, i.e., as "|quote=...". In other words, was it the presence of the quoted material in the body of the article itself that you found to be inappropriate? CWBoast (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending response from you, I put the quotes in the refs themselves. Still interested in your opinion. Thanks CWBoast (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA reviewing

I have noticed, and am very concerned, that you are taking very substantial articles to GA review with no prior experience evident. For instance, your review of History of agriculture is practically non-existent.. an article that is well over 80kb in size and one where I found many occurences of dead references. I have now noticed you have chosen to GA review iOS 10.. again, another article vast in size. I would strongly urge you to either get a 2nd and/or 3rd opinion on your current review, or consider instead taking a much smaller article, then similarly asking the community to assess your own assessment so you can better understand the criteria. Whilst I don't want to discourage new GA reviewers, equally we can't have people passing articles without even touching the surface of what a "good article" represents. You may want to check my query at the GA talk page also and reply if you feel appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

History of agriculture

Hi, in response to the above, I've listed and checked the dead links, fixing 8 problems. Please could you check the new links and verify that I've done what I've said on the Talk:History of agriculture/GA2 page - it'll save me and others a lot of trouble now we're where we are, I'd be most grateful. I've also run the Copyvio detector (in the GA toolbox at top right of that page; again, could you please check I did it correctly. It would also be a good idea if you could read through the article again, and let me know if anything isn't clearly worded. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might need this beer

Sorry if you felt piled-on with that GA Review stuff. GA Reviews (& the related featured article nominating process) can both be quite tricky. When I was doing the most-recent GA Cup I worked through a (very) few GA Reviews of monstrously-big articles...they sometimes felt like my own personal editing ultra-marathon. Anyway, thought you might need a beer. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No stated concern

How can you PROD an article with no stated concern? No one can address your concern if you don't state it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

db-move

I've gone ahead and deleted Manju Latha Kalanidhi, but for future reference, you should use {{db-move}} on the article itself if you're accepting a draft that already exists as a redirect. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)