User talk:Z1720/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Z1720. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
FAC Reviews for the WikiCup
Hey Zed, I removed your reviews of Steele's Greenville expedition and Battle of Morlaix from scoring for the wikicup because they are very short. If you expand them, please add them back -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: Morlaix will have more comments later, so I will re-add it when the review is further along. For Steele's Greenville, instead of leaving nitpicky comments in the FAC, I fixed them myself. Also, as outlined in the review, I checked the lead to ensure that it complied with WP:CITELEAD and that the information was properly cited in the article. Since the article was short and well-written by an experienced FA writer, with the source and image checks already complete, there were no concerns to comment on. While I understand that drive-by reviews are discouraged, I think this reivew was thorough and can be considered for points, and I hope the judges will reconsider. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Z1720, I've had a look at these two reviews as well, and I agree with Guerillero that the Steele's Greenville expedition review is too short to qualify for points. I see you made four small changes to that article, but generally, we want to see at least 4-5 pieces of substantive feedback or (barring that) a comment explaining in detail how the article already complies with the FA criteria. Per WP:WC/SCO, "If the judges feel your review is substandard or too short, you will not be awarded round points for the review." I understand this may be disappointing, but without you "showing your work", so to speak, it's difficult for us to tell apart a short, comprehensive review and a drive-by review. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Thanks for taking a look. In future reviews I'll try to outline my checks in more detail. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Z1720, I've had a look at these two reviews as well, and I agree with Guerillero that the Steele's Greenville expedition review is too short to qualify for points. I see you made four small changes to that article, but generally, we want to see at least 4-5 pieces of substantive feedback or (barring that) a comment explaining in detail how the article already complies with the FA criteria. Per WP:WC/SCO, "If the judges feel your review is substandard or too short, you will not be awarded round points for the review." I understand this may be disappointing, but without you "showing your work", so to speak, it's difficult for us to tell apart a short, comprehensive review and a drive-by review. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:GARC: Invitation to review Metrosideros bartlettii
Hello, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Metrosideros bartlettii. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.
To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #19.
GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
FAC review request
Hello, Z1720, I hope you're doing well. I have a FAC open for the How You Get the Girl article, which is my first FAC, so the coordinators would like to see more comments from more editors especially those outside the scope of pop music. I would appreciate your comments if you have time and interest and thank you in advance. Medxvo (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Medxvo: I only review FACs where the nominator has five completed reviews for every one nomination. Since the FAC editor statistics states that you have only completed two reviews so far, I am going to wait until more reviews have been completed. I encourage all editors who nominate at FAC to review other articles: this helps editors learn the FA criteria and shows confidence to other reviewers that you understand the criteria. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I provided content reviews for I Got That, Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song), and Vanishing (song); and content and source reviews for Fearless (Taylor Swift song), Labyrinth (Taylor Swift song), and All-American Bitch. These are total nine reviews according to the FAC editor statistics criteria which only counted two... I have no idea why it only counted the Labyrinth review. Medxvo (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Medxvo: The stats are updated once a month. They should be updated soon. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess that's because Labyrinth is the only one that was promoted in November. Regardless, I would very much appreciate your review if you have time and thanks again in advance. Medxvo (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Medxvo: The stats are updated once a month. They should be updated soon. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I provided content reviews for I Got That, Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song), and Vanishing (song); and content and source reviews for Fearless (Taylor Swift song), Labyrinth (Taylor Swift song), and All-American Bitch. These are total nine reviews according to the FAC editor statistics criteria which only counted two... I have no idea why it only counted the Labyrinth review. Medxvo (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I see you are completely misinterpreting WP:NOTGALLERY. This ancient policy was written to cover situations that are hardly ever found nowadays, except for galleries of flags, which are accepted (try searching WP for "Gallery of ") . It should be rewritten to be clearer, but as has just been pointed out to you (perhaps not for the first time), what it actually says is clear enough if you actually read it. The widespread impression among editors that "galleries are deprecated", which the policy in no way supports, is less often seen today then 10 years ago, and FAs on artists and most subjects in the visual arts have long been expected to have galleries (copyright etc permitting). Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." (WP:GALLERY) While "Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., Lily), fashion (e.g., Wedding dress), and the visual arts (e.g., Oil painting)" (also WP:GALLERY) having a section with a lot of images without their context is detrimental to the project and their placement should be reconsidered, and that the information at the top of the section should be considered first. I do not think having a section filled with images without context is helpful to the reader, increases load times for users on slower internet connections, and makes the article harder to access for mobile users who have to scroll through the images to get to the bottom of the article page.
- Please do not say "what it actually says is clear enough if you actually read it", implying that I have not read the policy. While we might differ on the interpretation or application of policy, personalised comments on my abilities as an editor do not improve the article. While that particular comment was posted on my talk page, other personalised comments on my editing abilities have been posted on article talk pages which I do not think are helpful. I am happy to provide these examples if requested. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Helpful to what? Admittedly, you always seem to completely ignore them, so I suppose they may not help much. While wwe are on the subject, and here, I must say that I find the comments you make in your GAR shakedowns, beyond lack of citations, are rarely well-founded. Perhaps it would be better to omit them. I am at a loss to explain, if you had read the policy, how you made that comment at the Romaine Brooks one. Your views are a) not in the policy, and b) clearly out of sync with general consensus. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: If the GAR review process is not helpful, I suggest that concerns be brought to WP:GAR. If there are concerns with my reviews, editors can post on my talk page or the appropriate project talk page/notice board. I disagree that reviewing an article's contents compared to the GA criteria is a "shakedown". Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Helpful to what? Admittedly, you always seem to completely ignore them, so I suppose they may not help much. While wwe are on the subject, and here, I must say that I find the comments you make in your GAR shakedowns, beyond lack of citations, are rarely well-founded. Perhaps it would be better to omit them. I am at a loss to explain, if you had read the policy, how you made that comment at the Romaine Brooks one. Your views are a) not in the policy, and b) clearly out of sync with general consensus. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Overquote in The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness
Hi. You pointed out the overquote tag on an upcoming (?) DYK article, The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness, which I nominated. (Your comment is now archived, so I'm writing to you directly, okay?) I went ahead and summarized the long quote of the Talmudic passage. I then removed the tag. Diff of my edits. It'd be great if you, or somebody, would look over my edits. I think the summary may be easier to follow than the original text, though of course further editing would be nice for readers. Let me know if you suggest other steps I should take at this juncture. ProfGray (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
January music
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Thank you for your work on DYK and OTD. - My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I have more vacation pics to offer, and today's story of Werner Bardenhewer. I took the pic, and it was my DYK on his 90th birthday, in both English and German. He spent the day in Africa, and after his return said - chatting after a mass of thanks he celebrated at Mariä Heimsuchung - that we'd have to talk about these articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Help
Hello, hope this message finds you well. I need with mass message. Could you please spread this discussion to editors across Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums please. I really need a clear consensus on the subject. dxneo (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dxneo: I am not an official member of those Wikiprojects, but also anyone can post a message on a Wikiproject's talk page. I suggest that you post a link to the discussion at WP Songs and WP Albums yourself, as questions should be addressed to you, especially from editors that want to clarify something. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. dxneo (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:GARC: Invitation to review Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2024 Summer Olympics
Hello, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2024 Summer Olympics. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.
To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #20.
History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of George Rolph
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Rolph 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 EF5 -- EF5 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Thanks for your diligent work on Good article nominations! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| For all the essential work you have been doing at the good article reassessment process and for your resilience in continuing this vital but sometimes underappreciated task! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC) |
Promotion of Flight Pattern
Triple Crown
Your GA nomination of George Rolph
The article George Rolph you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:George Rolph for comments about the article, and Talk:George Rolph/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of EF5 -- EF5 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Follow up
To continue our conversation from earlier, the books I've had a difficult time finding are George Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses (2008) and Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change (2016). If you can manage to find a copy of either of these, I'd be very grateful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: A physical copy of both books are at the University of Toronto. There's also access online through the Omni Libraries university system: sometimes they retain access to former students for several years. If you are looking for specific information for an article, I am happy to go to U of T and add the information myself: just let me know which articles you want me to find information for. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for letting me know about that. If you could email me the information about starting my own meetups closer to where I live, that'd be appreciated as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies GA nomination
Hey, I'm just letting you know that I've put in the GA nom. M48SKY (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Out of curiosity
So how many people did turn up at the meetup on Sunday? Certainly a lot of people I talked with seemed to be brand new editors. Risker (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Risker: We had about 40 people sign in. Most were brand new or beginner editors. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
his is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 March 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:GARC: Invitation to review South Sudan at the 2020 Summer Olympics
Hello, You have been paired at good article review circles to review South Sudan at the 2020 Summer Olympics. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.
To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #22.
History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ancaster incident
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ancaster incident 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 Noleander -- Noleander (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ancaster incident
The article Ancaster incident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ancaster incident for comments about the article, and Talk:Ancaster incident/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Noleander -- Noleander (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)