Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
You're right, this will be difficult to make due to its extremely widespread nature. We shouldn't rush, and it should be added as soon as the article covers most of the key bases. There was EVERYTHING in it too - snow, sleet, freezing rain, severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, floods, extreme cold... CrazyC8322:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, I read and have referenced some of your articles for a project I am working on and I need to know a bit about the average temperatures, precipitation,relative humidity, winds, cloud cover and climate for Camp Williams,an area northwest of Lehi, north of Eagle Mountain. I was wondering if you could assist me as I am not an expert in this area. Please contact me at starr134starr@yahoo.com My name is Nicole. Thank you. I get to admit I was shocked to see you were only 16, after reading your articles. Thanks for putting the info out there and I look forward to reading future articles.
On the SR-201 page, it says that: "So far the state has expanded the freeway to Bangerter Highway," but in all reality, it's a freeway until 56th West. I'm not sure what to do. Thanks - •The RSJ•Talk| Sign Here22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Though when actually went the whole length of 201, I barely saw traffic after 56th West. Of course, it was 2:00pm on a weekday, so I haven't seen that portion of the route during rush hour. Cheers - •The RSJ•Talk | Sign Here04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was watching FOX when at around 7:20, breaking news appeared. It was terrible. My friend's friend's sister dies there. Not trying to be disrespectful to the victims, I was interested if an article has been created for it. It's been covered on national news, so I think it's notable. Also, the fire chief said that this was the worst thing that's ever happened in Salt Lake City. Also, I'm still retired, but I just wanted to talk about the article with you since you live in the valley. Oh, and here's the link to the CNN article on the internet. Regards, •The RSJ•Talk | Sign Here22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Active user verification
Hello, Bob rulz. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Roads Inactivity notification
You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orion (spacecraft)
Thank you very much for your careful reading of Orion (spacecraft)! I very much appreciate your finding and fixing a typo. (I recently made a fairly major change to the article, perhaps working too late at night ;-) May I ask: in your reading of the material, was it useful? Understandable? Boring? Any comments or suggestions you might have would be appreciated! Thanks again, Sdsds03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betting Pools
Hey, not rushing you or anything, just wondering if you were still going to make the 2007 AHS betting pools. If you weren't, I was going to. Just asking. →Cyclone1→17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not? I believe it. I am, too. I've found entertainment elsewhere. So, yeah, I'll go ahead and set them up. I'm afraid I'll have to set up a "strangest storm" section, just for laughs. →Cyclone1→18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits will be indistinguishable from vandalism and will have to be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. G1ggy!23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams202000:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
I've been trying to improve some parts of the UTA TRAX article, and as one of those improvements, I'd want to reupload the logo to be in PNG format. Is that possible or is there another policy about images on Wikipedia that prohibits this? Later on, if I could make it into PNG format, I'd make it transparent (once I learn how to do that), but for now, I just want it in PNG. Thanks for the time - 67.41.229.14402:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your frequent editing to UTA TRAX. I thought you should know, the Light rail in North America article has a section for the UTA TRAX that has yet to be written, which looks to be your thing. Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MMORPG's
Hey I also think that MMORPG's are a waste of time and money. Finally, somebody who believes in the same thing that i do! thks :)
Thanks for offering to help. The sandbox for the species article is here, its got a list of things still left to do at the top. The two main things it really needs though are the terran gameplay section (I personally don't know how to write it, the other two are based on their current article versions) and references.
References are a biggy as it needs secondary references and a lot of them for areas like the gameplay sections are referenced to Battle.net, which for obvious reasons doesn't qualify. They really need to be replaced with something independent but preferably a bit more advanced than a fansite. More references to create the development section would also be useful, but if there are none I'm sure we can get something done with the single one from SCL. Various other bits throughout could do with a bit more citing as well, although the plot points are all awaiting full restoration of the SCL transcripts for references.
As we're trying to put more emphasis on how things work rather than what they do, there is deliberately no plot section like in the current articles, although the Xel'Naga section is mostly plot based and sufficiently covers the background of the Zerg and Protoss. Have a look through, see what you can do. -- Sabre (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Welcome to the first monthly issue of the WikiProject Severe weather newsletter! In this issue, we will welcome you to the newsletter, and give you an idea of what the project is about, what it has done, and what it plans to do. So, enjoy reading the February 2008 issue! If you have not signed up to receive the newsletter, you may do so at the newsletter page. If you do not sign up, you will not receive the next newsletter!
This featured story focuses on the relative WikiWork for this project. The relative WikiWork is the measure of how lose a project is to having every article featured. It is a complex calculation;
ω = a + 2g + 3b + 4s + 5t
where a is A-class articles, g is GA-class articles, b is B-class articles, s is start-class articles, and t is stub-class articles.
Thus, the closer you are to 0 (zero), the closer you are to having every article featured. The WikiWork number for every class is added, then divided by the number of articles, similar to averaging, and it is found that the relative WikiWork for this project is Ω = 4.182. Ω is a symbol for the relative WikiWork factor. That is not the best number, as we are closer to 5 than we are to 0, and we are very close to 5. This means that the majority of the articles in the project are either stub, or start. That is what we need to change. So, while more severe weather articles are good, we should try not to publish as many stub class, and fewer start class articles.
New membersUser:Juliancolton (Talk) The most recent user to join the project, but is very active. User:Juliancolton is also an editor of this newsletter.
Featured member
User:CrazyC83 is this month's featured member for WikiProject Severe weather. (The following text is from User:JForget's nomination.) User:CrazyC83 - One of the most active (if not the most) members in recent tornado activity coverage and monitoring. Recent examples of this includes the February-March 2007 Tornado Outbreak in Alabama and Missouri, the May 2007 Tornado Outbreak in Kansas and Oklahoma and the January 2008 Tornado Outbreak Sequence in Missouri, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. Had also made coverage in non-article tornado events such as the New Orleans tornado event on February 13, 2007 and the tornado event associated with the Superstorm of December 16, 2007. User:CrazyC83 made numerous edits, more than one hundred, to 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak.
Significant storms last month included the outbreak in the United States in early to mid-January that produced 71 tornadoes and killed three people. Several tornado emergencies were issued in association with supercells during this outbreak. This outbreak was very similar to a classic spring severe weather outbreak, but extending farther north than even most late season outbreaks. The hardest hit areas on January 7 were the Springfield, Missouri metropolitan area and areas immediately to the north of Chicago, three people were killed near Springfield throughout the Southwestern Missouri Ozarks. On January 8, my area, the Tri-State region of Evansville, Indiana, was hit with the tornado outbreak. Only a few funnel clouds were reported in my area. Most tornadoes of the day were confined to the Memphis, Tennessee area and Eastern Arkansas, where one person was killed. On January 9 only a few wind and hail reports were received[1]. On January 10, however, the action started back up. More tornadic storms developed across the Southern United States, including several significant storms that produced tornadoes. These tornadoes severely damaged rual towns in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. The most notable of these tornadoes was reported in Lamar County, Alabama where 1 person was injured as several buildings were destroyed in this EF-3 tornado.
Five more deaths (three by tornadoes and two by straight-line winds) were reported on January 29 from a series of scattered tornadoes and a serial derecho across the Ohio Valley stretching south into Arkansas.[2]
It would be petty of me to revert your "typo" edit to the Macedonian article, as it doesn't in fact detract from (or enrich) the page, but I thought you ought to know that "fulfil" is as valid a spelling as "fulfill" is. I don't want to come off as didactic but could you please check these things, even if you do feel sure you are right? LaFoiblesse 2008-02-22 12:46 (UTC)
