Technically, you could prod tag it - it hasn't had a prod tag on it before. However, I would say notable, although in cruddy shape right now. The external links to articles in Western Horseman and Quarter Horse News, which IMO provide significant coverage (it's not just one sentence), would show notability: they're third-party, established, reliable sources. It's going to take quite a bit of work to make it pretty - unencyclopedic language, poor formatting, etc. abounds right now. Are you thinking of working on it? Dana boomer (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone deleted the article on Linda Tellington-Jones a couple years ago for being pure promotion. I have no interest in working on the article, and I get a little frustrated that people use WP for free advertising. Heck, I'M listed once) in the USEF journal Equestrian and I'm not at all notable! (grin) We might want to discuss a notability criteria for WPEQ for this stuff, but "guy who wins some stuff" doesn't cut it with me. I think I'll tag it and let those who do care salvage it. If they fight for it, I won't go to the mat to toss it. Montanabw(talk)05:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dana, a while ago you were kind enough to review Spanish conquest of Guatemala for GA, and suggested I might try for FA. The article has now been languishing at FAC for some time, and I don't see any new reviewers coming forward soon (or at all!). I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it and commenting on the review page? It's had quite a bit of work since GA, with a number of new sections and expanded lead. The new sections are:
Background to the conquest
Chiquimula
Upsantan and the Ixil
Land of War: Verapaz
Final years of conquest
Most of the rest is largely unchanged - the Campaigns in the Cuchumatanes and Conquest of Petén sections have both been expanded. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Simon! A quick look through the article shows that it looks quite good - it's unfortunate that it has been sitting at FAC for so long. I've been offline quite a bit the past couple of days, but should have a chance to take a longer look and comment at the FAC either tonight or tomorrow morning. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, this is taking me longer to get to then I first anticipated, but I promise that it's still on my radar. Apologies for the delay :( Dana boomer (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are never really my strong point, but I don't see any reason that category can't be on that article. One of its subcategories (Category:Figurines or something) might be more appropriate, but whatever... Dana boomer (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The points that were raised during FAR and FARC have been addressed. Extensive work has been done. No more comments are there for a while. Do you think you can proceed? May be you can ping User:Imzadi1979. I am pushing for it because if some more comments are given, I can try to address those now, as I have some relatively free time. Meanwhile, thanks for providing more time with Mysore FAR. I have been updating the progress in FAR entry every few days. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc, thanks again for all the work you've been doing on this. Please feel free to ping Imzadi yourself - I have very limited internet time right now and for the next few days so I'm barely being able to keep up with stuff I already promised to do :) After the weekend I'll check in and if you haven't had a chance I'll ping her and take a closer look at the two FARs. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dana, I did some tweaking on the Lipizzan page and updated some links and fixed as many dead links as I could. I missed a couple though, and maybe you could use your magic to find Wayback archives or something on these two: [1] (ref 38 in the article) and [2] (ref 43) Thanks. Montanabw(talk)19:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I got everything. Let me know if I missed any. I really should do another cleanup on the pop culture section - it's started to creep again. So many jobs, so little time... Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy, This article really should be taken to GA, at which time we could possibly kill the trivia section altogether. How much work do you think would be involved? I'm more worried about POV pushers than sources. Maybe Andreas (User Conversano Isabella) would help. (Maybe we could drop a note on his blog to send him our way.) Montanabw(talk)19:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably shouldn't kill it altogether, as it has some good points, but it can definitely be trimmed and reorganized. I'll try to take a swing at that later today. As far as GA goes, I think it's definitely possible. It would be great to have Andreas take a look at it, if you want to drop a note on his blog. Other than that, there is one cn tag that I haven't been able to find a source for, and a bit of cleanup work that needs to be done (a few un-RS sources that need to be replaced, plus some formatting cleanup work). The lead also needs to be expanded, and some of the bullet points could probably stand to be removed. The article should be fairly close, but I think that is what I thought a couple of years ago when I last did a major cleanup and sourcing :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did, stick to the important stuff, not every trivial mention. Let's at least take a whack at an improvement run, and see if GA comes into the picture. The source stuff will be tricky -- maybe tag the sources of concern on the talk page, looks to me like we have a dueling registries problem, possibly, and some of the same issues we faced with Andalusian. The thing about the foundation bloodlines will have to be sourced real carefully as I smell a hot potato and a certain degree of conflict between the Austrians and everyone else... (?) All doable, though. Montanabw(talk)18:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Simon! This is a wonderful article and I'm so happy to see that it was promoted over the weekend - I know it's been a long road for you. Please let me know when you have further articles up for review and I'll be happy to take a look if I have time - the general subject of your articles is one I find quite interesting, if only in an armchair scientist sort of way. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Two users, one who recently created an account and the other who is under IP, are constantly undoing constructive edits on the Dr. Mario article. Messages were left on the article's talk page as well as on users' talk pages for explanations of their edits, but no answers were provided. Since the edits are unconstructive and quite disruptive, not contributing to ameliorate the article in any way, I would ask to semi-protect the article, or do any other action to stop the users from constantly undoing modifications. Thank you. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I have been offline all day and just found your note. In the future, I would recommend a notice to WP:AIV, WP:3RR or whichever of the other noticeboards are proper for the situation - these boards are watched by many admins and issues tend to be solved more quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dana. This peer review has been closed by a bot due to lack of comment for 14 days. There is a major reviewer problem at PR at the moment, and many articles are having to wait for three weeks or more before they are reviewed. The problem is that for years Ruhrfisch, Finetooth and myself were regularly peer-reviewing around 20 articles each, every month, and that kept the backlog manageable. For various reasons none of us can provide that level of service at present. Now, Horse is a vital article and really ought to be peer-reviewed, preferably by an uninvolved editor. In view of the article's importance I am prepared to reopen the review and to start working on it, though it may take a little time to finish as it's quite a long article. But there will be some visible progress. Please drop me a line on my talkpage if you want me to go ahead. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Seeds should be stored in cool conditions, and are best stored at −4 °F (−20 °C)". That's perilously close to How To ... manual territory. Nice article though, well done. MalleusFatuorum22:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, you are quite right. I've played with it a bit. The most difficult thing about this article is that so many of the sources are written from a "how-to" viewpoint - translating that into encyclopedic language has been...challenging. It's fun to work on something that's so different from what I usually do, though. Thank you for your edits, and the encouragement! Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Balaton cherry (which we apparently don't have an article for) makes really nice pies - they stay firm instead of going to mush - but the standard Montmorency sour will always be my favorite, since that's what I've cooked with since I was little (when I started baking pies I was short enough that I needed to kneel on a chair to be able to reach the table to roll out dough!). Images are really the least of that article's worries, though, as it is completely unreferenced and has a pop culture section that takes up almost half the article. Dana boomer (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
April 2012
Hi Thanks for letting me know of the official process, I'm still learning my way around here. My main concern for the nomination is the dispute that is currently on going in the talk page. There seems to be pretty reliable sources from both sides, that each them are correct, with respect to this there should at least be a banner in the history section making readers aware that some of the content is currently being disputed. Regarding the FAR nomination one of the requirements for a FA is for the article to be stable and not have content disputes. Distributor108 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for FA is that the article be stable (basically, no edit warring) - discussion on the talk page is not in itself proof of instability. Discussion on the talk page regarding changes, with both sides giving sources and engaging constructively, is a good thing, not a reason for a FAR. If there is edit warring or other instability to the article itself, you still need to place a warning on the talk page of the article. The warning may be just what editors need to stop warring on the article and start discussing on the talk page. If you wish a banner to be placed in the history section, I propose either being bold and adding one (which may not be taken well, given that there is already ongoing discussion on the talk page), or asking on the talk page if the placement of a banner would be a problem. Talk first, take to FAR second. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you don't mind, could you explain to me what that (+ some number ) is after you made an edit? such as "13:42, 8 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+674) . . User talk:Dana boomer (→April 2012: new section) " what is that (+674) mean? Distributor108 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dana, I'm very busy at this time, but I will look for this article as soon as possible. Currently we are looking to organize a meeting between experts from national horse riding school in France (at the Cadre Noir, Saumur) and the members of Wikipedia project "monde équestre" (probably repeated each year so if people from other countries want to come, it will be possible). --Tsaag Valren (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an awesome project, Tsaag! Will they just be working on the French wiki, or will other languages be included? No rush on the articles; I've just started trying to get some of the French breeds expanded to get the expansion tags off of them, and would prefer to have a native French speaker check my work! And, of course, am very slowly working on getting Percheron to FAC... Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dana, I've seen the changes for en:Percheron, I think it's really a good thing to work a french/american breed like this. The 8 of may (tesday) is a public holiday for me, we could work on differents article using for exemple a chat room, if you have time for this ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Percheron is currently going through the featured article candidacy process; if you care to take a look, the review is at WP:Featured article candidates/Percheron/archive1. Working on another breed sounds like fun. I don't know how much I could do on chat, since my schedule is going to be fairly split up that day (probably able to be on for a bit several different times, but not for any big chunks of time), but we could do something on a talk page? Do you want to work on something that is already a GA here, or on something that barely has anything on the en.wp? I'll take a look tomorrow morning and list some of our options - then we can pick one and be ready to work on Tuesday, if that works for you? Dana boomer (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been taking a look through the articles, and was thinking, if it works for you, that it might be nice to do some finish work on French Saddle Pony and Trait du Nord, with a goal of getting FSP ready for a good article nomination and Trait du Nord ready for a featured article nomination. Also, Boulonnais horse is already a GA here, but is missing quite a bit of stuff that is in the French WP article, so I was considering doing some expansion work on that today (May 7), if you would then have a chance to look over it on the 8th. I think doing a full translate of one of the poorer articles would probably require more time than I have available on the 8th. However, if I know that you are going to be available a little more over the coming weeks (?), I can definitely put more of my time into doing translate work on French breeds. Let me know if playing with several articles rather than one works for you, or if you had something different in mind... Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok (It's lunch time for me now !) : we have not worked a lot on French Saddle Pony, but [Trait du Nord]] and Boulonnais horse have a FA level. Just a little little problem :contrary to Percheron, there is no academic work available about these two breeds. Another precision : usually I don't use my own work as a source, but for Trait du Nord I've written an article about a "family of breeds" (Trait du Nord, Ardennes horse, Flemish (?) horse, Belgian horse...) and it seems that no one but me has started that kind of research... article is here. I'll be back at 18' (french hour) if you need some precisions ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tsaag, my approach on one's own work is you provide the data (preferably translated) to us and we will insert the citation, it's not COI on your part if someone else did the review and decided to add it in (IMHO). I have done some work with other people who have great knowledge but do not have great English, and if you want to, import the existing articles into your namespace as a sandbox (like this: User:Tsaag Valren/Sandbox1 and start playing with inserting translations, then we can help rephrase into more correct English. This can work better than us doing a Google translate, which with horse articles and terminology can have ridiculous results at times. Montanabw(talk)17:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Meh, either way works fine. I did most of the translation work at Trait du Nord via Google, with Tsaag cleaning up after me if I got something wrong, and that seemed to work out fine. It's just getting the time to actually do it... Regarding academic work, if it's not out there, then there's not a lot we can do about it, unfortunately. I think it's best to just work with what we have to get the articles as good as possible, and then if academic work becomes available later, we can improve the articles then. Your article looks quite interesting, but I can only access the first couple of paragraphs and then it says I have to have a subscription :( If there is anything in your article that you think should be included in the Trait du Nord article, could you drop it on the talk page there (or feel free to just add it to the article yourself, if you feel confident in doing so)? I'll try to get to some initial translation work on Boulonnais tonight - if you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on it and yelling at me if I screw anything up, I would much appreciate it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to add something along the line of "The herds showed definite signs of an inadequate gene pool by the 1980s."{{cite journal|title=Minor Breeds and Major Genetic Losses|last=Bratton|first=Susan P.|journal=Conservation Biology|volume=2|issue=3|date=September 1988|pages=297-299|jstor=2386321}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Genetic Variation and Its Management Applications in Eastern U.S. Feral Horses|last1=Goodloe|first1=Robin B.|last2=Warren|first2=Robert J.|last3=Cothran|first3=E. Gus|last4=Bratton|first4=Susan P.|last5=Trembicki|first5=Kathryn A.|journal=The Journal of Wildlife Management|volume=55|issue=3|date=July 1991|pages=412-421|jstor=3808969}} Lots of other facts could be added. I can email you both JSTOR PDFs if you like.PumpkinSkytalk00:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the lead editor on this...I believe that was User:Yohmom for a school project run by User:JimmyButler. However, if I get a chance I will take a look and see what can be added in. Before you e-mail those to me, I'll check and see if I have access through any of the databases I use. Thanks for the note, Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When we have a chance, we'll take a peek at what you are doing, and if it looks useful, I'd put your proposed addition, source and wording on the talk page there, because the article is an FA. if everyone salutes, we can pop it in! Montanabw(talk)21:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Empire Endurance
Re your offer of a more detailed review, would you be so kind to post it on the aritcle's talk page. I've got it watchlisted and no doubt Manxruler has too. I've replied to your comments at WT:MILHIST there. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it's my song :) I think 50 is the minimum point level right now, and I've got more than that. I also have a few articles in various review processes at the moment, so should be good to go. I do need to go do some more GA reviews, though... Thanks for the encouragement, and good luck to you, as well - it's awesome to see so many of the Thoroughbred articles being improved, especially when they're non-existent or really poor quality before. Have you thought about working on any of the major articles - the big races or, daddy of them all, Thoroughbred horse racing? Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.. someone ELSE work on Thoroughbred horse racing... please. We also need to get graded stakes race off it's TB-centricitiy ... there are stakes races for lots of other breeds now... (for that matter - one of the big Arabian stakes is going to run on the same day's race card as the Preakness this year ... at Pimlico!) Ealdgyth - Talk19:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Yay for that! If anyone wants a really easy GA, though non-horsey, maybe look at Russell and Sigurd Varian. It's probably real close, and I've just been too jumpy to take anything to GA without friends because of all the damn drama that was floating around earlier in the year. Don't know how much work you have to do to claim it, but just an FYI that it's out there and I'm about the only one who did any work on it. Montanabw(talk)21:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is "significant work", so we wouldn't be able to claim it just for doing light c/e and ref formatting, etc. However, things seem to have calmed down (yeah, I know, knock on wood), so why don't you go ahead and nom? We'll have a party of horsey editors (although not all writing on horsey topics) with Montana, Ealdgyth, Tigerboy, Pesky and I all there at the same time :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughbred horse racing and Horse Racing are like those piles of empty beer cans in the corner of the room: everyone keeps chucking something onto the pile but no-one has the nerve to sort it all out. That's not a great metaphor, I know. For the last few months, I, and the mighty Froggerlaura have been chipping away at the British Classic winners and getting regular DYKs: we didn't go looking for them, but other editors picked up on what we were doing and started nominating our articles, and that's why I got into the whole wikicup thing. At the moment, I have just started trying to expand and improve Pebbles. That will take a while, and I've also promised to do a GA review on an Ice Hockey article (I know nothing about Ice Hockey, but thought it would be fun to learn). Tigerboy1966 01:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A while back I started in on the 19th century Belmont winners - trying to fill them out, but it's a royal pain in the arse to work on them.. the information is scattered amongst like 10 different very rare and very fragile books and digging it out takes a lot of peace and quiet around the house - something I have not had a lot of lately. And boy, if I can tackle Middle Ages and William the Conqueror - someone else can tackle the two main racing articles ... Ealdgyth - Talk01:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that's the fun of wp for me. Painstakingly scraping together the scattered scraps of information into a single article means that I can say with some confidence that I have created the most accurate, detailed and thoroughly researched on-line source for the likes of Blink Bonny, Cadland, Thormanby etc. It's a tiny little corner of the garden of knowledge, but I have tended it well and watched it blossom. Oh dear, it is far too late and I have had far too much to drink tonight, but I hope you get the gist. Still no mention of Flavius Aetius in the Middle Ages? Pshaw! Tigerboy1966 02:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome! I very much enjoy reading your articles, especially as the topics are generally new to me. Rhodesia never featured very heavily in my school curriculum, so it's a whole new area of study for me! Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have another article up for review in the history section :) I'll probably be there within a week or so, unless someone else beats me to it... I try to spread reviews around a bit when I'm doing them frequently, so I'm not reviewing a bunch in a row from one person. And I see that you just nominated Shangani Patrol at FAC - good luck and best wishes there. Dana boomer (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dana. Horse-genetics.com is a weak site (my personal opinion is that it's almost crap). (one reason why) She sometimes points to peer-reviewed sources and starts off OK, but often departs from the highway and heads over the fog line with her own views, which are often not accurate. (On silver dapple, she doesn't even mention it's in Morgans, where it's a popular topic...).Better to use the peer-reviewed source we used here:Silver_dapple_gene#Prevalence for Rocky Mountain Horse. Just so's ya knows. I can still email Countercanter if you want any more detail. Montanabw(talk)22:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of bothMatthewedwards (submissions) andGrandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we both made it into the third round... lets see if we can stay motivated enough to make it through the "summer" rounds ... Ealdgyth - Talk01:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice on the Wikipedia article on the Apple
Many thanks for getting back regarding the comments on the article on Apple, explaining on the talk page of this article where you could find the information that apple pips contain cyanide. I did, however, have a question here. Many people who read the article may not know what "cyanogenic gioside" is, so do you think it better be clarified that this is a form of cyanide? You can leave any responses on my talk page. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:WikiCup question
I'd be happy for that to be claimed. It's clear that there's no attempt to abuse the system. If you are happy to call the article at least partially this year's work, you're welcome to claim it in the Cup, as far as I'm concerned. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Howe (32)
Thanks very much for sorting out the problem :). Just so I know for next time what did I mess up in the template? Thurgate (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I was actually a little surprised that I managed to make it work :) As far as what went wrong, I'm not really sure... As you can see in this edit, I made several tweaks, including removing a space, decapitalizing "military", moving the status parameter and adding the note parameter. One of these obviously made the bot happy, but I really couldn't tell you which one it was...although I would suspect that it was the extra capital letter. Dana boomer (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dana, thanks for reviewing and copy editing this article. Unfortunately I will be unable to get to a computer this weekend but should be able to respond to your suggestions on Tuesday (I am editing on my phone at the moment). Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some things about boulonnais horse. And have seen an (en) Wikipedian have french document, if you can, give me the link I will translate. Thanks.
For A future GA there's the fr:Comtois (cheval) (in english the Comtois horse), the most elegant of french draft horses with his silver bay coat color), I know very, very well this breed ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean about an en Wikipedian with a French document? Yes, the Comtois horse article definitely needs some work here on our side, along with most of the French articles... :) I'm going to be trying to (probably slowly) work my way through most of them this summer. Dana boomer (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for Comtois horse and the document, one of my friends is writing a book about these horses for september 2012, so the french article will be updated, and it will be better I think to work about Comtois horse at this time.--Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that sounds cool! I'll plan to wait until after the French article is updated to work on the English one, then, so I don't have to do the same work twice. Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also a (probably stupid!) question about how to write here : when I learned English at school, they told me how to talk about animals, I must use "it" and not "he" or "she" (in french "it" doesn't exist, it is a bit complicated for me to understand the use of a word that does not exist in my language). I have seen here, several times, "he" or "she" used to talk about horses. So... if you say "he's a good horse" and not "it's a good horse" for exemple, the language evolved since the 1990s, is it a specific use in U.S. (we all learn british english at school in France), or I had a bad teacher? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a stupid question! If you don't know the gender of the horse, "it" is fine to use. However, at least in my part of the US, "he" and "she" are much more common if the speaker knows the gender of the horse. For example: "I just bought a new mare. She's a pretty little horse." - in this case, "it" would sound quite strange, at least to my ear, although technically it would still be grammatically correct. I don't know if you had a bad teacher, or if this is a US vs. Britain thing. Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English doesn't have an an academy to make the rules, so there's a lot of subjectivity. My guide is that if the animal has a name it should definitely be "he" and "she". I also prefer using "who" as a relative pronoun for racehorses, although other editors prefer "that" or "which". Tigerboy1966 22:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a land mine. I happen to have a loathing for using "he" as a default (full disclosure: my horses are all mares, at least at the moment), so I agree with Dana that "it" isn't perfect, but it's the best approach when referencing the generic, though I agree with Tigerboy that if you can get away with it, it's nice to use "who" or "they" in the plural, that's a way to get around "it." I have noticed that a lot of horse magazines, in their writer's guidelines, insist on NOT using "it," however. But I really dislike having the generic person or animal defaulted to being a "he." Montanabw(talk)22:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely not the person to ask on this. I would check with some of the bot operators here on WP and see if they have the time to help you. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: TS WikiCup page
Despite the previous captions, both Articles created and Top scorers require someone to run a script occasionally to update the figures. I've now done so and tried to fix a couple of other issues with the page (e.g. "Total" top scorers wasn't working). Hope that helps, - Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]13:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Since the number of participants is much lower than at the beginning of the year, the script is far less resource intensive - so I've set it to run automatically every 3 days or so from here on in. - Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]17:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is awesome! Thanks, and I hope that the event went well and everyone had fun! I apologize for not doing much work on the French horse articles lately - real life has been extremely busy. I should be able to get back to work on those in the next few days, though. Dana boomer (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on getting Percheron to FA. I didn't do much on this last push, but do you feel my contributions over the course of the article are sufficient for me to add it to my FA list too? You definitely did most of the heavy lifting, so I don't want to steal your star here! Montanabw(talk)19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats from me, too! I'm hoping that New Forest pony will upgrade very soon; my next one will be Exmoor pony, which I've been working up. Could you please do a pre-FAC look-over of the Exies, and let me know what I've missed so far? I'm anticipating that people may ask why there's so much of the genetic info there, but it's because the mythconception of the Exies being a "truly primitive breed pure-bred since Adam and Eve" is so widespread that it needs to be robustly addressed in the article (or we will have well-meaning Exie-enthusiasts continuing to insert the myth for ever ;P) Pesky (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll take a look - probably tonight, although RL has been insanely busy, so it might be a couple of days. I was very sorry to hear about your mom; my sincerest condolences :( Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay!! Thanks, Cas! I hope this contest is something that starts to be run fairly regularly - it seems like it was quite successful at moving a number of high-level articles to an improved quality level. Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apples: collagen and elastin
I know the source says there's collagen and elastin in apples. The source is completely and utterly wrong. Read, for example, the Wikipedia articles on collagen and elastin. Or more reliably and authoritatively, read what the Merck Index says about them. I have it online but it's not free. I also have the print edition (14th) and this is what it says: "Collagen. Ossein. Polypeptide substance comprising one third of the total protein in mammalian organisms; main constituent of skin, connective tissue, and the organic substance of bones and teeth." "Elastin. Elastic load-bearing protein fibers of animal connective tissue, particularly the ligaments of the vertebrae and the walls of the large arteries." It goes on to compare it to collagen and describe where it can be found in animals.
The article in the Times of India is in the "Beauty" section. Not the place to find reliable scientific info. The author cites "studies by nutritionists" to back up the claim: I challenge the author or anyone else to find such a study. Maybe the author read or heard that apples are good for the collagen and elastin in the skin. I doubt even that, but certainly there's no collagen or elastin in apples!
I've done some tweaking. There were a couple of things I wasn't sure on, so I left those for Pesky to answer. Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to take a look at. Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many support votes do we need for a FA? NF Pony appears to just have one legitimate reviewer, most of his objections are almost addressed, I think. Can you help us find any other responsible reviewers to take a peek? Montanabw(talk)21:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three is the absolute minimum I've ever seen promoted...I'd ask Sasata and Brian to take another look, plus you've already got the support from Mark. It might be good to ask Misty and Sasata to move their finished queries to the talk page, to make the page a bit shorter. I see that you've dropped a note to Cas, so between all of the above, you should be close to good to go. A lot of times it just takes patience, but long pages (such as the page is now) can be a bit of a turnoff to some reviewers. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any help with that cleanup and voting stuff would be welcomed; you have more credibility on all that than do I; Misty and I seem to be getting bogged down with the genetic disease stuff and have moved it to talk. Montanabw(talk)16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Gigolo FRH
On 5 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gigolo FRH, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a German Gigolo has won four gold and two silver medals at the Summer Olympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gigolo FRH.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Want to collaborate on getting either Morgan horse or Tennessee Walking horse to GA? Morgan probably not real controversial, TWH has the soring thing, but handled right could make for an excellently-researched piece. We are between lunatics here on WP and I thought this might be a good time for me to actually do some article content. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)22:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been thinking about working on one of those, but hadn't decided which one. I'm thinking maybe Morgan to start out with? Don't know how you want to get started on it - maybe one of us can have a go at each section with whatever source material they have available, tossing or tagging everything they can't reliably source, and then the other can follow and add anything additional they have? Dana boomer (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article space is probably fine - the article's pretty poor as it is (although better than some - at least there's a few sources), so pretty much whatever we do will be an improvement. Dana boomer (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, Keilana, and the review. I saw the review yesterday and hadn't had a chance to get to it, then saw the kerfluffle about Oakley and GAN earlier this morning...a wonderful way to start the day :P I should be able to get to sorting through Oakley's work and addressing your comments a bit later today. Thanks also for your patience - RL has been a bit crazy the past few days! Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a second whip, Dana, just holler, as you know, I usually have something happening in wiki-dramah land if you need to just focus on the article. Montanabw(talk)23:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is in the process of moving articles from one category to another and will delete the initial category when it is finished. Dana boomer (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NF Pony FAR
Dana, can you comment on a question about how closely we can phrase the breed standard within copyvio rules at the NF Pony FA? Question from Misty Morn on that (at bottom of page). You've run this gauntlet more than I and may be the best person to clarify. It's a good faith question. Montanabw(talk)21:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, first of all I would like to thank you for your feedback, now I know what must me done to fix the Bahrain article. I have just finished editing the opening paragraphs of the article and I would appreciate your feedback on the first four paragraphs. Thanks again! --Droodkin (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I've responded on the peer review page. If you wish, you can ask questions there, just so we can keep everything together. Dana boomer (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have passed it into good article status. Keep up the good work you are doing for Wikipedia! Rp0211(talk2me)20:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Listed at WP:GA
Hey, Dana boomer. Thanks for informing me of this issue. When I started the backlog elimination drive, I forgot that I had to do this when I passed good articles. I will start working on these the next few days, as there is a lot that of them that I have to do. Thanks again! Rp0211(talk2me)00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Bou, "Cavalry, Firepower, and Swords: The Australian Light Horse and the Tactical Lessons of Cavalry Operations in Palestine, 1916-1918," The Journal of Military History 71#1 (January 2007): 99-126.
"Despite their frequent description as mounted infantry, more than half of the Australian Light Horse finished the First World War as full sword-carrying cavalry, making use of both fire and modern shock tactics. This change ran counter to the traditions of the Australian mounted service, which had long emphasised rifle-based firepower for modern mounted troops. This article will examine the reasons why such a force adopted the sword in 1918, the nature of the change, and the experiences behind it. Even in the last year of the First World War, cavalry shock tactics still had a place on the battlefield."
Hm, thanks! I'll see if I can get full text of this someplace - I really need to go back through and update this article, since I have several new sources that need to be incorporated. Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
This article has improved a lot recently, especially with citations and languages.Should i developed more, or go for peer review.please guide Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣05:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Portal
Dana, I've had no time to manage the Horse Portal recently, and seeing how you've been the #1 contributor of GAs, would you mind reviewing what's there and adding the new ones? I think there are some new DYKs as well, maybe we can archive some of the old ones or toss some of the horse racing ones and replace them with general ones... ? Montanabw(talk)19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's taken me a bit to get back to this. I don't think we need to automatically add new ones - the portals are low-view anyway, and so the likelyhood that someone is going to page through 20+ articles is remote. The main thing to do is to have good articles up front if newbies stumble over the page, and we've got that. The breed selections look good. The general articles I've tweaked a bit - replacing one that got delisted and switching out two more of the QH biographies (sorry Ealdgyth!) to get a bit more variety (and some more pictures). If I get around to it, I'll switch out some of the DYK's, but for now I think the portal is holding up fairly well. Dana boomer (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think my take on the GAs is that nowhere do we keep a list of all WPEQ GAs, FAs and DYKs other than the portal. So it's sort of a repository as well as a Portal. I'd be cool if we added a list of GA/FA/DYK somewhere else, but as always, who has the time? Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)03:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but those are wiki-geek tools for people like us. Newbies may value an easier way to go there. I know other wikiprojects (WikiProject Montana among them) keep and maintain lists of the GAs and FAs. I think it's cool to be able to review them. But, as my own time is kind of tight, I don't consider it a crisis, just kind of thinking it would be cool to do something, someday, and I did kind of like having all the GAs and FAs in the portal, but that's just my view. Montanabw(talk)19:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that i am trying to bribe you with the tea,......well i am trying a little bit .....but see if you can look at this PR while having your tea.Cheers!! Ayanosh (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Castillonnais, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the Castillonnaishorse breed has its roots in antiquity, it wasn't officially recognized until 1996? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castillonnais. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I think I have it under control, but if you kindly could watchlist Talk:Camargue_horse#Copy-editing I have a good faith editor wanting to improve a French horse breed article, but they don't get it about MOS and may get a little tendentious. I also don't think English is their first language. Second set of eyes, particularly your set and maybe Tsaag's also, would be helpful. Montanabw(talk)18:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try using your people skills to explain to this guy that we are not going to use bulleted lists nor redo 350 breed articles to the form used in fr.wiki? I'm just getting pissy over there. So tired of this tone, getting short and irritable. Montanabw(talk)22:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting this article through FAC. I wonder, however, if you would mind looking at the admittedly very late comments I made on the FAC just before Graham closed the review. In particular, I think that sentence in the lead needs a bit of attention. Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I had managed to completely miss your comments...thanks for pointing them out! I'll toddle on over there now and address them. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've fixed the lead sentence using your proposed wording. WRT the religious symbolism - my feeling was that the article establishes in the History section that it was considered a sacred plant of the Egyptian god Min, and was connected with Greek mythology through the death of Adonis, as described in the first paragraph of the Medicinal lore section. I felt that these two were enough to say that it held religious symbolism in some cultures, especially when combined with the modern-day beliefs of the Yazidi tribe. I'm open to discussion on this point, however. Putting these comments here so as to not potentially mess with the bot archiving of the FAC... Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chin up
Saw your comments at the Obama FAR. Well said, keep your chin up and good job reminding people to be focused on the FAR issue and not the topic! Montanabw(talk)17:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wrong
Dana, I think you are wrong in your analysis of Barack Obama's article. By your comments, FAR is only appropriate if there is 100% consensus for a FAR. Actually, there is consensus. SCjessey is one of those who do not want it and he says he is for it, just after the election.
I am a moderate so I can see it both ways. I see some real problems with the article. That would suggest FAR. I also see that some are afraid that there will be a push for negative information and they, as Obama supporters, do not want that. (Funny, because I voted for Obama).
I look things up and sometimes suggestions are shot down with the excuse that it is a FA so it can't be changed much. That's the worst excuse.
Here is my suggestion. Start a FAR and plead for calm and rational cooperation. Since many, including me, want it to remain a FA, we will try our utmost to respond to good suggestions. Otherwise, with no FAR, good suggestions will be shot down. As proof, I will make one good suggestions. Based on what I've seen, this suggestion will be shot down immediately showing that FAR may be the vehicle for evaluating good suggestions and improvement. Evergreenme (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a piece of cake to see a bad section. Look at the foreign policy Israel section. It doesn't cover the topic well at all. In fact, it seems to be a cheerleading section, which is bad. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising agency. Evergreenme (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added to the talk page. The Israel section is downright crappy. It has 3 major facts. The selection seems to be a cheerleading section for Obama and does not summarize Obama and Israel very well. Mark my word. My suggestions will be ignored. I outlined, off the top of my head, better key points for the section. If there is a FAR, then there will be true cooperation to improve each section, section by section.
However, I am so fed up with the process that I quit. Let others fight and leave the article crappy. Good bye. You can fix things...just have a FAR and you can admonish any fuckwits (term used by others). Evergreenme (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evergreenme, please stop lobbying/badgering FAR delegates to open a FAR. If you have good suggestions, make them on the talk page. Look, if all of you want to improve the article, do it outside of FAR. The talk page step is designed to see if there is anyone interested in improving the article - if there is someone interested in improving the article, the article doesn't go to FAR. Content disputes and editor behavior (which, from the talk page, is mainly what this boils down to) are not FAR territory. They're dispute resolution territory. Editors behaving badly, assuming bad faith or shooting down good suggestions on an ArbCom-monitored article is ArbCom territory. Again, I have yet to see editors bring up specific issues significant enough to warrant a FAR. If you see "real problems" with the article, bring it up on the talk page. If you don't like the answer you get in response, the answer is not to take the article to FAR, it is to take the article to a dispute resolution noticeboard. FAR is not going to magically solve the problems with the article and make everyone go to happy-happy land - the same editors are going to be present at a FAR as are present on the talk page, the same arguments are going to be presented for and against, etc., etc. Everyone needs to quit pushing for a FAR and buckle down to actually work on the article. If there are prose problems, point them out specifically. If there are referencing problems, point them out specifically, if there are neutrality problems, point them out specifically, with supporting references. Then discuss, rinse, repeat. It's not that hard. Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dana Boomer! Sorry I never went back and supported the article, nothing personal, I just got busy and forgot about editing for a while.. Anywho, sincere congrats on the Lettuce FA! It looks great. Here's the article you asked for, please drop me a line if you need any more (I have university access for a few more months): (dropbox link)
Trait du Nord and co'
Hello Dana, and thanks for the FA. I'm unable to say if the translation is good, it's much more easy when you do en=> fr ;) But it seems good. I'm not sure for warmblood=half-blood=demi-sang, if for you warmblood it's crossing between Thoroughbreds and other breeds, it's OK. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tsaag! Generally, a cross between Thoroughbreds and draft horses is technically a warmblood, so I think we're OK on this. Trait du Nord is going through FAC fairly easily, and then I'll put Boulonnais up next! Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of nuance, though. Tsaag, you may want to read warmblood. We use the term "warmblood" not only for crossbreds, but for long-established breeds descended many generations ago from workhorses crossed on TBs, including breeds with closed stud books like the Trakehner. Montanabw(talk)22:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dana boomer, Nice to meet you, another female editor (a rare species). I was quite surprised to see a new freshwater mussel article (created by you) so well done! I don't imagine you are about to create a whole bunch of bivalve articles, but just in case you have a particular interest or develop an interest, I am giving you this invitation:
I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Bivalves; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Bivalves. If you would like more information please visit the project page.
He did a fairly significant amount of work on the article prior to his final comment on the 16th. This is something for which he should be thanked, IMO. YMMV. Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dana boomer, how have you been? I hope all is well. I've been OK. You probably noticed I have been reviewing Charolais horse for GA, and I've now finished. I hope it's not too harsh. I just tried to mention anything I noticed, but as I said in my review, if you feel any of the points go beyond the scope of what is required for GA, feel free to say so. OK, well, I guess just let me know when you're finished addressing the points, or I'll keep an eye on the review page. Talk to you again in a bit! Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to get back to this, but things are a little crazy in RL right now, so I don't know if it will be this week. I'll see what I can do, though. I try to work at CCI fairly regularly, but somehow other things always seem to distract me :) Dana boomer (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did up William Robinson Brown. Have it up for PR. Want to take a peek and take a whack at it? (Fair is fair, after all, the number of times I've dived into your articles uninvited.) I think it can go GA pretty easy (FA may be trickier due to images and such), so can you peek at it with GA in mind? Thanks! Montanabw(talk)20:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool article! On a quick glance it looks like you are quite right that it would easily make GA. I'll take a closer look later, hopefully this afternoon but definitely by the end of the weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
