User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Lipizzaners

Hi Dana, discussion ensuing over emphasis and sources on Talk:Lipizzan. May want to weigh in. So far all appears to be cordial. The editor in question has a long history of following the article and advocating a focus on the Slovenian roots of the breed, which is one legitimate point of view, though not exclusive. I think all we need to do is just look at what material is out there and work out what the actual facts of the matter happen to be. See my comments there. I don't do as good a job as I could at explaining sources, you might be able to help a little. Montanabw(talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've been following the discussion, and as you said, all seems cordial at the moment. I'll step in if I see a need. Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Or if you can say it better than I did! Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Putana

Thanks for the GA review> Have addressed your concerns. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA promotion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hi there Dana boomer!
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

More begging for GA reviews

Hi Dana! I saw the review you did for PrinceOfCanada. I'm new to the GA area but I was impressed by the step by step way you reviewed his article. For this reason I have come to beg you also! My article is The Queen's Jewels and I am willing to address any problems and/or concerns with the article! ;) Regards, --Cameron* 15:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take over the review...although I may not get to a full review until later today. Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Territory

Hello, and thanks for review of Indiana Territory. I have responded to your comments on the review page. Please take a look when you have a chance. Thanks! Charles Edward 21:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GA

I'm working on them, however, I was afk for a week. Thanks for your offer. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cretan horse/Messara

Hi Dana, I saw that you expanded Messara. Now I found Cretan horse (does not cite any sources). In the German encyclopedia of horse breeds by Jasper Nissen Messara-Pferd (Messara horse) and Kretanisches Pferd (Cretan horse) are treated as the same breed. So I think the articles should be merged. --Klara (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dana, thanks for your answer on my talk page. It's no problem if you answer here because I will watch it if I wrote you something. Talk about the Cretan horse/Messara is going on here. --Klara (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review for thermal imaging camera

Thanks for your review. I will probably have your recommendations substantially implemented tomorrow. Only feedback I have is re: the ProQuest/EBSCOhost references. Those will be live links for anyone who does have a password, so would it be acceptable to include a "(subscription required)" note to the reference in lieu of deleting the URLs? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the review page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Khandoba

Thanks for review. I am working on it.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
cite templates added. Removed disputed sentence, could not remember the ref, added ref for the rest.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
anything else needed? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I really appreciate your efforts of considerably improving articles who review. Thanks again. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamline University Edits

I appreciate your feedback. I noticed that the review is currently on hold, which brings me to the question how long do I have to make the edits required to achieve good article status?

(It may take me a little time to find some of the new information that will certainly improve this article.)

--Flashdornfeld (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I plan to address the formatting and citation errors first and then move on to adding the other required information. You briefly explained how to split references and notes, but I was wondering if you could give me a link to a good example?--Flashdornfeld (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help --Flashdornfeld (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference 20 in Hurricane Donna article

I can't figure out why the whole link is not able to be included within ref 20 (for some reason it truncates.) This is why it appears dead. In 42 good article attempts, and 8 reviews, I haven't run across this problem. You have any ideas? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on review page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I followed your suggestions, for the most part. The exceptions were the addition of publisher info and converting to cite web. From what I understand, cite web is required for FA, not GA. If publisher info is a must, I'll try. Not all the refs have an obvious publisher, since a few are just off the web, not through a refereed journal. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

You reviewed the article on Pier Gerlofs Donia. You said the references weren't in order, what about that now? Because currently, all sections are well referenced. I think it has become a well referenced article. At the moment, would you pass or fail it? Last king of Frisia (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the review page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Dana boomer, I noticed that you occasionally revert vandalism. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-fighting easier for you? Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) Don't worry about how much you use it: the main thing is that rollback is used correctly. Using rollback to revert good-faith edits or to revert-war with other users can lead to its removal, while no/little use but correct use of the tool is fine. :) For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Acalamari 19:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

University of Michigan basketball scandal

When you promote at WP:GA, don't forget Wikipedia:Good articles/recent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Everything is now referenced and a well known user called The Rambling Man has improved the prose and Jimbo Wales (see: user talk:Jimbo Wales) has proofread it so the article is good now! You check on it! -The Bold Guy- (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Movieland

I did some of the modifications that you requested in the review, hopefully this is a bit better now. ViperSnake151 19:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

okay.

Firstly, couldn't find any "positive" coverage of Movieland, sorry. But, I added an additional ref, and added some retreival dates for most of the original refs. I removed refs from the lead, and expanded it a bit too. ViperSnake151 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorted out the refs on MovieLand

There, that better? ViperSnake151 21:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Fedkiw

Please re evaluate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:55 Cancri f/GA1

done Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher

Buddy Fletcher is also ready for review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your GA review of Pier Gerlofs Donia

Just thought you ought to know the nominator has been indefblocked for socking (this guy's been around a while; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi), so the hold may not get any more response... EyeSerenetalk 07:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Others seem to have been working on it as well. I will take a look and see if something can be fixed to get the GA passed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Lowell (2008)

I was going to expand the article, mainly the MH as always, but I got distracted by other things and ultimately lost interest in the article. However, since the article was given a GA nom, I'll do what I can to improve the article. The lead is too short anyways, and the refs need to be improved as you mentioned. The only problem is that I have a rough draft of a 2 1/2 page paper on Schistosomiasis due monday, and I haven't started typing it up (10th grade is rather annoying at times). One that is done, I'll get to work on this article and try to "save" another one of his works, although, this one isn't as bad as the other ones he made, in some places, it's actually o.k.. Hopefully, that should be sunday, if not, definitely monday afternoon.

As for my preferences to the article, unless the refs are improved quickly, and the lead is expanded before I get to work on it. It should fail GA nom, but not be merged. Just leave the recommendations for improving the article on my talk page so I can get a quick idea of what I need to do.

Thanks for dropping me a note about the article, otherwise I would have completely forgotten about it. :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Hopefully he doesn't screw around with it once I get to work on it....he tried that with Hurricane Hernan (2008) to an extent before the major update for it (my first attempt to improve the article). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone basins

 Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GA second opinions

Thanks for taking the time to follow up on a couple of mine. I'm sure it can be really frustrating for people who get some feedback, and then have to wait and wait... If you would be able to work on Misty Copeland, I'm sure the author would be greatful. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved to main user page)

Babysitting

Hi Dana, just a heads up to watchlist Akhal-Teke, someone moved and renamed it, which I fixed, and it was also subject to a couple of weird IP edits over the last couple days, which I also fixed. Nothing major yet, but the nature of the move suggests we may have a translation/ethnic-dispute-over-spelling thing out there, I hope not. just thought it a good idea to have more eyes on it, as I am super-busy right now and not sure how many other WPEQ people have this one watchlisted. Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the heads up. Dana boomer (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Thanks for the ce's on Attachment therapy. Are you kindly undertaking the second opinion? Fainites barley 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fainites barley 13:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GA query

Hi! I know your a GA contributor/judge, so if you don't mind my asking, what can I do to make Pride & Joy (comics) a GA, or FA? I've done all I could, including trying to find a large number of sources, shrink, and add a out-universe info. Is that enough? Thanks! A talk 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and input! A talk 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Misty Copeland

Please re-review Misty Copeland.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another hurricane question

 Done. Glad I could help. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cdn heraldry, take 2!

Hiya... I've renommed Canadian heraldry for GA. I'd love it if you had the time to review. Cheers, [ roux ] [x] 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No! You have to volunteer immediately to take your time to review it! *cracks whip*
Of course it's okay. Whenever you have free time is fine by me :) Many thanks! [ roux ] [x] 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Xgrid

I have followed your suggestions and made relevant changes. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

There are serious problems with the information in that article. I had an edit conflict when I tried to post to the GA review page. I am concerned because the article is very misleading and mixes up pseudoscience with legitimate medical evidence. I am considering taking it to GAR. Thought I would let you know. I will discuss it with a GAR person first and get his opinion.Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked on the talk page of the article and the editor does not seem to be taking my concerns seriously. Therefore, I am posting Attachment therapy for Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Update. The editor responded and said he would get to it on the weekend. This article is a solo job by this editor with over 900 edits logged. See: [1]. I don't think there is any way this editor can have the perspective to do the job. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I consulted with an experience GAR editor who also has degrees in psychology. His opinion was to put it up for GAR now, sharing the concern that the problems were massive and that the one editor had lost perspective. It took me over an hour just to figure out the heading structure and attempt to figure out roughly what the sections contained. The GAR process is meant to be constructive and lasts a long time. In the first part, editors offer suggestions and also help to fix the article. It is only when the conclusion is reached that the article cannot be fixed enough to remain GA that the process moves to the second stage. In that stage, editors vote whether to delist or not. The outcome may well be to keep it as a Ga article. This is a very slow process and can last months. I did this because I think the editor is too close to the article and cannot possibly do it alone. Here is a way to get the constructive input from many editors. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GA of "The Queen's Jewels"

Sorry I took so long. I have been rather busy offline. I found another two refs but more than half of the refs are still Fields refs. I think that's all I can do for now. Best, --Cameron* 12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind and thoughtful help through my first GA! ;) Here's to many more! :) --Cameron* 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

AMiBA

Hi. Thanks for the impressively speedy review of AMiBA. I've rewritten the introduction; is that better? Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

I have responded to your points and made some changes. I'm still struggling with what to do about the second two oaragraphs of diagnosis. Could you have a look? Thanks. Fainites barley 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Fern (1971) GA

I think I've addressed your problems. Let me know if I was too specific about the other TD mentioned in the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

HIW

Hi Dana, I will make a couple tweaks to the HIW article and see if that helps the bloat a bit. I'm pretty much pissed at the one set of comments at peer review, which appear to be contradicting everything we have been told to do everywhere else by everyone else. I might have gotten too snarky about it, but the guy also went into Horses in the Middle Ages and flipped around a bunch of sections for no logical reason, so ... My position is that just because one reviewer says we have a problem doesn't mean we should just roll over, particularly when it's primarily the same person. I prefer to fight over it a bit and see if something more useful and specific comes out of it. Just FYI. Montanabw(talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I'll stay out of the article for a bit then. I've made some responses to the peer review page. I agree with some of your comments - some of the things that he was commenting on (especially the notes section and reference templating) is personal preference, and his preference appears to go against the current norm at FAC. However, I think we're going to have to cut some information from the related modern uses section - for this I'm going to comment further on the talk page in just a minute. Dana boomer (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll reconcile your edits and mine, noticed we had an edit conflict. Hang on. I have to go move my car and will be out of the article in 15 min or so... Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, this time I promise, I'll go away for a while :) I just couldn't resist jumping in. I'll go find something else to do for a while...not like there's any lack of articles that need work :P Dana boomer (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI that I am sort of going through the article section by section, trying to cut verbiage without removing actual content. In the process, I cut things that appear to be redundant and occasionally have found stuff that is in multiple places that can be consolidated. Overall, trying to see what can be cut without chopping whole sections. If I screw up something, just holler at me. I'll probably be off to do other things in an hour or so from now. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

(moved to userpage)

Haha, your welcome. They are? Well, that makes it easier for you then. Not to be a something (...If I could remember the word it would really help...) but I have another one up Tropical Storm Kika (2008). When you get the chance can you give it a review. I'm guessing your a bit busy though, I just saw the bunches of articles you reviewed so there's no rush for it.  :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictum of Kenilworth

Thanks for your GA review, copyedit and pass of this article. The only thing was that the terms presented to the Isle of Ely rebels were actually favourable to them, so I changed that back. Cheers! Lampman (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

Thanks for taking on the task of reviewing this article! A fair number of primary references are used in the article. You don't specifically mention this as a concern, but you refer me to the reference guidelines, which generally discourage primary references. Do the primary references need to be eliminated or severely reduced? None of them involve bias or opinion, just the original communications and documents of the period. I should be able to handle all other editorial comments. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

CR 41 (onondaga county, ny) GA review

Fixed both comments, please take another look.Mitch32(UP) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

History of the Roman Constitution

I was actually going to work on your suggestions today, regarding the GA nomination for History of the Roman Constitution. Do you mind reopening the nomination? RomanHistorian (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have made the corrections to this article and renominated it. When you have a chance, please tell me what you think. RomanHistorian (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for taking so long on this article. The corrections have now been made to it. RomanHistorian (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Baker (1950)

I amended the reference issue, and I expounded further on the impact. Check the article. Does it sufficiently address the GA issues? CVW (Talk) 16:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

FYI... [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

Hi Dana. I've now addressed all your review items for the article -- all good ones. (1) Deleted footnote in the lead section. Integrated many, although not all, parenthetical inserts into the text -- the few I didn't are important enough to state but don't incorporate smoothly into the text. (2) References have been added to the last sentences of paragraphs except the fourth paragraph, which is a follow-up statement supported by the references of the previous sentence. (3) Text on the Battle of Fort Washington added. (6) Reduced figure caption lengths a great deal. Images also reduced in size. I can find no appropriate image to add to the info box (wish I could!). Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


THANKS for your final comments Dana. I'll keep working on the parenthetical phrases. I need help with something else. I just created a new article titled "Additional Continental regiments." However, this is not the title I intended, and I cannot edit the site to the correct title, "Extra Continental regiments and Additional Continental regiments." Can you help? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfhentz (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:County Route 560 (Erie County, New York)/GA1

Waiting on anything else. Thanks!Mitch32(UP) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

M-17

Pinging on the review... Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

Thank you for your GA review and pass of this article, and for the copyedit! Lampman (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My 2 GANs

Done. :) -Mitch32(UP) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Flag of Singapore/GA1

Snagged everything you said. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tips for GA Reviews

Hello! I noticed that you have done quite a substantial amount of work in reviewing articles at the Good Article Nominees page. I wanted to try and work on some of the nominees and was wondering if you have any tips/advice that you could share with me. It would be much appreciated! Thank you so much. – Ms. Sarita Confer 07:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are awesome. I would love to just have a couple of reviews of my reviews just to see if I am doing everything correctly and to make sure that I am looking for the right things. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to dedicate your time to helping me out. I have already done a couple of your suggestions (i.e., looked at checklists and read others' reviews). I'll be out of town for about a week, but when I get back, I'll try to do a couple of reviews. Thank you very much for your response. – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Will do. – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I have chosen my first article for review (Christina Milian). – Ms. Sarita Confer 08:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm worried that I am being too thorough with the Christina Milian review. I realize that this article is a GAN, not an FAC, and I don't want to cause too much work for the editors since I can be a bit of a perfectionist... – Ms. Sarita Confer 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You can never be too thorough with reference checking, especially when it comes to BLP articles. To be honest, you're probably more thorough than most other reviewers, but that's not saying you're too thorough, if you see the difference there :) You're doing a great job on the review...it helped that you chose an article that was in pretty good shape! Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful. Thanks. And I didn't realize reviewing would be so time consuming. :-) – Ms. Sarita Confer 08:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
*grin* It gets faster as you go along! I know I spent a very long time on my first few articles, obsessing over whether I was missing anything :) I guess I finally realized that I am going to miss something every once in a while, but it's not really a huge deal, as these articles are supposed to be good, not perfect. Referencing, POV and readable prose are the main things to be conscious of, especially on BLP articles. Articles that go through FAC are supposed to be very close to perfect, but they have 6-12 editors finecombing them for errors in every category before they are assigned FA status. The GA process is inherently more flexible as it allows one editor to be judge, jury and executioner for an article's status. Both processes have their good and bad points. If someone really disagrees with you (which I have had happen to me only once, I believe, in 4 months of reviewing) they'll let you know, and the article might wind up at GAR for other editors to take a look...but like I said, this is rare.
I'm still keeping an eye on the Milian article...it looks like you're doing a great job! A very fine effort for a first review, and keep up the good work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. So, I know that everything that is quoted needs to be followed up by a reference (especially with BLPs). On the Christina Milian article, there are many instances where (1) there are several quotes placed within up to three consecutive sentences and the reference for all the quotes follows the last sentence; or (2) a quote is written and several sentences follow before the reference is displayed. For example:

  1. As a child, Milian was "very imaginative and very creative", and watching television and listening to the radio became her life. They inspired her to have fun, and she convinced her parents that she "wanted to be inside the TV", although "it took some time to convince them".[9]
  2. When Milian moved to Los Angeles, her only desire was to be an actress. She has said that she "always wanted to be in the record business", but did not know how to obtain a recording contract. After living six months in Los Angeles, Milian moved into the same apartment complex as Rodney "Darkchild" Jerkins. Darkchild heard about Milian from a boy band he was working with, and once he heard her sing, they began working together. For a year and a half, Milian would go into a studio everyday and work with Darkchild; this is where she started meeting people in the record business.[13]

I was just curious as to whether or not this style is acceptable or if the quotes need to be immediately followed up by the corresponding reference. Maybe it's better to try to lessen the amount of quotes like this within the article? Thanks a bunch. – Ms. Sarita Confer 09:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for the wonderful advice you gave above and for the suggestion made on the review page. I have completed the review of the article and have placed it on hold. I feel that once Cornucopia has fixed the references and fixed the quotes situation that the article can be passed. – Ms. Sarita Confer 10:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I left a comment at the GA review in regards to the quote situation. Have a look and tell me what you think. :) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Don't mean to bother you but I was wondering if you had taken a look at the comment that Cornucopia left you on the review page. Can you take a look and let us know what you think? Thanks! – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Attachment therapy

Sure, I'll take a look sometime tonight. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope you understand from the subsequent reviews that I was merely doing my job. I was not out to sabotage a legitimate GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
And I'm possibly sorry that I threw a monkey wrench into the whole thing? (Just know Intermountain program reasonably well, not the same as the nutso stuff). Montanabw(talk) 06:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Mattisse, I think I understand what you were trying to do. And Montana, definitely no monkey wrench. I appreciate your opinion and thank you for taking the time to look over the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Yay for Suffolk Punch! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Double yay! Hooray! Hooray! Go Dana, go! (Doing happy dance for Dana...) Montanabw(talk) 05:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you two! It couldn't have been done without your help! Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HIW and USA

Added the sandbox at Horses_in_warfare#The_Americas. Tweak away. Based on what I think Gwinva was saying, the big deal about the Civil War is that cavalry was used a lot in a time when Europeans were using other types of units more. But the big thing was that I tried to keep it short, seeing as how there is a whole separate (largely unsourced) article on US Cavalry. I probably screwed up the cite templates, as usual, hope not too bad. Montanabw(talk) 06:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Malawi

Hi Dana, thanks for your work. Can you please contact me via the email address listed on my userpage? Thanks. Naerii 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great job! miranda 23:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Just following in your footsteps... :) Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:-) miranda 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone Elisa

Hi Danna

I dont want to be a pain but just to let you know the wikitable on cyclone Elisa should cover Elisa being the weakest named storm in 2008 as there have been no tropical cyclones in the SPac this season yet Jason Rees (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Danna. Jason Rees (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

From your user page...

"I am owned by a leopard-spot Appaloosa gelding who is WAY smarter than me, and we occasionally compete in endurance (limited distance, mainly)." Who wins - you or the horse? I'll get me coat... EyeSerenetalk 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it made me smile (though I'm very sorry about the keyboard). Incidentally, someone recently pointed out that my user page seemed to imply I had a somewhat unconventional family arrangement, so you're not alone... :( EyeSerenetalk 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

M-331 GAN

Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Talk:M-331 (Michigan highway)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Launceston

Thanks for the review on the Launceston page. Can you keep an eye on the Launceston page to make sure i'm not doing anything wrong as i'm still fairly inexperienced. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I don't know if you're interested in business-related articles, but if you are, would you like to take a look at Scene7 for GAN? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1983 Pacific typhoon season

Sure thing, I'll be right over. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! My apologies. It's usually safe to assume that anybody who edits Wikipedia on a regular basis is a male computer geek like myself! ;-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and shortened the season summary since there is no real consensus, and people have jumped upon a new topic within the project to respond to. Let me know what more if anything more can be done with the season article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The issues from the second review should now be addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Altoona and Beech Creek Railroad

I think I've addressed your comments. Thank you very much for the review; I've replied point-by-point. Take a look when you can. Choess (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Template stuff

If you want to weigh in, edit, etc., see Template:Tack. I'm not placing it into any articles until there is a consensus on the template issue, but if you want to see where my brain is going, well, this is where my brain is going... LOL! And, with luck, back to the HIW FA PR tweaks, which is where I'd prefer to be... :-P Montanabw(talk) 07:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

HD 40307 exoplanet GANs

Hey, Dana boomer.

I just wanted to let you know, all of your objections to the articles have been resolved. I think that the three exoplanets are ready for GA. Thanks for taking the time to look at them.

Cheers, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

George Ingram GAN - thank you

Hi Dana boomer, I just wanted to to say thank you for taking the time to review the above article and pass it as GA. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive barnstar

Barnstar moved to user page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Northern River Otter

Hello Dana boomer.

I was wondering if you could assist me in re-nominating the North American River Otter article for peer review. I removed the request earlier today due to concerns about worthiness of peer review, but I think there is enough material to work with for now. I reverted the edit from where I took away the nomination, but I'm not sure if that refreshed the nomination itself. I'm not quite sure how to go about reinstating the peer review request, so if you could do that for me it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much, --Wikitrevor (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

Hi Dana. I think I've polished the article to the point that it's ready for peer review for A-article status. I'd greatly appreciate any further editorial comments, and if you think it's good to go could you please nominate it? Cheers! Tfhentz (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know the nominator was also a peer. Frankly and embarrasingly, I asked for your nomination because I am having trouble adding the "A-Class=current" template to the WPMILHIST project banner of the article's talk page. Just cutting and pasting "A-Class=current" doesn't seem to work. I'll try a few more times. Feel like a dufus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfhentz (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance Dana! I got the article posted for A-Class review, and one reviewer has already chimed in.Tfhentz (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.232.66 (talk)

GA review for HM Bark endeavour

Hi. Thanks for your GAN review of the HM Bark Endeavour. I've made some improvements based on your suggestions, and noted the results on the review page.

I'm not sure what needs doing now, or if there are further modifications required (this is the first article I've ever nominated for GA). Is there anything you can point me in the direction of? Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry, I hope you didn't think I was asking you to fix any problems for me, only point out where they were and I'd do it. Thanks for making those further reference changes, don't know why I didn't spot them myself. Euryalus (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

NY 427 and NY 430 GANs

All done. Thanks again.Mitch32(UP) 21:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to stop by to let you know that I have passed the Christina Milian article. Thank you so much for your advice and help on the review. I really appreciate it and owe you big time! – Ms. Sarita Confer 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome! It is always good to see conscientious new reviewers working on the backlog! Dana boomer (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa

Thank you for this GA review. I believe many of the initial concerns have been addressed. Can you take another look and see what else needs to be done. There were many fixes. Inevitably a few items have slipped past, but hopefully now that the number of problems has been reduced, the remaining issues will be easier to identity. Regards, Jehochman Talk 21:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tanks in the Spanish Army

Thanks, I think I covered everything you suggested in your review! JonCatalán(Talk) 15:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A fun thing

Dana, Yohmom now has Banker Horse listed at Peer review and because apparently the entire class flooded PR with about 20 simultaneous requests, they asked if WikiProject Equine would help review this particular article. I'm for sure COI on doing a neutral review, so I'm asking some of the other horse article editors if they'd like to take a look-see at the article and comment at the peer review page. Even though you did contribute a few edits, I think you are still NPOV on this one. Thanks in advance! Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another new article

Check out Countercanter's latest project Leopard complex. Being an Appy owner, figured you'd be interested. Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marion GA review

I've finished fixing the issues. If you have time, it would be nice if you could take a glance at it. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please mind explaining your reasoning? I removed nearly all the Heritage Preservation Society references, and I fixed all the other issues that you brought up. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Malawi

Hi, I just left an oppose at your FAC, mostly based on sourcing issues. I might change my mind if you can show that the works you cite are in fact the best of what's out there for Malawi. I know finding references is hard for information about Africa, but I bet there are better journal articles out there that could be cited to. Anyways if FAC doesn't work out I'd be up for collaborating to bring it to FA again later. I have finals coming up so not too much time at the moment, but I've worked on several other country articles (e.g. Mali and Cape Verde) and had been hoping to do more of them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Malawi

Hi, I just sent the Amazon gift card. Sorry it took so long, I had the flu (not that it's that hard to order a gift card). Good luck at the FAC. Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL on Lipizzaners

Hi Dana, I'll let you sort out the Lipizzaner stuff for now, commented somewhat extensively there. No offense and no harm, no foul. You'll get it squared away sooner and if not, I will later. My comments DO reflect some WWII knowledge I have from other sources not related to Lipizzans. Full disclosure: this mare is a great-granddaughter of Witez II. That's why I'm into the history of the whole Hostau evacuation thing a bit, and also find Patton's history as a cavalryman rather fascinating. (He both brought warfare into the tank era, and loved good horses. Interesting character). Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi Dana, per your question about this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Montanabw, anyone is free to comment. In fact perspectives from others in the Equine Project would be helpful. - Epousesquecido (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dana, can you trot over there and take a peek? Reply optional, but FYI, Peter is now bringing up all the HIW PR stuff. Montanabw(talk) 23:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been watching it. Everything seems to be simmering down now, so I was just going to leave it alone. I'll watch anything that comes to your talk page and comment as I feel inclined to... For now, how about we agree that when you feel snarky, come vent to me first, and then we can work stuff out together, eh? *grin* Btw, I liked the archer stuff that you added to HiW, more on that to come over this long weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
P.I. is still not OK with it and wants to drag it out. Sigh. Yes, I will try to remember to email before panicking people. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malawi archived per your request

The FAC for Malawi has been archived, per your request to withdraw the nomination. Please leave the {{FAC}} template on the talk page. Gimmebot will remove it shortly. Best wishes, and I hope to see it again soon at the FAC page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

In case you wanted to see what happpened to your review. [3] ! Fainites barleyscribs 09:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter's stuff

Dana, a spillover discussion from the AN/I is at User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. If you care, which you don't have to (grin), but FYI. Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other horse articles with editing activity (good)

See Talk:Sorraia a new editor with many comments, some good ideas, not a lot of understandable source material (and anyone claiming any breed is a separate species raises concerns with me) but very good intentions and a desire to help. I don't have the energy to take this one on, but some real good suggestions there and maybe worth tackling it. Also new activity at Paso Fino, but I think I am on that one OK and being nice. Again another new editor who appears to have very good intentions. FYI and, by the way, thanks for all you have done, will do and are doing! Montanabw(talk) 06:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh FYI, Selona is editing the Sorraia article, Arsdelicata is editing Paso Fino. Two different people. LOL! Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review request

Hi Dana! I don't know if you remember me but you reviewed The Queen's Jewels for me a while back. I listed Monarchies in the Americas at GA over two weeks ago and it still hasn't been reviewed (the royalty and nobility section seems really slow, with really few active reviewers in that area). I was just wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing it... Ideally I'd like to get it to FA quality but I think we should go for the GA first (small steps and all that..). ;) Best, --Cameron* 13:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem...the first is sooner than I expected. :) I see you seem to have quite a few requests on your talk page anyway. Thanks again... ;) --Cameron* 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

GA falsely applied

You passed an article that was falsely using at least one reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:55_Cancri_f
ie. there is nothing in the reference for the 0.00000000002 eccentricity in the article.
And you left in the weasel words about "possible" habitable moons.
This site is going to shit. 205.200.11.201 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? There's nothing even in the article that talks about a 0.00000000002 eccentricity. Also, I guess you could call the sentence about moons a weasel worded sentence, but if you look at the context of it all, it seems to make sense. The habitable zone is "so-called" because it was a theory that seems to leave a lot of factors out and really isn't so accurate, and it is very difficult to find Earth-sized bodies out there, much less small satellites. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Favor

Hey, Dana.

Remember the three exoplanet articles you passed way back when? I was hoping you could review their star too...I'm anxious to nominate it for WP:GTC.

Please get back to me as soon as you can. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Want a cleanup job?

Another article where someone has added a lot of apparently not too inaccurate material, but needs massive cleanup: [4] Feel free to go dive in if it feels like a fun thing to do. Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

(Moved barnstar to user page)