User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Antoine Thompson

I have attempted to address your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandi Jackson

Ready for review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp

If you like reviewing politics articles as much as it seems, you may want to check out a current FAC I have going on for Jack Kemp.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Meteorology backlog

I've tried to help out by reviewing three articles since mid-December myself, in order to help clean up the backlog so others could review my articles (self-serving, but truthful.) This has backfired, as few others picked up the slack during the holiday season, until today. We have issues with at least two of the article's names, so I haven't touched those articles for review (Katrina one and Tropical cyclone scales.) Of course, I can't review the articles I have improved. The articles I'm upgrading as of late others have not felt comfortable editing, let alone reviewing, as they require a bit of time and wikipedia skill, so it is understandable that they would be reviewed last, regardless of their order on the list. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

John P. Daley

I have responded to your concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keating Five review

I have responded to all your comments at Talk:Keating Five/GA1. Thanks again for doing the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Working Woman's Barnstar

<moved to user page>

Go Man Go

Just a heads up, Go Man Go's going to be on the main page 7 December. All hands on deck to help keep it clean. I've already had to fix someone's "help" of uncapitaizing Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

December? You mean January, right? I'll be on deck. LOL! Hey, when are we going to get Thoroughbred up there? Montanabw(talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Whenever Raul schedule's it. No clue when. If we were maschocists, we'd "request" it for a date, but I'm not that mascocistic (I can't spell either!). You'll see. This morning's excitement on the Upper Case/Lower Case issue is only the start. Remember, I've already had an article I watchlist go on the main page (Stigand) and it's not a lot of fun. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder why we bother at all. HIW will never go FA unless PI goes away. It's totally hopeless. Am I the only person getting so tired of all this nonsense? Montanabw(talk) 19:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Then, with HIW stuck, let's work on something else. Maybe push Banker Horse up for poor little Yohman! Or, Suffolk Punch? Or for that matter, Horse. Maybe take a break and work on Saddle (which would be cool to get to FA status!) or something quirky from our "weird" list... Some strange disease, maybe Founder, or perhaps Stirrup? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)No, you're not the only one...it's just that many people here seem to love the drama of it all and focus on that more than writing ariticles. In regards to HiW, I have been planning on posting a few comments on the article as it stands now, but keep not getting around to it *grin*. Basically, my thoughts are for you to go ahead and tweak the Africa section however you want to, based on your hidden comments and dubious tags, and then if he pops back up and disagrees again we can go from there. As it is, those dubious tags make the article look ugly, and I agree with many of your comments (especially about his sources contradicting ours). If you want to jump in, go right ahead...I'm about to go drop some MOS lingo at the capitalization discussion *rolls eyes*.
As far as possible FA's, I'd say one of our less controversial articles, and honestly, I don't think that would be Horse, with everything that went on at GA. Suffolk Punch, if you think it's long enough, or Banker horse once it gets through GA. Maybe also go back to Arabian horse since we were pounding away on that for a while? Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid any sign of partisanship on pushing Arabians... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I was wondering about that :) Well, I think the thing that the Arabian article is most in need of is references, which I don't think I will be of much help on as I don't have the library that you two do. However, I'm more than willing to act as copyeditor/reference formatter/cheerleader if you two would like to work on that one. Ealdgyth, do you think that Suffolk Punch is long enough to get to FA, and if so, what do you two think is still needed on the article (if anything)? Perhaps post the answer to that on the article talk page... Also, we could look at Appaloosa, as that's probably pretty close. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
We have three foci: 1) FAs, 2) GAs, and 3) Getting the total crap up to at least B class. If I were to vote on a great project for any of the above, I recommend laminitis, in part because we could bring in wikiproject veterinary medicine to help and it is a high-importance topic. I'm not all that worried about pushing horse, myself, as the source of the previous problem will not be able to really be a factor on that article again. We could do a big FA push there if we wanted to. I know I have the responsibility to paginate the citations to Upton on Arabian horse, and until I get off the dime and do that, we are stuck there, though maybe Ealdgyth could fix the other tags... I don't think Suffolk Punch is ready for FA, but Appy might be within reach. Personally, I think we could also get serious about bringing up the American Quarter Horse and Morgan horse articles up to GA. Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, we've brought up a lot of articles that need to be worked on. How about this, if everyone agrees: I'm currently in the middle of posting some suggestions and other stuff to the HiW page, so we can keep pushing along (slowly and painfully) there. Then, I've already dropped a section on the Suffolk Punch page, where people can toss comments on what it needs before FA, and I don't mind being the main force there with just simple input from others. Then, let's take a vote between pushing Horse to FA or beginning work on Laminitis. Ealdgyth, I know you mentioned Founder, which is currently part of the Laminitis page, so I figured you wouldn't mind this as a final choice *grin*. My vote would be for Horse, but I'm willing to go along with whatever you two think :) Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My work in real life has just taken off like a shot for the moment, so my participation will be unpredictable the next week or so, but my personal priority is HIW, for which I think my brain is beginning to have an idea of how to fix some of the big organizational questions, so if we can confine work there to a pace that doesn't get too dramatic or overwhelm me until I get my act together, that would be good. As for the others, I'll go with where you guys are motivated, because I won't be a lot of help for a bit. I'll probably be more good for feedback than actual editing work... Montanabw(talk) 01:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with continuing to plug along with HIW, I kinda figure given it's military implications, it's always goign to be a "joint" project. Horse would be my vote, because quite honestly vet stuff leaves me cold. I like the idea of SP being worked on, and maybe some more Arabian work too. No reason to only work one, we're all very ... diverse folks ... and it's more fun to work a few different ones so you don't burn out. (I speak from experience, I just finished two days hard work on Gilbert Foliot, trying for a DYK on it, and my brain cells are sick sick sick of Becket...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am groovy with moving on Horse. I note we are also trudging toward getting Lipizzan ready for GA -- that's probable the next GA. Ealdgyth, you haven't edited as much there, maybe peek and comment? My real life is seriously getting crazy at the moment, took too many cases that are all are coming together at the same time (!) so I'd sure be grateful if a note on anything really dramatic that gets proposed is passed to me over email because I may not get onto wiki every day the way I have in the past...maybe not even every other day (oh dear, who else has all 350 horse breed articles watchlisted? Few crop up any given day, but the vandalism can build if they aren't watched...) Anyway, it will be lucrative at a time it's needed, but volunteer tasks are going to suffer. Montanabw(talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your reviews of Henry Cornelius Burnett, Christopher Greenup, and James Garrard. (I've finished cleaning up Garrard per your comments, BTW. Let me know if more is needed.) Feels good to finally get those through! If you have a particular interest in Kentucky governors, I've also got John Adair and Joseph Desha nominated. No pressure, though; it looks like you've got some admirable equestrian work going on right now, and if you're like me, you'd rather research and improve articles than review them! Thanks again. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Yorktown

Hi, I am the one who nominated the Siege of Yorktown for GA status. I took care of most of the concerns you listed on the talk page.-Kieran4 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've taken a look and posted a reply on the review page. Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Trimmed lead, replied on review page.-Kieran4 (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

North American River Otter

Hello Danaboomer.

Thank you for the excellent, in-depth review of the article. Now that I have a splendid outline of elements in need of various changes and improvements, GA is only a step away.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Man Go

<barnstar moved to user page>

Thank you very much! I don't think I did all that much, though - your other watchers seemed to in most cases beat me to the revert :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Every little bit helped. GMG got a LOT more vandalism than Stigand did, which didn't help my work on poor Gilbert Foliot that I was doing today! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Mieczysław Jagielski

Dear Dana boomer

Thank you very much for reviewing this article. User:Piotrus and I are working on the points you have raised. We hope to have that done soon. Thanks again. Terrakyte (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus and I think we have addressed the issues successfully. Terrakyte (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 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) 02:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Justine Ezarik

Wow. Politics, football and pop culture. You are quite versatile.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize User:Dabomb87 reviewed a football article for me. I had you mixed up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Igbo people

Hello Dana boomer,

I have been making improvements on the Igbo people article, please check it and tell me if theres anything else that needs to be done, or if I have not completed correcting the points you had pointed out. Thank you. Ukabia (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Greeks

How can someone "with no background in a subject", and who "really cannot tell which side of the coin is the correct one" determine whether it is factually accurate and unbiased? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Maine Coon

I have cleaned up the ear muff bit and removed the Iams ref. Hopefully my edits are satisfactory and you will be able to approve the article as a GA, if you need anything else, leave a note on my talkpage. --Terrillja talk 05:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dana boomer. I just wanted to thank you for jumping in and helping me out with the article, both with the GA and your suggestions on the talk page. I really appreciate and hope that we will run into each other again soon! If there's anything you need, let me know! – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

John W. Rogers, Jr.

How about another look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

TouchWave GA

Hi Dana. Thanks for the review of TouchWave. I modified the article and replied at Talk:TouchWave/GA1. If there is more that I need to do, please let me know. -- Suntag ☼ 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

N.A. River Otter Update

Hello again Dana boomer.

I believe that I may have completed the revisions on the article to pass GA nomination. I went down the checklist to ensure that the necessary and proper alterations were made. If there is any remaining revision or change that you see fit, feel free to let me know and I'll get it initiated. Overall though, the article seems to have complied with all of the guidelines and revision suggestions you provided.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck horse

 Done, moved the temp page to the Heck Horse article and merged the page histories. Glad to help. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks

Your contribution and evaluations of the student's work is greatly appreciated. The otter article was challenging, at the very least, to critique. The combination of an honest evaluation balanced with solutions has been a life saver for young Trevor - trust me on that!!!! As he stated somewhere, the learning curve is steep --- it helps when you have someone willing to help push. If your not a teacher by trade --- then you certainly could be. The Banker horse article developed very nicely from a stub as well. I like the compact topics which tend to be more encyclopedic in nature. She (Yomomma) (sigh) seems to have exhausted the available resources; I'm not sure if there is enough content to make FA (or if that is even a factor). I suspect she will likely give it a shot. The semester ends tomorrow; thus, the flurry of activity will likely slow as the students shift back into procrastination mode. Again, thanks for all the help and attention. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Page size shouldn't be an issue with Banker Horse and FA. It's 1600+ words, well within the realms of possiblity. Given that Dana and Montana were helping, and given that they know my stringent standards on sourcing, i'm sure sourcing won't be an issue either. That leaves pictures (which are almost always fixable) and prose, which I'm just not qualified to judge very well, but if Alexis is willing to endure copyediting by others, then there is no reason not to try for FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

<wikicookie moved to user page>

Yohmom did a great deal. May want to redact student's real names, even if just first names. Admin Lar knows who has privileges to do this. As far as the article, I was a certified high school teacher for 10 years prior to a major career change, my hat is of to both students and teacher for a creative assignment. Well done, everyone! I'd say that Yohmom did a much better job of putting up with being edited than most adults! (um, sometimes including me! LOL!). I'm just impressed all around. (Planning next east coast vacation to hit Outer Banks. Saw Assateague, next stop Shackleford? Hmmm.) Montanabw(talk) 06:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dana the Goddess

Thanks for saving Heck horse from deletion and doing a total rewrite in 48 hours. I'm seriously impressed! You rock, deah.... Montanabw(talk) 06:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for being impressed! The article's not that great, just a tossed together bunch of sources that were the first thing that popped up on Google, but I think it covers the subject fairly well, and I guess it's better than a copyvio and deletion :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

N.A. River Otter Question

Hello Dana Boomer!

I have a quick question regarding the Citation work for the article. I've decided to use template formatting for all of the references. However, I am disputing which source to use. Should I use this Citation Generator: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php or the citation template page: Citation templates?

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I'll give the Citation generator a shot and see how it works out. The user interface looks opportune.

--Wikitrevor (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasim Reed and Tom Weisner

These are both ready for your reconsideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

North American River Otter–GA Nomination

Hello Danaboomer!

I have completed the reference formatting process. All citations have been formatted properly using the Citation Generator. I believe that all of the guidelines have been met for the article, so it should be good to go. However, if there are any more alterations that you might suggest, feel free to let me know and I'll be glad to initiate them.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Thank you so much for everything. Your assistance in the GA Nomination process has proven to be of the highest quality and greatest help. I'll be looking to but the article up for FA status in the near future, so I'll be sure to swing by your talk page. Please accept this barnstar as a token of my appreciation for your efforts and assistance:

<barnstar moved to user page>

Best regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome. Thank you for the very good review.

--Wikitrevor (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Judith Sheindlin

Hi, I have responded to your comments at Talk:Judith Sheindlin/GA1. Thanks for the review! Please contact me if you have any questions. Happyme22 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've responded to everything and made the necessary changes. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vizzini review

Thanks for the review and your comments. Very useful. I will have a look at them. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address all the questions you raised, see Talk:Calogero Vizzini/GA1. Not sure about some things, maybe you could have a look at it again. Thanks. - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for passing the article and your understanding and flexibility. Highly appreciated. - Mafia Expert (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion in Oregon

Hey there! Just thought I would let you know that I started the Religion in Oregon article. I know you contributed to the Cannabis in Oregon article, so if you are interested feel free to add to the religion article in any way possible. Hopefully many members of the Oregon Project will come together to put together a very informative and interesting article. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks again, and take care! -Whataworld06 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Horses: peer review?

Hello, I left a reply to your comments on Talk:Horse#New To-Do List. I'm not an expert on horses in particular but I do know something about ungulates, so I'd like to help if I can. --Fish-Bird (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GA: Roswell High School

Thank you for your excellent advice in giving a second opinion! It is very much appreciated. AUburnTiger (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not personal at all

Hi Dana, I know I just trashed your sandbox. Please don't take it personally. I know you do really great work, but we don't need to do this massive a reorg. I have worked too long and too hard on the article to see it totally mixed up, if this is what is ultimately done, it will take me weeks to properly restructure everything to a sequence that will pass muster in terms of historical chronology and I don't have the time right now. You also have my rant on the article talk page. Please, we are friends, and I know I just went ballistic and snarky, so forgive me, but please...maybe we just need to let this project cool totally for a while. Montanabw(talk) 06:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

<barnstar moved to user page>

Hehe! Careful, I might take you up on that! You seem to be swamped with nominations all year around... Are you the only active reviewer in the royalty/nobility area? Right now my next step will be to ask someone to take a look at Monarchies in the Americas and decide whether it is anywhere near the standard needed for a FA. I believe the FA process is a lot stricter and I've never done it before! --Cameron* 12:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

North American River Otter FA Nomination

Hello Dana boomer!

I have decided to go ahead and enlist the article as a FAC. I'm ready to take on the challenge of getting the article to FA status, but hopefully all will go well.

Best regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Alexander Cameron Rutherford

Hi Dana, and thanks for your review of the above article. I agreed with all of your points, and I believe have addressed them all. I'd appreciate it if you could have another look, at your convenience. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Schultz

I have responded to your review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Geraldine Ferraro

Hi and thanks very much for doing another review. My responses are ready at Talk:Geraldine Ferraro/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cnidaria

Hi,Dana boomer, I forgot to thank you up front for stepping up to review this article. I bet we both wish it was always so quick. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are quite welcome! And yes, I wish nominators always nominated articles in that good of shape and responded that quickly to the issues I bring up - it would probably make the backlog at GA go down, that's for sure! Dana boomer (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Murder article GA

I can't find where I left the comment. I authorize you to remove the comment. Articles take a lot of work to write so if anyone takes the effort to go through GA, some recognition is in store. Even if it doesn't meet GA standards, at least a word of thanks or suggestions for an even better article are in store.

Spevw (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Reputation system

Thanks for the review. I had not worked on the article much but i thought that it was good enough. i'm wrong. if i have time i'll work on it more. -munkee_madness talk 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Sorraia

Dana, after the insults you and your WPEQ friends made to me about my last GA review of an article "owned" to WPEQ (which seems to be down to 3 editors now), I would not dare be lead reviewer on another one. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed-Class equine articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed-Class equine articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed-Class equine articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unassessed-Class equine articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Brunner review

I confess. I was putting this in the queue to lessen the wait time. I have made a lot of improvements. I have gone throught newspapers for her time as a Judge 2001-2005 and part of her time as a lawyer 8/91-4/94. I still have to add 4/94-2001. Take your time with this review because I will not be finished with this article for about 48 hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now filled in 1978-2009 to the best of my ability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The GA review of Sorraia

Hi Dana,

First, I wanted to explicitly recognize a pattern of civil and inclusive discussion that has done a very fine job of finding consensus and improving the Sorraia article. You and the other major contributors to this page should be commended for this. Because of the content conflicts, I am putting the review on hold. I have warned the critics involved to avoid the perception that their comments are motivated by an interest in furthering a long-standing conflict between editors. If they do make a convincing effort to improve this article to the point of passing the GA review, I may WP:IAR and discount their concerns. I'd also like to ask the major contributors to remain civil and keep your eyes on the prize.

Thanks for your contributions, --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Suffolk Punch FAC

 Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck with the FAC. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hooray! Hooray! FA!! FA!! Good for you! Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Willie Mount review. Hekerui (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

United States Conference of Mayors

I have responded to your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sifton GA review

I've addressed the outstanding issue. Let's see if we can set a record for shortest time on hold for a GA candidate. Thanks for your review, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Horse

You are most welcome. I think it's a terrific article. Finetooth (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You might find this relaxing, I hope...

Morab just underwent a nice major expansion but needs wikification and some cleanup. Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TFD#Template:United_States_Conference_of_Mayors_Presidents

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:United_States_Conference_of_Mayors_Presidents since you just reviewed its WP:GAC candidacy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Percy Shaw Jeffrey

Thanks for your review, I shall be working through it over the next couple of days. I'll be replying on the review page, obviously. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll have to just remove it - "He taught there until 1893.", then move the preceding apologia ref to after that sentence, pending further investigation. What do you think? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jill Biden GA review

Thanks once again for your reviewing! My responses and changes are done, see Talk:Jill Biden/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wet season review/idea

I've made most of the changes you suggested. Per your comments, would a new section describing which areas of the world which experience a wet season be added, instead of merely saying areas which have a mediterranean, savannah, or monsoon climate regime? It would bulk up the article some, if nothing else. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to your latest set of comments, and supplied the 3 ISBNs. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos for Sorraia article

Hello Dana. I just uploaded two photos which you might find useful to the Sorraia article. Specifically, I'd sure like to see the lead mention in addition to the primitive color that the convex profile is something the Sorraia is also know for. Remember at first reading, Una was under the impression the Sorraia was just a color breed and the lead still leaves this impression and I think we can make it better by mentioning the convex profile and showing a photo down further in the article. See what you think. If you want the photos, you can find them on my talk page, okay?Selona (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you put the photos to good use, Dana and the placement looks good to me. I hope others feel the same.Selona (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Precipitation (meteorology)

The issues you pointed out should be taken care of now. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Campolina

Thank you for figuring out the JPG - jpg aspect of the new pictures. I put the images into categories... Capolina commons started a new one for Campolina horses, and did a commons cat link to it from the article, put one image into horse head category and one into black horses category...but I didn't know if any other categories would be good for these horses. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 22:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorraia GA review decision

Hi Dana,

Thanks for working through a difficult review process. I believe the article met the good article criteria prior to the controversy that popped up, and believe it has improved greatly since then. I've passed the article assuming that none of the issues that were brought up on the review page will be resolved without any instability. The contributors have done a great job of creating consensus, and that would have to continue. If the issues aren't resolved, or hit a critical snap, I've recommended that the critics should ask for its reevaluation. Also, there are some oddities that have arisen from so many editors making so many changes to isolated details. For instance, the last paragraph of history doesn't include information about herds in North America. I'd recommend taking a step back from the details and making sure the article is polished. Congrats on a great job.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dana, thank you for all the work you've done on the Sorraia article. For my own part, it would seem that I've contributed all that I can, and anything further is just being perceived as argumentative and likely not the least bit helpful, so I'm figuring to walk away now. Would you please edit out the "Roman nose" reference under the profile photo of Altamiro in the article? I've explained in the Sorraia talk page that this is a wrong statement. It could say instead, "Roman head" or, even better as other texts have used, "Ram head"--mostly, I think it best to just leave it "convex profile" without any other descriptive elements necessary. I put up a few more photos regarding hair coat on my talk page. My best to you on all your other editing projects.Selona (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Review needed with Talk:Fahd Armored Personnel Carrier/GA1

Hello. I have improved the article a bit more, and was wondering if there is any thing remaining you suggest. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might like this...

Journal of Heredity article

Never mind, see you found it. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup, already found that one, thanks anyways though! Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A Glimpse of Hell (book) GA review

Thank you for taking the time to read and assess this article for GA. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian rustic pony

Is there such a breed as this one described in the article?? The reference to a WWW site does not talk about this breed at all. Is the article real or a spam? Kind R3egards SriMesh | talk 04:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

request

Hey, Dana; if you have time, would you be able to GA-Review Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano? Cam (Chat) 06:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1994 FEI World Equestrian Games

Hi. On this article, could you either elaborate or show sources, as I would like to find out more? Thanks. Will (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Recommend a reviewer

Hi Dana,

I've posted the Dog article for GA review last month. I'm worried that the article is a bit of a beast--theres a ton of content--that would scare away most casual reviewers. Would you have any recommendations for a good reviewer who might want a big project? Thanks --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me think... I would suggest trying User:Philcha to see if they're interested. They do quite a bit of work in the Biology area, and seem to like large articles, from what I've seen. User:Malleus Fatuorum would be another one to ask - he's an amazing copyeditor and a good reviewer. If neither of those two are interested, drop me a note and I'll either come up with some more names or grab the article myself. I've got about 5 articles in line before you that people have asked me to review or improve, which is why I don't want to say I'll take it right away and then not get to it for a week :) I hope these suggestions help! Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 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) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire

Thank you very much for your input regarding the Wildfire article. You provided just the boost I needed. Just two quick questions -

You suggested that everything should be referenced, and I agree. However, I am now confused after reading today's (Feb 11) FA, especially Buildings and architecture of Bristol#Victorian .28late 19th century.29. Though an FA, there are a few paragraphs that don't end in citations? Is there a reason why?
Also, what happens with Wildfire after I've addressed all your suggestions (globalize, citations, etc.)? Should I submit it for peer review again?
Thanks again for your help. MrBell (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I did have a media question about pics that no one has answered yet. What do you think? MrBell (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Among other things, I've been thinking about adding an additional section titled Causes. I would like to describe some of the typical major factors/causes of fires, such as drought, lightning, and human carelessness. However, I'm afraid it might turn into a list of bulleted causes rather than a flowing narrative. What are your thoughts on adding something like this? MrBell (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Military History

Hi, are you part of the Military History WikiProject? - --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being so fast in answering me. Well, I did a few months ago an article in portuguese about the Platine War. I´ve translated to english last week and with the help of a few (very) helpful colleages, I´ve managed to fix several mistakes in grammar, spelling and wikifying. I´d like to know what does it take to have the article reviewed and to give it a rating? Another question is: is there anyone working in articles about Brazilian military conflicts? Thank you very much for your time. - --Lecen (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bovet GA review

The Bovet article is now ready for another look. I've fixed the issues you found. I wrote a reply on the talk page summarizing the changes, but the edit disappeared into space. Thanks so much for your help. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

oic, my comments are on the GA talk page. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(gar) weigh-in

Hi, Dana Boomer. I saw you're down to review the Lord Denning article, and just wanted to come by and say I'd be interested in pitching in with comments to the review page. It was one I was interested in possibly reviewing myself depending on how swiftly I progressed with my other reviews. A note on your Talk page seemed a good idea, as there isn't a review page transcluded just yet – with your having freshly taken it on. Some reviews stay open less time than others, so thought I'd express an interest; in case I missed the window. I wouldn't start the page myself of course – it'd be like opening someone's magazine or choc bar before they had! :D Best. Whitehorse1 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know I've added my thoughts, in the review. The article, for me, has prose/jargon/style problems and is a bit unfocused at times. Refs too of course, which you brought up. I'm not sure my leaving a kind've list would've been, well, helpful or encouraging, so plumped for mentioning the main areas I felt needed attention. –Whitehorse1 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for letting me weigh-in there, Dana. I made a few suggestions. For the most part the nominator was quicker than me in making the little fixes; I made a few other minor edits. I think the article looks good. I'll back out now. Best, Whitehorse1 20:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Review Barnstar

<Moved barnstar to user page> P.S. Good luck in pursuing other recognition at sweeps.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN Dublin

Thanks for reviewing Dublin so soon.

Sometimes its hard to know if an article is suitable for nomination, at least with the excellent feedback you've given the issues have been identified, especially as I'm not that experienced. Hopefully with a bit of work and changes it will be suitable for renomination soon! howth575 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts

Hi there -

I noticed your comments about the GA for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. Thanks for the suggestions. I have gone back and addressed the concerns raised and think the article is in good shape at this point. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the article now and provide any further commentary / suggestions you might have. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Berwyn Heights, Maryland mayor's residence drug raid

Thanks for giving me a nudge on my talk page and for reviewing the article. The two problematic references have been fixed; they were "sort of" cited by the references immediately before them, but I recited them again just to be clearer. Let me know if there are any further issues. Thanks again. --Tom (talk - email) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Good Article Review

Thanks for your advice Dana, I've now put up a page for a community review of the Good Article status of this article, which given the subject of the article seems to me to be the most satisfactory way forward. Riversider (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

American Quarter Horse

We have a new editor trying to help out here, but I've reverted two good faith edits already. Chance you can put on your welcome hat? (I'm knee deep in shelves .. trying to get the books unpacked...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with the books. Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're entirely too good...

<moved barnstar to user page>

Thanks :) Always happy to help! Hope your bookshelves are coming along well - it's always so much easier (and nicer, and neater) to have books on shelves as opposed to in boxes... Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Piper.All.The.Time

Hello Dana, I wanted to thank you for that information because I a sure it will come in very handy. Sorry about that little problem. That was my little sister (long story) but I will keep a closer eye on her and my computer. You are very polite! :) P.A.T.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper.All.The.Time (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicky reviewers

No need to thank me: I like reviewers to be nitpicky :). Good Articles should be Good Articles, not "well I took a quick glance at it and it doesn't seem too bad" articles. Its always nice to have reviewers who take an active part in trying to have it pass by listing issues instead of just saying "failed 1a, not a good article, apply again in a month" as some tend to, so thanks for that :). Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Dana boomer's Day!

<moved award to user page>

Design 1047 battlecruiser

Hey Dana! I believe that I have fixed all of your points on the GA review. Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry Morton GA

I fixed everything on Talk:Oliver Hazard Perry Morton/GA1.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Equus Survival Trust

<moved dyk to user page>

GA criteria

Hi Dana boomer - thanks for all your GA work. I'm commenting here in response to the GA fail of Euclidean geometry. I agree with your decision to fail without a hold (and support such a decision, irrespective of my own viewpoint). I would simply like to encourage you to look again at the GA criteria and think about your reasoning. Is it a GA criterion that each section needs references, or each paragraph? Do the GA criteria require that web references have publishers and accessdates? Do they require that every reference used to source the article needs to have an inline citation? I'm not saying you are wrong, only asking you to consider these questions as food for thought. Geometry guy 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy, and thanks for your comments. A few replies - no, there is no place in the GA criteria where it says that each section or paragraph needs to have a reference. The GA criteria, though, specifically links to WP:Verifiability, which says "Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.", which would seem to encourage the reviewer to ask for as much information as possible, especially when it is easily provided info such as publishers and access dates. And no, they don't require that every bullet pointed reference in the references section be linked to an in-line citation. However, in fully developed articles it is most often the case that works in the references section that do not have corresponding in-line citations are there by accident - the main editor forgot to remove or move them after removing the corresponding in-line. I like to point that out to editors, in case this is the case, but if someone argues with me (which I've never had happen) and gives a valid reason for it, I'm more than willing to back down. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay - thanks for your replies! I noticed you did a nice job at Alan Kotok too, encouraging a content contributor. Keep up the good work! Geometry guy 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI

Saw your GA review for Lesbian. Responded there. Appreciate the time you took to read the article and give comments. Let me know if there's anything else to fix. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA review request

Could I ask you to take a quick look at Lithuanian press ban? Apart from ref standardization and the addition of some more detail, I think it's in pretty good shape, I would welcome your general comments. Regards, Novickas (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Novickas (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hensley review

Thanks again for another review. I've responded to all your comments at Talk:Jim Hensley/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick

Thanks for passing Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick. It's not perfect, but it's what I've got. Lampman (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. If articles were ever "perfect" we'd all soon be out of a job here on WP. It looked good to me :) Dana boomer (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Lord Denning

Thanks for your work on this; would you be able to take a look at Norman Birkett as well? Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Moonrise delistment

If you look on the GA tag, it states if it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. I followed the delisting bit; delisting without a GAR has been done before, and I have also done so with Believers awhile back. I had made note of feeling I should delist it on Anime/Manga assessment page as well before doing so, and no one had come forward to say anything against just delisting it. As such, I also asked for an assessment at Wikiproject: Novels. Sorry if I was misinformed, but I was merely acting by what the tag said and by my previous experiences. Clearly, Moonrise itself isn't of GA quality, as it contains fact tags, unreferenced information, etc. Is there anything I might have missed that said I couldn't just delist it, despite it saying so on the GA tag? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point, and I normally would leave a note on the talk page. However, no one was actively doing anything with the article, which is why I went to Wikiproject: Novels (the same happened with Believers, though of course with different projects). This time I'll drop a note on the talk page and wait a week. If no one reponds/objects without proper reason/improves the article, then I'll go ahead and delist. I do think it's good that you are seeking the line to be clarified. I remember being confused and nervous to actually delist anything when I first saw it. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if the only way to remove a GA was through reassessment. While I won't delist an article unless it significantly lacks supporting materials (and so on) and like getting second opinions, there are those who won't. Not to mention reassessment may bring attention to the article, even if it's just from people who don't like losing GAs. I'll stay posted on the discussion concerning the line as well. Thanks you! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Puerto Rico "GA"

Hello Dana boomer. I provided a new table which evened out the distribution of the flags. I have also replaced unreliable refs with new reliable ones and made notations on those which are in "Spanish". In one case (Ref #17) I added the information in regard to the authority who wrote the piece in question, which is one thing that I should have done in the first place. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Dana boomer, you have made me do a lot of work (smile). To tell you the truth, I have enjoyed every moment of it. There is one thing though, your last request: "All of the websites still need to have publishers given", I'm sorry, but I really don't know how to do that. I hope that this minor issue doesn't affect the "GA" thing. I mean, I have taken the whole thing on by myself and maybe someone in the future will come along and do the last request. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Dana, thank you, not only for your review, but because you are one of the few reviewers, that I know of, that pitches in and lends a helping hand. The thing that I appreciate about your comments is that you have helped me make this article a much better one. I has been a pleasure inter-acting with you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Swedish heraldry

Thank you for bringing some much-needed attention to this article. You can see I've been largely on my own with it until your review, and some wonderful improvements have since followed. Thank you for reviewing the article. I wish I could be more active in the GA process, but I'm in the middle of an overseas move right now, so it may be some weeks before I can do any more. I'm excited about what is happening now though. Cheers! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I have renominated Swedish heraldry for GA review. No one has picked it up yet, and since you initiated the first review, I thought you might like to do the review this time around. I've also made some more improvements to the article since March (notice the 'military heraldry' and 'regional heraldry' sections and the images dispersed from the gallery). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand completely. Thanks for the reply. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 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) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire

Thanks for the review and your help with the Wildfire article. In case you're interested, I've listed the article for a GA review. Wish it luck! MrBell (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN

You have been stuck at 32 for a while. I was rooting for you to get to 40.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. RL dumped on me, and I just got a little burned out. Doubt I'll make it to 40 by tomorrow, but thanks for the support :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Help, opinions?

Hello again. Would you mind having a look at Friesian Sporthorse? I'm at a loss as to what to do. Traditionally Friesian Sporthorse has referred to the breed, and Friesian Sport Horse has been used to refer to other Friesian crosses generically. Now it appears another registry has also adopted the term Friesian Sporthorse, but not in the sense of a breed and it is not a breed registry, and they've got a rather aggressive editor who's decided to take issue with the Friesian Sporthorse page rather than adding to the Friesian cross page where I think their registry's information would be more appropriate. The intent behind creating two entries in the first place was to provide information on the breed Friesian Sporthorse without excluding the other cross registries Friesian cross, because it muddied the waters having them all on the same page, but ran the risk of offending registries if they were excluded from the breed page for not being breed registries. This solution had worked well for a long time. I don't know how best to handle this per wikipedia, and also in the interest of providing correct information. You've got more experience with wikipedia than I do, would you mind having a look? Thanks in advance. Salito (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Antoine Thompson

Antoine Thompson a GA you promoted is at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Homosexual Transsexual

I think you ought to reverse your fail of this article for two reasons. The fact tags you cited as one reason were placed there by a confused person. They were inside a block quote which has a prpper citation at the end of it. The [diff] clearly shows that to be the case [1]. As for the NPOV discussions the NPOV dispute you have to consider that Jokestress is not a neutral person on this. She is a person who in real life campaigns publically against the use of the very term this article is about. As it says on her talk page she is Andrea James. We have had long discussions about COI and all that. The reason she does not edit the article is because she has recused herself. As for the cleanup tag, that's the reason the nomination was on hold when you failed it, unless someone took it off hold before it was 100% ready. Please look deeper and reconsider your action.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Everybody voiced her/his concerns. The article is currently in desperate need of a copyedit and a brand new lead. Feel free to drop by. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(re: Friesian Sporthorse page)

Hi, I am not sure that I am editing this in the correct place. Please let me know if this is wrong. When I sign in and click on my talk page (which Saltio had requested yesterday), it says the page does not exist and then it kicks me out of Wikipedia completely and I have to open a new firefox page to get back in and finally start all over to get back to the Friesian Sporthorse page. (I also cannot get the email alerts to work - even after editing my options several times). I finally found a link to Saltio's talk page that appeared to work? I left a message there early this morning. I am not trying to be difficult, but editing and then leaving a comment is the only way that I have found communication to work, so far. I did just do another new, very minor, edit that reflects that more than one registry for Friesian Sporthorses exists. I have no real issue with majority of the content on the page, other than it does not provide the whole story and appears as self-promo of only one business entity that registers these horses. I have been reading up on these things, best I can, and my understanding is that self-promo or specific advertising is against Wikipedia rules. I am new to Wikipedia - please bear with me as I learn the proper channels for these things. Any help would be greatly appreciated. (FriesianSportH (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

DOI Tips?

Thank you for helping out with the broken DOIs in Self-help groups for mental health and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous. I know a lot of my articles have broken DOIs, and I'm wondering if there's specific things that you look for or try when you go to correct them? -- Scarpy (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips. I sporadically "audit" articles I've worked on in the past and I'm going to use crossref and the other suggestions for references with broken dois. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo article

I am appalled at what happened to the rodeo article, I have been trying to work on that article on and off for years. It has been totally messed up. I am reverting the whole thing and will try to, paragraph by paragraph, put in what useful edits were made. I am horrified. Montanabw(talk) 04:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting messy

Hi Dana,

I'm GA reviewing homosexual transsexual. It's my second GA outside MILHIST. Can you take a closer look at the language issues after I've solved the rest. Presumably, this will be within a few days. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong tag?

Hi! I saw you've tagged a bunch of articles connected to standardbred racing with 'Wikiproject Equine'. However, one of the standardbred horses, Digger Crown, got a 'Wikiproject thoroughbred racing' tag instead. Just wanted to say this, so you can change it if you want to! Njaker (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Marwari

Want to do some minor cleanup while you are still tweaking artiles? May I recommend Marwari horse? Probably no time to take it to GA and may be too hard to find good enough sources, but it needs a breed infobox and some general help. Interested?  !!!!

Wild Mustang Article

Yeah, uh, hey Dana, I'm still waiting for you to update the fact that Wild American Mustangs (and burros) are not "feral." If you go by the Wikipedia definition of "feral," the "feral" horses that gave birth to the Wild American Mustangs that roam freely now, (and the ones in BLM captivity) have long been DEAD. They died around 1600 right? Therefore, the remaining herds, born into the wild, always been wild, native to the land, for several hundred years, cannot be classified as "feral."

"A feral organism is one that has escaped from domestication and returned, partly or wholly, to its wild state." This is a quote from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral

Following your argument that Mustangs are "feral" horses, or should be referrred to as "feral", has no standing. The "domestication" quote from Wikipedia, also offers evidence that Wild American Mustangs and Burros are not part of the "feral" category. Sure, Wild Mustangs and Burros can be rounded up and "domesticated," just like there are chimps serving beer in Thailand...or lions jumping through fire rings...it doesn't rob them from their "wild" animal status. It does not change their species or species of origin. Are you going to say that chimpanzees are no longer considered wild animals because some have lived in cages?

Therefore, the correct definition when refering to American wild horses, is American Wild Mustangs or wild horses.

Additionally, I've researched the word "mestengo" and Wikipedia's claim that it means "feral." However, every definition I came across never mentions "feral." Except one page of rodeo definitions put out by a "cowboy" describes Mustangs as "feral." Every "mexican spanish" dictionary or enlish/spanish dictionary I've read describes Mustangs as "wild or half wild" or "loose cattle," it includes all live stock, and "animals without owners." Someone cannot just stick in the word "feral" to support an erroneous "POV."

I do feel there is a lot of great information in the Mustang article, but the "POV" is not really "neutral" or accurate, pertaining to "feral" vs. "wild."

Thank you. Grrace (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, please leave Dana alone. She's just the messenger, and you are incorrect. Please see wild horse for an explanation of the difference, as well as a close read of the definition of feral in the feral article...housecats, for example, may have multiple generations grow up as strays, yet they are never considered "wild" in the taxonomic way. The only truly wild horse alive today is the Przewalski's horse. It is romantic to dream of the "wild" Mustang, but the ancestors of every Mustang horse in America descended from domesticated animals brought from Europe and hence feral is the correct classification. I happen to personally support the concept of horses in general being native species to the Americas and some feral herds belonging as a protected animal allowed to live in the wild, but we cannot change the fact that once an animal species has undergone domestication, that branch of the species is forever "domesticated," and can, at best, be considered feral when it reverts to wild behavior. If someone could find DNA evidence that equus scotti never actually became extinct, that would, of course, be a different matter altogether. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, it's all OK Montana :) I left a fairly complete explanation for my actions regarding the above on Grrace's talk page, and asked her to take further discussion to the article talk page and our discussion there. Doesn't seem to be a big deal right now... Dana boomer (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Whew! Thanks. I do not need yet another big deal. Montanabw(talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Merit!

In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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) 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi There!

Good to see you around. Things pretty calm other than a nationalism spat at Lipizzaner, which is just a talk page discussion and hasn't bled over into the article. Yet. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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) 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good articles/recent

Hey Dana boomer. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Horses portal

Hi Dana,

Say, what would it take to add the horse portal to every article in WPEQ?? IF there are simple steps, maybe post them at WPEQ so we can all dive in and help? Montanabw(talk) 05:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD Irish Horse Breeds

A possible suggestion would be to warn the author about his/her Wiki membership. Every article of his/hers has been an AfD. As it stands, it looks like trolling.--Kudpung (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mustang: feral or not...

According to my research, user Grrace is wrong:

mustang |ˈməsˌta ng | noun an American feral horse, typically small and lightly built.
(Oxford American Dictionary - Apple edition bundled with MacOSX 10.5.0)
___
mustang Pronunciation: ‚m„s-ƒtaŠ Function: noun Etymology: Mexican Spanish mestengo, from Spanish, stray, from mesteño strayed, from mesta annual roundup of cattle that disposed of strays, from Medieval Latin (animalia) mixta mixed animals Date: 1808
(Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary - Electronic edition 2005)

1 : the small hardy naturalized horse of the western plains directly descended from horses brought in by the Spaniards; also : bronco
___
feral Pronunciation: ‚fir-„l, ‚fer- Function: adjective Etymology: Medieval Latin feralis, from Latin fera wild animal, from feminine of ferus wild— more at fierce Date: 1604

1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast 2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild b : having escaped from domestication and become wild
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary - Electronic edition 2005) __

Oxford and Websters are superior sources to WP. --Kudpung (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary sources added above in case you need to justify them. I don't know anything about horses but if you have any problems with lexis, semantics, or grammar, don't hesitate to yell on my talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

I am not sure if you worked on the Cannabis in Oregon article only for being related to Oregon, or if you are interested in cannabis-related material too, but I wanted to let you know about this new WikiProject just in case. The purpose of this new group is to improve articles relating to cannabis, including drug policy, cultural aspects, legislation, activists, strains, organizations, medical benefits, decriminalization, effects, etc.

Also, this brand new project is in need of expert assistance. If you are familiar with upgrading WikiProjects to include assessments, Collaborations of the Week, Recent Talk/Changes pages, DYK and Awards sections, templates/infoboxes, etc., feel free to offer any help you can!

If you are not interested, no problem--keep up the great work at WikiProject Oregon, and best wishes! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dalberg Global Development Advisors GAR

Hi Dana Boomer - just to let you know about the above GAR in which Zithan (talk · contribs)'s editing practices have raised a question mark over the article's GA status. Your comments about whether, on revisiting the article, you believe it meets the criteria or not would be most welcome. Geometry guy 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It has now been delisted. Geometry guy 19:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PRE and IALHA and all that jazz

Sounds like the Andalusian crowd has the political fight from you-know-where going on! The six sites you posted on the Andalusian talk page, particularly the "Watchdog group" have all sorts of gossip going on. In short, surfing around on http://usprea.com/ seems to get you one side (especially when combined with the ANCCE stuff. Then we have the IALHA, which appears to have the political infighting going on, per your watchdog cite link at WPEQ, plus ANCCE appears to think IALHA are too lax on their rules. The other major faction, the "PRE Mundial" group (and the one I was trying to find here) are these guys: http://www.yourandalusianfoundation.org/ also found at http://www.prehorse.org/ which I think is a mirror site. They seem to be linked to a Spanish group with the acronym UCCE, and they are all over this EU lawsuit, see here I really have no clue who is in the right or the wrong or if there is a right and wrong, but with the PRE Mundial registry as a competitor to ANCCE and then IALHA yet a third, oh it's all just good fun.

A gossipy aside is that folks in the Arabian world seem to think some of this is also all about the breed being in denial about and/or wanting to weed out any known Arabian blood in their animals, there is clear documented additions of Arab breeding, particularly in the 1800s, and that sort of blows their argument about being the pure descendant from the prehistoric model cave horse out of the water... as does the mtDNA on how the Barb and Andalusian have cross-fertilized each other on both sides of Gibralter ...

Hope this helps! Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with you cleaning up what you have and popping it in. All I have is some stuff out of Bennett that may or may not expand the history section, so don't wait up on account of me. I haven't reviewed your last draft, but if I get to it and have any comments or thoughts I'll pop them in. You do great work, so I don't fret much! Montanabw(talk) 18:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Quick request

 Done. Great job with the article! –Juliancolton | Talk 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)