This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ericleb01. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Good morning, fellow editors. We are currently in the process of launching the October wikification drive. If you would like to participate, please sign up here. Please direct any questions to Mono or WikiCopter or the project's talk page. Thank you!
September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
GOCE September 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs
Greetings from the Guild of Copy EditorsSeptember 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated! Several of our top editors were called away to real life concerns during the month (be careful out there, people!). This meant that once again, we did not meet all our lofty targets, but we did come close.
Stats
Out of 76 registered editors, 45 actively participated.
We nearly wiped out the 2008 articles from the backlog—there were only 13 remaining when the drive closed.
We reduced the backlog by 725 articles (11.5%), so it was another successful drive.
A total of 59 barnstars will be awarded to 40 editors—well done, and congratulations to all.
Barnstars
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the July 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, you may have earned rollover words, which counted towards this month's barnstars (except for the leaderboard awards). Any unused word credits will be held over for the next drive, as long as you participated in the September drive. Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. Click here to see a list of barnstar winners.
We will be holding our next drive in November. You can sign up here.
A huge "thank you" to all editors who helped clear the backlog and to others who helped out behind-the-scenes. See you at the next drive, and until then, please continue to help us work through the backlog. Happy editing!
Greetings, the Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
Ericleb01, your most recent edit, [1], which reverted from hectares to square metres, is inconsistent with the source, which said "about 3 hectares". Worse, the source says nothing about a danger to housing from flooding, only to structures like gazebos that were built on low ground. See [2]Michael Glass (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing up the units so quickly. Here is another point that you might like to attend to, either now, or after the Featured article process is completed.
The section on Causeway Controversy contains this sentence:
Option 4 was split into three sub-options, mainly to list possible bridge lengths: 170 m (190 yd), 280 m (310 yd), and 315 m (344 yd).
I think it would be preferable to arrange the same information like this:
Option 4 was split into three sub-options, mainly to list possible bridge lengths: 170, 280 and 315 metres (190, 310 and 344 yards).
Thanks for the heads up - I will re read the article and comment on the FAC this weekend. Have been busy but should have time then, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Petitcodiac talk page
Eric, I've replied this time on the article's talk page with details from Rivers of North America and some other thoughts. It's good to conduct some of the detailed side discussion on the talk page (away from the FAC page) so that the delegates who have to decide whether consensus has been reached or not on an article's promotion don't have to wade through quite so much material. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I did have some remaining concerns, but have not (re)read the article lately, and will need to do so first (this may take me a few days). Thanks for asking - did the map / watershed boundaries question ever get resolved? If not, I had thought that asking on the WikiProject Rivers talk page would be a good idea. Ruhrfisch><>°°00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussions are underway to elect our inaugural group of GOCE Coordinators. Guild members and Drive participants are invited to have a look at the Coordinators page and join the discussion on its associated talk page.
Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join!
Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive.
Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
Hi there. Can you head on over and see if it's good to go? I've green-lighted it on dealing with my concerns, but I defer to you on the concerns raised in your review. Sven ManguardTalk03:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think I got to all your points raised in the GA review. Even if I missed something, it might be time for a further review to see what is and isn't fixed, and to find out if any other problems crept in. I didn't use the cite template, but the references do have titles and access dates. Cheers (: BE——Critical__Talk05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Awww, I thought you could pass it if it met your criteria. If I go through GAN again it will take maybe months :( Isn't there anything else I can do? I don't know how long peer review takes, but what I really want is good article status. BE——Critical__Talk19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay cool, I put it up for review... I think I found an active editor to request a review from, so hopefully it won't take too long. Thanks (: BE——Critical__Talk21:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Sea of Japan GA
Thank you very much for your work on the article--both the serious and detailed review, as well as your help improving the article. Now that I've been through the process once, I am interested in reviewing GAN myself. I probably won't be able to start for a few months, but when I do, I hope you won't mind if I ask for your help/advice/mentoring. Again, sincere thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much. I owe you a barnstar, I just have to create it... (see Qwyrxian's page for an explanation.) In all seriousness though, I am immensely glad for your help and expertise. You saw things I clearly missed and as a result, the article benefited. Considering that I just found this little gem of a template for Qwyrxian to chew on, I think we might have the pleasure of working together again sometime soon. Until then, the best, Sven ManguardTalk05:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
