This is an archive of past discussions with User:EuroCarGT. 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.
WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. I have created over 100 articles, so I do know how to do it. I was just looking at an alternative to my usual drafting processes. With a lot of article in a series like this one is, I've previously started an article by a simple cut n paste dump of a subsequent one in the series. Then I would slowly edit it in mainspace by converting its content section by section. However this does not seem to be WP best practice, so I've tried drafting space and other alternatives seeing which I prefer.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
ArthaGroup Reveiw
Hi,
It's been couple of days since I have been trying to upload a article in Wikipedia. last time it was rejected mentioning the fact that I have not used proper citation and rest everything was fine. I added the citation and resubmitted the article. Now there is one more error saying it's not neutral content. I believe it's a neutral content as what I have mentioned is the project details and the year of construction. this information is useful to all the new and existing customers. Can you help me with what should I remove from this or how should i tweak this article? there are many pages on wiki which provides the information in the same manner as I have published and they have been published. please refer this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_Group
my article link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ArthaGroupVRSingh31 (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
RCC Pilotage Foundation
Hi
Thank you for reviewing my submission on this topic.
I would be grateful for your help as I am not sure why you declined it. The Pilotage Foundation is the only organisation of which I am aware which provides a similar service to the yachting community worldwide which I would have thought makes it sufficiently notable for inclusion. In contrast there seem to be a number of wikipedia entries for individual yacht clubs which are only of local significance.
There is an individual Wikipedia entry for at least one of the PF authors at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Hill
I would also be grateful for help on the references which I thought meet the criteria set by Wikipedia.
I look forward to your assistance to get the article acceptable.
Hello, EuroCarGT. You added the template {{copied multi}} to Talk:Prehistoric Asia, but didn't include any parameters specifying the articles from which information was copied. In its current state, the transcluded template doesn't specify what was copied, from where, or when. Did you have specifics in mind, or were you just adding the template in the hopes that others would note things as they copied them? Cnilep (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Cnilep: Hey! Looks like I forgot to add the links. Thanks for notifying me! I'll see what I can do, feel free to help! I was exactly waiting for contributors to fill them in. Best, ///EuroCarGT00:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Belated thanks
I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We’re a team of researchers at Stanford University, and we’re interested in how editors review nominated articles for GA status. Rather than just looking to the assessment guidelines, we’re also interested in how individual editors then use these guidelines to evaluate articles. We were hoping if you’d be able to spend some time with us, and help us understand how you would differentiate, say, a C-class article from a Good Article.
Looking forward to hearing back!
Our email address is jc14253 AT cs DOT stanford DOT edu
First, thanks for taking time to review my page Fourth Industrial Revolution - Wiki page.
I do not know if you will be the one that will review my edits, but I wanted to be sure to understand correctly what is currently wrong.
"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."
The notion of Fourth Industrial Revolution is new and finding "notable" references is not that easy. Could you please tell me which ones are not "notable" enough to focus my research thoroughly?
@HgPchrd: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Articles could be reviewed by multiple editors. The tone in the page is not appropriate, and it sounds more like a guide or a informational brochure. The tone needs to be neutral and encyclopedic. On the other hand increasing notabilty is easy, finds some good reputable and reliable sources. Then you could expand coverage adding in important information, that is historical nd could link to other Wikipedia pages. Best, ///EuroCarGT15:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Editor Review Submitted
Hello, this is just to let you know that your editor review has been completed, one or several editors have provided their feedback on your editor review page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy editing and regards, Augbog (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Augbog: Hey! Thanks for your feedback, it is very thoughtful. --///EuroCarGT18:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 19 March 2014 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡09:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Article: "NAMUR" which submission was declined by you on 8 March 2014
Dear EuroCarGT,
My concern creating this article is very simple: to give some simple information about the NAMUR association - no promotion, no advert, etc.
I am German. It means I am not native English speaker. I did not use "peacock terms" internationally, if any. I learnt this expression the first time now.
I submitted the article on 7 March 2014. Then I went on vacation for a week.
I have read your reaction to my article only now.
You have written that the article is "based solely on the company's website."
Before writing the article, I made a lot of research. NAMUR has member companies from some European countries and its recommendations are known in many countries, also in the USA, but the most number of the articles in the web are in German, not in English. I cannot change this fact. I did not found any appropriate articles in English. Should I delete the references to the association’s website in the article?
What can I do? Can you give me some advice?
I would like to ask you for some help, please.
@Zgorzelski: Hello! It's alright, you could use any source, no matter what language, just make sure it's a independent and a reliable source. I've declined the submission because it wasn't really encyclopedic and wasn't neutral. The article is alright but needs some re-wording and more broader coverage. Best, ///EuroCarGT20:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
My "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability"
Hi there,
Do you have any more specific recommendations on how to correctly provide references for my page that you reviewed? The sources are all external (mostly news outlets) and I'm not able to deduce the specific reason or source that is causing the denial.
Just wondering why on earth you rejected this submission. It contained extensive referencing and is "extremely" notable. Your decline reason was absolutely bonkers, as there is no such in-line citation requirement. Please refrain from disruptive reviewing, especially if not knowleadgeable on the topic. Contacting a relevant WikiProject or fellow reviewers is recommended before taking a wrong course of action, particularly considering doing so might lead to the alienation of much needed new editors. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN:, @Chris troutman: Thank you for notifying me about this. Apologize for this situation. This was a mistake, one I regret doing. When I was reviewing the article I've quickly skimmed the article looking any issues, and had declined it. When you've brought this to my attention, I've realized that this was a UNESCO site, a notable one. Also I am aware of the talk page discussion as what Chris stated. Asking a fellow AfC reviewer will be considered when I have a concern on AfC reviewing also looking more into the subject. I will place a talk page message to the author of the article on this situation. Regards, ///EuroCarGT20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Recently, an issue has been brought up regarding the notability of many articles within WikiProject Amusement Parks. As a result, a page has been created regarding this issue as well as a possible solution (which will be on-going). In a nut-shell, certain articles will be picked to be reviewed in each stage and the WikiProject members (you) will decide if the article should be deleted or kept based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
I hoping this will work and if it doesn't, oh well...I tried.
Hi there, I'm writing because you do a lot of edits to the Toronto roads articles. There seems to be three list articles about Toronto roads: List of east–west roads in Toronto, List of north–south roads in Toronto, and List of roads in Toronto. It's the "List of roads in Toronto" article I want your opinion about. I see there was some discussion on its talk page about merging it. It's mostly about diagonal roads, and may be better if it was called "List of diagonal roads in Toronto". And the non-diagonal roads in the article could be moved to the other lists. Also, all three list pages should have "see also" links to the others. Thanks for you opinion. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the discussion was about merging York Mills Road into the article, and it seemed to go on and on and doesn't have much to do with my concern anyway. My concern is that the article doesn't seem to have the correct title. It's about diagonal roads, and should be called that. The non-diagonals should be teased out and added to one of the other two articles. It seems to make sense, but I want the opinion of someone more familiar with these articles than me, and I know you're one of the most frequent editors. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: In it's current state the article name is not suitable with the content on the page, the page mostly has content relating to 'diagonal' and 'other' roads in Toronto, rather than Major roads. An option to do is splitting the article into other articles, however I find that weird because then we'll have many articles on Toronto streets, then after another editor will propose a merger of all articles into on. (Tl;dr: It's a good option but in the long term maybe not.) Best, ///EuroCarGT01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
What about renaming it "List of diagonal road in Toronto"? For the non-diagonal roads, add them to one of the other two articles, or delete them if they aren't notable. Having all 3 types of roads in 1 article would be way too long. As long as there are conspicuous links to the other 2 articles it seems like a good way to round out these 3 road articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Having all 3 will be superbly long! Apparently the article has Major roads, which do not conform to the grid pattern and minor streets with documented history or etymology, are listed below. listed on it's lead. Now there's an issue, cause that text is the main point of the article, so renaming it maybe an issue. Cheers, ///EuroCarGT01:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, maybe I wasn't clear, but yes, I agree, having all 3 in one article would be too long. I'm just trying to find a way to deal with the non-conforming/diagonal road article. A rename would be the simplest way. I'll look into this a bit more. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bayview Avenue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
