This is an archive of past discussions with User:Figureskatingfan. 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.
Hello -- This was originally going to be a request for mentorship re: the GA reviewer program, but I can see your card is full and clearly going to be for some while, so. :) However, while I'm here, I thought to ask another favour. I'm very new to Wikipedia protocols, so am not sure whether it's considered good etiquette for a nominator to request a particular reviewer; but on the off chance it is, based on what I've seen at GA review and here on your talkpage, I have an idea you'd be the uniquely perfect choice to review the article I've submitted.
The article in question is Horrible Histories (2009 TV series). Thanks for consideration (either of my request, or my lack of intent to breach protocol, or both) and understand I'm not asking for an immediate response if you're busy -- it's only that I've put a ton of work into what's essentially been a labour of... well, great affection, and would like to see the result treated as well as possible. :) Shoebox2talk23:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Yah, you would be right about that! It's very appropriate to ask for another editor to review your article; actually, I may be wrong about this, but I'd say that it's encouraged because it helps with the long queue. But here's what I can do for you: I have another GA to review, and then I can tackle yours. I just looked at it, and yah, you're right again! ;) I think that it might be very fun for me, since I know very little about British kids' TV. American and one Aussie show, yes, but not anything from the UK. If you don't mind waiting up to the latest two weeks, I'm be honoured (spelling intentional). It might be before that, but it'd be a shorter wait if you waited for your turn in the queue. And I might be able to take you on as a mentee, depending on how some other things shake out. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That's very nice indeed of you, all the way around, and it's appreciated. :) I think I'd be fine with waiting until you're able to tackle the review project under the circs. Also, would be equally grateful for the mentoring if at all possible. The more I investigate the GA project, the more I feel like it's something I'd be able to take on without much difficulty, and enjoy to boot. I have quite a lot of general experience writing critiques, just not so much re: Wikipedia's specific style requirements. Thanking you again, Shoebox2talk00:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you take a look at my review at Talk:Gaunless Bridge/GA1 and on the article talk page? The person who nominated it is wanting to withdraw it based on my review. Was I too harsh? Was my review bad? Thanks in advance. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I took a cursory look, but I don't think you were overly harsh at all. You explained that you come to the topic as an outsider and non-expert, and you had some questions from that perspective. There's nothing wrong with that, and as the nominator stated, it's often a positive thing. It's up to him to explain, for example, the reason for keeping the line in the "Design" section about the deck being above the truss, and not just dismiss it off-hand and threaten to pull the GAN. And yes, Brunel has a full name, so he needs to explain himself about that, too. Hey, have you looked at the nominator's talk page? He's what my mom would have called an instigator. Perhaps he just doesn't have the time to devote to focusing on your statements. If that's the case, it's up to him; as the nominator, he has the freedom to remove a nomination. I mean, I've removed nominations, for different reasons, including that I was too busy at the time to act upon the reviewer's feedback. If he doesn't like the fact that you're a non-expert, then he can ask another editor to review the article. He certainly doesn't need to be so rude about it. Anyway, don't worry yourself over it, and chalk it up to bad luck and move onto the next GAN. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry if ТимофейЛееСуда has been upset by my reaction to his review. I wish he'd discussed it though, before closing it.
I don't know what you mean by an "instigator". I guess this isn't complimentary though, so I'm sorry if I don't meet your standards for Good Editor, let alone for writing a Good Article.
As to the article review, then I can see the point of pretty much every comment here – and surely there's some scope for discussing the details. After all, we refer to Madonna rather than Madonna Louise Ciccone and Brunel is less ambiguous than that.
The problem I see, and why I wished to withdraw it, was the comment about "in compression" and "in tension" being unacceptable. The history and importance of this particular bridge rely on that distinction. Without them I can't write any article on this bridge and certainly can't explain why it's notable. I have no interest in Good Article status, I'm more interested in good articles (and so I sought some outside review). If achieving Good Article requires the removal of this distinction, then the article would be better left as a meaningful stub than an emasculated Good Article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood. I was asking for clarification of what those terms meant. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't understand the engineering terminology, like I said when I took on the review. I never wanted you to remove them, just to explain what they meant, or to confirm what I thought they meant. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Andy, I apologize for the "instigator" comment; I realize now that it was probably inappropriate. I think that this is a case of not understanding the GAC process, which isn't to get a copyedit or a peer review. There are other places for that kind of feedback for articles. GAC is a place where editors can get a third-party assessment as to whether or not an article fulfills the GA criteria, which although objective, is subject to interpretation. I agree that ТимофейЛееСуда was premature in closing the nomination; he should have waited until you, the nominator, agreed to the close, but you did state that's what you wanted. There was room for discussing the details; that's the kind of feedback that ultimately makes an article better, and isn't that the goal of working on these articles? ТимофейЛееСуда was fulfilling his responsibility as a GA reviewer by asking for clarification; your responsibility as a GA nominator is to be patient and answer those questions. If you're not interested in "Good Article status", why did you submit the article to GAC? If all you wanted was feedback, there are, as I stated before, other avenues and other sources to help editors improve articles. It's my opinion, though, that the GAC process is one of the best avenues to do that in this project, and I recommend that you stay open to it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, just letting you know I responded to your invitation over on my talkpage a few days ago. Wasn't sure if you were just busy (which I can totally understand!) or expecting me to reply on your page. :) Thanks again, Shoebox2talk22:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
GA Recruitment
Hello Christine,
I have received Good articles and have been part of the review process for GA articles, but I don't think I ever conducted one from start to finish by myself. I understand the criteria enough to dive in and get rolling on the assessment of Tyntesfield at Talk:Tyntesfield/GA1, but if you have a chance to stop by the talk page and make sure I'm on track, it would be very much appreciated!
I think it's a very good start. You've made some great suggestions as to how the nominator can improve the article. I suggest that you stay strict about the close paraphrasing problem, since that's pretty important. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, we've resolved the copyright violation issues with the web pages. Regarding the books, I was only able to view online one book... and had to make some tweaks for more inclusive page numbers and content, but not a big deal. I'm not able to view any other books. Do you have any suggestions for me for next steps? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
And hello again to you! This is my feeling about using "unaccessible sources" like books. If we were to strictly follow the policy that sources we use need to be on-line and easily accessible, we wouldn't be able to follow the comprehensiveness guideline. Some topics, like I suspect this one, won't have important sources on-line, so we're forced to use books and off-line sources for an article to be broad enough. As reviewers, we need to assume good faith (another WP policy) and trust that the sources are valid and that there's no plagiarism. Sometimes, the best we do is the best we do. I think you're pretty close to the article passing; once you feel confident that it's ready, go ahead and pass it! Keep up the good work, and I hope you review more GAs in the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! I did some more checking and found some issues with the pdf references - where content was incorrectly attributed to sources. And, in one place there was a jumble of inaccurate information, at least per the cited sources. So, it's staying on hold for the time being, but it sounds like once we get past the pdf issues, we should move to passing the article. Thanks for your guidance, it helps a lot to have someone to chat with this about!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
= As per this article's tag, the content of this article has been folded into other articles (mostly [[Sesame Workshop]], so there's no longer any need for its existence. Thanks.
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Blue's Clues to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,317 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, BencherliteTalk23:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Christine; while I certainly appreciate the great work you've done on this article, it very much seems to be last year's article- it was nominated last year and the edits this year have mostly been smaller fixes. As such, I've removed it from your submissions page. Sorry about that. J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry- I do appreciate the work you've done. We typically look for work, followed by nomination, followed by promotion, all this year. We've been particularly strict this year, and we've already come down pretty hard on someone else who nominated something last year, so I had to be consistent. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.
Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.
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) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 1 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi Christine, as I posted over on the GA talkpage I've got no issues with waiting a bit for an exhaustive review on the Horrible Histories article. Just wondering though, is there anything else I could be doing to address your concerns in the meantime? You mentioned problems with sourcing -- anything in particular I could be checking for a replacement or otherwise strengthening? Thanks much,Shoebox2talk02:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a busy few days, and I had been asked to review a FAC. I should have some time to devote to your GAC tomorrow, and if not, Monday afternoon. Just be patient with me, please. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
and was recognized and highly respected as a spokesperson for blacks and women.<ref>Als, Hilton (05 August 2002. [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/08/05/020805crbo_books?currentPage=all "
about [[Michael Jackson]], which was read by [[Queen Latifah]] at his funeral.<ref>Harris, Dana (07 July 2009. [http://variety.com/2009/music/news/michael-jackson-s-mega-farewell-1118005738/ "
the private and personal quality that it takes to be essential to poetry".<ref>Cotter, James Finn. (27 February 1976. "Review of 'Oh Pray My Wings Are Gonna Fit Me Well'", in ''America'', pp. 103–104.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sesame Workshop you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn(talk)03:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I see you have a FAC just above my FAC, so since we have no one reviewing our FACs, maybe it would be a good idea to review each others' since FAC seems plagued by nominators who don't review other FACs (even though we both review others from time to time). (it wouldn't be an obligation to support, btw. I like that you're a very picky, precise reviewer). :-) --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yah, I could probably do that, but it may take a few days. I need to do research today on campus for another article, in the midst of another picky PR, going away for Valentine's weekend. Time for me isn't an issue, but let me know if it is for you, and I'll move some things around. I'll go take a look now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll get to your comments on the Caspersen FAC hopefully today...it has been a busy few weeks. I reviewed PoMA...that was an exceptionally well-prepared article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would you be interested in joining our little circle at WP:TFA/R in putting FAs on the main page? It's not an intense project, it has a loyal core of editors and Bencherlite is great at coordinating it, and if you have a few spare minutes I think you'd enjoy it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow, now that's cool. I didn't realize that BC had so many readers. There's a reason why it's protected, and even with that, I'm surprised at how little it's vandalized. And I can say to so many fellow editors: "You are so helpful!" ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Ready to start reviewing, etc.
Hi Christine, I'm about ready to begin reviewing but am not entirely sure on which article -- have posted more on the Recruitment page. Meanwhile, as a result of advice given at peer review and elsewhere, have finally knuckled down and rewritten the 'Format' section of the Horrible Histories article to eliminate the list of sketches and source the whole. Could you run a quick eye over it just to confirm I'm on the right track? Many thanks, Shoebox2talk16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I will go take a look-sey. I think that you got some good advice. I had considered giving you the same advice, but chickened out because I figured that you knew more about the topic than I did. It's much less fancrufty (is that a word?) now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Have done some more tweaking since in line with the recs I've received, and am now thinking the article is good to be listed at FA review, but will hold off until I've heard your opinion. (Speaking of which, have also made a request for same re: my first GA review). :) Shoebox2talk15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mom & Me & Mom you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn(talk)21:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
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)
I am inviting you to take part in this discussion to determine the fate of the List of Anything Muppets page which someone had started for full information about them. It even took me months to get the current information on there. Perhaps you can help find good references for them to improve the page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Question
First of all, I want to thank you again for helping me through the GA review process. Second, I want to thank you for all of your support. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
T, congrats on the successful RfA. I submitted myself to an RfA a few years ago, and even though I learned from it, it was a horrible experience. I'm not so sure that I'd be successful if I decided to go through it again, mostly because I've bucked up against the old boys network (gender gap, anyone?) that so prevalent in many areas of this project. I'm not going to change the way I discourse, and I'm certainly not going to stop calling out that kind of behavior, just to gain the prestige of something I don't care about anyway. Of course, just saying this would probably preclude me from an adminship, but it is what it is, as my mother-in-law would say. I'm primarily an editor anyway, and I'm not sure that having admin rights would make any difference in my WP life. But of course, I'd support you in any way I can, so yes, please include me on your list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
Hey, thanks :) - I've had an account for a while but I never really have the opportunity to actually help out, glad I was able to Misingnoglic (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
So we've reached the end of the second week of the GA review process, and we seem to have hit a stalemate. I think there might be a bit of a language barrier to deal with here as well; at any rate, either I'm not making myself clear enough (v.possible) or the nominator isn't grasping what I'm asking, and the result is an article that's justhisclose to GA status but seemingly with no way to get it all the way there.
Feeling a little frustrated with this--and also kind of bad that my shortcomings as a reviewer might've stymied the process--I've gone ahead and redone the article myself, based on my own recommendations. But I haven't actually saved it yet; it's in my sandbox for now while I ponder the ethics of the situation. As it stands, I feel my version meets the GA criteria... just barely, but it does pass. However, this means going to the nominator and saying, "OK, you accept my version and I'll pass the article", which smacks uncomfortably of editorial blackmail. On the other hand, this whole process has been going on for two weeks now, the nominator has spoken of being busy and needing lots of help, and frankly I'm anxious to move on. I can't help feeling this would be the best outcome possible for both of us. Thoughts and/or advice? Thanks, Shoebox2talk18:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Shoe, I feel so bad, since it was my recommendation that you took this review on. Talk about baptism by fire! On the other hand, it can be a good lesson, since you're sure to be confronted with this sort of thing here. There are a couple of ways you could handle this. You could fail the article now, something I don't recommend since you've both done a lot of work here. You could give the nominator a deadline, and tell him, "I am forced to fail this article if you don't respond by this date." What complicates it is that you took it upon yourself to make the changes in your sandbox, which demonstrates your enthusiasm and willingness to help improve the article. (That, or you're anxious to get the Wikicup points.) ;) Or you could tell him, "Hey, I see that you're really busy. I have a way I can help you! See, I made the changes myself in my sandbox [then direct him there with a link] to make things easier for you. What do you think? If you like what I've done, I can go ahead and place it in article space, and you can get the credit for the GA-pass. Let me know what you want to do!" See, the object is to frame it as positively and as helpfully as you can. I dunno, if a reviewer offered to do all the work for me like that, I'd jump at it. Remember, though, that it's not a tragedy to fail an article if the nominator is unable to work on it. Case in point: the 3rd FAC of Blues Clues; you'll see that I withdrew the nomination because it was obvious that I needed to do more research, and I decided that I didn't have enough time. Later on, I found the time ("Where, where!" "It's right there, behind you!"), did the research, and eventually resubmitted it and it passed pretty easily. The nominator can always resubmit the article when he's able to devote more time to it. I will quote my dear departed mother, who had a saying to go with every occasion: "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." Or to put it another way: "Spin it, baby!" ;)
Wise woman, your mother. :) At any rate, it worked in this case; I tried your second suggestion, he did indeed jump at it, and the result is a new and bonafide Good Article, not to say much relief on both our parts I think. My hope is that he's at least been shown how it works and will build on that.
Meantime, no need at all for you to feel bad; the experience was a bit disconcerting, but at the same time, as you say, a lot of things came up here that gave me the opportunity to really think about many things GA-related, not least the relationship between editor and reviewer... well, that, and the impetus to look into this Wikicup thing further. Seriously, I don't feel in the least discouraged -- more like the ice is broken and I'm a lot more confident about carrying on accordingly. I'd like to try another review, if it's OK; at the least it'll keep me from chewing my nails to the quick over my FAC. Shoebox2talk21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Good. Congrats on the successful GAC! Surprises abound here. And we are such girls! ;) It's nice, though, to not have worry that my female discourse will be misunderstood for once around here. Since we're over here, how would you like to continue? I can pick another GAC for you (although we saw how well that worked out!) or you can pick one yourself. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've been looking at the options, and I think I've found a couple candidates -- the thing is, they're in the Sciences section. (The Liliaceae and Western green mamba articles, to be specific). Think I've had about enough of media/drama for awhile and would like to branch out a bit, am just wondering if that's a good idea? One positive I did pick up from my first GAC was the idea of learning something new as the review goes along. Would that be fair enough to the nominator, do you think? It's not that I don't know anything at all about the subjects -- both animals and gardening having been juvenile passions of mine -- more that I haven't studied them scientifically. Shoebox2talk23:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Figureskatingfan. I'm just letting you know I've appreciated too much reading the above article, and (if you don't know yet) I've put two "when" tags in the article, only hoping to improve it. I hope you can get it an FA as you did with other Sesame Street-related articles (if you are planning so). Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I saw what you did, but haven't been able to correct it until I had access to the Gikow book, which should let me clarify the dates. I'll go take care of it shortly. I'm glad that you think that this article has the potential to be an FA. I loved working on this article; it was very fun. Submitting it for FAC has always been on my radar, so I'll probably submit it soon. Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to apologize for not making it to review your article in time, but it looks like it made it anyways! So, I'm sorry for not getting there, personal life and all, but congrats! The article really is great and well-written. Through reading it I've learned about a topic I knew nothing about, and your article has made me interested in learning more. I'm excited to see what else your brilliant mind churns out! -- TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
FA congratulations again...
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Poetry of Maya Angelou to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,316 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk23:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
GA recruitment centre
Hello Figureskatingfan!
I'd love to be a part of your GA program and mentor me... I realize that you may be busy sometimes, but so am I! Could you possibly mentor me for GA reviewing? WooHoo! • Talk to me!23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey there. You've messaged me twice about the Sesame Workshop page. The Noggin cable channel (now known as Nick Jr.), as stated on its own Wikipedia page AND Davis' "Street Gang" book, which I have, was a 50-50 joint venture between the Workshop and Nickelodeon, which itself is owned by Viacom.
Separately, the current phrasing regarding EM.TV in the article is inaccurate. EM.TV bought the Henson Company itself in 2000, thus gaining control of the Sesame Muppets, then late in 2000, as they were under financial woes, they sold the Sesame Muppets (and Henson's own passive interest in the Noggin network) to the Workshop for $180 million. All this information is on p. 348 of "Street Gang," which is already referenced in the paragraph after the Gary Knell quote, and even that states it was the revenue from "Tickle Me Elmo" which led to the Noggin investment which led to having the money to buy the Sesame Muppets. In any case, I've added additional citations from online sources anyway. Hope this clears things up. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyRaisin2 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello to you, BoyRaisin2. Yes, after checking, I see that Davis does indeed state that Viacom owns Nick. I went back to Davis and looked at the sources you added (which I made consistent with the rest of the article) and re-worded it a bit. Hopefully, we're both satisfied now. Please, when you make significant changes like this, talk about what you'd like to change on the talk page, and also remember to sign your posts in talk pages. Thanks for your part in improving this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies if I'm spamming. This nom has been active for 38 days. The initial concerns with Ike Altgens have long since been addressed, and a great deal of additional work has been done, including a recheck of its sources and the addition of a free image courtesy the subject's nephew. I believe this article is ready for promotion and would greatly appreciate any attention you're willing to give its nom. Thanks in advance. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you're not spamming at all; it's completely appropriate to request that editors review an article at FAC, especially if it's been languishing there for a while. I'm happy to go take a look at your article; I'll try and get to it today. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Figureskatingfan. As you know, I mentioned to you before that there are going to be days when I don't focus on the Todd Manning article; I haven't read your latest comments there yet because I know that I'll be tempted to (and likely will) reply to them, even though there are other things that I should focus on at the moment. So in such cases do you mind holding off on any big changes and big subsequent comments until I get back to you on all of that (unless of course I'm unresponsive past four days)? I usually have no problem with your copyediting, so of course I'm not asking you to hold back on that...except for one or more edits that you think are likely to receive an objection. I think I'll be ready to continue with the article later today (at night) or Sunday (tomorrow). Weekends and nighttime are good days/good times to work on Wikipedia articles because there is significantly less editing traffic and therefore less issues to worry about at other Wikipedia articles; therefore, I definitely want to get back to the Todd Manning article at least by this Sunday. Flyer22 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I go back to work next week, so I won't have nearly as much time to devote to Todd as I have this past week. I'll just move forward as I have time, and continue to put my questions on the talk page. Like I said before, I'm not in a big hurry to finish; I knew going in that this article would take a substantial amount of time, which is why I waited until now, when I'm in a bit of a lull with the other stuff I do here. If you disagree with any of my changes/copyedits, we can talk about it, of course, and if I have any ideas for major changes, like re-structuring or changing section titles, I'll make sure that I share them.
The Hayward book arrived yesterday, so I'll change the refs from it as I go. I have your talk page on my watchlist, too, so we shouldn't miss any communications from each other. I'm so glad things have been so positive thus far; to be honest, I was a little worried about that! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mr. Hooper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji(talk)22:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Sesame Street dead links
Hi there,
I appreciate the work you've done to restore Sesame Street to Featured List status. However, when I checked toolserver, I could not help but notice that there are two dead links in the references. I'd hate to see this list go into decay like it did before. I think I found one of the links via web archive. Is it possible that I could use that link to replace the dead one? I may not have all the time and resources to research everything about Sesame Street, but I would like to help out in maintaining the quality of this article
Heigh-ho! Hope you're doing well both on and offline. Just thought I'd mention that my FAC has (somehow...) managed to attract a couple more supports; did you feel like weighing in? When you have the time, of course. I can see you have lots on the go as usual. :) Shoebox2talk23:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; 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) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Christine. I reviewed and/or copyedited all of Adrianne's FA nominations from Proserpine (play) in mid-2008 until she stopped FA activity in early 2010. I would feel I was letting her down if I didn't look over Fanny Bullock Workman before it got nominated at FAC. I agree with Eric – she would not have wanted anything other than a rigorous scrutiny of her work, to the same extent that she was an unstinting reviewer of others' work. I can only do a general review, prose fixes, checking ref. formats etc., but it seems that you and others are well qualified to judge the quality of the content, if you are prepared to do so. The Proserpine article was my first proper interaction with Adrianne; checking it out just now, I was reminded of this little footnote which, to me, perfectly sums up her elegance and intellectual wit: "Proserpine may either be pronounced "pro-ser-pine", rhyming with "wine", or "pro-ser-pin-ee", rhyming with "metonymy". I will always remember that. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Addressed over at her talk page. I think that we all have these little stories. I remember freaking out while working on some Maya Angelou articles, about the fact that I was so out of my depth in so many ways. She basically told me that I was being ridiculous, and that I was the one who had taken them on, so I needed to continue with what I had started. Adrianne basically led me by the hand through my first Angelou FA, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. It was written by her (and by User:Scartol) just as much as by me. In the same way, she was responsible for my entire body of work here about Angelou, which has become substantial. So I owe it to her to continue at least some of her work here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello... My "Horrible Histories" article is a day away from the front page, and I think I'm already in an edit war. I think. The other editor in question is a young lady who is bound and determined to elevate one of the supporting players to prominence, regardless of actual fact and/or clear page protocol (adding her to the "Starring" list in the infobox, listing non-recurring roles, etc.) At any rate, the whole thing is visible in the article's edit history, and in notes I've left on her talkpage. Attempts to deal politely with her have been met by stubborn hostility; she insists on believing I'm arbitrarily keeping her down in favour of "my version". Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if that's the case, and I just don't have the perspective to see it? Or, am I justified in requiring that any changes to an FA require consensus at least? And if so, how do I enforce this without getting myself listed on "Lamest Edit Wars"? Thanks so much for any help you can provide, Shoebox2talk12:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yah, I saw it already this morning, but wanted to wait and see what happened. User:AshleyMarieT has obviously created an account for the sole purpose of adding her fancruft about Lowe, so she has an agenda WP:SOAP. She's made substantial changes to the article, which has been named a FA by the community, but has refused to engage in discussion about it WP:TALK#USE. Normally, I'd advise you to wait until she reverts you one more time, since that will mean that she's reverting you three times, and then bring it to WP:3RR, but since the article will up on the main page tomorrow, this is a special case. (How interesting is that she waits until now to push it, but I digress.) For now, I suggest that if she reverts you again, to just leave it alone, since one insignificant addition doesn't affect the quality of the whole article. Then wait for the commotion to die down after it's TFA, and then deal with it by either reporting her for edit warring or bring it to WP:DRN. For sure, make sure you read WP:DR to educate yourself how to deal with contentious editors like this one. BTW, I suggest that you not discuss your conflict with any editor through edit summaries; that's what talk pages are for. If and/or when you report her, make sure that you include all these policies she's broken. At any rate, you have my sympathies, and my help if you need any more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sesame Street link repair
Good news, I was able to fix the dead links for the Sesame Street main article. One of the old articles is now a pdf format. So now the article is free of dead links! Hope this helps a little.
By the way, there are two glaring things:
1)The number of episodes seems to have a citation needed stub next to it. I tried looking for a credible source, but it is so difficult to find one.
2)Is not PBS and NET the ORIGINAL CHANNELS of the program? I mean Noggin, Sprout, and the other channels mentioned are really just showing the reruns of episodes and not the broadcaster of first air time episodes. May I change it to only list NET and PBS?
Birdienest, thanks for the fixes; I really need to go through the main article and update the refs and stuff. It's on my list! ;) I tend to not concern myself with content in the infobox, since to be honest, reverting what is often added there by anonymous IPs or folks who believe they're experts on the subject (which is pretty much everyone who's grown up watching The Show, which is most editors 'cause most of us are younger than 60)...well, I've decided it's not worth my time/effort. Personally, I don't have a problem with the episode count being unsourced, since it's not disputable. I agree with you about listing the networks that originally broadcast it, especially since PBS is still airing it. I'll go ahead and make the change now myself, and make sure it remains this way. If you could assist with that, too... ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Christine, I am an user of Wikipedia since many years and I have edited some random pages, but I'd like to get more serious with it. I work as a physicist, and we are used to peer review, so when I saw the good article initiative I thought it could be a good place for me. Please let me know if we can work together and thanks. josemiotto (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
