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.
Congrats, and well done on getting this promoted ahead of the dramatic film's release – and get it locked down. Unfortunately, more views means more vandals. The annual pageview count on this one could be over five million, but I discounted some of the many peaks. BTW, would you like me to check your other contributions, I suspect there are more that qualify for the award. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg thanks so much! Yah, I suspected that this would happen; something similar happened when Maya Angelou, whose articles I worked on at the time, died. Mr. Rogers' article turned out to be much bigger, though. But yah, go ahead and check. You are so right about the vandalism, but it's been better than I expected; people are being more respectful, which is a nice surprise, I think. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Compulsory figures article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 26, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 26, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
Hi Christine! I remember Sandy Georgia mentioned you in opening their review on the talk page of the article I was working on. Belatedly, and from a much less-experienced editor, congratulations and thank you for your work on Stanford Memorial Church—and broadly across Wikipedia.
Could I ask for your help with an article I've been stewarding? In two places...
Rudy Galindo. I would love your advice/guidance on the section relating to Rudy Galindo.
I'm having trouble finding published/traditionally credible sources for these events, in part because they're pre-internet and are therefore (I believe) most likely in print, show programs, etc. if they exist. I've been able to track down other programs (eg. for the 1992 Edinburgh Festival Fringe) but I just don't know where to begin for these stories.
Essentially, Galindo's work with the group comes in two major parts: First, when he skated to their recording of "Ave Maria" in ~1996, and then when he commissioned them for a cover of Betty Middler's "The Rose", to which he skated in 1999. Beside the sources in the article, a first-party source provided some context in her 2012 story, here. Any advice on how to find high quality sources for 1990s figure skating-related information?
GA Review Would you consider reviewing the article for GA once I incorporate your advice for the above?
User:Shrinkydinks (love your username), thanks for the kind words. I kinda ran across the same issues when working on Tara Lipinski, whose skating career also occurred pre-internet, but she's easier to find sources about because of her commentating career. Plus, I'm sure that there are racist and homophobic reasons there aren't as many sources about Galindo. I suggest, however, turning to non-internet sources, but since we're only talking about a short paragraph of content on the Fleet Street article, the sources you're currently working on may be adequate, at least for a GAN. Galindo wrote an autobiography, Icebreaker: the Autobiography of Rudy Galindo; it might have some info about his music and program choices. (You can probably get a used copy real cheap on Amazon.) If you go with your current sources, you may have to support using them. Sometimes comprehensiveness is more important than using the most reliable sources. Your current sources may be acceptable for its GAN; it depends upon your reviewer and how good a job you can support using them. I wouldn't use the Facebook post. Hope this helps; let me know how else I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Shrinkydinks, duh, I just saw that you asked me to review the article. Of course I will. I'd ask you review the article I just submitted for GAN, the above-mentioned Tara Lipinski, but it wouldn't be a fair trade 'cause Tara's article is much longer than the Fleet Street article. I may, though, ask you to review a shorter article once I submit one. ;) Give me a couple of days, though; I'll go and start the review tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Christine (Figureskatingfan), thank you so much for your advice on Rudy Galindo! I tracked the book down on Google Books and its search function confirmed that "Fleet Street" and "Ave Maria" are both mentioned one time in the book, so I'm optimistic it may discuss his music choices, perhaps even mention his choices as they relate to Fleet Street's song specifically. My local library doesn't have a copy, but I'll keep looking—in the meantime, I've posted a notice on the article's talk page in case anyone else stumbles by and happens to have the book. I may leave a request for help on Rudy's talk page. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Figureskatingfan, you reverted an edit I made in the Euler jump article about double Eulers. The original text says that it can only be accomplished as a single jump but I see it doubled in this old video from the 60s. Could you please point out if I'm missing something? If the vid looks convincing, there is a problem using it as reference: it would be knowingly linking to a copyright-infringing video. I don't know how to resolve this :P Glimz (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey User:Glimz, thanks for the question. ;) While using YouTube clips as a source isn't forbidden here, they should be used cautiously. See WP:YT, which states that clips that violate copyright should never be used. I suspect that the clip you refer to, while very cool, does just that. The commentator is speaking in German, so not knowing German, I can't tell you if she identifies the skater's jumps as Eulers or double Eulers, but I suspect that she does not. Sources need to specifically support statements made in articles, and this clip does not. (BTW, the skater's jumps don't look like "double Eulers" to me; they look like he's doing a combination jump with Eulers. When a skater performs jumps with multiple rotations, he or she accomplishes the rotation while still in the air. A Euler by definition, since it's a half loop jump, can't be accomplished with multiple rotations.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the clip almost certainly infringes on someone's rights, so using the YT link as a reference directly is problematic for this reason. But I think it can still serve as evidence for what was shown in 1968 on TV: Ondrej Nepela's European Championship skate, as commented by Eva Pawlik. It's a prominent skate (Nepela got bronze for it; he goes on to win 5 more EC medals, all gold, in 1969-73) by a prominent commentator (European Champion and Olympic silver). The jumps are, of course, not all Eulers: just the middle switching jump (right outside edge to left inside edge) is a double Euler. I'm not an expert but to me it looks exactly like an Euler with an extra full rotation? I speak German and can verify that the commentator says Axel, double Euler, and double Salchow—a very difficult jump combination (Axel, Doppel-Euler und Doppel-Salchow, eine sehr schwere Sprungkombination).
Considering this, I think it's a good idea to check whether the categorical statement in the article, "it can only be accomplished as a single jump" can be reliably sourced itself, and if not, maybe find a way to integrate the information from the clip or at least omit the subject altogether? I agree it would be very useful to have one or two additional examples or a textual reference. Unfortunately, I cannot find any. There's a 12-year-old forum thread you might want to look at, of people discussing how the double version used to be more common in the 60s and 70s, but obviously it's not good as a source for the article. Glimz (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Glimz, the one sentence we're talking about has a source that supports it. Yes, it's from a fan-generated site, but it was the best source I was able to find, and since the Euler article is just a stub, it's not subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other, longer articles are. The YT clip is too sketchy and requires too much conjecture. I think that we can, however, include the clip in the External links section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure including the clip in external links is a good idea: it is a copyvio after all. The problem, as I see it, is that the article makes a categorical claim "it can only be accomplished as a single jump". This is either nonsense or it's not. The support for the claim is a 2018 usfigureskatingfanzone.com article. To refute such a general claim, one needs to show but one counterexample. I have done so: my example is performed in competition (European Championship 1968-69) and the jump is named 'double Euler' by a competent commentator (European Champion 49, Olympic silver 48, World silver 48). No conjecture there. It is possible, however, that the clip on YT has been manipulated specifically to fool people who do not know better. It does not look like that to me (I see it clearly as an Euler jump with an extra rotation; the commentator speaks with an old-timey Austrian accent, just as Pawlik would have). However, I acknowledge that I am not competent enough in the discipline to insist on either of the alternatives. I hope somebody with technical expertise (someone who has judged competitions, for example) can chime in at some point and clarify the issue and explain why double Eulers are impossible or why they have become so rare, if they're possible. I will include a link to this discussion in the article's talk page and hope for that. In the meantime, I suggest removing the categorical statement from the article, unless more sources can be found for it which would demonstrate that there's something fishy in the counterexample. I'll leave it to you though. Considering your username, I am sure you are in a better position to make judgments about these topics :) Glimz (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Parliament of World Religions 1000 Women in Religion Edit-a-thon, March 25, 12-3pm CDT
Hi Christine,
Thanks for signing up for the event and offering to help. I wanted to keep you in the loop about our planning. We plan to use ZOOM's chatrooms for breaking out into smaller groups so participants can more easily get help and get their questions answered. We have used ZOOM before to do edit-a-thons but the groups have been small enough that we did not need to worry about breaking people into groups. We want to ensure our success with this plan so we are going to do a dry run. We want to schedule this some time next week Monday through Friday between 8am - 5:30pm CDT. If you would like to participate in this dry run just let me know and give me your availability for next week during the time frame indicated above. I am thinking this will take 1-2 hours to work out the kinks. If you are not available, I will let you know how it goes and we will see you on March 25.
Thanks so much for your help and we will see you soon, Colleen--Dzingle1 (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Dzingle1, I'm not available on Tuesday at all. I'm available Monday and Wednesday thru Friday 10am to 1pm CDT, and again from 3pm to 5:30pm CDT on those days. I'm familiar with using Zoom. Thanks for organizing this great event, should be fun! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Figureskatingfan, The dry run is scheduled for Friday March 20, 10-12pm CDT. I am anticipating an hour to an hour and a half but just in case I scheduled the full two hours. Miriam from the Parliament is setting up the ZOOM link. I will get that to you as soon as she gets that to me. I will need an email from you for that. I will also get the completed Power Point and script to you by Thursday morning so you can look it over ahead of time. We are just working to get the bugs out so we have a smooth running virtual edit-a-thon. Given what is going on in the world right now this may prove very useful. Also if you know of others who have some experience with Wikipedia editing and would be willing to help, let me know. Watch for your ZOOM link. And we will see you soon.
Colleen User:Dzingle1, that time works perfect for me, since we're hankered down here at home, anyway. Well, the 20th is the last day of my kids' spring break, which has been extended into the following two weeks. Anyway. ;) Pretty sure I already sent you my email, so I'm looking forward to the Zoom link. Thanks again! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Figureskatingfan, Hi Christine. Here is the link to the ZOOM. [[2]]. I sent an email with the link. But not positive I have your correct email address. Time is changed to 10:15 because of an emergency meeting about employees and cancelations at my church. See you then. Let me know if this does not work. Thanks. Colleen Dzingle1 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tara Lipinski 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 Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your patience with me on the GA review for Stanford Fleet Street Singers. I'm really sorry for my two month absence here. I'm back, and I've completed and replied to your recommendations to the best of my ability. Could I humbly ask we complete the review?
There are three replies/questions of particular note for your attention (all are elaborated upon in-line in my replies in the review):
I replied to your question about inclusion of The Stanford Daily sources
I replied to your paywall concern (I wasn't able to reproduce it? But I did replace all the links, updated for their new archive website)
I would like your advice on an instance of source utilization in the section "1981–1991: Stanford patronage"
User:Alanna the Brave, golly thanks. Yes, it's only the second figure skating FA, the first being Competition elements in ice dance, which I also nurtured through FAC. I'm very proud that I've been able to improve figure skating articles; it's a neglected topic with lots of opportunities for improvement. Hmm, wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that it's a female-dominated sport? ;) But see here for what I've been able to do thus far, in the 2 years or so since I began to focus on them: User:Figureskatingfan/Sandbox 4Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Very nice! You're definitely making progress. It surprises me that there aren't more FA articles re: figure skating (it's not exactly an unpopular sport), but maybe you're right -- it does tend to be female-dominated, and it's outside the realms of royalty/nobility/film industry where women tend to get more attention. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Bl. Agnes Takea, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. TheImaCow (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
TheImaCow, yeesh give me a little time! ;) I had just created the article with just a infobox and was in the process of filling it out with content (not much, it only ended up being a stub). I finished it and then moved it back to article space. I just I hafta watch out for my fellow super-conscientious editors and work in draft space from now on! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Figureskatingfan. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
On 17 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blaesilla, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Saint Blaesilla has been described as the first recorded victim of anorexia nervosa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blaesilla. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Blaesilla), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I felt that I needed to work on my draft a bit more before I get feedback from you. The article is mostly done, but I know it's still rough around the edges. I left references on the bottom of some sections and the "Ref." table columns to make note of references I haven't used yet. Feel free to take a look at it, give feedback, and edit it. You can leave feedback on the talk page of the draft. I think I'm more comfortable with talking through text rather than Zoom. Also, I would love to see if you know of any sources I haven't added to the draft that you think is useful. So far, the only book I really used is the Maxwell King biography and the rest are mostly newspaper clippings. Thank you!
I've followed your work, but haven't yet looked at it closely. I'll take a look this morning and give some feedback as per your request. I'll also look for some additional sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. I looked at your feedback and made changes based on them. I think the draft is now much better with your suggestions. I replied to each of your feedback in the talk page. FunnyMath (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, no worries. I'm not sure I'm going to renominate it because I'm not sure if it's FA-worthy anyway. I'm not going to renominate it anytime soon, since I'm busier these days. If I change my mind, though, I'll let you know. Thanks, hope all is well with you and yours. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah thanks Polly, I meant to email Colleen because I wasn't sure that I would make today's editing session, but I got engrossed in studying and lost track of time. I will email her before Thursday's committee meeting. I appreciate your thoughts. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
1000 Women in Religion project
Hello,
Would you be able to review and provide feedback on the first biography that I writing in my sandbox?
User:Premsay, I would but could it be either the end of the week or early next? I'm attempting to finish up the semester, so once I am, I'll have the time to devote to it. If I don't get to it by mid-week next week, please ping me a reminder. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Premsay, I reviewed your draft; it's in the talk page of your sandbox. It's up to you if you want to keep it there until our comments are resolved, or move the conversation on your own talk page. You can also just leave it there and archive it when our discussion is over; I can do that for you, if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
Hi, thanks for your comments on the the FAC for The Heart of Thomas. I was wondering if you'd be willing to make a formal vote of support on the nomination, now that your edits have been implemented. No pressure, it's just been lingering in the queue for about a month now, so I'm trying to move the nomination along as best I can. Thanks! Morgan695 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I promoted your double hook. But the past tense construction makes it sound like this was all in the past. Is there any way to indicate that this is still an active and large movement? Yoninah (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Fine, you're making the verb present tense. But I see it does much more than that. Do you want to mention any of its present-day activities? Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is not doing it. It's getting too long without getting hookier. I'll just leave the verb present-tense. Thanks anyway, Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
On 17 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Émilie de Rodat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Saint Émilie de Rodat(pictured) founded the Sisters of the Holy Family of Villefranche in 1815, a French religious order that provides free education for poor girls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Émilie de Rodat. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Émilie de Rodat), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 18 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erentrude, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to a chaplain at Nonnberg Abbey, an abbot was immediately struck blind after stealing one of Saint Erentrude's relics 300 years after her death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erentrude. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Erentrude), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 26 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eustadiola, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Saint Eustadiola, a 7th century abbess in Bourges, France, prayed with her nuns for rain during a drought, they got drenched before they were able to return to the convent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eustadiola. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eustadiola), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Much enjoyed reading your writing on Tara Lipinski. With World Championships coming up soon, I have spent some time examining the issue of quads and their influence on Women's competition this year. I thought it might be nice to try to upgrade one of the other biographies to a good article in anticipation of the Olympics next year. Would you have any interest in joining in? The most promising article seems to be for Elizaveta Tuktamysheva who has started landing quad toe loops in practice and is going through something like a comeback story at age 24, with nearly 150 footnotes in the current Wikipedia version of her biography. The other possibility might be Alexandra Trusova who has about 50 footnotes, less than half of the Elizaveta Tuktamysheva article, though she has a larger variety of quads. Any interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
ErnestKrause thanks for the nice words. I think you have some very good goals in anticipation of the Olympics. They're very much like mine; for example, I've been improving the more technical articles since 2018 (see User:Figureskatingfan/Sandbox 4) so that when people who only watch figure skating every four years, during the Olympics, have a place to go when they want to know why quads have become so important or what's the difference between a short program and free skate. I also think it's important that the articles about the scoring system should be improved, too, since for many the IJS is a mystery. I wanted to tackle the others first so that I could get the background and knowledge to write about it authoritatively. I think I'm there now, so that's my next step. I worked on a few bios for similar reasons; first Alysa Liu because I was asked, and then Tara and Johnny Weir because of their commentating and I figured that American viewers would turn to their articles, too. (Plus, I'm a big fan.) Oh, and then Bradie Tennell, because she's one of the U.S.' top skaters, and Kimmie Meissner, because her article passed to GA and I didn't think it would qualify for GA at this point. I've found that I really like writing/improving figure skating bios and that it's needed because the athletes in this female-dominated sports (even the men) need attention. I'd bet good money that the Russian skaters' bio are also neglected. So yes, of course, I'm in. However, I'm in grad school right now, so my time is limited, but I want to return to more-active editing over the summer. On my list are the two articles about the skating system and perhaps the main Figure skating article (although that may be too ambitious), hopefully before the Olympics next year. I also need to update the current technical articles, which I've been doing before the start of each season to record any records and rule changes. Of course, you can start without me and I'll join you in mid-May, and please let me know if you need any assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
That was nice of you to offer the page splits for the Hanyu article during your exams period. One of the split articles has now been nominated as a Featured List article. After you are done with exams, I looked at your list of skaters above and it looks like the Tennell article looks closest to being ready for a possible GAN. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
User:HumanxAnthro, yum, thanks so much! Although to be honest, while I love wings, Buffalo wings are way too spicy for me. But I will take them from you. If I'm ever in Buffalo, I will eat them, 'cause that's what you gotta do there. Also, thanks for your kind words; kids' TV programming is one of my niches here, especially in my early editing days. I've also worked on Sesame Street articles and The Wiggles. Sorry, I'm not as familiar with Caillou, my kids have never gotten into it. You can always take it on, you know. ;) Anyway, I appreciate the note and the interest in BC; I've already responded to your note over there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Glodesind
On 18 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glodesind, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the miracles that established Saint Glodesind's claim to sainthood did not begin until 25 years or more after her death, and many of them occurred over 200 years later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glodesind. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Glodesind), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thanks very much for your kind comments on my DYK nom of In His Own Write. As I'm sure is true of a lot of subjects, I've found that every Beatles story is like a fractal, lending itself to seemingly unending depth.
As you seem very experienced with articles on books (so it was you that did all these Maya Angelou articles!), I was wondering if you had any general comments or critiques on the page? I've had a lot of fun writing it and I think I may want to eventually try it as a FAC. I haven't done too many pages on books, so it would certainly help if I first heard from someone who knows what they're doing. Tkbrett (✉)01:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Tkbrett, you're welcome. Well said; I have also found that topics on WP are like fractals. Maya Angelou brought me places I didn't know existed. You start working on an article because it needs improvement, and before you know it, you've become an expert. I'm sure that's been your experience with The Beatles.
Yes, I know about writing articles about books. I've had lots of assistance and mentoring from lots of great people here, so I try and pay it forward. If you like, I can review this article for its GAN. It wouldn't be right away, though, because others have asked me to work on two other articles and I'd like to finish them first. I can look at your article in about a month, if no one else tackles it on GAN. I suspect not, since the queue at GAN tends to be long and reviewers don't tend to tackle longer, more complicated articles. That's why it's appropriate to request a review. Keep in mind, though, that although I love The Beatles, I don't know much about them, although sometimes it's good to ask a non-expert to review an article because it provides a fresh perspective. I think this article has the potential to become an eventual FA. Best to you; I'll keep in touch. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I would really appreciate that! A fresh perspective would be helpful – I think a lot of Beatles articles on here expect too much of their readers, failing to mention the basic background of the band that teenagers may not be familiar with. Anyway, there's no rush – I've got all these Angelou articles to read in the meantime :) Tkbrett (✉)18:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi to you, Tkbrett. Hope all is well with you too. Yes, I'll review the article by the weekend. No, I've never heard that! Very cool. The stuff you get to learn as an editor! I've always thought that if The Beatles were around later, when it was more common for artists to do it, that they would've made a great album of children's music. I suppose "Yellow Submarine" fits, though. I've also always wanted The Wiggles, who have been called The Beatles of kid music, to record a version of "Octopus's Garden," since they have an octopus character. Anyway, thanks for sharing it, it's made my day. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
On 16 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mae Eleanor Frey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1905, Mae Eleanor Frey became the first woman to be ordained in the American Baptist Churches USA? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mae Eleanor Frey. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mae Eleanor Frey), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:
The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
.svg){kind=small}
