en User talk:Hamiltonstone Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hamiltonstone. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

High-level radioactive waste management

Hi Hamiltonstone. There is a new article, High-level radioactive waste management currently being considered for Good Article status, on which you may wish to comment. It's a split off from the Radioactive waste article, which was getting too large, and which I hope to do some more work on soon. Saw Sydney's fireworks on TV this evening, and hope all is well in the new year for you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks and (maybe) articles of interest to you.

Hi Hamilton, Thank you very much for the barnstar! It is greatly appreciated. I was wondering if you'd like to take a look at a few articles of mine/contributons I've made and maybe either expand or just read about, I think you may find some of them interesting. Australian Blue Asbestos, United States Radium Corporation, you may wist to have a look at my Intro page for others. kind regards,Read-write-services (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Spy vs Spy (Australian band)

It's worth putting to GA. It is possible that the lead could be criticised for being too big compared to the text. Leads are supposed to reflect the text following them so they don't need to be referenced on the basis that the following material is fully referenced, but I don't think there is a guideline forbidding the referencing of the lead. It is also possible that it will be critised for having too many lists compared to text.--Grahame (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Grahame - i'll try and visit it over coming days / weeks and do some copyediting and look at yours and other comments. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the barnstar - I actually found the difficult and time consumimg so it is nice to get the recognition. There is still a lot to do though. I might ask your advice later on whether the structure for JH is ok. I think i am heading towards broad themes within the 4 terms with some cross term overlap as approriate. Similar to The Howard Years doco. And I feel the first term coverage in the bio is roughly complete. --Merbabu (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

actually the new section in howard govt on east Timor is probably a bit verbose - no doubt reflecting my Indonesia interest. Could u give it quick check??? Would be much appreciated.--Merbabu (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Edmund Barton Building

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edmund Barton Building, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Loch Sloy

Thanks for the heads-up. Not sure I'm an expert, just interested in the Loch Line. I'll look into it tonight and fix. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I have rectified the discrepancy. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. I think what happended is that I used and re-engineered the info box from another ship. Consequently I forgot to change all the necessary information. Anyway, that's why Wikipedia is so great, that other's can read and pick up accidential errors. All the best, Spy007au (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Invite to Canberra Meetup #2

--.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Doug Anthony All Stars

Thanks so much for your review - your comments have been really helpful. I've made a few changes - I created a section on the group's subsequent work, and added/specified a few more details per your suggestions. Unfortunately, some of the things you've suggested - court case details, ratings data, etc. - have been pretty hard to come by. There's not a lot to be found on the internet since, as you pointed out, most of the sources predate the web, and I haven't found anything else at the State Library. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article! Thanks again, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. I had a look through the British Law Database myself and still haven't been able to find anything (though I did a reference to the year in the article, as you suggested), and there really doesn't seem to be a lot of information available on ratings data and so on. I think I've addressed everything else you've brought up. Again, do let me know if there are any other improvements I need to make. Cheers, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Its going well, but then i realised a problem. See the GA talk for details. Hope it will still make it though!hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't even think of it. I've found a secondary source which I believe clears up the issue, but do let me know if there are any other problems. Cheers, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your help during this GA review - your had some great suggestions and they really helped in improving the article, as well as giving me some ideas on aspects of the article to focus on in future. All the best! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scotland during...

Many thanks for the review and your many helpful comments. "The Picts" section in particular is now much improved. Ben Mac Dui 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lynton Caldwell GA

Have done as you suggested. May have a couple more things to add when the books come in. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Have responded to your additional comments. Anything else? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your suggestions during the GA review. They made the article better. Pleasure working with you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review reaction

Per your request ... I think you were on the right track with Talk:Tony Bennett/GA1. GA reviews vary widely, from the minimal end to the near-FA level, with some focusing on style and some on substance. You focused mostly on content and sourcing, which I think are the most important aspects. For an article to be "Good", it has to be comprehensive, fair, and accurate. Things like non-breaking spaces and other fine points of MoS conformance are best left to FAC, at least in my view.

One thing you could do is use one of the reviewing templates, such as {{GAList}}, that gives GAN checkpoints, and then give detailed comments below that. For examples of it in action see the Talk:Personent hodie/GA1 or Talk:To the Stars: The Autobiography of George Takei/GA1 reviews that I did recently. This also forces the reviewer to look at each of the GA criteria, some of which I would probably forget otherwise.

Anyway, keep up the reviewing, without it the whole GA/FA process breaks down ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aubrey Gibson

You don't seem to have addressed the reviewer's comments and time is running out.--Grahame (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it now, thanks. Still waiting on a library book to try and finish off. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing lead sections?

I became curious about this after reading the new lead section in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and face a similar dilemma in rewriting the lead section of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. I had heard that all paragraphs in featured or good articles should be cited but noticed lately that lead sections in featured articles on the main page have generally not been cited. Does this mean I can write a new section for R-K and not worry about having to cite? Please let me know as I am honestly a little confused. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, which was both extremely helpful and stress-relieving. The new lead for R-K is done, along with a general edit of the article that tightens up things considerably. Jonyungk (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sex Panic!

Cheers for the copy edit at the above - salutory lesson for me in how POV can creep in even when an editor doesn't know s/he has one :) If there's anything else in the article you think suggests a judgement, I hope you'll have at it - it wasn't the easiest topic to cover evenly, and I'm a fairly novice article writer. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Steve Dodd

On March 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steve Dodd, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539)

Your solution to the problem was an excellent one - thanks so much for helping out. Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Incident at Raven's Gate

Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! G'day, --Rosiestep (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sex Panic! at the disco

Hi Hamiltonstone - thanks so much for the offer. I'm having a quick trawl for more information, but I'll be delighted to take you up on the offer when the article's had a little more attention. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On poking holes in balloons...

Actually one may poke a hole in a balloon, in which event it pops, kind of like "exploding myths."

In this case the US Forest Service had been using illegal forestry practices (clearcutting) on the national forests for 80 years without anyone noticing, and as a result of the Monongahela court decision, the U.S. Congress had to enact the National Forest Management Act of 1976 to make those practices legal. Previous legislation required selective cutting of trees after marking them individually. Wengert exploded the myth that clearcutting had been legal during that period.

But if we must suck all of the color out of the article to satisfy a reviewer, I guess that is the way Wikipedia works and I won't object to your your edit. Cheers. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jinnah International Airport

Your comments are needed on this article.Whether it can be sent for a GA review.yousaf465

Norman Wengert

Added text and references as suggested. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for retrieving the list. I agree it would be more appropriate in the main article, but User:Eustress has insisted otherwise with another GA article I did, Howard Adelman. Now I don't know what to do. Seems I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. All I want to do is edit and make an encyclopedia. Guess I'll sleep on it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping on it is a good idea. This particular question (where to put the list) is gonna be 'just one of those things'. If I were you, I'd let a few other editors slug it out, confident in the knowledge that, whatever the solution, the material will be there somewhere! Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

Sorry, I know about this, I just haven't had time to deal with it. I'll try and get to it tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Started dealing with this. See what you think. User:Shoemaker's Holiday (from an internet cafe) 82.109.88.42 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I also worked on re-ordering the materials as you had suggested and tried to respond to all your concerns. I think you may be satisfied now--the synopsis is much higher, and the cultural impact section is a bit higher, above the historical production and casting tables. The only thing that I think still needs to be done is to shorten/revise the Reception section a little, as you suggested, but I am hoping that Shoemaker will help with that shortly. Please take another look and, if you would, start a new section with any further changes that ought to be made before the article can pass GA. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, advice and hard work on Pinafore! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wild Rugby Academy

Nice work, the article looks a lot better now. I might employ you in the future to compensate for my rather limited writing skills (whats your hourly rate?)! Anyway, thanks for answering my request on the DYK page and taking the time to save the article, much appreciated. EA210269 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, as they say in my country... My view is that we mono-lingual English speakers, who benefit from the biggest Wikipedia of all, should do everything we can to help improve articles on topics that relate to non-English speaking countries, editors etc. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This help is appreciated, at least from my side. My reason for impossing my rather limited abilities in the English language to the English Wikipedia is the fact that, in Germany related topics, especially the more obscure ones, few English sources are available and translation from German to English is the only way to transfer information from one language to the other. I rarely venture into Australia-related topics as virtually all information already exists somewhere else in the English language and only a relatively simple transfer is required. Anyway, mate, thanks for your help! EA210269 (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Wild Rugby Academy

On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wild Rugby Academy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 03:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Incident at Raven's Gate

On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Incident at Raven's Gate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Touching base

Hi. :) I just wanted to see if you were reaching any conclusions about Talk:Hospice care in the United States/GA1. Sorry if I'm rushing you. The otherwise new contributor who worked with me on this article is extremely excited, so I just thought I'd check. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You read my mind. I made a list of 'things to do' this weekend. In between hanging pictures and visiting a friend in hospital was... do GA review. By the end of the weekend it should be done. Best. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (Hope your friend is in the hospital for happy reasons, like new family members, and, if not, is doing okay!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) And by the way you really made my primary co-contributor's day: here. Naturally, I hope we clear GA, but even if we don't I do appreciate the time you've put into it and the amount of pleasure you brought him. Your feedback has all been very thoughtful, and I think has much improved the article either way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. :) I might actually take this through FA, but I will wait until User:Tbolden can get some images and some updated statistics. I've about worn out my resources. :D I must say, it's a pretty stellar first effort. I myself became involved with the article as an admin investigating (and confirming!) copyright problems. Tbolden was an IP contributor who offered to write a new article. I thought to help out with referencing. And off we went. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment

How about having the consolidated tag and the individual tags? SMP0328. (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should have thought of that. have put the consolidated tag back in :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm moving to Florida, so all my stuff is currently to transit and I have limited internet access (internet cafes). I'll take a look at it next weekend once I settle down at my new place. Idag (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Per your suggestions, I've beefed up the lede and obtained cites for the pertinent statements. Would you mind taking another look at the article? Idag (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jodhpur Group-Malani Ingneous Suite Contact

Hi! Thank you very much for the excellent tinkering on my article.I appreciate your patient efforts.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Craigiehall

Many thanks! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ram Narayan GA review

Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. I already responded to some initial points because it's relevant for the review going forward. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now added the info from the book - sorry for the substantial change but I had just noticed they it. Please feel free to continue the review, thank you! Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review and the suggestions! Hekerui (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Choral symphony GA review

Thanks—I'm glad you're the one reviewing this article. Don't know whether you've noticed my comments appended to yours in the review, but just in case, here's a question. I've reshuffled the material in the second half of the article, placing it under themes instead of composers, and I'm not entirely sure whether the material on the Mahler Eighth Symphony in that part of the article fits as it should or if it should be jettisoned. Could you please let me know what you think? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, your comments are making a tremendous amount of sense. :-) Again, thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Have finished revising per the suggestions you made and am looking forward to collaborating further. Jonyungk (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like the proverbial broken record, thank you for all your help with this article through the review process. Your comments and enthusiasm made the work on it a pleasure rather than a chore. Jonyungk (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Environmental monitoring

Thanks for the timely reminder about the need to provide proper references for Environmental monitoring , point taken. However..... I don't believe that I can be the only environmental scientist and Wikipedia editor and to be frank, it still worries me that I get more guidance and assistance than actual help on articles. If you have a environmental bent, your input (and the input from a few hundred more) would be welcome - it isn't my article after all ! Velela ^{Velela Talk} 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And you are quite right - I do have environmental studies experience, though not in this field, and I have no ready access to relevant sources unfortunately. I was hoping that, if you were writing text, you might have the books etc to hand. I just wanted to make sure it didn't get tagged again if possible. But all progress is good. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Travelgate review

Thanks very much for your review on this. My changes and responses have been made at Talk:White House travel office controversy/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Drew

Hello, Hamiltonstone. You have new messages at user:Ricardiana.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, Hamiltonstone -- I just saw that you promoted the article and I'm very excited! But more importantly I wanted to thank you again for taking over the review, and for your comments and help with sourcing especially. So thank you. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you recommend a good copyeditor?

I agree with you on choral symphony—it really needs a fine-tooth-combing—but am not sure whom to contact. Brianboulton may be too tied up to help. Is there anyone else you could recommend? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any particular suggestions, i am sorry. I see you have been steadily improving it, which is great. I know i should pop in and make a contribution, but real life and other plans stand in the way somewhat. One editor who might be able to assist would be User:Yllosubmarine, whom I found very helpful during a GA review of an article I had started, Aubrey Gibson. You might also ask User:Shoemaker's Holiday. I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing they might do, but they're a user I have a lot of time for, and who has experience in music articles. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gladiator

Hello Hamiltonstone, and thank you for the kind comments. When I first came across the article, it included potentially misleading external links and modern parallels. "Legacy" is very contentious; I agree it's an important sub-topic but rather hoped to subvert it by default. That's why I stuck to a robust, minimalist, evidence-based approach - which shows (I hope) especially in "outline of the games" and "legal and social status". In other words, there's a legacy all right, but I'd be hard pressed to say quite what it is. Reconstruction and re-interpretation offer massive pitfalls to unwary readers. Any thoughts on this? Best Regards! Haploidavey (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC). Typo removed.Haploidavey (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Salute of the Jugger looks like a must-have! Haploidavey (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk. There are a few articles wafting about which address those issues. What I thought I might do is summarise and link to them, once I'm over the battle-fatigue... I really appreciate your feedback. Haploidavey (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty).

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re:Siward

Yes, sorry, very busy in RL just now. The article will be the first thing I'll get back to, though GA is so slow just now I don't suppose there's too much of a rush. The comments have already been noted, and many thanks for them. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)