User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

El señor Presidente, etc.

Thanks for the message. I'm not really a literature person, but I'll keep an eye open, maybe help out with the shovel work. Regards, Aille (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem

I saw a discussion of your wikiproject in this blog. I wanted to say I think it's a really great idea.

I have a suggestion for you - Wikipedia has an in-house newspaper of sorts, the Signpost. I think you might want to drop a note at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions - the Signpost's tip line - mentioning your wikiproject and what it's up to. You'd have plenty of people ready to help you if they knew about it. Raul654 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome message

Hi Jbmurray. I've left welcome messages for your project members that hadn't already been welcomed (I love your idea!), and noticed there may be a registration problem for User:GarethShort. This username is displaying as not registered, so the page link is essentially to a non-existent user at present. You (or he) will need to re-register this username. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 16:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC) and

WP:MMM

What you are doing is great. I understand entirely the hesitance among your class to make edits: they need to be told to be bold. If they make mistakes, it doesn't matter, because this is a wiki. Edits will simply be reverted by another editor, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. If the revert is wrong, tell them to stand their ground and then explain on the talk page.

Also, I think it is worth telling your class to have fun. One place to do this is edit summaries. Good editors add edit summaries to every single edit they make. This is a way to communicate with other editors without using talk pages. You can explain what you are doing, add thanks, or even make jokes, or create a spirit of competition. The edit summary is limited to very few characters, but the modern texting generation know exactly how to make use of such a system to full advantage. Geometry guy 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Marquez + various

Hi Jb. I just put Gabriel García Márquez on my watchlist, per the project of bringing your class together with experienced editors. I noticed this set of edits and thought I'd offer up a couple of things.

First, some articles are more equal than others. The three students who have signed up for Marquez, have probably signed up for a much greater workload than most of the others. I'm hesitant over whether that article should be a first FA attempt for new editors—at the same time, it would be excellent to make it featured. So, I'll just leave the thought with you.

The influence field is stupid, I agree. It might be useful if it were capped at, say, three influences, but that might lead to argument over which three. I also agree that he is "probably Latin America's best-known writer" does not need a citation—but then editors at FAC might ask for one.

I bring up these points because Wikipedia itself doesn't always agree on things. Is there a definite infobox or citation format? No—there are acceptable formats, and you should be consistent with whatever you choose. Anyway, you've been around almost a year and probably have some idea of the working anarchy anyway... Let me be the latest to congratulate on your excellent idea for a class project. Marskell (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue to keep in mind, both from tha FA-Team perspective and the SPAN312 perspective. In this particular case, though, not only is the article of interest to Marskell, who's an expert on FA, but also it is being watched by Willow and Awadawit, both prolific FA contributors. Now if I know these last two at all, I very much doubt they will be content to restrict themselves to copyediting and MoS fixes: they are more than likely to dive into the sources and help with content, and I hope they do. This may more-than-compensate for the fact that this particular article is a bigger challenge than some of the others. However, it is purely a matter for Jon to decide how to assess the students based upon the variable challenge of the articles they work on and the level of support they receive from other editors. This is not Wikipedia's business: the primary goal of Wikipedians such as FA-Team members, as I'm sure Jon appreciates, is simply to improve the encyclopaedia. Geometry guy 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your advice and input. Re. the point that some articles are more equal than others... I am aware of this. And I realize it's my problem, not yours. I'm interested, however, that you think that the GGM one is probably the most difficult. I've been thinking that The Dictator Novel probably offered the most challenge, mostly because it doesn't easily fit a recognizeable format, as do the biographical or bibliographical articles. In part I hope to compensate for these variabilities by being an active editor myself, as you can no doubt already see. It's very much a project in which I'm also involved. Regarding assessment, I also very much like the idea that students are being assessed by the wikipedia community for something that they are contributing to the public domain. Of course, that works only if they do manage to bring the articles up to having a decent shot at GA and/or FA review. We're still some distance from that. Anyhow, in sum, this is all very much an experiment. So I all the more appreciate your advice. Some days I'm confident; other days, less so. Having the good will of the wikipedia community and the benefit of experienced eyes such as those of yourselves certainly makes me breathe a little easier. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll only say that I commented, not as an expert on FA, but as a literature major and an enormous fan of Marquez ;). Marskell (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Manuel Scorza

HI could you expand this? Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Timelines

At first, the goal for the project was to have all the articles be FAs by April 10. By that timeline, in order to have a chance at reaching the goal, each article would probably need to be at GA-class by March 10. I don't know if this is possible, though. What are the plans on your end? Wrad (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, my thought has been that the articles should be submitted for FA Review by April 10. Does that make sense? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. That makes things simpler. Thanks for clarifying. Wrad (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Angel Asturias

Our article is a B status! Yay! --Reabell (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Um...I'm not sure if this is how I "talk" to you, but I was wondering if it's "Asturias'" or "Asturias's". It seems to be different in various books I'm reading. I realize this isn't crucial to the article, but would appreciate the info. Thanks! (Erica) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Span312 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that I never responded to your query here. I'm so sorry! Anyhow, I hope to realize know that it should probably be "Asturias's." Though if you're quoting someone else, and they use "Asutrias'," then you should keep what they say, even if it's a mistake. Again, apologies that somehow I overlooked your message earlier. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Miguel Angel Asturias for GA

Hi there,

I'm reviewing the aforementioned article for GA, and while I recognize that you are not the nominator, you do seem to be a significant editor, so I was wondering if you could help address a concern?

Overall, the article looks excellent: broad coverage, nice prose, sufficient number of sources for GA, etc. The only problem is that the lead image is the only picture in the entire article. I'm not going to fail this article just b/c it doesn't have images, but nor do I feel comfortable promoting it, when the criteria clearly ask for a basic level of illustration. If I put the article on hold for a week, would that be enough time to get a few good images incorporated into the body of the article?

Regards, Malachirality (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article so speedily. It actually seems to me that the article needs rather more than a few images for GA status! But we'll be working on the things that do need doing. It may be tough to get too many more appropriate images: have you any thoughts of what they should be of? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

The Novels Project is a Wikipedia group dedicated to improving the quality of articles on novels. If you would like to help, please consider joining: seeWikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A little motivational tool for your students

Being a student myself I know one of the biggest turn offs for writing a paper is the lack of readership. Basically the professor, who's not really learning anything new since he supposedly already knows the subject, reads the essay and then it goes straight to the bin.. On Wikipedia on the other hand, as you know, you do get a large readership and to show you (and especially your students) just how large that is, take a look at this little tool: Henrik's tool. Just type in the article name, select the month you want the statistics for and then it'll give you the daily statistics for the chosen article. Pretty nifty huh? :D Acer (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: WP:MMM "B-class" review

Don't mention it, most of those up ratings were overdue.. I guess most people were focused on GA and forgot B-class. The two I didn’t up rate need more content to be comprehensive and that’s the main criteria I use for B-class assessment. The Feast of the Goat already has some sections laid out but aside from the plot summary they're skeletons, no meat. Augusto Roa Bastos is lacking them altogether. Once they're expanded I'll up rate them, though they're gonna have to go beyond that for GA. PS: I really liked what you did with the statistics, glad it was helpfull :) Acer (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiny point of Wikipedia etiquette

Even if you know someone off-wiki, it is customary to refer to them only by their username on-wiki. They may not wish to reveal their entire name on-wiki for various reasons. It is also easier for others on the 'pedia to know who you are talking about. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I have wondered about this, in fact. I'm not sure how much these particular wikipedians identify with their wiki personae. But anyhow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Whether to call him el Supremo, El Supremo, the Supreme, Francia, DR.Francia, etc. Every source I have refers to him in a different way, depending on what they are talking about considering his naming contributes to his meta sense of being, so we need to agree to call him one thing. "The Supreme" works for me. Also, I don't know if I'm the only one that feels this way, but I've grown to feel supremely weird about editing this entry about I the Supreme and el Supremo, mainly because the entire book is about the ways in which different sources and documents create/obscure history and myth, and so technically, aren't we just contributing more so to it? I feel like I should include a section on the page's irony or something.

Heh. I've mentioned in class that the wikipedia project is indeed all about compiling. Anyhow, we should obviously keep the form used in the quotations (if someone says "el Supremo," we keep it like that in the quotation), but yup, let's go for "the Supreme" elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re support

Thanks for the heads-up! I have four of your project articles watchlisted (Facundo, The President (novel), I, the Supreme and The General in His Labyrinth), and I try to check on them regularly. However, please feel free to give me a nudge if I'm not paying as much attention as I should!

I've left a note on The General in His Labyrinth; I think it's getting close to being ready for a GA nom, barring a few minor (and one or two fairly major) issues. The single biggest remaining task is a copyedit - more details on the talk page. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 10:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for this. Seeing the list of the pages you've watchlisted, I note that they're among the project's most successful so far... I can't believe that's just coincidence! I agree that The General in His Labyrinth is pretty close to a GA. Its editors will be encouraged to hear you say that. And I'd say that I, the Supreme isn't all that far behind. Many thanks again! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I really wish I could take credit for the MMM's excellent work! It's been interesting; before we started, I didn't know there was such a thing as 'Latin American literature', and working with some of Wikipedia's best editors, like Awadewit, Gguy, Wrad and the others, is always a rewarding experience. I'm just glad I can be of help ;) I've just been looking over I, the Supreme, and I agree it's not far off GA. I'll head back to the article at some point today and give a more detailed assessment. EyeSerenetalk 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
More thanks! I'm glad that you are also finding the process worthwhile. It has been (and still is) interesting indeed. Incidentally, you might be interested in this, which is the beginnings of a reflection upon this experience. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Your reflections so far are fascinating. I've watchlisted the essay; I'm very interested to see what your conclusions will be! EyeSerenetalk 12:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad you're interested. And heh, I'm equally interested to see what my conclusions will be! It's a story so far without an ending... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
...much like Wikipedia, in fact. EyeSerenetalk 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, indeed. Though strangely, and in a rather febrile rush, I feel I've come to the end for now. (Though cf. the suitably wiki-like caveat in my final sentence!) Anyhow, I would be delighted to hear your, or anyone else's, responses. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jbmurray/Madness

As a graduate student in literature who is looking for ways to integrate Wikipedia and wiki-software more generally into the classroom, I found this fascinating. If you have more thoughts on the collaborative writing aspects of the experiment, I would be most grateful to hear them. I am doing a paper for Wikimania 2008 about online collaborative writing and I can use all of the data available! I am currently interviewing Wikipedia editors (perhaps you would like to be interviewed?) and having my composition course write a wiki-based research assignment (not on Wikipedia, though - just using the software). If you would be interesting to talking/emailing more about this or just posting more about this aspect of the project, I would be most appreciative. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to chat, or even be interviewed about this, and to share whatever thoughts I may have. I'd be interested in your thoughts, too. I should say that I haven't really thought (perhaps better, got my head about) the collaborative writing aspects; and in lots of ways that's not my priority, though perhaps it should be. Anyhow, do get in touch. You can email me from my user page if you want. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Or wherever it is you email people from; I forget, but you'll know! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a wonderful essay, from my perspective as a research librarian. The NYC people are developing a shortened primitive version of the European Wikipedia: Academy,-- a one-day workshop--and, although the format will be different, your essay will be an inspiration & basic reading for the participants/ It is perhaps the best described school project on wikipedia; excuse me for mentioning such things here, but what you are accomplishing is original work in pedagogy, and when you finish, I hope you plan to publish it somewhere where it can be cited. DGG (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
DGG, many thanks for your comment. I'm glad that my text may be useful for the NYC meet. I'd be pleased to have any feedback or reactions that come out of that. And I do now indeed intend to publish a version of the essay somewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The General

Hi JB. I will try to go over it; I'll leave descriptive edit summaries as much as possible for editors to follow. It is in good shape! Perhaps it can be the first one brought to FAC. Marskell (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jbmurray; it's no problem, really :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
We moved off the rails in a couple of places today, but I think we're still moving in the right direction!
I think your project is not only innovative in terms of improving content and increasing student knowledge, but also in testing how "random peple" interact in a relatively uncontrolled environment that purports to be dedicated to knowledge and information. The edit conflicts, in a certain way, are as interesting as the happily getting along edits... I think it's ultimately healthy that we have a few road bumps! It makes people better editors. Marskell (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I see exactly what you're saying. Though at the same time, as you'll see from the little essay that I wrote not many hours ago, my one real worry in entering into this was that the students would enter into edit wars and get put off. I realize that it's a little artificial to think that I could protect them for that, or even that it wouldn't have a positive side. But I am rather relieved that they were "safely" in class while everything got quite so hectic a couple of hours ago.
Anyhow, I'm running for another class. Hasta luego (as they say), and thanks again for your comments and input. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Your essay is brilliant, JB. It is a very fair-minded and thoughtful description of becoming involved in this place, and it offers much insight into how the Wiki works. It deserves a reply (in the healthy sense of robust, collegial dialogue). As one of the wiki-addicts, I thought I might provide reply. Would you mind if I posted a response to your essay? Two days to do it, let's say. (That might actually distract you from deadlines--no problem, if so.) Marskell (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. I'd be delighted! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your heart

I'm glad I'm contributing to warming your heart. You talk about it so much in class though, sometimes I worry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocardial_infarction Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I must be getting old! I appreciate your concern! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Wow - that's unexpected, and incredibly kind and thoughtful of you! I don't make a point of collecting 'trophies' - it's not why I'm here - but when someone takes the trouble to leave a pat on the back it is very much appreciated! Helping out with your project has been rewarding enough in itself, but I'll be proud to stick that on my fridge door ;) Once again, thank you! EyeSerenetalk 08:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

There is a user who has posted to several people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. Apparently - Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum#Research Study about Wikipedia? - it is " use of Wikipedia -- the email specifically mentioned the Novels Project". The 'grad student' is User talk:Survivalism. No idea what this is about. Purely, a FYI. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Great guns!

I wish I spoke British... Anyway we were thinking of submitting this for Good Article Review tomorrow. What do you think? If it flies, could you do that for us? We have no idea how. I gave Tomasso the week off since he killed me in edits last weekend and he's swamped with midterms. Isabel, despite e-mails and facebook messages, seems to still be missing-in-action... Lincolnchan98 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll GA nominate if I knew what the article was? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing Mario Vargas Llosa. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It took me years to learn British! Anyhow, let's get a couple of comments on the current status before rushing to nominate. So hold your horses Wassup, if you can! But I do think, if not tomorrow, then within a couple of days. But I'd like a second opinion. OK, now I'm off out the door. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm not nominating. It isn't ready. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

There is always one more process on Wikipedia. If an article does fail and subsequently the contributing editors go into over-drive to implement the fixes necessary, then you can nominate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. This can have a quick turn around if it is obvious things have improved. Or, go straight to FAC. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing templates

I think you may be right about the linked Harvard-type refs. This page (Template:Harvard citation/doc) seems to prefer the {{citation}} template rhather than the source-specific ones on WP:CITET, but it's also shown with bracketed rather than footnoted in-line citations (as per {{harvnb}}). I really don't know if the two styles can be mixed - I suspect they can, because otherwise there would be little point in {{harvnb}} producing a clickable link, but I've never tried. EyeSerenetalk 10:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as not notable

This was tagged as not notable and was on the precipice of deletion: The Obscene Bird of Night. My guess is that it is notable? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed notable! I'd have thought there was enough information there to suggest that. But I'm afraid I don't have much time at the moment to attend to it. I'll try to get around to it at some point. Thanks for the heads up. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought so. The hordes of fourteen-year-olds that run Wikipedia do not recognize Gogol, William Carlos Williams and others as potentially being notable. I quickly built a reference section and added the general entry at Contemporary Authors Online as a source. That should fix the article for a while. In future, remember to include Harry Potter somewhere in the first lead sentence: such as Donoso and J.K. Rowling are both notable writers. Guarantee it won't get touched :-}Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting and review

I've not been able to contribute much yet to your Murder (etc.) project, but I hope to have some time this week, as I've dealt with a couple of obligations and hope not to take on any more. I'm a decent, though not outstanding, copyeditor; is there an article you'd like me to take a look at? I can also perform a GA review on anything that's up for review, if that's a higher priority; and if there is an article that you'd like a third pair of eyes on, without necessarily going to GA yet, I'd be happy to do that too. I am not especially well informed about the topic at hand, so it would be a well-informed-layman sort of review, rather than the detailed expertise on literary articles you'd get from someone like Awadewit. I'm quite experienced at FA, though, so I do know what is expected in general terms. Anyway, let me know if there's anything you think I could help with and I'll try to find some time in the next two or three days. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike, many thanks for this. Let me point to two useful things you might have time to do... First, I think that the folk looking at The President are feeling a little as though they are going around in circles before FAC. Perhaps you could take a look at their article: should they just nominate it now? Second, it'd be grand to have an FA Review of Mario Vargas Llosa. Again, many thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK -- I assume you mean GA review for Mario Vargas Llosa. I have to drive to Dallas tonight, and back tomorrow, so it might be Wednesday before I get to anything depending on how much time I have to spend in meetings. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw some other hands at work on The President, and I saw Mario Vargas Llosa passed GA, so I went ahead and picked the next GA on the list to do -- GGM. I hope it was a useful review. I see I, the Supreme is up for GA; I may have time to review that tomorrow evening, if that would be useful. Otherwise I'll try to chip in with copyediting help wherever it looks as though it might be useful. Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks for such a speedy review! Anything you have time to do would be magnificent: a GA review of I, the Supreme would be most appreciated. I'm not sure it's quite ready, but it is pretty close, and your comments could set it on the final straight. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A Question

I am just wondering what is considered an "A" article. I noticed this is a level between GA and FA... How do we get an "A" article, does it need to be submitted to peer review? Or should we just work away at Andewit's suggestions and then submit it for FA on April 10th regardless of the stage we are at with working through Andewit's suggestions?? --Mfreud (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

An A class is assigned just like stub class, start class and B class; that is, by any interested editor. There is no Wikipedia process to assign the class. Some projects might have some assessment process but even in those that do it is informal. In short, only GA and FA designations are standardized by a consensus-based process. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in with a clarification, Wassup. Yes, A class doesn't have an official wikipedia-wide status. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You can find a definition of A-class here:
Since it's not a community-wide process, quality varies from Project to Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention

I forgot to mention, Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has a very helpful checklist on his userpage that you might go over in class, and Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) started a page called Moslite somewhere, which might not be completely finished yet, but if you ask him, it's probably also something you can go over in class just to get the editors started on the most frequent, basic and simple MoS stuff that every Wiki editor should know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

I was going to email you some questions about your class project, as we discussed, but you have not enabled your email preferences, so when I click on "email this user" at left, I get an error message. You need to add an email address (if you want, an anonymous one) to your preferences. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Other people have managed to email me. I'll look into it and/or email you... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it got disenabled at some point. Anyhow, it's been (re)enabled now. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GA noms

Sorry to have pushed too much. I double checked and discovered I've nominated all your project's GAs. I realize now that that is a bit much. I was thinking more of the GA process which can drag on forever. You have to get them in the queue ready or not! But my GA noms have been sincere. Everything I've nominated is better than most that appears at GA and really does have a chance at passing the criteria. GA isn't much of a hurdle. Nothing like FA. The editors who are leading you to FA are the best on Wikipedia. However - my opinion only - FA can spiral into one of the nastiest places on Wikipedia. I'm crossing my finders and toes. Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers for the message, your sentiments are much appreciated! What made it worse was that I took the Easter week off work, intending to put my feet up, do a bit of DIY etc... and spent the entire week suffering and sulking (being ill on your own time is no fun). Fully recovered in time for my return to work today though - there's no justice ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarmiento

I've posted a list of issues at the Sarmiento talk page; it's a fairly intimidating list, and it only addresses the first two sections of the article. It might be good if you had a look to see if there are any sections your students won't be expected to address -- I need to treat it like any other Wikipedia article, of course, but I also want to make sure I'm not being unfair to your students, and asking them to do something that's out of their scope. Let me know what you think -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5