This is an archive of past discussions with User:Noble Story. 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.
Introduction
Welcome!
Hello, Noble Story, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! V60干什么？ · VDemolitions13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Charles Swift eval --thanks!
Thanks for taking the time to look at the Charles Swift article. I can definitely use them in my next round of editing. I wanted to ask though, did you mean to delete your comments from the talk page? (diff) It looks unintentional, so I'll probably restore them (If it was on purpose, feel free to fix it back). Well, thanks again. R. Baley06:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Assessment is ultimately a subjective exercise, of course, which means that people won't always agree. I believe that there's a trade-off between a player's importance and how substantial an article they merit. If a player has only appeared in a handful of first-class games, there is little that can be said about him. Thus I reckon that the article about Clayton Robson covers his career very adequately for a player who only made 6 first-class appearances. It has an infobox, which I regard as desirable. What more could one say about him? My rating of Geoffrey Udal is more marginal, but for a player who played only one f-c match I reckon that it just about merits Start. To leave it as Stub would encourage people to look on it as an article needing expansion, which would be misleading. Obviously for a major player it would be totally inadequate at five times the length. If you are still unhappy, I suggest raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment. JH (talk page) 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've kept it at Start-class. Since you asked for some pointers on how to further improve, here are some:
Try to focus on Yi himself. The length of his parents is not relevant imho.
What is the added value of Yi attending film premieres? As it is now, I'd remove these sentences as irrelevant.
Try to avoid paragraphs consisting of only 1 or 2 lines. Expand them or merge them, but they now give me the idea that much more can be told; to me the article still looks like it's being built.
For every statement attributed to people, a reference is needed. The last sentences of Age Discrepancy, in which Battier and Yi are quoted, are not referenced.
Hi Noble, thought I would add a couple of suggestions. . .
make the intro one paragraph, (e.g.) "Standing at 7' Jianlian has been playing in the CBA for the (team name) since the 2003 season when he won the league's Rookie of the Year." and then something about his NBA prospects. I would leave out his weight for this part and put it down in the article somewhere else unless it could read smoothly.
rename pre-NBA career career to something else, especially as he doesn't have one yet. I want to suggest something but haven't thought of anything yet, maybe look at pages of other pro basketball players (like Shaquille O'Neal) of similar builds.
matter of taste but, I like to link the first time an acronym appears in an article (even if it's already linked in the intro, to make it easier to figure out what it is). So I would link CBA to Chinese Basketball Association for people who are totally unfamiliar with the subject.
combine info in pre-NBA career section to only three paragraphs.
In the 2nd NBA draft para, lead with the flight to the NBA draft camps and date it, then follow with info on his agent.
in the Beaumont Tower article including changing the "i" in iota to "I". Probably it should be the Greek letter iota (if there is a Greek letter iota) but I am including a scam of the book publishing information so that you can at least make an informed decision. Carptrash02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't see the picture too clearly, so I can't see whether the "i" is lowercase or not. But if you wish to change it back, then please do so. As it was, I only intended to change the typo "Michgan" to the proper spelling Michigan. I only changed iota to Iota as an afterthought. Noble Story06:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If you click on the image you'll note thta the "i" is the same size as the neighboring "o". Anyway, thanks for correcting the spelling of Michigan - that did need to happen. The other , I don't really care. Carptrash12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
Hi, I have to disagree with your rating of the article Scott Dobie as Stub class. Are you happy for me to amend this to Start class? If not please could you explain your reasoning and what you would require to move it on from Stub? Thanks. --Jameboy22:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)
We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
New irc channel
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
Hi, I noticed that you took this article off of this list of unreviewed articles. On the article's talk page, calbear gave some suggestions for improvement but stated that he was not committing to a formal review. Because the article still has no reviewer, I have added it back to the list. Thank you for your suggestions on this article; I have fixed both of them. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
McCall GA review
Hi. I'm currently working through your comments at the GA review. I'll add my responses in bold to the changes I make. Peanut4 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I've done most of them. And where I've made no changes, I've added a reason why. Thanks for the review. Peanut4 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be taking another pass at the article and posting my review Part 2 soon. Thanks for your work correcting, by the way, I think it's improved a lot so far. Noble Story (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I've addressed the majority of the points or added some response to your review. The only (and not unsubstantial) job I have left is to add some references to a couple of sections. I have less reference sources available for those so it may take a few days to finish it. Thanks again for your review. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Think we might be there. You want to take another look. And thanks for reviewing my History article too - on two counts. Peanut4 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Great. If you look over (probably) my last review in my sandbox, and make the few corrections left, then I'll be ready to pass my final judgement. Noble Story (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is one more thing: "It was Bradford's home form—they earned 26 of their 36 points at Valley Parade...City were relegated with just 26 points." The contradiction should be addressed
I've addressed it. It refers to two different seasons, just that 26 is a coincidence. It should be clear now. Peanut4 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hats off to you. I think we all know how one can get a bit hasty when there's so much to be done on Wikipedia. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The nomination date was in February, so I thought that the review on March 17 had been the review. However, my apologies for the oversight, please re-nominate if you feel it needs to be. Noble Story (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Scandinavian historical articles
Hi. In the past, I have wikified quite a few of the above (the latest batch of which I note you claim need references at WikiProject Biography/Assessment). I think you'll find they are referenced adequately, but mostly limited to Scandinavian book biographies or websites (given that they are usually set in folklore in the distant past).
The fact that they are not English language sources does not discount them from English Wikipedia. What is of concern to me regarding assessment is that User:Aciram admits he/she does not have the confidence to formulate them properly to Wikipedia standard (sections, grammar, spelling, infoboxes, general wikification, etc.), so, as I say, I have transformed quite a few in the past.
Believe me, if I believed that they were pure fairy stories, I would have sent the lot to AfD by now, but the editor manages to include a ring of truth in all he writes, and is a good faith editor, not a fiction novellist. When I am able to send the reference webpages through a translation program, they do verify most of what is written.
If you feel able to better reference them, or help in any other way, please feel free. I personally have let Aciram know that I do not have time to improve them for English Wikipedia at the moment. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
When I said the articles needed references, I should have said "inline citations". I saw they had references, but I mean actually using references in the article.Noble Story (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. However, inline citations are the caviar, basic references are the bread. Given the language differences and the editor's lack of confidence, I think it unlikely that these type of articles are going to end up satisfying the purists among us. All we can do is tag 'em to the hilt. Thanks for your input. Ref(chew)(do)21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Bradford City History
Hi, thanks very much for the review. I think it is broad in its coverage. However, I do have another book, I'm going to take a read through to find if there is anything I've missed, so if you want to keep it on hold for a day or two more, it makes no difference to me to wait on a little bit. My overall aim with this article is to go for featured status anyway, so I'll have to ensure it's in perfect state for that anyway.
On an aside note, your two reviews have been superb. I'm also working on the article Valley Parade and my aim is to go straight to FAC rather than through GAN. It's pretty much finished as it is, and wondered if you would give a quick review of the text, to see what needs changing. Don't feel any pressure to do. If you do get time, then feel free to leave any comments on my talk page. Thanks so much for your excellent work. Peanut4 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll just keep the article on hold for a little longer. As for Valley Parade, I'll look it over sometime soon, time permitting. On on aside, if you get all these articles to GA or FA status, and maybe a few more, maybe you should consider submitting "Bradford City" for a featured topic. Just a thought. Noble Story (talk)
That's fine. My long term goal is to go for featured topic, but I mean long term goal!! A couple of other football clubs have already taken a lead on this. Peanut4 (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Right back again. I've expanded a couple of bits for the middle sections and made some minor changes. So you might want to take another look when you get chance. Peanut4 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time to review this article. I have responded to your comments. Please let me know of anything else that you feel needs to be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your comment about the choppy sentences in the section about Bedlam in ICW and rephrased the text in the article. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else outstanding. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of Francis Bok I believe that I have addressed your concerns. See the sandbox for my comments. Thanks again and I am waiting further feedback. Dincher (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think all peer reviews should be done in the article talk pages and not in sandboxes. When the GA review is done, the sandbox is cleared and used for the next review(s), so that someone looking for the GA review details would have to dig through the sandbox history. This defeats the purpose of having the GA review on the article talk page. Such reviews are helpful for future editors and for things like FAC. Please see and comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Odd_method_of_reviewing. I appreciate your review work and all the care and time you take with it, but the use of sandboxes seems to me to be problematic at best. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I spent 3 days with no internet at home, I couldn't do anything at the Portland Trail Blazers article - but I recently did a huge edit trying to adress your requests, see what else is needed in the article (you probably won't pass it, but maybe I'll put it at GA/R after hearing your thoughts). igordebraga≠02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've just failed it, as you can see. The big problems are the lists, although I can see you've made progress. But, as I mentioned before, you should eliminate at least one roster, as having both is redundant. Also, the "Players honors" still needs to be pared down. Hope that helps for the future. If you take it to GAN again, I'll be happy to pick it up and review it again. Noble Story (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made the corrections. Sorry for not notifying you on the talk page. For the Mossad I added a description but I'm not sure its best, you tell me. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"The whole second, third, and fourth paragraphs in the Biography section need extensive referencing."
Because these paragraphs are fully referenced, perhaps you will understand my confusion. What do you mean by this? (Mind meal (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC))
Valley Parade copy-edit
Hi there again, I'm about ready to go to FAC with Valley Parade. It's under peer review, but nigh on everything has been addressed - I've just one tiny little thing, which I can't find a source for, so may not appear anyway. I know I asked if you got chance, whether you could go through the article just to read through the text. If you do get chance, I'd fully appreciate it, because as expected, one reviewer suggested it be given a copy-edit. Peanut4 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologise. Your help has been greatly appreciated. Anyway, I didn't expect to be ready so soon with it to be honest!! Peanut4 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oil shale industry
Hi, Noble Story. Thank you for reviewing the Oil shale industry. I hope I fixed all problems you mentioned. Please let me knew if there is something else which needs to be fixed for the GA status.Beagel (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for two fantastic Good Article reviews, and your Peer Review. Not only has your work improved the articles a million more times than I expected, your input will keep on improving more of my work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
First Great Western
Thank you very much for reviewing the article, if it is not too much trouble could you possibly have another look based on the changes I have made following your suggestions as it would save another month on the waiting list. --FGWQPR (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I was committing the cardinal sin of editing whilst on holiday, wasn't I?! I'll get to it now. Regards, BencherliteTalk20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to shoot over a quick thanks for the review of my Sanja Matsuri article. You made some great points and will attempt to fix many of them as soon as possible. Thanks again! Torsodog (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed set of comments. I do appreciate it as this is the first article I have worked on by myself to bring up to GA status. I have addressed your comments, and look forward to your reassessment. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made the appropriate changes, and again, thank you for the detailed set of comments. Please advise how to proceed if this is still not quite to GA status. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your detailed comments and time in helping the ROA article become GA. Please let me know if anything else needs to be cleaned-up. Patriarca12 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Award
The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your star -- here's one for you too, not so much out of reciprocity since I'd already intended to commend you for the good work on Yi and Yao. The NBA wikiproject has seen a steady increase of GAs and FAs since its inception, and here's to more of those. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Based on the number and thoroughness of reviews, I have chosen you as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 6 April 2008. Dr. Cash (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your GA review and helpful comments on Joe Rice; it's made it a better article. I know that reviewing is time-consuming and often thankless, and I appreciate all your efforts. -- 16:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on improving the aricle. I really do appreciate the time you have taken to give such extensive commentry, rather than just refusing GA. I have to be honest that I didn't actually know about peer review thing and my GA nomination too was after another user suggested me to do so. I have done the changes that you have recommended. Hope it meets the GA standards now. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ16:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Noble Story. This article has been on hold for over a month now. As a courtesy to the editor who has worked on this, please decide if compliance with the good article criteria has now been met. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You said:"The obvious thing about this article is that it is way too short. You mention the code, but you never say exactly what the code says."
The previous version of the article contained the core of the code, but it was removed as a result of the previous review.
The previous GAN Reviewer said:"Text dumps are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please summarize the Code, rather than putting the whole thing in the article. Provide a link to the full text, perhaps in the external links section."
Now the problem is that the core of the code by itself is only four short paragraphs that hard to impossible to shorten. Since making them shorter was not a feasible option, did I go with the removal of the code and adding a reference to the full text of it instead. You can find it here [1]
You said:"Plus, you don't really say what the effects of the code were, and why is was really notable.".
The notability is given by the fact that this is the first self-regulating guide and restriction that the industry imposed on itself, without federal or state lawmakers being part of it. I did not add this statement to the article, because the only proof of this is the fact that you can search as long as you want to and not find one that is older. I had the same debate about a similar case for another article. We have to wait until a reliable source mentions this fact one day. Maybe when there is a second time of something happening like this (yeah, the code was the first and only time so far that the industry imposed restriction on itself on a somewhat industry wide level).
Describing the effects of the code is possible, but finding references to back them up is not. Several companies that were in violation with the code changed the way how they conduct business to be compliant, but everybody was trying to keep things as quiet as possible. Being not compliant in the first place was nothing to be proud of and drawing attention to the fact that you were not via a public statement or published story about it was avoided whereever possible. Considering the size and importance of the affiliate marketing industry at that time, it was hard to get any main stream media coverage for almost anything related to the industry, thus avoiding coverage was very easy. There are some blogs of industry acknowledged experts and activists who reported on those things, but they do not make a good reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
Its tough with articles that are about a subject that is not niche anymore and at the brink of becoming part of the mainstream, but isn't just yet. Too large for the one thing and too small for the other. :)
If you have any tip, idea or advice how to solve my dilemma, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked Coz 11 not to engage in accussing other editors of bias on talk pages. I asked him not to refer to David Stern has a liar or a man with no credibility (as he did on a talk page). Now, over at the Clayton Bennett article he has referred to Bennett as a "liar" on the talk page. Am I overreacting, or has this guy crossed the line? It's gotten to the point where almost every single day his biased edits have to be reverted or he has to be warned not to violate policies regarding personal attacks, conflicts of interest, assuming good faith, proper use of edit summaries, reverting pages, etc. I asked earlier if people thought something should be done about him, and the consensus seemed to be that I overreacted and he should be worked with. It seems to me that continually calling people liars is just going too far. I don't know what should be done about it though. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, I think he has been disruptive to say the least, although I can't say he has broken any hard-and-fast rule. I will consider going to a higher source now that warning him hasn't produced any change. According to WP:DISPUTE, the next step would be Wikiquette alerts. I sure hope it doesn't go beyond there. Noble Story (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking that up. I hope it doesn't go beyond that either. He doesn't need to be blocked or anything like that. But, I do think he needs a serious warning from an administrator. Comments from regular users don't seem to be getting through. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I opened up a discussion here.[2] Hopefully, this will be enough to get things back under control. I thought maybe I was overreacting to him calling Stern and Bennett liars repeatedly, but then I thought to myself that if I went over to a talk page for George W. Bush or Michael Moore and repeatedly called them liars, I'd probably be blocked by now. Chicken Wing (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also added to your comments, citing specific differences and examples. Hopefully, this will get things moving in the right direction from now on. Noble Story (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be bugging you again and again. :D Can you please look into the GA review. We are planning to further work on the article to get it to FA class if we pass the GA now. Your feed back and suggestions will be very much appreciated. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I do think checking the good articles is a good idea. Hopefully, the students will learn from it, and get progressively better. After all, that's what Wikipedia is about. Noble Story (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed your concerns on the above discussion. Any more comments or suggestions are welcome. I am about to go to bed, so I will will address any farther concerns you may have tomorrow. Thanks again for the review. « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he may be inactive for some period, sort of like a Wikibreak. Go ahead and start, seeing as it is May. We may need more than one this month, due to the playoffs. Basketball110My story/Tell me yours03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the late reply - I've been busy with school exams. You've done a great job with the newsletter. I'd love to help with the next edition. --Shruti14tcs03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the section is okay; moreover there was a ref name deleted, leading to invalid cite tags. It is commentary that is attributable, and there is some value (and indeed validity) in such commentary. It is a biography after all. Chensiyuan (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the section partially, and tried to eliminate some of the more obvious pov statements. I've also tried to tie in the context in a better way. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Great to see an image at last, even if it's post-NBA. And looks like the collaboration you initiated is bearing fruit. =) Chensiyuan (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't figure out why you've created a new section called "footnotes" when there's already a "references" section. Some of the references also have newly created problems.--John Foxe (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that footnotes should be for actual notes (explanations, clarifications, etc.), and references for for the actual references (links, news citations and so on). Although I guess I can change it back if it's really that bad. Noble Story (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's strange to have two categories, especially because references and explanatory footnotes so often logically go together. I'm going to eliminate the "reference" section, which will again at least give us one category. But check the notes individually, and you'll find technical problems that you've inadvertently created. I don't have the technical knowledge to know how to fix them without simply reverting.--John Foxe (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I've now either eliminated or corrected all the problem citations. You should probably check them as well when you have a chance.--John Foxe (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Noble Story. 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.
