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.
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
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) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... as with the other articles I've remarked about today, you do intend to bring this review to some kind of conclusion? This too, has been on hold for a month. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Sorry to hear about that. Get plenty of rest, drink lots of fluids, and feel better. The talk pages confused me – they still have {{GAReview}} tags with their status fields set to 'on hold'. I trust, in light of your remark above, that it will be proper for me to reset those fields and fully release the articles to general review. Let me know otherwise with a response here or on my talk page. Thank you, and feel better. Gosgood (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I received a message from User:Gosgood that you won't be able to go further with the GA review on the above article. I really owe you a lot for your critical comments and suggestions. Wikipedia does need more people like you. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of things at the FAC. I'm on vacation, so I'm afraid my assistance leading up to the conclusion of the FAC may be limited. I hope to chip in as and when I can, but I do suppose it's really up to you and Zagalejo now to hold the fort. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. *salute* Seriously, I'll do my best. Actually, Laser brain was probably right in saying that we should have gone to peer review first. However, I think we can still pull this thing off. Noble Story (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry it's been SO long since I've replied to your comment about the NBA newsletter - I've been busy and away for a while and somehow I missed your message (on May 8th!) I would love to help with the right side of the newsletter as you suggested, and the left as well if you'd like, as I see that neither is done yet for the next issue. --Shruti14tcs23:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I added separate references for the 2 notes. There was a large discussion about where "Statistics are..." should be placed. It was decided that it should not be in small font (for visually impaired people), and it should be put in the last paragraph of the lead. Thanks again for your comments. «Milk's Favorite Cøøkie( talk / contribs)17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I must admit I worked hard on that. And was ticked when I saw that it was gone. I really didn't think that it should be deleted. Even after reading policy. I am not going to hold anything against you, it wouldn't be "Christian." :) But what makes me frusterated is that that is like the tenth article I worked hard on that was deleted. That is what gets me ticked. Again, noting against you personally, it is just typical for en:WP. Thanks -- AmericanEagle06:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that makes more sense! Seriously, I did try to make them that way. I've found sources, external links, infoboxes, categories, information, and more that all give notability. But somewhere, somehow, somebody finds somethings they say doesn't give notability. Regardless of the work done. Call it policy, but it's still frustrating. -- AmericanEagle17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently moved the section Rivalry with Larry Bird out of the Legacy section as it was mentioned in the FAC comments that the rivalry doesn't fit as part of a "legacy", which is doesn't. I'm not going to put it back because I think you're doing a good job with it. I just thought I'd make sure you saw that comment in the FAC review. Chickenmonkey (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I saw the comment. I eventually decided that the rivalry could be in a section all to itself. Thanks for the heads-up though. 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, according to the FA contents, the category Flag of Canada is in has less then 30 articles. It then had one point, correct, or am I missing something? Hello32020 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The requester of the GAR reverted your close, so I've closed it again and left a note on his talk page. I agree totally that it is a clear consensus. LostOldPassword (talk) 04:00, 30 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) 07:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, ya, I guess that would be ok. I don't think there's any changes that need to be made, so hopefully no more edits will be made. Thanks, Noble Story (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then, whatever you prefer really. As I said, I don't think there are any changes left to be made, so I think we could save everyone a little bit of time by subst-ing. But then again, to be on the safe side, maybe not... Noble Story (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in editing article related to the NBA, please add your name to the member list, if you have not already.
This Month in NBA History..
June 6, 1946 – In the Commodore Hotel of New York, the NBA is officially formed as the Basketball Association of America. Maurice Podoloff is named the first commissioner of the league.
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, Magic Johnson was a great success. A total of 560 edits were made to the article during the month of May, and the article was eventually nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. Although the article was not promoted, it was significantly improved through the work of many editors.
This month's Collaboration of the Month is Steve Nash. Although this is article is already a Good Article, it still can be improved. In particular, all prose should conform to Featured Article standards, all statements should be verified, and the text should be in a neutral point of view. If there is anything you can do to improve the article, then please help out.
Collaborator of the Month
The Collaborator of the Month is given to the editor with the most number of substantial, beneficial edits to the article chosen as the Collaboration of the Month.
This month's Collaborator of the Month award goes to Chensiyuan (talk·contribs). Although he had previously helped Magic Johnson to became a Good article, he made literally hundreds of edits during the month of May. For his contributions, he is rewarded with the NBA Collaborator of the Month Award.
However, all beneficial edits made by any editor was a help. Other members of the project that contributed to the article include:
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) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is 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 (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
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.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May 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!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Where are the sources? Why are there no references in the sentence? Claiming someone is lying about their age is quite prejudicial. I will remove the sentence until you provide a citation.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Noble Story. It may be that this article fails any number of Good Article critera, but I take issue with its summary removal from the nomination queue for reasons stated here. I was rather sharp with you; I think that a hasty clearing of the bag log should not lay the project open to criticism about the quality of its review process. It seems to me that criticism of the Good Article program is growing and not all of it is baseless; this obliges us to conduct our reviews with care. I do invite you to respond and let me know if I have been high-handed with you in any manner. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to give you a heads up that the GAN review of Pacers-Pistons brawl is now complete, and that I have placed the article on hold so that editors have a chance to improve the article before I decide to pass or fail it. Cheers. Monowi (talk) 08:42, 13 June 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) 06:18, 15 June 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) 07:54, 27 June 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) 03:50, 4 July 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) 09:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
He wrote a bio for kids about Ming that won an award. Some may believe that it is necessarily less notable than the two books for adults referenced, but unless they have read Krawiec's book and will provide specific arguments, I will respectfully disagree. I restored the sentence linked to Krawiec. Regards, Rich (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me who nominated this article for GA for a second time? I had clearly stated on its talk page that it was not yet ready for GA.
In any case, I read your GA review, and your suggestions for improvements are simple enough. I'll start further improving the article soon. However, your objections to references 6 and 8 are something I want to clear up. 6 and 8 are not merely personal websites, but are rather primary sources. Reference 6, for instance, is the actual website Michael Malone gave that interview to. I consulted with editor Bignole, someone experienced in getting fictional character articles to GA or FA status, after including that reference...and he advised that it was fine to use because it is a primary source. Really, those interviews are available nowhere else. I also do not know how you concluded that a lot of the article has an in-universe tone, when, in actuality, it is one of the more out-of-universe articles.
But, anyway, if you are still willing to review this article once I make further improvements to it, let me know. As said, I will get started on these improvements soon. Once done, it would be nice to inform you and see what you think. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've carried out most of your suggestions; I already explained about the two references you objected to, which are no longer numbers 6 and 8. I clarified the context of the reference that was Number 6, though. As for that long quote in the Character creation section, I feel that it's suitable. It's not as though I have several quotes as long as that in the article.
In addition to your suggestions, I have further expanded the article; the new images I added along with the new text are within Wikipedia policy, since they are aiding the text rather than being merely for show. The article is a lot more comprehensive now. The additions were to the Actors' approach to the character section (now called Portrayals), and to the the Impact and criticism section. An additional reference was also applied to the article's lead, simply because some of what the lead mentions is not yet addressed within the rest of the article. That "rest" would be the Storyline section I plan on adding. I'll get to a storyline section for that article in time, which will be sourced and worded in out-of-universe form. A benefit to that approach will hopefully mean less random contributions adding on to it and making it a long, unsourced plot mess.
But, yep, if you would review this article again, that would be good.
Never mind. I went ahead and renominated it for GA, since I see that you are not currently active on Wikipedia. I am usually patient; it's just that I would rather go ahead and get this taken care of.
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) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 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 (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
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.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July 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 Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
I don't know if you've seen this or not, but it might be something to keep an eye on. It could become a magnet for POV pushing and vandalism. Hopefully not, but I'm more of a realist than optimist. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
I am here to inform you that this WikiProject is having a callout. If you do not respond in one week after this message, we will automatically move you to the "Inactive list". Thank you for your time and co-operation. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]00:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Curtis Blair
I have nominated Curtis Blair, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Blair. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Wizardman15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
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.
