This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. 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.
Two of my favourite 'Oo songs, though any 1969-76 clip of Amazing Journey / Sparks (such as Woodstock, Live at Leeds, Isle of Wight) is incredible what you can get out of one guitar by just playing rhythm. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I remember hearing this first when I was about 14. It sounded like something from another planet. I am still dumbfounded and amazed that it was released in 1971. I regard Glyn Johns as a genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure I've said this before but I recall my dad's friend playing me "Yours Is No Disgrace"; the opening track on The Yes Album, where this cranked up Hammond organ comes in clear on one channel about 8 seconds in and blows your socks off. Sorry, never been a Rick Wakeman fan myself. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes. That exact same track was also a revelation for me, thanks to an older brother who had that album (and still does as far as I know). I only saw them after Wakeman had joined, but the pre-Wakeman band really were the The Big Country for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Ja, ik ben een nutbag"
Since we're on this subject .... I went to see Focus a few years back, but I don't actually know much about them other than the leader plays a good Hammond and flute and does an excellent impression of being a complete nut bag, if of course that is an impression. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I went to see them once, at Cardiff University, being a huge Thijs van Leer fan with copies of both "Sylvia" and "Harem Scarem". But they never turned up! [1] .... the yodelling starts at about 3:54... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC) ... grab the Hammond on this classic (Pub Quiz Time: what model is that Banksy Tony is playing in the scrap-yard at 1:56)?
Oh dear, I'm about to scare you now Martin, right at 1:56, Tony Kaye is miming with a Hammond L-100P, a portable version of the L100 spinet, brought in after they realised there was a market for portable Hammonds about 20 years too late, Chris Squire is on the Telecaster bass copy he had before the Rickenbacker, probably about 10 years old at that point, and ol' Stevie is of course miming to Banks on his ES-175. No idea where they're miming. However, earlier on this evening I saw an advert on TV saying "Did you know that Yellowstone National Park is built on top of an active volcano" and I said "Yes, but I can't remember if the claim is reliably sourced and the article has been expanded 5x in the past 7 days", to which I got the "you sad git" look from the missus. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, I see that you are on the list of GA mentors. I am nearly done with my first review, over at Talk:Dolebury Warren/GA1. I believe the article in nearly ready to pass, and I would appreciate it if you could give it a once over to make sure that I've assessed it correctly. If you are too busy, that's not a problem, please just let me know and I can ask someone else. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
Hi, I had a look through. The good news is that the nominator is a very experienced editor with many GAs and FAs under his belt, so you shouldn't have too many problems that crop up. I would ask a little bit more about the history of the geology of the area - did the last ice age affect it? A GA has to be "broad in coverage" so it's always worth asking about things you think might deserve a mention, even if the end answer is "nothing in the sources". I wonder why there are two infoboxes? But generally you have done a good job and I don't see any problem with the article reaching GA standard as a result of your comments. And I'm pleased with what you've done on Henry Fownes Luttrell - you listened to Eric and Sitush's comments outside of the GA review and used them to make a better article - exactly the result we should be looking for. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for looking over this, and for your comments regarding the Fownes Luttrell article. I am pleased that you think Dolebury Warren is up to that level too, and I have passed on your suggestions re geology and the infobox at the GAR. Many thanks, it is appreciated, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
Tricky one. If I could find a good scan of the back cover and find out who recorded and produced it, that might narrow it down to a few obvious session players, but in Mississippi 1969, a Hammond B3 + Leslie 122 was common currency enough that Gregg Allman, just up the road in Macon, Georgia, had one dropped off as a gift in the same manner that one would drop round a Samsung Galaxy 4 in today's gadget currency. So it could have been any one of a hundred people. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Curiously, on the article for the album there is no credit for any organ player, nor for what sounds to me like a sitar. Have opened a Talk Page thread over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC) ... either that or I'd better watch what I'm smoking ....
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Haim (band) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Won't Get Fooled Again
This next song is one that our drummer, Mr Keith Moon is going to play far too fucking loud.Dear boy, that is a complete and utter slur and I'm not standing for it! I can't anyway, always stuck at the back.
Wow, do you recognize your/our article? It's been thoroughly reorganized by a third party. Funny how that happens at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
We can't delete Kick the cat effect per {{R from move}} which says "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. For more information follow the category link." We could possibly delete Kick the dog effect since there is already a redirect from Kick the dog, but I'm not sure what the rationale for deleting it would be. I'd leave it, it's harmless, and WP:Redirects are cheap. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Overload of "background" – possible separate, topical article instead
Hi Ritchie, I hope you're well. I'm wondering if you could spare the time to have a quick look at the long Background section in Wah-Wah (song). I took the article to GA two years ago or more, and as with quite a few from back then, it's one I'd earmarked for a revisit, having learnt plenty during GARs since then. Your initial thoughts on the Background in Awaiting on You All – something like, "Okay, but what's all this got to do with the song?", along with the suggestion that maybe an article on the artist's religious beliefs was needed – have been running through my head … With Wah-Wah, I'm thinking of taking much of the text from the first section to create a topical article, perhaps titled George Harrison's temporary departure from the Beatles. His walking out from the Get Back/Twickenham rehearsals was noted in The Daily Sketch and The Daily Express at the time, it had obvious effect on the Beatles' immediate plans, was a significant issue during the High Court hearing in January–February 1971; then there's McCartney's take on the episode, and the contrasting approaches between Mac and Hari when it came to letting fellow musicians interpret their songs (or not). So, there's a fair bit to add to such an article. Your thoughts would be much appreciated, Ritch. I'm confident that it would be a useful standalone article but on the other hand, I've also seen some objections (and I share them) to indulgent, "fancruft"-y pieces on the Beatles – the level of detail afforded parents, aunties etc of Paul McCartney and John Lennon, for instance … JG66 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've had a think, and I have an idea. Break-up of the Beatles is only 15K of prose. Per WP:SIZE, it could be three times as long and still meet our inclusion policies. The article is currently assessed as a mix of B and C class; I'm going to go with C for now. I would suggest your proposed Harrison coverage could go in that article and be beefed up by your arsenal of excellent Harrison sources; I can do the same for McCartney via Miles, McDonald and whatever else I have bouncing around. Rather than the current article, which looks like a mish-mash of things, perhaps presenting things in a chronological order, considering all viewpoints (did Yoko Ono contribute to the break-up or was she just an innocent bystander?) would make a much more interesting article. I smell a collaborative GA on the horizon, and that can only be a good thing. How does that grab you? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've long found Break-up of the Beatles pretty underwhelming, so anything we do there can only be for the better. Back in 2012–13, I worked on song articles like "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" and "Run of the Mill", always hoping to be able to lean on wider-ranging articles such as Break-up for background – always disappointed. I like the idea of working up the break-up article (and you were quite right to up the importance rating just now). Must say, I consider Harrison's walkout such a key moment and worthy of a separate article. That's partly because I can't help thinking (from Sue Me, Run of the Mill, Ram etc) that we need something substantial in Break-up of the Beatles about the 1971 High Court suit and the events leading up to the official dissolution of the Beatles and Apple in early 1975 (i.e. when the suits all turned Klein's way), so I'm thinking of so much that's missing in that area, you know?
Let's see how it goes with taking some of the Wah-Wah intro there – I welcome the idea of you and I collaborating on Break-up, btw. Only thing to say, and this is what made me lose interest in taking McCartney to GAN (temporarily, I hope, although it's been a while): much of what the likes of Miles and MacDonald take from McCartney as gospel about the Let It Be/Spector/McCartney era appears to be contradicted by Doggett in You Never Give Me Your Money – and that's one helluva well-reasearched book. Tricky. JG66 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Even MacDonald concedes that McCartney's views of the Abbey Road sessions were "rose-tinted", citing an episode where a few Apple Scruffs spotted him storming out of the studio in a right old state (possibly during the backing track to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer") and not returning for the day. Indeed, until his 1989's volte face and wholesale embracing of his "Beatles tribute band" guise, McCartney didn't want to talk about the Beatles, particularly when the elephant in the room was that Press to Play might just not have been as good as the Beatles..... So yeah, this is a golden opportunity for Wikipedia to set the record straight with its NPOV policy as a shining beacon. (Or something like that). I don't know when I'll get a good few hours to sit down with my books and start beefing things up, but I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, but McD takes it as fact that McCartney had no knowledge of Spector working on Let It Be until after the event. That's not true. At least, Doggett says that the others tried to reach him by phone over a period of weeks (which ties in with Spector having been offered the gig after "Instant Karma!" and when he actually began working on the tapes) and that eventually Mac returned the calls and agreed to Spector's involvement. By talking about it for decades since, what McCartney's done is wrap up his announcement that he was (sort of) leaving the Beatles with his irritation at Spector's treatment of "Long and Winding Road" – in fact, he's reversed the chronology so that his leaving was somehow governed by Spector's over-production. The majority of reliable sources all roll in that direction too. (What are they going to do when someone keeps talking about it?!) George Martin started off saying that McCartney told him that he had no idea Spector was involved. Later, that becomes Martin saying that McCartney had no idea Spector was involved – supporting McCartney's claim. This is just one example, but it's why it's so much easier dealing with George and Ringo. Their recollections don't tend to mess with history! JG66 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Galleria, Hatfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great North Road. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Yay, the Dab solver is back. Now what I really need to do is add a script so I can just click on "fix dabs" after doing a large edit where I always forget to check links I've added. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quadrophenia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
About Ika
Hi, Ritchie! About the Ika Hügel-Marshall article: right now it has two different sets of page numbers for citations from her book: the ones you found from your preview, and the ones in the actual book. Do you think I should tweak it so they are all based on the hard cover book? Or don't you think that's necessary? --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Melanie. Probably a good idea to tweak the citations so they are consistent with one source, and check the ISBN on the back matches what's listed under "References", as different issues can sometimes have different codes. The original book source is always the best one to go for if you've got it. I have been enjoying a bit of Gypsy jazz after saving Le QuecumBar from CSD, and found my CD copy of Genesis Archive 1967–75 which has a great live version of "Firth of Fifth" that I withdrew from AfD and promptly expanded a lot. Who says Wikipedia was habit forming? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, there is an issue. I remember you tried hard to find a birthdate, and eventually came up with the birthdate of 13 March 1947. You cited it to her book, page 49. I can't find an actual date in her book, or on the book jacket. It just says on page 19, "I was born in March, 1947." Later she mentions an event that happened on March 19, 1952, "a few days after my fifth birthday." But I can't find a citation of an actual date. Can you remember where you found that? I'm leaving it as is for now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The birth date as it appears on the Google Books preview can be found here and the specific text I can see on page 49 is "I was born on 13 March 1947". It is in reference to the letter she attempted to send to her father in 1965. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.
Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.
Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
I checked and I suspect this is because it was off-topic to the album, didn't appear in my copy of the remastered CD (which, admittedly may be a different pressing), the phrase "the photograph is often seen to be a reference" is a weasel phrase that would not withstand a good article review (which this article has now undergone), but most importantly, neither of the two critically acclaimed book sources I used to expand the article said anything about this. If it was that important a fact to mention, either one (if not both) would have done so, as they are both pretty comprehensive sources. Anyway, all that said I've dropped in a note about 2001: A Space Odyssey from a different book source, so it's back in the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for putting it back. I think it gives a lot more perspective than just "four men urinating on a large concrete piling at Easington Colliery". Matt-san (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom - if you can see this, you may be standing too close!
Hi Ritchie333, this is just a question about a sort of test I am conducting: When I refer to a user in this way: {{u|Ritchie333}} such as how I referred to you at the GA discussion group just now, you do receive a notification message, correct? I am only asking because today an editor tried to claim the opposite (in an unrelated discussion). The U template documentation doesn't say but the Ping documentation does have a note about this. Thanks for checking and letting me know (hey you could let me know by using that same template). Prhartcom (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Hi, no I didn't get a ping, although in this case I have WT:GAN on my watchlist so I read your message and it's roughly what I was going to say to BrownHairedGirl except I wanted to read through the article in question first. I have a notification for this message, and before that I have a thanks for this edit about an hour ago. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah ha, thank-you, I did not receive a notification, yet I received one when you used the Ping template and received one when BrownHairedGirl used [[User:Prhartcom|Prhartcom]], so my other editor friend was right; this is good to know; I will no longer use the U template. Thanks for helping with my little test. Prhartcom (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, one more test please: Please type {{u|Prhartcom}} below without putting the template in a file or anything else and save your changes (I spoke to the developer and he said our little test was inconclusive because of trying to notify me from the caption of a file). Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, dang it, although I received a notification when the developer used it the same way (here). I suppose let's just use the other two ways to notify people. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC) again.
Please can I stress: there was nothing wrong with the {{u}} template - the bug was in the notifications system. Judging by phab:T78424, the problem was in how it was identifying signatures. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your swift response to the article/page that I created reference: Mark McAllister, Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC.
Thank you also for adding 2 newspaper sources.
As I now understand (and apologies in advance for the question but this is my first experience of creating a page), the page has "Passed the Submission" and is now just awaiting final analysis on a BLP before being published officially on wikipedia? Is that a correct synopsis or do I need to do anything further?
You will notice that I have made a couple of "minor" amendments to the article earlier today to correct my grammar and spelling. Hopefully it looks better now.
Do indeed let me know if you require me to add or input anything else.
Thanks again Richie for your initial update, quick reply and helpful tips - much appreciated!
@John Cuthbert 221: - The page is now live and can be edited by anyone. I believe it passes our criteria for inclusion as stated in WP:NFOOTY, as there are now sources showing that McAllister has played professionally for a Scottish Premiership team, which is at a sufficient level to pass that criteria. The tag at the top asking for more sources is merely a suggestion of how to improve the article further.
If you examine the text of the article, you will see various <ref> tags that use the {{cite news}} template linking to online versions of old newspapers that support the information in the text coming before them. Once all sentences have suitable in-line citations in this manner, the cleanup tag may be removed. Your book sources would be a good place to start. Don't worry too much about the citation templates, just <ref>Gilfeather, Frank (2009). Confessions of a Highland Hero (One ed.). Inverness: Birlinn Ltd. p. 123</ref> will do (assuming that the fact you want to cite is in that book on that page, of course!)
Again, thank you very much for your swift response!
I am delighted that the page/article has passed your criteria and is now Live.
When, approximately, will I and others be able to view the page on the official Wikipedia website please? Does it take days or weeks? An approximate time-scale would be most helpful thank you.
I will, of course, take a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football site that you recommended - thanks for that!
Once again, many thanks for all of your help and assistance during this process Richie and I look forward to viewing the page officially in the near future!
@John Cuthbert 221: If you and I can see it, anyone can, it's live now. By the way, if you're writing on talk pages like this one, don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ (four tildas) at the end of your messages (or using the "sign" tool on the toolbar at the top of the editing window. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Mark McAllister
Thanks again Richie333!
Last and final question (hopefully).
What is the most effective way to upload a photograph of Mark McAllister from his plying days on to Wikipedia to compliment the page/article?
You probably can't. All photos of living people on Wikipedia either have to be ones that are released under our licence, which means anyone can re-use them (and even re-sell them) to anyone anywhere. Unless you have a photo you definitely took yourself and are happy to release it under this licence, a photo cannot be used. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Who discography
I've been adding their singles chart performance in France to the page. Shall I add in singles that were released in France and charted, but apparently did not chart elsewhere (there may be cases where I do not know if they were released in other countries)? Most of these seem to be off of Quadrophenia. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you please explain your recent Quadrophenia reversion of my edit? As it appears with your edit, it suggests that the band did not produce the album themselves. - Bossanoven (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What is your source of information and what further understanding did you think a layman reader would gain from it? Everybody has their own favourite way of expressing album credits, so the only sane way of working is to state verbatim what's on the record and leave it at that. Have a look at WP:ALBUMS/500, pick an entry in white that's not a GA or FA, grab a few books and several cups of coffee, and improve them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)06:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The 1996 CD reissue credits state: "Original Recording Produced by THE WHO." So does the infobox on the page. The production credits for the original release are not mentioned in the personnel section as you currently have it. - Bossanoven (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bossanoven: Okay, I see what you were trying to do now. The problem was you didn't leave a edit summary, and I have to hold my hand up and apologise a bit that after your recent spell of categories being deleted I thought this was something similar, and the actual text "The Who - original recording" left me puzzled what you were trying to achieve. In this case, a good edit summary would be "added missing production credits from 1996 remaster CD". Anyway, all said and done, the credits were in a bit of a mess so I've redone them from my copy of the '96 remastered CD sleeve notes. Hopefully that's all sorted out now.
I would reiterate, though, that it would be worth having a go at writing some content from sources. For example, I haven't touched The Who Sell Out to see what state it's in, but I would be surprised if there isn't something you can cite from the CD reissue notes, which from my recollection are pretty good (though don't include the story about Pete Townshend flinging a chair through a studio window after finding a tape had been accidentally destroyed by a cleaner, as I think other sources have debunked that one). Gnomish stuff like categories and infoboxes is all well and good, but to really grab a reader's attention and enjoy what our articles have to offer, you've got to have good content with good sources. I don't claim to be the best writer on Wikipedia at all (far from it) but sourcing and content creation is the best area you can work in, and if you can get the skills to do it, you can earn a lot of respect. Some food for thought, anyway. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Thanks for the suggestion as well. I do have The Who Sell Out at hand. However, I might be checking a few other music-related things before I start on another project. Might get around to that one, though. - Bossanoven (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Richie I just completed my first review of for a GA article. I would like you to look at the page and see if I did it properly so far before I let it pass. Only thing that at the moment I am thinking of adding is some FA recommendations. Thanks in advance for your opinion. NathanWubs (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@NathanWubs: I'd have to have a closer look, and I've never been a bit fan of video games (unless I'm writing them or I can reprogram them) but the review doesn't seem to look as in depth as I would normally do on an article of this size. My personal preference is to list issues (which nominators can then strike or mark "done") against. For example, you have said there are no spelling or grammar errors, though a quick search to prove this brought up "maneuvers that were not physically possible" - unless that's a US English thing, that should be "manoeuvres". For an article of 28K, I think a lead of three paragraphs is probably too long and should be cut down a little bit. I would look through the article carefully, and bring up any item of prose that breaks your reading flow. As you read the text, check all the inline citations you come across, and check carefully that the facts in the article correlate exactly to what's in the prose. Moving forward, I'd suggest putting a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games to see if you can get a GA reviewer with experience of this topic to help you - it seems to be quite an active project, so hopefully you'll get a quick response. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Well that shows how much I know about the topic! Hopefully my advice is still useful, but I would advise finding an expert on the topic - there's bound to be one on WP somewhere. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks once again for handling the GA review of Thunderbirds (TV series) at the end of last year. I realise that this is a very broad question, but do you have any ideas as to what should or could be done to get the article from GA to FA standard? I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions, as unfortunately the TV WikiProject lacks a centralised A-Class review process.
I wouldn't say that the article has much room for expansion; it's more or less complete (and if anything, should probably be shortened). SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@SuperMarioMan: - Hi. A Class reviews seem to be few and far between. It's only really WP:MILHIST that has enough editors to have sufficient knowledge to do them. I think you're right that it should be cut down, but we did quite a lot of that in the GA review.
The best thing to do is have a couple of editors you work well with who have FA experience, for example Red Phoenix who took Sega Genesis to GA and FA, might know somebody who's got the in-depth knowledge of Thunderbirds necessary. Eric Corbett and John (FA writers par excellence with a particular flair for copyediting) kept Quatermass and the Pit at FA recently, and might be of the right age to remember Thunderbirds first time around - they tend to be busy with lots of requests for help but it never hurts to ask.
I've had to conclude that FAs are not my thing, I can do the research and my prose skills are okay, but not great, which is fine for a GA, but for an FA you need professional quality prose and a strong skill with the Manual of Style, both of which feel too much like hard work for me. I've got nothing against anyone else taking articles through FAC, fair play to them, but I don't think I can do it myself without being on a team. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(watching:) Do it as a team! My first FA was in a team of three (I did little, mostly removing), the second in a team of two (I did little, mostly translating), the third alone with MANY helpers. I believe in collaboration, and if I can do it (with English not my first language) you can do it! (I am thingking of #5.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I've got a short attention span. I can hold it together for a GA, then I start staring out the window and thinking "what else is new?" It's probably the same reason I like jamming and mixing up setlists. Definitely teams are the way to go - Scott does the sourcing, Virgil checks for comprehensiveness and being on-topic, Brains checks the MOS and Lady Penelope copyedits. Even for stuff like Reculver, which I was only peripherally involved in the FA review, felt like a hard slog and it wasn't even my nomination! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
DGG
As long as you see typos, it's probably me! But I tend to get impatient at promotionalism, and sometimes do go overboard and judge more by intent than I ought to do. It's one of the dangers of doing too much NPP. I rely on others to correct me--such as you, and I never use G11 single handed. (As for the article, I withdrew and closed as keep) DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. If you read the article it does look like Just Another Web Forum anyway. My initial thoughts were "am I looking at the same DGG who rescues thousands of G13 submissions?" but I then remembered back to last Friday when I started expanding an article from a book, got tired, saved it and woke up the next day to find a whole bunch of silly spelling mistakes and MOS errors fixed. I think it's fine to recognise we all make mistakes, and if you do a lot of NPP, statistics are going to say you'll get them more often than others. I tend to avoid CSDs unless it's really important the article goes immediately, most obviously attack pages, obvious vandalism and copyvios. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Rescuing
While you're in the rescuing mood, have a look at Snita and the associated AfD. I'm having great trouble getting through to the author. (So far, I've managed not to block them for tag removal, but I don't think I can prevent it if another admin gets involved.) Peridon (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've got this Telegraph India source but nothing else yet. Indian topics can be rescued from news and book sources just like anywhere else in the world - I rescued Ziffi.com a while back, but I'm not having much luck with this. I'll keep you posted, but at the moment I'd !vote delete. I'll just hold fire for the mo until I can do a serious dig. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, Ika was one for the record books - 6051 views! Any DYK over 5000 goes into the statistics. This was my most-viewed DYK ever (would you believe my previous record was for Dial (soap)?). All that tweaking of the hook paid off and that was a real team effort - thanks, User:Drmies! --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Korg CX-3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drawbar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Whoa, lookit you go! And then you hooked in User:Giano, and lookit HIM go! This is amazing - I make the first edit to that article in a year and a half, and suddenly rescuers are coming out of the woodwork! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That hotel had "notable" written all over it. Like you, I was tempted to say something to the person who tagged it A7; you said it better than I could have. While it progresses to GA, is somebody working on a DYK for it? --MelanieN (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've done the DYK, and it's here. Since I don't think you've touched the article, I guess you could review it. If this does eventually pass a GA review it'll be the first CSD -> GA I've done. I tend to hold back on thinking on how notable something like this is, but now there is a picture of The Queen in front of it, the day before the world famous Treetops Hotel appearance that I recall learning about at school, nobody would ever AfD this! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Haven't touched the article"? I was the one that touched off this whole rescue stampede, remember? It's going to have to wait for the regular process. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a pity; I've found a sort of ref for the Twin Pillars anyway, well someone who came to the same conclusion as me anyway). A back view of the house and tower woudl be ery useful, as would someone who knew about Freemasonry and could explain it all better. Giano(talk)16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't got anything else to hand. On related note to the comment on your page, the sort of people who frequent golf clubs are not the sort of people who would happily take pictures of architecure and release them for free - hence why the majority of shots are taken from the main road. Eastwell Park, by contrast, is a little more accessible due to the proliferation of public footpaths across it, which I don't think the owners and residents are especially happy about (as it lets any old oaf like me walk across the premises) but are legally powerless to prevent. This is Google Street View's shot of the northwest towers, but obviously that can't be used here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and here - this entrance looks fairly restored too. Fascinating stuff, the vicar with the dodgy handshake clearly wanted everyone to know that he was king of his own masonic temple. Giano(talk)18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's looking Ok now, the problem is how much architectural stuff to have on a fairly shortish page. I suppose there ought to be some stuff about the gold courses too. Giano(talk)11:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I dropped in a brief description of the courses, but I think anything else, unless it comes from a neutral account in a newspaper or non-golf magazine that it comes across too much as advertising. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
