User talk:Royroydeb/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

John Johnson (footballer)

Hi RRD. Can you explain why you have re-nominated John Johnson (footballer) for GA? At the last review it was stated that the prose was sub-standard, and no effort since then has been made to address this. I will be taking this matter to the Football WikiProject if I do not hear from you in a timely manner. Thanks, C679 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cloudz679, there is no compulsion on you to review the article, is there any?? And, please see the penultimate Frequently asked questions at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. RRD13 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
No there isn't, and I won't be reviewing it, but it looks like you are more interested in the article attaining GA-status than actually being a good article. Your recent nominations of football-related article for GA have all failed, and instead of improving the articles, you just update the statistics and re-nominate. I think that's bad faith, but ultimately another editor will decide if John Johnson meets GA. C679 06:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A.C. Milan

Hello, Royroydeb. You have new messages at Luxic's talk page.
Message added 19:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ranti Martins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | currentclub = [[Rangdajied United F.C.|Rangdajied United]]<br>(on loan from [[Prayag United S.C.|United SC]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jules Bianchi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jules Bianchi 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 Dontreadalone -- Dontreadalone (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jules Bianchi

The article Jules Bianchi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jules Bianchi for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dontreadalone -- Dontreadalone (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It can wait til the 27th. Dontreadalone (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Escherichia coli

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Escherichia coli 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 Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

  • This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
  • Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
  • The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
  • An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3. United States WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joshua King (footballer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joshua King (footballer) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joshua King (footballer)

The article Joshua King (footballer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Joshua King (footballer) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joshua King (footballer)

The article Joshua King (footballer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joshua King (footballer) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Johnson (footballer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Johnson (footballer) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miguel Villarejo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaén (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Johnson (footballer)

The article John Johnson (footballer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Johnson (footballer) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jules Bianchi

The article Jules Bianchi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jules Bianchi for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dontreadalone -- Dontreadalone (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on the article passing. A couple of closing notes. I would get in the habit of adding author and dates to web article refs. (I was a little surprised you didn't [1] after I'd done the rest.) It takes about 30 seconds and saves the trouble at a review. Also, be careful you've fully addressed a point before declaring it done. Anyways, good job. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Escherichia coli

The article Escherichia coli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Escherichia coli for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Babur

I noticed you have added information using Dilip Hiro as a source. Dilip Hiro is not a historian and therefore is not a reliable source for Babur or his time period. You will need to find reliable sources for your additions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear,he has abridged the original translation is the translator of the book. You can see it here RRD13 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
"Born in the Indian sub-continent, Dilip Hiro was educated in India, Britain and America, where he received a master's degree at Virginia Polytechnic & State University. He then settled in London in the mid-1960s, and became a full-time writer, journalist and commentator.".[2]
Dilip Hiro is not a qualified academic concerning Babur. I am sure you can find academic sources to support your information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
He has abridged the original version which has been translated by Annette Susannah Beveridge. There is only one translation of the book, and my reference is just an abridged version of the book. I know that he is not a historian, but abiding by the conditions provided, the source remains the same. RRD13 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Then you should probably mention Beveridge as translator in the reference. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

GA is not PR

Please stop nominating articles for GA reviews when they're clearly not ready. If you want an article to be reviewed to see how it could be improved, please use the peer review system – that's what it's there for. If the articles were ready for promotion to GA (but for a few minor tweaks), I would support you, but these articles really should go through the PR process first. – PeeJay 21:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: You can see the peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Wayne Rooney/archive2 and I have edited accordingly. RRD13 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Clearly that PR was not complete, since the reviewer did not review the article beyond the first section. Get a proper review done first. – PeeJay 09:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
RRD, I am still working through the Wayne Rooney article and I have made a number of changes, although due to real life, it is taking longer than I anticipated. I hope you don't mind delaying the GA nomination until I get it finished? Please let me know on this page. Thanks, C679 07:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Research to understand article reviews

Hi,

We’re a team of researchers at Stanford University, and we’re interested in how editors review nominated articles for GA status. Rather than just looking to the assessment guidelines, we’re also interested in how individual editors then use these guidelines to evaluate articles.

We were hoping if you’d be able to spend some time with us, and help us understand how you would differentiate, say, a C-class article from a Good Article.

Looking forward to hearing back! Our email address is jc14253 AT cs DOT stanford DOT edu

Justin Cheng and Michael Bernstein Stanford University http://hci.stanford.edu/

Jcccf (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back! The specific research question we're interested in is how C-class articles differ from GAs. We were wondering if you'd be able to help us with examples of these articles (we have a set of these articles that we're using in our research). The email address does work - you just have to replace AT with "@", and DOT with "." (to avoid email harvesting bots). Jcccf (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a PhD student (http://www.clr3.com), and Michael is a Professor of Computer Science (http://hci.stanford.edu/msb). As mentioned before, we're interested in finding out how Wikipedia editors (or experts) distinguish good articles from those that aren't (e.g. C-class articles), and to see how well we can train novice users to do the same, in combination with artificial intelligence techniques. Let us know if you have any more questions! Jcccf (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Volví a Nacer

Just a quick heads-up, I'll be nominating this at WP:GAR tomorrow as your review was wholly inadequate. I'm afraid three comments, two of which were ignored, is not a sufficient review, the article is in need of a proper and thorough review. I'll see what I can do, but I though it would be courteous to let you know what I intend to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tough to grasp

Hi there RRD, AL "here",

taking Gabriel Fernández Arenas as an example, the following: i really can't comprehend why, in ALL the charts you add, there are only two or three correct dashes. I repeat i sympathise with the fact your keyboard does not have big dashes or accents, but you can COPY them from the main infobox, which is found in 99,9999999999% of the players at WP. And i imagine you do copy them, because i repeat two or three appear in the STATISTICS chart, but why copy only TWO or THREE and not ALL? As the title of my message says, tough to grasp :(

Also regarding Gabi: no need to say his Getafe season was on loan in the chart below, the main box and the storyline already take care of that methinks.

Happy editing (last time i bother you with the dashes bit, i wikipromise!), happy ones --AL (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Always Learning::Here you can see that I have put big dashes only. (Where do you find small dashes?) Yes, I remember doing so in Carlos Gurpegui, (I will fix it), but no in Gabi. Anyways, while going through the pictures in Computer keyboard, I find no keyboard with big dashes and accent symbols.RRD13 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I've never had a keyboard with either "big" (em dash "—") or "small" (en dash "–") dashes: see WP:DASH for when to use which sort on Wikipedia. Have you got a box below your edit window and above the edit summary box, with bits of Wiki markup in, and a dropdown box on the left of it for various sorts of special characters and alphabets? If you have, then select Wiki markup in the dropdown, and then the "small" en dash is the first one in the box, after the word Insert:, and the "big" em dash is the second.

As to accents, Ctrl-Alt-e on my British keyboard gives é, and likewise for other acute accents. If that doesn't work for you, or you need different accents, they can be found in the box below the edit window (select an appropriate alphabet from the dropdown) or else under Special characters in the bar at the top of the edit window.

Or in general for non-keyboard characters, see Help:Wiki markup#Special characters. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, i was misunderstood :( I did not mean the dashes in the blank fields like you have now altered in Gurpegui's article, i meant the dashes in the seasonal wikilinks (example, you often write 2009-10 La Liga when you should write 2009–10 La Liga). Those are the dashes i meant, and in Gabi you did not add ALL the correct dashes, this was your last revision after i stepped in, i count 14 incorrect dashes (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Arenas&diff=598680677&oldid=598382919).

Cheers --AL (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Always Learning: Hi, I have another question to ask. (I think I should ask before putting them). Is it wrong to put the official facebook/twitter pages/accounts of the players in the external links? RRD13 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Very wrong, this is an encyclopedia. You can add an official website to the external links section if the sportsperson in question has one, but that's it. Thanks for asking, happy wishes. --AL (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Butland

The difference is that Raúl and Del Piero are 36 and 39, haven't been involved with their respective national teams for six years and more, and everyone knows their international careers are over. Butland turned 21 on Monday, he's been used in the under-21s recently, he's still in and around the England setup, and I'd have thought his senior career was still very much open. As far as I've ever known, the national team section in the infobox isn't some sort of current squad and recent callups indicator, and I've no idea where your 12-month limit comes from. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alex Pontons Paz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Santa Cruz
Babur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Circassian
Filipe Gonçalves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Espinho

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I have added accessdates in the bibliographical section, since all links in the main text only differ from those by page specifications as well.Arildnordby (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A. R. Rahman

I see you intend on taking it to GA status, good topic. But have you already worked significantly on it? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Yes, I have done. RRD13 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your input on the Ethel Sands article for the GA review! It is definitely a better article as a result!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Éder Díez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vizcaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10