User talk:SteveBaker/archive2


Ford BA Falcon

Hi again SteveBaker I have created a new article Ford BA Falcon can you please check the article and if it is good enough can you please nominate it for Good Article it would be greatly appreciated by my behalf. Senators 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is anywhere near ready. The text needs a LOT of work. I havn't read through the entire article - and it's difficult for me to copy-edit it because I'm not familiar with the subject matter. Let me dissect just the first paragraph to show you what I mean and to try to explain why I think the quality of the writing is unacceptable: 

 "The Ford BA Falcon is a full-size sedan that can seat 5 people comfortably it was released to the public in September 2002,"
  • There needs to be punctuation between "comfortably" and "it" - a new idea demands a new sentence.
  • Numbers (other than dates) that are smaller than ten are written as words: 'five' - not '5'.
  • This is an introduction - are we sure that the number of people it seats is the most important thing we have to say about it? How about what country it comes from?
 "...it was either the make or brake it car for Ford."
  • Spelling - 'break' - not 'brake'.
  • The phrase 'make or break' is a colloquialism - it's vague. You also need to explain in detail why you say this.
 "The model before hand the AU was disastrous for Ford because of its futuristic design look."
  • 'beforehand' is one word
  • "The model beforehand the AU..." is a grammatical mess. How about "The previous model".
  • "The previous model to the BA was the [[Ford AU Falcon|AU Falcon]]." ...please link to the AU even if that article doesn't exist yet.
  • Why was it disasterous for Ford? We are left wondering why a futuristic design was such a terrible thing. Was it too costly to make? Was it mechanically poor? Did people simply dislike it? We have to know.
 "The engine is an upgraded 4.0-liter six-cylinder V6 which has had a major overhaul."
  • You are jumping around between past tense ("was released to the public") and the present tense ("is a full sized sedan" and "is an upgraded 4.0-liter") - pick one tense and stick with it. If the car is no longer made then the past tense might be best.
  • "has had a major overhaul"...from what? They filled up the oil and replaced the gaskets? You mean "a major redesign" I suspect...but you already said it's "upgraded". Are you telling us that the AU's engine was upgraded and resdesigned for this car?
 "Its Barra engine can dish out 182kw (244 hp) at 5000rmp."
  • "dish out" !?!?! That's not the sort of language you expect to find in an encyclopedia. Let's get a link for the word 'Barra' - I have no idea what it is. Is it a company? The name of the engine? Some technological term for the way it works? We need to either be told - or be able to look it up.
  • "rmp" ?? How about 'rpm'?
  • Units like 'kw' and 'hp' need to be linked the first time you use them.
"There is lot’s of empty space around the motor so it would be easier to conduct repairs making the cost for the owner much less."
  • Ugly wording. How about "Repairs to the motor are easy becuase there is plenty of space to work in."
 "The suspension has been revised and as well as the new interior specially focusing on the centre console."
  • Again, very ugly wording - and mixing two disparate concepts into one sentence. How about: "The suspension was revised {...for some purpose that you need to explain...}. The interior was redesigned to place more focus on the center console."
  "While driving thorough the city fuel consumption is 12.5 L and on the highway it uses 8.2L per 100km (62 mi)."
  • Clearer: "Fuel consumption is 12.5L/100km (city) and 8.2L/100km (highway)."
  • You need to use 'mpg' (miles per gallon) figures as well as the metric measure.
 "An LPG motor was available which meant fuel and general running cost was lower."
  • Why on earth would LPG cut running costs other than fuel? I can see how it's cheaper than gasoline - but my father actually made a living converting Taxis and Ambulances to run on LPG - I never heard him claim anything other than cheaper fuel prices.
 "The Ford BA Falcon has one direct rival which is the Holden Commodore."
  • Surely there must be others? Perhaps the Holden is it's "biggest rival".
 "The car was piece by piece reveled to the public instead of just releasing it all at once."
  • 'revealed' - not 'reveled'
  • This reads like the they announced the exhaust pipe first...then the back doors...then the carburettor. I doubt that's what you mean. But you need to introduce the subject here. "The pre-release advertising campaign was unusual - Ford initially showed only pieces of the car."
  "After a couple of months past the XR8 was then released on in February of 2003."
  • "passed" - not "past".
  • Punctuation...grammar...everything. "After two months of this kind of advertising, the entire XR8 was revealed in February 2003."

This first paragraph is also far too long - the introduction is supposed to be just a couple of sentences in the first paragraph - then a somewhat longer second paragraph. Much of what you say here can be moved out of the introduction into the body of the article. This is, after all, just an introduction.

Sorry - but this article has a LONG way to go before it's WP:GA material. But please don't ask me to work on it - I have lots of other things I'm working on in Wikipedia - and I just don't have the time or interest to rewrite articles about big ugly cars that I don't care much about!

SteveBaker 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE YOU

THE Ford BA Falcon IS NOT A UGLY CAR, IT WAS ONE OF THE BEST LOOKING CARS AT THE TIME AND STILL IS. Senators 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I was kidding...although I personally don't like big cars. I'm a MINI (BMW) and a Mini enthusiast. For us Mini fanatics, anything bigger than 10 feet long 4 feet high and 5 feet wide is too big - and only our cars look cool - everything else is ugly! SteveBaker

Computer FAC

I'm sure you'd like to know that I've decided to put Computer through the FAC gauntlet. I have some doubts that any very broad-scoped article can even make it through FAC, but we said from the beginning that we wanted to get this thing to FA status. Since we got very little useful response in peer review, I figured that this will at least be a way to help identify any outstanding weaknesses... Or just see the article get torn apart by a bunch of editors who all have conflicting ideas. Either way it should be interesting. :) Check it out at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Computer. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T00:33Z

Yeah - I agree, the article needs to be an FA. We should probably go through the motions of pushing it through GA first though. I don't have a lot of confidence in the GA process - but it helps your FA application if you can get to GA first. SteveBaker 03:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, the criteria for GA aren't much different from FA. The former only allows for slightly worse prose than the latter. Unfortunately it looks like my FA nomination is going exactly the way I hoped it wouldn't; bogged down with the ridiculous interpretation of WP:V that is in vogue lately. I think we'd have to provide extensive "references" for any factual statements we make before hoping to try for FA again. As I'm sure you're aware, this is hardly trivial since there are few references on the very basics of computer architecture that are both accurate and accessible to the unaquainted. -- mattb @ 2006-12-16T18:43Z
I certainly agree that WP:V has gotten entirely out of hand - but I don't see a way to fix that. I guess we just have to find one really fundamental book about computers and tack a ref to it on just about every line of the article! SteveBaker 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of the people I've talked to (especially "old-timers" as far as Wikipedia is concerned) dislike the way WP:V is being interpreted and applied/enforced these days. I'm leisurely working on a little essay/rant that should hopefully express the problems I think this causes. Inasmuch as the computer article is concerned, I'm was also taken a little bit aback. Frankly, I was expecting more controversy about the way we decided to lay out the article (the topic coverage, the lists, etc; see my rather long FA nomination statement). However, it looks like there is a severe "form over substance" slant at work here, and reviewers are far more concerned with (lack of) references and a bit of awkward grammar than the article's content and presentation. I think it's obvious that we would need to provide a ridiculous extent of "references" and find some skilled copyeditor (my English grammar is relatively good, but some of the FAC reviewers are professional editors and will nit-pick like mad) to pass Computer by the gatekeepers. The sad thing is that the extensive references are really just a charade and a false comfort since nobody seems to thoroughly check all of the refs in some of today's FAs in order to verify that they really are reliable sources and back up the claims they are supposed to.
Anyway, I'll let you know whenever I finish my brief essay about WP:V problems. I the mean time, I'll see if I can borrow a couple of computer architecture books in hopes of finding one that can explicitly verify much of our article. It sure is ridiculous that even articles that summarize large amounts of (relatively) well-known information aren't given license to... uh... summarize. Basically they are asking us to reference a work written to same style and audience as an encyclopedia, and that's going to be difficult to find (unless we go to another encyclopedia!). Okay, end rant. -- mattb @ 2006-12-17T05:15Z
The last article I put up for FA was failed because "the quality of the writing" was not good enough. It seemed OK to me - but all efforts to discover what the heck was wrong with it were ignored. It is a pain to get an article through FA these days. The ridiculous part about WP:V is that nobody ever checks that the references you quote actually say what you claim they say...which makes any solid guarantee of correctness completely bogus anyway. SteveBaker 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree utterly. Unfortunately I think there are too many people who have done insufficient article writing to realize that the kind of dogmatic enforcement of WP:V that they so enthusiasticlly support does nothing but burden good editors. Incidentally, I noticed the RfA you submitted while I was away. Don't worry about the outcome... RfA is more or less a big popularity contest that you pass by either knowing a lot of people or garnering 20k edits per year by spending all your time clicking "revert". -- mattb @ 2006-12-25T03:08Z

rating

Could you please (when you get some time) rate my article on the WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment criteria, changes have been made. Ford BA Falcon | Senators 02:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification

Hi SteveBaker, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|SteveBaker]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk | Contribs 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles

My mistake for suggesting the splitting up of the Corona article. Sorry! --SunStar Nettalk 18:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to apologise - it was a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make. SteveBaker 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nominating

I am considering nominating the article Ford BA Falcon for Good Article status, so could you please check or review the article and if you can add anything to it please do. Senators 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I remarked on your talk page - you have not yet put the article through peer review - so there is no point in trying for WP:GA. It says it's undergoing peer review on it's talk page - but it doesn't appear anywhere on the Wikipedia:Peer_review page - so nobody is going to review it. SteveBaker 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated

Thank you for your comments towards Ford BA Falcon and will get write on to it.Senators 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I set up the link from the peer review page so you should actually get input from elsewhere. SteveBaker 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Reviewer...problems

It's based on WP:LEAD#Length, which suggests that articles that are less than 15kb (15000 characters, while as Mini Moke has only about 10000) should have 1-2 paragraphs. Those are just recommended guidelines; depending upon the scope of the article, feel free to have more paragraphs. Thanks for the feedback, AZ t 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Removal of sprotect on Automobile

Watch your tone there. Get your facts straight before venting your anger on some innocent bystander. See [1]. Don't try to use tactics such as "we'll stop vandal-fighting". That's complete b.s. and you know it.

Btw, do you know how fast it takes for me to revert? Less than a second. I just need to press one button and it's reverted back. That easy. Nishkid64 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's easy because you have admin tools. Your opinions of the value of sprotect may be tinted by the ease of it. SteveBaker 04:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not the reason. I use Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool and that's accessible to everyone. Nishkid64 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Image replaceability

Saw your comments at Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos and I thought you might be interested in checking out my draft replaceability guidelines. Daniel Case 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes have been made

The Ford BA Falcon article has been corrected largely since the last time you checked Steve, I think it is ready for a Good Article Nomination could you please check it. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your editor review

I recall seeing you saying on your RFA that no one reviewed your review request. I just noticed that you never put the link of your request page under the Editor review main page by looking through the page history. Just a late notice :)

I am currently sorting out users that weren't reviewed into this backlog page. If your still interested on being reviewed, you can add your page to the Editor review main page (just resign your name), and add the following code onto your userpage: {{Editor review|class=review needed}}

AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely you did not mean that?

Did you really mean to say that you agree that it is proper to compare me to a mass murderer? Really? For the record, the arguments that Jeff put forward are absurdist in the extreme. I shut down the poll because the poll was not a proper dialogue and debate, and discourteous to the feelings of real contributors who would like to find some common ground on this issue. To treat that as an attempt by me to shut down debate is just wrong in the extreme. But even then, to compare me to a mass murderer? Really?--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? What?? Compare you to a mass murderer! When did I do that? I'm pretty sure that's something I'd never say of anyone.
Anyway: The poll was very clearly labelled as a 'straw poll' - a way to see how far we are from consensus. It showed that we are about 50/50 split - which is about as far from consensus as it is possible to get. The poll was not (as far as I could tell) ever intended to do more than that. Shutting it down served little purpose other than to give the strong impression that you were using your superpowers to override debate - not encouraging - or even permitting free debate. You may not have meant it to seem like that - but that's definitely how it came over.
What is needed to end this deep division is to find a middle ground. That means just about everyone has to give up something - then accept that in order to form a consensus view. Right now, the anti-fair-use people are heavily refusing to give any ground whatever because they see that the letter of the current provision is on their side - people on the other side (of which I'm one) don't want to move towards the center of the debate if that's just going to move the middle further towards the anti-fair-use crowd. So - we have an impasse. It takes someone with some courage and authority to actively give ground and propose a middle course. Then we can have a debate. Right now it's just going round in circles getting people more and more upset.
I perceive a growing divide in the Wikipedia community between those who like to deal with red tape and endlessly discuss policy - and those who are just trying to write some nice articles. As the rule clamp down ever more tightly in an attempt to "improve" the encyclopedia, we are in fact upsetting more and more run-of-the-mill editors. This point was strongly rammed home when I tried to apply for admin privilages - you'd think I was trying to become royalty or something! I've given up on that - it's a ridiculous process - as are so many others recently. We are losing our roots as article writers and improvers and turning into a bunch of lawyers and political back-biters. It's terribly sad. SteveBaker 06:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it ready yet?!?

Hi again Steve I just wanted to update you on my Ford BA Falcon article. Large changes have been done two new sections have been added and information in the infobox has been added, please check the article and if you like it could you please nominate it for Good Article Status.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to review it for WP:GA - I've edited it, and according to the rules that prevents me from voting it in. SteveBaker 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New pictures

There is better pictures for the Ford BA Falcon article.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Afc rejects

There is an easier way to type reasons for rejecting articles. You can use {{subst:afc not}} or {{subst:afc source}}. Take a look here to see all of the templates that you can use. Diez2 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use Images

I hope your recent plea to compromise on this issue works but seriously doubt it will. Really, I do think this issue has already been decided in the extreme from on high. CyberAnth 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You could be right - but I don't think we can give up on this one just yet. SteveBaker 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFC

Perhaps you could use some of the suggested rejection and acceptance templates at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Templates. I hope I don't sound rude, but some of your responses appear to have run a bit afoul of WP:BITE: [2]. Thanks. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

Is it possible if you could fix or edit some parts of the Ford BA Falcon article for me, I am in grade 11 and my grammar is not at an expert level therefor a cease to see any problems with my article.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Curb feeler, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--savid@n 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

Some improvements are now featured in the Ford BA Falcon article, you can check it.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Are you at the current time trying to get any more articles to featured or good status.

P.S. My Ford BA Falcon article is really coming a long way since it had started.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on User talk:Oden: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 12:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to this edit. --Oden 12:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
WHAT! When did I attack you?! I'm asking YOU to try to stop annoying ME (and many others) by taking precipitious action without first having a reasonable discussion about it.SteveBaker 12:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AFC Wizard

There is a page at AFC (actually, an entire wizard program) that makes editors check they have everything that is required. It's in the Big "Start here" link to the left top of the page. I wonder why you didn't notice it (at least based on what you said in the MFD and the AFC talk page). - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - but it doesn't take you down separate paths for the two most common incorrectly requested articles. We need to take requests for biographies of living (or recently deceased) people and articles about musicians/albums/songs down a path that basically says "There is no way we're going to accept this article." (but politely and with appropriate caveats and reservations)...which is pretty much the reality of things. Right now, the 'wizard' tells you to read the notability rules - but as far as I can tell, nobody does. 99% of the junk that shows up every day is basically, fans writing about bands, obscure bands promoting about themselves, people (mostly school children) trying to create articles about themselves, or the very worst: Grieving relatives of dead soldiers in Iraq writing eulogies (just try finding the right words to reject those articles. "Were sorry, your son doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria"...ouch! If we could cut those off before the requests are even made then there would be a mere handful of requests each day, this list would have no backlog and we'd have a source of useful ideas for new articles. So I'd like to see that the first thing you saw in AfC would be something like:

Have the linked-to pages for the first three explain that we aren't likely to accept these kinds of articles except under very stringent conditions...have the last one link to the present Wizard. The first three can make the person click on all sorts of "I have read the above rules" things that'll put off all but the most determined.

SteveBaker 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i

I've been slowly working on this page over time, and it's reached the point where I think it meets the criteria of a Good Article, although with two copyrighted fair use images and only 13k of content, it's well short of being FA. The biggest trouble with expanding the article is that the car was only released 12 months ago, so I'm still waiting on a lot of info to become available (e.g. production/sales figures).

I didn't want to throw it open to the whole motley AutoProject community, some of whom may be compelled to "improve" the article by replacing metric with imperial measurements, adding badly laid out galleries of the rear of the car, reams of technical information in tabular or bulleted format, and expounding at length on the North American market perspective. Instead, I thought I'd just test the water by canvassing the opinions of some random auto editors who don't seem obsessed with making WP a Buyers' Guide.

Anyway, you think it's worth taking Mitsubishi i through the WP:GA nomination process?

This question has been copy/pasted to User talk:Kierant, User talk:Interiot, User talk:SteveBaker and User talk:BrendelSignature. --DeLarge 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my comments on the Talk: page for Mitsubishi i. SteveBaker 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a problem editor!

The editor you mention here sounds like he could be a real problem. This is probably either a job for obedience school or being whacked on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. Friday (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - but he takes WP:NPA to an entirely new level! SteveBaker 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)