This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zawed. 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.
Thanks for your assessment, the later fighting on the Somme does get a lot bittier as four armies attacked and two defended. I haven't done enough about the French armies but the lack of anglophone sources is quite a handicap. Despite the manifold inadequacies of his prose, Phillpott is all I can find, apart from the cameo appearances in the Official History. Apropos Flers–Courcelette, they are two villages nearly two miles apart, rather than one place like Sailly-Saillisel so I think that linking them with a hyphen may give the impression that they are one place. The OH uses a dash and spaces Flers – Courcelette but the mos specifies no gaps. What do you think?Keith-264 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The article on the Battle of Flers-Courcelette uses a hyphen, which is why I suggested a check of the use of dashes, but checking the MOS again just now, it would suggest the use of an unspaced n dash is more appropriate. I would go with that (which I think is how you have used it anyway...) Zawed (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Zawed, I took the plunge yesterday and assessed some pages with incomplete B class checklists, courtesy of your good example. Do you have any suggestions for a beginner? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Gidday Keith, it is good to hear you are doing B-class assessments, there is a massive backlog there. I need to get back into doing them, but I have been focused on article writing lately. When assessing, I prefer bios given that is the type of article that I have written the most of on WP. Even so, I find that it is usually easy to tell whether an article is still a start class, the hard one is whether it is C or B-class, and this usually hinges on the the B2 criteria (content/coverage). It is usually straightforward to check off B1. Every paragraph finishes with a cite, plus any quotes should be cited - I will usually check the type of references as well; any website refs need to be reliable. The other criteria should be straightforward; B3 (has lead, headings and more than a section of content), B4 (reads well) and B5 (has infobox and/or image). I usually prefer a conservative approach, so if I can't decide between B/C class, I will usually go C. I would rather have a B-class article tagged as C-class than a C-class tagged as B-class. Its not exactly a suggestion to help with assessments but one thing I try and do when assessing is do what is necessary to fulfill the B3 to B5 criteria. A lot of these articles haven't been worked on substantively for months even years; who knows when a motivated editor will next come along. It will usually only take 5 or 10 minutes to knock most articles in shape to satisfy B3 to B5 at least. An infobox should be able to be put together relatively easily from the content of the article; if it can't this would indicate B2 criteria is not met. It is easy enough to expand the lead, add headings and do a quick copyedit to fix major spelling and grammatical mistakes. I will also add cite required tags where appropriate if the article is already reliably cited in most places and only missing a few to satisfy B1. I would be happy to look at any articles you were uncertain of. Zawed (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I decided to judge what was there on the technical stuff (infobox, footnotes etc) and what wasn't on the general criteria - prose, structure etc. Mind you it took half an hour to work out how to format the banner (even copying the layout of the Morval one that you did). Now all I have to do is avoid the temptation to dive in and start changing things, like I have on the Somme pages.... (apropos, I'm getting the Ancre Heights close to a review).Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews
Zawed, thanks for reviewing John Hamilton (American Revolution) over at the MilHist request board. I appreciate your edits, and think they improved the article tremendously. I noticed, however, that you hadn't altered the assessment templates at Talk:John Hamilton (American Revolution); I would do that myself, but since I'm participating in the MilHist contest this month (and hopefully am doing well), I don't want to raise the appearance of impropriety. Thanks for your help! Cdtew (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Zawed, will you be taking this to A-class after GA? I want to review a few GANs, and I prefer the ones where I know someone will be checking my work. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Zawed; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
First, let me thank you for undertaking the review on the article. Secondly, this is the first article that I have submitted for a GA review and I am unsure how to proceed with the correction and replies on the review page. It is new territory for me and I would be ever so grateful for some guidance where you feel it is necessary. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You're doing fine so far. Please bear with me as I will probably take a few days to go through the article; it's a long one! :) Zawed (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I tried to create the page for your duplicate link suggestion, but after the creation of the page it just sits there, a lump if you will. Have I done something wrong? I am in very unfamiliar territory with this part of the operation. Help me out? ...and thanks for your forbearance! Cuprum17 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, we'll get there :). It's not like I'm a GA expert either so I may be more (or perhaps less) picky than some other reviewers might be. The page itself doesn't do anything but if you have done it correctly, when you go to the article page, in the toolbox section on the left hand side there should be a "Highlight Duplicate Links" link. Click on that and it should bring up a page listing all links that appear more than once. I can't remember if it distinguishes between links in the infobox/lead/main body, but according to the MOS it is ok to have the same link appear once in each of those sections, i.e. a link that appears in the lead once, can be used again on its first appearance in the main body of the article. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it works! I just had to have the right key to put in the ignition switch...great tool. Thanks for the help...and just for the record, you are MY GA expert...well, I'm off to kill off some duplications...Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Under the Reference section of the GA review you have stated, "* Running a Citation Error Report, I note "Multiple references are using the same name". These are: USCGhistorian and CNFVMHS0870." I can't find a problem with this, or I am overlooking it...could you explain to me how to run a "Citation Error Report" so that I may see where the problem lies? I appreciate the help you have given so far. I do have a slight problem coming up in a couple of weeks...I have an eye surgery scheduled for the 10th of May. Not sure what to expect. A little nervous. I will try to keep working on this until the surgery, but I may have to take some time off after the surgery. Just thought I would let you know. Again, thank you for your forbearance, I have learned a lot about the GA process so far. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully, this review will get wrapped in time for your op (good luck for that). I think you have addressed just about everything; you were going to work on the lead a bit more and the awards secton still needs some cites. What I called the Citation error Report is accessible from the article's edit page; at the top of the edit box (where you see the edit tools), click on the link for "cite". This changes the template to one associated with references; there is a link called "error check". Click on that and you get a checkbox with three types of errors you can investigate. Click on the checkboxes, and then the "Check" button. You can see the results of the report at the bottom of the edit page (underneath the edit summary box). Running it now, I see another multiple reference is "USCGcron3". If my recollection is correct, this means the same ref name is used but the text entered differs as in my crude example (using [ where they should be <) [ref]refname=CGB1]Coast Guard Book, 2013, pg 1[/ref] vs [ref]refname=CGB1]Coast Guard Book, 2013, pg 2[/ref]. The second one uses the same ref name, but the explantory text is different, the ref name in the second example should be CGB2. The Wikipedia help pages may provide further guidance in the case my recollection is wrong! Hope that helps. Zawed (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
And I forgot to mention, in the "references cited", I don't think it is necessary to have the webpages you consulted in there if they are mentioned in full in the Notes section. That's my understanding anyway. It's not a killer for a GA review, but if you take this to ACR (which I think you should), then it may get picked up there. Zawed (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Citation errors are corrected, I think...for some reason the correction report mode only comes up on my computer about every second or third time I attempt it...the last time I tried it the report came up clear, please check me on this. Thanks. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
All good, I have passed as GA. Good work! Suggest you take it to ACR, it'll get a real good polish there (which will probably revert most of my changes/suggestions!). Zawed (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help in reviewing my first GA article. While it wasn't exactly a painless process, your easy manner and very helpful suggestions for article improvement helped me to gain the confidence that I needed to see the review to completion. I thank you. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and effort spent reviewing the Operation Jackal article. Your input has been very valuable as it helped improve quality of the article and I appreciate it. Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations.
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Force]] (NZEF) as a private in January 1915, but within four months had been commissioned as an [[[second lieutenant]. He departed for overseas service in October 1915 having been promoted to [[
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alfred William Robin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"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:
Military District and in 1906 he became Chief of General Staff of the New Zealand Permanent Forces (soon to be reorganised as the New Zealand Military Forces]] and a member of the newly formed Council of Defence. The council recognised the need to implement
Many thanks for the A Class review commentary. It serves as another reminder of how that which appears flawless after much work instantly shows its faults to the discerning eye. Now, to work on the emendments....
You are presently participating in an A Class review of Werner Voss. Editorial changes have been made in response to your commentary, and await your further review.
Hi Zawed, I'd like to encourage you to nominate for the upcoming election for coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject. Given your experiance in developing high-quality articles and contributing to the review process I think that you'd do a great job in this role. The coordinator team has historically had more than its fair share of Australians, so the New Zealand perspective you would bring would also be valuable. Details on the election are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013, but please do let me know if you have any questions about the role or the election process - neither is very time consuming. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement and for thinking I'm even suitable, but I will pass this time. There is a strong chance that life will be quite hectic on the personal front in the next 12 months (selling our house in the next few months and building a new one soon after) and this may impact on the time the wife lets me have on Wiki and my ability to do a coordinator role justice. Hopefully this time next year the new house will be finished and I will be able to seriously consider being a coordinator. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No worries at all. I hope that you consider throwing your hat in the ring for next year if you have the time. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your commitment in reviewing 11 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Zawed, would you be interested in working on the 3rd Division (New Zealand) article? It probably wouldn't need much more work to get it to B class; probably just needs a few more references and some minor tweaks here and there. I have been slowly trying to help expand our coverage of NZ units (and have done 28th (Maori) Bn, 36th Bn, 8th Brigade, and done some work on 3rd Div and J Force so far), but as an Australian I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in that I don't know all the minor intricacies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi AR, thanks again for reviewing the Barrowclough article. RE the 3rd Division article, normally I would say yes, I'm keen, particularly as I have some resources that would be ideal. However, I am in the process of getting my house ready for sale and just about all my books will be going into storage for several months while a new house is being built. This is likely to impact my ability to work on article content for a while. Zawed (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments in the review. As I'm in the WikiCup I'd appreciate it if you could see if they're satisfactory or not so the review can be closed before the end of the month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Hargest 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 Anotherclown -- Anotherclown(talk)06:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Gday Zawed. Just letting you know I have added my cmts now on the GA review so if you could have a look when you get time that would be great. Can see from a few posts above you are probably busy with real life issues so happy to wait a bit. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
(Just in case I end up being too vague and/or too cryptic, this is in relationship to pages like Template:Australian Generals of World War I, List of Australian Generals, and similar. Also, the K key on my keyboard is unreliable, so if something I've written doesn't make sense, try inserting a K or two.)
Howdy! Thanks for your feedback. (And your efforts.) It's really nice to have another editor adding to one's own work!
I'm posting here because I'm unhappy/uncomfortable/confused/etc. by the use of hyphenated names for "Australian Generals of World War I" - in particular by the inconsistencies between the various sources. The list I created for the "Template:Australian Generals of World War I" was (is) a direct lift from Ross Mallett's aif.adfa.edu.au web page, but I only used that as a starting point (because I had nothing better). Your edit is, in my (no-doubt-biased) opinion, an example of the problem. i.e. What is (was) the guy's name, thus where, alphabetically, should it appear in the list?
Attempting to address any ambiguity in the above: What I'm saying is that I didn't find the relevant page that you did, because I was looing (OK, noticed that one) looking in the wrong place. You no doubt noticed that there are a number of non-blue entries in the list ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for stopping by. I think the list should be alphabetical, based on the first of the hyphenated names. The Aussie generals template for WWII appears to do this for Drake-Brockman although he has the only hyphenated name in the list. So in my humble opinion Sinclair-Burgess should be moved. Also, I think that it should be Maclagen not MacLagen as it is spelt on the Mallett website (which is useful fodder for those unlinked names). Maclagen is how it is presented in the sources. I would have changed it myself but I deferred to how it was already presented within the template. Zawed (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in an interview for the Bugle newsletter
Hi Zawed, I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview we're conducting for the upcoming December edition of The Bugle. The interview is covering the views of editors who work on topics which are under-represented in the English Wikipedia, and we'd be really interested in your perspectives as an editor who's done a lot of work on New Zealand-related topics. If you have time, it would be great if you could provide responses to some or all of the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2013/Interview by Monday 9 December. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Go for it Hawkeye7. I had harboured hopes of getting to it at some stage but first I wanted to get hold of the book Fiery Ted to use as a source. That probably won't happen for quite some time. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zawed. 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.
