User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

How do you suggest I get free images for pages (primarily for actors and singers)?

Any websites or resources? And can you help me improve a few pages?Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Factfanatic1, I don't do much work with images. You might check to see whether there are images for these people on Wikimedia Commons, where the free content is housed. I do know that some images have been downloaded from Flickr when the photographer has released them via a valid free license. And there are photographers out there whose free images can be found in a number of articles here (they seem to frequent red carpets); one whose name comes to mind is Gage Skidmore.

As for working on various articles, please try to find someone else to help; I don't have the time right now, and singers and actors are not subjects I would want to work on generally. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hallo BlueMoonset

I have a question: after a substantial expansion, I would like to nominate as GA the via Giulia article, which just had a great copy edit. ;-) My question is: under which subject should I put the nomination:

• Art & architecture
• Geography
• Places
• ...

? Thanks a lot for your answer, bye Alex2006 (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Alex2006, to be honest, I'm not sure; there don't seem to be any similar articles in Geography or Places, I wouldn't expect it in Art & Architecture because it is about a street, and there's nothing like it in Transport, either, the other subtopic that mentions roads. Try Geography; it can always be moved later.

Before you nominate the article, however, it is greatly lacking in its lead section. You will want to read MOS:LEAD, which is one of the GA criteria (part of 1b), and greatly expand the section with the type of information expected. Given the article's size, it needs to be three or four paragraphs (though no longer). Just remember that although in Italy you might write "via" in lowercase when combined with the street name, for the English Wikipedia, it should be "Via Giulia" (both words capitalized). Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! A last question (I promise :-)) about style: since my articles deal mainly with Italy, there are a lot of Italian expressions: should they be italicised or not? Thanks and buona pasqua! Alex2006 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Alex2006, I think the safest thing to do is to point you to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, which talks about just this topic. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

THere is a guideline for everything... ;-) Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply

I created two of those articles (Into the Woods and El Camino) and Detective Pikachu, as with all of them, I had full intentions of making the necessary edits to satisfy a review upon them being brought to light. I’ve done GA’s before and asking editors permission was never once brought up. Rusted AutoParts 18:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, just because you've never paid attention to the need to consult with the significant contributors doesn't mean you shouldn't have, it just means that no one has noticed before now. I would expect that anyone nominating an article would intend to make the necessary edits, it's just that the article's regular contributors are more likely to be aware of shortcomings in terms of sourcing or broadness or any number of other areas that would make a nomination inappropriate until they are dealt with; that's why the consultation is mentioned in the first place for people who haven't been active in the article's development. (The act of creation doesn't count as significant unless accompanied by a good chunk of, and I'm surprised you'd even mention your creation of Into the Woods, which was a redirect and you made six minor edits, the last in 2014.) So I would appreciate it if you would consult with the regular editors of those three articles, and if the consensus is that they're ready (or no one cares enough in seven days to comment against doing so), by all means renominate them. The same for the two that were failed. Fortunately, there's a backlog drive that goes through the end of May, so it seems likely that, when ultimately nominated, it will not take that long for reviews to be opened. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am the PAGE CREATOR of El Camino. I have significantly edited it so why on earth did you re-remove the nomination? Rusted AutoParts 22:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, page creator means very little when it comes to GAN; the real question is, how much did you actually contribute to the writing of the article. You may have made 2.67% of the total edits to it, but when I looked through those edits, I saw very little prose, not what I would judge as significant. The first day's work made a 135-word stub, and little was added later. The article as it is today runs 5,446 words, 40 times that beginning, so no, not significant to the article that's being proposed as a GA. I can understand your pride in the mighty oak your little acorn has become, but the people who contributed the vast bulk of its growth should be consulted as to whether they think it's ready for GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow way to just dismiss my contributions to the page. You can throw numbers at me all you wish, I made significant contributions to that page regardless of how you shape it. And coupled with being the page creator, I should be able to put it up for GA without permissions from other editors. Rusted AutoParts 00:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

GA reform

Hi there, and I hope you are well. I'm trying to write on an article for The Signpost on reforming the GA project (i.e. conducting broad sweeps, re-activating the associated wikiproject, maybe appointing coordinators) I noticed that in a way, you are the de facto coord of the project right now, and so I was wondering if you would be interested in talking to me about your thoughts on the matter, either here in an informal manner, or, if you'd rather, on a subpage with more dedicated 'interview' questions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, thanks for thinking of me, but I'm actually more of a gnome than a coord, trying to help the GAN process along with reminders, occasional checks on odd reviews and the new reviewers who write them, and finding new reviewers to take over abandoned reviews. (Take the current backlog drive: I'm doing the daily updates, but not the review checks.) I've been as surprised at anyone at the unprecedented progress in the current drive. Whatever the GAN process may become, if there is a reform in the works, I imagine I'll be there doing the same sort of thing, but I don't know about a WikiProject or becoming a coordinator. I've always been more active at DYK; GAN is for when I have extra time (and there is more of that than ever these days when one is stuck at home). I hope it isn't a problem, but perhaps you should find someone else. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose then, the question is whether you think reform is even needed? I don't want to go about proposing things that are unnecessary Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, it's been a long time since there's been this much energy at GAN. After 20 days, the backlog has been reduced by over a third, and the nominations needing a reviewer by nearly three-fifths, the lowest either number has been since 2016. No sign of flagging, either; the number of unreviewed nominations continues to drop steadily after the initial plunge. The question is what happens after the drive is over at the end of May: will the energy continue and be able to be directed into other areas, or will it fade away? Past experience would seem to indicate a fade, but these are not normal times. I'm not a big picture person, so assessing what's really needed and the best approach forward is an open question. It would be great to have a new, supported bot, for example: we're unable to make useful changes without one, but every attempt at one has fizzled, so we continue limping along with what we have, known bugs and all. Maybe you should open a topic at the WP:GAN page to get feedback from people as to whether a reform and/or WikiProject re-activation is needed. I wouldn't start anything while the drive is ongoing, though perhaps something for the end-of-May issue of The Signpost might be appropriate. Although there's apparently going to be an article in that issue on the Guild of Copy Editors, which is running its tenth anniversary Drive in May and this may be the month where the backlog finally drops to zero from a high of over eight thousand in 2010. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi BlueMoonset. As far as I can tell, it's been nearly two years since someone directly asked you to run for adminship. If your answer hasn't changed I will respect that, but I wanted to ask again, given the recent shortage of admins at DYK. I think you'd pass very easily, and would also not have to do anything besides prep promotion that you don't already do. Do think about it. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I also know how I react to that level of responsibility and inevitable stress—I had a recent reminder, and it reaffirmed my decision to stay away from the mop and its attendant duties. Thanks, but being an admin isn't for me. I am much happier as a wikignome. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue adminning is gnoming, for the most part, but I won't badger you. Your work at DYK is much appreciated, and you have a standing offer of a nomination if you ever change your mind. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Finding a new reviewer

Hello! I seem to recall that you have a talent for finding new reviewers for abandoned GA reviews. Would you be able to help find a new reviewer for Talk:Silver Line (MBTA)/GA2? The original reviewer has abandoned the review. It's a rather long article (7,300 words and 110 refs) so it may be on the daunting side. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion DYK question

Hey, I placed a hook I approved in a special holding area for this man's birthday. Just want to be sure that I did it correctly, and that it won't somehow be accidentally posted twice to queues. Can you confirm that won't be an issue/advise me how to ensure such issues don't happen? Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, you got the first part right, which was to add the template to the special occasions section under the wanted date, but missed the second part, which was to delete it from the main Approved section under April 15. I've taken care of that for you. Since it is in that section for April 30, his 100th birthday, it was important to get a new ALT hook written and approved to run on that day. I've proposed ALT1b to address that; if it works and you can approve it, then it won't have to wait to be promoted. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that and the info! I've given the new hook the tick. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Twofingered Typist. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I wanted to thank you for guiding me through my GA reviews, I really wonder how do you have such passion for GA, not many people's passion last for long. I also love your calm demeanor. Editoneer (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Article bans

Hi BlueMoonset. This is more a formality as there is no reason for you to respond unless you want to, but I have linked to the current ban discussion at WP:AN#Good Article ban proposal and asked for some clarification on its appropriateness. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, I had thought that, based on the past, it was appropriate for us to police our own, and in any event I thought there would be a degree less angst if it were en famille rather than the crowds at AN. I'm not sure how there could have been less angst than the retirement, but if all Happypillsjr wants to do is GA—they've ignored all requests to stop nominating and reviewing—and they're no good at it, I don't see how there's a happy outcome for them. (And if they are allowed to continue, it's not good for GA.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought so too, but there was disagreement and I thought it best to get some clarification or at least keep it as open as possible. I don't think you have done anything wrong and I only posted here because I thought you should know. AIRcorn (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Thomas à Becket, Box

Hi, I promoted this to prep and now I see that the nominator reverted me. Really, something needs to be done about teaching this nominator the rules. Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And this. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just posted. He's known for a very long time that it's unacceptable to edit your own noms in prep, yet keeps on doing it. Next time, I'm pulling the nom; enough is enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I wanted to thank you for offering to donate your QPQ credit for my DYK nomination that I've been unable to follow up on. It really means a lot. I'd like to return the favour once things settle a bit (I'm hoping in a couple of weeks time), so if you have any submissions in the near future please do give me a shout and I'll review them for you (or let me know if there's another way I can return the favour).— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Griceylipper, I was happy to help: I know you hadn't expected to have to supply any QPQ nominations, much less three of them! I only wish I'd been able to supply that QPQ as promised, but was beaten to the punch. I appreciate the offer to help, but as Yoninah said on her page, I would be more than rewarded if you pay it forward: if you are able to help another editor at some point in the future, that will be great. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination of Climate zones on Pluto

Climate zones on Pluto is not my article and I don't have the expertise to do anything to improve it. Thank you for following up, though. I will try contacting the page's writer. Fishal (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Fishal, the original editor was on Wikipedia as part of a course, and hasn't edited at all since finishing the article about a month back. So I very much doubt you'll hear anything from them. I can try to get in touch with the Wiki-Ed coordinator for that class, to see whether anything can be done from their end—they can sometimes do a bit themselves or find someone who can. It may be, though, that the nomination ends up closing because the issues can't be addressed. Let me know if you'd like me to try with Wiki-Ed. Thanks for the quick reply. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like a lot of trouble and unlikely to get a response. Since the main objections are with the prose itself, I might be able to do something about it myself. I will look at it today or tomorrow. If I don't get to it by Monday, I probably never will, and I wouldn't object to closing it then. Fishal (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: archive of the Miscellaneous section

It was an accident. I wanted to see if there is an archive of previous GAN's, but clicked the wrong "archive" button, the one from the OneClickArchiver script which I recently installed. I hope it didn't cause any trouble, I reverted myself instantly. Tezwoo (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Tezwoo, thanks for letting me know. I have no idea why that single Sports section is in the archive; we don't keep an archive of past iterations of the page, because it changes so often. In this case, we lucked out: while the bot looks to see whether the page needs refreshing every 20 minutes, and the accidental archiving and restoration took place right around the time the bot could have refreshed the page, there weren't any new changes at all, much less any additions to the Miscellaneous section. (Indeed, people aren't supposed to edit WP:GAN, since the bot recreates it so frequently, so seeing a name in the history other than the bot is usually a cause for concern.) Best of luck going forward, and watch out for that new archiver! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6

Hi, what are you doing in this prep? I was about to promote the May 24 hook about the Jordanian poet to this set, and now I see you filled in a different lead hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to promote the special occasion hooks to the daytime on May 24, which is Prep 6, not Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you're not online, I went ahead and undid your changes. I added reserved slots for the two special occasion hooks going into Prep 6; I'm awaiting new wording on both of them. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, the hooks, if they were in Prep 5, would run from 2am to 2pm for the German one, 3am to 3pm for the Jordanian one. In Prep 6, they'll run from 2pm/3pm to 2am/3am the next day. I think Prep 5 is a better placement for them both, but if you insist on Prep 6, I'm not going to fuss any further. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, sorry; messed up the ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. I'll go ahead and just flip both sets. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, whatever works is fine. Thank you. The next special occasion day (May 26) is different; the Triple Concerto can go in Prep 3 (1am to 1pm local time in England, where the premiere happened, and even later in the day in Russia), while the Guyanan anthem fits in Prep 4 (8am to 8pm local time in Guyana, assuming they don't have Daylight Savings, which they probably don't that close to the equator). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Mistake of the G.A.N.s

It's okay. It seems I do not adequeatly understand the Good Article Nomination process.

Thank you for reverting my changes and not banning me!

P,TO 19104 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

7 queues, 4 empty

Hi, could you remind me why there was such a push for 7 queues? As the admins are not keeping up, we prep builders are not able to do our job either. Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Among other reasons, Yoninah, it lets you do up 7 preps, as now. So the prep builders have more scope than they had, and there is more flexibility. There will come a time when all 7 queues are full (we've had all 6 within the past week, I believe), though right now the admins are not as active as we might wish. (Last night there were only two queues filled, so progress, while slow, is not non-existent.) I would love to get to the point where having 12 queues and preps filled was the norm, at least while we're doing two sets a day, but I haven't seen above 10 filled queues and preps for a while now, and frequently fewer than that. I'm hoping that, given time, we'll gradually get to the higher level. Give it time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as most of the admins do not have DYK as their priority, as we prep builders do, I think that's wishful thinking. But I'll tamp down on my impatience for another week and hope for the best. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, it may be wishful thinking, but I do think having the seventh prep and queue will smooth out things over time. Since my last post, three preps were promoted to queues, getting us up to six before dropping down to five a few minutes ago at the next promotion. There are now three empty preps, but it would have been four if we hadn't had Prep 7 available for filling Sunday afternoon—that's a win in my book. Of all the proposals, I thought this would have the least overall effect, but on balance it should help somewhat over time. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And all seven queues were filled from 09:18 to 12:00 today; a couple of hours later we're at six queues and three preps filled. So it looks like we're getting benefit out of the seventh prep and seventh queue already. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for your help keeping the page updated! Tdslk (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Always happy to help, Tdslk. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For all you technical DYK work --evrik (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, evrik. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for George Pechell Mends

On 15 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Pechell Mends, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Pechell Mends witnessed the burning of the steam frigate USS Missouri at Gibraltar on 26 August 1843, and his sketch was the basis for a painting by Edward Duncan (lithograph shown)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Pechell Mends. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, George Pechell Mends), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearing the backlog

Hi, it seems to me that it will take a very long time for us to dig out from under the backlog for this reason: There are presently a little over 100 approved nominations out of 340 total nominations. Every time someone nominates an article, s/he approves one, which means that 200 or more articles will still sit unreviewed. Our few loyal reviewers cannot clear this backlog. I was thinking of doing more reviews, but how many can I clear? Other projects do drives where they award prizes or maybe just barnstars, but we are not looking for slapdash reviews. How are we going to get through this? Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I've been thinking for a while about instituting some sort of backlog reduction drive to get more noms reviewed and approved and ready for promotion. There's nothing wrong with awarding barnstars, provided that there is an emphasis on review quality from the start. Only reviews that are not used for QPQs could be submitted (indeed, submitting them means they're ineligible for QPQ usage), and all would be checked for quality; if poor quality, then no credit is given.

I thought we might start with a proof-of-concept trial, the equivalent of the Guild of Copy Editors "blitz" (which started today), a one-week period where people do copy edits of submitted and tagged articles. (A month-long drive strikes me as too long, at least to start with.) In our case, it would be complete reviews of previously unreviewed and waiting DYKs. Obviously, it wouldn't be fair to require a final tick or X, since problems are found during reviews. For the trial, I was thinking of a few specific requirements that are normally just suggestions, including notification on the user's talk page if issues are found. I was wondering whether the DYK checklist should be disallowed as well, since some reviews are just adding "y" everywhere on the checklist; asking people to type out what they found would be more useful, and it's what is requested in the first place. But that might be a hard sell.

It's been alarming to see the number of unapproved nominations growing. In early March it was 135, whereas it's been hovering around 235 for the past couple of days, and trending ever higher over time—since there is always a steady stream of new, QPQ-exempt nominations, and one that was exacerbated during the GAN backlog drive, the number's going to keep growing unless people do clear reviews.

Another thing I've been considering is partial credit for people who clear existing reviews that need someone new to take over, whether because a reviewer has disappeared or proposed a new hook, and thus couldn't continue. Not sure how it should be handled, if so: is it a numeric credit, or a separate barnstar.

If the trial is successful, perhaps we could schedule a one- or two-week blitz every other month. We could also consider a one-month drive, though I'm more dubious about that. Part of it depends on whether the rate of new submissions continues high, or if it starts to drop off. I think the admins are going to need a break at some point, but at current rates we could be back up to over 400 total nominations in a week or two of once-a-day, and that would be hugely disheartening, given how long it's taken to get us down into the 340s.

Sorry to have rambled on so long, but I've been thinking on it for a while. It's something I'd be willing to run and do the review verification part of (though I would probably need help with that if this is at all successful). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your spelling things out. A one-week blitz sounds great. But who is going to participate? Our regulars who are already doing reviews gratis? A few regular nominators who will each take on an extra "freebie"?

I'm wondering if something drastic like just stopping all nominations until we can get a grip on the backlog would be in order? We are so big on "welcoming new editors" that we can't deal with all these new submissions on the skeleton review staff that we have now. Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, it may seem surprising, but people do come out of the woodwork to participate in blitzes and drives. At GAN, the April/May drive seemed to galvanize occasional reviewers to do half a dozen or a dozen reviews (or more) in a period where they might do one or two, though things flagged starting in the fourth week—it's hard to sustain the energy in the long term, as people get burned out. If we don't make an effort like a blitz or drive, I don't see getting any support for stopping nominations (and frankly doubt a full stop would fly regardless). And, if you stop nominations, you also stop QPQs, so who would be reviewing anyway? We have two problems right now: an oversupply of nominations, and an undersupply of people doing extra reviews to make up for the new nominators as well as the need to finish up nominations where the original reviewer can't participate any longer. The two-a-day sets are slowly dealing with the first problem, but the second problem is getting worse. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, (talk page stalker) Just happened to see this, and someone like me is the kind of person who I'd imagine would participate; tangentially involved in DYK, but having a lot of free time right about now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, we certainly can only gain by doing a short-term blitz. Would you like to arrange it, BlueMoonset? Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly get to work on it, Yoninah, and try to set up a framework that people can comment on and make further suggestions. There's a fair amount of mechanics and detail and explanations that needs to be created from scratch. The question would be when to run it. Would we want to run Sunday through Saturday, Monday through Sunday, Saturday through Friday? And how soon should it begin? I'd like to avoid July 4 if we can, since it's a U.S. holiday, or at least not start or end on it. Starting next weekend would probably be too soon; I'd like to give people some notice in advance. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess when it's set up we can decide when to run it. Let me know what help you need from me. Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Superman (1978 film)

Hi, this article is listed as a GA but is tagged for lack of citations. Should it be reassessed? Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, it probably should be at some point. There are a number of GAs out there that have been tagged for one reason or another, but are awaiting reassessment, or at least work by an editor to address the tags. Individual assessments only work if the person nominating for a reassessment is willing to do what can ultimately amount to a full GA review, while notifying the various WikiProjects and major contributors in the hopes of getting editors to work on the shortcomings. If there isn't someone willing to do the review and make the delist/keep decision, then the community reassessment is the route to take. (Most community reassessments take many weeks, if not months, to complete, since someone other than the nominator needs to close for the community.)

Btw, family stuff has come up that will keep me from doing further work on the DYK blitz for a few days, possibly into the weekend, and I don't think I'd be able to start the blitz proper next week. I've made a bit of progress on the main blitz page, see User:BlueMoonset/sandbox4 for what I have so far. The barnstars were cobbled together from GAN and GOCE—I didn't want to invert their orders in terms of what barnstar required more effort—with the DYK Barnstar an addition that I thought to co-opt. I pulled in code from the GAN (first) and GOCE (second) progress charts and tables; depending on whether we cross a month boundary, the graph will be either the first (within the same month) or the second (starting in June and running into July). I think more basic explanation is probably needed about the DYK reviewing process, but I haven't wrapped my mind around it yet. Please feel free to edit, especially if anything is confusing or seems to be missing. We can discuss it further when I'm able to devote more time to it. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Balanced prep sets

Hi, I am having a terrible time building balanced prep sets. We have an overabundance of U.S. hooks—now mostly Confederate Army hooks—and hardly any bio hooks. Our supply of nature and music hooks has dwindled to almost none. We really need more reviews. Best, Yoninah (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Indonesian Christian Student Movement/GA1

Hi, I was wondering if this kind of thing is acceptable at GA? (See last 4 posts of the discussion.) The reviewer keeps insisting it's a good article, when it's full of grammatical errors. I can't promote it to DYK until the grammatical issues are fixed. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, one thing that sometimes happens at DYK is that the reviewer will find issues that should have been addressed during the GA review. In such cases, they sometimes get fixed at DYK, or sometimes end up in a reassessment; in this case, it looks like the former is happening. Because GAN is meant to be a much simpler process than FAC, it's frequently down to a single reviewer, where at DYK, we have multiple steps, and different reviewers checking at each step. In a way, we can be a backstop for GAN. An unexpected consequence of the addition of GAs to the articles that can run at DYK, in part because we don't allow the fact of the new GA to affect the DYK review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sky Is Pink GAN

Hey, I'm sorry that it appears that there are significant close paraphrasing issues with the The Sky is Pink GAN. If you want to help me look at that again, as I am new to this particular process and I've found it hard to get direction and mentorship about good article reviews, I would really appreciate it. Raymie (t • c) 17:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

OMG. I found someone on Wikipedia who actually contributes to articles about Glee so much. I find that awesome, extraordinary. I love Glee but can't contribute much due to my short-English. I saw your contributions and look awesome. Let's have a cup of coffee and talk about the show and cast! LOL! Kisses and hugs! ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

One-line leads

Hi, I made an attempt to move along the oldest noms on WP:DYKN last week. In several cases, the remaining problem was a one-line lead. I was wondering if instead of coming across as heavy-handed, or calling for a whole rule change. I should just overlook these short leads and say these are start-class articles so they don't need one? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, thanks for taking on moving those old noms along. While I don't think a whole MOS:LEAD needs to be done, my recollection is that nominated one-sentence-lead articles could go through early on, but that stopped when they tended to be tagged by TRM and others if they were promoted with so short a lead, so adding another couple of sentences became the only way to avoid article tagging once in queue or on the main page. That way the lead has something more than birth and death dates and maybe a couple of facts, but doesn't necessarily summarize the entire article—since such articles are typically start-class, we don't expect the article to meet MOS:LEAD (unless they're GAs, where it's one of the GA criteria)—though it has more than a skeletal intro to get it through DYK. (Do we allow articles with just a single-section body and no lead any more, or has that fallen by the wayside? I don't see enough nominated articles these day to be sure one way or the other.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It is GA

SweeTango is a GA. It passed the nomination. --70.187.33.20 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

70.187.33.20, it did not: the "review" was done by a now-blocked sockpuppet, and the article has very clear issues with prose and sourcing. When a proper review is done, a valid reviewer will check the article, note the issues, and have the nominator clear them up; if the nominator is successful in this, the article can then become a GA, but it certainly is not that now. Please do not change the status of the article again—and if you are the previous reviewer, you did not do an adequate job in your review and the article would ultimately have been reassessed and downgraded even if you hadn't been a sockpuppet. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

WT:DYK#Prep 1:Posthumous publication

Hi, would you mind commenting here? This is something you've always told me about but now other editors are questioning it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, thanks for pointing this one out: it's misleading from start to finish. Not only did she not posthumously publish it—the wording of the article makes one wonder if she was even literate—but she wasn't arguing her case in the typically held meaning of the word, since she was an admitted arsonist. It sounds like this was a simple explanation of how she ended up an arsonist and awaiting the gallows. The nomination will need a new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about a DYK nomination

I'm not sure if my request at my nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Matchstick Marvels Museum is acceptable. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

SL93, we've had nominations wait on OTRS images before. Indeed, we're waiting for one at Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Goonewardene, where an image had been nominated for deletion on Commons, and is currently waiting for a review of an OTRS submission for that photo. So I don't see any issue with waiting for the image, though I hope it doesn't take OTRS too long to process. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The image had an issue and was denied. I do have a freely licensed video that I can use which shows several of the models, but the only problem is that is almost 7 minutes long. I'm not sure if that is too long for DYK and I will only add it to the article if it is. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I am shortening the video. SL93 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The video is now in the DYK nomination, but I don't know what to use instead of the usual (pictured). Maybe Yoninah knows. SL93 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I take it that I have it correct. Though I'm not sure why my simple question couldn't be answered. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

GA question

Hello. I passed Burt's solar compass here, but the bot said it had failed here. Was there some oversight on my part? Thanks. — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Most Comfortable Chair, no oversight on your part. This is unfortunately a known bug in Legobot, that if there is a "FailedGA" template anywhere on the article talk page, the bot will assume that the nomination has failed even if there is a new "GA" template indicating passage. We are unable to get it fixed, and hope that someday a new bot will replace the old, but until then this is one of a number of bugs that we have to live with. I'm sorry you got caught by it. The only way to prevent this from happening is to add an "Article history" template and move the contents of the FailedGA (as you have done) into it, but do so before passing the latest review. The bot doesn't pay attention to the Article history template. The other key is when you pass the article, add the new GA template, and leave it there until the bot runs (about every 20 minutes), so that it can do its regular work of adding the GA icon to the article. Once the bot has run, then you can add the new information about the GA listing to Article history. Let me know if you have any further questions? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Problematic GAN

Recalling your input on the Seikilos epitaph GAN page, I seem to have a received a similar GAN for my article for Cai Lun. To be honest, I had forgotten about that GAN and woke up one morning to see it had passed in no less than an hour. If the GA status should be removed, that's fine since I'm already working with another user who is acting as an FA mentor) to bring it to FAC soon. Any insight would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, I'm so sorry you're the one being hit by this; thanks for letting me know. I've just posted to the review, which went from opening the review page to announcing that it had passed in 11 minutes. (It took longer to post to the article talk page, and even then it wasn't done correctly.) It seems to me that there are places where the prose still needs work: in the paragraph I mentioned, I found issue after issue in terms of "clear and concise" prose. The FA standard is far stricter, "engaging and of a professional standard", and will require more work beyond that—once you've worked through it and this GAN stuff is settled, you might want to request a Guild of Copy Editors copyedit with the notation that it's for a future FAC submission. What I'm hoping is that the reviewer will reopen with nomination and we can get more eyes and a more thorough review on it. Best of luck with it—Cai Lun is a very interested person, and I'm glad you've done so much work on the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all of that. Indeed there are some prose issues still, mainly since the person helping me for FAC has recently found a bunch of new sources that I have yet to implement yet, after which I was planning on carefully going through the prose. GOCE request is a good idea – I'll see where it's at after I implement those sources and copy edit myself. Aza24 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, the reviewer has reverted the passage and reopened the nomination. I'm going to see if I can find a new reviewer; if that doesn't work out, I'll put the nomination under "second opinion" and see whether we can attract someone that way. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Joel (The Last of Us)

Hi, can this be considered a GA review? Yoninah (talk)

Yoninah, sometimes there isn't much to find. (I've read through the article, and it seems to meet the criteria, though I haven't checked the sourcing and am not that familiar with gaming and gaming character articles.) The reviewer does have some experience, and has come up with lists of changes needed on other reviews. I'd prefer something more extensive, but if the reviewer knows what they're about, then it can be okay. The problem comes when a review like this is made by someone new who doesn't know the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding ping; sorry about that, Yoninah. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, The Most Comfortable Chair. Apologies for drinking first and thanking belatedly! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review Guidance

Hi BlueMoonset! Do you have any guidance on how to proceed at Talk:John H. Hill/GA1. The review has been completed, but not the final steps. Any guidance you could provide would be incredibly helpful and appreciated. Thanks again! — West Virginian (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

West Virginian, as you can see, I asked Kingsif to stop by and see whether the article was ready for promotion, or if perhaps the reviewer had missed anything, since this was their first review and they might not appreciate the Wikipedia-specific requirements that may differ from academia, at least as regards the GA criteria. Sorry that it turns out there was a bit extra to do, but better to have an experienced reviewer make sure all the criteria are met. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, thank you so much for asking Kingsif to review and provide guidance for this GAN. I really appreciate you and Kingsif taking the time to ensure the successful closeout of this GAN and that it meets all necessary criteria. I truly appreciate it, and am working to address Kingsif's comments regarding the lead as we speak! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• West Virginian, congratulations! I see that Kingsif has passed the nomination, and it's now an official Good Article. Well done! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, thank you so much for your kind words, and for your continued guidance and support! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Prep building

Hi, I'm working on another set which will bring the noms to under 60. We have about 60 unreviewed hooks. Even if our reviewers come up with a few more reviews, we're getting very low in terms of inventory for new sets. I think it might be time to switch over to one a day. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I hadn't actually seen your post here when I noticed that we were under 60 approved, so I posted on the DYK talk page that it was time to switch. We ought to be changing over before the next set. It looks like Vanamonde will be along in a little while now that midnight UTC has passed to change the time between updates number, and we'll be all set. I'm hoping we stay at one a day for a while—since we're currently below 120 in total noms, it has to be a while before we hit 120 in approved noms, especially with only six of fourteen queues/preps filled. Of course, the GAN backlog drive starts on October 1, which will add to the number of incoming GA-passed DYK noms, but that's a week away still... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello BlueMoonset, I had a copyright question. I recently finished working on William B. Jordan and I couldn't find an image of him in the public domain. So, I emailed the Meadows Museum, where he became its founding director over 50 years ago, to ask if they may have a picture. They said that they would be happy to help, given that the picture they provide is still copyrighted and attributed to them. I am aware about various copyright licenses and it will only be used on the article. But I am unsure about the uploading bit. If they email me a picture and I upload it, how can I show that I am doing so after they have given me their permission to use it for the article? Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. I was reading up on copyright policies and I found WP:COPYREQ. I have their permission to use their picture as long as it is uploaded under a non-free license but I do not believe that it is a viable option anymore. I will see if they can release it in the public domain instead. Best, and sorry for the spam. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Screwed up fail

I failed Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227/GA2, but I screwed up and put page 1 instead of page 2. How can I fix this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And now one of the nominators is trying to override my fail!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I have taken care of it; if it doesn't stick this time, I'll take it to WT:GAN myself. Basically, I restored the original failure from March and also your own from today; at this point, it will need to be nominated anew. Sorry this wasn't a more pleasant experience for you. Unfortunately, these things don't get any better for waiting; it's generally best to press on or to withdraw from the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I should have dealt with it promptly rather than procrastinating for months about revisiting it. Thanks for dealing with this mess so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And what about me? Can someone please properly close the GA2? How about an explanation for GA3 from someone not involved, such as myself? What do I do with additions to the article that I don't stand behind? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, GA2 is properly closed. Review pages do not need to be archived, though I can certainly do so; I didn't want to pre-empt any final discussion on my fixing Sturmvogel 66's closure and reverting of the improper passage. As for your other question, the GA review process really cannot address issues between editors, it can only say what does and doesn't meet the criteria. If the reviewer requests a change, you make it, and someone else changes it back or to something else the reviewer feels does not meet the GA criteria, then that's a problem that I don't think the GA reviewer can solve, and the article may have to remain without GA recognition. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there something like a qualification for GA reviewing? ... or disqualification? I suffered another review by the same reviewer that I try to forget. He certainly knows how to annoy me, - and now Sturmvogel as well. The article of my song of defiance contains joy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Francis now nominated the article for GA a third time. I would have done that next week, having no time right now. What process is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, as there is no ownership of articles, there's nothing that can be done: unfortunately, Francis got in there first. Whether that was the courteous or even appropriate thing to do is another question entirely. There is no qualification for GA reviewing, which is why we have seen reviews by Wikipedia novices, some even in their first day. (They typically get reverted; it just happened again a few hours ago.) The community has proven unwilling to put general experience requirements for reviewers, though if a reviewer proves to lack competence, they can be banned from the GA space after a trip to the administrators' noticeboard, which has happened a few times. One thing a nominator can do is withdraw the nomination, at which point the reviewer has to close it (per WP:GANI#N3): To withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, let the reviewer know. The reviewer will then fail the nomination. The problem with that is that a new nomination would have to be made, losing all the seniority built up, and the same reviewer might claim that new nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Some day, I'll just for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Other idea: how about you approving or failing that nom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I'm sorry, but I have no time to do a proper GA review, and if I did it wouldn't be a nomination by that nominator. This is going to have to wait for someone to come along and choose it to review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That may take me back to the idea before. Sure, I don't own the article, but if this was up for a four award, it would matter who nominated. (It doesn't because I didn't create it.) - I'm barely here at all until Tuesday, - it just crossed my mind that you are probably the person who understands the situation without further explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

related

October

thanksgiving

Firstly, thank you for thinking about it. Today is Louis Vierne's 150th birthday, pictured on the Main page and here. Back to GA: we now have a different situation at another nom, where the same editor made major changes to an article (without any discussion besides edit summaries) after the reviewer had commented, changes far beyond replies to the concerns. The reviewer is frustrated, and not willing to do the review over. Is there anything in the GA process to prevent such a thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks better today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The frustrated reviewer undertook a second round, but withdrew now. I don't know if comments such as this played a role. I observe that GA reviewing has a backlog, and one editor wastes too much of the patience, goodwill and time of reviewers and nominators. It would really help if - while an article is under review - only nominator and reviewer were permitted to make substantial changes, and normally conduct the review without third-party input. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, had I been the reviewer in that situation, I would have either put the article on hold until the changes were done, or failed it for instability. However, since reviews can last for weeks or even months, there is no way to forbid edits while it's undergoing review. If I may suggest, having the other contributor get their edits done now, before a new reviewer is found, is probably best. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I am the other contributor by now, the one who doesn't get her edits done ;) - as I explained on the article talk. I had nominated a rather simple thing for GA, and now it's heading for higher quality, but with inconsistencies in references, some undue weight, and different ideas for layout. This is the fourth GA treated that way, and it takes too much of my time. While for the one mentioned above, I could go right to PR, in this case there's the little personal pride thing about an eventual Four Award, which requires a successful GA step. The pride not to have an unappropriate summary by some Mr. Koch preceed the presentation of the hymn in question, however, is even greater, so I moved it. - Right now I am pressed to nominate a DYK for a set already started. Enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Having slept over this, and waking up to the editor having restored edits that put the article in a state that I hate: could you please simply fail this GA2 for disruption instability. I guess I will have to unwatch the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, it is not in my power to fail the article; I'm not the reviewer. You have the right to withdraw any nomination; since the review started, my suggestion is that you post to the review, saying that you are withdrawing it, and ping the previous reviewer, asking them to fail it. That's what WP:GANI says to do: To withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, let the reviewer know. The reviewer will then fail the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, the reviewer failed the GA1. What about the GA2 now, which would not be there had that been done in the first place, and which should not be in the archives and stats as initiated by me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Gerda Arendt, the reviewer failed the GA2. I've just fixed it so it was the GA1 that was failed, and asked the reviewer to delete the GA2 page. It's all in my post on their talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for causing you extra work. Until the reviewer withdrew I really hoped we could agree on something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:GA nominee

Since you have provided no rationale for the reversion, and started no discussion at Template talk:GA nominee or anywhere else, I have restored the changes I made to the template. These changes save considerable vertical space in the banner space of talk pages, at zero detriment. They also put the information in a more logical place, grouping information about the nominator with the information about the nomination, rather than get separated by random tidbits about technical stuff, or reviewers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, fine. Although I thought that the onus was on you per WP:BRD, I will start the discussion and then revert you again. My view has always been that the nomination listing at the bottom is like a sig, and did not like that I had to go looking for it when you hid it up top. Expect the reversion shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Had you provided a rationale for it, yes, since there would be something to address. But you didn't, instead objecting on a procedural basis (e.g. WP:BURO taking precedence over WP:BOLD), so I had nothing of substance to even discuss. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, the discussion is open at WP:GAN. See you there. We're back to status quo ante until there's consensus one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo, Headbomb; it's on the GAN talk page, WT:GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

GA feedback

I was very surprised to see that this article was passed in 40 minutes, and more so when I looked at the article and immediately saw that it violated MOS:LEAD, one of the GA criteria: four paragraphs for such a short article is simply not allowed. (Please see MOS:LEADLENGTH.) Then I read I see a few minor things, but nothing that precludes passing of the article as it stands right now., and realized that you truly don't understand the criteria. If you see "minor things", you point them out and get them fixed, and only then, when all the criteria are fully met, do you approve it on Seminal vesicles

Hello BlueMoonset. Can I clarify, is this some sort of random drive-by feedback or are you in a mentoring situation with Berchanhimez? You are abrupt and unnecessarily bureaucratic (see WP:NOTBURO), and I don't think your tone is particularly collegiate. The point of good article reviews, which Berchanhimez has correctly identified, is to assess against the good article criteria. What's more it was clear that she/he was going to provide more feedback. Lastly, if you have identified "minor things" these should not be things that block promotion unless they are more than minor. That is your own personal criteria Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#Imposing_your_personal_criteria. I hope you are not pursuing this approach in other reviews. It is likely to prove frustrating to all involved and deter both reviewers and nominees. I have a large exposure to both giving and being reviewed and thought I better point this out to you in case this is a more widespread issue you are unaware of.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Network synthesis/GA1

Hi, thanks for your advice. I will avoid giving similar advice in the future. Most of what I said was valid, it was just I should have said review it like usual and that was it. Note: this was the only page I did that for, because I was looking for pages to review and I have seen the nominator around, as we edit similar articles, so I was nosey and realized it was super stale from a new user who wasn't coming back. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A sincere thank you

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		On behalf of the co-ordinators of the October 2020 GAN backlog drive, it gives me great pleasure to award you the WikiProject Good Articles Medal of Merit for all of the work you put into ensuring the Good article process runs smoothly (or at least as smoothly as possible). This task is difficult, continuous, and often thankless. Your efforts do not go unnoticed, and the work you do is greatly appreciated. All the best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Eddie891. I'm always happy to help. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Offbeam QF

Hi, an editor, Atlantis77177, has quick-failed a GAN of mine, Talk:Virabhadrasana/GA1, with no reference to the article at all, for instance not noticing the article was in fact fully-cited. Perhaps you can undo the GA1 and put the article back in the queue. I've put an informal warning on the editor's talk page; his reply leads me to suppose it was just a naive attempt at doing the right thing without having read up on the process. User:EEng points out that the same editor has nominated Joe Biden and Donald Trump for GA, stating (and I expect we all agree) that this ain't a great move just now, so maybe those also should be de-nominated; I've asked him but perhaps firmer action is now required. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting these things out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)