User talk:Derek.cashman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

ArticleHistory

Hi, Derek, if you will scroll to the bottom of the talk page when updating the {{ArticleHistory}} template, you'll notice a red error category when there are errors in the template. The instructions are at {{ArticleHistory}}. I've corrected a few lately, so I thought I'd let you know. This latest had two different lines for current status, and a typo in result, so it was populating the error category. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mamilla

Thanks a lot for your help throughout the process. I'm looking forward to seeing you around the 'pedia. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you added my name to the entry - sorry about forgetting, and thanks for adding it.

The question I have for you is this - will you stand with me in my quest of true neutrality for edits?

Psycho Samurai 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC

Hi Derek. I'm apologising about the excessively prickly reply to your initial comments about my GAR style. It was rather uncalled for on my part. Thanks for your work on the GAC area. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PHARM

Hey there! Thanks for the one-man assessment drive :) I've been trying to hack away at the unassessed articles myself, but haven't had enough time to give them proper attention. Thanks again and keep up the good work! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, and "wow". My Watchlist keeps lighting up with your assessments! As you've just gotten a barnstar, I am pleased to present you with

File:Acethylcholine receptor blocked by cobra venom.png	The WP:PHARM nAChR of Merit
	For your tireless work assessing articles for WikiProject Pharmacology. Thank you yet again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not an official award, but I think it's pretty snazzy :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know it's not really a representation of the nAChR, but it does sound cooler than "acetylcholine-binding protein of merit". If you can spare the time, I'd like to invite you to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bupropion. This is the first FAC of an article "directly" under the "care" of WikiProject Pharmacology in over 3 years, and it would be nice to get it in FA shape. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. Nearly all articles are indeed in dire need of some TLC, as are most medical articles in Wikipedia. Bupropion has the framework in place, and a good polishing would get it to FA level in my opinion; I'm personally trying to get clindamycin and 5-HT3 antagonist to GA—I'm quite proud of the latter, although no-one has really stepped in to expand it yet—but off-wiki time constraints are in the way... "Publishing" your assessment criteria on WT:PHARM would be excellent, as there are no project-specific criteria at the moment; I assess for importance with the whole encyclopedia in mind. Our Style guide also needs polishing for better alignment with WP:MEDMOS. It's a shame the project is not as active as it could be, it seems there are only a handful of editors really into it now. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog contest

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the GAC backlog elimination drive! ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Resveratrol GA review

I've taken care of all of the listed problems on the Resveratrol article for GA nomination. Please see. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:LouisvilleInfoBox

A template you created, Template:LouisvilleInfoBox, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Hello, I hope you are doing well.

The discussion is becoming somewhat fragmented, but I have replied to your post here. The review templates do specifically offer that GAR is an appropriate place to disagree with an article being failed. Also, the criteria for completeness applies to what can reasonably be known today. 50 Cent is an active performer so of course there will be more to add to the article later. That does not mean that the article should be held out from GA today. There are many other GAs and even FAs that are going to have new information added to them in the future. GA is about judging an articles on its current merits, not on predictions of the future. Johntex\^talk 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: Brazil

Hi Cash,

Just writing to let you know that we good folk of the Brazil article have either addressed or fixed all the issues you've brought up in the GA review. There are a few open questions, so we're waiting on your reply to resolve them. Thanks for help--we've been working hard to get it to this point and we appreciate the time you've taken to review it. Cheers!--Dali-Llama 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just writing again to say I've fixed the latest issue you've mentioned and to see if there is anything else outstanding in the GA Review. Cheers.--Dali-Llama 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Doxorubicin

Hi again Dr. Cash. I've just had a look at the Doxorubicin article, as you mentioned wanting to get it to FA status eventually and I hadn't been over it since around the GA review. I was wondering what your thought are on moving the "Biosynthesis" section (an excellent addition apparently part of a class project) into a separate Biosynthesis of doxorubicin article, leaving a summary behind as per WP:SS. This would probably be an initial concern at FAC, since this section—while important, quite well-written and well-referenced—is taking up most of the article. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think it looks better, and summary style is a requirement for FA, so here's hoping it helps when the time comes :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 18/8/2007. Epbr123 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)}}

GA Review: Willamette University College of Law

I believe I have addressed most of the items. Please look over the changes and my notes on the talk page and let me know what you think. Thanks. Aboutmovies 20:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Took care of the JD issue, let me know if that works for you. Aboutmovies 02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing (and passing!) UCR

I most appreciate your comments. I'll try to work on style issues and citations further, but with school starting soon I think FAC may have to wait another year. Best, Amerique^dialectics 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Thanks for improving Wikipedia, especially on the Wellbutrin article 1ws1 02:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: Fayetteville-Manlius High School

Thank you for you review. I'm happy to hear some constructive feedback on the article, although I do have a few concerns. You say the article has sections that are under-referenced or largely unreferenced (and I'm not sure if you took the time to verify all of them) but I can't agree with you that this is always the case. Specifically the demographics section, which you said was largely unreferenced, but is entirely referenced. Perhaps it has been done wrong, but the ref tag at the end of the section references the ENTIRE section. Should that tag be multiplied and used at the end of every sentence that contains data? Same thing with the history section, the entire thing can be referenced to a single web page, although I believe the link has recently gone dead and the reference was changed to something less comprehensive.

I also contest your discussion of the "so what?" statements. If you're going to say "so what?" to those two sentences, you might as well say the same for half the article, since much of this information, I assume, does neither benefit nor interest you. In this sense, I cannot completely trust your judgement regarding what facts are and are not important. I would say that, given the prevalence of International Baccalaureate and general assumption of the ubiquity of All-America, it becomes important to clarify these points as part of the general discussion of the school's pedagogy. Perhaps there isn't enough clarification?

In addition to the tips you have already given, it would be nice to also hear about the particular successes of the article. Not simply to validate the large amount of development already undertaken, but also, just like the rest of your feedback, to give its editors an understanding of what kind of standards to set for review and revision of this and other/future articles. Principally for the sake of our (due) diligence.

Those are my only queries. All of your other suggestions will be heeded in due time. Thanks again. Sinisterminister 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspending GAC review drive

Since the drive hasn't started, I would ask you to consider putting the review drive on hold as explained in points to consider. Please reply at that page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This is the formal invitation to invite you to join the GA Sweeps. I have placed my trust in you because only experienced editors who are trusted in this project can participate in the sweeps to uphold quality of GA. Don't forget to keep track of the articles you read by going to Sweep's talk page and list the articles & status. If you're unsure about what you should leave in the article's talk page, take a look at Talk:Alan Turing#GA status reviewed. Any other questions can ask me at my talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Southampton GA Review

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at Southampton. I've implemented a few of your suggestions to bring it up to scratch and hope to do the rest sooner rather than later. Hopefully we have finally done enough to get it up at GA! Dan K 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GA talk page

Did you mean to do this [1]. Was it an accident? T Rex | talk 00:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Manila Hotel

I found a free image, so you can add it to the GA list now. Alientraveller 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GA / Alternative lead section

Hi Derek! I see you liked the Daboia article, but picked up on my previous comments there and subsequently decided to express your opinion regarding the alternative lead section I developed -- the list of common names at the top. I'm aware that this violates WP:LEAD, but it is meant as a solution to a number of problems. I started out following WP:LEAD, but so many snake species have so many common names (or share the same ones), that this often results in a confusing mess of common names and bold type face. My solution also addresses the concern that some people have with using scientific names for article titles: that a common name cannot be found quickly enough if it must be searched for in the introduction, whether bold type face is used or not. My solution is an attempt to address both of these issues. It also has several other advantages: it avoids elevating one common name over any others as much as possible, something that tends to invite pointless debates about which name is more important, and it keeps the introduction more to the point. I figure it's been a reasonable success, since during the past year nobody has complained about not being able to find the common names, and I've had only one friendly request for one common name should be listed first for a particular species.
I guess this all boils down to my opinion that WP:LEAD just doesn't offer the flexibility that I think is necessary to properly serve articles like these. I wish I could think of a way to address these issues and conform with WP:LEAD, but I can't, and nobody else seems to care. Sure, I was (and still am) taking a risk by being different, but I figured progress would otherwise not be possible. --Jwinius 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't buy your explanation. It's just plain wrong, and it looks **really bad** to have an article start with a list, instead of starting with a sentence that actually begins with the article's title. A brief listing of common names is still important enough, and visible enough, to be in the rest of the lead section. But it does not belong before the primary introductory sentence of the article. Plus, any article that looks like that will FAIL any WP:FAC nomination. Dr. Cash 03:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it would be great if I could find a way to make do with an introduction that conforms to WP:LEAD. Obviously, that's very important to you. But, simply insisting that I do that doesn't make the problems I outlined above go away. They may not seem like much to you, but all I do is write about snakes, so for me they're a big issue that can't just be swept under the rug (or placed under the lead section). However, I am flexible. It appears that in the mean time, somebody else reverted your edits again, but changed things this time so the common names lists look more like dablinks. Is that any better? The specific formatting it not important to me. All that matters is that the issues are not ignored. (PS - You can reply here as I've temporarily added your talk page on my watchlist.) --Jwinius 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Madrid

Hey,

No worries on the delisting and On Hold Status. I'll keep an eye on how this progresses so I can learn from this. I generally learn by participation, I find I learn hard and fast. :) Thanks for your comments. Pursey 06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! :) I'll take this all onboard. I'm reviewing some others at the moment; I may ask you for some assistance before I pass/fail the next few just to verify I've gotten it right this time if that's OK with you :) Pursey 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one I'm reviewing at the moment is Madness (band). I note it is: Free of red-links, Cited well, Free of any noticeable spelling or grammar errors, Makes excellent use of images, appears to be stable. I cannot, after my first few reads identify why this article would not qualify as a Good Article. Am I missing something, or should I be writing up my review and proceeding? If I've missed something, is it something that should be obvious to me? ie. Is my reviewing seriously flawed? Pursey 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Spitz

Hello. I have improved the Japanese Spitz article based on your suggestions. However, I am slightly unable to change the tone of the article to more "encyclopedia like". All the sources that I can find so far are "new owner's guide". And it's difficult for that particular article because there isn't as much information available when compared to the Beagle article. Any suggestions on how to change the tone of the article? Thanks. Oidia (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I really like the new sectioning. Oidia (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethanol GA Sweeps Review

Greetings. In response to your notice on talk:ethanol about the sweeps review, I have made an effort to do at least a partial clean-up. I have restored lost sections that seemed important to me (History and Chemistry), and I have gone through and tried to find references for much of the "citation-needed" statements (and deleted others that I couldn't verify or that were redundant). It was a rush job, so I think there is still room for improvement, but I hope that it is better than it was when you found it. Please feel free to post any feedback you might have about my effort on my talk page. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wan Chai response

Hi, thanks for reviewing the Wan Chai article. So far I have made some fixes, and have also put up a response at Talk:Wan Chai#GA review response. Benjwong 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

GA 2nd opinion templates

I would change the colour of the images myself but image altering isn't one of my strong abilities. My suggestion would be to leave a request at the Graphics Lab. They seem to have a good handle on how to alter or improve images. Tarret^talk 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Collaboration of the Week

Check out my changes... — Scientizzle 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Aspirin

Hi Derek. Would you mind my subdividing "Therapeutic uses" into a main section, "Investigational" and "Veterinary"? That would be more in line with WP:MEDMOS (although still not following it to the letter—it's a guideline, after all). Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit caused error in Talk:Malta

Hi, this edit broke the WP:MALT project box because it is currently not nestable. I appreciate your work, and maybe it should have already been nestable, but just FYI. I'm going to un-nest it until it is nestable. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on surface tension review

Greetings. Thank you for taking the time to review surface tension. I hope the two of us can have periodic interaction over the next days pursuant to improving the article. Some of the improvements you suggest are easy ones. There are others that are more difficult, and still others that I have some degree of disagreement with you. To start with, although I have no problem with moving the methods of measurement closer to the beginning, I disagree on doing so on the thermodynamics section.

The thermodynamics section is the one that demands the most prerequisite knowledge before a reader could possibly understand it. The majority of readers who have a basic physics knowledge of forces and the principles of statics will have no idea what Gibbs free energy, entropy or enthalpy is. Most of them will also not have a clue what a partial derivative is (this is the only section that contains calculus equations). This was my thinking in keeping this section at the end — that I didn't want to put these readers off before they got to sections that are both within their understanding and quite probably of interest to them as well. I am not the person who wrote the original draft of this section, which is why I was unable to find references for all of the equations (although I am educated enough to derive at least some of those equations from the referenced equation — yet my own derivation of any equation is not appropriate for posting in a main namespace article). I will dig some more to find the needed references in this section, and I will try to contact the editor who prepared the original draft of this section and appeal to him for references.

With regard to the images in the everyday section, I had gathered these from their previous haphazard distribution throughout the article. In sections where diagrams are necessary, these photos were displacing the diagrams, distracting from them, and didn't seem to go with the specific topics. A possible solution might be to move the photos to a gallery at or near the end. I've seen this type of organization in several other articles. I would be able to add more images to such a gallery than we have at this time (there are plenty more available).

Your suggestion of using the everyday section as a lead for the sections on specifics is a good one, and I will work on that.

With regard to the contact angle section, the concept of contact angle is critical to understanding the effects of menisci, capillary action, and puddling, and some treatment of the concept is needed before getting to these effects. I will give this more thought, but I will also think carefully about any further suggestion you might provide on this problem.

Again, I do hope you will have time to respond to this and my future comments. Please feel free to reach me either here or on my talk page. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Greetings, Derek! I've got a question for you regarding the naming of the reference sections. So far, I've always used "Cited references" and "Other references" for this without thinking much about it; I was just following somebody else's example. However, I must admit that your "References" and "Further reading" is usually a more accurate description. But, before I go ahead and modify 300+ articles accordingly (perhaps I should create a bot for this), I must ask you: Where did you get these titles? Are they official, a trend you've noticed and have decided to endorse, or are they simply your own invention? Due to the effort I'd be putting into it and the relatively cosmetic nature of the changes, I'd rather minimize the chances of ever having to revisit the issue. --Jwinius 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in wikipedia's guideline for citing sources (WP:CITE), which covers the general formatting for the individual citations, as well as where to put them and what to name that section. There's no real set rule, but most articles that I have found either put sources in a section called 'references' or 'notes' (for 'footnotes'), though I prefer simply calling them 'references', as it's the format that I've used in scientific papers that I've published in the past. In my experience, footnotes are used in some journals and publications to put short lists of references at the bottom of each printed page, and then the references would be listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article. This, IMHO, doesn't seem to apply to wikipedia, since it's not a printed page, but a single web page; individual printed pages are irrelevant, and a single list of citations at the end is sufficient. But I've noticed that there are some that like to hang on to their precious footnotes (usually, the wikipedians that tend to be in the english/"grammar nazi" crowd), so I generally don't complain at those that do. I've found articles to be split almost 50/50 between the 'references' and 'notes' formats.

Regarding making a large number of repetitive changes, I would recommend looking into using AutoWikiBrowser, which is a semi-automated wikipedia editor that makes a lot of these repetitive tasks a lot easier. Cheers! Dr. Cash 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice. Don't worry, though; I've never been a notes fan. Well, between you and me, I used to be a Lotus Notes administrator, but I've since turned my back on that proprietary crap and not touched it in over five years. As for the AutoWikiBrowser, that would mean using Windows: a proprietary, lock-in product of particular infamy that may as well have been designed by the devil himself! Oh, perhaps I'll use it just this once, but there's no hurry and the bot sounds like an interesting challenge.

By the way, I'd prefer it if in the future you responded here on your own talk page. It's a little trick I learned from some other folks: after posting a question, I temporarily add your talk page to my watch list so that I know whether you've answered or not. This way, we won't end up with conversations that are spread over multiple talk pages: not much good in archive situations and especially confusing when third parties decide to join in. Cheers! --Jwinius 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comments on my talk page. The Manchester review actually scared me, I was damn sure I would have missed something and someone was going to chase me with a pointy stick :) Maybe I have a phobia of reviewing cities now ;) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Fist_of_the_North_Star#GA_Review

I think you may have forgotten about this. LaraLove♥ 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethanol

I don't think this one is going to be brought up to standards. Might as well go ahead and delist it. LaraLove 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for helping at the GAC backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 15/9/2007. Epbr123 11:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bedbug

Thanks for removing that, it looks like I accidentally forgot to remove it. Keep up the good work, and good job on the recent GAC reviewer of the week! --Nehrams2020 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

Thanks for the GA review... I thought nobody was going to review it. I will try to make some more improvements following your advise and probably put it as a candidate for FA, althought it will probably take me some time. It has been my first good article, so it was quite important. --Garrondo 07:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Muscle Relaxants

Well whatever you think. Though neuromuscular blockers are not muscle relaxants in any reasonable, clinical definition. Indeed, Rang Dale and Ritter specifically state that they should not be considered muscle relaxants because they have no clinical use. Furthermore according to the most recent Cochrane Review, there has never been a clinical trial investigating the use of paralytics in spacticity (apart from local injections of botox). So I really have no idea where you are coming from. Bilz0r 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

You requested a second opinion of this for its good article nomination. My review is on the talk page. GreenJoe 19:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hyde Park Township GA

Thanks for your positive review. I noticed there is some confusion with the community area numbers. Each community area has an official number corresponding to U.S. Census Bureau usage. These are the numbers in the introductory paragraph and on the map. I have attempted to reedit to draw this connection. Let me know if you may have a better way to show the connection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

GA

Hey can you do me a favour and handle the GA status of R. Madhavan immediately, because I'm considering to leave Wikipedia and would like to know my success at the article. Universal Hero 20:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 22nd September 2007. Epbr123 11:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for member of GA article sweeps

If you've got a moment, I was wondering if you could answer some questions I'm curious about? They are:

1. What GA articles have you worked on and submitted to GA review?
2. Have you ever worked at getting an article to FA status?

Hopefully won't take more than a moment of your time. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Can you please give me 1 more week to finish rewriting the Section in question on the Homeopathy article so that it can Reach GA? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob Love

Good catch on the article.Naraht 11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Croydon

Thank you, very much for your comments on the article, this will really help me get along to addresing the major issues of the article. I've just finished puting in full references, as you suggested, and yesterday I had a major overhaul of the article addresing most of the lists and changing them into prose or into a different article. Plus i've cut down the see also and external links (which can now be seen on the Croydon page) sections which I agree were to long and contained some unencyclopedic links.

The main differences you will see is that the Districts section has gone in favor of Neighborhoods and areas which contains all the same information plus a small summary of the area and where it is located from Central Croydon. Other differences you will see is that the short sections in Geography has gone, in fact the whole of Geography has gone in favour of Geography and Climate (which now only contains 2 subsections, Climate and Neighborhoods and areas). Croydon Council has gone in favour of Governance and it now contains less headings, with some scraped altogether and some have been merged. The long table has also gone (although that can still be found on two other articles involving Croydon local elections), i thought of what you wrote and it really was annoying to scroll through all of it. Plus it probably belongs on the other pages than this one.

The 'glitzy' logo table under councillors is now gone and can be found under Wards and Councillors as a modest grey table. In education, the schools list has been absorbed into the newley formed Schools in Croydon article. And the underconstruction sign has gone from the Religion subheading - although to be fair the heading had only been there since the 23rd, a day before the review - has gone, and the subsection is much longer now. Plus as you suggested the fantastic Sport and Leisure section has been spawned into it's own section, which is looking great. I've decided not to merge Economy with Industry and Commernce as I feel they are seperate issues. Overall I'm glad that you've given me this information, and I will keep on editing to what you said. Thank You. Pafcool2 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hey Dr. Cash. I just noticed your GA nomination of Muscle relaxant, and, since you're such a prodigious GA reviewer, I thought I'd ask... :) I'm planning to send 5-HT3 antagonist to GAN soon. Do you have any tips for expansion? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Zimbabwe

Many thanks for your time reading the article and giving us pointers to go on. These were really useful pointers and it allows us to have something to work on and how we can improve the article. Thank you Mangwanani 08:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Labrador Retriever GA

Hi, and thanks for your note on this.

I have got wrapped up in a WP:DR issue recently, which has taken time, and have left Jude to work on the references which he's done well at. I'd like to ask for another few days to polish this article up, and will work on the last few points that needs fixing. Most of the GA points have been fixed now, as you can see.

Would it be possible to have a 5 day extension from Sept 28 to say Oct 3? It'd be appreciated, and should give me time to do the remaining few items.

All the best and thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy edits

I've made substantial changes to the Homeopathy articles sections on prevalence and legal status and combined it all into one section so as to remove any need for any "worldwide" tags. Please take a look and tell me what you think and if it meets GA criteria yet. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

South side (Chicago) GAC on hold

I have fixed the needed citation at South side (Chicago). I also moved the image you wanted and changed the text accordingly. I added some more text for some of the other images too. However, I added a left side image. I view at 1680 x 1050, and it looks good to me. I hope it looks O.K. at 1024 x 768 as well. If the new image is a problem let me know and I will make further editorial changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Wal-Mart

This is not currently a good article due to the flood of poorly written, biased, and unencyclopedic edits. Any interest on working with me to fix it, as you are the custodian of the article? LaraLove 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey. In this edit, you renamed some instances of the "morningafter" ref to "morningafter2", but you didn't add any source information. So, currently, ref 112 has no source text. What's the deal? Lara❤Love 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Haapsalu Castle

Firstly, thank you for your useful and kind suggestions - and that you found time to review the article.

I've tried to address the issues the best I can - used appropriate cite templates, fixed inline citations, expanded the White Lady section and so forth. However, I was unable to do much about the lead - quite frankly I am at loss what more should be included, so it would stay readable and give maximum amount of information to the reader.

This is my first good article nomination and I am unsure what to do when it is put on hold. Can you please tell me what should I do now? Also, I don't think that the article will ever reach featured article status. The subject is too obscure and will surely not interest most readers.

-- Sander Säde 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

B-5?

Excuse me but what do you mean by contributing in a profeshionall level of bullshit? User 8th sinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8th sinn (talk • contribs) 04:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, this is called a joke. Dr. Cash 06:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought as Much i just wanted to make sure.8th sinn 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)8th sinn8th sinn 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Progress on ethanol

Hi again. I have been working behind the scenes to improve the ethanol article back to GA status. The work is currently on a user page I have prepared that has a side-by-side comparison of the original December 2005 version that earned the GA status, the recent version that failed to keep it, and my draft at User:Karlhahn/ethanol051208. I'd like to invite you, if you have time, to look at what I've done so far and provide any feedback you think would keep me on the right track. Thanks in advance for any advice you might provide. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Could you please review the Preity Zinta article? It is a WP:GAN and nobody takes care of it. Could you please? Much appreciated, best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Meetup in Minneapolis

---

Minnesota Meetup

Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Map

Please pass this on! RSVP here.

---

Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 29th September 2007. Epbr123 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

Copyedit from the talk page: "Thank you for your comments and I agree that stability is an area that will be difficult to sustain with this article. As for some of the other aspects of the critique, an unusual notes section has been adapted due to the controversial nature of the subject and the constant attempts to introduce POV statements needed to be addressed. I do not agree about the organizational structure being an issue since compared to the original form that this article took, a biographical style was adapted. I would happy to continue this discourse in order to establish a more effective style." FWIW Bzuk 13:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Moving talk page comments

Hi Derek, I think some of your work moving talk page discussions has been helpful in bringing similar threads together in one place. However, moving talk page comments is generally discouraged, and some editors can get annoyed about it. WillowW's recent post on WT:GA was a query about whether there is a conflict of interest between reviewing and editing an article, which has ramifications beyond GAN (e.g. at GAR). Fortunately, she is one of Wikipedia's most genteel editors, and won't mind a jot that you switched it over to WT:GAN. Just thought I'd mention it though. Regards Geometry guy 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I had better move it back. Once there are other edits to both pages, WillowW is going to wonder what has happened to her post: GAN might not even be on her watchlist. I hope you don't mind. Geometry guy 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagstaff, Arizona

Thanks. The instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps aren't very clear though; they seem to be saying that we're supposed to simply replace the original oldid, which I thought was a bit odd. Epbr123 22:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment#Homeopathy

This is a note to inform you that the article on Homeopathy has been listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment for review to see if it still meets the Good Article Criteria. Editors are encouraged to comment on this nomination and reach consensus on the specific concerns raised by reviewers. Tim Vickers 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Walrus GA assessment

Thanks for your feedback on the walrus article. I added a flurry of revisions and references. Please do let us know (if you get the chance and/or are still interested) what other needs the article might have. Thanks again, Eliezg 04:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

World Community Grid

Ok, sorry about that :) Give me about 12 hours. Big week for me in the real world :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)