User talk:Pyrotec/Archive09Q3

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert Dock

Hi, Just to let you know I replied to your concern at Talk:Albert Dock/GA1. Wasn't sure if I should have replied on the actual talk page or there, because I didn't know which page would be on your watchlist. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did see it; and, as I created Talk:Albert Dock/GA1, it is on my watchlist.Pyrotec (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy

Thanks for your advice with the GAN of Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy last month. Any chance you could give it another once-over before I renom? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look for you, tomorrow or Thursday.Pyrotec (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, just leave a message on my Talk: page with any feedback, please :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire FA

If you're not too busy (who isn't, right?), could you take a look at the Wildfire FA review? Based on your help with the GA review, I figured you might have a few ideas about how to best define the characteristics of wildfires. Scroll down about halfway to the section discussing "Distinction from other fires", especially the large blue-and-green mess starting with the boxed text "Some of the defining characteristics of wildfires..." Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, MrBell ^(talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm hapy to do it, but it will be tomorrow as I'm stopping tonight in about 8 minutes.Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Senate House

Thanks for carrying out the review. It's always useful to have another user's consideration of what one always thinks is the perfect article. --DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cock Lane ghost

Hi there, just wanted to say thanks (again) for reviewing an article I nominated :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. A pleasure.Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Glengoyne Distillery

I have listed Glengoyne Distiller for WP:GAR and would like to inform you of such. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 01:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Burton Norton

You think "incompetent" was really the right word to use when someone new to GA reviewing makes a mistake? The GAN has a big enough backlog and if I were you, I'd want all the help getting that down as possible. It is possible to criticise and be constructive. You should try it sometime, rather than calling everyone an idiot. Alan16 (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where were you called "an idiot"? Incompetence does not equate to idiocy, it's simply a lack of skill or experience. Hopefully you won't make the same mistake of demanding online sources again, and will in future be more cautious about throwing unsubstantiated accusations of "original research" at nominators. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never demanded online sources. I said that there are numerous RS online - and there are, just check Google - and it might be an idea to incorporate some of these. That was never a reason for me failing it. Pyrotec said: "This user is clearly incompetant at reviewing Good Article nominations." We are being ridiculously picky here - he was not simply saying I was inexperienced, he was saying I should not review GANs. This was not constructive criticism like you're suggesting. This was "get lost from GAN". Alan16 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have no shame do you? You call someone who is new to GA reviewing incompetent over a mistake and have the god damn cheek to cite WP:CIVIL to me! You have an odd understanding of objectivity - I haven't been unobjective at any point, I just made a mistake. Alan16 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who you're replying to here, but if it's to me then you're way off base in suggesting that I'd quote WP:CIVIL to anyone, as I think it's a pile of stinking ordure. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was directed at Pyrotec - see my talk page. Alan16 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have got him in a bit of a huff and the 17-year old is throwing his toys out of the pram. Obvious, MF, I'm not refering to you as a 17-year old, nor am I implying that you are throwing toys out of the pram.

Remember: "If I am ever in a stressful situation I walk away, the best solution. Anything else will almost certainly inflame the situation. That has always been my policy and always will be: walk away from the situation; give it a day or two; then go back and try again. If the break has not made a difference then just leave it and try and get someone with no opinion on the matter to deal with it - nothing is worth raising my cholesterol level for - I intend to live a long life"? Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I still remember the very first GA review that I ever did, Serpentine (lake). I did it very gingerly and nervously, and after I'd finished I asked for some feedback from experienced reviewers. All I got was a pretty sarcasatic comment that obviously I knew it was a good review. We probably need to do more to help new reviewers feel their way in, and certainly Alan16 needs to calm down in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'm happy to accept the comment that the GA review was a mistake. However, all the other distortions about what I wrote and what the reviewer wrote; the "suggestion" that I am favouring GANs from the WPs that I am a member of and lack of objectivity about others; and the "damn cheak" remark, above, seem to me to be a much bigger mistake than the GA review itself.Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The above remarks are the result of doing a review then coming back to Wikipedia and seeing phrases like "Alan16's accusations" and "obviously incompetent". Getting into this mud slinging was obviously not my smartest move - it was reactionary rather than a thought out response, and it has probably messed up any chance of passing an RFA any time in the next decade, but that's okay because although that is a goal, it is not essential. The review in question was badly done and this is probably a result of rushing it. Look, Pyrotec I don't really think you've been unobjective in your GA reviews - I've read a few of them, and they're very good. Let's just call this a mistake and we can both get back to reviewing. I'll even post you a link to any reviews I do so you can see that that was a one off. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Everyone makes mistakes Alan16, even me occasionally, but there's no doubt that Pyrotec's GA reviews are amongst the best; tough, but fair. If you and he could work together so that yours are just as good then that's got to be a win-win situation. It's just a matter of experience, and there's only one way to get that. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. It is very much appreciated. Incidently, my first exposure to WP:GAN/GAR was fixing some of the problems identified in your GAN review of Somerset, in October 2007; and I some realised that you were far better than me at linguistic analysis, so I sort of ignore that aspect of WP:GAN reviews, well except when I do your WP:GANs (and then you undo them).Pyrotec (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that I'm always right. Works for me anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem. :-) I feel that I don't have the confidence/ability to win those arguments. Pyrotec (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Alan, if your intention was to increase your chances of passing an RfA by involving yourself in GA reviewing then you probably ought to think again. Successful RfA candidates need to be bland, and have made no enemies. If you fail an article you make an enemy, and if that enemy jumps onto your RfA early enough then it will fail. Just the way it works. If you want to improve your chances at RfA then spend time at AfD, but don't vote on any article too early, make sure you can see which way the wind's blowing first. Another good tip is to hang out at AN/I. where you can attract the attention of "the great and the good" by supporting their daft blocks. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

PPS. I'd oppose your RfA on principle, simply because of your statement that this review "has probably messed up any chance of passing an RFA any time in the next decade, but that's okay because although that is a goal, it is not essential". The goal here is to write a free encyclopedia, not just to do whatever is required to join "the elite" and then, like them, piss on the proles. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That rules me out as well: I fail 10% of WP:GAN and 50% of WP:GARs. Pyrotec (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You should see my GA Sweeps record. Over a hundred articles delisted, a couple of them, like Chocolate Hills, quite acrimoniously. Nobody with the sense they were born with would choose to be a GA reviewer if they ever wanted to be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My formula still works fine. – iridescent 21:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ealdgyth's comment resonates: "At some point, you acquire too many edits to possibly pass RfA". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not all that sure that I would wish to submit an article to WP:GAN. It could be a bit rough; and I probably would not take it too well. Pyrotec (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw them described as "wheedlers (correct spelling?) of mops". I think I will stick with GA reviews, the trick is not to take it too personally. Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Chester Rows

You very kindly carried out a GA review on John Douglas (architect) some time ago. I have now submitted Chester Rows as a GAC and wonder if you would be interested in having a look at it. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial comments, to which I have made a response. I was very surprised to find there was no article on these unique and very important buildings, so I wrote one. My first impression of the architecture of Chester, including the rows, played a part in changing my life(!). My first visit to Chester (46 years ago) was for a job interview, and I was amazed by what I saw. So when I was offered the job I took it; and that's one reason why I moved to Cheshire (and I still live there). Perhaps I have submitted the article for as a GAC a little too soon(?). I will let you know when I have addressed some of your concerns. But if you've never been to the city, you must pay a visit. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. To my shame I completely overlooked the VCH - and this has a long section on the rows. So rather than rush things, I should like to take time to make the amendments (and I may get to watch some cricket at Old Trafford tomorrow if the rain holds off), so I will take advantage of your break - which I hope will be good. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had a good break. I've added more material to the article and I hope this now adequately covers its scope. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and advice which has considerably improved the article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Air well (condenser) GA Review

Thanks for you work reviewing this article. I am sorry that my responses have been a bit slow, but I have little quality time to devote to the article just now. I will be away from Wikipedia next week, I'll be holiday without electricity. I will do what I can this week. I will be getting back to it.

Can you please extend the hold time as necessary? Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Will Monday 17th give you sufficient time? 20:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I have little time now and I will be away from 17th-24 August. Then I should be able to finish things off, which I imagine will take a few days. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ga reviews

Hi. I'm of for dinner so I'll not be able to have a look until 10 (GMT) tonight. Once I'm back, I'd be delighted to have a look at your reviews (and how you do them) and perhaps contribute a little. I've had a quick look at the articles, and my first impressions are that the Silicon nitride article looks well proportioned, well sourced, and seems to be of a generally good standard. The Hard suction hose looks interesting - just looking briefly the lead seems disproportionate: all that on differences between it and an ordinary hose seem like they would be better placed in the body of the article. It also seems a bit short for the number of subsections it has, although it seems well referenced. Both are, I would say, relatively well written. These are just initial thoughts. If you're still reviewing them in an hour, it'd be great for me to have a look at how you work on a review. Also, thanks for not holding a grudge - it would've been really easy for you to. Thanks, Alan16 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi. Sorry I took a bit longer than I thought I would - I see you've written an introduction for both reviews. What is the next thing you'd do? Alan16 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For both WP:GANs I intend to go through each section (and then the WP:Lead) in detail to determine whether they are compliant or non-compliant, and in the the case of the latter suggest remedial actions. I suspect, from past experience, that Silicon nitride will be brought up to standard very quickly and will be passed, without being put "On Hold". I'm still not sure about Hard suction hose, but I'm going to put it On Hold and carry out the same technique. Some of the non-compliances are trival to fix (and I could fix them myself, such as {{convert}} on measurement units); however at some point a decision needs to be made - either keep suggesting improvements until I consider that it meets the standard, or suggest improvments, fail it, and suggest that a new application for WP:GAN be made when it has been brought up to standard.Pyrotec (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard suction hose GA review

Thanks for your comments. I'll work to address them over the weekend, and let you know when I've addressed them as best I can. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

Can you please regrade this article and list the necessary steps needed to take to make this into a GA on the article's talk page. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 04:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was away for a week and I've got tied up with existing WP:GANs and WP:GARs. I will look at this article and regrade it over the weekend. I think that the suggestions for improving the article to GA status aught to be approached via WP:PR - but I'm happy to contribue to the PR.Pyrotec (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Now regraded to C-class. It's probably not far off B-class, but those unreferenced sections and {WP:OR} flag need to be addressed before it can be regraded to B-class.Pyrotec (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham GAR

I've made a few improvements to the article per your suggestions.I can't find a ref for the date Allingham passed Ives as the longest lived British serviceman, but this is merely a case of counting the number of days that each lived and working out from there (or does that make it OR?). Please post any further comments on the talk page if more work is needed. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; and thanks for your patience. I've not being editing for two days; and I'm reviewing two WP:GANs and one WP:GAR. I'll look at this one on Sunday; and try and conclude it then. Pyrotec (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but I did wonder where you had got to <g>. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Transport in Somerset

Hi, Would you have any time to take a look at Transport in Somerset a new article by a new editor, which could do with some help?— Rod ^talk 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK Rod, I'll have a look at it over the next few days.Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rika's Landing Roadhouse

Thanks muchly for your comments on this article. Take your time on responding to my responses, I can see you've a fair number of other GA noms and reviews to work on, and I may be busy the rest of the weekend anyway... Mostly I was able to take your suggestions on board and come up with improvements, I think. But in a couple of sections I think suggestions from you on alternative wordings might be helpful, I may be too close to spot a good wording choice. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey (cat)

Thanks for your constructive suggestions: the article wouldn't have been anywhere close to GA without them. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Whaddya mean?

Whaddya mean "reviewing Sport(?) article by MF"? Cheeky sod! :lol:

It's a little unusual, I agree, but most of the sources are online IIRC, so hopefully it'll all check out. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Compo in Last of the Summer Wine keep ferrets in his trouser pockets? Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He did, that's right. Thanks very much for the quick review. From the size of the queue I thought the article would be waiting for weeks. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Vaticanus

Textual affinities between Cadoex Vaticanus 1209 and Vaticanus 2066 in Apocalypse (theoretical because Vaticanus 1209 lacks of Apocalypse). It appears only Angelo Mai was supporter of this vew, so it will better if we will delete this information. In the 20th century no one supported this hypothesis. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the reviews

I'll get right on those. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Urban Heat Island

Believe I fixed ref 31, and your other issues. I did place the year of Howard's work within the text of the article, which appears to be what you're asking. If not, let me know. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Inns of Chancery

Thanks for the review! :)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kersal Moor GA

Thanks very much for the review - it's much appreciated and the article's much better for your suggestions. Richerman (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mise of Lewes GA review

Hi, I just noticed your GA review of my article Mise of Lewes. Many thanks for the pass, the copyedits and the further advice! Lampman (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you comments. I enjoyed reading your article; and see you have a few more in the queue. Pyrotec (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi, Pyrotec, it's been a while since I came to you with an article to review. Would you mind reviewing this article, if at all possible? ceranthor 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor, No problem. I've got four GAN reviews and two GAR reviews in progress at the moment, but once I've finished a couple of the GANs (possibly tonight) I'll make a start of your's. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your concerns and corrected them accordingly. ceranthor 15:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

St Bees

Ref yr comments 2006 on St Bees edits, thank you for your welcome. I have been off WP for some years, but now have completed comprehensive tidy up of all St Bees associated articles, some of which were getting very untidy. Some work pending on three new articles associated with St Bees, and also tidy up of St Bega.

I am joint administrator/editor of the St Bees web site, and the originator of the text which has largely been re-used on WP. There is therefore no problem with the copyright, as free use is granted. The summary of history that I wrote for the website was neat enough for WP so I re-used it.Dougsim (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

`

2001 Avjet Aspen crash

Hi Pyrotec, I only now noticed your review, as it somehow slipped through my watchlist. The article is based on two main sources, ASN and NTSB, and I have now added more inline links to them. Would you mind re-opening the review and looking at it again? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have relisted it on GAN. I was on the road for the last couple of weeks and somehow missed the GAR. Thanks for your help. Crum375 (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick turnaround and the renewed GA! And thanks for your effort in general to keep our standards high. Crum375 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)