User talk:Pyrotec/Archive10Q1

Refs on River Parrett

Thanks for helping with the refs on River Parrett but there were several refs to the Farr book which got lost/broken & rescued by a bot when you added the Harvnb format - I've tried to fix these but I'm not very familiar with that format so could you check I've got it right.— Rod ^talk 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What was "fake"?— Rod ^talk 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of what is claimed to be on page 118 of Farr, is not on that page. Some of it does however appear in the chapter in which that page occurs. Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting these - I should have asked before do you want it to be a co-nom?— Rod ^talk 10:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Yes, I'm more than happy to help you get this article up to and through FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added you as a co-nom but can I query "as to farm" in your last edit re White House Inn - I don't understand what it means.— Rod ^talk 09:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Woops, I did not write what I intended to say. Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for ce. Do you have any comment on the units issues (metric v imperial) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive1?— Rod ^talk 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Refs check has now been done - I'm working on them & ref 28 (Williams chap2) was broken - I've tried to fix the Harvnb ref but it is not in the bibliography - did you add that one? or have any page numbers for any of the other queries?— Rod ^talk 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. That was one of mine - did not see it. Now fixed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - do you have the Hadfield, Robinson, Waite, Nicholson or Cumberledge books to find page nos?— Rod ^talk 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any of these, but I might be able to find alternative references given a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I've asked at WP UK Waterways & WP Somerset, otherwise I need to get back to the library at the weekend (snow allowing).— Rod ^talk 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for further additions but a couple of questions about "early 18th century the Steart Peninsula was longer than at present, with its northern end somewhat north of the Huntspill River" - could we loose the 2 x "north" & how can it be north of the Huntspill which wasn't built till the 20th c?— Rod ^talk 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still work in process. But keep up the good work - its not to easy to find my own mistakes. Pyrotec (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking good but I do worry that some of the reclamation stuff may be straying into Somerset Levels rather than the river itself.— Rod ^talk 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned, just trying to preempt the FAC reviewers - once finished chunk of it could be copied to the Levels article which needs more detail (& citations).— Rod ^talk 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ft Glanville GA review

Thank you Pyrotec for the thoughtful review. Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting article. You have obviously spent much effort on writing it and in taking the associated photographs. Pyrotec (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Pyrotec/Archive10Q1! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Trade winds article

The zone of upward motion/low pressure within the ITCZ/monsoon trough is the upward portion of the Hadley cell. The downward portion of the Hadley cell is composed of the subtropical ridges in both hemispheres around 30 latitude which are caused by the sinking/subsidence. The Hadley Cell explains the presence of the ITCZ and subtropical ridges. A similar circulation occurs near 60N with a belt of low pressure which drives the westerlies which then helps form a surface high near both poles forming polar easterlies, which are not as regular as the trade winds. Even if the ITCZ is rain free (which is it on occasion), the downward motion section of the Hadley cell would dry out the air mass at 30 latitude in both hemispheres as it warms up since the absolute moisture amount within the air mass remains constant. This lowers the relative humidity of the air mass (dries it out) as warmer air can hold more moisture. When the dry air from the subtropical ridge manages to reach the surface (which is more likely to occur over land due to stronger vertical motions over land), it is known as superior air. Even if superior air mixed down to the surface over tropical oceans, the warmth/moisture at the ocean surface would mix within the bottom 5000 feet/eighth of the atmosphere pressure-wise, which would cause that layer to moisten, and led to a temperature inversion above 5000 feet. A temperature inversion is an atmospheric layer where temperature increases with height, rather than decreases with height (which is the norm). In this case, the air above the mixed layer (the top of the trade wind inversion) is drier. Superior air masses near 30 latitude in both hemispheres contributes to the formation of deserts, particularly on the western side of continents such as Mexico/the southwest US, western South America, and Australia. Coastal mountains parallel to the shore help in desert creation when the westerlies descend the lee side of north/south mountain ranges. Europe is different in this regard because it does not have a cold water current offshore nor a coastal mountain range. One has to get east of the Urals to get into desert territory in western Asia/far eastern Europe. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

River Trym

Thanks for the review and the pass. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

CO poisoning

Hi there, thanks for doing the GA review on Carbon monoxide poisoning, and the pass :) Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 21:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: GBA

Thanks for reviewing Galveston Bay Area.

Question (if I'm not pestering you):

Regarding the referencing for explicitly specifying the city of La Marque as qualifying to be included, I am having difficulty finding a high-quality source that explicitly includes the city. Obviously looking on a map one can see it is not far from the bay. The issue that came up in writing the article in the first place was that, since there is no government source that explicitly defines the region, how do we decide in a neutral way which municipalities to include? What I have there is an attempt to provide a definition based on neutral geography and a merging of definitions from authoritative sources.

In your opinion is the section describing the boundaries of the region put forth in a neutral way? And do you feel that, in order to discuss La Marque in the article (not the most important community but some things are mentioned), I need to explicitly provide a justification to include it as "Bay Area". Or is it sufficient that shortly afterward I talk about the Texas City/La Marque area and provide a reference to the Texas City/La Marque Chamber of Commerce?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just saw you gave me GA which presumably means you think what I have is ok. :-) Anyway, if you have any comments on this please feel free to share but otherwise I won't bother further. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I passed it; but I will answer the question above, but probably tomorrow, passing articles involves several sequential actions and I'm almost finished doing them. Pyrotec (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Query: handling abuse of GA process?

Not a big deal but I found a newby editor, User:TheAustinMan, who nominated an article for GA which he had not worked on and which clearly wasn't ready for GA. It was failed of course. Now I see he/she has nominated another article which he/she hasn't worked on and again isn't quite ready. Obviously such situations don't help the GA backlog. Is there something in particular that should be done about such cases (i.e. other than just evaluating the articles)?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fire

I'm trying to get some people together to work on the Fire article - you interested? Any thought on some ideas here? MrBell ^(talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for the help. As for ideas - not yet, no, just some thoughts that I've started with on the talk page. I'll start with google searches for some papers and go from there, but I might have to get a book about it for ref purposes. I'm curious why it's not at least a GA. MrBell ^(talk) 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 04:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice on River Mole article

Hi Pyrotec, I've been following your contributions to the River Parrett article for the past year or so and have really enjoyed seeing it grow during this time. I'm sorry that it didn't pass at FAC, I'm sure it will do so soon. I gather that you've decided to take a break from editing the Parrett for a few weeks and was hoping that this would be a good time to ask for some help/advice on the River Mole article. I've been editing the article on-and-off for the past three years or so (initially as a non-registered user, but more recently under my Mertbiol identity). Unfortunately I'm pretty much the only active editor on the Mole and am therefore responsible for the vast majority of the material on the page. I haven't really had much opportunity to bounce ideas for developing the Mole off other people. I was wondering whether you would be able to have a quick look at the page and to give me some advice on how to improve the article further. (In particular I'd be interested to know how far away it is from GA status.) I'd be grateful if you could leave any comments at Talk:River Mole. I've also asked Rod for his/her input too. Thanks very much in advance. Mertbiol (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 02:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Transport in Scotland and templates

In regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Icelandair&diff=342784330&oldid=341880594

I don't think every single airline that flies to Scotland should get this template (or for that matter be within the scope of that project). I think the template only belongs in articles about airlines with head offices in Scotland and/or airlines that are documented by reliable sources to have extensive transport networks within Scotland.

Icelandair only flies to Glasgow. It is among many airlines that do. It's not particularly relevant to the overall transportation in Scotland. Now, Loganair definately would be "Transportation in Scotland" material. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in WP:Transport in Scotland. I hope to see you participating in helping to improve articles in the future. As a matter of fact, Loganair, British Caledonian and several other airlines are already listed as being in the scope of the project. I'm not sure why you have taken objection to this one. Icelandair has long hand a connection with Glasgow, at least 25 years to my knowledge; and there are only (to my knowledge) only two ways of flying directly between the UK and Iceland: one from London and the other from Glasgow. Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Loganair is within the scope as it has an extensive network within Scotland and has its head office there. While British Caledonian's head office was in Crawley, England, AFAIK it had a large network out of Scotland too

Do you have reliable sources stating that Icelandair "Icelandair has long hand a connection with Glasgow" that would be documented in a reliable source? And is it a special kind of connection that another foreign airline wouldn't have? What kind of connection would it be? I haven't seen any sources in the Icelandair article that paint an extensive and deep relationship between the airline and Scotland, not one that would give it any more of a relationship than any other territory/country that it flies into.

From what it looks like to me, Icelandair is one of many international airlines flying from Scotland. It doesn't fly within Scotland. It seems to have as much of a connection to Glasgow, as say, EgyptAir to Tokyo or Air France to Miami. It would make more sense to limit the airlines to those that have extensive networks within Scotland or at least those that hub out of Scottish airports (with the rise of foreign carriers flying into the UK, i.e. Ryanair, it does seem kind of odd, though).

"and there are only (to my knowledge) only two ways of flying directly between the UK and Iceland: one from London and the other from Glasgow." in many countries the only way of flying from one country to X country is through one or two cities -- Many centralized countries like France and Japan have few large points where international carriers fly out

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging - Is this the passage you are referring to: "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." ?

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• First off, I am not pretending to be a member of the WikiProject. I am a user setting common sense boundaries regarding WikiProjects, and I feel justified in doing so. I would ask or understand in a borderline case, but I do not consider this a borderline case.
• Second, please understand that the page you pointed me to is not a hard-and-fast policy, but a guideline that can be treated to an occasional exception and common sense. I feel that in this case that if the WikiProject (and I would have to be certain that it is the entire membership body and not simply one or two people) is indeed trying to make Icelandair (or any other international airline that happens to be flying into Scotland) a part of the project is going far outside any reasonable scope that can be determined from the WikiProject name. I would be happy contact the WikiProject Council and state that it would be unreasonable for the WikiProject to declare X article as its scope, and ask for assistance and guidance from the council.
• "I know about reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, given that caveat, the Icelandair says that the link with Scotland goes back to 1945, which is considerably longer than the 25 unreferenced claim that I made. I lived on the outskirts of Glasgow between 1979 and 1991, walking distance from Glasgow International Airport, so I've flown several times in the early 1980s (and since) between Glasgow and Keflavík International airport - none of this constitutes a reliable source but I do have the stamps in my passport, which is a legal document"
  • Firstly the 1945 claim is unreferenced anyway. Secondly it's a good idea to do research beforehand before claiming that X has a substantial connection to Y (sources will reveal it if that is the case)
  • One can fly from Houston to Moscow to Singapore and get stamps from both countries - that doesn't mean that Singapore Airlines (which flies to both cities from Houston) is suddenly significant in the eyes of Houston
  • Even if those claims about "flying to XX since YY" were reffed, it still doesn't prove a significant connection any more than it would to any other international airline flying into X city. I could understand if, say, AirTran Airways was put in the Atlanta project since its main hub is in Atlanta (even though its actual head office is in Orlando) - Having the main hub in Scotland or being partly owned by the Scottish government or having an extensive history in serving multiple points of a country and having this documented as a significant connection would be good evidence.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I cannot verify your personal experiences - In general content that is added needs to be verified, and if one wants to claim one subject as being relevant to another, one needs to get sources. In the case of trying to add an Icelandic airline (not owned by any company or individual in Scotland, and serving one destination in the city) to a project about Transportation in Scotland, sources would be needed to prove your case.
• One time I tried to add Donald Duck to several Scandinavian projects because Donald Duck is very popular and well known in those countries (there is a referenced section that discusses it: Donald_Duck#Scandinavia) - Another editor removed them and stated that I should only add those tags if, say, the part about Donald Duck in Scandinavia becomes its own article
• "WP:verify does not appear to be a requirement for talkpages" - To argue whether one subject is relevant to another, or to make arguments on talk pages, it often does help to have reliable sources
• If you want to make Icelandair a good article, one could simply look up the history of the airline and build sources, or you could also join the Iceland WikiProject if you want to.
• In regards to EgyptAir to Tokyo and Air France to Miami, I am trying to say that it would be unreasonable to classify EgyptAir in the Japan project just because it flew to Tokyo for X number of years, or to classify Air France as part of the Florida project because it flew to Miami for X number of years.
• In regards to good articles, you are welcome to contribute content to articles to beef them up to GA status. :) - You could research the history of Icelandair. - I would personally like to see if there is anything written about Icelandair's head office (I wrote Scandinavian Airlines head office about another one)
• WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tooth (human) GAR

Hi, I came across your reassessment start, dated 1 February, but see it has not been concluded, need any help? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

River Avon, Warwickshire

Hi Pyrotec. I am a bit unsure what to do, so thought I would drop you a note. The River Avon article was marked as RefImprove, and had a "weasel words" and "citation needed" tag within the text, so I set about sorting it all out, and expanded it quite a bit. However, I got a fairly terse note from peterkingiron, suggesting that my contribution was bordering on WP:OR, because it refuted a later work (written by him). I thought it supported what was written rather well. However he has reverted the text in that area, effectively recreating the weasel words, but obviously without the weasel words tag. (see discussion on River Avon and my talk pages). Should I re-instate the weasel words tag? He seems a bit adamant that Hadfield contradicts his own published research, despite the fact that I cannot see that it does. Any thoughts would be gratefully received. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Midsomer Norton

Thanks for your review. I believe some of the issues raised earlier have been addressed. It would be great if you could tick any you agree have been dealt with so we can clearly see what else still needs doing.— Rod ^talk 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Thanks for the GA review of 1996 Manchester bombing. My experiences to date with Irish Republican articles have not been altogether encouraging, and I several times had to walk away from this one, so I don't think PR or FAC is on the cards, at least not from me anyway. I think it at least does the subject justice now though. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett

Thanks for all your help with River Parrett which has really improved the article. You will have seen it failed FAC, but Ruhrfisch has offered to continue the review which I think would be helpful & maybe we can try again at FAC later.— Rod ^talk 09:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now a couple of weeks since River Parrett was not promoted so I've put a note on User talk:Ruhrfisch asking whether it would be best to start another PR. Any thoughts welcome.— Rod ^talk 10:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch has now placed more comments at Talk:River Parrett#Review. I've dealt with some of them but if you had any time to take a look that would be great - specifically can you help with Ton, Tonne, Short ton, Long ton, & Tonnage?— Rod ^talk 10:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now done all the page number issues except Ekwall - do you think it would be OK to remove that sentence?— Rod ^talk 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now found the Ekwall ref. Do you think it needs another PR or go staright for FAC? if so do you want to be a co-nom again?— Rod ^talk 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Great; thanks for making the effect to track a copy down. Could you hold off for a week, I'd like to spend a bit of time looking at it first; and I'll make some recommendations then. Regardless of what happens, I'm happy to go down as a co-nom again. (I need to get two GANs finished (one you know about already). Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK.— Rod ^talk 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you are doing further ce and edits to this. I noticed there are a couple of broken links according to Checklinks. One has only been broken for a day or two (Ref 21 welsh language) but the other (ref 127 Environment Agency) for longer and I can't find any alternatives - what do you reckon?— Rod ^talk 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working my way through the article. I had intended to start at the beginning of the week, but its now past the half way mark. If I can fix them, or replace them, I will do so. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Article history note

Hi Pyrotec, we almost got into an edit conflict at Talk:John Barbirolli and I noticed that you added an oldid for the PR from Feb. 19, but the template description of Article history advises using one from the day {{Peer review}} is replaced, which was Feb. 25. Regards Hekerui (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the time stamp works just as well - I just typed the date in because I had just copied something else and didn't want to lose it. Best Hekerui (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Oak

Thanks for your interest in the Irish Oak. Little unhappy with where to locate Capt Moran's death. There are a few things we cannot say for fear of OR. She did warn the convoy. There were three cats (who drowned with her). Last year at the Belfast commemoration, John Clarke was the only veteran and much was made of him, wish I had a camera, Hope he can make it this May [1] - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have a moment, I would value your opinion of: Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II, which I see as the umbrella article. I would rather have had it reviewed first. Later consider the various events, companies and ships, starting with the 'exemplar' MV Kerlogue. - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Its likely to be tomorrow (Wednedsay). Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day! - how appropriate. Which reminds me of the encounter the Irish Willow had with U-653 on 16 March 1942. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the Irish Oak. A thought on the injury sequence. Chief Engineer R. Marsh, had a heart attack and was hospitalised in New Orleans. They sailed to St John without him. The company sent another engineer, O’Keefe on the Irish Pine to join the Irish Oak. Meanwhile, at the prompting of a repair yard, the Greek engineer was recruited. O'Keefe and the Greek were on board at the same time.

The article could give the impression the the Greek replaced O'Keefe.

What we cannot say, for fear of OR, is that the blow-back was deliberate sabotage by the Greek, who resented O'Keefe being placed senior to him. My source is John Clarke, who also said that the SC53 failure was also sabotage as the Greek feared being torpedoed. Given that the Canadians jailed him there must be records there. Books, such as 'the Long Watch' are rather circumspect on this issue - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

John Barbirolli

Warm thanks for promoting the article and for your kind words about it. At your service for GA, peer review or FA etc if I can be of any use. - Tim riley (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Mjroots has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

• Having seen your comments at the talk page of the SS Irish Oak article, I realise I owe you an apology for not thanking you for your review of the Hawkhurst Branch Line article. I do intend to move into GARs myself once I get a bit more experience. I've currently got two articles being reviewed. My comment was meant to be a gentle reminder that apparently no work was being done on the review despite the initial comment of "starting tomorrow". Please accept my apology and thanks for reviewing and passing the Hawkhurst Branch Line article. Once these two GANs are over, I'll perhaps tackle my first review. I'll certainly try to keep from being labelled a "bad admin" though. I'm always prepared to discuss any administrative action I have taken, and am open to persuasion that an action may have been wrong. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the cookie. I should not have made comments about your administrative action(s): I have no direct or indirect experience of them. Pyrotec (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the above. Being an admin isn't all that special really. You get a few extra buttons and a large hammer to hit vandals with, that's all. Let's put this to bed now and return to improving Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK by me. PS: Doing GAN reviews is not much different, no extra buttons but there is a large hammer (but its not advisable to use it too often). PSS: your Irish Oak article will pass once I'm happy with it.Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

great to see such friendship, and if either of you visit Dun Laoghaire, do visit the musuem. ClemMcGann (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

David Carradine

Thank you for your review of the David Carradine article. I appreciate you passing it to GA status.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews

For a first review, would it be better to review an article by someone who creates a lot of GAs, or someone who is unknown to me as an editor? Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need first to consider what you "personally" want to get out of doing the review, as apposed to contributing to the greater good of wikipedia. If you go first for a "native" English speaker who does lots of articles at GA and/or FA level, the article is likely to be an unchallengeable "pass" and the review is "easy": but the nominator is likely to have more experience of the process than you. That is one way of building up experience & confidence at "low risk". You could also try a "non-native English speaker" who does lots of articles: those articles are also likely to pass on technical matters but may require tweaks to grammar, etc; and it is up to you (as reviewer) whether you fix them yourself or itemise the problems for the nominator to fix (or a combination of the two). That is another way of building up experience & confidence at "low risk".

As a new reviewer (I've just finished 220 reviews) the "hardest" reviews were the marginal GA nominees: and the decision was pass, fail or put on hold - and how to justify the decision (a really good or a really bad article is easy). If you want to "jump in at the deep end" try those. That could mean doing a second review (at GAN, not GAR) of an article that failed first time round: some of them might be controversial but many are not, e.g. my second review of one of your nominations was not at all controversial. There are also "second opinions" I tend not to do many second opinions - of the few that I tried with an "active reviewer" the original reviewer appeared to be "incapable" of making a decision and wanted someone else to take the "load from their shoulders".

Another consideration is, do I choose something that I know about or do I choose something that might be fun to learn about - if I have no interest in the topic I don't review it (e.g. sports, pop music, etc)?

I suggest that you "choose" an article, by what ever decision you like, and try to review it without signing up to do the review. Then, you will know whether you want to review it or not; and if you do "sign up". At the end of the process a decision has to be made.

Reviewing is probably like being an admin - little thanks, you get jumped on sometimes when it goes wrong, but its fun (I would not be doing them otherwise); and it contributes to the great good of Wikipedia.

Do you want some suggested nominators?

Have fun. Pyrotec (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 46 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Pyrotec, Thanks for your time and effort reviewing the Israeli cuisine article for promotion to GA status. I appreciate it! -- Chefallen (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It was a good article: nicely referenced and illustrated. I learnt quite a bit from reviewing it. Pyrotec (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad to hear that. Thanks again, Chefallen (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Northern Line

Thanks for the review and I would like to improve the article some more. However, can I ask for some guidance regarding references... I'm not sure if I should repeat references that are available in other articles - for example the article talks about the Thameslink programme without any references as it is a quick summary of a much larger article, for which a link is provided. Should I repeat some references in this article or is it elsewhere you think references are lacking?

With thanks Ajcoxuk (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)