User talk:Pyrotec/Archive12Q4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Pyrotec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
| The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| Thank you so much for an excellent and thorough GA review of John Le Mesurier. I hope I can work with you again in the future. I think I can also act on behalf of my co-nominator Schrocat when I award you this Barnstar! CassiantoTalk 00:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC) |
It looks like Mattbuck has withdrawn this nomination. Under the circumstances, I believe that the only thing that can be done, since the nomination can't be undone, is to fail it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Since the nominator was less than WP:CIVIL, I put the review at the bottom of my to do list. Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you review this? Perhaps reserve it for a few days time when you can get to it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Dr. Blofeld, I've been off air for a few days and I'm slowly catching up. I might be able to have a look early next week. I've got three reviews sitting there somewhat neglected since last weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918)
Hi there is a discussion at Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918), where you part in a GA review has been mentioned. Would you care to comment.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to second that call. Apparently, being a mere copy editor (I did the copy edit prior to your GAR) makes my contribution rank below that of a GA Reviewer. Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know if you caught this so another comment to bring to your attention. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, for all your comments. Yes I caught them all but I've not had time to look at the comments on the talkpage. I would hope to do so tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know if you caught this so another comment to bring to your attention. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Unofficial peer check required
Hi Pyrotec,
Bet you never expected me to be back so soon lol. London 2012 was fantastic, totally loved every minute. If ever you get a chance to volunteer at a sporting event, I highly recommend pursuing the chance, the opportunistic doors it opens is unbelievable. Anyhow, there is a reason I've popped over here, remember when you did the GA for Eurovision Song Contest 2012? Well, I've worked on two other articles recently ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 and ABU TV Song Festival 2012, going off the same standards/methods that you very kindly shown me. I'm considering GAN's for them both, but was wondering when you get a spare moment, if you could be so kind to have a glance over them first and let me know if GAN is too soon and more work could be done on them. Both the festivals were debut events and not a lot of reliable sources covered the event in detail, so what sources have been used are very limited which caused some difficulties. Thank you in advance - Wesley♦Mouse 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Wesley, welcome back & I'm glad that you enjoyed London 2012. I will have a look, but it is likely to be tomorrow at the earliest. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, much appreciated. There's no real rush, as I respect that you may be a busy editor. Wesley♦Mouse 20:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Missed the review. Replied and watchlisted now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally, when you are done with this review, could I interest you in looking at Sejmik? I think this article is pretty close to GA as well, but I am having trouble structuring it properly. I do think it is comprehensive, but it is dominated by a long history section, and a list. I think someone else needs to restructure it... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to "look at it", but can you clarify what you want done? I can review it (at GAN) and that does not prevent me from fixing minor problems during the review, but if a start doing a copyedit / restructuring than I can't then review it. Either way not a lot is going to happen before this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have not nominated it at GAN yet because I am not sure if it is ready. Do you think it is? If so, I'll nominate it - or would you rather c/e it rather then review it? I am less interested in getting a formal GA star than in improving the article. No hurry either way, and thanks for the review of the general sejm! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to "look at it", but can you clarify what you want done? I can review it (at GAN) and that does not prevent me from fixing minor problems during the review, but if a start doing a copyedit / restructuring than I can't then review it. Either way not a lot is going to happen before this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of a GA review? Let me know what you decide.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I've not been active over the last week or so, but it seems that you have a reviewer. I hope that it goes well. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Itchen Navigation
Hi Pyrotec, Thanks for the review of the Itchen Navigation. I think it is the first one where I have not had to do anything at all to the article before it passed! Bob1960evens (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well you've written/expanded quite a few articles and many are at GA-level, so I suspect you are pitching them at the required standard. Congratulations on another GA. Well done. Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec. I have recently completed the above having gone through a major restructure and a thorough peer review which is drawing to a close. If it is at all possible, I would love it if you could review it for me at GAC. It would be great to work with you again :-) -- CassiantoTalk 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Cassianto. Thanks for your invitation. I can review it, but I have four reviews (I'm the reviewer, not the nominator) underway already, so even if I sign up day, it could be November before I start doing the review. If you are happy with that, I'll take it on. Pyrotec (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh that is good news. Anytime in November would be excellent, no hurry for this whatsoever. My plan is to coincide Grimaldi's FAC (the Drury Lane theatre's Chrismas pantomime Clown in the 18th century) in time for Christmas. I haven't listed it at GAC by the way, as I had you in mind all along. Ping me a message when your ready. -- CassiantoTalk 14:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Last minute polishing complete. Now listed at GAC. Regards -- CassiantoTalk 17:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
GAC for Grimaldi
Hi Pyrotec, how's the back log going? -- CassiantoTalk 17:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Cassianto. I can signed up to review it, not a problem for me: I have two reviews "On Hold" (I'm likely to fail one due to lack of progress) and there are another two still to do. So on that basis, you would probably need to wait for about a week before anything happens. Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Great news, Many thanks. My Wiki time will be very scarce between 26 and 28 November as I am on a course, but can foresee no other problems after that. I have listed JG at FAC so by all means stake your claim; I would be happy with that. At least l'll know then that I won't have to endure the embarrassment in telling a willing good will reviewer "thanks but no thanks"
. Secondly, great GAC reviewers are a very rare breed, so I can be assured of a very thorough review with you as opposed to one who merely wants to notch up another strike on his/her user page, thus giving a half-hearted review. All the best and speak soon. -- CassiantoTalk 19:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind comments. I've now signed up to do it, but its fourth in a list of four (and I seems to be taking my wikipedia weekends off on Mondays and Tuesdays - strange that!). Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Great news, Many thanks. My Wiki time will be very scarce between 26 and 28 November as I am on a course, but can foresee no other problems after that. I have listed JG at FAC so by all means stake your claim; I would be happy with that. At least l'll know then that I won't have to endure the embarrassment in telling a willing good will reviewer "thanks but no thanks"
The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
| ||||
| ||||
Witching Culture and Enchanted Feminism
Ah, apologies, I had copy and pasted the talk page info in from A Community of Witches, which had received GA status, and forgotten to remove the GA references! Thanks for pointing that out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Grimaldi - thanks!
Hi Pyrotec, just another quick thanks for taking on Joseph Grimaldi. Your time spent on the GA review was much appreciated. All the best! -- CassiantoTalk 12:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Cassianto, Thanks for your note. My pleasure. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback notice.
Yeah, you misunderstand my concerns. I made a lengthy post at Talk:GAN about the reasons why I quick failed it, if you need more specifics check the articles GA review.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I've responded in some depth. I suspect that you might not like it. I've tried hard to avoid a personal attack. Its definitely not intended as one, I've concentration only on actions, but I'm sorry for any upset that it might cause. Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Terri Schiavo case
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've got some free time coming up this week to make those corrections. Ace-o-aces (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks you again for the considerable time you put in to get this article to GA status. It's a real beast, touching on law, medicine, religion, politics. I'll try to work on that image copyright issue you mentioned. Ace-o-aces (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
José de San Martín a GA?
Hi, Pyrotec. I wanted to make a few comments about José de San Martín if you don't mind.
- Lead: it mentions an Order of the Liberator General San Martín which is no where to be seen in the main body of the article. The lead is supposed to be as summary of the article.
- Lead: San Martín is regarded a national hero of Argentina? By whom? All the Legacy section says was tht he was acclaimed by Federals. Do these speak for the Argentine people? (see below my thoughts about the Legacy section)
- Lead:For a character like San Martín, supposedly one of the great historical figures of Spanish South America, the lead seems short and weak.
- Main text: Who was San Martín? Was he dark-haired? Blond? Tall? Fat? Joyful? Intelligent? Stupid? Rude? I couldn't find anywhere any description of the man. We could change the title of the article to "Argentina during the life time of an Martín" instead.
- Early life: no reference given at the end of the first paragraph.
- Military career in Europe: "His ship "Santa Dorotea" was captured by British forces, who kept him prisoner for some time." It was his ship or the ship he was aboard? Why was he captured by the British? They were enemies? And why and how was he released?
- Everything else: too much to be said in here.
- Later life: entirely written according to Galasso's Seamos libres y lo demás no importa nada. No other books could be found do add further proof or give a different perspective?
- Legacy: a man like San Martín can have at most two short paragraphs about him in the Legacy section? The entire section is written from the point of view of one author only: Galasso. There are no other historians? No one else? No one at all?
- Legacy: "With Mitre's book, San Martín was universally acclaimed as the Liberator of Argentina..." Acclaimed by whom? 10 out of 10 Argentines love this guy? Really? I could understand something like "San Martín is generally regarded..." but "universally"? All historians regard him like that, then? Again: only Galasso's opinion is given.
- References: Holy s&%#! The article has four books as references? Four?!!! Could we make an article about George Washington with just four books?
- References: There is no book in English. Why not? Historian John Lynch wrote San Martin: Argentine Soldier, American Hero. There are several other works in English about San Martín too.
- References: Look at the references: the entire article was written almost entirely using Galasso's Seamos libres y lo demás no importa nada (see for yourself). That's all?
Well, the article should be at most B, certainly not a GA, unless the standards are very low nowadays. You shouldn't pass the article, it has to be improved a lot until it is worth the GA label. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note that this guy is a little pissed off because of this deletion request. Cambalachero (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Pyrotec, I'm sorry if at some point my words may have led you to believe that I was criticizing you. I wasn't. What I was trying to point out was the flaws in the article. It is mostly based in a single source. I could have understood the lack of more sources if we were talking about a lesser Argentine historical figure. Someone that hasn't got the chance to be the focus of many biographies. But we are talking about San Martín. This is one of the greatest Argentine national heroes. And there are books in English about him. That's what I'm trying to say. Of course I will no go around complaining that the article looks awaful and that you made a wrong decision when you passed it. I'm not in here to be petty, but merely to make a comment from one good and useful editor to another. And don't worry about taking time to answer me, I know that real life takes much of out time and Wikipedia seems to carry away the remaining of it. P.S.: I don't have plans to nominate any of Pedro II of Brazil's subarticles. I believe they aren't good enough yet and right now I'm focused on other things. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ow, yeah... I had forgotten about that war. The Argentines claim a few islands that no one cares about even though there is not a single Argentine living in it. Nor any of those islands ever belonged to Argentina (except for, I dunno, a few months back in the 1830s?). And, according to the map above, Argentina's territory was nowhere near those islands until the 1880s. That is, more than fifth years after the British had settled there. But talking a little bit more seriously: I am Brazilian and I wrote mostly articles related to Brazil. Still, when I worked in Pedro I of Brazil and in Pedro II of Brazil the main books I used as the basis of those articles were written in English. Or else, I could write whethever I want and no one would be able to check if it's true or not. --Lecen (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Take a look at this. Juan Manuel de Rosas was a brutal 19th century dictator of Argentina. He executed thousands of people. And he was the excentric type of tyrant: all men (yes, every single man) in Argentina had to wear red (and only red) and grow a mustache. It was that ridiculous. Cambalachero removed at leat ten references that backed the general view that he was a dictator. He changed for the "cute" title of "governor" instead. Cambalachero has been doing that for a couple of years now: whitewashing Argentina history. He somehow went as far as to rewrite Juan Perón's article in way that made the Argentine dictator a "president" who was not antisemitic nor was friend to Nazi as everyone knows. This why I clash so hard with him. --Lecen (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ow, yeah... I had forgotten about that war. The Argentines claim a few islands that no one cares about even though there is not a single Argentine living in it. Nor any of those islands ever belonged to Argentina (except for, I dunno, a few months back in the 1830s?). And, according to the map above, Argentina's territory was nowhere near those islands until the 1880s. That is, more than fifth years after the British had settled there. But talking a little bit more seriously: I am Brazilian and I wrote mostly articles related to Brazil. Still, when I worked in Pedro I of Brazil and in Pedro II of Brazil the main books I used as the basis of those articles were written in English. Or else, I could write whethever I want and no one would be able to check if it's true or not. --Lecen (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Fix it
At Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#A_masterclass you said I put in place tags to quick fail it. This is a serious claim and you are wrong, please address it. You should have checked the article and realized that the tag was originally added by Paperluigi and it was removed by Tomcat7 just 2 days before I started my review. You imply I crafted the tags to quick-fail it and that is completely wrong. Aside from all the reasons I gave, the one-source tag was removed without the concern being addressed and Tomcat7 is being highly disruptive in pursuit of getting the article to GA status. Please read my post and correct your statements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have replied at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#A_masterclass based on what is in the /GA1, in your own words, and the state of the article two days before the review started. As I have stated elsewhere, if your reasons had been to justify "failing" the article they would have been persuasive. However, they were clearly not used to justify failing the article, since you did not "fail" it, you "quick failed" it part way thought the review, after you'd put the review on Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Replies
Hi Pyrotec. In case you haven't watchlisted my talk I gave a relatively long reply to your points and put forward a few more of my own. AIRcorn (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas |
| May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill,
May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy, May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow, A Very Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2013 to you and your family. |
- Thanks very much, and a belated Happy Christmas to you as well. Pyrotec (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Allahabad GA
Hello,first of all thanks for reviewing this article.I saw issue you've raised here.Article gone through copy editing,even though i'll try to fixx all issues present in history section.In culture section various authors and poets name has been mentioned their relation with the city is that all of them were born in Allahabad.I've changed ref. no. 44 as it really seems advertising material.Thank you and best regards.(reply on my page if possible as my watchlist is overflowing)--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 06:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
| ||||
| ||||
