User talk:Millelacs/Archive 2
1689 Boston revolt
[edit]Please leave anything related to this topic below here, in this section.
- Congrats on the promotion of 1689 Boston revolt to FA status. Well done. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being overly harsh on this article, but having read it again I still don't think it's anywhere near GA quality. Some issues that I believe need to be addressed (just to pick the easy topics):
- The history section on how Venice came to control/conquer these islands is confusing. And I say that after spending an hour & a piece of paper trying to trace who controlled which island between 1204 & 1797. I'll readily admit that organizing this material in a simple & understandable manner is not an easy task -- it deals with 7 or more islands whose common bond was often the fact Venice controlled them at some point between 1204 & 1797 -- but I believe it needs to be done better than this to be considered for a GA. (And once its done right, that work will help it to FA status.)
- Since I mentioned the history of these islands, there is nothing about Paxos -- when Venice conquered it, whom did they take it from, when did the Byzantines have it taken from them. I suspect something got lost between revisions.
- Other items from the "History" section: Frankokratia is mentioned, but never explained. (I assume it is a transliteration of the Greek label for a period in the 13th & 14th centuries.) Another is that the island Anticythera appears without any prior notice, nor even a link. Was that considered part & parcel with Cythera at the time, so it doesn't need its own discussion? (If so, then somewhere this relationship needs to be stated.)
- The "Demographics" section has some problems. One is that it states "The population gradually increased" -- is this the total population, or some subset of it? (I wasn't clear.) And while I like the table, information is clearly missing from it: when a square is blank, should one assume that no information exists, or that the island was uninhabited? This is no nitpicking: elsewhere in the section, it does state that some of the islands were uninhabited when the Venetians took ownership.
- More to my original criticism is that buried deep in the article, in the form of a link to another article, is what I believe IMHO should be the driving thesis of this article: how these possessions or colonies fit into the "Venetian maritime trade route". IIRC, the rationale of the Venetian Stato da Mar was to provide ports & other points of support for its trading fleet. Its changing ownership of these islands over five centuries should be presented in against this need. Otherwise, the article is nothing more than an accumulation of datapoints, some more interesting than others.
- Lastly, this article could stand receiving a good copy-editing. I corrected a few minor items of infelicitous use of prepositions, & changed some sentences from the passive to the active voice, but much remains to be done. This roughness reinforces my impression that the article is carelessly written, & even if it is promoted, I don't think it will survive long as a GA.
Feel free to forward my comments, if you think they are appropriate. Or ask me for explanations; I admit sometimes I don't explain myself clearly. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the delay in response, it being Thanksgiving weekend, although I'm glad to know you've read my comments. :) And despite the tone of my comments, I'm not concerned that each one be responded to how I want it; I feel Peer Review's role should be simply to provide feedback from intelligent & adequately educated readers. The submitter is well within her/his rights to consider the reviewer's comments as wrong, to ignore them, or respond to them in her/his own way. But the important thing is for the submitter to carefully think about how she/he responds to criticism, & be mindful of both her/his own intents in writing & how the audience responds, otherwise that person is likely not to improve as an author. -- llywrch (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello there! I think I won't be able to fix all these issues by that time. I need help with many of them. For example, I can't understand what to do with images. Can you help? And what about grammar? This is the best I can do, as I am not a native speaker. And I can't find anything on when exactly Paxi was incorporated! Only that it happened in late 14th century. What do you think on the Lead now? I will try to change a bit the History of the conquest. Then what else? I am confused! --Marcofran (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
[edit]
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Rana Jashraj
[edit]Rana Jashra was a king of Lohar Gadha, who killed Genghis Khan(controversial). folk deity of Lohana,Bhanushali etc. castes of India.i creat on my user page to rewrite already a page as Dada Jasraj. but i am not satisfy with the article. need your help.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Matta (chief)
[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dahn (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography
[edit]Hi, did you intend to add this thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography? It seems somewhat misplaced to me. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but I changed it so that it just gives a link to the discussion. DCItalk 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete article Rana Jasraj
[edit]Rana Jasraj is nominate for the deletion by JethwaRP.
million of people worship Jashraj. and not only Lohana but other castes like Sarswat Brahmin and Khati Brahmin and Bhanushli community also believe this story. and i give google book ref also.
and timur lung may be was killed by Jasrat Khokhar#Jasrath Khokhar, a Ghakhar or Khokhar chief, and Khokhar is a khakhar, sub-caste of Lohana. it is a confusion and i am trying to clear it , but it will take a time.
due to same name some people made mistake. but google book ref. is reliable. my english is not so good so i have problem to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavinkundaliya (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: JETHVA IS IN CASE OF PUPPETRY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jethwarp/Archive
AND Lohana#vandalismBhavinkundaliya (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Mediation
[edit]Perhaps you and the other editor involved could work with some mediators to revise the article accordingly. There are some other ideas on the deletion nomination. DCItalk 23:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thank you sir, in other article i will also ask for correcting grammer.
about me. i have many books belong ramayana and mahabharata and history of royal and warrior castes and i just want to add. i search academic source and then add.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay! Thank you again for your good work. DCItalk 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, enjoy holidays.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]Hey DCI, just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2011/Op-ed will be going out in the next 24 hours if you'd like to tweak it before publication. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Rana Jashraj
[edit]Hey!! It was nice and sensible of you to start a discussion on Talk page. I personally do not have anything against Bhavinkundalya or Dada Jasraj. All I want is that whatever is to be written on Wikipedia - should adhere to wiki policy. I feel the story has no backing of RS and TPARTY source. I have put up my first comments in talk page. But I am not in a hurry to resolve the dispute. So Enjoy your Christmas vacations and wish you a Happy New year in advance.!!! We can resolve dispute after your vacations are over. Cheers!!! Jethwarp (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
A-class requirements, etc.
[edit]Okay, so there are a few problems with the A-class requirements you set up. Issues:
- Requirement F: no reason for the B-class requirement. It's WP:BURO-style, really.
- F and the waiver contradict on GA.
- If an editor in good standing is "any editor who is not currently blocked from editing on Wikipedia", why do you have any other categories listed?
- "There is no check to see if a reviewer meets these criteria; it is assumed that they do." -- same problem. Why is this even a section then?
- All the pre-2011 reviews need to be closed. Most of the editors will have lost interest, become inactive, or will not respond to reviewers' inquiries.
- "Requirements for the position of review manager" -- first criteria is good. The second reeks of edit countitis. For example, I have written 19 FAs but would be excluded under that rule... not trying to show off, but that does seem a bit wrong. The third just seems pedantic and unnecessary. It would be trivial for any person to make one edit to the mainspace to add a space, then nominate themselves.
- Just a few thoughts, nothing against you intended here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)