User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ealdgyth. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks...
...for your comment on The Sword of Shannara's FAC. They were greatly appreciated. Cheers! the_ed17 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Stigand
Should second Reference heading be Bibliography? Thinking of images, Stigand appears with a beard in Edward's death scene on the Bayeux.Ning ning (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Bibliography in Wikipedia land usually applies strictly to the written works by that subject. So Bibliography woudl be used in Anselm of Canterbury for the listing of his own works, but since Stigand doesn't have any extant works, we use something else. Very confusing to me at first! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ealdgyth. At the FLC page linked above, you queried eil.com and said all others are reliable. What is your take on youtube hosted videos where the uploader is Universal Music Group? I thought all youtube content was not reliable at any time. Also, I don't think http://www.chartstats.com/ is as reliable as http://www.everyhit.co.uk/ (which is linked to from the BBC Radio 1's website or http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles_archive.php. What are your thoughts on this please? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I've given up worrying too much about the charts, I can't figure out which ones are which, and it's not exactly highly contentious information. FAC's had me being picky for six months now, FLC is just starting, I am tryingt to not come down like a load of brick right off the bat. Everyhit.com is borderline (I'd never seen that BBC link before when I've queried everyhit). On YouTube. If they are uploaded by Universal, then they should be okay, as long as they are attributed to correctly. I'm assuming that Universal is the record company behind Wolfmother, of course. It'd be like linking from the Obama campaign article to a video that Obama's campaign uploaded. It's a priimary source, but not a copyright violation, especially as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Please can you leave your comments on the new Peer Review for Harry Potter, located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter/archive3.
The Helpful One (Review) 08:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Because I've got some problems on a FAC at the moment, I missed William's promotion a couple of days back - I had been looking out for it. So congratulations. I'm pleased to have helped in a small way. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, suddenly after we all get used to my sourcing stuff, images are turning into a bear. Luckily, I do medieval, so it's a LOT easier to justify PD for my images! I'm keeping an eye on Jamie's trip, and when I find time hope to review. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. "If it's not used as a source, you need to list it in the external links, etc. Also be double sure you're not linking to copyright violations." - I wonder, if you have time could you explain how to do this to me? I'm not sure of what style is required. By the way I had to sort-of revert some of your edits, the canal doesn't flow northwest as that would be uphill :) I hope you don't mind. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't edit the article. And if you list it in the external links, just a titled link is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah sorry, someone with a similar name did that. So I just remove those references, and add the images into the external links section? What kind of names/description are acceptable for FAC? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Probably something like "Pictures at (name of website)" would work fine. And yeah, just take the references out. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah sorry, someone with a similar name did that. So I just remove those references, and add the images into the external links section? What kind of names/description are acceptable for FAC? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your comments that you left above. --SRX 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
FAC comments
I've replied to the comments you left, here. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Playing in the sandbox
Ealdgyth, I have a sandbox at User:Montanabw/Sandbox and if you feel like playing, come on over. I'm using it to rough out a general article on riding. I want it to supplement the Equestrianism article, (not replace it) not be overly how-to, incorporate a history of equestrianism, outline some very general principles common to all riding, and then spin off links to all the zillions of riding style and detail articles. In some ways, this maybe should be what the equestrianism article should have done (that article was originally titled "horseback riding") but whatever the sandbox article gets named if it ever goes live, it will be very different in content from the current equestrianism article, which is more an overview of the style stuff. Anyway, drop in and either comment or add something, or organize something, or whatever! I'm sort of stuck and don't quite know where to go with it. I've asked Dana to look at it too. Montanabw(talk) 08:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Meshuggah FAC
Good day! I dont want to be annoying, but can you have a look on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah please? Thanks.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The nomination was cancelled. I dont dig it. I was about to delete the the About.com sources. The nomination had no opposes and it was suddenly archived by a bot. I just do not understand it. It was almost all fixed and done.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- The bot just follows behind Sandy or Raul and does the clerical work. It's not the bot that closes things, it's Sandy/Raul. Looking at the archive, it hadn't recieved any supports and had been up over a week. When you think you have the sourcing issues sorted out, let me know. I'm still not totally convinced on either rockdetector or fuzz, although it's not a total "unreliable". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good day. I just did some further work on the article. I reduced the usage of the official biography etc. I came up with the Rockdetector on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rockdetector with some new sources. I removed all that About.com /Sputnikmusic stuff as well. I also made some small chages in the text. Could you have a look on it and see if it needs some copy-editing please? Thank you!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- LOL.. I'm the LAST person to ask if it needs Copyediting... I'm horrible at it and all my FACs have to have two or three folks go over them to remove my wordiness... Suggest Malleus or someone else he suggests. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Allright, but what about the sourcing issues? Is it getting ok?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I want to nominate the article again, but I need you to look at some things before I do that. Can you please have a look at this. It is the Rockdetector issue. I added also some more sources with feedback to Rockdetector and Garry Sharpe-Young. And the Fuzz.com - the information on that page is added by the band (Fuzz.com "about us") - is that allright if it is used as a primary source (as per WP:PSTS)? This two things are the last issues. Will you help me with them please?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I will try to find time tonight. I make no promises. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't generally comment on issues at the RS board, because I like to keep that as a 'neutral' third-party check for RS sources. As far as Fuzz.com, I'm still not seeing anything in that that says only the band can edit the page. It's implied, but nothing explicit. That page is a press release and is full of flowery press release language. If indeed the band is the only person who can edit their page, then yes, it would be Primary Source and would be allowable for non-contentious information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time.. So do you think that it is acceptable to keep this source at this stage in the article for the FA candidature? Is it possible to reach a positive conclusion about this source or do I have to delete it?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- For Fuzz, I think that would depend on what investigation turns up on who can edit the page, and what it being sourced to it if only the band can edit it. If others can edit it, I'd say it falls outside the RS guidelines, as it would resemble a wiki too much. Rockdetector I would have to say is probably unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you said about the Fuzz.com, but all information we have is the Fuzz.com's own "About us" and the two articles on Fuzz (music company). But I absoulutely do not understand why do you think that Rockdetector is not reliable. We have third party sources saying that Rockdetector is a good source:
Blabbermouth "Rockdetector is recognised as the primary and most detailed host of factual data on all things rock and metal", "Rockdetector's staggering array of facts, recordings, line-ups, photos, logos, track lists, archive global gig guide, international chart positions, labels and catalogue numbers the site over 26,000 wholly unique biographies.(..) Many of these, such as METALLICA, NIGHTWISH, JUDAS PRIEST, OZZY OSBOURNE, CRADLE OF FILTH, W.A.S.P. and BLACK SABBATH, are recognized as the most authoritive on the net.", "Besides keeping Rockdetector up to date, Garry has found time to publish 14 rock books, including the acclaimed, ultra-detailed "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" BLACK SABBATH history, with more to come." Blabbermouth in 2006. "Rockdetector is owned by Garry Sharpe-Young, known previously for designing album covers for the likes of SKYCLAD, GRIM REAPER, SAVAGE and QUEENSRŸCHE, journalism for U.K., U.S. and German magazines and numerous A&R credits across more than 30 albums." "Rockdetector went online in December 2000. It has already spawned nine accompanying books. Next up is "Classic British Rock" (info) and "Classic US Rock" (info), the first to see full international distribution across USA and Asia through Helter Skelter Publishing in London." Blabbermouth in 2005. And some others.
- What else is needed to prove the reliability of a source? I do not understand why is this not enough.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you said about the Fuzz.com, but all information we have is the Fuzz.com's own "About us" and the two articles on Fuzz (music company). But I absoulutely do not understand why do you think that Rockdetector is not reliable. We have third party sources saying that Rockdetector is a good source:
- They are all from ONE source, which is itself a pretty borderline source. Blabbermouth's reliability rests on the fact that a record label recognized it, and it's hosted by that same record label. Perhaps something similar can be found for Rockdetector? If we do not know how a site gathers and interprets the information it is putting out (i.e. editorial standards) we can not trust the source to accurately report information. I'm sorry if you think I'm being a pain or unreasonable. You are welcome to go ahead and nominate again, put forth the arguments above about the two sources, and let other editors decide for themselves if those arguments make the sites reliable in their minds. I am not the sole gatekeeper of what is reliable and what isn't, and articles can get promotoed while I still have concerns. There is no "Ealdgyth Seal of Approval", although lately I've begun to think that everyone thinks there is. Sourcing isn't black and white. A site that might be perfectly acceptable for a piece of uncontentious information would not be reliable for something alleging criminal acts or other contentious information. Does that make sense? I get the feeling that you want me to blanket declare these sites "always reliable" which, frankly, I am very unwilling to do, as to do that I feel they must meet the standard that they can be sourcing very contentious BLP material. You've said that in this case, no the information isn't that contentious, so it probably will be okay sourced to these sites in THIS situation. And now, you'll have to excuse me but I'm really very busy in RL. You may link to this discussion when you renom, as it'll spare ME having to retype all of this. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am really sorry that was annoying you. The only thing I want to say is that I asked you so urgently because the FA nomination was cancelled because SandyGeorgia "encouraged the nominators to sort the sourcing issues to better prepare for FAC." The nomination was more than a week about A:"this source is not allright" Response B:"I dont know what to do about it". No help/comments/soultion from anybody else. And now I am about to nominate it with 2 unclear sources again.. But nevermind, thanks for your answers and have a nice day!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for why other reviewers didn't comment, I don't honestly have a clue. I comment on sourcing for all articles at FAC or FLC, and very rarely have time to do a full review of an article. I do know that some folks have felt that FAC is being used as peer review type of service (whether that feeling is valid, I have no clue, and no opinion), and they may have curtailed their reviewing accordingly. Also, it's still summer break in the US so people are scurrying to complete their vacations, get kids in school, etc. User:Burningclean also commented on the article and you might enlist his help with checking it over before renomming. And I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was seriously annoyed or anything, but I am busy, and tired, and was trying to explain WHY I won't say that Rockdetector is a reliable site. Anytime I say "such-and-such" a site is reliable, it's taken as gospel that the WHOLE site is reliable for EVERYTHING on the site. In this case, I am not comfortable saying that, so lest I get told that "Ealdgyth said Rockdetector was reliable for everything", I'm very cautious about saying a site is reliable. In this case, yes, the information is probably as sourced reasonably reliably, but it might not be for every case possible. Do you see the distinction? I did link this discussion over on Sandy's page so she can see it and take it into account with a new FAC nom. I would strongly suggest someone NOT involved with music/band articles do a read-over of the article, just to catch any jargon, etc. Look at some of the more prolific FAC reviewers to see who might be available for such (Don't ask Tony1, he doesn't do that sort of thing). Malleus, BuddingJournalist, Coeil (who I just mispelled I bet), Karanacs, and some others are not involved with bands and might be willing to look it over to make sure it makes sense to a non-metalhead. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Allright. It sems clear to me now. Thanks for the explanation, for posting the names and for your time...-- LYKANTROP ✉ 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Quick Source check?
Hey, Ealdgyth. I was wondering if you could take a look at the sources for Raptor Red when you've got the chance. If you have any issues, just post them on the talk page of the article in question. Gratefully yours, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I added a few more refs but they are Entertainment Weekly, Natural History journals so nothing I would find controversial, so you can take it off the watchlist. As for Stigand, I was just surprised you actually have time to edit in between all that FAC junk (it's good, after all we wouldn't want you one day burning out in a fiery cataclysm of reliable sources :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I actually not only find time to edit, but have picked up a part time online job with a game company (who I can't name) and am still chugging along on the photography... The joys of working from home! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Got a question
You posted on WT:FAC that you won't review road articles because of comprehensiveness. May I ask what your view is of "comprehensive"?Mitch32(UP) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Basically it can be summed up from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 174, where I suggested perhaps a bit about land usage around the roads, and was told this wasn't part of the road. I gave up at that point. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, since we're splitting NYSR from USRD, maybe we can make the change to use some of that, and things can happen. :D. I'm just tired of all these FACs sitting around for me.Mitch32(UP) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have enough to do at FAC (and now FLC) that I really don't do contentious articles for full reviews. I do like to work on my own stuff too! If I'm going to catch a lot of flack from other reviewers and the nominators, I just don't bother with it. (You've never given me any flack though, so don't worry). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, since we're splitting NYSR from USRD, maybe we can make the change to use some of that, and things can happen. :D. I'm just tired of all these FACs sitting around for me.Mitch32(UP) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
All the problems have been fixed. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable?
On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games you brought up this source: japan-gamecharts. This is an email I got back from that site.
Regarding your question, i just take data from regular Enterbrain issues, so all
the numbers you can see on the site are numbers provided from Enterbrain. I don't make any changes, so that's the difference from VGChartz.
So what do you think? « ₣M₣ » 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Given it's not exactly contentious information, it works. Make sure you put that on the FLC page? If I don't get around to it tonight, I'll get to it tomorrow when I do a full sweep of all the FLCs making sure I've dealt with all resolved issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Everything you brought up a while ago in that FAC was taken care of, I'm just making sure this source is ok for that information. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 00:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
αcharts.us @ Mastodon discography
http://acharts.us/ is a reliable source? Also, take a look on MOS:DISCOG—feel free to exclude the non-reliable. Cannibaloki 02:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
re deadlinks. I've managed to locate alternatives for most of the deadlinks, but there are a few issues:
I've directly quoted this, and I don't think I'll find a better one. Is it possible to locate this in an internet archive?
ditto [2]. Chicago Tribune appears to have deleted this. I can use the Leaky Cauldron quote as a citation though.
The HP Lexicon What's New section has a link to a 2007 archive but no 2007 archive. I really want this quote, so could it be found in an internet archive?
I've removed the HPANA links, since they're just links to original news sources anyway. As regards Leaky Cauldron that's a bit more difficult. Whenever possible I've tried to use primary news sources, but the editor of Leaky isn't just a reporter, she actually has a role to play in one of the lawsuits, so her site is rather important. Stallman's site is directly referenced in the article, so it's valid, even if it looks out of place in the intro. But people demanded the intro be sourced, so I used Stallman's site as a source. I don't really see any difference between World Socialist News and any other news site, other than their political stance, which isn't relevant. Accio Quote is the best online source for JK Rowling quotes anywhere. I've tried to use original citations where I can, but sometimes that is the only source. Serendipodous 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, that WP:V is policy and needs to be satisfied at FAC. Fan websites are problems for reliability, and all sources used need to be reliable. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a stab at fixing the refs. I've moved the Leaky Cauldron refs to a separate article, and contacted the webmistress of the site to ask for advice. Haven't heard back from her yet. I've done the cosmetic things and fixed most of the dead links. The only exception was the Preventative Maintenance Monthly link, which I can't access. Serendipodous 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Cold War FAC
If all your issues have been successfully adressed, would there be anything else to be done in order to gain your support? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article.
- I hope this helps explain things to you. I know you're anxious for supports, and they will come, things move a their own pace at FAC. There are some good suggestions here about dealing with the FAC process. Also, in the future it is helpful, (especially for me) if you put a link to the FAC in your comments, so that I can easily find it. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
FAC comments
Hi, you had some concerns about the formatting of sources here. I have changed that since then. I'm not sure if you still think it's insufficient, or whether you haven't looked at it yet. Thanks. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Thought I'd struck that last one, meant to. Done now! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Burger King legal issues
Hi,
I was just wondering, did I resolve all of the issues you raised in the FAC? Could you please respond at the peer review I set up.
Thank you for your time,
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again, could you please respond as to whether I resolved the issues you had during the FAC review for this article? I need to know so I can move forward with the peer review and a second FAC nom. Please respond on the PR page. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on the road and probably won't have time to get to this until Tuesday or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Guadalcanal Campaign FAC comments
I appreciate your comments on the article. I've responded to them [3]. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Old Trafford FAC
Hey man, I believe I've appropriately dealt with all of the references you mentioned in the Old Trafford FAC. I would appreciate any further comments you can give. – PeeJay 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on the road and probably won't have time to get to this until Tuesday or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Bob Dylan FA reassessment
Hi Ealdgyth, Bob Dylan is currently being reassessed. I have a lot of concerns about the quality of the web links in the article. Could you take a look at the sources and whether or not they are up to FA standard. I'm not sure if your involved with reassessments and it is a big article, but your the best person at these things. — Realist2 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on the road and probably won't have time to get to this until Tuesday or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. — Realist2 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Stigand bis
Congrats on the excellent Stigand. And now it has a shiny star! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've been on the road, and will be again later this week. After that though, hoping to finally get some more work done on the bishops, it's been a wild summer here! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Odwalla FAC - Reliable Ref?
Hi. Would "Odwalla, Inc." International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 31. St. James Press, 2000. Reproduced in Business and Company Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.:Gale Group. 2008." be a reliable ref? It's from the International Directory of Company Histories. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the sourcing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odwalla should be fine now. If you can find any way to add my comments under any cap, that would be good, but they seem to be all over the FAC, so I couldn't figure out how to join them so they can all be capped. All yours :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference Check
Hi there! I'm doing a GA review, where there is a disagreement between myself and the lead editor on what constitutes reliable sources, and I am hoping to get your opinion, if you have a few minutes. The article is USS Triton (SSRN-586). The full GA review is located at Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586)/GA1. The references in question are these:
- USS TRITON SS(R)N 586 - an unofficial Triton website
- Triton message board - a message board for Triton veterans and other interested parties
- Coldwarcomms - a Yahoo group
The argument from the editor is this:
"Regarding citations from the USS Triton Message Board, I submit that the posters are former crew member of the USS Triton, and therefore should be treated as authoritative. It is not some fan site, and its webmaster, Garry Gray, worked closely with the late Captain Tom Thamm, and having known how exacting Tom was, I can assure you that Garry's web site is very thorough and accurate." Marcd30319 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
From what I have seen discussed elsewhere, message boards and Yahoo groups are never considered authoritative, and self-published sites are iffy. Could you let me know what you think about this? Am I being too strict for a GA? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not Ealdgyth, but I am absolutely certain that message boards and Yahoo groups get hammered on GA, major no-nos. I'm more relaxed on self-published sites for GA when there is not much else out there, but it depends on whether the self-published site itself sounds like a "rah-rah" advertising thing or appears itself to be well-researched, albeit with poor or no citation. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- The ONLY exceptions on forum postings is if it's a well known expert that's published in multiple third-party references. We're talking Stephen Hawking level of expertise though. And even then, it's ... frowned on. They are welcome to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if they like. That's what I usually do when folks question me at FAC. Sorry it took so long on the reply, I'm in Texas and dealing with pre-TS issues here. We're not in any great danger, just need to help folks out. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you! This was along the lines of what I was thinking, but just wanted a second opinion to tell me if I was way off base. The editor seems fairly reasonable, just a little inexperienced, so it should be OK. I hope everything goes OK with the TS, and congrats on your new horse! (Why yes, yes, I do talkpage-stalk both you and Montana *grin*). Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
|
The Monarch of the Glen Appreciation | |
| Thanks for your assistance in helping Fauna of Scotland to become a Featured Article.
It's much appreciated by Cervus elaphus and myself, Ben MacDui 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
Congratulations and thank you
Hi Ealdgyth, I just saw that Stigand made FA, congratulations! I also was very surprised to learn that you very graciously listed me as a co-nominator on the FAC. I am not sure I deserve the honor, but appreciate your generosity very much. Congratulations again! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I felt you and Ning-ning had done a lot more than usual on that one, so deserved the co-noms. You dragged me kicking and screaming into adding more detail...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
|
<font=3> Thanks again for your reference checks and comments - Hillsgrove Covered Bridge made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|---|
Barnstar
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| Given with respect and admiration to Ealdgyth. Thanks so much for all you do - writing great articles, checking references at FAC and PR, and kindly including me on your FAC for Stigand. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
London Peer Review - Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive5
Hi there,
Thank you for your comments on London's previous peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive4. London is under going another peer review, so please may I ask that, if you get the time, you review the article again and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive5?
Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Lockdown
Hi!, my name is William and it is nice to meet you. I have the article Lockdown (2008) under a peer review so that I can get everything fixed to meet FA standards. Would you be so kind and review it, that is if you have the time.--WillC 10:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
At FAR, three premature Keep delarations, warrants a close look: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Russian Ground Forces. (No hurry; it will be there several weeks.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Horses and storms
Hi Ealdgyth, I hope you and the horses made it through okay. I'm finally back home and have power again! Minimal damage, luckily. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- not only did we make it through fine, we are back home in Illinois with two of the horses. Need to get them settled in but should be back to normal at Wikiland by early next week, hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that you made it home okay. I learned a valuable lesson - don't evacuate to north Houston! The eye passed pretty close to where we were. I don't know that I'll be reviewing hurricane FACs for a while - I am tempted to just oppose on principle. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I totally understand. it is probably my fault you guys got hit, I lived in SW houston for 19 years, and in that time, the only time anything hit near us was when I was out of town (I was gone for Allison and Rita). I leave and two years later, Ike. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that you made it home okay. I learned a valuable lesson - don't evacuate to north Houston! The eye passed pretty close to where we were. I don't know that I'll be reviewing hurricane FACs for a while - I am tempted to just oppose on principle. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw the comment about the questionable ref, and I'm just letting you know that it's been removed. I also noted this on the nom page. Thanks for reviewing it. SandyGeorgia and I have been eagerly awaiting your comments. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- No worries, sorry I was on the road a bit longer than I expected. Ike caught me in Texas and I ended up staying two-three extra days I didn't expect. (I didn't get in danger, just had to suspend some things I needed to do until later than I thought.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I know you are busy, so please take a look at this whenever you are free. Steve, one of the reviewers of the nomination, has provided rationales for the five remaining external links that were not confirmed as reliable in the first FAC. I was wondering if you could look over the rationales and determine if the links are now deemed reliable. Thanks again for your help, you really helped to improve the quality of the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I should be able to get to this Monday morning. I'm busy with an art fair and Monday looks like the best chance of me being free. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, whenever it's convenient for you. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Barbera FAC
This link is dead: dealinks and I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- If its just an external link, you can cut it since it's dead now. Or you can try to find out where the page has moved on the site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- AH, you meant deaDllinks, you wrote dealinks, so I at first didn't get it. Yes I know what to with deadlinks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Typos for the win, I blame my lack of caffeine. Sorry about that. It's morning, my fingers don't always type that hot this early. I swear the edit box needs a spell checker... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- AH, you meant deaDllinks, you wrote dealinks, so I at first didn't get it. Yes I know what to with deadlinks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to comment on the sources on the above peer review? Thanks.--SRX 22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your time, I completed your tasks.--SRX 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Verifying the foundations of an old bridge
Hi, Ealdgyth! It is me again. This time, I would like to pre-FAC check on the sources I used for Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge. It is mostly books (published sources), so I think it mostly should be fine (but just to be safe). If you have the time to go through the article and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1, that would be real super! Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Monday work for you? I really should be doing REAL work not goofing off on Sandy's page... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Anytime within the following two weeks should be fine. It is under peer review now, and Dabomb87 has been finding several prose issues, so the article would not be going to FAC quickly... (but I hope for it to be in tip-top shape when the time comes for nomination). Jappalang (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Horse
I'm a little confused... There are so many discussions going on in so many locations (see the GAN talk page for another one, if you don't have that watchlisted) that I can't keep everything straight. On Sandy's page the consensus seems to be that we should re-GAN it, on the article talk page people seem to want to either GAR it or take it straight to FAC, and Una seems to be trying to stir up trouble on the GAN talk page by accusing us of trying to "dictate who may review an article", which may end up with a bunch more comments by various people on various pages.
What are your thoughts? I'd really like to get this article to GA status before we go to FAC, but if this doesn't seem to be possible, then we should probably go ahead with the peer review and take it to FAC. I've made a new post on the talk page discussing the proposed layout changes, with my proposal, so we'll see what happens with that. I'm in favor of either re-GA noming it and taking Malleus up on his proposal to review, or taking it to GAR, although that could be a bit of a circus.
Let me know what you think and I'll go through the proper procedure this afternoon. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I vote GAR, simply because I think it's an important point to establish that you don't review articles written (even if not nommed by) people you've had several disputes with in the past. But it's your choice, I'm mainly on the sidelines. I tried to bring in outside folks who are familiar with GA/FA to give outside opinions, and hopefully that helps. I'm fine with reorging the article, I don't think we should pare it to the level Una thinks, nor do I think that's a valid choice at GAN, either. I could see putting the pure taxonomy stuff at Equus caballus, but I'm not really in favor of making Domestic horse the main article, I prefer it stay at Horse, where folks will look for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your points on paring the article and the Horse/Domestic horse suggestion. Honestly, there's not that much taxonomy stuff in the article, and so I don't really think it needs to be moved, although I could be swayed in this opinion. I've got a few minutes, so I'll put the article up for GAR right now. I'll be heading to class soon though, so hopefully nothing blows up in my absence as a result of the GAR :) I'll be back this afternoon to check... Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Who thought this would end up blowing up like this? I certainly didn't. Luckily, I'm home until mid-November, so hopefully we can crank out some horse articles in the next two months! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm...actually, upon reading the criteria for GAR, which include:
- If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
- It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.
- I think we may just want to renom it. Then possibly drop Malleus a note taking him up on his offer to re-review? Dana boomer (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm...actually, upon reading the criteria for GAR, which include:
- Up to you, you're the nominator! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, thaaaaankkkksss, put me out in front of the firing squad, why don't you :) Just kidding, I don't really mind, and since Malleus has agreed to do the review, it should go better this time. Thanks for your opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi all. 1) Equus Caballus redirects to horse, but see Equidae for the taxonomy stuff. 2) I say get GA before FA 3) Horses are, other than about 500 Prewalski's, ALL domesticated horses. We have wild horse, feral horse, Przewalski's horse and Tarpan for the rest. 4) I really find the taxonomy stuff rather annoying, I think it is boring and should not be leading the article. That said, if it's a deal-breaker, OK, what the #%@$! but I think readability and accessibility for the most likely audience (fourth- through sixth- grade girls) has something to be said for it too. All for now, catch ya later. Montanabw(talk) 23:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sources check
Can you check the sources for No Way Out (2004) on it's peer review? Thanks.--SRX 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ealdgyth
|
Thank You! | |
| for your assistance in helping Virus to become a Featured Article today.
It's much appreciated, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 13:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
Reliability
Are these sources reliable?
Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, it is being discussed here: Talk:Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song)/GA1. --Efe (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Efe, I'm on the road and in Texas and trying to get things arranged at the ranch I'm at in time for Ike to come visit. I'll try to get to this this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's fine. I'll wait. --Efe (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Ealdgyth. I tried to ask Sandy. I think you're still busy. Thanks by the way. --Efe (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's fine. I'll wait. --Efe (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Efe, I'm on the road and in Texas and trying to get things arranged at the ranch I'm at in time for Ike to come visit. I'll try to get to this this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
On contact music: this is thier submission guidelines. I think it would be reliable enough for a review, if what you were quoting was the review itself, not for general facts. On mvdbase, note at the bottom of the page it says "is produced and maintained by Alex S. Garcia" which leads me to believe its is a personal/fan site. This is their submission guidelines, which basically tell me they aren't very picky. Nothing at all about fact checking on there. About.com is covered here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com. Sorry it took a bit of time to get back to you, life has been REALLY hectic. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I replied to Sandy's page. Thank you Ealdgyth. --Efe (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Horses for courses...
I wouldn't worry about GAR; there is plenty of good feedback coming now to work on, and it all gets the article closer to FAC anyway..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- GA was more a step to get feedback and see what happens. We weren't exactly expecting a quick fail, given that there are three pretty dedicated editors who can and do get things fixed fast when we want to. But, yeah, PR is probably an option soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Chanced upon this conversation & I looked over the article. Everything seems good, but the one thing you need to fix is size - the article is waay too big. Me and Cas had the same problem with Vampire, but left it too late IMHO when the FAC was underway, and it was a big rush/hash/hassle to select text to move to subpages. Don't leave it that long; start chopping now and even consider just leaving the bare essentials of each topic. You'll thank yourself later on when the article comes to FAC and you don't have to make such major changes. Otherwise, the article seems well-referenced and topical - although I did just quickly skim through. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dr pda is 8400 words for Horse, within WP:SIZE 10,000 guideline. Sheep, 10,000 words for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about page size: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." Currently Horse is over 100KB, and people said Vampire, which was 80KB was too long, regardless of word space. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The 30 to 50 KB is readable prose. The 100KB of the horse article is total length, which includes references, hidden comments, images, infoboxes, etc. The readable prose of the Horse article is just over 48KB, which is on the upper range, but still within the guidelines. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ya, I know readable prose. I'm talking about total length and my personal experience with vampire... Nevermind then... Spawn Man (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Um, check horse talk page. I'm TRYING to stay out of the discussion. Please...? Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're fine. I replied, again, and because she favors one layout does not mean that we will necessarily follow that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okies. But note this also. I added a short response and will need to go offline for a while, now. I will try to be good and not say more for now. Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're fine. I replied, again, and because she favors one layout does not mean that we will necessarily follow that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Um, check horse talk page. I'm TRYING to stay out of the discussion. Please...? Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about page size: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." Currently Horse is over 100KB, and people said Vampire, which was 80KB was too long, regardless of word space. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Germanium FAC
Sorry! --Stone (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
FAC visit
As far as I can tell, no one has reliably reviewed sources at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Legal disputes over Harry Potter. ON the other hand, some of these FACs lately are so messy I could have missed it. Every FAC regular should have to read through all 50 messes someday and think about how they might better keep their FACs on track and readable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- David got it up towards the top of the page. I did do a looksee at this one at PR also... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind; I see Awadewit reviewed them after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
List of Paul Kelly awards at FLC
At List of Paul Kelly awards FLC, you've accepted the reliability of all but one queried reference: mvdbase.com
Whilst I believe it is reliable and gave a rationale for its reliability, I decided to use another ARIA ref as the primary reference for the claim that Claudia Castle directed the award winning video for "To Her Door". The mvdbase.com ref now acts as a secondary ref for Castle being the director. I hope this is acceptable for this article and will not stand in the way of it achieving FL.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've attended to every citation issue you raised. Just thought I'd give you a heads up in case there was anything else. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm headed that way on my "morning rounds"... thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Real Madrid C.F. FAC
Hi Ealdgyth, your residual issues within Real Madrid C.F. FAC have been resolved. Please check them as soon as you can. Thanks.--KSA13 08:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Stigand TFA
Hi Ealdgyth, please let me know if there is anything I can do to help get it ready for TFA (and congrats!) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be, the article hasn't had that much change since it was promoted. Just need eyes on its day in the vandal eyesight... I'm going to add a bit from a new book I JUST got, but I don't think it'll be that much, most of the information is covered already. I can't say I'm completely excited... I dread the time spent fighting vandals... (I help out by watching Sparta, that's no fun!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is on my watchlist and I will keep an extra eye on it when it is TFA. I thought it looked fine, but wanted to see if I could help in any way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to check over my additions for prose flow, that'd be great. Mostly just small tidbits, another quote about Stigand's artistic patronage, and some filling in of background. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is on my watchlist and I will keep an extra eye on it when it is TFA. I thought it looked fine, but wanted to see if I could help in any way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You might be amused: Stigand got a little extra exposure for 48 minutes. Gimmetrow 16:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The usual RS check before FAC
Hey, if you have time could you look over the sources in Pilot (House) and respond on the talk page if you have any issues? Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
-_Good_pic.jpg)
|
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
RE: Harry Potter FAC
Hi there,
Thank you for you comments on the Harry Potter FAC, I'll get right on them. I'm unsure of your first comment,
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. - could you explain further either on my talk page or at the FAC nomination?
Thanks,
The Helpful One Review 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there, I have completed all of your comments, the article history shows what I have done. Thanks, The Helpful One Review 11:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Done your other comments! :) The Helpful One Review 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [4]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise talk 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can tell that you spent a generous amount of time and effort to give us a thorough peer review and I want you to know that I am sincerely grateful for your help. I will be addressing your comments over time and I especially appreciate your help and suggestions for trimming. NancyHeise talk 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, I have answered your first four comments but need some guidance before I go on. I have used the cite encyclopedia template but am not sure if it is supposed to look the way it does and am wondering if I have made a mistake somewhere. Can you take a look at refs 9 and 10 and let me know if they are in proper form? I also left a message for you on the peer review page under your fourth comment and would like to know what you think. Thanks again for your time. NancyHeise talk 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for sorting that out for me, I have one more question relating to that same subject. Do I use the template in the Bibliography section only and put the reference that is in the body of the article in the same format as all my other references? That seems like a stupid question but I just want to make sure before I go and change all those refs. NancyHeise talk 03:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, I have answered your first four comments but need some guidance before I go on. I have used the cite encyclopedia template but am not sure if it is supposed to look the way it does and am wondering if I have made a mistake somewhere. Can you take a look at refs 9 and 10 and let me know if they are in proper form? I also left a message for you on the peer review page under your fourth comment and would like to know what you think. Thanks again for your time. NancyHeise talk 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Already caught your queries. I've actually watchlisted the peer review (but not the RCC page) so I'll see queries as they come in and will be checking in there, so no need to drop me a note on my talk page everytime you have a question. I'll see them at the PR and will get to them as soon as I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead and format them like you would all the other book refs. (So... Wilkin "Christianity" Geography of Religion p#) If it helps you, check out Stigand, which uses the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (formatted as a {{cite encyclopedia}} in the references and as a short note in the footnotes) which is an encyclopedia. That should help you with an example. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know I have already said it but I am very grateful for your help. Thanks.NancyHeise talk 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you made a couple of minor edits to Epikleros today; just to let you know, I haven't forgotten my promise to help improve it :) I got a bunch of books out from the library just the other day, which I'm about to start reading through and taking notes from. I'll probably do my drafting offline, so it might be a while before any changes propagate to the article. Dr pda (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, they were mainly housekeeping edits, making sure the redirects don't multiply too badly, etc. I've still got it on my to do list also... just been really busy! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- And it's nice to know that no matter what length requirement we settle on at FAC, at 1600+ words, it's good to go... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer review on Thomas
I saw that you'd made some edits at Thomas of Bayeux. I answered the request for a non-medievalist's peer review, and because Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas of Bayeux/archive1 doesn't show up on the talk page unless you look for it, I wanted to make sure you knew about it. JamesMLane t c 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen it, and it's on my list of things to do. My summer got very unexpectedly busy right after I put it up for PR, and it's been hanging around waiting for me to get to poor Thomas. He's on my radar to work on soon. I did very much appreciate the comments, they will be very very helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I almost never get involved in the PR/GA/FA stuff, so I'm not familiar with the process, and I was surprised to see that someone looking at the talk page wouldn't know about the PR except by clicking one of the "Show" links. I just wanted to make sure it hadn't vanished down the memory hole. BTW, after I did that PR, I surprised a friend of mine with the depth of my knowledge concerning the dispute over the primacy of Canterbury. :) JamesMLane t c 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- For my sins, I know entirely too much about the GA/PR/FA process! And EVERYONE should know about the great York-Canterbury primacy fight... right? (In reality, I'm always vastly entertained by the whole spectacle... it dragged on and on and on... and some of the stories are great.) I'm glad you impressed a friend! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I almost never get involved in the PR/GA/FA stuff, so I'm not familiar with the process, and I was surprised to see that someone looking at the talk page wouldn't know about the PR except by clicking one of the "Show" links. I just wanted to make sure it hadn't vanished down the memory hole. BTW, after I did that PR, I surprised a friend of mine with the depth of my knowledge concerning the dispute over the primacy of Canterbury. :) JamesMLane t c 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: Footnotes
Yup, I caught your changes to Appaloosa and HiW on my watchlist run-through this morning. I like the changes, although I haven't totally figured out how the coding works (I probably just need to sit down and actually study it for a few minutes). Nice job...and thanks for all your help and hard work in getting Horse to GA! Dana boomer (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can use it two ways... 1) which doesn't allow you to use a footnote on it, to do this you go <ref name=blah>Blah<group=notes|/ref> (or something similar, I never use this since I always need footnotes). 2) which allows you to add a source note is {{#tag:ref|(information)<ref>Sourcing</ref>|group=notes}}. I always use the later, since I can remember it, and it allows sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Neat feature
I wanted to thank you for drawing attention to the ref group feature over at the FAC. While I haven't chimed in yet, I am very exited to learn of this feature in its own right. Could you tell me what template or page it is under, where the documentation for usage is located? I would love to get more acclimated with this tool. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Check out right above where I give the quick and dirty explanation on how it works. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I saw that. I was looking for more detail and not finding it in Template:tag, but have since found this and this. Thanks again. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
One for your files
Lovely. One for you to bookmark for the next time the question comes up. I just saw this over at the mess on WP:MEDRS. The FA Baby Gender Mentor (you don't see my Support on it) uses this source: http://multiples.about.com/cs/medicalissues/a/vanishingtwin.htm The author's qualifications to write about medical topics (click on her link) are ... ta da ! She is the mother of twins ! Yea, About.com!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, gods above. While you're at being superwoman today, can you convince my kitten to quit being psycotic? She's tearing around the house, driving us all nuts. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- See, Ealdgyth, you can now write about.com articles on cat psychology and then cite them in WP articles. I will write the ones on potty training and the most effective way to bribe toddlers (unless Maralia wants them). Sandy's probably too busy to write articles on anything right now. Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Can I do horse psychology too? (Spent the morning with the farrier and the horsies... fun was had by all). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Even about.com might refuse to let me write about potty training :/ Maralia (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Imagine my house: I'm laughing at my computer screen and my husband keeps saying, "What?" "What?" What should I tell him? Well, I told a friend about a reliable source and she answered about a psychotic kitten ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Best book ever; I even saved it. Still have it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. Really though, how am I supposed to work on poor Robert of Jumièges when I am playing superhighway for a kitten???? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, is the psychotic cat potty-trained? Maralia (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you can find a quarter tab of Risperdal laying around somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Children's Benadryl makes dogs sleepy...surely it works on kitties too (it unfortunately makes toddlers hyper, though)? And Maralia, my secret to potty training is buy Elmo underwear, put it someplace conspicuous, and wait 6-9 months for your toddler to decide it's time to wear them. That, and bribe said toddler with a "big kid bike" which unfortunately will not work if the rider wears diapers. Toddlers believe anything. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- All of these drugging suggestions assume I can CATCH said kitten/lightning bolt. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds to me like you need to invest in some mice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone want to check my tack room? Ever since my parents adopted our barn cat, I think I have a ready supply! Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds to me like you need to invest in some mice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- All of these drugging suggestions assume I can CATCH said kitten/lightning bolt. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Children's Benadryl makes dogs sleepy...surely it works on kitties too (it unfortunately makes toddlers hyper, though)? And Maralia, my secret to potty training is buy Elmo underwear, put it someplace conspicuous, and wait 6-9 months for your toddler to decide it's time to wear them. That, and bribe said toddler with a "big kid bike" which unfortunately will not work if the rider wears diapers. Toddlers believe anything. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you can find a quarter tab of Risperdal laying around somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, is the psychotic cat potty-trained? Maralia (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. Really though, how am I supposed to work on poor Robert of Jumièges when I am playing superhighway for a kitten???? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Best book ever; I even saved it. Still have it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Imagine my house: I'm laughing at my computer screen and my husband keeps saying, "What?" "What?" What should I tell him? Well, I told a friend about a reliable source and she answered about a psychotic kitten ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Even about.com might refuse to let me write about potty training :/ Maralia (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Can I do horse psychology too? (Spent the morning with the farrier and the horsies... fun was had by all). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- See, Ealdgyth, you can now write about.com articles on cat psychology and then cite them in WP articles. I will write the ones on potty training and the most effective way to bribe toddlers (unless Maralia wants them). Sandy's probably too busy to write articles on anything right now. Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Checkin' sources
Heya. I'm thinking about helping you out with the really dull and tedious task of checking links. Partly because I should get off my fat butt and do something, but also because I don't ever think there should be one person to interpret the rules of anything. That's no knock to you - I think you're doing a fine job, but it's more of a personal philosophy of the benefits of checks and balances. At any rate, for giggles and grins, I was looking at Virginia, which at first glance seems to be chock full of reliable sources, but they are almost all web-based and very general ones at that. There must be volumes of print information about the history of Virginia as the birthplace of American republic democracy, issues of slavery, and all sorts of good stuff. What kind of commentary do you make about the quality of sources that could be used? Is this an issue that is still being explored?
In a recent GA review of Martin Luther King, Jr., the article used Google Books sources (as does Virginia) as well as replicating information I had written in Birmingham campaign. I don't think it's a good idea at all to copy the lead from Birmingham campaign for King's article, but I'm having similar difficulty with the reliance on the scanning of information in Google Books when the actual books are much better to use. I recognize my own preference for print sources, but is that a standard to which I should hold all editors who come to FAC? Is this more of a question that should be asked at FAC? --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome to my world. Look at the old FAC for Virginia and you'll see that I ripped the thing to bits, as I recall. I have to step out for a bit, but I'll try to answer you in more depth when I get back. It basically boils down to I will point out that they probably aren't accessing the best sources, and that using Google books snippets gives you issues with not getting the full context, but it's not an easy fight to win, lots of folks think you should NOT use printed sources because you can't "verify" them. Of course, you can't "verify" any information on a web page either, if it doesn't give it's sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- To expand some, there is definitely resistance to going with printed sources over web sources. And lots of folks seem to think that because you can read a snippet on Google books, that that is as good as using the whole work. As far as specifics, I generally will post a note that an article relies mostly on internet sources, but unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done other than that if the sources are reliable enough. Some help from other reviewers would be beneficial, if more people were willing to step up and say "You should investigate other sources, including print ones" (like you've done) the culture might change more. Let's let the whole "Short Article" controversy fade out before we add another one to FAC (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to help fight this war whenever I run across it. To me, it is an automatic oppose on comprehensiveness grounds if a user does not consult print sources when they are available. They have no way of knowing if they've actually gotten all the information they should have and put the article at a disadvantage. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but I have a limited amount of "controversy" I can handle, so I like having backup (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to help fight this war whenever I run across it. To me, it is an automatic oppose on comprehensiveness grounds if a user does not consult print sources when they are available. They have no way of knowing if they've actually gotten all the information they should have and put the article at a disadvantage. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thrilled to see back up for Ealdgyth on such a difficult and thankless and important chore ! 1c and 2c are my secret favorites as rarely does a serious writer neglect serious sourcing; don't tell 1a, though :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Lipis
Hi E, Dana and I have been doing some cleanup work on Lipizzan to move it, albeit slowly, toward GA. There is now a discussion at Talk:Lipizzan, with another editor who has a long history with this particular article. We have a mild difference of opinion over emphasis, sources and a POV question. The POV is put forth in a fair manner and I think all can be resolved amicably, but as you are the goddess of verifiability and NPOV, could you be so kind as to peek in and offer us some advice from the perspective of someone who is not often an editor on this particular article (we will want your feedback later on anyway, but maybe if you can remind us of the rules on sources...?) Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Reliable Source
Can this source, [5], be considered reliable. This source references title histories of every professional wrestling promotion on earth. (No lies). Also, I find the source reliable because it gets information from major sources, promotion's websites, and from websites that are third party that are from reliable sources (i.e. people who are considered prominent). It also get's it's information from a reliable book that has sourcing from early 1900s to 2000.--SRX 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, this may sound petty, but the fact that TWO popups immediately popped up (past my popup blocker, no less) doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies about the site. It's been my experience that a site that is THAT aggressive about popups, isn't going to be highly reliable right off the bat. I'd really like to see some information on reliable sources (preferably big media companies) using it as a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's odd, I have a pop blocker and none bypass it. Sigh, well I couldn't find any that used it, oh well. Forget about it, anyways I responded to your comments at WP:FAC#No Way Out (2004).--SRX 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Caught them, you're good to go on sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Checking sources at FAC
Hi Ealdgyth, sorry to bother you. I've been making an effort recently to review sources for reliability and otherwise at FAC, and I'm afraid I'm not doing a good job at it. For example, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Location of European Union institutions, it seems I missed quite a bit. If you find the time, could you give me some suggestions about checking sources? Thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- This will give you a start, and I'll try to give you some more pointers tomorrow when I have more time. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Probably the best thing to know is to always question if you have any thoughts that it might be self-published. Looking at the EU one you linked above, the reason I questioned the ecotrips one, is because it looks like it's an advocacy group, and the story was itself written by them, thus it's "self-published" and needs to satisfy the SPS guidelines. It may be reliable, but it's always better to question and get told why it's reliable than to let it slide. Our sourcing guidelines are pretty easy, honestly, especially compared to academia. For this I questioned because it's a "webzine" and I didn't find any sign that it actually publishes anything. Webzines are easy to set up, and in my mind, fall into SPS territory, thus are a question all the time, better safe than sorry type of site. YouTube is tricky. A LOT of the time, the video being linked to is copyrighted and needs to be queried on that basis. Also, it's subject to bias, because a lot of time snippets of things are cut in such a way to eliminate context. This is probably reliable, but again, easier to ask than to risk letting a sticky source past. This, same deal. Doesn't appear to be a site by a big media company, so question it and see where things go. That's the best advice I can give you, is question question question. Also, lulu.com is a vanity publisher, anything published by them should be regorously questioned. If you've never heard of a publisher, try to tack the book down through the ISBN. Folks are really bad with not giving authors and getting things like books of collected articles by many authors wrong, they often give the editor as the author. Always question use of Google Books, it's very easy to miss context there. As a general rule, I click on every website, and I compare the publishers listed by the link checker with the publisher listed by the article. If anythign doesn't match up, you need to question THAT also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Those are great tips, thanks. Just one more question. When an FAC nominator gives you evidence to prove that a source is reliable, is there a general rule as to when to accept it as reliable? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- For me, I weigh the evidence and if I'm persuaded convincingly yes, I'll strike. If it's REALLY good evidence, I add a note on my cheatsheet noting that a whole site has been shown reliable, and linking to the FAC that did it. (Note I don't do this lightly, there are a LOT of folks that watch that list and it has to be reliable beyond question for me to put it there.) If I'm not convinced, I point out why, and don't strike. If it's borderline, I'll leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, and leave a note to that effect. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks for your time, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- For me, I weigh the evidence and if I'm persuaded convincingly yes, I'll strike. If it's REALLY good evidence, I add a note on my cheatsheet noting that a whole site has been shown reliable, and linking to the FAC that did it. (Note I don't do this lightly, there are a LOT of folks that watch that list and it has to be reliable beyond question for me to put it there.) If I'm not convinced, I point out why, and don't strike. If it's borderline, I'll leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, and leave a note to that effect. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Those are great tips, thanks. Just one more question. When an FAC nominator gives you evidence to prove that a source is reliable, is there a general rule as to when to accept it as reliable? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Probably the best thing to know is to always question if you have any thoughts that it might be self-published. Looking at the EU one you linked above, the reason I questioned the ecotrips one, is because it looks like it's an advocacy group, and the story was itself written by them, thus it's "self-published" and needs to satisfy the SPS guidelines. It may be reliable, but it's always better to question and get told why it's reliable than to let it slide. Our sourcing guidelines are pretty easy, honestly, especially compared to academia. For this I questioned because it's a "webzine" and I didn't find any sign that it actually publishes anything. Webzines are easy to set up, and in my mind, fall into SPS territory, thus are a question all the time, better safe than sorry type of site. YouTube is tricky. A LOT of the time, the video being linked to is copyrighted and needs to be queried on that basis. Also, it's subject to bias, because a lot of time snippets of things are cut in such a way to eliminate context. This is probably reliable, but again, easier to ask than to risk letting a sticky source past. This, same deal. Doesn't appear to be a site by a big media company, so question it and see where things go. That's the best advice I can give you, is question question question. Also, lulu.com is a vanity publisher, anything published by them should be regorously questioned. If you've never heard of a publisher, try to tack the book down through the ISBN. Folks are really bad with not giving authors and getting things like books of collected articles by many authors wrong, they often give the editor as the author. Always question use of Google Books, it's very easy to miss context there. As a general rule, I click on every website, and I compare the publishers listed by the link checker with the publisher listed by the article. If anythign doesn't match up, you need to question THAT also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, good to know. :-) I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the mixing of those formatting templates. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Julian, I know that Ealdgyth knows this, but I want to be sure you do, so I'll add my two cents. There is no such thing as a definitive best reliable source; that depends on the text being sourced (and to my dismay, very few reviewers at FAC are actually going beyond what Ealdgyth does and checking for that; Ealdgyth's work should be considered only the first cut). For example, the fact that a particular source appears on Ealdgyth's list as reliable for a pop culture article wouldn't mean it is necessarily reliable for a bio or medical article. I'm afraid that, as a result of the considerable hard work that Ealdgyth is doing, FAC has gotten lazy about going to the next step and making sure that the best possible sources are being used, and that each source is actually reliable for the specific text being cited. I've been shocked at how often Ealdgyth leaves a source for reviewers to evaluate, and no reviewer even comments, which forces me to check myself and drags me into the review, which compromises my position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Sandy here. I think what I'm (and you're trying to get into) doing is important, but it's really just a first step, and shouldn't be taken as meaning that the sources are acurately represented or such like. That's one reason I bring up using Google Book Searches so often, that's a really lazy way to do research, and you can't know that you're accurately reflecting what the source is getting at. I often wish that we had a "use the best possible sources and survey the whole of the scholarship available" as a criteria at FAC, that might cut down on some of the hassles. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe that should be proposed ... um ... after all of the curren kerfuffle dies down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good choice Sandy (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll keep that in mind, thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe that should be proposed ... um ... after all of the curren kerfuffle dies down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Sandy here. I think what I'm (and you're trying to get into) doing is important, but it's really just a first step, and shouldn't be taken as meaning that the sources are acurately represented or such like. That's one reason I bring up using Google Book Searches so often, that's a really lazy way to do research, and you can't know that you're accurately reflecting what the source is getting at. I often wish that we had a "use the best possible sources and survey the whole of the scholarship available" as a criteria at FAC, that might cut down on some of the hassles. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Julian, I know that Ealdgyth knows this, but I want to be sure you do, so I'll add my two cents. There is no such thing as a definitive best reliable source; that depends on the text being sourced (and to my dismay, very few reviewers at FAC are actually going beyond what Ealdgyth does and checking for that; Ealdgyth's work should be considered only the first cut). For example, the fact that a particular source appears on Ealdgyth's list as reliable for a pop culture article wouldn't mean it is necessarily reliable for a bio or medical article. I'm afraid that, as a result of the considerable hard work that Ealdgyth is doing, FAC has gotten lazy about going to the next step and making sure that the best possible sources are being used, and that each source is actually reliable for the specific text being cited. I've been shocked at how often Ealdgyth leaves a source for reviewers to evaluate, and no reviewer even comments, which forces me to check myself and drags me into the review, which compromises my position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I left a message there. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support vote and especially for your thorough peer review and source check. I know you must have spent a lot of time and effort on this and I appreciate your diligence. NancyHeise talk 13:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see if current revisions have addressed your concern and improved the list enough to change your mind. The intro section was considerably revamped. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Does your strikethrough mean you are voting to Support now?--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 02:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the other FLCs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FLs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
MTV video as a source
Hi Ealdgyth, I'm currently working on HIStory and it's corresponding singles and album tracks that have their own article. Jackson gave a very rare but informative interview to MTV here. Unfortunately it's just the video and I haven't been able to find a transcript of the interview. Could I still use it as a source, since it's an official interview with MTV and if so, how would I go about sourcing it? Cheers — Realist2 13:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with the reliable sources noticeboard decision. Since it's hosted on the MTV site, it's presumed that they approve of it and that they stand behind it, thus as long as you remember that it's a primary source, it can be used with caution. Sorry it took a bit to get to this, been busy this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sources
Hi! As per your advice and comments here, I tried to find more sources but found only one so far. Would http://www.uklankatimes.net/Insidepages/OpenFile/OpenFile.aspx?SID=1 do as a replacement for the lankalibrary link? It provides the needed information in detail, but I'm not sure if this is a reliable source. Chamal Talk ± 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's a published magazine in the UK, correct? If so, I'd call it reliable enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I;ll add it too, then. Thanks for the help. Chamal Talk ± 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Are these reliable?
Can you help me determine whether these are reliable or not?
- http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml
- http://www.hickoksports.com/history/cyyoung.shtml
- http://www.athomeplate.com/awardshistory.shtml
Thanks in advance! iMatthew (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The first is, the second and third I'd want to see more data on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for comment on Louvre...brief follow up
Hey there, thanks for your comment. I've got a brief question: what do you think about the distribution of the citations? I've heavily relied on Mignot's book; which, I believe is the best overview of the museum. However, do you think that particular work is cited too much? Just curious, as it was something concerning to me. Btw, I have the same watchlist problem. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about relying too much on it, it's a travel guide, but that just makes it more likely to be more neutral. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Question on Strawberry Fields PR
You said on the PR for Strawberry Fields Forever that about.com is not a reliable source. I replaced three of the four citations with other reliable sources. My question is that one of the sources that I replaced the website with is Mike Pinder's website. Since the info that the citation refers to is about Mike Pinder, would that source be reliable? Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Throw me a link to the site in question? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, forgot to add the link. http://www.mikepinder.com/mellotron.shtml Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so it's basically, Pinder's site saying that Pinder introduced the instrument to the Beatles? As long as you're clear in the article that it's a claim by PInder, it should be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so it's basically, Pinder's site saying that Pinder introduced the instrument to the Beatles? As long as you're clear in the article that it's a claim by PInder, it should be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, forgot to add the link. http://www.mikepinder.com/mellotron.shtml Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Mark Speight
Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I will try to get over there sometime today or tomorrow... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This link is an copy of an article in the Asahi Shimbun, one of the major Japanese papers. The FOTW site has been having issues, so I will try and replace those links when I got time. (Anyways, I am shooting for FAC, not FLC). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed I was using the wrong boilerplate after I did a bunch of articles this morning at PR ... oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Links replaced with live ones, and managed to remove FOTW links in favor of those belonging to the Japanese Government. I been asked to keep some FOTW links in, so people can actually read about the subject in English. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Links replaced with live ones, and managed to remove FOTW links in favor of those belonging to the Japanese Government. I been asked to keep some FOTW links in, so people can actually read about the subject in English. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed all but two of the concerns you rasied at the FAC, but I require a clarficiation for one of the remaining two issues before I can adress it. When you have a chance, could you check out the FAC and clairify the issue so I can adress it? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- You got most of them, one more citation missing a publisher. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Rhinemaidens - sources
Ealdgyth, could you pop back here for a moment and check what I've said about the source you queried. If you still think it doesn't satisfy the reliability criterion, well OK, I'll find other sources, but I am reluctant to lose such an informative list unless I have to. Always ready to do as I am told, however.Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heh .. I'm ahead of you! (preens) It's ... borderline. Might be best to try and find other sources to back it up, or find out what sources he used to find the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI
I noted that you didn't review the sources at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TAM (tank), and I held off commenting for ten days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Julian got them, and I was busy at the time so I didn't check on top of his. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Rennell Island
Hello, Just letting you know I fixed Rennell Island. thanks Peter Phenss (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I will be glad to look at - somewhat busy so it will be in the next day or so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- No great worries. I worked a bit on William of Corbeil this morning before my sinus pills kicked in. Right now, I wouldn't trust myself to touch an article, who knows what drug-induced edits I might make...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I've just about done with the old fella now. Hopefully my slashing and burning hasn't altered the sense of what you were trying to say. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Malleus, I owe you (again). Now to make Brian's corrections and I think we'll be ready to roll next week. I trust you didn't find anything missing/unclear? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a historian, so I can't really speak to missing, especially on a subject like Robert. About the only thing I'm left feeling a little hazy about is this sentence in the lead: "His building works at Jumièges helped influence English building through Edward the Confessor's church at Westminster." That doesn't seem to follow from anything else that I see in the article. Edward himself was exiled in Normandy, so couldn't he have brought the style to England? I also have trouble reconciling the chronology of that statement with the later one that "... it is also possible that Westminster inspired the building at Jumièges, as the arcade there closely resembles Westminster's arcade, both of them in a style that never became common in Normandy." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The historians differ on this. Some think it was Robert, some think it was Edward, who brought it TO England. Some think it went the other way. The sentence in the lead aims to show that the consenus is that Jumiege influenced Westminster, but without saying whether it was robert or edward who brought it over. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand what you're trying to say now. What about something like "His building works at Jumiege were echoed in Edward the Confessor's church at Westminster, which influenced subsequent English ecclesiastical building style."? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The historians differ on this. Some think it was Robert, some think it was Edward, who brought it TO England. Some think it went the other way. The sentence in the lead aims to show that the consenus is that Jumiege influenced Westminster, but without saying whether it was robert or edward who brought it over. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a historian, so I can't really speak to missing, especially on a subject like Robert. About the only thing I'm left feeling a little hazy about is this sentence in the lead: "His building works at Jumièges helped influence English building through Edward the Confessor's church at Westminster." That doesn't seem to follow from anything else that I see in the article. Edward himself was exiled in Normandy, so couldn't he have brought the style to England? I also have trouble reconciling the chronology of that statement with the later one that "... it is also possible that Westminster inspired the building at Jumièges, as the arcade there closely resembles Westminster's arcade, both of them in a style that never became common in Normandy." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)