User talk:Jens Lallensack

Hi Jens Lallensack. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, I just completed it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Hortalotarsus/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Hortalotarsus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Hortalotarsus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold File:Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hortalotarsus and Talk:Hortalotarsus/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The article Hortalotarsus you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Hortalotarsus for comments about the article, and Talk:Hortalotarsus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I honestly don't know what to do next. I made some changes but don't know if they are good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't want to leave it hanging there, it is just that checking stuff against the sources just takes a lot of time. Will try to have another go over the weekend. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::how about after Roy and Dudley are finished? LittleJerry (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you be able to spotcheck before the next FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:I am very busy at the moment and therefore can't commit to anything. Let me know when the article is ready, and I will see if I can free some time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, if I withdraw the review and submit it to PR, would you be able to give it a thorough review? I don't know how much more I can handle. I never expected there to be so much craziness and over this article when I've done polar bear and tiger. Nothing I do changes anything. I'm really being good faith there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Not before April I'm afraid, I will be traveling from next week. In April, I might have time to take a look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Would you be able to check the prose when you have the time? LittleJerry (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Will try. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi you've reviewed two of my good article nominations before: Owha and Paora. Since you seem to be interested in animals and birds I was wondering if you'd like to participate in the peer review of the article because I'd like it to become a featured article. I'm also looking for a mentor for this. But I understand that you may not be interested, or may be too busy, so no worries if you aren't interested. Thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{ping|Panamitsu}} article looks very good, I can only see two minor issues:

:*"leave nice messages for him", you could remove the "nice" as it does not add anything and is not very encyclopedic

:*vets – you should spell it out, not all readers are natives.

:I would say just nominate it and see how it goes – I can't predict it, but it is a small article, so you would be able to make larger changes within time frame if any are needed. Maybe you will be asked to remove some details in the "costs" section that maybe sound a bit promotional, but in that case, it's easy to do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi again, {{ping|Panamitsu}}. I had a closer look now – I left you comments on the Peer Review page. After you are confident that they have been resolved, just nominate at FAC I would say. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks a lot! I'll go through this feedback and then make sure the article matches all the article again (which will take a while) then should submit once I'm ready. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi I hope you don't mind me bringing this topic up again but I don't know how to deal with a problem that you've brought up so I'd like to ask for some help if you don't mind.

:::::The scholarly source says that {{tqi|It was also reported to have swallowed large pieces of driftwood, although none was found during stomach flushes and endoscopy}}. The Wikipedia article currently says that he had eaten sticks and had some removed, and why he may have eaten them. What I'm confused about is the source says "large pieces of drifwood" whereas the article (and the newspaper sources) say "sticks" or "twigs" (which could be quite small). I don't know if this is what the scholarly source is referring to or not, however I do see two sources after some flushing saying that sticks had ben found. The scholarly source makes no mention of "sticks". And if the scholarly source is referring to these sticks, should I remove the content about the sticks or should I provide an explanation that no "large pieces of driftwood" were found in the stomach flushes/endoscopy?

:::::I think I want to keep the information about the sticks but I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, as said, I would definitely stick [no pun intended] with the scholarly source here. "Sticks" and "large pieces of driftwood" sounds like the same thing to me. The authors of that scholarly study obviously were directly involved in the endoscopy and stomach flushing (so they should know best), while the journalists only report what others tell them. The most likely explanation is that a journalist thought that if it ate wood, this wood must have been flushed out, and added that to the article to round up the story without actually confirming it (sadly, this is exactly how many journalists work, as I can tell from own experience). Then, possibly journalists copied each other. I think the scholarly source is by far the most reliable source you have. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks. Should I remove the text about the sticks or should I add an explanation that none were found? ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I personally think the source is quite clear that no wood (sticks or whatever) have been found; just sand and pebbles. To be extra careful, you could write something like this: {{tqi|Observers stated that the penguin had swallowed large pieces of wood. However, no wood was found during stomach flushing and endoscopy according to a 2012 scientific publication that discussed the measures taken to rehabilitate the penguin. Newspapers instead reported that it had swallowed sticks and netting, and that these items were removed during stomach flushing.}} Note here the author attribution; we specifically say which source (of what quality) said what, and let the reader decide which is the most trustworthy. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks for the help again. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Hi I've just done a FAC nomination for that article thanks to your help. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{ping|Panamitsu}} Great! As soon as I find some time, I will have a look and help with copy-editing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jens Lallensack, you said to ping you if I decided to bring another Celtic god to GAN, and I have at Esus. See if it interests you. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Cool – I will take a look! I am traveling and can't predict time availability at the moment, so I won't accept the review right now, but I think I should be able to get to it in the next few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{-}}

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Eight}}

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)