User talk:Tarret/Archive 3#Precious
{{talkarchive}}
GA nom
Thanks for the nom of Project Chanology. Perhaps it will pass, and if not, worst case we will hopefully get some good pointers on how to improve the article further. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:Update: As you will see in the March 2008 GA Newsletter, the article is currently up at WP:GAR, under Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter]]
GA Review of [[Warriors (novel series)]]
Thanks for passing Moonrise (Warriors). But I don't understand why you failed Warriors (novel series). The article isn't about a fictional topic - it's a series of books. The only in-universe section is 'Universe', which is to give readers an idea of the concepts of the series. I can see how the article needs reorganization and copyediting, but I don't think the article needs out of universe content. Thanks again, Shrewpelt (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the explanation. Shrewpelt (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
::I have rearranged the sections and added to the 'Critical reception' section. Would you, if it were a GAC, pass it now? Shrewpelt (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, I'll prepare for a GA nom. Also, I am planning to slowly improve the articles enough for a featured topic nomination. Thanks, Shrewpelt (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
GA
Please see the instructions at Template:Articlehistory and scroll to the bottom of the talk page when you pass a GA to see if you've left the red error category lit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dynasty_Warriors_4&diff=203613489&oldid=203604938][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moonrise_%28Warriors%29&diff=203614015&oldid=203608808] Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/April 2008}}
[[WP:AWB]]
Hi, Tarret, I've approved you to use this; you just need to download and install it. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/May 2008}}
Your pass of Four Freedoms
Pardon me, but I had already made a review of Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell). Gimmetrow 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[[McCormick Tribune Ice Rink]] pass
Thanks for closing the GAC. Just a reminder that you should update Wikipedia:Good articles/recent when you promote a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good articles newsletter
[[Salimuzzaman Siddiqui]]
Hi. Referring to your GA review of the article, I have made relevant improvements and renominated it. Could you pls have a look at it? Cheers --IslesCapeTalk 12:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Sword of Shannara
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Withdrawal
Is there a proper procedure for withdrawing a nomination? I imagine that a withdrawal is a simple as: (a) removing the nomination from its location in Nominations, (b) then removing the banner from the Talkpage, (c) and all etceteras. I have found that a significant fact in an article which deals with events in 1991 may be inaccurate. I nominated the article approximately a week ago before I discovered this inaccuracy. Now I would like to withdraw that nomination until I can confirm the original fact, or contest it. Hag2 (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Well, I went ahead with my withdrawal by removing the original nomination from the Nomination Miscellanous Category (leaving a reason in the edit-field box). I then did the same on the talkpage for the article. Several hours after I performed the withdrawal, I received your reply about the normal fail procedures. I have not had time to look into those. I will do so now. Perhaps there should be a Wikipedia directive solely written for withdrawal of nominations as opposed to failing nominations. I do not believe that it would be fair to the editors to follow the same procedures for both. Hag2 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Strawberry Panic! GAR
Strawberry Panic! has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are Talk:Strawberry Panic!{{#if:1. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink
FYI, you were the GA reviewer for McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink, which is now at WP:FAC. Feel free to come comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
style="background-color: #F0FFEC; border: 4px solid #107020; width:100%" cellpadding="5"
|WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April. |
GA question
:Hello, can you tell me if this article, Selena (film), is illegible for a GA nomination? And if not, can you tell me what should I do to fix this article for a GA status? Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Olgcca logo top.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Olgcca logo top.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –xenotalk 18:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Saddle Creek Corporation]]
Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg
The article Saddle Creek Corporation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
:not notable
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. St8fan (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Your [[WP:GA|GA]] nomination of [[Bessarion (TTC)]]
The article Bessarion (TTC) you nominated as a good article has failed 20px; see Talk:Bessarion (TTC) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Luckyloonie2006.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Luckyloonie2006.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5"
New page patrol – Survey Invitation ---- Hello Tarret! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click [https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9RSKYC9 HERE] to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. ---- You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
GA Review: [[Bloor–Danforth line]]
Hi, I have begun to review the Bloor–Danforth line article that you nominated for GA status. I just wanted to let you know that I have left some comments on the review page and will continue to add more (if needed) as I continue with the review. If at any time you have any questions, please feel free to post them on the review page or on my talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:I have completed the review and have left a list of improvements needed to be made before I pass the article on the review page. The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}} as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}} in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}} in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}} follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Bloor-Danforth FA
Good luck with this. This will not be as easy as GA. I will only interupt the process if there are minor clarifications or any unresolved problems I can deal with. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
GA Review: [[Chester (TTC)]]
Hi, I have completed the GA review for the Chester (TTC) article and I left 2 suggestions on the review page that should be addressed. The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
GA Review: [[Kipling (TTC)]]
Hi, I have completed the GA review for the Kipling (TTC) article and I left 3 suggestions on the review page that should be addressed. The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I have failed the article. Please see the review page for my reason why.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}} once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}} led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}} was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}} finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}} came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}} was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Dana boomer}} was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sasata}} is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|GreatOrangePumpkin}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ealdgyth}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Calvin999}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Piotrus}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Toa Nidhiki05}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|12george1}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|The Bushranger}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|1111tomica}}. We hope to see you all next year.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 September newsletter
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}} currently leads, followed by {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sasata}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: {{ul|Dreamafter}} (2007), {{ul|jj137}} (2008), {{ul|Durova}} (2009), {{ul|Sturmvogel 66}} (2010) and {{ul|Hurricanehink}} (2011). Our final standings were as follows:
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sasata}}
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}}
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}}
- {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Dana boomer}}
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
- The featured article award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for four featured articles in the final round.
- The good article award also goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for 19 good articles in the second round.
- The list award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}, for three featured lists in the final round.
- The topic award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
- The did you know award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
- The news award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|ThaddeusB}}, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
- The picture award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grandiose}}, for two featured pictures in round 2.
- The reviewer award goes to both {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}} (14 reviews in round 1) and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grandiose}} (14 reviews in round 3).
- Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}.
Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.
Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)