User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil War generals[edit]

Hi HF. Quick MILHIST question for you: I'm rewriting William Burnham Woods, who's of interest to me mainly because he was a Supreme Court justice, but before that he was also a Union general in the Civil War. What are the best sources for biographical material about Civil War generals? I found this by Ezra J. Warner, but is there anything else I should be aware of? Hope you're doing well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: From my experience, where there's not a stand-along biography of the subject, that Warner is generally going to be the basic source for military career, especially so in this case because I'm not seeing evidence of a high-quality modern history of his unit (76th Ohio). I've got books that cover Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Atlanta, all of which he fought at, and Chattanooga, which the regiment article mentions but Woods' article doesn't. I can check in those to see if they have anything to say about Woods' military service if you'd like. Hog Farm Talk 23:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks. I don't get the impression that Woods did anything especially noteworthy during the war (unlike his brother), so I'd be surprised if the books had much to say about him, but if you have a minute I certainly wouldn't complain if you took a quick look. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: - I totally forgot about this. I'll try to take a look tonight or tomorrow night. Hog Farm Talk 16:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raymond scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 12 May 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May songs
my story today

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "After two straight FACs of Missouri 1864, it's now Mississippi 1863. General Grant is moving eastwards into Mississippi to attack Vicksburg, when a third of his army runs into a single Confederate brigade outside Raymond. The battle is fought in woods, and spirals out of control with neither commander able to exercise a whole lot of command. The Union's numerical mismatch eventually forces the Confederates back, but the battle convinces Grant to drive the Confederates out of Jackson before taking on Vicksburg."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Stonewall Jackson's arm[edit]

The article Stonewall Jackson's arm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stonewall Jackson's arm for comments about the article, and Talk:Stonewall Jackson's arm/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your help in saving Battle of Gettysburg at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hello, Hog Farm. I just nominated the article Coal, West Virginia for deletion; and when I went to notify the article's creator, I noticed that you have AfD'd a bunch of similar articles by the creator and that you seem to be conversant with sources about West Virginia places that I don't have access to. Any analysis you may be able to add at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coal, West Virginia‎ would be welcome. Deor (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Y. Slack[edit]

On 17 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Y. Slack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 161 years ago today, William Y. Slack was promoted to brigadier general, even though he was already dead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Y. Slack. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Y. Slack), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of CSS General M. Jeff Thompson[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS General M. Jeff Thompson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of CSS Junaluska[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Junaluska you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of CSS General M. Jeff Thompson[edit]

The article CSS General M. Jeff Thompson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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:CSS General M. Jeff Thompson and Talk:CSS General M. Jeff Thompson/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of CSS Junaluska[edit]

The article CSS Junaluska you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Junaluska for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Junaluska/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Pistols[edit]

Hi Hog, just a note to say sorry for being tardy on the Sex Pistols FAR; work is on going and happily the article is not as bad as I initially feared. Mr Serial Number 54129 is doing a great job with the refs, which were anyway mostly high quality. You are being very supportive (I notice all of the FAR co-ords and regulars are top-notch), which is appreciated, but would like another month of mercy to complete, after which you will be pinged to review. ps, re Sandy's talk, there is nothing wrong with being a hick - i wear it as a badge of honour having been raised in a kitchen through hens would run, and we had pigs in the adgoining building. But that was the mid 70s; the place was primarily for dairy farming. Anyway, talk when you are pinged on the FAR and best. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you both a run for your money on the hick scale ... :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would not believe how strong my Cork accent is. Often when I introduce myself to Americans, they get confused and turn to my wife to ask "what did he just say?" :)[1] Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GAR question[edit]

Was about to take First Persian invasion of Greece to WP:GAR, then had a moment of doubt. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: - I'd argue that GAs should not be based largely on Herodotus, who tended to take the Little House on the Prairie approach to historical reporting, but there might be some disagreement on that (although I think the general consensus would be that it needs work). Personally, I would send Battle of Lade to GAR first, as it's in much worse condition than the 1st Persian Invasion one. Hog Farm Talk 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good shout; have done so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Plum Point Bend[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Plum Point Bend you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Plum Point Bend[edit]

The article Battle of Plum Point Bend you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Plum Point Bend for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Plum Point Bend/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of CSS General M. Jeff Thompson[edit]

The article CSS General M. Jeff Thompson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS General M. Jeff Thompson for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS General M. Jeff Thompson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CMLL[edit]

Hello. I have seen you requested an update for the CMLL World title. I updated the history section based on the table of champion. Is this enought for keeping the FA status? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: - for it to be at the FA comprehensiveness standard, it will need some write-up of any tournaments after the 2017 one, similar to what is in the article for the 2017 tournaments. I think that should be all. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have seen some sources, but I can't find any tournament for the World title after 2017. The list of champions stated that Ultimo Guerrero won the title in a tournament, but the source states that he just won a match. I think CMLL didn't hold any tournament for the title since 2017. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023 Military History Writing Contest[edit]

The Writers Barnstar
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to award you this Writer's Barnstar for your second placing (5 articles for 35 points) in April's edition of the Article Writing contest. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1824 United States presidential election in Missouri[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1824 United States presidential election in Missouri you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1824 United States presidential election in Missouri[edit]

The article 1824 United States presidential election in Missouri you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1824 United States presidential election in Missouri for comments about the article, and Talk:1824 United States presidential election in Missouri/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Whistling Dick (cannon)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whistling Dick (cannon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith article - upcoming nomination at FAC[edit]

Hi Hog Farm! I am here to let you (as well as the other FAC coordinators on their talk pages) know that P-Makoto and I intend to nominate the Joseph Smith article for Featured Article status within the next few weeks. After spending some time lurking at WP:FA and WP:FAC though, I notice that this article is lengthier and more complex than most of the articles that are nominated. I think the length is justified: Smith was and remains a very complex and controversial figure. And of course, just being complex and controversial with a long article doesn't necessarily disqualify a topic from FA status (for example, see Jesus). That said, I'm wondering if you have any specific thoughts, questions, or comments before we jump into things? I think the length and complexity of the material has turned off some reviewers from doing a deep dive into it in the past. For example, a 2013 PR request failed to attract a single reviewer or even a comment. Is there anything you recommend to offset this a little bit? Thanks in advance! Trevdna (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here in an effort to centralize discussion. I question the logic that a complex and controversial topic makes it impossible to write a concise encyclopedia article. My FA Armenian genocide is about an even more controversial topic in a part of the world fewer English speakers are familiar with; it's thousands of words shorter and without a ton of endnotes. I am not familiar enough with the topic to judge which sources are best, but pruning less reliable sources is often a good way to help improve conciseness. I also see opportunities to use summary style to improve conciseness, especially in the "Views and teachings" and "Revelations" sections. The last two paragraphs in "Polygamy" seem to be more about Emma than Joseph and should probably be moved/cut to some extent. I don't think that the article necessarily has to be cut drastically, but the endnotes in particular would cause me to oppose. FA articles unless they're about highly technical topics should not have lots of endnotes. If it's essential to reader understanding or important enough to include, it should probably be in the main text. Otherwise, it belongs in a sub-article. (That's my opinion on them anyway.)
Please be aware that many FAs do not meet the criteria and there is an ongoing effort to reevaluate them. When it passed, the Jesus article was significantly shorter. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevdna: - I'm moderately familiar with the Missouri Mormon War stuff and have access to a couple sources useful for that, so I can take a look at that section. Hog Farm Talk 13:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Glad I brought it up here first.
What do you think is an appropriate size - roughly - for this article? Of course, it will be fairly tough to seek consensus for trimming some of this: even though it's been a while, much of the language in the article is the result of acrimonious edit wars about 11 years ago. The neutral wording, especially in the "Life" section - even though it's perhaps too long - would prove difficult to undo or trim. One, because it is a very careful balance of various competing and irreconcilable views. And two, because some editors just really like how they worded that one thing (and think that "their thing" is Very Important!) and so are loathe to see it trimmed or shunted to a subarticle. I think I can try, but I'd like to get an idea of where our goal line is. (Again, roughly.) Right now it stands at 66 kB of readable prose size: does 40 kB (with few to no Notes at the end) sound like a reasonable goal? Trevdna (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is around 45 kb or even 50kb I don't think anyone could oppose based on length (although if you can say the same thing in fewer words that's always desirable). In my experience 11 year old edit wars can be quite easy to deal with because the editor causing the problem has often vanished. So don't let it get in the way of article improvement unless it's unavoidable. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I think the overall dynamics that sparked previous edit wars might still be in play - including some of the previous editors involved still being semi-active Wikipedians - but overall I think we can work with 45-50 kB if we’re generous about moving things to sub articles instead of just deleting. Trevdna (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring[edit]

Hi there @Hog Farm. We interacted shortly after I joined Wikipedia in December 2021. I got attached to Dietrich v The Queen after it was delisted as an FA. I spent over a year fixing it and it got passed as a GA. After a copyedit, I sent to FAC but got a "not quite yet" comment from a coordinator and told to get a mentor. Nobody at FA seems to mentor law articles. If you are open to it, I'd be very appreciative. If you look at the GA review, you'll see I am not afraid of work and I action comments promptly. The Ga review went for over a month, and I enjoyed it. Even if you're not up for a mentor, if you could just take a look and provide me with actions to take that would be great. I guess the next step is as I am advised - send to peer review. Before that, I'd like to try and make it as good to go as possible. I feel kinda stuck on where to turn here. @Buidhe, you left some comments on the FAC page, I'd be very happy for your assistance also, but note you aren't listed as a mentor. Thought I'd ask. I am quite "coachable" in the sense I love learning from the best and I take advice without getting annoyed or defensive. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaxnaCarta I have edited law articles before; I got Greek case to FA and Nuremberg trials halfway there. But honestly I'm a bit lost on how to improve your article. If prose is the main issue, then you might also consider WP:GOCE/REQ. Unfortunately, I'm not that good at fixing prose issues unless they're quite bad to begin with. (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe that’s why I’m struggling. It had a full copy edit by Goldzstan, then a full CE by the COGE! I feel disappointed by some of the feedback only because it wasn’t specific enough for me to spend however long it took fixing, then come back. Idk. If I can’t get a mentor I will got through all my sources again and try before sending to peer review. I guess if I want to try my hand at FA this happens, it can’t just be good, it needs to be perfect. I’ll do my best. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: - I don't think I'm a good mentoring choice for this one. I have basically no knowledge of that sort of law (Macks Creek Law was more government finance than law_, and my prose isn't all that great. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Hog Farm. Same to you Buidhe. Thank you both anyway. I've listed at peer review. Any feedback would be very much appreciated. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling Dick[edit]

I am sorry that I have not worked on the Whistling Dick (cannon) GA review for several days. Stuff happens. I noticed that a user named Premediated Chaos made some edits during that time. Two of the edits added duplicate citations, the reason given being, "quotes need citations immediately following." I am sure this is a mistaken application of a rule because in one case you only quoted two words! In fact, I use short quotes from authors all the time without feeling the need for duplicate citations. If I had to correct all of mine, I'd spend a year adding (unnecessary) citations to my many articles. Looking at another edit, I believe the editor means well. But I will remove the duplicate citations. Djmaschek (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at MOS:QUOTE and I don't see any rule that requires a citation to be added immediately after a short quote. Since the larger passage is cited, I don't see any reason to add a duplicate citation. One passage was: Ripley considers Slack's description to be "probably correct"... Since the author is mentioned in the sentence, one could skip the quotes altogether, or rephrase it. In any case, I will see what can be done. Djmaschek (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Djmaschek: - thanks for the reminder about the article - I'd mostly forgotten about the GA review. I think the extra quotes was from some sort of DYK rule. I've made an attempt at an infobox in my sandbox. How does it look? I've marked the bore diameter as approximate due to Ripley's figure being for a smoothbore piece instead of a rifled one, and have marked the weight as approximate because the potential banding would affect that as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, I think you want to use caliber instead of diameter. I think "c. 5.3" is OK for caliber since the rifled versions were usually very close to the smoothbore caliber. Other comments will be at the review page (but not yet). The weight for the 18-pounder siege carriage is on Ripley, p. 376. Djmaschek (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in to say that at DYK there's a special rule that any sentence used to support a hook must be directly cited in the article, even if it would otherwise be duplicative to cite it. That is likely the reason PMC added the cites. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Plum Point Bend[edit]

On 16 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Plum Point Bend, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the casualties suffered at the Battle of Plum Point Bend were very light given the amount of ordnance expended? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Plum Point Bend. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Plum Point Bend), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 15,685 views (653.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Whistling Dick (cannon)[edit]

On 16 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Whistling Dick (cannon), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Whistling Dick was "of rather modest proportions"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whistling Dick (cannon). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Whistling Dick (cannon)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 16,726 views (696.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion[edit]

Thanks for all your work and assistance with 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion (Derrick's Battalion). Like Edgar's Battalion, I believe it is an important part of West Virginia's Civil War history. TwoScars (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of USS Marmora (1862)[edit]

Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, USS Marmora (1862), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Whistling Dick (cannon)[edit]

The article Whistling Dick (cannon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whistling Dick (cannon) for comments about the article, and Talk:Whistling Dick (cannon)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dubuque, Arkansas[edit]

On 21 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dubuque, Arkansas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dubuque, Arkansas, was destroyed in the American Civil War and is now covered by the waters of Bull Shoals Lake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dubuque, Arkansas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dubuque, Arkansas), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1824 United States presidential election in Missouri[edit]

On 23 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1824 United States presidential election in Missouri, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1824 US presidential election in Missouri was not decided by the Electoral College, but by Missouri representative John Scott? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1824 United States presidential election in Missouri. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1824 United States presidential election in Missouri), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for talk page stalkers (there's allegedly 67 editors watching this page)[edit]

For those who would find this of interest, I am about to enter a hyperactively busy several months of real life (beginning in about 24 hours). My ability to do new research on all but tiny things will be close to nil most of the time, but I will find time to finish any reviews I have open and will try to respond to comments on my work/still outstanding nominations within a reasonably practical time span. If anything like Talk:1st Missouri Field Battery#Ship of Theseus comes up again, feel free to just FAR or GAR or AfD or whatever and I'll work on it later as I can; I know there's a Gottschalk source that needs replaced in several of my earlier articles. Maybe things won't be as bad as I expect, but I anticipate being very very busy for several months, and will be defaulting to spending time with wife/cats/books instead of trying to write things here. @FAC coordinators: I'll try to check in on weekends, but it may be necessary to replace me with someone capable of being more consistently active. Hog Farm Talk 19:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Snyder's Bluff[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Snyder's Bluff you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Unlimitedlead -- Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

I know you're super busy, and I've got a FAR nom opening tomorrow ... anything you want me to advance as my next FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the bandwidth to run an FAR (or to go through an article that's at FAR). Just let me know if there's something in particular you'd like another set of eyes on. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offers. I don't really have anything in mind, and all the ones I have up right now are pretty much stalled out so there's no pressing need for review there. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doolittle (album) Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated Doolittle (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with book[edit]

Hello, I plan on bringing banana slug to FAC sometime this year. I was wondering if this book is reliable enough. It is only 32 pages and I can't tell if the author is an expert but it has been cited in peer-reviewed articles. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Snyder's Bluff[edit]

The article Battle of Snyder's Bluff you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Snyder's Bluff for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Snyder's Bluff/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Unlimitedlead -- Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discontent Content Issue 7[edit]

DYK for CSS General M. Jeff Thompson[edit]

On 5 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CSS General M. Jeff Thompson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that M. Jeff Thompson described the Confederate ship named after himself as being "the largest and best, but slowest boat of the fleet"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CSS General M. Jeff Thompson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CSS General M. Jeff Thompson), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Helena scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Battle of Helena article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 4, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 4, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July songs
my story today

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "The Confederates strike at a Union post in eastern Arkansas in hopes of relieving some of the pressure on the Siege of Vicksburg. After a lot of wavering by Theophilus Holmes and a march slowed by bad weather, the Confederates attack and are figuratively taken to the woodshed (losses are about 7 Confederates to 1 Federal, using Confederate casualty numbers). It's all for naught, because Vicksburg surrenders the same day anyway."! - I have a DYK hook on the same page the mentions sinking a battleship, and I dislike it (to put it mildly) but surrendered. The ppor singer - many good things could have been said about him as a special person, not just something that fits every singer with a powerful voice of character. Good intentions to make it "interesting", but sad for me. At least it matches another sinking ship in OTD, with 300 dead. Happy Fourth of July in case independence is for you!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis[edit]

Thank you so much for offering to CE Jefferson Davis! I shortened the existing sections, but realized that the article version of the article that @Guerillero: had concerns about summarized JD's role in role in a manner that scapegoated him as per one version of the "lost cause" (Pollard's). The expansion of the Civil War's section from in term's of JD's decision making. I tried to reflect the sources (mainly Cooper and Davis) to allow readers to decide JD's impact on the war based on the constraints he worked with. The issues of the Civil War and the causes of the South's defeat go far beyond the responsibility of JD.

The policy sections were built on the suggestions of McPherson in Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief . McPherson reminded me that Davis's impact was much larger than just the battlefield. I to constructed a cited narrative to describe the role JD played in determining strategic policies that impacted the outcome of the war without leading to a firm concludion.

Part of the article's expansion is that JD ended up functioning as a President, which includes both biography and leadership in national policy. This challenges the length issue.

Thanks again I know whatever edits you make, will be the right ones. Also, I want to note that your comments during my editing process were very much appreciated. And if needed (or desired) I can help out in any way you request. It'd be great if we could ensure this article remained a featured article.

(An aside: Are you on target with updating the Siege of Vicksburg for July 4? If I can help in any way, let me know!) Wtfiv (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtfiv: - unfortunately, I got busy earlier this spring in RL (finished the CPA licensure process, wife's unsuccessful house hunting, etc) and am only about halfway through. I probably won't be doing much heavy content writing until September or October because of work, but am hoping to be back on it sometime later this year. Battle of Helena is scheduled to run on July 4 this year, instead (a Vicksburg-adjacent operation that also occurred on July 4).
I think the addition of content here was necessary, but will try to do what I can on wordiness. I don't know how effective I'll be, considering that I doubled the length of Thomas C. Hindman to about 7,500 words when Hindman's political career was straightforward and there aren't the legacy issues for Hindman like there are for Davis), but I'll see what I can do. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get it about RL, it catches up with all of us. Congratulations on completing the CPA licensure.
The Battle of Helena looks impressive, and it is a great way to let interested readers know that a lot happened during the Civil War in early June 1863. In my opinion, the Hindman article looks good too: it is both readable and gives readers a good overview of a lesser known but interesting figure. Thanks again! Wtfiv (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson expedition[edit]

I think the article is suitable for a B assessment. Do you wish to do it or should I put it on the review request page? If you have time, please let me know your thoughts about the likelihood of passing GA and perhaps what might need to be done for approval if you see something obvious. I had thought about putting it up after B assessment but I think another opinion and direction would be useful. I have some thoughts about its current state but I don't want to leave any preconceptions with you now. I may get a DYK from this because of the piano incident if I get it up quickly enough. I might as well enter it as my first ever contest entry if it gets to B. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a DYK nomination today. Donner60 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grierson's Raid[edit]

I can look at this in the near future, real life permitting. I have promised to improve a couple of Civil War articles and have a two outside history presentations to prepare. I also have a few other things in mind for Wikiipedia articles. These would include writing at least brief articles about some unit histories to do away with red links in Vicksburg articles. The articles probably will be brief but I can use Crute, Joseph H., Jr. Units of the Confederate States Army and Sifakis, Stewart. Compendium of the Confederate Armies for starters even if I can find little else. Maybe there are some old unit histories online. Yet, Grierson's Raid is interesting enough to keep it close to the top of the list. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: - I just skimmed through the Jackson article, and have assessed it as b-class. GAN should be doable if you want to go through the hassle; I can help out with the process or try to pick up the review if nobody beats me to it. As for Grierson's Raid, I just read about that in Starr's The Union Cavalry in the Civil War: The West yesterday. I also have the second and third volumes of Bearss's big trilogy - vol. 2 has quite a bit on Grierson's Raid. I can help out with the Grierson article if you would like, or consult sources as needed (I also live close enough to Wilson's Creek National Battlefield to take a Saturday trip to their big Civil War library if neither of us can get ahold of a needed source otherwise). Just as a heads up, I am very busy in real life right now with work, so I can't promise that any content work will occur at a quick pace. Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to Grierson's Raid, I've also found myself wondering for awhile if Battle of Newton's Station is truly best handled as a separate article, or if it's better treated merged into the main raid article as a section. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the B. I think I will go on to other things for now and consider whether a GA is needed for the entire campaign project later. Otherwise, it may take too much time to be worth it.
I should be able to do the Grierson expansion quite a bit more quickly than the Jackson. I have the Timothy Smith book on Grierson's Raid and the Starr book on the cavalry in the west. I have seen the raid mentioned in various Vicksburg books. That should help fill it out. So I think you should concentrate on other things and I can ask for you to take a look at it when I have it reasonably ready. Who knows what else might come up in the meantime?
It looks like my DYK is going to fail because all the changes to the Jackson expedition article were not made within 7 days. The last change was the day of the article and the hook was inserted only a few days ago. But I have re-read the criteria and see that is almost certainly not good enough since I started the expansion some weeks ago. My 21 DYKs some time ago were all from new articles. I did not give the expansion requirement time enough attention. I think it is a good hook. But I should have let it go. I will leave it for a day or two and then withdraw it without putting a question on the talk page, as suggested by the reviewer. In fact, I just left a note for the reviewer saying that it appears the DYK is too late and I will soon withdraw it. It is a lesson to work in user space on draft expansions in the event a DYK might be in order. Donner60 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023[edit]

Hello Hog Farm,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Novelty Glass Company[edit]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for looking at Novelty Glass Company. Sorry it has issues. I'll have to use my Murray book as a guide but not an official source. If there was a good book that covered the 13 Fostoria glass companies, I would certainly buy it—but I don't think one exists. Anyway, I was about to withdraw it from GA nomination, but I realized I do not know the procedure for doing that. Also, wouldn't it be better for you if you went ahead and failed it? That way you would get credit for a review, and you did spend some time on it. Thoughts? TwoScars (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and close it as withdrawn/unsuccessful. I think the article is in overall good shape, but that one source isn't really up to the RS standard (like that one detailed work with the Clark's Mill article I was working on). Best of luck with the Fostoria articles in the future! Hog Farm Talk 19:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hog_Farm/Archive_15&oldid=1163450724"