User talk:Pyrotec/Archive11Q3

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 7, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 7, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The River Parrett flows through the counties of Dorset and Somerset in South West England, from its source in the Thorney Mills springs in the hills around Chedington in Dorset. Flowing northwest through Somerset and the Somerset Levels to its mouth at Burnham-on-Sea, into the Bridgwater Bay Nature Reserve on the Bristol Channel, the Parrett drains about 50 per cent of Somerset's land area. The 37-mile (60 km) long river is tidal for 27 miles (43 km) up to Oath. Because the fall of the river between Langport and Bridgwater is only 1 foot per mile (0.2 m/km), it is prone to frequent flooding in winter and during high tides. During the Roman era the river was crossed by a ford, and in Anglo-Saxon times formed a boundary between Wessex and Dumnonia. From the medieval period the river served the Port of Bridgwater, enabling cargoes to be transported inland. The arrival of the railways led to a decline and commercial shipping now only docks at Dunball. The Parrett along with its connected waterways and network of drains supports an ecosystem that includes several rare species of flora and fauna. The River Parrett Trail has been established along the banks of the river. (more...)

St. John's

You did a GA review of St. John's and said that the intro needed to be re-wrote for it to pass. I tried to get someone to re-write it but had no luck, I started to attempt it myself and I was wondering if you could give me some suggestions. What I have wrote so far is in my Sandbox, I have two paragraphs completed and wanted to do a third on the economy. I was wondering if you could check over what I have got written and possibly give me some guidance on where to go from here. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead is intended to both introduce the article and to summarise the main points. I've done a copy edit on Sandbox using strike through and red font, so that you can see my changes (the view history also has the same effect). You don't have to accept my changes if you don't like them; and I'm willing to offer more advice, if needed. However, having made these suggestions, I'm going to rule myself out from reviewing the article (again) if it is resubmitted at WP:GAN. I'm sure that you will get a good review; but I'm, possibly, somewhat "biased" (in favour). Pyrotec (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I liked everything you added, thanks a lot. I would think that a paragraph on the economy, which I had tried to start, would be the next and final paragraph in the opening? If you have an ideas on that you can tell me. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Paisley Gilmour Street

Hi, re this cat change - putting G&SWR is one that I considered carefully. According to this map, the joint line ended within Gilmour Street station. According to Butt (p.180), Gilmour Street was opened by the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock & Ayr Railway (which was of course the direct ancestor of the G&SWR), and at Grouping was owned by the Glasgow & South Western. It's likely (almost certain) that the Caley trains to Greenock (etc.) called at Gilmour Street, but that doesn't imply joint ownership of the station itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, thanks for your comments. You are usually much blunter in your replies. I assume from your note that you have not been to Paisley Gilmour Street and are not aware of its history, other than that gleaned from a limited subset of sources. Unfortunately, you've made the wrong choose which is why I changed the Cat. The Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway (G,P&GR) and the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway (G,P,K&AR) both received their Acts of Parliament (on the same day) on the basis that the line between Glasgow and Paisley was "joint", hence the joint line and station(s): Glasgow Bridge Street railway station being at the other end. I have a hard copy of that map (an undated Ian Allan, 1914 version). If you look carefully the joint line runs from Glasgow to Wallneuk junction, where it may or may not becomes a purely G&SWR line for one block, and then continues/becomes a joint line to the "circle" of Gilmour Street station. I very much doubt that the diagram could be used to produce a strong case that Gilmour Street station was solely owned by the G&SWR. Butt is "correct" in that Gilmour Street station was opened by the G,P,K&AR for passenger services - he states 14 July 1840 and Robertson (1983) states 15 July 1840 (so I won't argue over the date). The G,P&GR got into difficulties with their tunnel near Bishopton so their services to Greenock did not start until March 1841 (Robertson (1983)). Gilmour Street station was originally built as a two-track station (two passenger platforms: up & down, plus one goods bay) so the G,P&GR and G,P,K&AR lines originally diverged "after" (further from Glasgow) the station. The projected routes can be seen on James Knox's Plan of Paisley, updated to 1839 by Geo Martin. Note: at that time neither Gilmour Street nor the station of that name existed, but the adjacent Moss Street did. Thomas, John (1971) has a photograph on page 52 taken about 1888, which shows the station in that condition. At a later date the Glasgow-Paisley route was made quadruple track (fast and slow/up and down) (later, at the time of Glasgow to Gourock & Wemyss Bay electification, reduced to two tracks and now I beleive increased to three); so each company had an up and a down platform (i.e. four passenger platforms) and the two separate company lines now diverged "before" the the station. The Railway Clearing House Handbook of Railway Stations 1904, page 418 shows Gilmour Street with three companies: Caledonian, G&SWR and G & P Jt. These seem to be owners, not users, but its not precisely spelt out. The Caledonian and the G&SWR were deadly rivals so there is no doubt that the Caledonian used Gilmour Street station: not "It's likely (almost certain)..." as you stated above. In the late 1970s when I first started using the station, there were two sets of booking offices at either end of an under platform tunnel (at that time out of use, it was being used by Red Star Parcels): with one set of refurbished booking offices and the other set not in use, housing a Model shop (with its platform steps blocked off). The tunnel has subsequently been reopened, the "open" booking reversed and the platform stairs reopened. I'd assumed, without any proof at that time, that the two sets of booking offices were pre-Grouping and belonged to the two different companies (Caledonian and G&SWR). However, proof of ownership and of separate booking offices does exist in a contemporary account (known for short as "Morrisons Guide to the Glasgow, Greenock and Ayr railway", and in full as "The Glasgow and Ayr and Glasgow and Greenock Railway Companion: containing a description of the Railroads, with notices of the Towns, Villages, Antiquities and Nobleman and Gentleman's seats in the vicinity") published in 1841 (I think the date is MDCCCXLI), available on Google books, which states that the station house (on Gilmour Street) is jointly owned (by the Caledonian and the G&SWR), that there were separate booking offices on the ground floor for each company; and on the first floor there were six appartments: one for the Directors, one for the Secretary, one for general meetings, one for Porters, one for lady passengers and one for gentlemen passengers. There was also a separate building nearby for the sole use of the Joint Company. So Paisley Gilmour Street was a Joint Station, a through terminal station, on the Joint Line. Pyrotec (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also checked the googlebooks version of Whishaw, Francis (1842) [1840]. Whilst he describes both railways in some detail, which includes tracks, viaducts, bridges, engines and capital costs, there is no description of Gilmour Street station. However, it is clearly stated: (page 119) the line between Glasgow Paisley "was executed conjointly"; and (page 120) "the Ayrshire Railway and the Greenock Railway proceed as one line between Glasgow and Paisley, just beyond which place they separate". Pyrotec (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Whishaw! I did read that about twenty years ago, a very battered copy (David & Charles reprint, green cover, as I recall) in Bolton Public Libraries. Have been searching for a copy to buy ever since. What is the URL on Google Books?

I don't doubt the ownership of the line approaching Gilmour Street from Glasgow, nor that of the two lines to the west: my concern was with the station itself. It's my belief that stations first opened prior to Grouping should be categorised into whichever sub-cat of Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by former operator best reflects the pre-group owner of the station itself, not of its approach lines; and that companies with running powers only, no co-ownership, are ignored.

I forgot to look in the RCH 1904 book; you're right that it isn't clear on the nature of the "Company" column. Examination of certain stations shows that some companies are mentioned which had no routes within miles, but which did have running powers to the station. For example, on the Caledonian route between Kinnaber Junction and Aberdeen (Joint), the North British had running powers but no ownership; and "N.B." is shown against Stonehaven, Aberdeen (Joint) - and about nine of the goods facilities in Aberdeen. Similarly, Perth (General) shows High. and N.B. in addition to Cal.; and Edinburgh Waverley, indisputably a North British station, also shows "N.E.". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that R.V.J. Butt got it wrong, i.e Paisley Gilmour Street was a joint station under the control of the Glasgow and Paisley Joint railway, but the two owning/operating companies starting running their services throught it at different times, and Butt took the first company running passenger services to be the owner. [The Ayrshire was running some services in Ayrshire in 1839 and started running between Glasgow & Paisley in July 1840, with the Glasgow, Paisley, Greenock services, on the Caledonian route, starting 7 to 9 months later (depending on the source).] The appropriate Cat for former owner: is therefore, in my oppinion, Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway. Your edit had the G&SWR as the sole former owner, my first intention was to add the Caledonian Railway as the other former owner, but then I went for the joint company, a category I believe that you created. Morrison's guidebook to both companies (see above) clearly states that the station at Paisley was jointly owned. If you were right then the Caledonian would have needed running powers and that would not have been in accordance with the two Acts of Parliament: since the track and stations were owned jointly, but no evidence has been produced of any running powers agreement between the G&SWR and the Caley for Gilmour Street station. The very "cut-throut" antics of the two companies in respect train and boat services on the Clyde coast meant that they would not have cooperated (both nearly drove each other into financial ruin). Glasgow Bridge Street was (a/another) joint station, but both companies eventually moved out over several years: the Caley to Glasgow Central and the G&SWR to St Enoch. The G&SWR also opened the Paisley Canal Line at about the same that the joint line was converted to quadruple track. I've used the D&C reprint (of I think the 3rd edition), I borrowed it from Southampton University library some five/six years ago (for several 3-week loans) and tried to buy one second hand. I wikipeida editor told me about the google version. The google edition is at here but I've saved a pdf copy to my hard drive, in a folder called "railway books". Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine fine, we'll keep Paisley Gilmour Street as G&P Joint. Now, a similar case: how do you stand on Pollokshaws West, considering that it's on the Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway, and the stations to either side on that line (Kennishead and Crossmyloof) are in Category:Former Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway stations? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Butt (page 187), the name "Pollokshaws West" only goes back to BR and 1952; before that it was "Pollockshaws", opened by the GB&NDct but flagged as a GB&K station. Working backwards in time: it was BR, before that LMS, before that Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Line , and before that Glasgow, Barrhead and Neilson Direct. The Category:Former Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway stations already exists and is a subcat of both the former Caledonian and G&SWR stations. I'd be tempted to remove it from Category:Former Glasgow and South Western Railway stations and Category:Former Caledonian Railway stations and put it into Category:Former Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway stations - its still falls within the Calley & the G&SWR but through a child directory (a sub-cat to be precise). They were afer all the best of bitter rivals. Pyrotec (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

...which is how I set it, but Pencefn had other ideas, see also here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Flame Fougasse GA review

Pyrotec: this review seems to have stalled. Is there some way I may be able to help with access to referecnes or in some other way? I am going to have little time for Wikipedia for the next couple of weeks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Pyrotec: thanks for all your efforts, I know that reviewing is no easy job. Thanks again. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks:TFA

Hi Pyrotec. Just a word of gratitude for your GA review of the Mantra-Rock Dance article that became one of the article's milestones on its way to a TFA appearance slotted for July 16. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Tefillin

		Thank you!
		Thank you for taking the time and effort to award GA status to Tefillin! Much appreciated! Chesdovi (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aqsa GA

Greetings Pyrotec! Thanks so much for the pass and the hold extension; I needed it. I'll be sure to fix those other issues asap. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

GA for Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin

I just noticed you are taking this GA review. Since Racepacket has been banned for a year, I am not sure there is anyone to address any problems you might find. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Talk:Ein Avdat/GA2. It appears that there are some copyright issues in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal, thanks

Thanks very much for undertaking the review of the ship canal. It's been a long while in the writing, and a bit of relief now to have that little green blob. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Review

Hi Pyrotec! It's been a while, but Harry Randall Truman been's sitting at GAN for quite a while now, and I figured it could use a decent review from someone I trust as a reviewer. If you are able to find time, it would be fantastic if you could review it! ceranthor 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Ceranthor, I can review it, but it will be fifth in a queue five, so it might not be started for few days. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's totally fine. Thank you very much! ceranthor 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and the pass! :D ceranthor 17:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nibiru collision

Well, going down the list of sources, this one is used several times Phil Plait. "The Planet X Saga: Nancy Lieder". badastronomy.com, so throwing it into DD gives [1] that there's one match of a string of 204 characters/40 words. Which raises alarm bells. But checking back it seems that at least a portion of it is a quote being used in the article. Just to make sure, I throw the quote into a character counter and see that it's 210 chars, which means that this is indeed a false positive. The subsequent matches are 6 words or less so they're not copyvios.

Then go on to the next source which is used several times in the article: [2]. In DD: [3]. The first match is 14 words but its obvious that this is the citation title so not a copyvio. The next longest match is 8 words, "could be seen only from the south pole", but you can see immediately from the words around the bolded text that they're different from each other so that one's also ok. This one basically could use a little bit more rewording but it's minor.

Check two more that are used more than once: [4] DD and again it's easy to see that the longest match is to the actual citation. And [5] DD - this has a 14 word match but checking back in the article, it's another quotation, so ok.

So that's only 4 sources out of 54 and only about 10 citations but it looks like it checks out. Of course all 54 citations could be checked and that *would* take much longer than 10 minutes but, again, this is just meant as a spot check done to pick up the most obvious instances of copyvios. It's quite possible that something was missed.

Together with the writing of this message on your talk page this took me about 13 minutes.

Btw, I don't know what the standards for this kind of subject are, but with this article it seems like the main problem is the reliability of sources rather than copyvios. This for example appears to be a blog. But it's a weird subject so I guess you'll get weird sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

hello there

• I've been swamped in real life; return to WT:WIAGA and find you speaking somewhat less than well of me (from all appearances). Some of your comments make it seem as though you feel I have been thinking of you and then saying uncomplimentary things (without naming your name). Let me set your mind at ease: I flatly have zero-point-zero idea who you are. I have never said anything negative with you in mind. I just think it's a jaw-dropping oversight to have no explicit mention of WP:COPYVIO anywhere in WIAGA. I wish you nothing but the best. Best regards  – Ling.Nut (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • PS there's a redlink to User talk:Pyrotec/Header atop this page. Just FYI.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • PPS – Call me slow-witted (my wife always does; why shouldn't you?) but could you summarize for me the main point that you are trying to get across on my talk page? I just don't follow... sorry.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Request assistance with British English

Greetings, Pyrotec! I was wondering if you might do me a favor. I am under the impression that you're a native speaker of British English.... I myself am a Yank, and though I can recognize "colour" and "aluminium" well enough I'm still a bit rusty on the details. I am reviewing the GA nomination for Tiverton Preedy, and I'm a bit unsure about the word choice and tone. The prose seems stodgy to me in places, old fashioned, but I'm not sure if that isn't just the way I hear proper British English. Things like:

• "Preedy was engaged to assist the vicar"
• "Preedy was taken with the idea of"
• "Terry Allen boxed at the club as a youngster"
• "Barnsley defeated West Bromwich Albion to lift the trophy"
• "Preedy had become keen on the concept of"
• etc.

In your opinion, are these sorts of phrasings (a) perfectly correct for an encyclopedia article in British English, (b) a little quirky but not too much of a problem for GA status, or (c) problems that need to be fixed. Thanks for any advice, – Quadell ^(talk) 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, well spotted. I'm a bit rusty on anything in American-English beyond color and aluminum but I do sometimes review North America nominations (and I have to resist the temptation to do minor corrections in British-English). To respond to the specific questions above:

• "Preedy was engaged to assist the vicar": acceptable. "Employed", or "hired" are possible alternatives for "engaged", these tend to imply payment, possibly "engaged" does as well.
• "Preedy was taken with the idea of". I don't like this very much, it has a lot of unnessary words. The sentence would read far better as "Preedy was taken with the idea enthusiatic, not least because football was seen in the area as the "poor man's sport" and his involvement would ...".
• "Terry Allen boxed at the club as a youngster": OK.
• "Barnsley defeated West Bromwich Albion to lift the trophy": I don't like this, it is bad English and unencyclopedic, but this is the type phrase used nowadays on TV and in the newspapers. Barnsley defeated West Bromwich Albion to win the cup/trophy (which presumably they were allowed to keep for 12 months, until the 1913 FA cup final). The fact that they "lifted the cup" (presummably above their heads to allow photographs to be taken) is (over) emphasing the joy of winning.
• "Preedy had become keen on the concept of": that whole paragraph is over-wordy. It does not strike me as a particularly good summary of what was written in the source - Lupson, Peter (2007). Thank God for Football!. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. ISBN 1-9026-9430-9.

For various reason, Copyright and copyright violations has become a hot topic at GAN (and a couple of my 2009 GAN reviews failed to find copyvios). For that reason it would be good to check the article against the book: the "poor English" may lay with the book's author and it has been copied over (possible copyvio), the "poor English" may have a risen as a result of summarising what was in the book (and is not a copyvio), the various editors are using English in a manner that they are used to seeing. Pyrotec (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Related to the above, this is a great addition to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Firefox & spelling

I read your comment here - that problem is usually caused by the appropriate language packs being disabled (see Tools>Add-ons) or not being installed (see [6]). Hope this helps :) EyeSerene^talk 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent :) EyeSerene^talk 17:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks kindly for your GA review of Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, and consistent positive attitude! Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, its much appreciated. 18:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

St. Johns GA review

Would you mind providing a second opinion on the GA review of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador? I've been fairly liberal with suggested changes, particularly in the lead section. So I thought it best to invite another pair of eyes to take a look. I'm currently requesting four corrections, marked on the talk page with "Important" boxes. The rest of the article seems okay and I'm leaning toward GA if the "important" items are corrected. Folklore1 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not know you had expanded the lead after your GA review. The second opinion I want should come from somebody else, who hasn't contributed text to the lead. So I'll wait a bit longer to see of somebody who didn't work on the lead responds to my 2ndopinion request. Thanks. Folklore1 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work on CME

Thank you for the constructive work in Chief Mechanical Engineer. I especially appreciate "officers from the Corps" as a great improvement over my "royal engineer". While most everyone else (including me) is bickering about style, you are contributing real substance. Jojalozzo 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:POINT

My interpretation of WP:POINT is to apply policy in ways that are absurd or inappropriate. I am not trying to make such any point by applying the policy for job titles to the CME article. I am simply applying an unambiguous policy that titles are only capitalized when followed by a persons name, whether they are normally capitalized in the workplace or not. This applies equally to kings, emperors, popes and chief mechanical engineers. That's not disrupting the project and your accusation that I am doing so is inaccurate and edging close to uncivil. Jojalozzo 23:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway GA...thanks

Hi, Firstly I wanted to extend my sincere thanks for reviewing the above article and for awarding it a GA status. I have spent the best part of 2 and a half years researching it and feel like I have eventually reached the halfway point at last! Just a quick question. Now the article has reached GA I am very keen to start heading in the direction of FA. I have looked back at the GA review and feel encouraged by your comments that you consider this article to have FA potential. You have said that the filmography sections could do with some refs in order to head towards FA status. I wanted to know if you think its a good idea adding some refs to the filmography section using BFI (British Film Institute). Is this a good source? I will steer clear from IMDB most certainly. Your thoughts? Cassianto (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)