User talk:Pyrotec/Archive13Q1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
| ||||
| ||||
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
original barnstar awarded
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| for a patient and thorough and educational history lesson, above and beyond the call of duty here. Pyrotec has persistently worked to improve Wikipedia with Good Article reviewing, but I am not competent to award a Reviewer's Barnstar. Instead I award the original Barnstar because I am competent to recognize a kind and I think successful effort to improve the understanding of an unenlightened editor. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Hi ElijahBosley. Thanks very much for barnstar. It's much appreciated. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
|
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) 13:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can you review this?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Dr. Blofeld, Yes I can. I've also walked along it. Pyrotec (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, its a minor road but one which I hope should be able to get to GA because it is about as informative as you can get on such a road, its certainly more informative than the Delaware state highways I reviewed a while back anyway, but I look forward to your comments.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've reviewed a few, but not too many, of those (US state) highway articles. Some of them seem to have been "made" as if in factory-food blender and the road numbers and the map / route diagram just pasted on at the end. In general, they're boring to review. Your nomination is fourth in a list of four but, as its short, I'll try and finish in out of sequence: possibly today, but it might be tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, its a minor road but one which I hope should be able to get to GA because it is about as informative as you can get on such a road, its certainly more informative than the Delaware state highways I reviewed a while back anyway, but I look forward to your comments.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
GAN drive award
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| Thank you for performing 8 reviews during the November/December 2012 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
Archie McKellar
Thanks for reviewing. Unless you didn't already know, the GA2 was withdrawn because of the quality of the review. I expected it to be reviewed in the same way as other GA-listed articles; John Dundas (RAF officer), Eric Lock, Hans-Joachim Marseille etc etc. The inexperienced reviewer was not following G.A nom' guidelines, hence why we're here. He was asking for the deletion of material that was 'inclusion-standard' in other G.A fighter ace reviews. This is the first instance I have had like this. There might be some issues with the second paragraph, but I struggled to find a great deal on him so I've pursued a strategy of inclusion and added everything I could though appreciate somethings may have to be modified. Thanks again. Dapi89 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. Yeah for the most part you have. I was surprised because that is what some reviewers tend to do. Wikipedia is very bewildering. If each nomination is given good article status purely on the tastes of the reviewer then it is difficult to see how the quality of the articles can become standardised. The projects then look disjointed in quality and general appearance. Information that people would like to see may be available on one article, but not another. And I suspect that the kinds of people that look at these articles are people with an avid interest so appreciate a certain amount of detail. Each and everyone, ideally, should look very similar and if it’s good to pass one reviewer’s then it should with another. I think you’d agree that’s logical, but this place never seems to behave in logical fashion all the time. Moreover, it is frustrating that a reviewer, who may not have an interest in the subject(s) they are reviewing, should have a greater say on the content... but those are just general complaints. Therein lay my apparent misunderstanding of how all this should function.
- But I don’t believe I made a request. I was sort of fishing around to see whether or not you would review it along those lines so I knew what to expect really. I’m tired already of this process with this particular article so I’m more amenable to conforming it to GA. But deleting large portions of it, I think, would prevent it from qualifying – is there a bare minimum of content for GA, as in the size of the article? As far I can see the greatest opponent to this article's nomination was always its small size. Anything else can always be altered. After the last 'review' I appreciate the lucidity of your comments. Dapi89 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Pre-GA review review
If you have time, could you take a look at So God Made a Farmer and point out any improvements that can be made? I nominated it for a GA review, but would like to get as many issues fixed as possible beforehand. Ryan Vesey 23:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK. It will be sometime this weekend or possibly Monday, I've got three GA reviews in progress, so I will have a look at it sometime when I need a break from the other reviews. I always use British-English and since that appears to be written in American-English I'll not comment on grammar/spelling/phraseology etc. Pyrotec (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013
| ||||
| ||||
Hi, can you review this one?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: Featured editorial
Hey! Yo are very welcome to express your point of view regarding the featured editorial :) I will take a look at your draft tonight and will give you a more thorough response by then. Thanks for showing interest on that editorial and I'm glad if you can, instead of adding it to the "discuss this story" section, add it inside the editorial as your own perspective. Or maybe, we can have your draft as next month's editorial.What do you think? Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
|
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) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up, I've found the time to go through the sources you suggested and complete the GA review articles. I've left comments on the review page itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added Ignocrates (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks in advance. Ignocrates (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| You don't have enough of these for the amount of work you do in this area. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
- This is only the second barnstar I have ever given in three years, so I don't give them lightly. Even though we disagree sometimes I always find your comments insightful and without your efforts the Good article project would suffer. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the barnstar, to receive one from another reviewer is an honour and it is much appreciated. Pyrotec (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. There's a real art to disagreeing with people successfully enough to get them to see your point of view and work together to produce an article that's better overall, which is certainly what we've done in the past. Keep it up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the barnstar, to receive one from another reviewer is an honour and it is much appreciated. Pyrotec (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment
Hey Pyrotec; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Monmouth Rebellion/GA1
As an experienced GA reviewer would you be willing to take a look at (& possibly comment on) the attribution/sourcing issue at Talk:Monmouth Rebellion/GA1?— Rod talk 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, which has helped to improve the article. I wasn't aware of an issue re the Bundy painting - should I take any action?— Rod talk 12:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
|
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) 04:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Updating the page "Good article statistics"
Excuse me, Pyrotec, but if you could either update the page "Good article statistics" or tell me how to do so, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty new here, so I don't know how to do it. I saw in the history that you were the last one to update the page, so I thought you might know how to go about doing so. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, neither of these options are possible. The raw data needed to do this was updated by a bot, but the bot has not run since 1 February 2013. Its not likely to be restarted and without the data there is nothing to update. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If I have the approximate number of good articles at 0:00 UTC on 1 March and 1 April (16,915 and 17,167, respectively), should I just put those numbers in and make a note that they are approximate? I guess the problem might be finding the total number of articles and the number of featured articles. What do you think? AmericanLemming (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- And if you're wondering where I got those numbers, I check the GA page several times daily, and I wrote down the number of GAs on February 28 and March 31, respectively, so those values should be fairly accurate. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means add the GA figures to the table, with a note. Thanks for collecting the data. With those figures I can update some (well two) of the graphs in respect of the numbers of GAs and GA growth rates. Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interestingly there is a FA statistics table at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics, which does give the total number of articles, but it seems to be one month out of phase with Wikipedia:Good article statistics, or perhaps it is just an axis-labelling problem. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means add the GA figures to the table, with a note. Thanks for collecting the data. With those figures I can update some (well two) of the graphs in respect of the numbers of GAs and GA growth rates. Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the GA table now, but I didn't realize that the FA statistics table gives the total number of articles. I just guessed what the total number of articles was using Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia and interpolating, so at some point you or I should fix that. The tables do agree; it's just that the GA table is based on the beginning on the month, whereas the FA table is based on the end of the month. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)