User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive10

Leaving
I wish you the best. As I've written before, grades and just general growing-up things should take precedence, although I do hope that you'll come back at times and both use Wikipedia as a reference in your works and also assist in a minor way -- not in an addictive way, as I'm finding myself to be somewhat caught in the same situation. As someone who has counseled teens before (not that I'm an expert), if you need any help or advice, just give me a holler. See you back here soon, hopefully (again, in a non-addictive manner). --Nlu (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Jorge! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good for you!
There will always be opportunities to make your contributions here, but your high school years, once gone, can never be replicated. Good luck and stop back by every now and then (but don't get addicted). -- DS1953 talk 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another RfA, another leaving Wikipedia
Why are you doing this to yourself? Time and time again you have an RfA, it doesn't go the way you want it to, and you leave Wikipedia. The only person you are harming is yourself.

Look, everyone values your contributions here. I've been particularly impressed that you've taken great pains to improve your spelling. You still have some improvement to do in spelling, but you're spelling has tremendously improved. I also note that you have become considerably better at appropriate tagging of images; a point I raised in an RfA of yours a while back.

It's obvious that you try very hard, and you are conscientious about the work you do here. The number of support votes that you got on this RfA is testament to how hard you have worked. Look at the opposes, and indeed many of the opposes of your prior RfAs. People are opposing in large part because every month you have another RfA that doesn't go the way you want it to, you withdraw the RfA, and then you leave Wikipedia. The cycle of behavior is yours in the making. Only you can stop it. Only you.

Now, put down your bags, log back in here, and get back to work already! Stop with the leaving stuff. Start working again, and for GOD'S SAKE WAIT AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS BEFORE ANOTHER RfA ATTEMPT, ok? That means, wait until at LEAST July 22nd. If you do that, and stop leaving/coming back/leaving/coming back over and over again, your RfA will pass with flying colors. People are upset at the predictable, negative behavior...not your contributions. WE WANT YOU HERE! --Durin 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing with that RFA on why I'm leaving, it's that I want to become a normal teen again. Wikipedia is too hooking and beacuse of that I have less time with stuff, I want to be left alone. Aranda

Good work; Good luck
I want to become a normal teen again...

If there was a better reason for stepping back from this whole project, I cannot imagine what it is. Good luck in the real world... if only we were all so brave to go there, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 09:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Makemi RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Good luck with being a teenager. It's harder than it looks. Mak emi 04:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscarthecat RfA
Thanks for voting on my RfA. I crashed and burned on this occasion, not to worry. Might retry in a few months. --Oscarthecat 09:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Homer Simpson wins!
Joyous | Talk 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ( T / C ) 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA


Hi, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored pages
I got the Vandal RfA userfied for you, but the Mathbot RfA didn't appear to have any content before it was speedied. Hope that helps. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April fools thing
I don't know if I've been dupped or what regarding the ongoing User:Cyde incident, but sorry to butt in to your space (referring to my revert). He hit my page and I thought it was a vandal, and I'm still not quite sure what's going on. --DanielCD 02:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Requests_for_adminship/Vandal
Sorry, I didn't catch what space it was in. I have a low tolerance for April Fool's nonsense in Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
By the way, did you notice you were blocked indefinitely today? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know you were unblocked. I just thought it would be a neat thing to know.  Actually I moved the GNAA AfD and was  afterwards surprised I didn't get bot-banned because of the "ON WHEELS!" at the end (I didn't think about the possibility before I did it).  You want that in your userspace, BTW?  I'm not sure it's funny enough for BJAODN. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pirate day
Oh joy, oh joy.

-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

..:::::::::::::...                        .:::::::::::::::::::::::.                       :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.                     ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::                    :::::::::'`:::::::::::::::::                   .:::`.,  nnr , nn,,,,.``_`':::::::: ::' ,n=",dMP",n', MMPMP"4b,`"nx.`:::::: `.nMMb.nMM.nP",nP JMB4Mn 4MMn MMb.`::::                 .dMMMMMMMMMMLuMMP  )ML 4ML 4MMMMMMMb.`::                 .MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"."  "Mb."Mx`4MMMMMMMM.`:                 MMMMMP"P4MMMMM"""" .dc`Mb "Mn 4MMMMMMMM.                uMMM" .,xnMMMP  .r d$$$.`M .`4b."MMMM."T"          .. .,nMMMMnMMP"""" . ,".d$$$$$ P ?b`.`.`MMMML +.        .dMMMM"  "3M",, .";===   $$$$$$$c    `b-`.)MMMMb Mr        P ..,/ ,xP" nP -"        $$$$$$P? ..   >`"MMMP.MM       '.dMP".nP".nP"  .. `?.   J$$$$$h. "L.      MM L`4M       uMMMMMP x "   .d$$$cd$$L,,$$$$$$$$$cc,.z ; d MM .,dMB ,J" '"" ,P   xL $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$r  Mr4MMP"MMB ,df'     Mn' ,`$F $$$$$$$$$$$ ???$P?$$$$$$$L dMB4MP d"P ,pP"    ,xnMM" $".`` $$$$$$$$$$$h. ' ,z$$$$$$$ MM '" MM J"    .dMMP" ,d".$".x`?$$$$$$$$$$$$hcd$$$$$$$$$c,. uM MP      -4MM ,c$F)." xP =."$$$$$$$"'     "?$$$$$$$$" nMM ">    .=  M' )$$$'. ;hn,x\ `?$$$$$ccJccicicc$$$$$P -MMM  x>  .=      -$$$P'  ?")" . / "?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" ./ dP,P"...               ,n. '  d" \ -.`?$$$$$$$$$$$$P"  ."./ x" ,.             ,==",= nMB      . ."???$$P"""  ...$ d x"  .nMMMMMMMM,    $$$$$hc"" ... =$"  M. ,CCCCCCCCCCCCCC. ,n.nmdP ,dMMMMMM" -,  .$$$$$$$$$$$P ,cF.> M .CC'CCCCCCCCCCCCC ,dMPP"'.,uMMP""" '".,<<<>>>. ?$$$$$$$..   c".<>'M <>  `C> ..,, "    .MMMMMP'   ..""$$$$$$$h=- %.CC><>.`..' `.- ' C> , CCC>.`>>,,,.     MMP"      -- , ,/ -\>  C CCCC>.`  ) CCCC>' `)CCCC   ='          -.<> ,(''    <C>>- .-CCCCCC CCCCCC> `CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC' ,C>          =\   ..<CCCCCC> -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-

--<b style="color:#0055aa;">Cyde Weys</b> 07:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that you're back
Jaranda, now that you're back...please take my advice from a bit back when I said don't try for RfA again until July 22nd. That's four months from the last RfA. That should give plenty enough time for people to stop fretting over frequency of RfA noms you've had. I'm glad you've returned. I agree this site can be addicting. Keep it in moderation, as with all things in life. --Durin 18:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to try again until longer, August 21st at the earlist, I'm probaly going to be away from wikipedia in July 22, depending on how good is my arm-surgery in June. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to mention that you have improved in all my areas of criticism from the previous RfA's i noticed the Tatum article has taken off. Good work. David D. (Talk) 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just realised that i missed the melodrama of number six. i thought 1) you were never running for admin again, 2) i never imagined you'd run until May. Wasn't that the time people were suggesting on number 5?  I scrolled up and saw what durin wrote and he is correct. You must behave in a mature manner.  Almost all the oppose votes in six were due to the melodrama.  Your English, vandal work and work on starting new sporting articles are all excellent and you are so much more rounded than the newbie from six months ago. In that context, you are clearly ready to be an excellent admin. BUT, next time you choose to write something dramatic don't hit save, hit delete. Count to 10 or something, but don't post it on wikipedia. Please. David D. (Talk) 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I need to clarify that by "please" i mean i don't want you to give people an excuse to vote oppose. I realised that could have been taken as a sarcastic comment but it was not intended that way. Wait until end of July, as Durin suggests, and i think you could get voted in with very few oppose votes. In fact, i know it after seeing how much support Can't sleep, clown will eat me is getting. David D. (Talk) 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Tatum
Re: Featured article candidates/Jack Tatum/archive1

I left a comment in the WP:FAC page, thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My main issue is that it doesn't seem to match up to current bio FAs, but not really knowing anything about the subject had trouble giving you direct suggestions to work on. I notice that User:Ataricodfish has now left much more constructive critisms than I managed, you might find it useful to go through his points. --zippedmartin 23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi I went through and copyedited...--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]](talk) 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Tatum FAC
Hey there -- Thanks for your comments. As for getting the books, I can imagine they're hard to locate. I did a search on eBay and found the first book for $6.00 on hardcover, which might be worth a purchase (although I can't vouch for the seller, obviously, but the link's |here.   As for Sports Illustrated and perhaps the other books, you might have luck finding them at a college library.  I'm not familar with the Miami area, but I know the university in my area has back issues for many magazines going back to 1950.  I'll be glad to help with a copyedit for grammar, etc., although I've been busy this week and have another copy edit to do before your article.

I should note that the reason I called your article a Cliff's Note isn't an insult -- it's nice and compact. The problem is it's too compact. It's just not strong enough for FA yet, as I keep wanting to know more about the guy and the article just offers a small taste. It might be hard to find outside resources on Tatum, but they're surely out there, somewhere, and I think they'll be an important contribution to get the article to FA status. For a sample of a FA on a sports figure and what seems to be expected, you might want to check out Wayne Gretzky, which recently became a FA.

Best of luck!

--Ataricodfish 02:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're doing well, don't be too rushed about FA :) Pictures are obviously a problem at the moment. The guys running the cricket wikiproject have had the same problem with cricketers - they've literally been going up to famous current and ex-cricketers and photographing them. It's the only way... there are tons of commerical sports photos out there, but the whole point of commercial sports photography would break down if images could be reproduced as fair use so easily. Check out Image:Nasser Hussain.JPG - there are thousands of images of this guy, a former England cricket captain, out there, he's one of the biggest names in sport in both England and India (where he was born and had a huge following) and we didn't have an image for him til a Wikipedian managed to meet and photograph him. And rather than a photo of him in his prime, competing in a big match... we have a rather jaded Hussain, casually dressed, several years after his retirement. That's tough. For many big name players we have nothing at all - that's just the way it is. (Even worse: Image:Shaun Pollock.JPG, one of the biggest sportspeople in South Africa, is another example - for a while our main pic of him actually was of him, looking startled, being grabbed, literally, by a Wikipedian - then someone else edited the Wikipedian out!) If you know or might know anyone who ever has had the good fortune to photograph your man (either at a game, or at a book signing... anything really) and they might be persuaded to release a pic under GFDL that'd be great. But you can't assume you can release anything you find on the net. You might also want to track down the copyright holder of an image you have found and ask them if they would be prepared to release. (As a general note: giving weblinks is not enough even in "good" fair use claims, you must try to identify the individual copyright owner) But, seriously, don't rush it. Your text is coming up to good quality, referencing is pretty good, your content is lacking detail and serious research (people tend to read thick books before something gets through FA) but it's definitely getting there :) TheGrappler 04:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi! While User:Titoxd is on a Wikibreak, he gave me permission to do some leg-work concerning Esperanza admin coaching, and I noticed that you had volunteered to be a coach. Are you still interested in doing this program? Don't feel guilty if you don't have the time- I perfectly understand, and wouldn't want anyone feel overworked. Let me know if you're interested in taking on a coachee or two, and thanks for all your time! E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Panggih's Reasons (not Excuses Hopefully :) )
Hey Jaranda,thx for the headup,yes i blatantly paste the whole thing up..i'm unaware of the frequency of edits that is being monitored,and by just warning me and doesn't delete my article,i suppose you must presume i'll fix it myself,and that's true ,i'll do it of course,i've disregard an important rule of the project,and thx a lot for the politeness and the way you handle it, but can you please also check the Football Player Page and compare it to this and this ,, i don't really understand the priority that new edits like me can be flagged in my third jab at this,but others persistantly withstand and elude the test of time and admins for so long without even a single discussion in it's presence ,and must i assure you, i don't have any particular contribution to this article whatsoever,please you verify this for me,thank you for being such a polite person,in this world full of jerk-offs and trolls..:)..and again it's nice to know you ,P.S. i put the name Melvin Carnell Blount because even if it's not his Football playing name ,it's his official birth name,so i really wouldn't understand the reason you'd change it back,again thx..Panggih|Leave me a message back

Liverpool article.
Thanks for the pointers on the Liverpool article. I haven't contributed much but I tried my hardest to revert some of the lists into prose. It may not be high quality but its a start. Unfortunately I seem to have started a reverting war between other editors. I myself am taking a back seat and letting them screw up the article themselves.

I've also had quite a curt message from a disgruntled user who didn't leave his name just a IP address.

I was just asking you if you could assist we getting the images in line with the text because at the moment it is very messy and I am unsure about the code to go about it. Thanks very much.

FAC
Hi Jaranda, I was wondering if I can ask a favour? Currently I have Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms up for FAC. A couple of people are complaining about grammar, but beyond a few examples I've fixed I'm not sure what they're talking about. They want someone else to take a look at it. I know as a Floridian this may not be your area of expertise, or even of interest- but I think that's what they're looking for. Cheers, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Arnie
There was a recent change of the bot that helps keep the WP:GA list in order, so that it now allows dual-listing in exceptional cases. Personally I'm in favour of listing Arnie both as an actor and politician - his article focuses on both aspects of his life; he has achieved world-fame for both aspects of his life; and if he died tomorrow, his obituary would balance both elements. Since I don't think the way an encyclopedia should handle a biography should be fundamentally different whether a person is dead or alive (the "obituary test") I reckon pretty strongly that he should be dual-listed. I thin most people associate him with both acting and politics, but wouldn't want to get into an edit war about it! TheGrappler 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ike Altgens GA
Someone got to that faster than I expected ;) The requested work is done. Should I renom, or is this message sufficient? Radio  Kirk   talk to me  21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Promoted, I wasn't sure where to place it though so I place it under artists. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 21:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! (I just expanded the lead slightly, BTW.) A thought? How about a new sub-cat in Media: "Photography"? Radio  Kirk   talk to me  21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
Hello, Jaranda! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"
Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Latin America won!
Joyous | Talk 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks
Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e  mp  |  talk  01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Troy Polamalu Edit
Any particular reason you deleted the "trivia" section from Troy Polamalu? Tlesher 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof
Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Is my first RFC so made a mistake with Merecat. Hope you don't mind. Won't happen again. Nomen Nescio 05:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked Nescio for mediation 4 days ago. He never replied. See my comments on the RFC page, here
 * Merecat 05:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please delete page
The RFC against me has been voluntarily de-listed by the posting party. I ask that you delete the associated rfc page. Thanks. Merecat 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article reviews
I had a look at Talk:Homotopy groups of spheres and I thought you came across as a little combative in your response. As a result, your review was simply ignored, and the article was renominated without any edit at all despite the fact you were right to fail it! I think the problem is that a two word review "needs references" comes across as very condescending; it doesn't explain quite what the problem is, especially if the author of the article thought (as he did in this case) that "external links" are sufficient. The way you wrote on that talk page seems merely to have ticked one of the author offs, and since he assumed you were just being unreasonable, he completely ignored your comment and response and renominated it... in other words, you just wasted your time, and his, because you could only be bothered to write a two word review. The guys must have spent dozens of hours producing that article - it was on a seriously tough piece of maths that some of the major contributors weren't experts in. They did loads of really tough and obscure research to get on top of the topic, and must have spent ages getting that table correct. After all that, from the first person from outside their WikiProject to comment on the sum total of their efforts, all they got was two words! This is one of the things that must seriously tick people off about the entire Good Articles project. And since you didn't explain the exact nature of the problem or explain where to go for help (the author had clearly not read WP:CITE) they just thought you were messing them about. So, just as a future suggestion, why not spend a little more time on writing the review, or even use a "copy and paste" comment to deal with common concerns? You'll tick less people off, and, the more specific advice and help you give, the more people will actually sort stuff out (I've discovered that most people are very quick to fix problems if told what the requirements are). Here are some starters for you, if you want to use them:

Deprecated (i.e. ones that say "do not use this template anymore!") image tags
Some of the images on this article have got old image tags to describe their copyright status. Some of the image tags have been updated recently so that more specific copyright information can be provided, and the older images haven't all been updated yet.

Inappropriate PD image tag
Are you sure that the PD tag is appropriate for the picture of [...]? It normally only applies if it is a work of the U.S. federal government, or 70 years have passed from the death of the creator, or it was published before 1923, or all rights were released by the creator, and none of them seem likely here.

Missing image source information
The picture of [...] doesn't have source information - its image page should say where the picture came from and also state the copyright holder. [If the uploader took the picture, the image page ought to say so, and it would be really good if it could say when the photo was taken, too!]<--might not be relevant, don't include if obviously irrelevant!

Missing image source information (variant, for when the image tag asks for uploader to include source details)
If you read the image tag on the, there's an instruction for the uploader to include source information - its image page should say where the picture came from and also state the copyright holder. [If the uploader took the picture, the image page ought to say so, and it would be really good if it could say when the photo was taken, too!]

Missing fair use rationale
On the image page for [...] the picture is claimed as fair use, but it doesn't give a fair use rationale for its particular use in this particular article. This is really important because, unlike public domain or GFDL pictures, fair use depends on the context in which it is used. Fair use explains how to write a fair use rationale.

"Fair use" claim but basically not essential to article, or, no critical commentary
The image of [...] doesn't really add much to the article (it would be fine without it) but the image is being claimed as fair use. Fair use only allows fair use images if they are adding significantly to the article; so either the article should critically comment on the image, or it should be removed.

Lead section doesn't summarise article
The lead section doesn't give a good summary of the article - have a look at WP:LEAD. There are lots of important things about the topic that it doesn't mention yet.

Overlong lead
The lead seems too long; it ought to summarize the article, but does not need to go into so much detail. There's some advice for writing good leads at WP:LEAD.

Lead mentions things not later covered
The lead mentions [...] but it isn't mentioned later in the article - really the lead should summarize the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD), so anything in the lead should be considered in greater depth later.

Too few sections
Some of the text could do with getting broken up by section headings, which would also make the article easier to navigate. There's a guide to this at Help:Section.

Way too many sections
Although sections can be good for structuring an article, having too many can make the table of contents too long, and some of the sections are too short on their own. There's a guide to this at Help:Section.

Spelling
This could do with a good copy-edit. [I fixed a few of the spelling mistakes I found, but there are probably some more, so] I suggest copying the text as it appears when the article is displayed, and pasting it into a word-processor, then spell-checking it.

<--Fixing some of the spelling errors you find is always a good idea if you want someone to appreciate a negative review!-->

Lots of long, rambling, probably ungrammatical sentences
There are lots of really long, complicated sentences. Perhaps you should try reading it through to yourself, and seeing if some of them would be better split into several sentences?

Written entirely from within a fictional point of view
This article does not meet the conditions at WP:FICT - it seems to be written entirely from within the point of view of a fictional universe. This is something that is part of the good article criteria. Some ideas that could help:
 * Try to write from a point of view outside the perspective of the fictional universe
 * Can you include details about the process of authorship? Which writers came up with the idea? What did they base it on? How original is the idea? Is it based on something in real life? You ought to be able to verify it, hopefully with an interviewer, "official" book, or DVD extra commentary.
 * What has the influence of the idea been outside this fictional realm? Have any other show-makers professed to "adapting" ideas like this for their shows?

To help you along, here are 3 really useful links:
 * User:Uncle G/Describe this universe (Gives the right philosophy for writing about fiction in WP: Describe this universe! Keep that at the centre of all your writing on this topic and you'll be fine.)
 * Guide to writing better articles (pretty much the official guide on what is required of articles about fiction. Helpful but a bit dry!)
 * User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction (Funny and useful! A must-read for anyone writing about fiction on Wikipedia... I guarantee you will find it helpful.)

It might be a good idea to look at Spoo, which became a featured article! Read through and look for all the "encyclopedic" qualities of the article - not just the humour, but the fact that it had extensive inline references, all the referencing were reliable, authoritative sources, not just fan-sites (see Reliable sources), it was written from the point of view of "this" universe, it considers in depth the process by which the idea was created, and it looks at the real-world impact of it. This shows that there is no reason an article on a fictional topic can't make it all the way to featured article status, but you have to do a lot of work, including extensive research, to get there!

Complete lack of references
At the moment, there aren't any references. This is something that every article needs - have a look at WP:CITE to see how to do it.

External links claimed as references
WP:CITE explains that "An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Although this section has traditionally been called "external links," editors are increasingly calling it "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further-reading section may contain items that are not online." So, if they were used as sources, they ought to be given as "references" not "external links". If you could write it in reference format (including author, date of last update, and "last known good" date of URL access), that would be brilliant.

Website references not in reference format
Some of your website references would look better if they included the author, date they were last updated, and the last time the website was loaded and checked to see if the page was there.

Dodgy references
The reference section doesn't look very authoritative for a topic like this - see Reliable sources. [It would be nice to see some "paper" references - have any significant books been written about ..., or has it/he/she appeared in the press?] [Fansites don't tend to make good references unless they are being used to document fan reaction - it's better to find an "official site" or magazine.] [Don't use other wikis as references, because they can change rapidly!]

Lots of unverified / weasel words bits
According to Verifiability and WP:CITE, it is important to give details to back up claims. Things like "some people say... but another report says ..." can be seen as weasel words: it would be better to say "Professor X says... but Professor Y, in his report, claimed that...", and then use references to back this up.

Limited scope
Although good articles don't have to be as comprehensive as featured articles, I thought that it didn't really tell me anything about [likely options are: what happens in other countries/how it is practised in other cultures/what is practical uses are/what its long term effects were], which seems like too major an aspect of the topic to be neglected.

And it's also a good idea to talk about the good aspects of an article, since what you are doing is a review, not a criticism session! So, for instance,

Good scope
I like the fact that this article explore [the topic] from a range of different angles, it really avoids the trap of having only a limited scope!

Well-written
This article is written clearly and flows well; it's nice and easy to read.

Lots of work done, likely to reach FA
[The editors/You] have clearly put a lot of effort into this article, and it shows! If you keep this up, it really is likely to be a featured article candidate!

Good references
The reference section looks really solid. [It's good to see some "paper" references as well as online ones!]

Good images
This article is really well-illustrated [and it's good to see that all the image tags are present and correct!). [I really love the fact that there are high-quality photos by Wikipedians being used in the article.] [The captions are concise and informative.]

You can put these in when you pass a GA as well - people like to be told what they are doing well, not just getting a "GA" badge. And it will help and encourage them in future articles, if they know what they are doing is respected/admired/appreciated.

Obviously, be selective if you decide to copy-and-paste these, and make sure you edit them a bit from time to time! But hopefully they will be useful for you, and to people whose articles you review. There's no need to spend ages on a review, but if you use a mixture of targeted praise and criticism, people will probably respond better to you, and also are more likely to sort out problems if you can tell them where to find help. Happy nominating and reviewing, TheGrappler 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)