User talk:Aaron north/Archive 1

Thiomersal controversy review
Thanks again! Yobol (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hard Rock GA review
Hi there. I think that I have covered all the "necessary to pass" issues you raised in your review. So it awaits a check over. Thanks.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 18:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this review. I think it has considerably improved the article, which is what I was hoping for. I think the prose could still be improved in places and there are a few issues to work out like the pictures, but I will get to that when I have a bit more time. Thanks again.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Matty Johns Show
Thanks for your feedback. I'll get to work. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've revised it. Would you like to review it again? - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive assessment! - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A nitpick from me
Hey. When you're passing articles after GA reviews, could you also change the wikiproject assessments to GA-class as well when doing so? Keep up the good work, nice to see other people reviewing GANs. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I am still a bit new as a reviewer, so I'm not above nitpicks. Aaron north (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thimphu
Not good enough. Given thet amount of work that went into the article you should know that we could easily have this article copyedited and much improved within the week. And given that the same people have promoted articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh to GA you should know that we easily have the capability of quickly improving it. You could at least keep it open however bad you think it is and allow the improvements to be made. Given the amount of work I put into wikipedia seriously you think this article couldn't be polished within the week? It should have been fully copyedited earlier but I've been busy. Now we actually get to the review and you don't give it a glimmer of a chance. Very disappointing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by the review, I enjoyed the article, but it was not even close. I am not the toughest reviewer on wikipedia; I almost always do hold an article when it is fairly close. If it was merely a problem with copyediting that would be one thing, but it was also filled with problematic non-neutral words to watch and editorializing. A GA nomination should not be a replacement for a copyedit or peer review. If you want to nominate an article in anticipation of it possibly being ready by the time it is picked up in the backlog, thats fine but it has to be almost ready when the review begins. Aaron north (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

L.A.P.D. (band)
Hello, your comments have been fixed and/or responded to on L.A.P.D. (band). Crowz RSA  23:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I believe It is now done.

Talk:Jim Wallhead/GA2
Hello. Thank you very much for your review. I believe I've responded to the most pressing concerns. Hope to hear from you again soon.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you ok with this final change then?  Paralympiakos  (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

David Morrow (sports)
Thanks for your review. I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post these on your user page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought, but I feel that if I started adding those GA contributor notes for articles I reviewed, it would present an apparent conflict of interest! (ie, I'd have an incentive to hastily promote an article to grab an award). Aaron north  (T/C) 22:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

New Netherland
Noticing that you made an edit to above article and your "speciality" in reviewing I wonder if you'd be willing to do a informal asessment and make some suggestions as to where the the article could go, what might be missing, etc, to bump up its rating. Much appreciated Djflem (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I finished a very quick read of the article. I did not look at all of the GA criteria, as that would take a full review so I cant promise that editing with the following in mind will lead to a successful nomination since I may have missed something in my quick read. (Specifically, I did not examine whether the content criteria was satisfied. I am assuming that all major aspects of the subject were discussed without going into excessive unnecessary detail). The article is decently-written overall, but it could still use a light copyedit to clean up a few flaws. You may also want to be sure that all data and major claims (which are not obvious) that could be challenged is supported with an in-line citation. Some sections seem to be a little sparse on citations, but it could simply be that the citations in the section covered the whole section. Just make sure you meet WP:V. Also, be sure to take a look at the article for any problematic or non-neutral "words to watch" WP:WTW. Internet citations need link, creator/author/writer, title, publish date, and access date. Most of your citations lack an access date, some lack a few of the other things needed. Overall I think this article is close, and it certainly appears to deserve a B-class rating. It probably just needs one more edit with the above in mind before nomination. Aaron north  (T/C) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Review of Ronnie Lee Gardner
Thank you again for your attention to detail during the GA process. This article had also been peer reviewed recently. Do have any quick recommendations for a future FA nomination or do you think the article should be sent through another peer review? KimChee (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Bacigalupo
I have responded to your concerns at Scott Bacigalupo.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you review any more of my GAC noms, as I hope you might, do not remove the notification from my talk page when you later acknowledge it was passed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
I objected to your "fail" of the article. Noloop (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi! I see you do a lot of AV work. Would you like me to request rollback for you? It's a lot faster than Twinkle, so you can use rollback for reverting and Twinkle for warning and reporting. Do you want to? Please leave a talkback or answer on my talk page. Cheers, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. I wasn't sure how long I should wait to request and then I just got used to Twinkle! Aaron north  (T/C) 22:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, here you go. Good luck! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you got it! Please read WP:RBK for instructions on using it. You can also add Rollback and User wikipedia/rollback to your userpage. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rod Serling
Hey man! Somebody really needs to check that Rod Serling article. Much of the basic factual info is not accurate at all. The man was not Lithuanian, did not speak Spanish, was not born in Albany, New Mexico, and his parents were not both named Reggie. This article has obviously been vandalized and needs to be corrected! 70.79.75.159 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, you reverted the IP but as it stands the article makes little sense. Theresa Knott &#124; Sort that Knee! 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For the revert on my talkpage. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage
Hi, I have semi-protected your userpage for one day. If you wish to have the protection length shortened, feel free to tell me or request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thanks,  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kitten
Thank you for my kitten! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

John Y. Brown, Jr.
Thanks for your GA review of John Y. Brown, Jr. I had hoped to be able to address your concerns this week, but I will not be able to, as I'll be welcoming my first child into the world tonight or tomorrow. Unfortunately, I will have to allow the nomination to fail at this time. I will try to address your concerns soon and renominate it after I have done so. Glad you found the article interesting, if a little short of GA standards right now. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 00:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing...
...to WP:GAR, which is very short of regular contributors, and editors willing to close discussions. Keep up the good work! Geometry guy 21:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I was intimidated about participating in the GAR, but I decided to wade in after seeing that there was a need for more participation. Aaron north  (T/C) 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No one should feel intimidated to contribute as long as they understand the GA criteria, and you clearly do. For example, your closure of Good_article_reassessment/Jack_Nicklaus/1 was spot on. If challenged, there is likely more that can be said about the puffery (contrary to WP:WTW) used in the article. Your other contributions seem to me also based on the criteria and improving the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)