User talk:Aoba47/Archive 39

Speak Now FAC
Hello, Aoba. Thank you so much again for the source review at the FAC. This may be too much to ask, but I wonder if you could give a hand in reviewing the prose? I believe it could benefit from further prose review, and given the FAC has stalled for quite some time, you may provide some helpful insights into what needs improving. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message, but unfortunately, I will have to say no to this request. I am currently trying to limit my Wikipedia activity to make time and space for some off-Wiki work so my attention will be focused on my own FAC that I just opened as well as helping with a peer review. Apologies for that and I wish you the best with the FAC. I am sure you will get further feedback from other editors. Aoba47 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's alright. I wish you the best with your future endeavors. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Aoba, how have you been? I hope you have been doing exceedingly well. I see you've got a FAC going on. If I could find the time I'd potentially love to jump in and join the reviewing process, but I can't promise because I haven't seemed to find much Wikipedia time lately. But if I don't manage to jump in, I wish you the best on it. Take care, and cool times! Moisejp (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I am doing well, thank you for asking. I am focusing on my own writing so I will likely be scaling back my time on Wikipedia too. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my FAC. It was a fun article to revisit and I thought it would be a fun Valentine's Day TFA if it does get promoted. I am surprised that I have already received so much feedback and I am very grateful for that. How is everything with you? Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for my late reply, haven't been on Wikipedia much this month. Everything is going well for me, thanks! :-) It looks like your FAC is getting lots of supports, that's great. I probably won't be able to review it but it looks like you're in good hands. Today I started reviewing another FAC, but it's one where I'd already reviewed the first nomination, plus it's a favourite album of mine, so I had to jump in an prioritize reviewing it. Cool, I hope we'll cross paths here on Wikipedia again in the not too distant future. Until then take care, and all the best to you! Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. No apologies are necessary and I am glad you are doing well. I completely understand your decision. I was fortunate enough to have a very solid peer review before my FAC. I believe that it helped a lot. I am imagining my FAC will be promoted in the near future so it makes sense to turn to a different FAC that would benefit from more reviewers. I am sure our paths will cross on here again. You take care too! It is always a pleasure to hear from you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. Apologies for the ping as I know you are busy, but I have a quick music-related question for you. I thought we discussed this at some point, but I cannot seem to find the conversation at the moment so apologies if this is repetitious. Has there been a solid consensus if MusicNotes.com is a high-quality source that is acceptable for FAs and encouraged for Wikipedia in general?

For a little bit now, I have seen the argument (which was raised in the FAC space) that sheet music in general should not be permitted because it is uncertain if it is for the recorded version of the song or for some other version. I only bring this up now because a reviewer brought it up in a recent FAC, and I was curious if you knew if there was a great discussion or consensus reached about this issue. I can see both sides of the argument so I am leaving this up to more experienced editors. Apologies if you have already answered this question and I just forgot lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Aoba, I hope you're well! Sorry for my late reply. I'm afraid I don't know about MusicNotes.com. It looks like I used it in my "I'm Goin' Down" FA. I don't remember any dispute about it, and if there had been a strong reservation from anyone in that particular FAC, it probably would have been removed. But there may well be discussions about the issue elsewhere on Wikipedia that I'm not aware of. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Take it easy, Moisejp (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. No apologies are necessary. I have also used MusicNotes.com in a past FAC. I can see the arguments for and against the site and I do not have strong stance either way. I think it would best to get a consensus regarding sheet music and its place on Wikipedia, although I do not want to be the one to initiate that discussion. I honestly should as it would benefit the site as a whole, but despite my recent flurry activity in my sandbox, I am trying to limit my time on Wikipedia. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for the very kind words and the barnstar. I greatly appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Veronica Clare
I just want to commend you for your work on the article. I was very impressed. -- James26 (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words! I am very proud of my work on that article and I had a lot of fun with the research and writing processes for it. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I vaguely remembered that show and decided to look it up. I'm probably proudest of my work on Julia Sarah Stone. The way you handled your references is certainly inspiring and admirable. -- James26 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I wish the show was easily accessible online. I have actually only seen a short clip because it is not available on streaming (at least to the best of my understanding), but I'd be curious to see how its attempt at noir panned out. Thank you for the kind words about the references. It honestly took me a while to really get there, and I was inspired to use this citation style after seeing it used by other editors. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're interested, I saw a link to a fan-made DVD via the clip on YouTube, but, apparently, only the pilot episode is available. -- James26 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me. I will check it out in the future. I do have a weakness for mystery stories, and I enjoy researching shows that only lasted a season and subsequently fell into obscurity. I find the history of these kinds of things to be fascinating, plus I think it is kind of nice to honor the cast and crew who put work into something even if it was ultimately unsuccessful. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of I Need You (Paris Hilton song)

 * Thank you for the kind words! I think this FAC really exemplifies how beneficial the peer review process can be. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Touching base/venting...
Hello there, hope you're well. This is totally random and probably inappropriate, but I just figured I'd get a kick out of letting you know that I just received my second failed GA nom in less than a month lol; must be some kind of record. Apparently, my reviewer disagreed with some of the references I used in the Cinderella III: A Twist in Time article (despite the fact these same references had been used to promote GAs and FAs in the past). Despite the fact that I had managed to prove the majority of the sources they questioned valid, and was in the process of proving the remaining few, the reviewer doubted that I would be able to prove the validity of these sources and salvage the article within a timely manner (a decision they came to within three days of beginning the review), and essentially "begged" me to give them permission to fail the review. I complied – not because I didn't think I could salvage the article (I mean, you've seen my work, right?), but because I would rather work with a reviewer who didn't doubt my capabilities as an editor.

Anyway I'm sorry for ranting on your page. I just wanted to say that, if I didn't completely understand your frustration with Wikipedia before, I do now lol. Changedforbetter (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You never have to apologize. I leave way, way more comments on your page so this is honestly nothing by comparison. I completely understand your frustration and I am sorry to hear about your last GAN. While your emotions are obviously valid, I would encourage you to be a little kind to the reviewer. I have worked with this editor in the past and I have always found him to be very kind and helpful so I do not think his concerns came from a malicious space.


 * Sorry as that is probably not what you want to hear while venting out your frustrations ><. I find that source reviews can get particularly contentious. I have noticed that discussions on reliability and quality of sources is where communication can quickly break down and just get into a place and tone that is no longer constructive. This may sound weird, but I respect your choice to end the review and hopefully give yourself some time away from it. I have always found it best to walk away from particularly tense situations. You honestly handled this situation better than I have done in the past. I cringe so much when I look back on some of my past responses lol.


 * Anyway, you have done great work with the A Twist in Time article and you should be proud of all the time and energy you have put into it. Hopefully, your positive experiences working on the article can outweigh the less-than-positive experiences in the review. To be honest, the source reviews always get me anxious in general but particularly in the FAC space.


 * Apologies for the wall of text (as always). Maybe I will use this as inspiration to finally do one of the Disney sequels as I am looking for a new project. I just have to figure out which one at this point lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Random Years
The article The Random Years 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:The Random Years for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MaranoFan -- MaranoFan (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Our Song (Taylor Swift song)/archive1
Hi Aoba, I know you're on a wikibreak so take as much time as you need to reply to this message. I just wanted to inform you that the FAC has attracted more supports since the last time you reviewed, so hopefully you could jump back in some time soon. Take care, Ippantekina (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for keeping me in the loop about your FAC. I have supported your nomination for promotion based on the prose over there. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Head over Heels (American TV series) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Head over Heels (American TV series) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 28, 2022, the anniversary of the final episode. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 28, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. I believe it would be the 25th anniversary of the final episode so that seems like a great reason to put it on the front page for me. I will try to look through the article in the near future to make sure it is still up to the standard. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks
I came across this article (List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks) while browsing and felt that it was pretty close to meeting Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. I was planning on nominating the article after a few edits. It would be nice to have the viewpoint of a veteran on the writing style of the article. Is it compatible for being a featured list? Have a good day. Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message, but I am probably not the best editor to gauge this kind of thing as I do not generally work in sports article. My apologies. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated the article anyway. Fingers crossed.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Random Years
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It will be interesting to see how an absolutely obscure series would perform on the front page. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Deja Vu" interpolation query
Apologies for bringing this here, but this could possibly make the review page too lengthy. In terms of contemporary sources, there was reportage about the interpolation from the following:, , , , , , , , ,. These seem like routine articles to me reporting the same basic fact, since Rodrigo and Swift never commented on the interpolation. However, please let me know if you find anything you'd like to see mentioned and I'll add it in a jiffy! Regards.--NØ 20:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response and there is no need to apologize. You have answered my question and I believe the article accurately and comprehensively addresses these points. It appears that a majority of the copyright discussion focused on "Good 4 U" with the Paramore comparisons. I will read through the article again tomorrow, although I do not imagine I will have much to add. Congratulations on your work with this article! I would imagine working on a song as popular as this one has its own set of challenges. I just cannot believe it has been over a year since it was released. Time goes by far too quickly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Time really has been going by very quickly ever since lockdown for me as well. At least we're close to getting a new Meghan Trainor album, lol. On another note, I would like to thank you again for consistently helping out at my reviews throughout the year. Best of luck with the projects you're planning next.--NØ 11:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been enjoying Trainor's music lately so I would check out her next album. I am glad that I could help. I should be thanking you for all the time and work you put into Wikipedia. I know it is not easy at time so I have a lot of respect for you (as well as other editors) that can manage. My only plan at the moment is a FAC for The Random Years. I am not sure what my next project will be, but I want to do something entirely different. I think I will take a step back from music and television for at least one project. I am looking into maybe something fashion-related or literature-related. I would also love to do another fictional character article as it has been way too long since I have done that lol. Best of luck with your FAC and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to see my Trainor propaganda has worked and she is gaining more fans on Wikipedia, lol. I think it would be very interesting to read a fashion or literature related article from you next!--NØ 05:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for snooping, but I saw that you wrote a review for the To Be Loved article in your userspace but did not post it to FAC. Is there something wrong? Obviously, I consider you an important connection on Wikipedia and would like to fix any misunderstanding right away. I apologize if this at all comes across as an attack, just asking out of curiosity lol.--N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 05:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a fair question. I was honestly just busy with reviewing two peer reviews that I kind of felt overwhelmed with taking a third review on if that makes sense. I will likely circle back and do review your FAC sometime today. Apologies for the confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding "La Isla Bonita"
I have a question regarding "La Isla Bonita"; is it OK if I leave it like they did on "Bad Romance" with a review and an image from a live performance? Christian (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what you mean? I think "La Isla Bonita" looks best as it currently stands with the performance images in the appropriate section. I would personally not put a live performance image in the review section unless the specific performance is named in reviews or is relevant. Per Talk:Bad Romance, the "Bad Romance" article does not have the image in the review section so I am not entire sure what you are asking. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically bring it back how it was, with the Girlie Show image on 'critical reception' and a review on its text book; like they did for the bad romance image on critical reception. --Christian (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is entirely up to you. You could do that and get other editors and reviewers to discuss it in the peer review or in the future FAC. If you want my personal opinion, which I have already stated above and in the peer review, I prefer the current version and I do not think the performance image illustrates anything in the "Critical reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to leave it how it was, as I do fancy using the Sticky & Sweet image too; not having pictures from the Madame X Tour, those two (Rebel Heart & Sticky & Sweet) are the most recent and I personally want to use all three :) But I will wait for other users' input. Thank you so much! --Christian (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * hello! How are you? I wanted to ask if you think "La Isla Bonita" is ready for FAC nomination--Christian (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not done an in-depth read-through so I cannot say for certain. From what I have read, it looks good, but it is up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Shefali Shah
Do you think you'll have time to review the prose of Shefali Shah on its FAC? It's a relatively short article which has already been reviewed by other editors, and I trust your perspective. Please ignore this message if you're too busy. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I will review the FAC either later today or tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"The World Is Not Enough" music video
Hi, Aoba47. Thank you for your edit, I hadn't noticed there was already a link to the music video in the External links. However, you also reverted my edit of the Music video paragraph, where I added in prose that the video was uploaded to YouTube by the band officially on October 14. That's relevant info, as this is the first time the band uploads the video on YouTube.

Considering also that the video in the external links you were talking about is not only an unofficial upload, but also a dead link pointing to a removed video, you think it would be better to remove the link for the video in the External links and add it in the infobox like other song articles of this band (e.g. "Queer"), or substitute the old link in External links with the new one? Vitaazerokelvin (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. Apologies for reverting the edit to the music video section as I did not see that. It is relevant information. I agree that the old video should be removed and replaced with the official upload. I think in the future, it would be beneficial to use a more descriptive edit summary for that edit. Again, apologies for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! As you pointed out, I should have left a more descriptive edit summary. I've been making a lot of edits on a lot of pages, so I might have let that one slip. I'll pay more attention in the future. Thanks again for your reply. Vitaazerokelvin (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. It is really my fault as I should have checked your edit more thoroughly before reverting it. I will pay more attention in the future as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)