User talk:Barkeep49/Archive 1

Hey Barkeep! Let's coordinate! I just got an edit conflict with one of your Newbery articles. Which ones do you want me to work on? Shall we split by decades? Joyous! | Talk 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, since you seem to be trucking along pretty fast, would it be better if I came in behind you and expanded the articles a bit? Joyous! | Talk 16:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have a pretty decent reference book here for books up through 2000. I can come along behind you and add a sentence or two of detail to the articles. Joyous! | Talk 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While doing my job as a new article patroller, I have noticed that you and Joyous! are creating several articles about Newbery winners. I am sure there are some in the Wikipedia community that would feel that the list of recipients in the Newbery Medal article is sufficient and that each book having its own article is overkill and not encyclopedic. For now, I am going to indicate that each new article has been patrolled, on the basis that each book article should be improved in the future to include at least a basic story line. That is the kind of information our Wikipedia users would be looking for, and that is why we are all here, isn't it. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck to both of you creating these stubs, and good luck turning them into articles. This is useful stuff! Drmies (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 00:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the future, would you please use the template instead of the " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the  New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you  need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

GA Review
Hey, I've tried to address the problems you brought up in the GA review of Phillips Exeter Academy. alphalfalfa(talk) 04:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Bisexual Literature response
Thank you for reviewing the Bisexual Literature page. I created the page as a class project, but it's accuracy and success is extremely important to me personally as well as professionally. i appreciate the review you left, and hope you will tell me of nay suggestions you have to improve the page Ceradams (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

USBBY AfD
Greetings. Apologies for the edit you reverted. I'm a sorry stickler for proper formatting because I find it a pain in the neck to wade through badly formatted discussions, since we cannot easily recognize who says what to whom. I thought you were replying to me. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Joey Pigza AfD
Greetings Barkeep49! Thanks! I'm somewhat new to this and still learning on how to contribute fairly. If you would like to share some ideas, I'd really appreciate it. Romrom9 (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to help and have you here. To add your thoughts you will want to edit the page and beneath the current text put : followed by your comment or thought. If you think the article should be kept or deleted it's standard practice to write it in bold by writing Delete or Keep . If you are saying to keep or delete you should also give a reason why, in relation to Wikipedias policies. Those can be a lot to wrap your head around so feel free to say your thoughts and identify yourself as a new editor. Hope that helps. If you have more specific questions let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

GA nominations
Hi Barkeep, sorry about the student nominations. I've been trying to catch those as I see them and make sure that the students is aware of the amount of time and energy needed for this, as this typically extends far beyond their class time due to the backlog. Offhand I think that there is only one other article that's been nominated for GA by a student and that's Chanda Prescod-Weinstein. She's no longer active and to be honest I'm doubtful that it's at GA criteria at this point, so if you wanted to remove that one that would be fine -I didn't know if I could or should remove it, to be honest. We do have one that was nominated by a Wiki Fellow who is still fairly active and that's Margaret Atwood. I didn't know if that would be up your alley or not - I know that you said that books were one of your things, but this is a biography of an author which is fairly separate. I don't know if protocol would be against me posting these - I never really got into GA review with my main account, but I wanted to give you a head's up of the other two ones that I was aware of. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * no need to apologize. As an educator myself, I'm all for supporting Wiki Ed and that includes having understanding of what a student editor is trying to do. In my short time doing GA I've found that confirming someone is around to do the work is better than putting in an hour or two worth of time beginning the process only to get crickets and given the backlog at GA it's just as likely that any nominating editor has lost interest by the time GAR starts. The Prison Industrial Complex article seemed to be particularly thoughtfully done and had received some nice praise at Peer Review so that's why I took it; if no one responds after a week I'll fail it. Removing someone else's GA nomination is a no go, and I don't want to claim Prescod-Weinstein in case there is an editor who is interested in going through GAR (though I agree with you that it seems not to be close). As for Atwood, I saw her come up through a project I'm active in so she's been on my radar. I was hoping that someone else might grab her, since I'm MUCH more conversant on the Children's lit side of things but if no one has when I'm next looking for one (as I only want to have two active GAs at a time) I will give the article an initial read to see if I'd be a good fit. Thanks for taking the time to post. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds good - I figured that it would be better to leave them up unless the student is willing to remove it for that very reason. On a side note - you're an educator? That's pretty awesome! What level do you teach at? I can also understand being more specialized in a certain area. On my main account I tend to focus more on film, literature, some North American history, and to a smaller degree, biographies. Film and literature were always my favorites, though. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

fuji showroom
Hi , My nam is HAi ,I want explain about my talk. It is not advertising, just about my company for my client in japan or vietnamese who want to know what Fuji Showroom is. Please check. Best regard

LKL Finals MVP
Can you please have this discussion the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball? Because this is a basketball article and will have enormous impact if it is decided to merge league finals MVP awards with league finals articles, affecting dozens of articles that have separate articles for both. I believe this should be decided on by editors that mainly work on basketball articles. Thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think having the discussion at LKL Finals is the right place but your idea of alerting the Basketball WikiProject a good one and so I left a note on that project's talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moving suggestions to improvement here to try and keep that thread focused on the move. I think the biggest thing both articles need are some good ole fashioned WP:RS whether the source is in English or Lithuanian (if you speak that language). There is no question that the LKL is notable but the lack of RS (and the fact that both pages are basically rather minimal lists) do those pages no favors. Hope those suggestions are helpful.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Help me for survive the page
I feel, with the help of you, I can expand this page. please help me about case / link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion%27s_Artist_in_the_World_2017

My goal is to inform. Of course, the prize record and courage of the artists, in history. They are still in jail And this is associated to Wikipedia. please help me about case. thank you so much...

read more about Global Investigative Journalism Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Investigative_Journalism_Network

Bavaran (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * . Do you have more information about this? From what I can see this is a news article/feature. If I am right, the artists inside of it might be notable. This does not make the list itself notable. This page MIGHT even be a reliable source you could use for other artists. But the list itself doesn't seem to fit with what Wikipedia is. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

can I from you Please Expand this page? I think, You have a better idea about this case. best for you Bavaran (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done some looking and even did some more looking after your first message. English Wikipedia has rules about what things may get articles. These rules are NOT about importance or fame. The rules say something must be notable. This topic does not seem notable. I would like to help but it doesn't seem like this topic meets the rules. If you go to WP:Teahouse there are other people who are around to help editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Late Night (film)
Could you please move Draft:Late Night (film) back into mainspace - see Draft talk:Late Night (film). Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Merrie Melodies
Eventually, there should be articles for all Merrie Melodies shorts. What makes you say "My Little Buckaroo" is not notable enough? Yay Dad (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely could be wrong about that. Since it's harder to prove a negative than a positive is there notability policy or guidelines you can point to that supports your contention that all Merrie Melodies are notable? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Verified Voting Foundation
Hello Barkeep! Thank you for your suggestions and edits on the Verified Voting Foundation page. It was great to have the perspective from an experienced Wikipedia user so I could edit my page accordingly. I have edited the page, mainly focusing on improving the tone and deleting irrelevant content. When you have the chance please check it out! I hope these edits improved the page for my class assignment. Alyssaamoreno (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest and work on Wikipedia (even if it's only because you're required to for a class). Let me start by saying that through my work in Wikipedia I find I come across WikiEd pages somewhat frequently and yours was one of the better ones, as frequently they are not ready to be part of the "main space" as quickly as yours was, so congrats to you on that. The biggest issue, which is why I put the neutrality tag on there in the first place, is that it seems to be written from Verified Voter's POV/framing. and to some extent reads like an essay on the topic of paper/electronic voting rather than about VVF. Since this is an online encyclopedia if I want information about electronic voting I can go to that electronic voting or a part of a page about it in the US. These issues should only be brought up to the extent that it gives context to work that VVF has done. And in good news, VVF has done a fair amount of work as an organization and it's those efforts that should ideally be highlighted on the page. Additionally if the organization has experienced any criticism that too should be a part of the page (a cursory search didn't reveal any but again the search was not all that deep). Again you've done some high quality research and writing. Indeed if I as an educator (which I am) were grading the page as an essay I'd give it good marks. However, that's because a good encyclopedia article and a good essay are two different forms and call for different kinds of emphasis and style. Again the article has the bones of a good Wikipedia article and I hope these thoughts are useful in your continued participation on this site. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Jameson Blake
Hello mate, can I talk about why you always undoing my revision and kindly tell what is lacking. Im open for learnings. Thank you. klgd98 (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, happy to discuss this with you. What your revisions lack are proof that Blake is notable. Notable in this context means something very specific to Wikipedia, specifically that he has been covered by reliable sources (which again mean something very specific here). It is important to show that notable doesn't mean famous (Blake seems to be famous in the Philippines). So what you would need to do to make your revisions stick are to find reliable sources about Blake. If they are after January 2017 that is best. What happened in January 2017 was there was a discussion about whether Blake's page was deleted. The result of that discussion was NO the page should be kept but sent to Pinoy Big Brother: 737. This is why I am one of several people who has undone your changes. Does that help? Know that I'm happy to keep discussing and working on this with you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello can you see my revision if its okay. Ive done my best to make it simple and specific. Thank you mate. klgd98 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That improved the writing of the article but didn't make it notable. You can see a different user has already changed it back. What you need to do is find some websites that discuss Blake. Not just Blake on Big Brother but him. When I started with this I found one from what I believe to be a reliable source. That on its own isn't enough for notability but is a step in the right direction. If you can find more like that you will be on your way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Barkeep49! We're discussing Blake again, at Talk:Jameson Blake. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw this. However, subject may still merit an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Bryant Myers Article
Hi. I still don't understand why the Article was considered for deletion. This artist is very famous, and deserves an article on its own. The song which his original article was redirected to is just a song he was featured in, not his only important work. Could you explain yourself more? Thanks for your time btw. Richarddo1442 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me start by saying I could definitely be wrong here. However, on wikipedia fame does not equal notability. Notability is what a person needs to have an article. To be notable they need to have things written about them in reliable sources (RS). From what I can see there are not RS about Myers. However it's entirely possible that there are RS but in Spanish, which wouldn't be accessible to me. If that's the case you should post them (or if you can find RS in English even better). Does that help? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Obama Conspiracy Theories
The page was deleted before I even got the notification that it had been proposed for deletion. I don't necessarily disagree that the page should be deleted, but it would have been nice if I had been given the chance to object. And why now after 9 years? Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey the page hasn't been deleted (really). Here's what happened. User:Compassionate727 found your old draft and moved it to mainspace. I found it through WP:NPP and PROD'd it as lacking notability and left a message on Compassionate's talk page to make sure I wasn't missing something about notability. Compassionate then moved it back to your user page. If you look at the page history on that page you can get back your draft to work on it further or request it be deleted. Hope that makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about the timing, the reason is that userspace drafts have been allowed to sit basically indefinitely for however long now, so the number of them has grown to over 35,000. This presents two problems: A) it is as a result extremely difficult to find promising drafts, and B) many of them are CSD eligible. As a result, I've dedicated myself to dealing with the backlog. We'll see how long my dedication lasts, but if you have other drafts from around that age, I may be getting to them soonish. Normally I just allow drafts belonging to active users to sit; all of this only happened because I did a stupid, forgot to assess notability, and moved it (which is a testament to the quality of the draft itself). Anyway, sorry for the confusion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD tools
As you've undoubtedly noticed, the WP:Page Curation toolbar has issues with AfD when a prior nomination exists. Twinkle does handle it properly, so it'd probably be better to use that instead. Thanks, ansh 666 04:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with the new article "Boulevard of Sabana Grande"
Hello,

I need help with this new article (proofreading). Thanks. QuinteroP (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)QuinteroP
 * I am not a great copyeditor. My strengths lie more in content reviewing. Luckily there is a great group of people who can help proofread at WP:COPYEDITORS. I'd post a request there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Radiant Child: The Story of Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat
Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Mary Surratt
I addressed all of your concerns regarding the Mary Surratt article in one way or another. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Rockwood Hall
Please don't tag an article I'm in the middle of writing. I'm very experienced writing history articles and I have maybe 30 sources yet to add. Look on NY Times and tell me your tag applies. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No offense or annoyance was intended. Because you changed a page from a redirect to an article it came up as part of WP:NPP. In reviewing the page for that process it seemed like borderline notability but on the right side of it and so I tagged it with notability but also reviewed. Since I stop looking for ways to establish notability once I get to yes, I hadn't reached the point where I considered the editor who had done the changes and had no idea if this was your first edit or 50,000th. To avoid this in the future you might want to request the autopatrolled user right which would mean future pages that you make or establish from redirect won't have someone like me come across it mid-creation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem, will do. Thanks. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Adventures of Beekle: The Unimaginary Friend
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings
Salut, I decided to make an account to have a name attributed to Clay. I do personally believe that I could get the article on him done and I could update his storylines easily after the inevitable binge on season two. I will admit reception is a little hard to come by but I personally feel with him and Hannah being central characters they both deserve articles and Hannah does have one. I just didn't want you to feel that I ignored your advice; I'm just the sort of person once I set my mind to it I go all the way. Any ways have a good day.--13reasonstolove (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, I took a few days to watch season two. I am disappointed that there isn't much reception wise out there for Clay but I definitely want to expand the television series storylines and then take another read at the book to make an expansion on that as well. I see Hannah already has an article but I will see if there is room for improvements on it. Thanks for your kind message on my talk page. Hope you're well and having a good day. Many thanks again.--13reasonstolove (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. The page was reviewed for NPP (how I originally found it) by someone doing some of their first page reviews so I think it was a bit lucky there. Best of luck to you as you improve these pages. I admit the reviews for Season 2 mean I'm likely going to skip it. If you have questions I might be able to help with, please let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lago di Bientina DYK nomination

 * Sorry, I'm new to this - thanks for the comments. What specifically should be changed to improve the nomination? I'm not sure I fully understood your critique. Appreciate the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey I'm new to this too! I've had two successful DYKs but you were my first review so apologies for not being clear. The rules of DYK state that the information in your hook (that it was Tuscany's largest lake) have an in-line citation. The only place in the article that I can see that piece of information is in the WP:LEAD. There is no in-line citation there. Additionally the LEAD should reflect the rest of the article - it should only have information that's present somewhere else, so really the information about it being the largest should appear somewhere in the body with an in-line citation. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, that makes sense. I've made some edits and cited the fact that it was the largest lake in Tuscany - given that the 300-year drainage effort is covered in multiple sources, I figured that was already covered. What is the next step I should take? I really appreciate your guidance in this. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Awarding the WGU Barnstar
Thanks for helping to support the WGU Article. Now we know what we need to do to earn the GA Distinction. It may take some time but we are gonna get there. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sympathy for the Devil (2018 film)
Hello Barkeep49, I asked for speedy deletion because of a wrong redirect. But meanwhile I have expanded this article and deleted the request. Please restore. Greets -- MovieFex (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm not sure what you mean about the redirect being wrong, Draft:Sympathy for the Devil (2018 film), works for me. As to the content, the notability guideline says that there must be substantial reporting from multiple reliable sources (emphasis mine) for a film that has finished shooting but hasn't been released. It doesn't appear that Sympathy for the Devil meets this criteria, but if it's distributed it will be notable which is why I moved it to draft - as a holding space either for more RS sourcing now or for when it's actually distributed. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was aware about this film in Wikidata. Checking the link to enwiki I've seen, it's a senseless redirect so I asked for speedy deletion. Looking further I've seen there was already an article created as a stub and the redirect was later made (see history). Now I've created a new Wikidata-Object (with some more sources in French) and put in more information to the article, but the link does not match anymore. There are films only scheduled like Untitled Avengers film with an article, but this one is shot and waits for release. What is the difference? Best, --MovieFex (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So I don't know much about Wikidata. Untitled Avengers film shows an excellent exception to the rule. It has ~60 citations to reliable sources about the film; these reliable sources establish notability. The guideline states Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. (emphasis mine). Since the Avengers has proven that the production itself is notable it gets an article. Right now there is 1 source about the production of Sympathy for the Devil and I'm not sure it's RS (it might be, might not be, I just don't know). If you, or other editors, can meet WP:N great; I would be happy to help move back to mainspace and mark it as patrolled. I hope that makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're not sure, why did you move this article? Is it because you are in the opinion if I am "red", I've got no clue? Please remove. -- MovieFex (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I promise this isn't about you being red - I checked and saw what an active participant you are here. What I don't know about is Wikidata. However, this isn't Wikidata this is English Wikipedia. I am sure about English Wikipedia and what I told you is about how the policies apply to Draft:Sympathy for the Devil (2018 film) which is an article here. I don't know where Wikidata comes into this conversation. Could you explain? I might be missing something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved page [[Robert Dowd]] to Robert Dowd (disambiguation) over redirect
What do you mean "The artist seems to be the main topic"? AaronWikia (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry tired editing. Meant WP:PTOPIC Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Cathay Financial Holding
Hello, I am one of Chinese Wikipedia administrators. About Cathay Financial Holding, you may feel weird for edits of IP 175.181.187.238、175.181.188.214、123.192.39.95、and User:Nwytbwwq.

No doubt. They are all User:Jessechi's Sock puppetries. He is a long-term Wikipedia vandal in Chinese Wikipedia and likes to make false information in Wikipedia articles.—Outlookxp (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick Sprengel
I created Nick Sprengel because he is a top prospect for the 2018 MLB draft. I feel like he’s notable enough to have a page and since he will most likely be drafted high he will have a page recreated if mine is deleted in June anyways. If you still don’t think he’s notable enough, I would rather the page be moved to a draft instead of deleted entirely. Thanks :) Malmmf (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally a reasonable request. At least by reading of the baseball notability guidelines, however, top draft picks still don't qualify as notable. In most cases they're going to have to make the majors before they become notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Mary Surratt
I addressed all of your concerns and think I can help you find sources (see talk page).
 * I saw that offer, thanks. I am picking up several of the books today from my library and expect to be able to finish this today or tomorrow. I appreciate your patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:RRTF

 * Thanks for the invite. While I certainly support the task force's efforts, as a proud member of WP:Children's literature, I want to stay somewhat uninvolved so that I can help with things like GA assessments when those come along. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Thank you for reviewing my Phyllis E. Grann page. I've still got some materials to expand, but I wanted to publish quickly as I was surprised she had been missed. Thank you!--Jaldous1 (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I Am Human
Listen, I'm expanding this. If I can get enough content and RSes, this can pass. Don't redirect it in the middle of it. Give it a little bit.  danny music editor  oops 01:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Srishti Jain, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hybrid-core computing
See my note on the talk page of the user you reverted. The situation isn't as simple as that. The page was never deleted through the AfD process, but the history got CSD'd as collateral damage from an unrelated problem. I restored the history as a procedural action so that the information could be reincorporated in the encyclopaedia through the normal editing process. SpinningSpark 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I have self-reverted the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Bioshock
I had a picture of Meg Turney cosplaying as Elizabeth from Bioshock, but it wouldn't format for some reason. Would you mind helping me out? The Wikpedia editor for new users doesn't really help in this situation, and the picture is coming out as gigantic. Thanks. BrAon421 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh man an image. I'm strong on policy but images aren't necessarily my thing. But I'm game to give it a try. Can you link me to the original photo on WikiMedia? Also can you include the code you were trying for the picture with and around it (so that it doesn't display). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Meg Turney as Elizabeth from Bioshock.jpg cosplaying as Elizabeth at WonderCon 2013.]]
 * The link is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meg_Turney_as_Elizabeth_from_Bioshock.jpg BrAon421 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Phew, thanks for the practice in imaging as it took me a few tries to get it to work right too. I have gotten it to work with the following code:

File:Meg Turney as Elizabeth from Bioshock.jpg|150px|left|Meg Turney cosplaying as Elizabeth at WonderCon 2013.]]
 * I aligned left in hopes that the section will be expanded and it will then format nicely. In general Centering of pictures is frowned upon (except if it's a panorama or the like). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BrAon421 (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Another Bioshock request.
Can you add the Metacritic scores for Bioshock iOS, BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, and BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea on the Bioshock (series) page? I have no clue how to update the reception section, but all the information is available on the website.BrAon421 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the box that appears underneath Turney's cosplay pic? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. The links are http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/bioshock, http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bioshock-2-minervas-den, http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea---episode-one, and http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea---episode-two. BrAon421 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. So that involves a WP:Template specifically Template:VG Series Reviews which I haven't used before (I play Video Games but by and large don't edit about them). The code that you're looking for to add more links is
 * {{VG Series Reviews

and the code you'll want to add for Infinite will look along the lines of:
 * game4 = BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea
 * mc4 = device score (ref citation)  device score (ref citation)   (and so on for each device)

You would then make your next one game5 and mc5 and last one game6 and mc6. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Somewhat, but it needs to be chronologically in order. Sorry to ask you to do it, but my past attempts have messed up the page. BrAon421 (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Can you paste the code you tried here and I'll see if I can figure out the issue? Would much rather teach you how to do it so you gain the skills going forward, especially because this outside my normal editing areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tried a lot of different ways, none of which seem to be working. I hate to force you to do it, but Wikipedia's inbox isn't very friendly for new users. Personally, I'm not expecting I'll edit these boxes often. You are my Plan G at this point. BrAon421 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is since we're all volunteers no one can force anyone to really do anything :). However, I'm willing to be helpful to a reasonable degree. Again can you paste the code you tried? I'm not interested in generate new table code from scratch but would be happy to scan your code to find what could be the error. (Also I get pinged every time you make an edit to my page. No big deal when I'm offline but the messages add up quickly when I am here so any ability to message once is most appreciated). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Dietary Guidelines for Americans
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans deserves its own article. You appear to be engaging in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what you think I've done that is an edit war. The timeline I see is: you made a stub. I WP:BOLDLY redirected to what is a better sourced article. You reverted. I then tagged the article as a stub and as needing more references and marked the page as reviewed for WP:NPP purposes. Where is the edit war? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article on The Dietary Guidelines for Americans was established initially in 2008. Two attempts have been made to redirect this article, first to the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion#Dietary Guidelines for Americans, (which has only cursory information about the guidelines themselves) and then to MyPlate, which also has only curosry information about the guidelines themselves. Both of these articles are clearly separate and distinct from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. If there is a more important topic in wikipedia than this one, I am not sure what it would be. I plan to collaborate with other interested editors to expand this separate article to give it the place that it deserves in wikipedia. Almost all articles start as stubs. Your justification for the redirect is not convincing.Sbelknap (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
For your tolerance and AGF. My reply, if I was to give one, would be far too personal, and drawn out for general consumption here on wp en. So for the moment, I have no problem having thrown some things in, shall restrain from further comment in the GA. Thanks again for your tolerance and understanding. JarrahTree 00:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

However, it seems another local editor, perhaps the most pedantic nit picker in the Australian project has been in and given his magic touch to the article. JarrahTree 12:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Zuni is its own spcies
its has been named. escpeicly by ReBecca Hunt-Foster Scientific evidence finding isn't my specialty but I didn't see any. What I did see were some dinosaur websites which at first blush didn't appear to be reliable sources. Can you point me to the Rebecca Hunt-Foster proof you're talking about. I also write that not knowing who she is but figure I can catch up while looking at the source. Also a friendly reminder to put ~ at the end of talk page comments so people know who you are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC) (Bubblesorg (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC))https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunityrannus
 * So Wikipedia has rules about what kind of information can be used and believe it or not other wikipedias, including the one you linked to Simple Wikipedia, are not allowed to be used as evidence about something. The rules for English Wikipedia say that something has to be notable as definied by English Wikipedia in order to have a page. It does not appear that this dinosaur meets those rules. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)) OK i understand

Thanks a bunch!!
Thanks for reviewing the page, Joon Lee. I didn't know newly posted articles needed to be reviewed to appear on Google searches! Could you review the page, Solid as well? Also how long does it actually take for the reviewed articles to appear on Google? Thanks in advance! :) joh582 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. In my experience they tend to appear fairly quickly but it can take a while before they get to the front page. I tracked one page I made and it took about 3 weeks to get to the front page but was indexed (much farther back) the same day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Wright III
The prod process cannot be used on articles that have previously been to AfD or have previously been prodded. I assume you did not know this since you referred to the previous AfD in your edit summary. If you think the article is substantially the same as a previously deleted article then you can use WP:CSD G4 (and I have now deleted the page on those grounds). Otherwise you need to start a new AfD. SpinningSpark 10:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I completely spaced on that element of the PROD despite the big lettering indicating it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Carmen Moreno de Aponte
Hello Barkeep49. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Carmen Moreno de Aponte, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''G4 does not apply. This new version has multiple references.''' Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Daddy Issues (Film) Removal
Hi Barkeep49, I created the Daddy Issues film entry in order to correct the inaccurate information that existed on the web regarding this indie film. In the process of creating a wiki entry for this page, I read the guidelines and also reviewed multiple film entries on wikipedia. The issue I am having is a majority of the live entries I reviewed should be removed fully or partially based on the reasons you provided (I can provide example entries if needed). I believe I have provide substantive source material that is on par if not surpasses live entries in the same field.

Is there a way you can assist me further in order to pass the submission process? I updated the article to link to festivals wikipedia has entries on. Do I have to delete all of the other festivals that do not have entries on wikipedia (even though the festivals are deemed noteworthy)?

Thank you for your assistance and time. I really appreciate it!

Enep2 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So the short answer to your festival question is no. From my reading of the policy, however, only a few major film festivals (e.g. Cannes) is an appearance at them enough to confer notability. For the most part festival appearances just aren't going to be enough, one way or the other, to matter for notability. I think the key for you is at WP:NFSOURCES. Can you find a couple of those kind of sources who've written at some length (e.g. significantly) about the film? I didn't see them in the article or in a basic internet search but given all of its festival play they very well could be out there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I edited the entry to provide further notability. There was a capsule review and the film won multiple awards for excellence as outlined in the link you provided. Three of the festivals have entries and wikipedia has deemed those festivals note-worthy. Enep2 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me try again as I must not have been clear before. This film having been played at film festivals is not going to help it overcome the notability threshold. Now winning awards from notable festivals might in some circumstances. In this circumstance I don't think it does (or comes particularly close). I think your best bet is to try and incorporate critical coverage. However, mine isn't the only opinion around here which matters. You're welcome to try clicking the "Submit your draft for review" button. While there is a backlog at this process, reviews seem to be happening more frequently these days and that will put another pair of eyes on it who might reach different conclusions. If you have further questions let me know as I'm happy, given continued good faith efforts at improving to try and talk through how I read WP:NFILM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your time into matter. Enep2 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Facade Tectonics
Barkeep, I am not especially skilled at creating wikipedia pages. I would like to improve the "Facade Tectonics" page to help keep it alive. I could add a bunch of links to papers and conferences, but I think that may not be the right thing for wikipedia. I do not want to take up all your time, and do not expect you to educate me. If you gave me just a few words about a couple things I could do to improve the "Facade Tectonics" page, I would do them immediately. Many thanks!

Hi there! Like many skills, creating Wikipedia pages is one you acquire over time while making some mistakes along the way. I'm happy to try to help guide you to the right places. As you've probably picked up by now articles must meet the notability threshold to have a page. Companies and non-profits have a particular set of guidelines to have establish whether they are notable or not. These can be found at WP:NCORP. The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if they're met for an organization is there: All five things must be true. When I read Facade Tectonics and then looked into it, I had trouble finding reliable sources that covered it. That is what I noted in the proposed deletion box. I have good news and better news for you in terms of time to work on it. First, the notice I put up has to be there for at least 7 days. This means the earliest it could be deleted is June 1. Beyond that, if you add sources that meet the five criteria above (and I'd encourage you to read the whole WP:NCORP guideline) then you can decide to remove the tag yourself. At that point I, or another editor, could choose to go through a different process, WP:Articles for Deletion where a broader segment of the community can weigh in to achieve consensus on whether the page should be deleted or not. Hope that helps. I am happy to try and answer other questions you might have. (P.S. Please remember to put ~ at the end of messages you leave on talk pages (including User talk pages) so people know who you are.) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) significant coverage in
 * 2) multiple,
 * 3) independent,
 * 4) reliable,
 * 5) secondary sources.

Blumont
Hello. In regard to your recent deletion of my edits to the Blumont page, I believe Blumont should have its own page as it is a new company under new leadership. While I think redirecting the International Relief and Development (IRD) page to Blumont would be best, I also think there is pertinent information on the IRD page that should still be posted but that is not applicable to Blumont. Therefore, my edits to the Blumont page should stand. User78953 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)User78953
 * I admit that I didn't spend much time on this, as I came across Blumont through new page patrol. It seems like a discussion should be had about how/if to seperate or relocate those pages with other editors, like yourself, who are interested and knowledgable on the topic. As indicated, the place to do that would be on an Article Talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Heaven (Avicii song), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Confused here as it looks like it's still the redirect. I know I am still growing as a NPR so let me know if there's something I didn't do right here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No you were fine - I slipped.PRehse (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Learning by teaching
I am enthousiastic! User:Barkeep49/Learning_by_teaching Jeanpol (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it and thankful you're taking Jytdog's counsel about the COI edits. I learned about this concept when training to be a teacher and employed some of its methods at times in my own teaching so it definitely falls in my area of interest. Even if you're not able to make edits directly, knowing your expertise is around to lend guidance is helpful. Thanks again for letting me know you're enthusiastic and I hope we're able to collaborate after the AfD closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I will help you so much as I can. If you are interested to read my ultimative article (may 2018) (translation in English), here it is: .--Jeanpol (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a facebook-account?--Jeanpol (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do but I'm not willing to lose my anonymity. Thanks for the translation, that will be helpful no doubt. In general I'm going to need to do some diving into the various literature on the topic which is more a weekend/summer activity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine! Jeanpol (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Youth Lagoon/Trevor Powers
Hello, Prior I was trying to merge Youth Lagoon into the Trevor Powers wiki page, however now all I did was try to create a wiki page based off of Trevor Powers, which I believe is in the wikipedia rules as allowed since it is its own project. Can you please revert the omission of the Trevor Powers page, as it should not be redirecting to Youth Lagoon (two different projects). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posthocinfo (talk • contribs) 15:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand now. Youth Lagoon was the stage name for Trevor Powers. Powers is now performing under his own name. So what you should do is go to Talk:Youth Lagoon and propose moving the page to Trevor Powers. If other editors respond, great, have a discussion with them. Wait at least a week. If at the end of that time no one has responded, or everyone who has responded is in favor, you can make the request for the move at WP:RM/TR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

LRT
Can you please explain what exactly should be removed? I would like to learn from you. Thanks! BTW, MOZ.com is also an SEO company and they have similar page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberak (talk • contribs) 09:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your question. I'm going to do my best to answer it. I actually don't think anything needs to be removed, I think something needs to be added. Specifically what needs to be added are:
 * significant coverage in
 * multiple,
 * independent,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * These are the guidelines about how English Wikipedia has decided what companies are allowed to have pages. There might be some other companies which don't meet those guidelines. But that doesn't change what LRT needs to do in order to have an article. If you can add sources which offer significant coverage, in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources about LRT that would work well. Does that make sense? I would be happy to answer further questions if you have them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Italian Massawa
Ok I have followed your instructions and created a username. Now I want to create the article Italian Massawa as you wrote. Now, show me how to create it because I don't get anything more that "write on your sandbox" .......--Followinginstructions (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Following and welcome to Wikipedia. So what I have done is create a draft article called Draft:Italian_Massawa. Drafts are a place where you can build an article. When it is ready it can then be moved to mainspace. The three most important things about Wikipedia are having sources, having reliable sources, and having secondary sources. Sourcing is really that important. You might also want to read WP:Wikipedia:Your_first_article which offers lots of tips. Does that make sense? If not please ask more questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have done the small article following your instructions on the draft. Can I create the article now? Can I name it: Italian Massawa?--144.178.6.16 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, the IP above was me (I forgot to log in, sorry)--Followinginstructions (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have placed an articles for creation (AfC) banner on the page. When you are ready you can click submit for review. I would think, however, about including more information and more sources before doing that. After you click submit for review a volunteer with AfC will come and either help move the article back to mainspace or explain what the article needs more of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

please delete may account
for being here is useless so please delete my entire account thank you!!!

Point Walter
Hi. well done on getting this one over the line. It looked like hard work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks, it was trickier than my other GA reviews had been. I appreciate your time and effort as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Arnold Lobel
Hey! I saw your list of sources that you want for Arnold Lobel. Are you still looking for George Shannon's Arnold Lobel? I see that I might have access to a copy through a library I'm affiliated with. I could try to figure it out for sure tomorrow. Armadillopteryxtalk 19:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I am as I had kind of exhausted my library systems. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay! I'll take a look and get back to you tomorrow :-) Armadillopteryxtalk 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems the book is only available from the archives, and I don't have a card to access those, unfortunately :-/ Armadillopteryxtalk 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting in the time to establish that. Your efforts have been truly appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

D.J. Hogg
Did you do a BEFORE search before you draftified the article? There are plenty of sources and there is a good chance he will be drafted in the NBA in a couple days. Also I didn't create the article, User:DevonSoc did. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 01:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your questions. I did do a WP:BEFORE. Were he not about to declare for the draft I'd have gone AfD for WP:BLP1E. And yes I know that you didn't technically create the page but as its main contributor of content I thought it fairer to have the message sent to you as an interested party (and active Wikipedian). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Zhu Ming, Barkeep49.

Unfortunately PRehse has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"Needs to be reconsidered. The article has been speedy deleted twice as Db-promo not to mention the author overwriting existing articles to put his in place."

To reply, leave a comment on PRehse's talk page.

PRehse (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

WNML-FM page
I don't understand why you deleted all the station information on the WNML-FM page and made it a redirect to its sister station WNML AM. Although the stations share much of their programming, they are separately licensed entities, and the standard practice is to have a page for each station. WNML-FM is an FM station licensed to Friendsville, Tennessee which dates to 1989. WNML (AM) is licensed to Knoxville, Tennessee, and dates to 1922. I don't want to get into an edit war, but unless there is a good reason I am not aware of to delete all the FM station's information I plan restore it to the way it was, although I wanted to give you an explanation first. Thomas H. White (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the explanation. I misread as I thought that at this point in its history WNML-FM was simply rebroadcasting WNML. Given your explanation this would still not necessarily mean a redirect was correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Your GA nomination of The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Chrysalia -- Nova Chrysalia (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle
The article The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle 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 True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Chrysalia -- Nova Chrysalia (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)