User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 3

Oort Cloud FAC
Greetings mate, you left a comment a few days ago on the Oort Cloud FAC about formating problems with the refs. I reworked those and everything should be fine now, I hope you could drop by the article and see how it is now. Thanks for the interest on the FAC Samuel Sol (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Accum GA
I have addressed your points (I think). Is it satisfactory? --Bwwm (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ok, it's done! --Bwwm (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ay-rab FA
I like the idea, but that spat over the chaps article (which has now just gone to mediation, sigh...) is still sucking all my energy and at times, makes me want to just quit doing wiki. So my ability at the moment isn't real high. I think it is worth considering, if you have the urge to do your magic with the citations that are more or less properly done in there already (I dread having to go through the Upton and Edwards books and find all the page numbers I didn't put in at the time...and that is all my fault, too), that's sure something that has to happen. So my answer is yes, but go ahead and get Thoroughbred to GA, by which time I might be sane again. Montanabw (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Antarctic pics
Which part of Antarctica did you go to? I'd love to see the pictures Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

?
I've changed the Template:Infobox Bishop of York layout? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ABC question
A question about enthronement v. consecration. Can you lend your eyes to Talk:Thomas Cranmer? Thanks. --Secisek (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong....
...with Delaware?! I'll be reviewing your work with the same scrutiny (ok, with maybe less of an eagle eye) soon, but.. please, if you can visit 44 of your 50 states, tell me, what's wrong with Delaware? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work at FAC
I just wanted to thank you for your comments at WP:FAC. There are a number of articles that pass FAC with unreliable sources. I'm glad to see someone's scrutinizing each article and commenting on questionable sources. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Roberto Cofresi
What? You failed Roberto Cofresi's "GA" nomination? What's the big idea? Who do you think you are? No, no, please do not take me seriously I'm only joking with you (smile). Let, me explain what happened. I wrote the initial article and then User:Caribbean H.Q., expanded the article (He did a wonderful job and his intentions were well founded). He had to translate some of the information from the book which he cited, from Spanish to English. Spanish is his first language and his was not an easy task. That is the reason that the prose was out of place. Normally, I do not nominate any of the articles which I have written for FA, GA and so on, but after I saw all of the hard work that C H.Q, put into it and that article failed GA because of the mess it was in, I decided to dig into the matter. The references have been fixed, there are some references mentioned such as http://www.prfdance.org/cofresi.htm that are from reliable Puerto Rican institutions such as the Puerto Rican Folkloric Dance & Cultural Center. In regard to the book reference Cuándo se hace pirata Cofresí." I fixed the publisher thing "Editorial Universitaria, Universidad de Puerto Rico". + == Excellent work at FAC ==  Victoria, I'm telling you, User:Caribbean H.Q. made me go through a lot of trouble, but I think it was worth it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Various horse articles
Real Life is a little frantic for me for the next fortnight, so my WP contribs are a bit hit and run. However, if I get a moment or two, I'll certainly have a look at Thoroughbred. When things calm down, I was planning to work on an FA for Early thermal weapons, so why not thow Horses in the Middle Ages into the mix as well??!! You know better than me how much work is involved. If you can be thinking of what needs to be done, that'd be good. Perhaps a to-do list on the talk page? It's ages since I've even looked at the article; I've been meaning to go back and spruce it up, so this would be a good incentive. And your insight/knowledge would be good. Gwinva (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
Well spotted on that image, Ealdgyth. It's taught me to check the sources properly, even on the Commons. Normally, if I find something there, I don't think to check it myself. SlimVirgin talk| edits 05:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Captain Scott
Thanks for your help in getting the gallant Captain past the FA post. He wasn't a dog hater, he just wasn't very good at using them for sledge-pulling. He ate 'em, though. There will be more from the ice shortly. I hope Augustine gets his star soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your trip to Antarctica
If you visited Palmer Station on Anvers Island, you'd have been close to Deception Island. Did you go there? Also, do Elephant Island or Clarence Island ring any bells - they're not far from where you were. All these islands feature in the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, currently being prepared for FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Antarctic pics
They are beautiful pictures. Two are of icebergs off Elephant Island, a key location in British Antarctic exploration history. I would love to use one in the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition article, before it goes to FAC, but the article is a bit image-heavy at the moment. I'll experiment a bit and perhaps ask your opinion? Many thanks, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
Hey this is Limetolime.

All of the changes you have requested have been done by me, but you have stated that there are more. Could ou please state them ALL here so I can do them? Thanks! Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Roberto Cofresi, part2
Victoria, I finally took care of all of the concerns today (including the refs.). Even though I am not into FA and GA nominations, I took into consideration all of the hard work that the other editor (Caribbean H.Q.) put into it and went ahead and re-nominated it. I wanted to tell you because you were the person who reviewed the first nom. and I feel that it is the proper thing to do.

All things aside, I must say that after reading some of the comments on your "talk page", I am very impressed at your dedication to our project. Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the ice
Well, if you can face it, my next FA project is a real biggie: Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. It's about as long as Gotterdämmerung but with fewer jokes. It's on peer review at the moment, so if you fancy a challenge, there it is. No horses this time, but the usual forlorn and doomed dogs. Do give it the treatment it deserves. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Universe
Thanks for the quick response to my reply at the FAC! I responded to your other comment as well, and tweaked some wording in the article accordingly. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp ref
I came across one ref that may satisfy you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for FAC contributions

 * Just to let you know, I have replied to your concerns on SummerSlam (2007)'s FAC. – L A  X  11:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Mentor Johnson and Solomon P. Sharp
Thanks for your helpful comments on my (now-failed) FA nom of Richard Mentor Johnson. I know it takes a lot longer to point out specific examples, but it sure is more helpful to me as an editor. As you said, it's difficult to copyedit your own work, so "needs a thorough copyedit" just leaves me hoping for someone to come help me! Also, sorry I came across a bit whiny about the whole thing. Getting that same comment every time just wears on me, but I shouldn't have gotten that upset about it.

Also, I can add some more background to Solomon P. Sharp, but as far as clearing up the issue of when he was promoted, I'm not sure I can. Unfortunately, resources are sparse on state attorneys general, even ones whose murder inspired several fictional works. If you have to fail it on this point, that's OK. As you can see from my comments in the article's peer review, I wasn't exactly sure it could pass GA anyway, but one editor apparently thought it was ready, so I put it out there. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Acdixon, Johnson is not "failed"; it is archived until it can rise again stronger :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added some more background on the Old Court-New Court controversy. If more is needed, let me know. I haven't added any more background on the Bank of the U.S. controversy because a) I don't remember much of it myself (to the chagrin of my AP U.S. history teacher) and b) the sources weren't very specific on why or how he opposed the bank. I think it was more important to stress his relationship with Calhoun, who he later supported over Clay. If not for his untimely death, it is likely his association with Calhoun would have helped his bid to some higher office later in life. Is there anything else I need to address before this article can pass GA? As you're well aware, I've got three or four wiki-balls in the air at the moment, and I'm losing track!
 * Also, thanks for the offer to help on RMJ. I wouldn't get so frustrated with FACs if more people would offer to help and fewer people would just stop by long enough to leave an "oppose" with some vague comments about copyediting. You're a credit to Wikipedia. Thanks again. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
To Ealdgyth, Thank you very much for the examples you have provided, but I still have two questions:
 * 1) How would you properly cite a television episode?
 * 2) How would you properly cite a soundtrack?

Please leave an answer on my talk page. Thanks!

Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 14:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Transantarctic links
Thanks for fixing the links. With your level of industry I imagined you never slept. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Category
Walter de Coventre mentions Religion, politics and "lower" nobility; where would he go at WP:FA? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
Augustine just made it to FA. Great work! Is that your first FA? First of many, if so, I'm sure. Mike Christie (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * YEA!!! I'd give ya a barnstar for it, but I did already! -- Secisek (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Many congratulations on Augustine. Star quality. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I turned up to support a few minutes ago and see that it's been promoted already. Congrats. :-) SlimVirgin  talk| edits 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Canada
Hi, I noticed you reviewed Flag of Poland for WP:GAN and was wondering if you had time to review Flag of Canada for its current WP:GAN nomination? Nomination is found at Good_article_nominations – thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

GA reviews
Wow, nice work reviewing Solomon P. Sharp etc. etc...GAN needs more people like you; keep it up! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bucentaur: GA review
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've made changes to it, and put some comments on the talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Midwest
I am sorry that I forgot you. His fixation with User:Elonka seemed to overshadow everyone else. You do not deserve that sort of treatment either. Aramgar (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose size
I suppose you saw my peevish comment re ITAE length. The prose size thing looks useful if I can figure it out. I'm none too bright at these things but I'll give it a go. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Like, for example, what's a monobook.js? Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the instructions linked from 's userpage, and then look at for example, User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js. You'll need to create User:Brianboulton/monobook.js.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally worked out what to do, with Sandy's help and yours. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maximian FAC
I've responded to your concerns. Thanks for the review! The article's been copy-edited by Factotem, and Roger Davies has said he'll give the article a go sometime today. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't catch you at a good time. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia, though, is the absence of any real deadlines. Maximian can always be improved, before, after, or during FAC (though of course, we always want a baseline "comprehensiveness" for the article). I'll be moving on to Constantius, Galerius, the Diocletianic persecution, and Constantine in the near future anyways, so I don't think I'm in danger of running out of material to request. If you stop by the U of I any time in the coming few weeks or months, I would be much obliged if you could copy out some articles for me. :) It's so kind of you to offer! Should I write you up a list? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's alright, I can wait. I'll write up a list sometime soon, though anything on the linked topics, plus Maximian and Diocletian, would be lovely. Don't worry about Constantine, though. I've downloaded a number of JSTOR articles on him, so unless I can think up something specific, you can leave him out. The one article that jumps out at me is T.D. Barnes' "Emperors, Panegyrics, Prefects, Provinces and Palaces (284–317)" in the Journal of Roman Archeology 9: 532–52, which apparently makes some corrections to the dates he gives in New Empire. Thanks so much! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix
Could you also, as well as looking at the sources, make some comments on the article, and whether you would support or oppose the article in it's current state. I feel, that it would be better for comments to be made rather than a "sources review". D.M.N. (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I think your comments have been addressed now. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Norwich City F.C.
Thanks for taking the time to review this. I think we've addressed your comments at the FAC. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back... pedantically, is that a support? --Dweller (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only is that OK, that's brilliant. We need this kind of rigour. Presumably sandy knows what you're up to? Thanks for taking on this task. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Barry (2007) FAC
Hey, would you mind specifying a support or an oppose on the Tropical Storm Barry FAC? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aww, you're mean :P You get my hopes up by commenting on the FA, then choose to leave it as a comment. Fine, thank you at least for not opposing on the basis that I have FAcountitis, and if you manage to even comment on half of them, then that would be superb. Do what you can, though. It's easier to put an article up for FAC than it is to review it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record I do occassionally review other FA's ;) Hey, what can I say, I'm going for #1 or bust. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Buh! Me becoming #1 should be the goal of Wikipedia. I'm like Barry Bonds at homerun #700, and you know that I will break the all time record some day. And it's so exciting that there is someone active who is a real contender of becoming #1...... I'm not sure where the steroids fit into that analogy. If you're not a baseball fan, don't worry about it ;) Also, I wish Wikipedia would have sarcasm tags, so you knew where I was not being serious, heh. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad
Hi! I've responded to your comments at Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad. Gocsa (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Augustine of Canterbury
I just noticed that he reached FA. Congratulations! Hopefully, I will get another Archbishop of Canterbury up there in the next few months (I'm rather slow... not enough free time!). --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thriller
You might want to take a further look at Thriller ive done it all, i would appreciate your thoughts. Realist2 (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi would you care to take another look, i think its getting a lot closer. Realist2 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, ive completed the list, ive also completed the check list of the person who put opposed, hopefully he will come back and change hid view or provide more advise. Realist2 (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NY 311 GA review
Hey, thanks for reviewing NY 311's GAN. I fixed the stuff that could be fixed, but there isn't much information to expand the article with. If you feel that the article still doesn't meet GA standards, just give me a shout, and I'll do my best. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of 19th century source
Hi Ealdgyth. Could I ask you to comment on the Thomas Cranmer talk page on this topic? Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson FAC
I've corrected citation errors. Will you support the nomination? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, an issue was resolved. Will you support? Thankyou. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've only done one FAC prior to this and the reason it failed was because a number of people gave comments as you have without giving it a full review and the nomination stood with a single support and (weak) oppose. In any case i appreciate your time. Thankyou. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fay GA Review
All of your critiques have been taken care of. Please re-evaluate. Tropical Storm Fay (2002) TheNobleSith (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Propsect Highway GAN
I've mainly completed all the issues you listed. Thanks for the review.Mitch32contribs 21:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Peckham
I've done a bit of fuss-pot editing, mainly to the beginning of Early life, to get the correct chronology of family - birth - education, rather than the other way round. I understand the Google references now - you're not referencing specific information, merely confirming that the books exist and that John wrote them. It's obvious really, but I am a slow learner.

Parliament normally gets a capital P when you're talking about the legislature, but Brit English is not always consistent.

The images look better this way round.

All-in-all the article is fine and I'll do the GA honours shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tenacious D FA nom
Ealdgyth, I saw the discussion on the nomination for this article, and I'm sorry for wasting your time. I'm going to relay this to SandyGeorgia. I'm going to let a Peer Review take its course then try and get some more participation. Thanks for your work, and I take on your advice about striking out other peoples comments. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the peer review comments. I'm going to wait at least until there are some comments on prose - and they are addressed - before I renominate this. I have posted on the WP:RS noticeboard about the sources. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wulfstan
For a change of pace (and since I've nominated a few articles for GA), I thought I would try being a GA reviewer. Since I figured you could train me if I messed up too badly, I picked Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York as my second attempt. I put it on hold for now, primarily on comprehensiveness issues. If the sources just aren't available, please say so and I'll strike those comments. It was an interesting article to read! Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't have a change to get back to you yesterday. Wulfie looks great and is now a GA.  Any plans to nominate it for FA soon? Karanacs (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Navenby
Many, many thanks for all your tips. I will work on them later tonight. But got to take take sick rabbit to the vet now. (Yup, really!) -- seahamlass  20:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please could you take another look? I've deleted the paragraph you suggested, as well as several of the links you highlighted (replacing most of them with other, and I hope, more reliable references. There are still three sticking points though... Genuki, the Ray Beckham website and the Knights Templar website. I have asked from some help over at the WP ref talk page, but no suggestions yet I'm afraid. I have, however, backed up the Knights Templar ref with another one from a book, if that is any good? Anyway, I've explained more in the notes... if you can understand them. (Apparently I shouldn't have done it the way I did, I know better now...)!-- seahamlass  22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ABC
Resized the saint box to match. Use everywhere. -- Secisek (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Angus Lewis Macdonald
Thanks very much for your many constructive suggestions. I'm away from home until tomorrow, but will get busy revising the article when I return. Thanks again. Bwark (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Navenby and Genuki refs
Hi. Thanks for your tips on what makes a reliable source...this is my attempt to show Genuki as a reliable source:
 * This story http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/apr/29/media.newmedia in The Guardian newspaper praises the site as "one of the main centres for genealogical records and is supported by Manchester and Newcastle universities."
 * Another Guardian story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/14/guardianspecial4.guardianspecial226 places Genuki at Number 6 in its Top 50 websites and says: "Genuki is the oldest and most comprehensive gateway to online resources for British and Irish genealogy. Its 70,000-odd pages provide genealogical links and information for every county in the British Isles, with pages devoted to individual towns and parishes. There is also general information on UK and Irish genealogy, and a search engine covering all the main UK genealogy sites."
 * The Genuki site has also been named as a "useful link" by the BBC and The Observer newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/14/robinmckie.theobserver and cited by The Times online newspaper: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article624829.ece

Genuki is mentioned simply dozens of times by reputable sources, which are considered as reliable refs for Wikipedia. Hope this persuades you! (According to other websites, it is also in the top 500 websites most quoted/referenced on Wikipedia...Not that that probably matters!)-- seahamlass  00:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fingers crossed, stuff now sorted....-- seahamlass  19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway...
 * Really sorry - feel like I'm stalking you!
 * May I suggest you use the Ray Beckham site as an external ref, now that you have the information sourced to other references? That way you don't have any issues. *Done: Done as suggested.


 * And one more. You're still using the templarmechanics site for the bit about the hellfire club. The other usage of it is backed up by a book, but the site is not going to be reliable for information on the Hellfire club connections. Definite progress though!
 * Done, done, done! Three book refs to replace the templarmechanics site.... Fingers crossed all done-- seahamlass  22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
Oh no, this again?

Sorry, but I'm still working on the article. Anyway, I came to ask, do yout think that this link is suitable as a reference? Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japan GP FAC
See here. There are four sources outside the "Resolved" box. Is this an error? People have commeted on them, so I can't see what the problem is. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's reliable
"everyHit.com is simply an online database of my family's record collection." Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (gaze up) I told Karanacs that I think folks need more help with the whole RS thing. Sometimes I think folks are allergic to citing a book, the way they use websites. Well, I made it through the Navenby thing. Now only 30 or so fires to work on (grins). Even more important, I got through all the List of bishops of Exeter and its precursor offices done and a good start on List of the Bishops of the Diocese of Hereford, England and its precursor offices! Yay me! (Score one for the hubby being out of town for the day). Ealdgyth - Talk 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The number of articles getting through GA and peer review without any sort of evaluation or editors having a fundamental notion of what makes a source reliable is simply frightful. Some of the answers to your queries on FAC are very concerning. The backbone of Wiki should be reliability, and we have editors aspiring to FA who don't know what a reliable source is. I don't know what we'd be letting through if you weren't doing these checks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I try on GA when I do reviews, but I can only do so many reviews. And honestly, I just don't like reviewing "pop culture" stuff. We need to train Ruhrfish and the other folks at PR to look at least a bit at sources. Maybe not as indepth as I'm doing, but something. And this whole culture of "cite the web, not a book" is scary to me as an academically trained historian. (And don't get me started on folks who abuse Google Scholar to take snippets of books....)
 * To help you feel better though, my pipeline is getting ramped up, so I should have a pretty steady stream of articles coming through that I've already checked. WikiProject Equine is working on a few horse articles, and I've had a chance to beat... err.. train them right. Too many folks still think that FAC is all about MOS issues, not the accuracy of the article.
 * Honestly, I should be reading each cite AND the web page to make sure that it says what it is sourcing, but even I don't have that time. I try to get as much as I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We need for other people to be helping you, and for the onus to be put back on the nominators to demonstrate why a site is reliable, not for you to have go dig it up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyhit.com is not reliable!? Oh lord, every single Featured List discography is not up to scratch then. indopug (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed this a while ago; this is why I'm not using it on the userspace revision of R.E.M. discography we're working on. I've been trying to find more reliable online sources for British chart positions, but if worse comes to worse, User:Michig has a few books that list British chart placing. I would hesitate to place such a burden on him, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable
Hello Ealdgyth. Im having trouble on how to claim the sources you questioned in the FAC page as reliable. I just referred to some song-related FAs and believe these are reliable. Could you please reflect in the FAC page how they fail to meet the criteria or at least clarify their exclusion per WP:RS and WP:V, or otherwise. The article will undergo copy editing (to satisfy criterion 1a) once all other criteria are resolved. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for disturbing you. I know your busy in real life. Actually, Sandy is always visiting the FAC page and she said lately that the sourcing is getting better. Since you're the one who raised these concerns, I will wait for you side. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is now featured. Thanks for the help and leave me a message if you have more concerns. --Efe (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was about to close the PR but I saw your comments. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I left comments there. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom
Thanks for participating in that review! I'll respond to it in a bit, though not immediately. I think this one is a tad stronger that a few others I've done for prose. There's enough material to expand this article a little bit, but not sure if I should do this. Wiki after all is not intended as anything but a springboard into a topic, not full treatment. Do you have anything thoughts on the addition of a background section, at the beginning of the article? All the bestest, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth. I'm afraid the ODNB's claim that Thomas de Rossy was the only Franciscan to hold a Scottish see appears to be wrong. I've found Michael, Bishop of the Isles, OFM. This guy was Archbishop of Cashel (Clementine). Does your handbook have any info on him? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Henry Summerson is the author. The Fasti Ecclesiae book is the best for Scottish church lists, more reliable than the Handbook. Beware that Bishop of the Isles is the Scottish article on wiki, and List of the Bishops of the Diocese of Sodor and Man is the English/Irish one. They split at John Dongan! All very messy. I'll need to get myself that handbook so I can sort out some of those Irish bishoprics. There are virtually no proper Irish lists to link to ... Archbiship of Cashel doesn't even seem to have a proper page. Sad times. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pied-noir FAC
Hi there,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments on Pied-noir's FAC. I have taken some time and addressed all that you have mentioned. Please note, that I removed ALMOST all of the Britannica references, however, there were 3 that I had to leave....hopefully this is OK :) If you have the time, would you be willing to take a second look at the article in order to evaluate it? Thanks again! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, all Britannica cites have been removed and replaced with other sources which affirm the material.. Regards...Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Beyoncé Knowles/archive1
This is my biggest project to date and I would like to ask your suggestions for it to improve further. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, I left comments on the other peer review. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. --Efe (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * These two source, http://covemagazine.com/100vocalists.html and http://www.musiciansnews.com/singing/15/singing_mezzo_soprano_middle_female_voice_vocal_range.shtml, which I added were reverted by a user so it might be helpful if you will check its reliability (I beliebe when you checked the article's sources, you missed these two). Thank you. --02:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/NeXT
I have replied to your concerns regarding the references on the NeXT article (they have been fixed). Please reply back on that page ASAP. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots of other stuff has now been fixed. Please check the FAC page again. — Wackymacs (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying on my Talk page. I understand you have a lot to do - I have addressed the last of your issues. Thanks for all your help! — Wackymacs (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Navenby
Cheers for the message - you might be 'the hard part,' but I actually enjoyed re-doing some of the refs! Good old books, you forget how useful they are sometimes! I guess Google has made me lazy... Thankyou, once again, for your patience in going through all 120-odd refs. It was much, much appreciated. Next time I write something, I'm going to choose a subject with three sources (reliable of course) and nothing else!-- seahamlass  10:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:FTs
Yeah, I'd discovered that myself recently. Maybe Bishops of Dunblane is possible too. Two FAs so far, and at least one GA (Nicholas de Balmyle, who is a few copyedits from FA nom). Would need to get Bishop of Dunblane to Featured List I suppose, and don't really have the motivation atm. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Aeneas
I've done Roger's GA stuff. You really don't have to look at Aeneas while you're on vacation. It's just that the peer reveiw needs to get started so that others feel encouraged to join in. But please take your time. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation clarification
Ealdgyth, just a note for you to have a look at User talk:Moni3 when you get a chance; it's not coming up soon, but I wanted you to be aware for similar situations. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it, will try desparately to remember it. Down and safe in Vegas. even survived driving in town. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're safe; hope you're having fun. Even if you don't remember, wanted you to see the discussion for the general principles. It will be there when you get back. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fun? I'm going to go collapse. Traveing isn't as easy as it once was. Also, that MJ FAC souce check was LONG! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with the tumors (it was time for me to pay attention to the Med Project lest they think I'd abandoned them). You'd best watch yourself with these wonderful source checks; FAC is going to start getting driveby noms just so they can pick your brain and get a comprehensive source check, LOL !! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ARGGAAHHHHH! And with that, I'm going to bed. I get to go to the Wynn for a big gala tomorrow night and dress up! Whee! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Be careful; the getting dressed up part is usually more fun than the actual gala, where they just want your money :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Angus Lewis Macdonald GA review
Hi Ealdgyth. I've resolved the issues you raised on Talk:Angus Lewis Macdonald, except for your query over whether the book cover image is able to be released as copyright free. I did receive written permission from the book publisher and the university archivist for the use of this image, but I realize that may not mean it can be tagged as falling under a GNU Free Documentation License. I'm currently seeking clarification from copyright holders. In any case, I've marked all the issues to show that I've attempted to address them. Thanks so much for all your suggestions. I feel the article is much better than it was. Thanks again. Bwark (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've since deleted the image of the book cover and replaced it with a copyright-free image of Robbie Burns. Bwark (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Pierce Brosnan
Please strike comments. Ultra! 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA nomination
Hello Ealdgyth, how are things? I am wondering if you have to could you possibly reconsider the nomination for FA status of Richard Dawkins. I think that the issues you raised have been addressed by myself and other users either in response or by removing/editing the article where necessary. Regards.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth, I think I have taken care of more of your concerns about this article. Please have a look. One thing is that you mention the "Pharyngula" blog as being of questionable notability. As I have said, it is not being used as a source for any claims, it is merely affirming what the author of the blog said. The reason this is of any relevance is because, as cited, Dawkins himself mentions it in his book. Thanks. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Resolved almost everything with the FA. Just a few questions, could you take another look. Realist2 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, i removed that transcript source, there is nothing wrong with the United World Chart. You didn't strick it off last time, im not sure if you still take issue with that, or was it more a question? Also i replaced that fan club site you were concerned about. Will Reuters be good enough? Realist2 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, apparently there are more unreliable sources in the article according to another reviewer. I took another look and i can see 140 is not good. Can you take a real hard look and clarify if there is anything else that needs changing. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Left another message, im sorry that it wasnt done 100% correctly the first time round, when you work at it for eights hours straight trough the night you miss things. I however did not change the publisher details to CNN and i think its best we all try to assume good faith. Realist2 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deva Victrix
I've had a go at addressing your other points and I think it's ready for round 2 :-) Nev1 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Flag of Canada
Hi, I have responded back at Featured article candidates/Flag of Canada. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review
Hi there. I am not having much luck getting people to review the Paul Rand article, but I would most appreciate it - I want as much feeedback as possible before I put it up at FAC. When you have the time, please comment at Peer_review/Paul_Rand/archive1. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/Aberdeen F.C.
I addressed your issues; would you mind taking another look?  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gi-gi
No problem, Ealdgyth. I'll inch my way through the rest in a day or two. Las Vegas, was it? Tony  (talk)  15:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply on Thoroughbred
My apologies that I managed to disappear right when the review was being done. I spent most of yesterday in meetings with graduate admissions advisors, and wasn't really eager to do anything that required actual thought for the rest of the day :)

I've caught myself up on what's happening at the TB page, and it seems to be going well so far. I tossed the rest of the non-reference footnotes, but other than that I'm not really sure what else there is to do. I'm hoping that VanTucky will reply soon with his thoughts about the terminology and controversies sections...

Thanks for dropping the note on my page about the review being done! Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
I have fixed everything you have asked to be done, is the article okay for FA status? <font color="#008000">Limetolime  <font color="#9ACD32">talk to me • <font color="#9ACD32">look what I did! 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp FAC
I believe I have addressed your concerns. Support is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I have done my best to address your latest concerns.  BTW, I am not sure if you have noticed the new early text, which you may want to consider more closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have renominated Jack Kemp which you previously commented on. I hope you will now support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Time on my hands
Are you still on holiday (tag's still up, but you seem to have been around)? Well, Real Life has calmed down, so I have celebrated by doing too much here. I've James Graham (soldier) at peer review with a plan to bring it up to GA, plus some more sources to expand Early thermal weapons and tidy for FA (it's just passed A-Class). (any tips on either welcome, of course, if you find yourself with time on your hands). But I've also had a read of Horses in the Middle Ages and written down my first thoughts about what needs to be done to bring it up to FAC. Still keen? Gwinva (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy Jet
Image and rationale look good! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hate to show my ignorance, but. If Easy Jet was sorrel, why is he black in the picture?  Is it an old black and white photo?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if I had to ask, others may, so maybe you should say in the caption that it's a b&w photo? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for all of your work checking references on FAC and Peer review (and doubtless other places I am unaware of). I especially appreciate your catching the ref lacking publisher in Black Moshannon State Park. Anyway, I have a request to ask - when you make comments in Peer Review could you please still at least date stamp them at the end? This is five "~"? The reason is I archive peer review by hand and archive requests with no new repsonses in 2 weeks - if there is no date, I have to open the article history and check, which is some extra work. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to bother you on vacation - thanks for replying so quickly. As long as there is a time somewhere (signed or just time stamp) I am fine, so whatever is easiest for you. The reason I though time stamps might be better is that it usually happens in a subsection with your user name in the header, so it is already clear who it is from. Thanks again for all you do, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New task ?
Do I dare ask ? When you're running your source check, I see that you check the templates in use at the bottom of the page to see if they mix cite and citation. Can you also glance at the use of templates that shows in edit mode at the bottom of the page, and alert the fac if is in use, per this?  I now realize I probably overlooked some out-of-control TOCs when I was reviewing because I might not have known that template was in place. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Hi, I have noticed your work on articles that are put through the WP:FAC process and am requesting your time to peer review Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Specifically, please do what you do best, which is to check references and links for notability. I have spent the time to fix the links as much as possible, and would appreciate it if you could take a look at them. I am asking you because I appreciate the work you do for WP:FAC articles, and will soon be putting this article through there, too, so I'd rather ask for your input on the article before submitting it there instead of fixing any issues while the article is already being criticized. The peer review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare/archive1.

P.S. Do you use the link checker tool for checking links? Because it does not work for this article, due to the colon in the article's title.

Thanks in advance! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I will look them over now. Also, I've never seen you support or oppose based on your findings for an article. Do you ever do so? I'm curious :) Cheers! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk )  19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All done at Wikipedia:Peer review/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare/archive1. Please close the resolved ones. Thanks! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk )  19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, all done. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk )  19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
Hi Ealdgyth, could you please leave a Support or Oppose at the nomination? Have a nice day, <font color="#008000">Limetolime  <font color="#9ACD32">talk to me • <font color="#9ACD32">look what I did! 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
A question, that will not only apply to the 1995 Japan article when it gets back to FAC but to other articles that fail FAC, but are renominated later. When articles are failed at FAC (that you have source checked), and then they are renominated at FAC later with exactly the same sources, will you be going around and checking the exact same sources again. Just wondering, as I'm pretty sure some articles fail their first FAC and then go back later to FAC. Some people might find it pointless your questioning the sources for the same article twice at 2 different FAC's. Also, as a result of the 1995 Japan FAC, this page has been created. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the PR. D.M.N. (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Easy Jet FAC
That was stupid of me. :( Sorry about that. I fixed it, so it shouldn't be a problem. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone
 * Well, that's what the autosig is for. ;) Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy Jet
Hey Ealdgyth, didn't want to upset the very positive FAC, but I wondered if you could contextualise "he still managed to finish fifth" for me. I've seen plenty of races with only five horses (or less!) involved, so it'd be better to make this claim set against the fact he came fifth but not last if you know what I mean! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm hunting at the moment for something that tells me how many were in the race. I don't actually own QH racing chart books, so it might be a bit. Didn't want you thinking I wasn't looking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I didn't want someone to pop by and say "hang on, there were only five in that race anyway, and Easy Jet finished unseated, forty lengths behind..." (if you catch my drift!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just ordered his official race record, he was fifth out of ten. Now I get to debate do I put the whole record in? (ponders) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Mackintosh again
I wonder if I could ask you to take a brief look again at Aeneas Mackintosh. You seemed to feel that Mackintosh was somewhat buried in detail, especially in the Ross Sea section. Well. I've looked at it, and removed about 280 words from the section by removing material, linking to a sub-article etc. Does what I've done address your concern? I know you said it wasn't an oppose matter, but I still want to improve the article if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Iván Rodríguez
I have commented on your reference comments. <font face="Bauhaus 93" size="2.0" color="#002649"> STORMTRACKER  <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.3" color="#DAA520"> 94  Go Irish! 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done <font face="Bauhaus 93" size="2.0" color="#002649"> STORMTRACKER  <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.3" color="#DAA520"> 94  Go Irish! 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Finished with the ref info. <font face="Bauhaus 93" size="2.0" color="#002649"> STORMTRACKER  <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.3" color="#DAA520"> 94  Go Irish! 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your comment about the source. <font face="Bauhaus 93" size="2.0" color="#002649"> STORMTRACKER  <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.3" color="#DAA520"> 94  Go Irish! 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"done"
Sorry - didn't realize that. Tvoz | talk 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. FAC is always a strange place the first time around. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How's your weekend ?
I'll follow here so you don't have to wade in to my busy talk page :-) I'm scrambling for Monday's (April 28) Dispatch.  The Featured List people had it, but they need to defer for a number of reasons.  We have a DYK in the wings, but I haven't heard back from the editor, and we have a potential GA in the wings, but May 5 works better for them because they may reach a milestone then.  If nothing else pans out, and you and I have to complete your Dispatch on reliable sources, are you up for it?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go ahead and do a good cut on it now. I've got to go to the stable for a farrier visit and then pick up a chain saw but should be back later this evening. User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You is the link. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also got some things to do, so can't get on it now; maybe I'll hear from the DYK folks before tonight. I'll let you now ... swamped here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Resolved. DYK is taking the 28th, so we're off the hook. GA may take the 5th, and Featured lists is the 12th, unless something changes. So we'll keep your RS for next time I have to scramble :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Angus Lewis Macdonald image problem
Hi Ealdgyth: Thanks again for your help and advice re getting this article in shape to qualify for Good Article status. I feel I can't go to the next step and ask for Feature Article status until one image copyright problem is resolved. It concerns Image:Angus and princessfull.jpg. I hope I have resolved the issue by adding a fair use tag and rationale, but since I'm new at this, I'm not sure if this will fly. I would appreciate any advice on this. Many thanks. Bwark (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japan PR
Commented back. D.M.N. (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied...... D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Super Smash Bros. Brawl
I'd like to ask why you've been absent for such a long period of time. We need to resolve your comments quickly and move on, and it doesn't look good on a FAC to leave an unresolved issue lying there. Could you possibly come back and comment once more? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: HRC FAC
Oops, I screwed up. Will fix. Sorry ... Wasted Time R (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on the promotion of Easy Jet!!! Hopefully his article will be the first of many FAs on horses :) Karanacs (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, HOORAY! And pretty much all Ealdgyth's work, too! Yay! Montanabw (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Princess
I replace both, and you only archive one ref discussion? igordebraga ≠ 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Such politeness (did I see a MOS:CAPS issue in that diff? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

GA stuff
Enjoy your trip, and the reading! Well done on GA for Thoroughbred, too. Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deserves another!
DITTO and thanks for yours! Tvoz | talk 06:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

caps
Is there a limit to how much can fit inside a cap? I'm not able to see a load of comments that are inside of your cap on the HRC FAC unless I go into the edit screen. Haven't encountered this before. Thanks for any enlightenment! Tvoz | talk 06:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's the | in your signature, we've run into this before. I went through and took it out and it should be displaying fine now. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! I had no idea- sorry! This was driving me nuts - thanks for fixing it. Tvoz | talk 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries at all. If you plan on contributing a lot at FAC, it's probably a good idea to remove the offending | from your sig, which is what I had to do (grins) . Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw, but it's so cute..... later Tvoz → talk 15:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * HA - I forgot I had already changed it! Tvoz → talk 15:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GA and other stuff...
Thanks for the heads up on the Thoroughbred GA...we did it! Also thanks for giving me my first barnstar the other day :) Now let's see what we can do with Horse... *pounds head against wall* :P Hope you have fun on your latest trip! Dana boomer (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

 * Definitely well deserved. Nice job! I also thank you for reviewing all the FACs that I've put you through so far, and because of that, you have put me on my toes on every article I touch when I add a reference :) You are a great contributor to the FAC process, and you are very dedicated. Thank you for being a part of the community! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk )  06:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On another Archbishop of Canterbury
Hi Ealdgyth. I have placed another Archbishop of Canterbury under peer review. If you could take a look at it, I would appreciate it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Link checking for Facebook
Hey, if you have time could you please check the links for Facebook and post them at Peer review/Facebook/archive3? I've gone through the links and they seem to check out for me, but I'd like a second opinion. Thanks! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also marked references that I think are unreliable with rs, so you can ignore those references while I look for replacements. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk )  18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks! I've also gone through the article and removed any unreliable sources I could find, so if you find anything, then I should smack myself on the forehead :) Everything on there should be reliable, but some may possibly be questionable by you and I will do my best to explain why I think it should be reliable. Thanks! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk )  06:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * References replaced Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Gilberto Gil
Responded, mentioning here on the off-chance that you're still online <tt>(:</tt> --Kakofonous (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again. --Kakofonous (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was responding as you pinged. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I replaced the jrank source with reliable alternatives. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Derby
I'm not watching that crap anymore. I almost walked out of the room when my husband first turned it on. Why did I have to be right again? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. I didn't even see it, was in the middle of the warmup ring wiping down a horse before going into a class. Mom called later to tell me that the filly broke down. There's a reason my gelding doesn't do Working cowhorse any more, my nerves can't take it. On the good news front, the current rehab project did very well in his first dressage class today, even though he went spastic in the regular ringwork class yesterday. (He's a recovering abused show horse). So he's got a good career as my dressage horse! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good going for your new horse. Glad all went well for you!    But as for wiki, we'd better watchlist all the horse racing articles, the PETA crowd will be a-coming. I was rooting for the filly all the way, she broke down when she was being pulled up after the race.  It was a bummer and the way the TV folks handled it was sort of weird, they kept just acting like it sort of was happening but not.  Sigh.  (IMHO, they run them too hard too young, giving everyone another year would reduce the injury rate dramatically; note a lower injury rate in England where the "Derby" races are largely for four-year olds, but that's just my own opinion)  Montanabw (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoo! 62.5 on his second test. Very happy horse. Very happy owner. Definitely shows promise, since he's only been back in training 5 weeks after two years off. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't forget, they really don't. What level was he showing at?   Montanabw (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Training. We put him in a sporthorse under saddle class too, but that was a disaster. He wigged out. He got borderline abused as a hunter, and doing a ring class brought it all back, so no more hunt type ring classes for him for a while. He's a very very very sensitive horse, hates heavy aids, dislikes too much leg on him, and doesn't trust a lot of people. So we have a good trainer he likes (in fact the woman who started him under saddle before he was sold to the people who took him to a training farm that abused him (no, I'm not naming names) before he was sold back to the breeder as "never going to make it as a hunter, he's useless") and is being treated a whole lot different. Likes the dressage stuff, now we just have to evaluate the filly and see if she's going to make the futurity or not. Khemo bred, she's just taking a bit longer than I'd like to be ready and rather than push her and fry her mind (like the dressage prospect), we'll just see how she is this week and decide whether to keep her in training or pull her out, give her a year off and breed her and restart her training next year in the fall. The fun of showing/breeding! I can only afford one horse in full training, and if the filly can do the futurity, we'll do that, it's a once a horselife chance, but if it'll even be a chance of frying her brain, no, she'll sit out a year. Some horses just can't handle that much at 3, and she may be one. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Humanizing Technologies: a reliable gauge for reliable sources?
Hi, Ealdgyth. What are your thoughts on Humanizing Technologies? They have compiled a list of news sources, and several gaming sites are on them. Digital Entertainment News, Entertainment Depot, and Gaming Trend are classified by them as Medium Rank news sources, on par with GameSpot, GameSpy, etc. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. My main worry would be if the sites they are recommending are customers of theirs, otherwise I'd say they help establish reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC of SummerSlam (2007)
In the FAC of the above article, you pointed out that CompleteWWE.com and WrestleView are unreliable because there was no proof of where they got their info from, but I found this and this, in my view, that establishes where they get their information from.-- ~    S  <font size="2.5"> R    S    ~   20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They help a bit, but really a news organization or other third party source for this would be best. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

O Canada
If you have time could you please take a look at the links at O Canada and post them at Peer review/O Canada/archive1? Thanks! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * will attempt tomorrow morning. If not, it might be next weekend before I can get to it. I'm about to go out of quick internet access until at least Friday night. Possibly until next Tuesday or Wednesday. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to inundate you, but I'd rather get the link checking over with before submitting to FAC. I've also got Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock to look after if you've got time; the peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock/archive2. I've already gone through the links, and links that have appended to them are already deemed unreliable by me; the rest should be reliable. Cheers.  Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 04:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see.. it's almost midnight my time, I was up at 6 this morning to go to a horse show, and have spent the last three days being a groom at a horse show... I'll try, but I make no promises. Sleep is MUCH more important at the moment. Especially as this week I'm going to be photographing horses and need all my wits about me to keep from being run over. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say that I wanted you to finish the link checking first. What I was saying is that I'd prefer to get linking checking done before I submit to FAC, which is why I ask you to check links before you have to do it while it is at FAC. I want it this way because FAC has a time limit so I'd rather take my time and use a peer review to improve an article first before submitting to FAC. I wasn't pushing you in any way. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to be snappish. I much prefer that you DO bring me issues while at PR rather than waiting until FAC, I'm just trying to explain why normally I'd jump on doing the PR, and would greatly appreciate it, but that right now, I can't promise something quick. I should be home by the 12th or 13th at the latest and will do them then, if I haven't had time to before. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done at Peer review/O Canada/archive1 Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also done at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock/archive2. Cheers. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

O'Malley
Do you have a suggestion for the official biography site being down? I sent them an email, but we can swap the link to the Google cache if you think thats best. Since the quote parameter captured what text was quoted, the quote should be able to stand on its own, even if the site never returned. What do you suggest? Btw, I was at a Sheep and Wool Festival in Maryland all weekend, not as fun as a horse show, but still fun. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly won't feel comfortable until I see the site so I can see who the biographer is, see what sources are cited, etc. I'm leery of "official biographies" since they don't fulfill the "third-party" sources part of WP:RS and WP:V. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway
has replaced the remaining disputed link with a mirror of the article, hosted on another Dutch police website. I believe that covers all your concerns and hope you can now support the nomination. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Checking ? reliable sources
Dear Ealdgyth, long overdue thanks for checking sources at FAC. Your working your magic gives me time to concentrate on other issues. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would like your opinion on GA review for White Mountain art
Hi there. I'm new to GA review, but I guess I know how to pick 'em. For my 5th review I chose White Mountain art. You may have seen the comments on the GAN talk page. The review has been rather confusing. I wrote a review, but neglected to check to see that it was still nominated. Although I found what I considered to be multiple issues with MOS, OR and POV, it had been passed by another editor, User:Jack Bethune. User:Malleus Fatuarum delisted it and I posted my comments on the talk page and put the article on hold. Jack Bethune, in turn, took my suggestions and recommended, disagreed with, or advised the principal author to disregard my comments. The principal author, User:JohnJHenderson is now understandably confused. So I'm asking for experienced GA reviewers to look at the article and the talk page and offer some kind of consensus as to what he should do to bring it to GA. I appreciate anything you can do. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable check request
At the Ocarina of Time FAC, I have been requested to expand the development section. I ran across a series of Japanese interviews with the staff, but I'm concerned they may not qualify as reliable. The first interview is here with a translation here—the others are a similar case. I'd appreciate your thoughts when you have the chance. They're not used in the article (yet?), so let me know either here or on my talk page—I think the FAC is about to overtake the article in size! ;) Thanks,  Pagra shtak  00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry I was on the road, but I see the article was promoted, congrats! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Company blog as a reference?
If I used a company's blog as a reference for the company's article, would that be acceptable? For instance, if I used a company's blog post for a product announcement, development information, etc. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 03:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth is traveling; for now, see WP:SELFPUB. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I know she's on vacation but I expected a response at her own leisure, which would be fine. I also already read the policy on this but wanted to get a second opinion directly from one of the people who know this the best; I suppose what I'm using right now should be acceptable, though. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally a blog is sorta like a developer interview, only slightly less reliable. A developement blog by a lead developer, would probably be okay, and actually might be more reliable than an interview published by a website that's not very reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1
Please review Macintosh Classic when and if you have the time. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It'll probably be next week, sorry. Should be home Wednesday. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Featured article candidates/Myst
I decided to save myself the trouble and replaced the one source in question; they all should check out now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! And another request :)
Hey, I noticed that you begun editing again. I'm not sure if you are back yet or not? But if you are, then welcome back! If not, then there's no need to rush back :) Anyhow, if you have time, could you comment on the links at Metroid Prime 3: Corruption on the article's talk page? Thanks! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw you commented that you were still on the road, so this is by no means urgent. Glad to see that the current FACs are not being ignored, though, since your input on them is always invaluable. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Still on the road (Scarborough Renaissance Faire this weekend) should be home Wednesday, will try to comment shortly after that. I figure FACs get first call on my limited time. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

you've been invoked...
See here. It's the official MoMA site, so I reckon it's OK, but I'm getting increasingly leery of online sources, so I thought I'd run it by you first. Feel free to ignore if you're too busy... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd generally trust a major museum site, so it should be okay. I'm not so much leery of online sources as leery of folks who tend to think all research begins and ends with the internet. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response and the reassurance. :)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street (Chicago)
Now that I have resolved your issues, do I have your support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, you're a FAC regular, you know I don't support a lot because I don't have the time to do full reviews on most things. I have even less time this week, because I'm traveling. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Award
Heck, I made up this nifty award for RJH here and was so pleased with it I wanted to spread it 'round....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very very cool! Thanks very much. It gave me quite the chuckle last night in the hotel. Somedays, FAC does feel like a black hole.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting references checked at Adam Smith
If you've got time, could you check the references at Adam Smith? I've gone through them and think they all check out (a lot are books, journals, and newspapers) but I'd like a second opinion. I don't have a peer review open for this article, so you can post any comments on the article's talk page. The article is currently the first article in WP:ECON/FAD :) Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pipe organ peer review
Thank you very much for your helpful peer review of the sources for Pipe organ (available at Peer review/Pipe organ/archive2). I have been editing the citations in anticipation of a featured article nomination. You wrote in your review that several sources lacked "publisher information" (for example, http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/events/tours/germany_2006/day9.shtml). What exactly do you mean by this? I cannot find a Wikipedia policy or guideline that defines publisher information or requires references to provide it. At the very bottom of the page I just cited, it says "© 2008 American Public Media." Does this not qualify as publisher information? Thank you very much for any clarification you might be able to give. —Cor anglais 16 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Citing_sources does say "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." which means at the very least title, publisher, and date of access for web sites. The publisher is the group/etc. putting out the information on the web, in the example you gave it would be American Public Media. That information needs to be in the citation in the article, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I understand. Thank you very much! —Cor anglais 16 05:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Source opinion
Could you please, when you have time, visit Featured article candidates/Mount Garibaldi and comment on the ongoing discussion of the reliability of the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia source? The article depends heavily on it and I'm very uneasy about its reliability. It appears to be put together by members/volunteers. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually waiting for them to finish off the bibliographical information, it saves me a lot of time if the references are mostly complete. Have they managed that yet? (I'm still settling in from returning from my trip). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looks like they have. They are now using the cite web template and they've filled in title, publisher, URL, and accessdate for their web sources. -- Laser brain   (talk)  14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)