User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 5

Request for a check on sources used
Hi Ealdgyth. I am thinking of pushing Conan (2007 video game) for FAC. I am fairly confident the sources used for the article are reliable, but would appreciate a second opinion from you. Could you look through the article and leave your comments on it at its peer review? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Hi, you commented at a previous FA review of the Michael Jackson article. Currently the article is at peer review and I will be renominating the article for FA at some point soon. I would really love to know what your opinion is of the articles quality now, either at the PR, the article talk page or even my talk page. The current PR hasn't drawn much attention so I'm in real need of feedback. I hope you can contribute an opinion to this article. Thank you, regards. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Your words of comfort and advice, especially coming from somebody who has been where I am now, meant more than you could ever imagine. Thank you. God has a special place in Heaven reserved for those as kind as you. Jeffpw (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back! I hope you came back nice and refreshed :) If you do actually have spare time at the library, I would very much enjoy seeing these articles - http://www.jstor.org/pss/656233, http://www.jstor.org/pss/2057664, and http://www.jstor.org/pss/190481 (and if you don't have time, that's okay).  Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup on FAC comments
Could I ask you to review my response to your sourcing concerns on the FAC for The World Ends with You, when you get a chance? Thanks. --M ASEM 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards FAC follow up
Hi! You weighed in on the The Greencards FAC previously, here. I'm fairly sure I've gotten I believe all the FAC suggestions remedied, and began a peer review as well. Would you mind taking another glance and letting me know on the peer review or my talk what else may need doing, before I go back to FAC? Thank you! rootology ( T ) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

India House FAC points raised
Hello, a huge thanks for your comments at the FAC for India House. I think the points you raised have now been addressed, please have a look. Cheers again. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix
Hi Ealdgyth. I've been doing some work changing/removing the un-reliable sources out of the article after the previous FAC, could you possibly comment on the comment I made about one of the sources here. I'm planning to renominate it for FA sometime in the next week. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I won't be nominating it now until the beginning of August, as I'm heading on vacation for two weeks beginning next Saturday. Anyway, I've responded to your comment. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias peer review
I fixed the references as you suggested. (Let me know if I missed anything.) I think we're ready for more critique now. Thanks! Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to this sometime today, hopefully! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref check
I'm thinking of taking Flood (Halo) to FAC soon, and I would be obliged if you can see if its sources are up to snuff with your standards. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for taking the look-see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.
Hi Ealdgtyh! Thank you for your comments on the peer review. I have replaced the more objectionable references you noted ("Eyewitness to History", "The History Makers", The Final Call, and the Washington tourism site), because those are clearly not adequate. I found better sources that will definitely pass inspection.

As for the Crew book; it is considered to be one of the most comprehensive histories of Washington, D.C. available. I know it's from 1892, but I can't see how a source being old makes it any less valid. I actually prefer the historical sources, like the Crew book, that even provide primary sources within their own work; especially when dealing with historical facts that can be muddied over time. Believe me, I used to work in the college textbook industry, and commercial publishing standards are not what many people think they are. Editors are so overburdened that errors in publishing have just become a (sadly) accepted norm. Oh well. Not much you can do.

Anyway, if there are any other glaring issues that you feel would keep "Washington, D.C." from FA status, please let me know. Thank you very, very much for your help. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory
Hi. I used the 'citation' template because that was the only one I could find that seemed to work when you have a paper that is published as a chapter of a book. I've changed all the others to 'citation' aswell now, but it won't allow for quotes! Also - I have no idea why the page numbers show up differently when you're adding them for a journal or adding them for a book - or what to do about it! Fainites barley 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the page numbers, if the inconsitency is from the citation template, it's probably not a big worry. I use the cite family of templates, myself, so I'm not up on all the citation template stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I use the family ones myself - 'cept it didn't work for conglomorate books. Fainites barley 22:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * cite encyclopedia works for things like conference reports and encyclopedia articles and bound journals. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a try. Fainites barley 11:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Hi Ealdgyth, since the FL/FA criteria has been tightened up. Many sources that WP:PW uses are deemed unreliable. And I want to nominate it List of WCW World Tag Team Champions for FLC, but I think the sources might keep it from passing. I talked to FLC director, Rambling Man and he said to check with you about the sources used in the article. I think you have seen some of these before, but just to check.


 * DDT Digest
 * This is an FAQ for their site and they get their reports and information from watching TV broadcasts that they own on either VHS/DVD and they write their report for it. This can be found here and an example of how they do it can be found here.
 * I'm leaning not reliable unless we find something from a third-party reliable source that relies on this site for information or praises it's accuracy, or similiar. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pro Wrestling History
 * Like DDT Digest, they get their information from magazines, TV broadcasts, and DVD/VHS's. this is their "places where they get their info"
 * This one is like the above. Needs some sort of third-party reliable site to vouch for them. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Online World of Wrestling
 * This is one of the most established websites on wrestling, they have an established staff who works for the site, they dont give away their sources, but they do have as list of their staff.
 * See above (although this one is closer I think.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Other Arena
 * This one is questionable, as I can find any places where they get info, but I think they get it from TV broadcasts, as they stop giving reports in September 2002.
 * Probably not reliable without something vouching for them. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mid-Atlantic Gateway
 * The official website of mid atlantic wrestling, and includes World Championship Wrestling history when it was mid atlantic wrestling.
 * Official sites are reliable, although because they aren't third-party they need to be used with care. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrestling-Titles
 * has title changing information. This is the credits where they get their info from
 * Probably not reliable without some sort of third-party reliable source saying they are reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PWWEW
 * This one is questionable,
 * Probably not reliable without something vouching for them. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrestling Information Archive
 * This one is also questionable.
 * Probably not reliable without something vouching for them. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

-- S R X -- Latino Heat  16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry wasn't more helpful. To help out, www.wrestleview.com managed to get onto the reliable side of the ledger (although marginally so, I wouldn't use them to source contentious BLP issues) at Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (2007). So that might help you out some. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm trying to get help from WP:PW to help me find some of these, so I'll keep you updated on the process. Thanks again ;) S R X -- Latino Heat  20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm really not an ogre, and want ya'll at PW to be able to get more FAs! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. If you have time, could you be please take a look at The History of WWE and give an opinion about its reliability? It's got the most thorough compilation of match results of any website. A few things to note: (1) Although it has its own domain, all of the subpages (all of the information) is hosted on an Angelfire site. The main page is just a link to various sections of the Angelfire site. (2) However, it has many people vouching for its reliability on the main page (various wrestling "news" reporters and several current and former wrestlers). Although the reporters don't work for sites that I would consider reliable, I'm wondering if the high praise it receives altogether from them and people who are at the center of the business is sufficient. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sort of praise is good, but it'd mean more if it was coming not from the site itself but from media reports/interviews/etc. It's just like book blurbs or the printed reviews on DVDs. It's pretty easy to cherry-pick (not that that is what I'm sure they are doing here, just that it's easy to do) quotes and put them up. It's better if we have the original context of everything. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I figured the site would be a tough sell, but I figured it would be worth asking about. I'll keep looking for something more substantial. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Update
I've been trying to find reliability for the above sources, but many of them I haven't found. Though for Online World of Wrestling, WrestleView, which was found reliable, credits and affiliates with them. Also, is PWTorch reliable, I think it is, it's just like WrestleView, but even more established, as it was created in 1987 and has a staff of writers. Comments?-- S  R X  -- Latino  Heat  17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The link you gave me on pwtorch isn't working, check it again? For Online World of Wrestling, it'd be nice to see something else that would bolster the wrestleview stuff. I think we're getting closer on finding it reliable (the concept of using reliable on something that most Americans regard as rigged, i.e. professional wrestling, is quite amusing to me, btw), just need a bit more to push it over. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. It's this link -->PW Torch. I dont know if you are understanding me, WrestleView is crediting Online World of Wrestling. Do you still need more to verify it's reliability?-- S  R X  -- Latino  Heat  15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. I was wondering if you could add any of the above sources that you do deem reliable to your Cheatsheet list? The current list there was creating some confusion at WT:PW. Also, we update our style guide here. Could you check it to make sure the project interprutted your message correctly and what's listed there is reliable? Regards, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Batman Begins/archive2
Could you take a look at Alientraveller's comments so we can resolve this? Thanks Gary King ( talk ) 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Haflinger (horse)
I'm considering putting Haflinger (horse) up for GA review. I completely re-wrote this article back in January, and have been making some more tweaks in the past couple of days. Would you mind looking over the article and seeing if you have any comments? It would be great if you could give it a quick copyedit, and run you eagle eye over the sources... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

HEEELLLPPP!
We have an editor eager to delist Horses in Warfare from GA. I need your help to back people off until we all have time to take a look at the article. Some of their points are legitimate, but they are just skewering things. You have some credibility with that crowd, HEELLLPPP!!! Montanabw (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm, calm. I'll be home tonight sometime. I'll leave a note. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenacious D
Tenacious D is currently at peer review. I would like to know whether you have any comments relating to reliability in sources, as this was a stumbling block in this article's last FA nom. I wish to list this for FA status when all issues have been sorted out. Many thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland EchoFAC
Hi Ealdgyth, I have tried to explain, as best I can, why the refs are reliable... Could you have another look, please, when you get a chance, and see if I'm going in the right direction?-- Seahamlass  14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Many thanks for striking through the resolved queries. (That was was so much easier than Navenby, which you were tremendously helpful with earlier this year!) Would it be OK if I stuck your comments in a resolved box, or you did it, just so I can keep track of any new stuff that comes in?-- Seahamlass  14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We're trying to not use too many "resolved" boxes at FAC, because too many and they break the archives. So I'm limiting my "capping" to REALLY long blocks of text. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC
I miss your caps ... your were helpful, as I could easily tell if you had revisited. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time in the last few days, I just got home from a trip. It'll probably be tomorrow before I have a chance to catch up, I'm utterly exhausted tonight. (14 hours driving TO minnesota, drop off child, 14 hours driving HOME... blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go Gophers. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 00:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GAH!

Yep, there were two people whose caps I relied on: you and Elcobbola. There were a sign to me that the basics had been cleared, and I could go in for a detailed look at the rest. I don't see edit summaries when I run through FAC. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okies. (grins) Here I thought I was being good....Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade Peer Review
Hello, I had a few questions regarding two of the sources you had brought to my attention (http://www.everyhit.com/index.html and http://swisscharts.com/index.asp). The way I had found those sources was actually off of the featured article Dookie. I had merely just searched for the information I needed. Off of this revision where it was promoted those sources were there. Since it went through and passed the FAC isn't that good indication that the sources are reliable? Those two sources seem to be reliable and don't seem to publish just any information, they are archived charts. I actually changed the musicpix source and am going to look for an alternative to the UKmix one. I feel that those two sources I mentioned are reliable and would appreciate it if you could check it. I was going to post on Reliable sources/Noticeboard but would appreciate if I could have your opinion.  Orfen   T • C 01:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On Everyhit - http://www.everyhit.com/about2.html shows that it's very much a privately published source. To use a self-published source, you need to demonstrate the the author is a leading person in their field. As for the swiss charts one, I questioned it because it doesn't list a souce for its information. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and me
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you reminded me of that earlier, but I'm just a lazy male pig, I guess... :P Thanks for checking in on the FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. No worries. I'm used to it, mostly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Horses in Warfare
Just dropping you a note to let you know that I'm going offline for a while, so if you want to have a shot at the article, you're more than welcome! I did some referencing this morning, but there's still a few facts tags, not to mention some iffy web references that will need to be changed out if we want to do anything more than get through GAR... Have fun! Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France
I've tried to answer those source queries. Let me know if it's acceptable. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your other comments, and added an additional source to the article. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  02:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
I have resolved and replied to your suggestions, that's for the tips, I managed to go through my treasure chest of MJ stuff and found a wonderful 60 page booklet written by Nelson George. I really didn't want to keep re-using the Tabaoborrelli book. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 00:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PR
Thanks for comments, one thing with science articles is that the sources are usually sound if you can find them. My watchlist is 3000+, but I ran across someone on a tech page asking how to edit a 9000 watch! jimfbleak (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review follow-up
Thanks for reviewing my article. I just went ahead and removed the databasefootball.com reference because it repeated everything that the Pro Football Refrence link said. You said it was unreliable, and I just think it was unnecessary when I thought about it, heh. Thanks again! '' conman33 (. . .talk)  01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't expect you to get quite that excited :-) —Giggy 11:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Every little bit helps. With PR and FAC, my writing time has really suffered lately. Well, and with RL being busy too. Everyone that reviews sources means that I have time for fuller reviews/GA (which I NEED to get back to..) and article writing. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Vithoba/archive1
Thanks for the PR of Vithoba. I have addressed the referencing issues. Hope you are satisfied with them. If you have more comments about the article, please add them to the PR or to the article talk, the PR closes. Thanks again.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR
Tom will work on Featured article review/Iowa class battleship, so it warrants your talents. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably tomorrow night. But will get to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FARs last at least a month; no hurry! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP AH
Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Stigand
Sure, I will take a look at it tonioght or tomorrow at the latest. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore
Are you able to sort Featured article candidates/Mangalore? Hard for me to tell what is addressed and what's not. I assume that any RS you haven't struck is pending? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I got lost a bit ago, honestly. I don't THINK the nominator has returned to any of my queries, but I wouldn't be willing to bet money on it. I'll try to look at it in a bit. Anything unstruck I have not yet considered addressed, although that may change after I look at it again. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it may be the messiest FAC I've ever seen, and I'm not sure I can even re-thread it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * if you can't rethread it, I certainly can't... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll just watch it for a bit, but at some point, we may need to extract a list of unresolved RS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm headed FAC way, my sinuses have gone nuts the last few days, it's corn pollen season here, I always suffer for a week or two about this time, so I'm not getting FAC in the morning, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tried to figure out what's going on. I THINK we're down to two queries and two that I figure are borderline. I think. Sinus meds aren't helping thought processes here.. (grins).. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Update, I've left the last two out also, because I'm honestly not sure they have been shown to be reliable. No idea on how to clean up the FAC, you've got my permission to move my comments around in any way you can figure out to make the thing cleaner... I couldn't figure out a way... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the most unreadable FAC I have ever encountered; I'm not able to sort it, so the best thing to do vis-a-vis the RS is to move discussion of anything remaining to the talk page there, so at least I'll know what's what, and cap everything else out of the FAC. Then I'll make sure the talk page doesn't get corrupted. If I have to restart this FAC, I hope someone can encourage the nominators to read some other FACs and use them as a pattern for more clear responses. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See if that works, I capped the upper comments, and just left the bottom stuff which mostly encapsulates the replies and concerns. Can't be any worse... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I summarized to talk. Thanks, Ealdgyth; there's a years' supply of chocolate on that page :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore
Hi, I would like to thank you for giving some of your time and checking out Drew Barrymore's article. You would be glad to know that the sources you mentioned in the peer review have been replaced with reliable sources, please check if they do fit the FA criteria. I would like to know if her article has a chance at becoming FA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to pull a Sandy here and ask that you include a link for me? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, name it and its done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A link to the article, I meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright. What would you like for me to link? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I linked the article and the peer review for you. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandy. Only real issues I see as far as sources is that 54 is still lacking a publisher. And I'm still not sure that's a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source has been replaced. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Help
Hello, I was wondering if you could help me in demoting Ahmedabad which is a FA. (Featured article review/Ahmedabad) It is very poorly cited and most of the citations do not back the data completely. The article is in its FARC stage. Since you are an excellent FA reviewer, I think you can help me out. Kensplanet Talk  E-mail  Contributions  12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I try to stick with only a couple of FARs at a time, especially like now when I'm pressed for time and going to be on the road a bunch in the next few weeks. Just keeping up with FAC will be an effort. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mixing citation styles
Someone (per usual) has been fiddling with section headings, without concern for what that does to past links. The info is now at CITE. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops; new new change. They now claim consistency, which is brand new.  Not sure yet if that's true, since they've been fiddling the last few days, there are several problems, and it's likely to change back.  Unsettled.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Update:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. OK, I think everything at Featured article candidates/Amateur radio in India‎ is now sorted, so when you're ready to cap, you can cap all of my comments as well (PR and GAN now closed). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Request
Hello, Ealdgyth, there are only 4 more issues left in Featured article candidates/Mangalore. 2 have been left for voting. The rest 2 unresolved have been placed at the bottom of the page. Please check it as the FAC page is turning out to be messy. It's difficult to keep track of changes. Kensplanet Talk  E-mail  Contributions  17:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping about Featured_article_candidates/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination
I have responded to your comments at the FAC - this is just a courtesy notification, as I have made changes that you may wish to check. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference review request
I've seen you do good reviews on references on many the FAC, so I wanted to ask you what you thought of the refs for PNC Park before I nom it for FAC. I wrote the article up to a GA, but I recently found a few new sources which actually differed from "less reliable" ones on the internet that I had used in the past; I've since removed the old ones of course. The only two that I use multiple times that I'm somewhat unsure about are About.com and Baseball Digest. About.com is a large site, but they do pay writers, so I would think they would expect reliable info in return. I believe Baseball Digest has been published as a magazine in the past, but I don't think it is anymore. It seems to mainly be run by one guy, but it does list a small staff. Any comments, suggestions, or whatever is welcome. Thank you!  Black  ngold29   06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * About.com is rarely considered reliable. I'd also question Baseball Digest or Ballpark Digest (they seem interchangable) and http://www.baseball-almanac.com/index.shtml. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Baseball Digest does look reliable, but I haven't cited that one. I think Ballpark Digest is completley different. Baseball Almanac is reliable per WP Baseball. Why is About.com unreliable? It's not a wiki or IMDB type site, is there a discussion about it somewhere? Thanks.  Black  ngold29   00:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * About.com is discussed, often at WP:RSN. As far as the others, the best thing I can tell you is to refer you to an article I wrote (with a lot of help!) for the Dispatches Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, which explains a bit about why somethings are considered reliable and others aren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an about.com discussion:

And here is the bio of the about.com authors this article uses:

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look for a better one, but some things like "Manny Sanguillén...signs autographs for fans waiting in line." will be difficult to replace. He does, I've been there, I've seen him, I've taken his picture; but I guess even pictures are unreliable in the Photoshop era. heh.  Black  ngold29   00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * tell me about it, I'm a photographer! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've elinated all the sources that you named, even BaseballAlmanac... Thank God for Google, heh. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it, then it's on to the peer review! Thanks!  Black  ngold29   01:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Go Man Go second look
Hi Ealdgyth, I will take a look at it but iot may take me a few days - busy in real life and computer issues. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I'm just trying to get about four articles ready in the next week or so, so that I can get them CE'd while Im on the road during the first half of August (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope to have a bit more free time this week and next (good news from the doctors so far). I'm not the best copyeditor in the world, but if you need more helpers count me in.  Karanacs (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to (grins) If you wanna go ahead and look.. Go Man Go. We're still on translating from horse-lingo into normal-folks lingo. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref check
There's a request on my talk page to check the sourcing at Peer review/SummerSlam (2003)/archive1. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Go Man Go
Sorry about the "out of" thing. You know, they wouldn't object to saying things like "gnarley" or the conjugation of "dude." As for the Appendix stuff, I think it goes on and on too much as is, that struck me as odd and awkward, but I didn't say anything about it (but I thought, "this is all covered in the Quarter horse article"). The topic is wikilinked, and if the Quarter horse article explanation isn't good enough, you could tweak it there. Maybe think in terms of "simple is better..." Perhaps along the lines of "An ((Appendix Quarter Horse)) is, put simply, the offspring of a registered Quarter Horse and a Thoroughbred. AQHA allows such c((rossbred))s to be registered in a special section of the ((breed registry)), and if they meet a performance standard in race or show competition against other Quarter Horses, they are allowed full registration status as  a Quarter Horse...when Go Man Go was foaled, the AQHA also had a conformation standard as well, which caused problems because he looked more like a TB than a QH, but..." I don't know if that give you any ideas, but if it helps... Montanabw (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Drop that in instead. I can sorta understand where Ruhr's coming from, but I don't wanna clutter it up too much either. It is a bit odd to non-horse people.. how can somethign that is almost all TB be a QH instead, I know if confuses my mother. And then add in that it DOESN"T work that way for Arabians and half-Arabians... just bizarre. Of course, non-horse people are just bizarre too... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar! I try to only review a couple FACs for sources at a time, so I don't take work away from you. :) Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep PR
Hello, I've replied to your comments at Peer review/Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep/archive1 and was wondering if I had properly addressed the issues you raised. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Looks like they work okay! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Horses in Warfare
Wheeee!!!! New articles/sources are always great. I've been working on getting things sourced reliably, but I don't have the breadth of history-type sources that you do. I look forward to seeing your additions to the various articles. I'm offline for tonight, so have fun! I'll be back online tomorrow and Thursday, but none this weekend (scribing for a dressage judge at a big horse show up here, fun fun!!) so there'll be lots of time without me popping in to interfere with your edits :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

William de St-Calais
I'll get to look at it again as soon as I can - I'm a bit bogged down at the moment (because I went away for a couple of days) Give me another 24 hours? Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. No hurry at all. I'm just trying to line things up for the middle of August, so time is easy to find...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left my latest comments on the article's discussion page, together with an offer, if you want, to do some copyediting. Please drop me a note if you want to take me up on this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm done fussing with it. I hope. Feel free to CE away.. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo (series) peer review
Hello, I noticed that you left some helpful comments on Halo (series)'s last attempt to become a featured article, which unfortunately did not suceed. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could leave comments on its current peer review page about any aspect that you can. Thank you!  Black  ngold29   03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA in the UK FAC comments
Hi. Thanks for your comments at the FAC for General aviation in the United Kingdom. I've fixed 4 of the 5 issues you raised, they being fairly obvious faults with easy remedies. This leaves only your challenge to the reliability of RainAir as a source for the history of Beccles airfield. I have attempted to address this with information which I hope will assure you of the reliability of this source. I wonder if you could take another look at the FAC when you have a chance, and comment on whether or not I have indeed addressed this concern. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Courtesy note. I've re-written one of the sections in this article, which has introduced a new source. The source is from one of the major gliding clubs in the UK, and is used to support information about gliding competitions in the UK. In the article it is ref#42, which uses http://www.lasham.org.uk/comps/introduction/competitions.asp as the source. If you need to check this out further, then they provide some general information about themselves at http://www.lasham.org.uk/general/general.asp. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

FA nom, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany
Hi, this is my first FA nom, so I am a bit confused, especially with the use of references. I have used Harvard references for books and cite web and cite journal for online references. Are you suggesting I should replace all the Harvard references with cite book? If this is the case, then I will do it, but it will make the footnotes section too long because the name of the same book have to be repeated. This format is followed in the article Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. Compare the Notes section of the article Animal welfare in Nazi Germany and the Notes section of the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. But if this is the policy, I have to do it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied over on the FAC page... please let me know if that's not clear, so I can make another stab at being clearer... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All issues resolved at Mangalore FAC
Hello Ealdgyth. Thanks, for your comments. All sourcing issues have been resolved at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore. I thought I should inform you since this FAC is out of your watch. There are no more issues left. Perhaps if you find some issues, then do mention them or else you could declare whether you Support/Oppose the article. Thankyou, Kensplanet  Talk  E-mail  Contributions  15:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I knew you are one of the main memebers of the FA department. What I didn't know is that you don't Support/Oppose articles. Since there are so many FAC's on the list, you may be very very busy. You need not conduct a full review and waste your time since the article is not a Core topic on Wikipedia. You are doing a very good job at the FA Department and you should continue concentrating only on Reliability issues rather than conducting full reviews. Thanks for your comments at the FAC, Kensplanet  Talk  E-mail  Contributions  15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

William de St-Calais - copyedits
I've done a full copyedit on the article. I haven't altered the sense of anything, but have concentrated on redundancies, repetitions, bits of awkward phrasing, punctuation etc. I hope you approve, but please revert or replace anything you don't agree with.

One other point: I didn't interfere with any links (except to correct one to the State of Maine), but I have a feeling that one or two terms may be multi-linked. Also, I see you are still wikilinking all dates; I thought that the latest ukase from our bosses told us to link only relevant dates, which is what I've been doing. I may have got it wrong - I usually do, over things like that.

Anyway, I hope you are happy with the article. Please let me know when you take it to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be any links to disambigs, I have a handy editing tool that hunts those out, along with redirects. I'm linking dates because it's consistency that's supposed to matter, not the fact of linking. While Tony (who I greatly respect) wants them gone, i'm not taking them out because then I'll just have people coming along to put them back in... I have enough fussing with that. I'm not yet ready to join the great "Holy Crusade to Remove Date Linking From Wikipedia" .. It'll go up to FAC sooner or later. I'll be gone for about a week and a half starting next week, so I'm not putting anything up at FAC until I get back. I've got Stigand and Go Man Go ready for CEing as well, and I'm hoping to get Reginald fitz Jocelin and Epikleros ready for CE before I get on the road. Want to get Ranulf Flambard set soon too. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
Hey Ealdgyth, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 00:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the link is here. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 13:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I've addressed your concerns. Cheers, -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nashville Sounds FAC
Hello. Thank you for your comments regarding the Nashville Sounds FAC nomination. After reviewing the comments made by yourself and other editors, I have endeavored to correct the raised issues. I feel that all problems have been sufficiently corrected. Therefore, I request a second look at the article and the reconsideration of your opposing vote. Thank you. Here is the nomination. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a second look. I have addressed the validity of "The Baseball Cube" at the nomination page. I'm still looking for additional outside sources to replace team-published material. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I scratched all the Baseball Cube references. I can't find anything to prove their reliability. (Though, their stats jibe with other stats pages, official team publications, official league publications, etc.) -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your suggestions on how to improve Thomas S. Monson! --Eustress (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Ealdgyth, how's it going? I was wondering if you had any spare time and fancied helping another project out? Your incredibly detailed work on reliable sources at FAC has not gone unnoticed by me and, as a director of the WP:FLC process, it's becoming more apparent that while our editorial standards have improved lately, the ability to sort out reliable from non-reliable sources still seems to be a problem. Of course, I know you're very busy but even if you could do one or two lists every so often, that'd be fantastic. Either way, you're doing a fab job over at FAC, keep it up! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * *whimpers* I'll try after mid-August, how's that? I'm going to be out of town from the middle of next week, so just staying abreast of FAC is going to be work. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo. As I said, anything you could do would be fantastic.  Take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dwain Chambers
Please see my comments regarding references at the peer review here. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Summer slam

 * I don't know if you saw that I replied again to your comments at Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (2003).-- S R X  16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm. It was only an hour and 20 minutes after you replied. I do have a real life outside of Wikipedia, sometimes it takes me a couple of hours to reply to things. I've replied now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry.-- S R X  16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a huge worry (grins) I know you want it to pass, but it'll be up at least four or so days, that's the usual minimum. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sword of Shannara Peer Review
Peer review/The Sword of Shannara/archive1 is the link; I replied to your comments. Thank you!  the_ed 17  18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but ...
You know you are the last person who should be worried about or offering to take on more work. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Chino Hills earthquake
Hello there. Wondering if you might take a look at it, since I'm getting it ready for GAC. Many thanks, Cliff smith  talk  03:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing of Robert Grosseteste
Hi. Can I trouble you to add a reference to the history of the telescope, telescope, and optical telescope articles in regard to Robert Grosseteste? I am trying to add his name to those articles. I didn't evne know about him and I want to add a little on him, but I have no reference. Thanks for yout time. InternetHero (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stigand
End of first paragraph- He was deposed after the Conquest and his estates were confiscated and he died in prison. Seems to suggest that Stigand was deposed immediately after the Conquest, which is contradicted by the fact that he served Norman kings. And there's too many ands! Also is it correct to say he was named Bishop, or was he invested, or some other process? Hope this is useful. Ning-ning (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most historians consider the Norman Conquest to have lasted at least until 1070 or 1072, some would place it to 1086, some to 1100, so the phrase isn't really contradicted. Granted, most folks think 1066=Conquest and everything was done by the time William was crowned, but it wasn't. Hopefully, Malleus will catch the "ands"... And named in this case is the best description, as he wasn't elected and we a bishop is only consecrated once, so when he was moved to Winchester and then to Canterbury, he was not consecrated again. Invested has a different meaning to a medievalist, see Investiture Crisis for why I don't use that phrase! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So it wasn't useful :) I nit-pick. He was deposed during the Conquest then? Ning-ning (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. Depends. He was deposed AFTER if folks think it ended in 1070. (I actually tend towards the 1086 date, with Domesday). It's one of those subjects that people love to debate and you won't ever probably get total agreement. If someone coms up with a better phrasing, I certainly won't object. I never said my prose was .. elegant! Copyedit away! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Still copyediting away (though offsite). Just thought I'd let you know in case you thought no-one was doing anything! Hopping off to Grandisson territory on Sunday. Ning-ning (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review of SummerSlam (2003), I would like to know if Wrestling 101 is a reliable source to use as a source that gives reviews of pay-per-view events?-- S R X  02:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Horsies in warfare
So how do we close this GAR given that the person who started it claims to be powerless to close it and too busy to bother reviewing our work? I'm sick of the whole thing and getting crabby (as you may have noticed.)  Montanabw (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved editor (usually Geometry Guy) will come along and close it. it's just like FAC, someone else will handle it. Calm. It's okay, things will take care of themselves in good time. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MIT
Per your note on MIT's peer review, I have made an effort to populate and standardize reference templates for all the references and would appreciate your feedback. Regarding your comment on securing additional third-party and external sources, I believe that the current references are fully inline with WP:SPQS to fulfill WP:V and WP:RS since no one besides MIT is as authoritative or reliable in publishing information about MIT for that information. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hi Ealdgyth. Pursuant to your comments at WP:FAC/Tulip mania, what's the correct way to note that a reference is on JSTOR? We're using the system, and I don't see what field for citing journals to use. I'm happy to make the changes but I'm afraid I don't have a good head for sorting through all the rulebooks to find them without the help of a guide! --JayHenry (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With the cite family of templates, I'd use the format field, but I'm not sure if that field is in citation. I don't speak citation. If it doesn't work, I've also done (subscription required) or similar after the main title. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ealdgyth, I'll give that a shot. Is it only paid subscriptions that need to be noted, or also sites with free registration?  (I don't think this article has any of the latter, but so I know for the future...) --JayHenry (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually I'd do the same deal with (registration required) or something similar. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't figure out how to edit something in that spot that also linked to an explanation of what JSTOR is. Do you know if the rulebooks permit this formatting?  This isn't officially supported by the template, but this mirrors the formatting used for DOIs (which generally require subscription). --JayHenry (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Works fine for me. Of course, I'm not a total MOS maven, but it does what it's supposed to, which is alert folks that this is a convience link. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC
Hey you had raised some concerns on the review page and it seems that they may have been taken care of. Can you please take a look at the review when you have time. Also, I am quite impressed with your resolved template on other review pages and was wondering if you can help get the particular page to be less messy ? Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mixed citation styles
WP:CITE is a mess, and the text is continually moved, unilaterally. You may need to stay on top of where the text ends up. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about reliability of a source
Would you consider this website a reliable source? It has been disputed several times and I'm not sure about it myself, but I've seen it used as a source in several newspapers, including the following:



Thoughts? Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No hurry
Not sure you hit Featured article candidates/1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hit it at PR, and they fixed the nitpicks there. I thought I'd done the "looks good" on the FAC, but appearantly not. It's good to go from my end. On a side note, I'm home tomorrow for hopefully a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you sort Featured article candidates/Sri Lankan Tamil people down to anything legible on sources? If not, I'm considering restart. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Do I gotta? HOnestly, I have no clue. That one is a mess also. Shouldn't there be some limit on the size of people's sigs so that they don't take up that much space? I find it difficult to edit around. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to ... the only reason I don't just go ahead and restart, though, is that I'm not sure how you'll be able to sort out what's left, and I don't want you to have to start over. Sigs ... pet peeve.  I want to do whatever will make it easier on you to sort where the sources stand, no hurry.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I literally just walked in the door after 12 hours on the road. Maybe later tonight, but by tomorrow afternoon at the latest. I'm so glad I'm home for a while... ugh. I think this summer I've spent less than a month home. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome home ! There is NO hurry on that at all.  The bigger question is how to get that group of editors to keep their FACs accessible.  They are a mess across the board, partly because of their sigs, partly their threading, they refer to changing ref nos ... ugh.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ruler across the knuckles? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, with all of this specialization of tasks at FAC, I worry. You are carrying all of the sourcing work, no one else picks it up, and you are the only one who has to sort through those messes, no one else notices or asks the other editors to clean up their act and keep their FACs readable or helps you sort through it.  Don't want you to burn out.  Wish someone else was helping you. Troubled that you're doing so much.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (tickles Sandy) And you don't do a lot? I'm fine. Quit worrying. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ... OK. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really MUST have something to worry about, you can worry about it, but I'm not really in danger of burning out. If i was dragged into politics, I might be, but plain work has never scared me. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for doing the dirty work of keeping us FAC nominators honest =-) Dave (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to see....
The nice shining star in the top right corner. All those source checks on the FAC's and PR's, but it still became an FA. That was a long journey... but I got there eventually. =D D.M.N. (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I appreciate it! That becoming FA has given me inspiration to work on articles on the same nature to try and achieve the same status. Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

== ==

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at . S R X  18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment at FAC
Hey and thanks for your comment on the FAC page. I have, in an attempt to make the page more readable, capped your comment. Do you have any concerns about that ? Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Janet Jackson
I'm a tad confused. the templates for citation and cite news and cite journal have similar values. which ones are mixed? The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  00:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Think of them as two families. One is the citation family. The other is the various cite templates. They get along like Montagues and Capulets, so you don't mix them in the same article. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I got it. I think. Should be fine now. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany
There is a disagreement over the inclusion of Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg in the article in Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. For this reason a consensus is necessary and discussion is going on in. Notifying you because you are involved in it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: PR on Harry Potter
Hi there,

Per your comments - I have looked through the sources and fixed all of the web and book references as far as I can tell. Could you please look at the reliability of the sources now - and leave your comments either on my talk page or at the article's talk page.

Thanks in advance,

The  Helpful   One  (Review) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

 * Thanks! Glad it made it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Horse Sources
First of all, let me say thank you for the source commentary you gave me on Haflinger (horse), as it made GA yesterday! You help is much appreciated.

Second, Horse is my next project for GA. The article is mostly sourced at the moment (there's just one section that's Montana's baby and is waiting for her to finish). Would you mind taking a run through the sources to see what is likely to be questioned at a GA/FA review? I've gotten a lot of the unreliable sources out that were in there before I started editing a few months ago, but I'm sure a few have snuck by me. If you could just make a list on the talk page, as you usually do, that would be great. Also, any other comments you have would be much appreciated. At the moment, I think the article is fairly set as it stands as far as content goes, unless someone points a major flaw out in something that's there or not between now and GA/FA. The only thing at the moment that I know I want to add is a short section on "Intelligence and learning" that Montana has already provided a few sources for on the talk page.

Thanks so much! Dana boomer (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll get to it tomorrow, I hope. (grins) Nice to see the sourcing efforts I made a while back are going to bear some fruit. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

William de St-Calais
I've done a quick re-check on the text, made a few more minor adjustments. I think the prose is OK now, so send it to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the user page cleanup. You got to that just before I did! Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Had-dock
Was trying to distinguish between ongoing and past actions :) I shall stick to your injunction to be fat-free and well mardy. Ning ning (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The source for the three reasons of Stigand's deposition is Enoch Powell??? Ning ning (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's a pretty uncontentious bit of information, found in many sources. One backup would be the ODNB entry which states the exact same thing. Powell just happens to be where I found the same information first. If it really offends you, I can back it up with the ODNB article too. The charges ultimately trace to John of Worcester. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't contesting the info, just nonplussed at the source! He has a certain reputation. Ning ning (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I must have missed out on that when I was a student. Of course, I was more interested in ecclesiastical and Anglo-Norman stuff, so if his reputation was known in Angevin political or Plantagenet political studies, I'd have missed it. Feel free to change it out if you'd like, no skin off my nose. In fact, I'll go ahead and throw up a double cite on it, just to be safe. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, he has a certain reputation like errr.... Powellism Ning ning (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL... Yank here. I didn't study anything in European history much past oh... say... Henry VIII of England and really, my interest dies at about Edward III of England. Went right over my head, thanks for the link. The book I'm using though is one of the better sources for parlimentary history, at least the basics. But it's backed up to the ONDB, so it should be safe (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting change
Hi Ealdgyth—change implemented on Willy de. However, as for the wholesale changeover from US to international format in such articles, MOSNUM's existing guideline on the choice of format is looking like having unintended consequences. Here are the guidelines for "Strong national ties to a topic:
 * Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
 * Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable guidelines above should use that format.

and immediately below this:
 * If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.

By the strictest reading of the second bullet point ("other countries"—Sandy had mentioned Venezuela as one that uses US spelling in its English, but international date format), any historical topic that doesn't have a direct, strong tie to the US is going to have to be changed to international date formatting. I'm not sure I give a toss about reading an article on Beethoven in US format, frankly, just because in Germany and Austria they use a format that resembles the English-language "international" format. Who knows what format Austrians used in 1815, and who cares: that article is in English, not German, and if the first author used US format, what the heck?

So perhaps you might hold off for a short period while we sort this out at MOSNUM? Mind you, if that's your preference, as primary author you can probably get away with a wholesale changeover regardless! Tony  (talk)  02:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I trained as a medievalist. I actually prefer international format, so I went ahead and switched over. I have my 'autoformat' prefs set for international, so its no worry to me! And can I get that script? (begs) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wow, lightning coordination avoided an e.c. there! OK, I'm redrafting and simplifying the instructions and will cap them and put on my talk page in about 15 minutes. Tony  (talk)  03:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to test a tool to help make the date formats consistent, see User:Gimmetrow/dates.js. No warranty though - check diffs, and it's set up for four-digit years. Gimmetrow 05:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dizzy
Did you check Featured article candidates/Made in the Dark? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked it, and it had some issues with acharts. I'm double checking now if they have replaced the rest (some got replaced by Giggy earlier) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Peer review
Thanks so much for such an extensive and helpful peer review. You've given me a lot to think about. I am wondering about your list of links and question "what makes them notable" - how would I prove notability in this case - through the wording of the article? Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not notablity, it's the reliablity of the source. The best explanation I can give you is to check out Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for more information. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

KitKat Crescent
Hi, thanks for your review at the peer review for KitKat Crescent. I was just looking for clarification on your comment "Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals." Are you referring to the titles of references, because I can see one which is fully capitalised. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am. Even though the web page itself may capitalize it, it shouldn't be capitalized in the references. It's a picky little detail, but getting the picky little details done before FAC makes things so much less stressful AT FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Trafford peer review
Hi there, thanks for the comments you left at Peer review/Old Trafford/archive2. I have some questions about the comments you made, and I have written them on the page. When you get some time, I would appreciate it if you could leave a reply. – PeeJay 20:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers again for the replies. I've responded to the latest ones you left, and I believe that I've now dealt with all of your concerns. I look forward to seeing a "Support" !vote from you when I take the article to FAC. – PeeJay 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/William Hanna/archive1
Re this. I replaced the film ref and britannica refs (though I have to say that I've never had someone object to a reputable encyclopedia as a ref before). On findagrave, I've found it very accurate and added a book ref that confirms it, also leaving findagrave in. Is there a policy or practice on wiki that findagrave is not allowed? Since I do have another ref for that, we can rm it if you want. Pls respond on the PR page. Thanks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But in this case it is accurate, so should I remove it? Pls re on PR. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FLC sources
Ealdgyth, thanks so much for your hard work. It's very much appreciated. I think most FLCers won't know what's hit them! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get the rest tomorrow or Tuesday. I started from the bottom so that the ones up longest would get some "love". (snickers) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your love is deeply and fondly appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And it starts... (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Midway Airport Peer Review & White Pines FA
Thank you for you advice on Peer review/Chicago Midway International Airport/archive1. I went back through the refs, and did what I could to put accurate publisher information in. Those refs have always been the most dificult, part of the article and I figured that they were not up to wikipedia standards. And for Featured article candidates/White Pines Forest State Park, do you think those refrences check out?? At this point I seriously doubt this is going FA, as the main users whom created it vote against it but it would be nice to know if those footnotes are clean. -Marcusmax (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The White Pines State Forest ones are .. mostly okay. I commented a bit at the FAC page. The Illinois Outdoors refs are goign to be hit because they are not a serious source for information on what animals and plants are in the park. Would be better to use a local audobon society to find out what they know is there, more likely to be accurate. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Monarch of the Glen
Many thanks for taking the time to review the references at Peer review/Fauna of Scotland/archive1. My apologies for the eccentricity of some of them - it was a GA early on in my time on wikipedia. I have now attended to the issues you raised. A few sources you queried I have kept and I have indicated these and a couple of other issues by highlighting them with the 'done' template's green tick in the section you started. If you have the time I'd value any further input you might have. Ben  Mac  Dui  17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to check it over in the next few days! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources, Southern Cross Expedition
I have replied on the peer review page re. the sources that you queried. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review ping
Hi Ealdgyth, could you please take another look at Peer review/4chan/archive1. Thanks. —Giggy 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you, not only for the kind review of the nuthatch, but also for your review of the White Pines Forest Park article. I'm not usually an unsympathetic or unhelpful reviewer, but I realised after seeing your comments that I probably went too far. Your review was a model in terms of pointing the (inexperienced?) nominator in the right direction, instead of just putting the boot in.

On the images thing, I found it difficult to adopt another layout without breaching one or more of the following, assuming I've understood mos correctly (a big assumption!) I didn't feel that I could reconcile these with keeping images in the appropriate sections. I've put these comments here to avoid cluttering the review page unnecessarily, but feel free to copy to there if you think it's appropriate jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) images should either be right-aligned or alternate
 * 2) left-aligned images should not immediately follow a heading
 * 3) images should face into the page


 * I THINK (and I'm no image person) you can put a image after a level two heading (the == ones), but can't after a level three (the === ) ones. Check with Sandy on that though. It's not a biggie, honestly, don't fret about it. I just figure if we have images, I'd rather not see them in a big long line down one side of the page. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers
I have responded to your comments. Thank you :) -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
Thanks for your comments regarding my List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000. I have already fixed the refs.

Once again, thank you, Jaespinoza (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
Thanks for your comments in the peer review - I shall address these shortly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marston Moor review
With regard to your comment, "What makes ... http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/marston.pdf realiable?", this is the official web site of a publicly-funded national organisation, with responsibilities for maintaining historical sites, and therefore a reliable source as far as publication, peer review and neutrality goes. The other site, http://www.britishbattles.com is at least not a self-published source. It is useful in a list of external links, although it's use as a citation is more questionable. I'll check the site's own references. HLGallon (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Checklinks: linking and questions
— Dispenser 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) When you link to the tool could you please use ~dispenser/view/Checklinks (doc)
 * 2) I'm think about redesign the minibrowser interface with a side pannel instead of the toolbar and that you can open multiple instead just one, comment?
 * 3) I have some commented out ref numbering code that could be resurrected (did work to well at the time, skipped numbering), thoughts?
 * 4) I could also try and include the ref text into the table, thoughts?
 * Will do in the future on the linking, let me think on the others and get back to you tomorrow (here), my brain is mush tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you ever looked at the User script, but its pretty much the same thing and hightlights the links on the page. — Dispenser 23:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I corrected my boilerplate notice, sorry aobut that. On the redesign, that's up to you. I really find the tool pretty much perfect as it stands, it tells me what I need to know. I'm not into coding taht much so I'd guess I'd have to see what you came up with before I had any clue what was being discussed! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rp
Hi, Ealdgyth, since you're the ref guru at FAC, I hope you don't mind me bugging you. I'm having difficulties understanding the RP template and its usage with the cite format/APA style. Is it okay to mix the two? Was RP designed to work solely with Harvard? This is the first time I've seen the template used in an article, but I thought that cite and citation templates weren't to be mixed? The discussion is here if you would care to weigh in. I know you've already checked the sources at the peer review, so I hope this isn't too much trouble. María ( habla con migo ) 16:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't look at the format of the superscript numbers on FACs, unless they jump out at me. If you click the "edit" tab on the article, and scroll to the bottom where all the templates are listed, you'll see that it doesn't mix cite and citation. RP seems to be designed to give the Harvard style page numbers with the cite templates. As the template page says "This template (the name of which stands for "reference pages") is for appending Harvard referencing-style page numbers to Cite.php-generated inline reference citations." So, no its use isn't breaking the don't mix rule. Whether it's stylistically elegant is a editor style choice. I personally won't use it, I think it looks clunky, but it's not something that is against the MOS, so it is a valid choice. (I'm copying this reply over to the talk page too.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! Now I know how to check mixed-up templates, which will be a great help while editing.  Much appreciated, María ( habla  con migo ) 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)