User talk:ErgoSum88/Archive 9

Hawaii photographs
Hi. I noticed your photographs of Diamond Head. Do you live near that area? If so, could you take a photograph of a particular location if I give you the address? There's a particular article related to that area that I'm working on that needs a pic. Lemme know. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah, I wish! Actually, I live in Arkansas, so I can't help you. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot
Hi there. I'm currently keeping my foot in the door for Hawaii Hotspot at FAC, though I'm inclined to let it close if there isn't broader interest in keeping this edition of the FAC open. I haven't heard much of anything from ResMar, so I'd like to know if you have any thoughts on whether it should be left open or closed. If it is closed, I will continue to work on the science and support you in re-opening it. Awickert (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume your issue is the quality of the sources. As a supporter of this article, I would disagree, as the article relies upon the highest quality free sources on the internet. To ask writers to spend their own money just to research an article is, IMO, ridiculous. I think the article is balanced and factually accurate. All science involves eternally evolving theories and the facts today will be tomorrow's fairy tales. This article is about as good as it gets, and although any article may never achieve perfection, I think this article comes close. If you think it needs more time for minor improvements, then by all means support it. But if you think it needs a major overhaul, then I suppose you would suggest it be closed. Either way, I would love to see this article on the front page. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not the quality of the sources so much as the correctness of the content; in this sense, it's somewhere between tweaks and overhaul (quite a bit is good, quite a bit is introductory-textbook-level incorrect). I completely agree about the journal $$$ blah, which is why in my initial comments on the article (and reiterated thereafter), I volunteered to give ResMar any journal article he would like (the offer goes out to you as well... just send me an email and I'll give you what you ask for). As a side-note that I mentioned on ResMar's talk, one of the online mantleplumes.org articles was written by someone who is notable for believing that mantle plumes don't exist(!), and the article is in direct opposition to quite a bit of other research... that's to say, it's a circus, and it's hard to make out up and down sometimes.
 * Anyway, what I'm doing right now is going through section-by-section and changing things (and re-sourcing them if necessary, since I can). But it's a slow go by myself.
 * As I said above, whether this time or another time, I'll do what I can to take care of the factual issues and help you to push it through FAC. Awickert (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, well I would be dismayed if there are factual inaccuracies. Although I haven't been involved in the article as much lately (and therefore, have not given the article a full read in a while), so I suppose they could have been mine or anyone else's, but that is beside the point... they should be fixed. If its nothing big I suppose a few corrections by you would suffice, but if it is a lot then please make a list of them so we can fix them. Anyway, I appreciate your help in reviewing and improving this article. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  00:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it... I'll do my best to make it better. I see that the FAC was closed; I'll go through section-by-section over the next month or so and make fixes. I will also make a list on the talk page of the article if there are more issues than I can deal with at the time of reviewing. I think I've already tackled some of the more major ones, fortunately. Now that I've become involved in this, I really want to do what I can to help and support you in a resubmission. Awickert (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI. Res Mar 16:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles
On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 23 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 14:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)