User talk:Ericleb01/Archive 4

October–November 2010

Wanna Barnstar?
Good morning, fellow editors. We are currently in the process of launching the October wikification drive. If you would like to participate, please sign up here. Please direct any questions to Mono or WikiCopter or the project's talk page. Thank you!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 06:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 07:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Edit on Petitcodiac River
Ericleb01, your most recent edit,, which reverted from hectares to square metres, is inconsistent with the source, which said "about 3 hectares". Worse, the source says nothing about a danger to housing from flooding, only to structures like gazebos that were built on low ground. See Michael Glass (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the units so quickly. Here is another point that you might like to attend to, either now, or after the Featured article process is completed.


 * The section on Causeway Controversy contains this sentence:
 * Option 4 was split into three sub-options, mainly to list possible bridge lengths: 170 m (190 yd), 280 m (310 yd), and 315 m (344 yd).
 * I think it would be preferable to arrange the same information like this:
 * Option 4 was split into three sub-options, mainly to list possible bridge lengths: 170, 280 and 315 metres (190, 310 and 344 yards).
 * This is better than chopping and changing between units, and even with writing out the words in full, it takes less space. Michael Glass (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Petitcodiac River
Thanks for the heads up - I will re read the article and comment on the FAC this weekend. Have been busy but should have time then, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Petitcodiac talk page
Eric, I've replied this time on the article's talk page with details from Rivers of North America and some other thoughts. It's good to conduct some of the detailed side discussion on the talk page (away from the FAC page) so that the delegates who have to decide whether consensus has been reached or not on an article's promotion don't have to wade through quite so much material. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did have some remaining concerns, but have not (re)read the article lately, and will need to do so first (this may take me a few days). Thanks for asking - did the map / watershed boundaries question ever get resolved? If not, I had thought that asking on the WikiProject Rivers talk page would be a good idea. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so slow - should get something on the talk page in the next 24 hours. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GAN Second Opinion
Hello there. I noticed that of the people listed at Good article nominations/Mentors, you are one of only two people that explicitly say that you do second opinions, the other being Protonk. Can you please take a look at my first GAN review, Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1 and do a second review of it. I'd also appreciate any feedback you are willing to give me. Sven Manguard Talk  19:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Can you head on over and see if it's good to go? I've green-lighted it on dealing with my concerns, but I defer to you on the concerns raised in your review. Sven Manguard  Talk  03:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America
Hi, I think I got to all your points raised in the GA review. Even if I missed something, it might be time for a further review to see what is and isn't fixed, and to find out if any other problems crept in. I didn't use the cite template, but the references do have titles and access dates. Cheers (: BE——Critical __Talk 05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Awww, I thought you could pass it if it met your criteria. If I go through GAN again it will take maybe months :(  Isn't there anything else I can do?  I don't know how long peer review takes, but what I really want is good article status. BE——Critical __Talk 19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay cool, I put it up for review... I think I found an active editor to request a review from, so hopefully it won't take too long. Thanks (: BE——Critical __Talk 21:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan GA
Thank you very much for your work on the article--both the serious and detailed review, as well as your help improving the article. Now that I've been through the process once, I am interested in reviewing GAN myself. I probably won't be able to start for a few months, but when I do, I hope you won't mind if I ask for your help/advice/mentoring. Again, sincere thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much. I owe you a barnstar, I just have to create it... (see Qwyrxian's page for an explanation.) In all seriousness though, I am immensely glad for your help and expertise. You saw things I clearly missed and as a result, the article benefited. Considering that I just found this little gem of a template for Qwyrxian to chew on, I think we might have the pleasure of working together again sometime soon. Until then, the best, Sven Manguard  Talk  05:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)