User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 20

Assistance request if you aren't too terribly busy
Heya Phightins, I know you have your fair share of Good Article experience and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping me out with something, if you aren't too busy that is. Well, here goes. I've never done much of the content writing (I don't think I'm very good at it to be honest) and I've never taken anything to GA status as a result but I have always wanted to take an article I've worked on (Bryan D. Brown) to GA status. I'm just not quite sure how the process goes or how to know if it's ready. I did however put the article up for peer review (link) a few months ago to kind of get a feel for what I should improve in regards to the article. That was a good experience for me as it generated a ton of ideas that helped me expand the article quite a bit (before after changes from beginning to end}. Anywho, I was wondering basically where to go from here. I looked at the GA criteria from WikiProject Military history/Assessment and to me the article meets all the listed GA criteria so I'm not sure if that means I should submit it for GA review or something. But yeah, any advice, pointers, etc that you might have would be greatly appreciated good sir. Cheers, —   - dain   omite    05:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dainomite, I would be more than happy to take a look, but unfortunately, I won't get to it today, as I am only going to be home for about the next 15 minutes. I will try tomorrow afternoon to take a look, but if I forget, please ping me again. Out of curiosity (and feel free not to answer), I know you were in the Air Force; did you serve under Gen. Brown?  Go  Phightins  !  11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon further review, that was a really dumb question, because though he was an aviator, he was in the army. Sorry about that :-)  Go  Phightins  !  11:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I'm in no rush so feel free to do it at your leisure. No that is a perfectly reasonable question since he led joint commands like JSOC and SOCOM (whose command headquarters are made up of all four branches). But no I didn't serve under him. Anywho, thank you for the assistance good sir! —  - dain   omite    16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

All right Dainomite, sorry I didn't get to this until today, but after reading through the article, I think it is pretty close to being a solid GA nominee. A few things, in no particular order: Other than that, I think you did an excellent job on this article, and I would think it would pass a GAN with a few additional changes suggested by your reviewer. I don't see any structural deficiencies, so my closing message would be to proofread and copyedit the prose (or get someone to do that for you ... extra sets of eyes are always helpful to me. Good work!  Go  Phightins  !  22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article could use a solid, top-to-bottom copyedit. There are some consistency issues surrounding the use or lack thereof of commas after introductory phrases (e.g., is it "In 2007, Gen. Brown ..." or "In 2007 Gen. Brown ...". Depending on your GA reviewer, he or she may be nitpicky about that, so it would be better to handle that before hand. You can request a copyedit from the guild of you'd like, or try to go through it yourself.
 * Reference-wise, I think it is solid. Not a lot of references, but the ones that you have are of good quality, cited often and correctly, and are reliable.
 * The lead shouldn't need those inline citations, as that information should be included (and cited) elsewhere in the article ... I think you could do a little bit of a better job summarizing the full content of the article in the lead. Generally, I go paragraph-by-paragraph or section-by-section and include a one to two sentence summary for each.
 * Neutrality-wise, I think you did a nice job, though there was limited mention of criticism he has received. Are there any notable controversies in which he has been embroiled? No need to dwell on them, but mentioning them (if they exist) would be prudent.
 * Thanks for the in depth response Phightins, I really appreciate it. It's quite alright with me that you didn't get to it right away, no rush, I'm not on a deadline. I put in a request for the guild copyedit the article because I too like an extra set of eyes looking over the article. Also I don't think I'm that great at copyediting. The only critisism or controversy I found was his minor involvement in the Pat Tillman fratricide incident; but even then it was just him going to the congressional inquiry and testifying before Congress. I've removed the lead refs since all those lines are indeed mentioned in the body of the article. I'll have to take a look at a better way of summarizing for the lead... hrmm... *puts on his thinking cap*. Thanks again! —   - dain   omite    04:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

EotW/Gandydancer
Are you implementing the Award or is it Editor The Interior? ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A special barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, Rcsprinter. Maybe some day. Right now, I am thinking about it.  Go  Phightins  !  01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had Requests for adminship/Go Phightins! watchlisted for quite sometime :p —  - dain   omite    04:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
 * , a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
 * , another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
 * , 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
 * , a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
 * , the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
 * , who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
 * , a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
 * 1) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:, , , , , , ,. Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Attention Talk Page Stalkers - Free Barnstar Opportunity
Hello loyal talk page stalkers, I, the technical klutz, am having some issues with the template at 2013 Penn State Nittany Lions football team. The scores for the third and fourth quarter are not displaying. Whoever can fix the problem will receive an award of some kind. Thanks in advance.  Go  Phightins  !  21:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never used that template before Phightins but since |R3= |R4= |H3= |H4= have no parameters in them nothing is displayed. I assume that's what you're referring to. In preview with numbers in them it displays correctly though. Cheers, —  - dain   omite    21:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, it seems to work for me too, but that's bizarre, as earlier they didn't appear even in preview mode. Thank you!  Go  Phightins  !  21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problemo! —   - dain   omite    21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put in dashes in the meantime. These parameters need to be given a value, otherwise they don't display at all. Seems like a hyphen (-) acts as a placeholder, and maintains the score from previous quarters. I assume the game isn't over yet (or is ending soon), so they can be filled in afterwards. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, it's in the third quarter now.  Go  Phightins  !  21:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Luis Garcia (pitcher)
Hello! Your submission of Luis Garcia (pitcher) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bloom6132 (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically, you just have to add an inline citation of Ref 3 right after the hook fact in the article. Also, a QPQ review from you is required, since you now have 7 DYK credits (over the 5 which would have granted you exemption).  Everything else looks great and afterwards, I'll be more than happy to give a green tick to your nom.  Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Related topic
I don't know why but it just struck me that you're a Penn State fan... and I'm a Badger fan. I'll see you Nov 30! —  - dain   omite    05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whaddya think of Bielema leaving?  Go  Phightins  !  13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's sad to see him go. I'm not as into football as all my friends but just enough to stay aware of what's going on I would say. From what I understand (or am told rather) he wanted to go to the SEC regardless of if he would be going to a worse team. What's your take on it? Are your guys sanctions over with finally? —  - dain   omite    17:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the SEC is bad for college football as a whole, in that other conferences are ignored. I love watching no-name schools play bowl games, but we never see those teams in the regular season on TV, as bad SEC teams are more prominently featured. Regarding Penn State, our sanctions are just beginning. Starting next season, for the next four, we are limited to 65 scholarships, which is 20 less than other teams. In my opinion, the sanctions as a whole are ludicrous, but obviously Mark Emmert and the NCAA don't seek my opinion. There are some rough seasons ahead for the Nittany Lions; I just hope Bill O'Brien stays with us through them and emerges on the other side as the best coach in the NCAA.  Go  Phightins  !  18:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely share your sentiments on the SEC. I don't like any of the teams in it and all the guys that I work with are Gators fans so all I hear day-in-day-out is SEC crap that I don't care about lol. Yikes I hadn't realized the sanctions were that bad, yikes. I never understood the whole "punish the collective" for individual wrongdoings... and six years in the military hasn't helped me understand it any better either lol. Also, I asked my little brother (HUGE college foosball fan) about Bielema and he went off on a tirade about how he thinks it's because Barry Alvarez was trying to control too much of his program and all sorts of other things. —  - dain   omite    02:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to say; certainly seems to me you would have some experience with that concept . Well, PSU plays the tough opponent of Eastern Michigan next week. I just don't understand why we feel the need to schedule these cupcake games, but whatever.  Go  Phightins  !  03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, yeah... one would think :p Yeah, I'm not a fan of the cupcake games as you so well put it. We both play some really difficult games this week, although I imagine both our teams will manage to eek past them some how. Oh, I lied before about everyone I work with being Gators fans, there's two Ohio State fans (blegh, yuck) but they just weren't working today. So at least there will be some big ten banter going on and it won't be completely dominated by SEC this and Gators that. —  - dain   omite    04:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... I appear to be the only one rooting for the SEC in general. Then again, that might be because last year my team considered the forward pass a trick play. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I forget; your team is ...?  Go  Phightins  !  13:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * UNM Lobos. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm confused as to you rooting for the SEC when the lobos are in the mountain west conference. :3 —  - dain   omite    15:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The mountain west sucks, so I like to root for teams that win occasionally ;) I also tend to root for the streaks to continue.Tazerdadog (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rah! Rah! Ziss-boom-bah! Go you WILDCATS! ```Buster Seven   Talk  19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Huzzah! A fellow Big Ten fan! How do you think the Wildcats are going to do this year? —   - dain   omite    22:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

GA userbox
I made a GA userbox at User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/GA that would fit our purposes for Ben Revere and any future collaborations. ö  Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  15:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks!  Go  Phightins  !  19:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And as for our next collaboration, I was thinking Erik Kratz. There's certainly enough info about him for GA, but his page is a disgrace. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All right - Kratz sounds like a good idea. After him, we could do a catcher's tour and get Chooch as well. As for Kratz, I believe he was featured in a recent issue of the Phillies program, so I can probably find some good information in there.  Go  Phightins  !  20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

DeForest Area Public Library
The incoming links were actually added after I re-added'orphan' tag - at that time there were ZERO incoming links, thus my addition of the tag was fully correct. I suggest you check more carefully in future. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you erred in adding the tag, I am just commenting that it is not an orphan at this time. Thank you.  Go  Phightins  !  15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of that, hence why I have not re-added the orphan tag. So what exactly was the point of your message to me? GiantSnowman 15:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Giant you're simply too fast. When i undid your addition of orphan tags the first time I had other tabs where I was adding the links elsewhere. But you quickly undid my edit before I was able to save them. Should I have undid you after I added the links, yes. However I didn't know you would be so quick, so I'm sorry. Lesson learned on my end. —  - dain   omite    16:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * - yes, in future it would be best to solve the problem before removing the maintenance tags, to avoid confusion like this in the future. Thanks for the explanation though. GiantSnowman 16:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry GS, I think I got caught in between a fast succession of edits. Glad it's figured out. Happy editing to both of you.  Go  Phightins  !  16:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)