User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2014

DYK for No. 486 Squadron RAAF
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 486 Squadron RAAF
The article No. 486 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 486 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- 01:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for No. 5 Operational Training Unit RAAF
The DYK project (nominate) 21:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Heh, I just had this inkling you'd be the bearer of these glad tidings... ;-) Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nom
I'd like to nom Franklin Peale given I am going away on Saturday and will have few sources with me. I think Two-cent piece (United States coin) is good to go. Peale has turned into a bit of an epic, I'm afraid, but no one has ever accused me of writing too short. Happy New Year.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you too. I'm about to walk through the list and close some; I may or may not get to Two-Cent Piece but I know it's about there so feel free to nominate Peale. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An epic is right... wow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, especially compared with my other chief coiner articles, Adam Eckfeldt and Oliver Bosbyshell. There is a lot written on Peale, but it is scattered … thanks, I'll do it once I am more awake.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see it's promoted. Excellent, thanks.  I want to finish up the oddball denominations of the mid-19th century but am short images of one variety of the silver three-cent piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Peale seems pretty settled, unless there's something I've overlooked. I was thinking of Liberty Head double eagle next, everyone likes the big coins (as long as they are worth more than the little ones!)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, Peale looked to be progressing well last time I looked -- will probably walk through the list tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had overlooked those comments. I'm only logging in every day or so to save on internet minutes. Thanks on the promotion--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Many thanks, Rupert -- always a pleasure working with you and observing your constant encouragement of fellow editors. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barn Star
Hello, cobber,

Many thanks for the barn star.

I was reading above MisterBee's proposal to survey present WP contributors for feedback to the present broad criteria. There are two drawbacks to that. One is that you will never get in touch with those who have already quit. The other is that there is no real problem overall with the present broad criteria; the problems arise from the detailed unwritten rules assessors have developed within those criteria.

At present, beginners at the assessment game above B Class are being taught those unwritten rules one at a time, as they repair mistake after mistake throughout the assessment process. This negative process will extend over their first few nominations, as not every unwritten rule will be invoked in the first nominations.

This clumsy time-wasting process eats up way too much energy, on all sides. If I had had a list of detailed requirements for my last nomination, I would have known about the tremendously lengthy screen reader wiki-coding needed. That's three weeks assessment time/effort saved right there, if it had been previously installed. In other words, that excruciating drag through assessment could have been slashed to a week or less.

But, hey, if you guys want to keep on continually reinventing the wheel to be sure the rubber hits the road, well, have fun. I do wish you a wonderful New Year, and many more like it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For the Bugle
Gidday Ian, I have prepared a book review for inclusion in this month's Bugle here (or for February if you already have enough material for January). Let me know if it needs any changes and feel free to give it a ce before publishing. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, it read well to me, tks -- I just gave it a quick ce. I'd be happy to see it run in January's book review section as an additional Anzac-themed piece if Nick agrees. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zawed, that's a great review. I've just copied it into the book review section and added a photo, but please feel free to make any changes to it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick. I just wonder if it'd be more appropriate to use use an NZ-themed image, though admittedly when searching Commons I only found one that appeared directly connected; presumably there are alternatives in the NZ archives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this? The same images is used on the book's front cover. Zawed (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly a powerful work artistically, and if you and the book's publisher consider it a good representation then I'm fine with it too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 5 Operational Training Unit RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 5 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 07:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Frank Headlam

 * Tks Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Chaplin FAC
Hi Ian! I'm sorry to bother you, and I'm sure this is something you don't like people doing, but I was wondering if you think Chaplin is ready for promotion? The only reason I've come out of my way to ask is that for a long time now I've been hoping to get CC on the main page for the centenary of his debut, which is coming up on February 2nd. I'd ideally like to get it in the WP:TFAR queue before something else is nominated or scheduled in for that day...I know it's still three weeks off, but I'm just scared of missing the slot! If you think I'm being pushy then I'm sorry and by all means ignore me, but I thought I'd be cheeky and ask :) Hope you are well, all the best -- Loeba (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not pushy at all, I've been meaning to check progress since the image review -- will probably do so tomorrow some time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews

 * Many thanks, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Hector Waller
Hello Ian, the notice below appeared on my talk page but I don't believe it has been sent to you (based on a quick glance at your talk page and its history), hence just noting this for your information. It will be good to see another Australian featured. Janggeom (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Hector Waller know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 19, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 19, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Hector Waller (1900–42) was a senior officer in the Royal Australian Navy who served in both world wars. After studying at the Royal Australian Naval College, he served with the Royal Navy in the closing stages of World War I. Between the wars, he was posted as signals officer to various British and Australian warships. He gained his first seagoing command in 1937, as captain of HMS Brazen. In September 1939, he took charge of HMAS Stuart and four other obsolete destroyers that together became known as the "Scrap Iron Flotilla". In 1940, these and other ships formed the 10th Destroyer Flotilla, supporting Allied troops in North Africa. Waller was awarded the Distinguished Service Order and Bar, and twice mentioned in despatches, for his achievements. In October 1941, he transferred to the South West Pacific as captain of the light cruiser HMAS Perth, and went down with his ship against heavy odds during the Battle of Sunda Strait in early 1942. He received a third mention in despatches posthumously, and in 2011 came under formal consideration for the award of the Victoria Cross for his performance as Perth captain. The submarine HMAS Waller is named in his honour. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * UcuchaBot's a little fussy at times about posting these messages - perhaps it's just got fed up of seeing Australian warfare biographies on the main page (I know I have ;-) ) BencherliteTalk 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well fair enough...! thanks for copying this to me, I'd certainly like to see it on the main page sometime as well, as he's one of the most famous figures in Australian naval history; before that, however...  this was one I was planning to add to my short list of TFA preferences but it has many dead links owing to the Navy site rejigging its URLs.  It's the next on my list to bring up to speed but I may not be able to get it all done by the 19th owing to other commitments.  If we left it till say 1 March we could actually do it on the anniversary of his death, as well as give me plenty of time to fix the links and apply other style/format updates to get it in line with the latest similar articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll switch it for something else - if only there was another military biography I could use instead... (sound of last drops being drained from the bottle...) BencherliteTalk 22:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Swapped it for No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF, per your suggestion. BencherliteTalk 21:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, great! Sorry 'bout you having so few military bios to choose from -- really will have to work on that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 70 (West Virginia)
Hey. Thanks for your patience with me on this nomination. Its my first one since my last long wikibreak. My last experience at FAC wasn't something I'd wish to repeat, but this time I've had better luck it seems. I assume I will need to wait till you do your weekly walk through before a decision is made on it? --  Admr Boltz  22:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll be walking through current FAC noms tonight and/or tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Congrats, Ian. I've really enjoyed working with you this year. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise Rupert, and tks Ed! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for No. 482 Squadron RAAF
Allen3 talk 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 5 Operational Training Unit RAAF
The article No. 5 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 5 Operational Training Unit RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Natchez revolt
Hi, I've replied to your comments at the FAC page, so please check back there. Thanks! Jsayre64  (talk)  17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks, will aim to check it over in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied again. I think I'm done adding historiography. Jsayre64   (talk)  04:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

duplinks learning curve
Anything regarding technical widgets might as well be written in Finnish. Because I can go to that page, create the common.js page (which confused me for a few seconds) as instructed, and my response is "o.k....(cricket noises)....um...and?" --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I found two duplicates manually, didn't see others. Probably spent more time trying to figure out the instructions for starting common.js.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * did you gather that you have to click "Highlight duplicate links" in the box marked "tools" on the left-hand side of the article you're reviewing to display the duplinks? It's different to the Harv errors script which displays the problematic refs without having to hit a button... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not. Sadly, when it comes to technical CompSci things, I'm like a blind man without hands to hold the tapping stick.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I seem to remember when I first used it expecting everything to happen as if by magic too, so you're not alone... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just tried it. How could it be that easy and I missed it all these years? Where can I find other scripts?--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally mention these checkers to anyone in FAC whose article would benefit from them -- guess I hadn't noticed any issues in one of yours till now! Aside from those appearing in the toolboxes (which include dab and external link checkers) on the right of all GAN and FAC noms, these are the only two I regularly make use of. Of course Ucucha, originator of the duplink and Harv error checkers, has many other subpages that may include useful tools I don't know about... Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
The article No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 16:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia FAC
Hi! I have been wondering about Elizabeth of Bosnia FAC status. Do reviews and comments from the first nomination apply to the second? In other words, should I ask users who supported the nomination then to take a look at the new nomination? The only user who opposed the nomination then now supports it. The second nomination was opened 20 days ago, and I think it would be a shame for it to fail due to insufficient interest in the topic. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Prior comments don't 'carry over' to a second nom as such, so you should probably leave neutrally worded notes for all reviewers from the previous nom who haven't yet visited the new one -- whether they'd earlier supported or opposed or simply commented -- that it's been renominated and their input would be welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will. Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Uncle David/archive3
This looks quite dead in the water (again). Is there any non-canvassing way to attract people to review? I feel sorry for the nominator (imagine that, 3 nominations and only one review). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's attracted another reviewer since you wrote this Crisco -- a friendly talk page stalker perhaps...? ;-) Neutrally worded requests at relevant project talk pages are fine; bit early for listing among the urgents right now I think, as there are several older noms... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll ping the nom. I hope Midnightblueowl takes note of Sturmvogel's suggestion to review... it does work wonders. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As a friendly talk page stalker, I could not help noticing this discussion. I posted a message on a wikiproject talk page, trying to entice people into reviewing the Elizabeth of Bosnia nomination. Does the message count as neutral? I would rather ask straight away than post possibly convassing messages on multiple talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, wording looks okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
Hello! Your submission of No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF 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! Green Giant (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game
Hey, I noticed you closed my nomination for 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game a few days ago. I was wondering if I could get an exemption to re-nominate it, as it received very little feedback.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Šolta
Just in case you missed it, I made the necessary edits you asked for on Šolta (OB-02). Just let me know if there is anything else in need of changing. :) Cheers.--Saxum (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I did see you'd made changes but must've got waylaid before I returned to the review -- will head there now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Mil Hist titles
Hi Ian, Can you settle a question for me please? It's about the capitalisation of titles: is the correct version "Flight lieutenant Richard Murdoch" (one capital) or "Flight Lieutenant Richard Murdoch" (both capital)? Many thanks in advance - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi mate. When it's used like a title, the latter (both capital). When it's used as a rank in general, e.g. "Murdoch was promoted to flight lieutenant", both lower. Given those two conventions, I can't think of any occasion off the top of my head where it'd be first word capitalised and second not, except perhaps in a dictionary... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great - thanks very much. For some unknown reason (ignorance, probably) I thought it was the former! Many thanks for your help—and keep an eye out for Kenneth Horne working its way through FAC at the moment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

'nother FAC
Given that Retzivan looks ready to promote, can I nominate another FAC now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup on Monday evening
There's a Meetup in Sydney on Monday (tomorrow) evening from 5:30pm at the Paragon Hotel Circular Quay. We even have an international guest. See the meetup page for more details and to sign up. Sorry for the late notice - I hope you can make it. --99of9 (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Alister Murdoch
Knowing how "touchy" some of your ... "friends" are, I thought I'd better get you to vet this! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, tweaked a bit but basically looked good to me, tks. Have to hit the sack but might try and read Thomas' article some time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (That's exactly the sort of thing I was asking you for.)
 * Re BRIG Tom, there's not much there - just the basics to establish a "placeholder" page - but I did find the ADB page interesting. (BTW, just to confuse matters, there's a contemporary Thomas Murdoch (politician) who earned a CMG, and also has an ADB page!)
 * Potentially more interesting is MAGJEN Ian Thomas Murdoch. However, other than "It's an Honour", I haven't found anything sufficiently useful to even justify creation of a stub.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No prob. If memory serves I redlinked Ian Murdoch at friend 's request, so perhaps we'll just await his pleasure... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A quibble at the editor currently working on the McCudden article.
Just in case you're interested, this is a post I put on the user page of the gentleman who is working on McCudden's article (and with whom I have clashed in the past). Mainly for your interest, although of course you're more than welcome to comment. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your work on this article! Most impressed. Hope you will take the following quibble in the spirit in which it is meant, in spite of earlier disagreements and my notorious lack of diplomacy.


 * On the whole, historical consensus still says that Richthofen's 15th victory was the F.E.2b of Quested and Dicksee. There IS a major time discrepancy here, and Guttman's case for it actually being McCudden's D.H.2 IS persuasive, but it remains essentially (Guttman's) speculation. The account of McCudden's close call of the 27 December 1916 in Cole (pp.73-74), the obvious source for Guttman's account, makes no suggestion that Richthofen might have been involved, so the link IS purely down to Guttman. 


 * From Richthofen's point of view, dogfighting a nimble little D.H.2 and a lumbering great F.E.2b would have been very distinct experiences, so if it was McCudden rather than Quested it does seem strange he would have misidentified the aircraft concerned - he was familiar with, and distinguished between, the two types, even though he thought they were both "Vickers" products. British and German combat reports ARE sometimes very hard to tie in with each other - viz. the German account of Voss' death! Even if Quested and Dicksee can be ruled out there are very probably other possibilities.


 * All in all - while Guttman's notion that Richthofen very nearly shot down McCudden, especially at such an early stage of both aces' careers, is very interesting - and certainly deserves a mention - I don't think it is quite certain (or important) enough to rate a mention in the lead - nor does it warrant the degree of certainty implied in the text. Perhaps the odd "may have", and "might"?? We may even like to specifically mention our author here - "Guttman speculates that ..." ?? 


 * Once again, well done - have you asked the people who brought up the Ball article to "FA" for their comments and assistance?' --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi SoM, sorry for belated reply -- obviously I haven't got round to this but I hope to at least stop by at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

FAC
Hey there! I believe I addressed your comments at my FAC here - Featured article candidates/Typhoon Maemi/archive1. Are there any more problems? The article has been up for over a month now... ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actioned, FTR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahem
With one hand I will not expound but my nom is ten days from your query which was responded to promptly. I seem to recall prior words on a similar subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even with one hand I should have thanked you for your work. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful for a response. This is the same issue we discussed via email in Sept. We are now at 12 days.  Perhaps moderate proposals might include non-coordinator closes for clear cases, and automatic leave to nominate the next one under certain circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately RL intervened twice this week when I was walking through the list and Graham's been a bit busy as well, but Fridays are never a problem so I expo::ct I'll be closing several today, including this one; if you're keen to nominate another, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll look through and see what I have on hand. Thanks much for all your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Shaku india and Mughal-e-Azam
Thank you for your revert; this has been an ongoing issue. If you have a chance, please take a look at User talk:Shaku india. This editor insists that all the sources are wrong, and now wants to write the film producers, etc, to prove his point. I don't know what kind of reliable sources we could get out of that. There is also now an admin noticeboard opening on him. We could use a bit of guidance on how to proceed with this matter. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  13:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid with other commitments I can't promise anything except to say that I'll continue to keep the article on my watchlist. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey Ian! Sorry to come to you talk but can you take a look at my FAC? My WikiCup life depends on it and it hasn't been touched in 16 days :( — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 00:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from a tweak to the prose, just one query/suggestion (on the FAC page). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

V. S. Naipaul
I don't know if you are an admin, but I remember you from Neils Bohr, or perhaps from its nomination on the main page.

I didn't think the day would come when I'd have to fight with junior high school kids over issues of English. Please see Talk: V. S. Naipaul. I've had a longish family emergency in which two people in my immediate family have had brushes with serious illnesses, and continue to do so. These have kept me from finishing the article, which I began in September or October. Frankly, I don't know what to do with this new user (who hadn't edited the Naipaul page until he appeared yesterday). Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a new user, and as I pointed out to Fowler, he appears to want to take ownership of this article, which is a violation of Ownership of articles. He seems to believe that the article is "his" work in progress and should be put on old until his illness ends. It would be good of you to take an objective look at this article, which is full of needless details and stilted writing in my opinion and the opinion of others on the Talk page. I believe it needs a rewrite. What do you think? Should I put it up for a peer review? Chisme (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am back now. Give me a month to finish the article, and we can then have Brian Boulton or Tim Riley or someone else experienced review the article.  They both reviewed my Mandell Creighton, which I had to pull off FAC because I was about to start traveling.  They are excellent reviewers.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS There are other excellent reviewers as well, such as user:Stfg and user:Dank. I haven't even had to time to properly source the article. Besides, literature pages, typically, are allowed a more leisurely pace and some literary license.  (see for example user:Awadewit's many FAs, such as Mary_Wollstonecraft, Sarah_Trimmer, Mary_Martha_Sherwood).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, sir, may I have another? Pt 2
I think that Soryu is about ready for promotion and would like to nominate another, if I might.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, since I'm involved as a reviewer/supporter, it might be better to ping Graham on this occasion... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Peru national football team FAC
Hello Ian,

As a Wikicup participant, and with the first round deadline finishing today-ish (it's still the 26th Feb. where I'm at), I was wondering if the FAC nomination for the Peru national football team could come to a close? Regardless of whether it is ultimately a pass or fail, I'd really like to get that matter out of my to-do list.

That said, I hope the comments (support & oppose) from the article's past 3 FAC reviews are also taken into consideration. I consider the article to be top quality, and its only problem (in the past couple of nominations) has been lack of votes/reviews. Even taking a quick look at it (Peru national football team) is enough to make my point of its high quality.

Thanks in advance!

Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I realise a great deal of effort has gone into getting nom right, particularity Cliftonian's extensive review and edits, but we don't have consensus to promote at this stage. To achieve that you would have to convince John that the prose is at the requisite standard. You could of course also legitimately ping reviewers from the article's previous FACs to swing by and offer their opinions on this version if they haven't already but there are caveats with that: the requests for review need to be worded neutrally; you should ping everyone who offered a declaration of support or oppose, not just the former; and even if additional support is forthcoming, FAC isn't a vote per se and John's actionable opposition would still need to be addressed. Having just gone through several active FACs last night, my next walk-thru is likely to be Friday/Saturday and if nothing has changed substantially by then I'd expect to archive the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ian. I'll contact past reviewers.-- MarshalN20 T al k 01:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The advice seems to have worked. The article now has three support votes and consensus is quite favorable. Thank you for the suggestion. [:)]-- MarshalN20 T al k 01:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A-Class medal with Diamonds

 * Thanks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Old FAs
I was wondering if you or a talk page stalker could indicate a few of the older FAs which are poorly sourced and I'll try to improve the sourcing. I recently did it for Electrical engineering.♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hullo there, that's a nice offer! I have to admit though that I tend to just worry about the sourcing for active FACs, so nothing really comes to mind. Have you been keeping an eye on FAR for any older FAs identified as needing source improvements? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian! Ideally though we should have a list of articles in order by date promoted to FA!...♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a list of the oldest FAs by date, I just have to remember where it lives -- later hopefully... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a very old list of unreviewed pre-2007 FAs, the list of pre-2009 FAs that haven't been main-paged, the log of promotions by month, and summary lists by year. The Dr may also be interested in the list of FAs with cleanup tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very useful Nikki, thanks for that. I've just been overhauling and improving Cillian Murphy which is at FAR. hopefully I can tackle a couple of the older ones over the next few weeks gradually and try to prevent some of them from being demoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks for coming to the rescue with that series of lists, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What BS at FAC!
Regardless of the merits of the concern raised over citation formatting (and I lean towards Ironholds' position of consistency within a given article being more important than a particular style), there isn't sufficient commentary here to establish a clear consensus to promote

What a crock of BS. You have two explicit supports right at the top (by Wehwalt and Montanabw) and then the concerns of Hamilstone and delldot were both addressed with Hamilstone saying "excellent work" and delldot saying that his concerns were addressed.

Then when the anal retentive idiot who doesn't like the citation style objects, everyone said he was wrong. And Ironholds stated that the article met the standard for FA in his comment on the issue.

You have plenty of support for promotion, and an oppose by one who everyone says is wrong, so you toss the article.

This type of BS is the reason I'm retiring. This is why WP can't keep editors. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, Greg, but you've had a 'retired' tag on your user page since mid-January. Yet you pop back to let us know that an action that took place a week ago is one of the reasons for that supposed retirement. You can't have it both ways; if you're going to continue to play a part on WP (and I hope you do) then why don't you remove or alter that tag? As far as this FAC goes, the closing comment you partially quoted above went on to say "nor has there been any activity since the beginning of the month". FACs are frequently archived when there isn't clear consensus (and two reviewers offering explicit support has never constituted clear consensus) and the FAC has gone dormant, especially when the nominator's presumed retirement leaves little expectation of any further comments being actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. For what it's worth, I agree with Greg. The role of FAC is to promote the best articles on Wikipedia, and while this is established via peer review, it's established via peer review based on objective criteria which are set out on the FAC page. One of the things I've often loathed about the process is that, very often, the articles promoted are not the best articles; the articles promoted are the articles whose authors appease the filibustering users whose arguments, despite having no basis in policy or relation to reality, are somehow counted by FAC closers as blocking votes.
 * I consider this one of those situations. A 30 second read of the relevant MOS section by anyone of sense would show that the article styling meets the MOS guidelines, and therefore the FAC guidelines. In the absence of any reasons not to promote, and with votes in favour of it, there was no reason to archive it. Inactive FACs should be closed, sure, but inactivity, in this case, was caused by the fact that nobody actually applying rational standards had anything to say. If you look through the history of the page and my contributions to various talkpages, you'll see it became incredibly difficult to get Imzadi to even engage, let alone discuss things in a way that allowed for debate.
 * To be sure, this isn't your fault exclusively; this is a failure of ambiguous guidelines around what to do with candidates. But I would hope that you'd apply some IAR to these kinds of situations, and that the recalcitrant, irrational reviewers we all sometimes encounter would find themselves nullified if they failed to engage. In this case, you didn't, they didn't, and one of our best legal writers is gone. That's saddening. --Ironholds (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, he had already said he was gone, and appeared to have been on that path well before now - no matter what you think about how the FAC ended, it's not fair or reasonable to blame Ian for his departure, even if not "exclusively". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironholds I think you have a lot of neck complaining about a process you have done little to help improve, but like to point fingers all the same. Here we describe that as hurling from the ditch. Ceoil (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

On this one, I would agree with Ironholds that 1) The citation format is consistent and in line with the WIkiProject guidelines (which are, of course, optional, but are widely used in these articles, including previous FACs);  2)  Imzadi seems reluctant to meet in the middle about anything, so you have to consider the total situation;  3)  Consensus does not have to equal unanimity, I am periodically frustrated that this is not always understood; and 4)  GregJack has retired far fewer times than Eric Corbett, but Corbett's stuff is routinely promoted whether he is here or not. So let's promote the article, all personal - or personnel - dramas aside. Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to admit I don't recall promoting an article's whose nominator had retired, certainly not before there was more unequivocal support than was evident in this particular instance. Regardless, as in any other case of an archived FAC, if Greg wants to renominate the article -- and stick with us through the process -- then he's more than welcome to do so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Article 231 FAC
Hi Ian

I have noted that you have closed the nomination due to its inactively and lack of support, despite extensive comments. How does one proceed from here?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the FAC instructions, you can renominate it in two weeks. An option in the meantime is nominating for MilHist A-Class Review, which could help iron out any issues and attract more reviewers who could follow the article to its ultimate destination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the advise, I shall follow it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Note...
This diff also. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Another milestone ...

 * Well there you go, I think I stopped countng at 10,000 a few years ago... Tks/cheers! Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did - that's why I felt I would bring it to your attention ... ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll come clean. So how did I notice? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, congrats to you too (let's just hope our wives never see these figures)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

MITB FAC
Hi Ian, seeing as you're closing my pro wrestling FAC for lack of activity, I was wondering if I could get any comments on how to get more activity if I nominate it again? The article already has GA status. Is there are list of FAC reviewers I could ask or something like that? Also, I've earlier sent another pro wrestling GA for peer review, but there were no comments either, so I'm not confident in the peer review system either. Thanks. starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 06:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no list of 'FAC reviewers in waiting', I'm afraid, and I sympathise re. Peer Review... I haven't seen many wrestling articles on WP, and none at FAC, but if there's a wrestling wikiproject it'd be fine to post a neutrally worded note that the article is up for review and any input would be welcomed. I'd still consider putting it up for PR, because if it does manage to attract some interest there then the reviewers can legitimately be pinged when the article progresses to FAC -- again with neutrally worded notes simply letting them know the review is active. Lastly, you could do some reviewing at FAC, which can help get your name in people's minds and may (no certainty though!) lead to them stopping by when your article is nominated. Of course reviewing at FAC can be almost as daunting as nominating for FAC, so best to familiarise yourself with the FA criteria, and look over some FACs on subjects you know and observe how other reviewers critique them. Hope this helps, feel free to ping me with further questions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The other unfortunate thing is that yes, I did post on the wrestling wikiproject (WP:PW) to notify them of the FAC. WP:PW was actually quite active in terms of achieving / maintaining FAs (10) and GAs in 2007-2010. But since I joined in 2011 there has only been one wrestling FA since, and there is only one more editor in the whole wikiproject (since 2012) who is pushing articles to GA/FA status (WillC, who GA-ed my FAC). The GA/FA interested editors have probably left Wikipedia by now.
 * I'll probably put up MITB 2011 for peer review and see what happens again. Unfortunately I don't think I'd head over to reviewing for FAC - not to insult FAC at all but as an editor which primarily edits wrestling articles, I feel my time on Wikipedia would be more efficiently spent sticking to pro wrestling then to venture and learn this new field. Thanks very much for your advice Ian. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Four-tuned Award

 * Thank you very much. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Rainbow trout
I had not finished my review of the article&mdash;I was about two-thirds of the way through. I have concerns about some of the statements in "Whirling disease". Anyway, I accept that several other editors already support the article.

Moreover, there is an allegation of close paraphrasing/copyright violation, with attempts by myself and Montanabw to correct the issue. This text remains within the article. My concern is that the future record will show the current version of the article as the one that reached FA status: an example of "our very best work". In my opinion, it is inappropriate to mark an article as FA when there is such an allegation that has not yet been corrected in the text. Axl ¤  [Talk]  15:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a concern that serious, it does help to register an oppose to make things crystal clear and ensure things get paused. In any case, in article history, the link to the review where I ask that the agreed new wording be inserted post-FAC is right next to the link to the promoted version. I understand where you're coming from but OTOH nothing is as impermanent as the promoted version of an FA. I sometimes wish they were set in stone or at least treated with more respect by the general readership but at the same time we've always had a sign that invites people to improve it no matter what -- part of the price we pay for being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Forgive me if I sound a little cynical -- it has been a long couple of days in FAC land and I'm about to hit the sack... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations again...
Well done, etc, you know the drill - use WP:TFAR or I shoot without further warning! BencherliteTalk 10:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Garnet Malley
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Garnet Malley you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 05:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko nominated for FA
This is a general notice to previous reviewers: The Tadeusz Kościuszko article has again been nominated for FA. Opinions are needed at Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive2. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
The article No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 11 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Heads Up!
Young Nat (User:Nford24) has discovered a new, updated "Order of Wear" document - http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/Content/+050%20Honours%20Policy/+005%20Manual/_DHAM/04A.pdf (In your obviously completely unbiased opinion) What's the best way to publicise this important new document? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, sorry for belated reply -- I would probably just mention it at WT:MILHIST. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Garnet Malley
The article Garnet Malley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Garnet Malley for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 04:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:No. 79 Wing RAAF/GA1
Fixing a two year old editing mistake in a concluded GAN is certainly taking a responsible attitude to keeping the place tidy! ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pathetically responsible, I think -- the perils of pedantry... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Carmen Reppel
I added a bit to the soprano you kindly reviewed for DYK. At this stage,I don't find more, but will keep looking and then adding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you say you've just about exhausted potential sources, given it appears you haven't yet been able to add information specifically addressing the two areas I felt it was missing something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I said that first: there's little private information for opera singers of that period. I created four other opera singers for women's month 2014, and four ballerinas, none of them has anything private. (Sorry, I missed your reply.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

FA promotion bot down?
Hey there. Just letting you know that the promotion bot still hasn't processed some of the week's promotions. Graham Colm promoted two on the 21st and one on the 19th that still haven't been handled.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bot is still inconsistent. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking a fiat
Seeking a fiat to bypass FAC's two-week rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm, not sure how I'd justify that given both the women's wheelchair basketball and the atomic bombing FACs received quite a bit of feedback and exceptions to the two-week rule are generally for those with little commentary... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The wheelchair basketball was closed on the grounds that it did not recieve enough commentary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't call it 'no (or minimal) feedback' -- I read the archiving as owing to no consensus to promote being achieved after almost two months, so you might want to clarify that with Graham. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

TFAR notice
Please see Today%27s_featured_article/requests. I nominated to WP:TFAR an article you had successfully co-nominated at FAC, Albert Ball.

Thank you for your high-level quality improvement contributions to Wikipedia,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Garnet Malley
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Squadron RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 1 Squadron RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing at Sydney Opera House. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed FAC not archived
Hi! You closed Featured article candidates/Pather Panchali/archive2 on 28 March, but I see it has not been archived yet. Has not the bot run yet? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not -- the bot's been inconsistent, and I believe an alternative is being investigated. Worst case, we can close manually. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Same for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1, closed a few weeks ago, no bot activity yet, any ideas? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like this one was formatted/closed by, much appreciated! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See discussion on WT:FAC -- anyone can do this by following instructions at User:Maralia/FA bot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I manually archived the closed FAC, and updated the article history. I hope this was done in the correct way.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that looks okay, tks Dwaipayanc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
 Go  Phightins  !  23:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Source review done by Wizardman.  Go  Phightins  !  18:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Query
Hi Ian ^-^. I come because I want to ask if I can take the liberty to go ahead and put Ancient Trader for FAC. I currently have Flotilla opened but I don't see substantive comments coming in the future, and I already addressed most comments left by now.  → Call me  Hahc  21  03:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! The thing about nominating an article while another is at FAC is the current one should be close to closure (i.e. several comprehensive reviews and declarations of support, plus image and source reviews). That doesn't look to be the case with Flotilla as yet -- have you pinged the reviewers to see if they feel you've dealt with their comments and might be ready to support promotion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Usual request
Since Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar seems all over but the close, I'd like to nominate Oliver Bosbyshell if it would be convenient.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason I didn't have that one on my watchlist but it does indeed look ready for closure, so feel free to nom another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian Army generals
Hi. I assume you are still THE poobah at Oz MilHist? (Or failing that, a senior poobah?) If not, please redirect me accordingly. As you're probably aware, List of Australian Army generals has been a long term interest of mine. However, I'm running out of steam and enthusiasm. Can you suggest someone (or some people) who has/have an interest who may wish collaborate? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Senior poobah? If by that you mean someone old enough to know better, then yes indeed... ;-) Anyway, four names come to mind who I think would be well qualified, though naturally I can't speak for how interested they'd be... Hawkeye7 is, I think, our resident expert on Australian generals, having written many bios on them; Bryce of course compiled the list of RAAF air marshals, which would be a good guide; and AustralianRupert and Anotherclown are both Army chaps with heaps of relevant WP experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will give you a hand. I can't seem to get away from bios. If it's not generals, it's mad scientists, if it's not mad scientists it's paralympians. I thought I'd finished all the mad scientists but someone keeps adding Richard Feynman to the list. And all the winter paralympians are done thanks to but now they've announced that they are taking 20 basketball players to the world championships, so I need six more bios.  Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Squadron RAAF
The article No. 1 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 1 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed FAC for Josh Hutcherson
I'm curious, although the FAC received no support... it didn't receive much feedback at all. This surely can't be my fault, but a problem of lack of reviewers. How does this problem get fixed? I'd like to re-nominate it.  Gloss •  talk  18:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I sympathise -- lack of reviewers is an issue across WP, you can see it at PR as well. As far as an individual FAC nomination (or renomination) goes, it's fine to leave neutrally worded requests for comments at the talk pages of people who've previously reviewed it as GAN, PR or FAC. You can also leave such requests at relevant Wiki-project talk pages. Finally, you can do some more reviewing yourself, as the FAC list gets a little shorter the sooner each nomination has several comprehensive reviews and declarations of support or opposition, allowing the delegates to make a judgement for promotion/archiving, and a shorter FAC list means more chance of drive-by reviewers taking a look at your nom. As to renominating Hutcherson, even though lack of significant feedback is a criterion for us to give you an exemption to the two-week rule between an archived nom and a re-nom, I'd suggest you wait, taking the time to ask the earlier reviewers for any further recommendations they have and editing the article accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
I have no idea how this happened. Sorry.  Go  Phightins  !  00:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No prob! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncle David
Hi Ian. Just letting you know that I have reviewed this one down the bottom of FAC, and have left a note for Casliber asking whether he would consider taking a look also. It would be a shame for it to drop off the bottom again with a lack of views, though i note the QPQ issue for the reviewer. Also, there's some wierd malfunction that is causing some review comments to be invisible on the main FAC page and only become visible when you open the review page itself. Might have been caused by North8000's formatting? Don't know. Anyway, thought I should tell you in case you hadn't realised there has been some recent action on this review. Thanks for all your work! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Another horsey FAC
Hi Ian, just alerting you to Featured article candidates/Mucho Macho Man/archive1, I have two supports and two other folks pretty close to supporting, I think. May be time for you to take a peek and see if you have any issue that I need to address before this article is ready for promotion. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for belated reply, I left things to Graham on the w/e but will probably have a look in the next few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can also, not a worry which of you is on this. But I think it's ready for promotion review, one way or the other.   Montanabw (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had to foresake my regular mid-week run-through owing to a busier-than-usual RL, but expect to get back to it this (long) weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have four supports now, and pinged Nikkimaria to drop by and see if I got everything she wanted fixed. I don't think your run-through will interfere with hers, and I think any remaining issues she has are relatively minor.   Montanabw (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Optimal FA discussion?
Hi Ian, I have a general question: In all your experience with the FA process, do you have a "go-to" discussion that you would point to as an example of a healthy and productive nomination process? Or maybe a short list of past discussions I could look at that reflect the process well? -Pete (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Ian, but you might want to look at the extensive but generally collegial one for [{Rainbow trout]]. One that went faster was anything by User:Wehwalt, one I was in on was Homer Davenport  Montanabw (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks not-Ian, the rainbow trout review will do nicely! I'll check back for any further revelations, but I think the pressing need is met :) -Pete (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Montanabw. Pete, I'd also suggest that if there happen to be Featured Articles of similar type or subject to what you're working on, then you have a look at them and their accompanying FAC discussions (linked on the article talk pages) for guidance. Pls feel free to come back here with any further questions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Channel
I noticed you mentioned that the available support would keep the article's FAC open a bit longer. Did you mean that it would have failed, and the available support is a temporary stopgap before it really does? Or is it likely to be enough to pass? I'm more than a tad anxious, as I don't want the FAC to be archived because of lack of attention even though I've tried to get reviewers who commented (and whose comments I fixed) to come back. Tezero (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if you look over articles that have been promoted, including your own in the past, you'll see that some further support is needed for promotion. I did earlier add the nom to the list of FACs urgently requiring review (see top right of WT:FAC) and I note it's received image and source reviews/spotchecks, so I wouldn't say it's in too much danger of being archived before it gets some further interest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Should probably be enough now. Tezero (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed
Hi. I'm trying to get Greed (film) promoted to FA again if you are interested in taking another look at it. I'd also be interested if, in your opinion, the "spot check" from the previous FA nomination can be applied to this one.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, as someone with an interest in American silent film, I'd be happy to review if I found the time, but I can't promise that, and of course if I did then I'd have to recuse myself from delegate duties (which I'm happy to do sometimes, but I have to ration it). In any case, wearing my delegate hat, I don't need to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing in the latest nom because the previous one didn't raise concerns (N.B. I generally expect someone to carry out a "source review" on each nom, but that's just checking that the references are formatted consistently and employ reliable sources). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nom: Ike Altgens
Please accept my apologies if I'm spamming. This nom has been active for 38 days. The initial concerns with Ike Altgens have long since been addressed, and a great deal of additional work has been done, including a recheck of its sources and the addition of a free image courtesy the subject's nephew. I believe this article is ready for promotion and would greatly appreciate any attention you're willing to give its nom. Thanks in advance. :) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 18:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Will try to have a look later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, let's see, I did an assload of work on this article. I listed it, read the concerns, addressed the concerns, and watched as nothing happened. Literally, nothing happened. Even after spamming a few reviewers, nothing happened. Then, it's closed and archived because nothing happened. Wow... &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * it happened to an article I co-nommed recently too. However a subsequent peer review has been very helpful. Regarding cites - I often use a commented out note "cites previous x sentences" if I have a slab of text referenced by the one source, with the inline at the end (followed by the note). Yes it's a bummer when that happens. Put it up at Peer Review and I will take a look, as I commiserate when this happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note. If someone else were to take this article through a new process, I would certainly support it&mdash;but I'm not going through that again. :) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 20:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, and I can understand the frustration. There are rarely enough reviewers at FAC, and many nominations are archived simply because they've withered on the vine, as it were, rather than through outright opposition to promotion. As Cas says, you're not alone. I agree with him about trying PR, and then renominating at FAC, but no-one can force you to do that, any more than they can force people to review a particular article. If it were up to me, every article would be required to undergo at least two reviews before FAC, i.e. GAN and either Peer Review or A-Class Review (if applicable). Such a requirement would help iron out issues before FAC, would get newer people used to the review process, and would set up a reservoir, however small, of people who've had eyes on the article in the past and who might be happy to look over it again at FAC. The consensus seems to be against this, however, so it's a bit of a 'sink or swim' situation for newbies. I hope you change your mind. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way... xD &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 00:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I suppose I should just get over it, but it was so disheartening to see a FAC "wither on the vine", as you so aptly put it, that I wonder: there are still two older noms on the FAC page. Can it be reopened and put back in line? An odd request, I'm sure, but a FAC should Never. Just. Die.

If not, just ignore this. Cheers. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 20:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't 're-open' old FACs per se, but you can re-nominate the article afresh since it's been two weeks or more since the previous nom was archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Station to Station
Hi, I hope I'm doing this correctly. And thanks for the Barnstar. Much appreciated. Regarding the recording dates of the Station to Station album, Bowie chronologist Kevin Cann's notes in the booklet included with the 2010 reissue of the album indicate that recording had been underway for a few days as of 25 September 1975. I'll look at Pegg when I have a chance, but Cann is usually reliable in my view. Please let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koossepa (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I don't have my own copy of Pegg and there's probably a later edition of it than the one I used for the article, so it would repay a look. I checked my copy of Buckley (again not the latest edition however) and he just says "early autumn", which could well be September.  I've no reason to suppose Cann is wrong, but no reason to suppose Pegg is either...!  My feeling is that if we could find two reliable sources that say the same thing then we should go with that, or we could just hedge our bets and say in the main body "September (citing Cann) or October (citing Pegg)"...  I guess the main thing for me at the moment is that infobox agree with what's cited in the text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Pegg (the 2000 edition is the one I had quick access to) and he has Bowie entering Cherokee studios in October 1975, after two weeks' rehearsal. This seems inconsistent with Cann's statement that the recording had been underway at Cherokee for a few days as of 25 September. So I've made an edit that hedges our bets as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koossepa (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Jim Thome/archive2
Hi Ian, source and image reviews have been completed in that FAC, and there are now three support votes, and one oppose (currently working on the concerns, although some appear not to actually have to do with the FA criteria, rather personal preference). What remains left to do prior to closure of the discussion? Just working out any final concerns on the final oppose? I am somewhat new to the process, and wanted to ensure I wasn't missing something monumental. Thanks, and happy early Easter to you.  Go  Phightins  !  13:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy Easter to you too. We try not to look at supports as 'votes' per se, because even one well-argued and actionable oppose can nullify multiple supports, but aside from that point it looks like the required checks have been done, i.e. image licensing review and source review for formatting/reliability, both of which are generally required for every FAC, plus a source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is required for everyone new to FAC, and periodically/randomly thereafter. I (or my colleague Graham) would need some time to check through Tony's comments to determine if they're actionable under the FA criteria, and as I've just walked through the FAC list from top to bottom, I'll probably take a break from it for a few days. I suggest you try to work through things with Tony as best you can in the meantime -- I wouldn't say the FAC is in danger of being archived out of hand before that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't some sort of "deadline"; this is about the length of time since it opened that the last one was archived (a little over a month), so I wanted to make sure that if I hadn't addressed everything by x date it would be archived and I'd have to start over. Thanks!  Go  Phightins  !  12:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you will get there soon, but just FYI, there are no longer any opposes for Thome.  Go  Phightins  !  19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ucucha's checker?
I am hopeless about adding scripts to run these things - can you help me see what popped up as a dup link on Mucho Macho Man? I'd be glad to check what the checker found. Montanabw (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Woodward Stakes, Santa Anita Park, Animal Kingdom, Holy Bull. There are other dups but they may be due to repetitive pipe links, which is fair enough. I think it'd be good to try and add the script or get your collaborators to do so, 'cos I generally have enough to do rationalising dup links on 'my' articles, let alone others'... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I fixed the ones you flagged and I think the rest are related to piped links. I'll think about the scripts, they always have those scary warnings about messing up your computer if you add them...   Montanabw (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations again again...
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Elwyn Roy King to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates similar to those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating an article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. (I know you already knew about this, but an advertisment to your many readers seemed like a good idea!) BencherliteTalk 13:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency at WP:FA
Hi Ian. While looking at the list of FAs at WP:FA recently, I noticed that the newly promoted Mucho Macho Man, an article on a horse, was placed in the Animals section. This struck me as off, since the other articles on racehorses and such are currently located in Sports and recreation. I think they should all be in one section or the other, not split like this. What do you think? Thanks for all that you do. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 00:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct, that was an oversight -- tks for your work too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the catch; yes, the race horse "biographies" go under sports. I think (am I correct?) that the breed, science and management horse articles will still go under "Animals."  Yes?   Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Albert Ball
This is a note to let the main editors of Albert Ball know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 7, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 7, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Albert Ball (1896–1917) was an English fighter pilot during the First World War. At the time of his death he was, with 44 victories, the United Kingdom's leading flying ace. Raised in Nottingham, Ball was commissioned as a second lieutenant in October 1914. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) the following year, and gained his pilot's wings in January 1916. He then joined No. 13 Squadron RFC in France, flying reconnaissance missions before being posted in May to No. 11 Squadron, a fighter unit. From then until his return to England on leave in October, he accrued many aerial victories, earning two Distinguished Service Orders and the Military Cross. He was the first ace to become a British popular hero. After a period on home establishment, Ball was posted to No. 56 Squadron, which was sent to the Western Front in April 1917. He crashed to his death in a field in France on 7 May, sparking a wave of national mourning and posthumous recognition, which included the award of the Victoria Cross for his actions during his final tour of duty. His most renowned enemy, Manfred von Richthofen, remarked upon hearing of Ball's death that he was "by far the best English flying man".

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!
G'day, cobber,

Congratulations on your upcoming "front page" appearance with the article on Albert Ball.

Keep on the sunny side, old bean.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks George, but as I said during the 'front page' nomination process, it's really your baby (as well as your front-page nom, since you listed it as 'pending') so well done to you on all counts. I hope you'll keep an eye on it (as I will as much as possible) during its main-page appearance, since there'll no doubt be drive-by edits to deal with... ;-) More than that, I really hope you'll return to editing in general, as there are many (not just me!) who miss your presence here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I took the liberty of picking up Garnet Malley where you left off, so to speak, and took it to GA. I was planning to add more detail on his WWI exploits and take to ACR, and was planning to credit you in the nom statement at the very least, but of course if you wanted to ease back into things we could make it a fully fledged co-nom similar to Dallas and Ball... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ian, my good fellow, hasn't it struck you as ironic that my WP "honors" are coming after I am no longer about?
 * I already made a pass at writing some more for WP. Since there is little likelihood I can ever again present an article for higher level assessment--certainly not under present conditions--I tried simply adding info from my reference library to an existing article. The experience had all the joy of sucking up sand in my breakfast oatmeal. I still got the oatmeal, but it sure tasted gritty and "off". I have added info like that to perhaps 500 articles previously, but got tired of it and began pushing articles for A and FA class. I guess, I "can't go home again"--to quote Thomas Wolfe.
 * As for Garnet Malley--have at him; it's Wikipedia's article, not mine. I brought him to B Class as I recall, and don't believe I deserve credit for much else. I supplied maybe a third or a quarter of the remaining verbiage. There are a fair number of articles I beefed up that way, to a pretty good B Class, when I had some good sources in hand. Rudolf Berthold is the only article I feel I left ready for advancement, and if you should care to advance it, do so. I had planned to shove all the victory lists for aces through because they are complete and as accurate as possible, but we know how that ended. I also had plans in hand for advanced articles on Boelcke and a few more German aces.
 * So, Ian, my PTSD may deter my enduring the assessment ordeal, and I am sick of writing on lower level articles when no one even notices. The Barnstar swapping routine never appealed to me. My contest experiences were dispiriting in the hostility they aroused. Yet my ego insisted on gratification, and much to my shame, I turned to the assessment process for recognition. I did this even though I knew from bitter experience that it is a seriously flawed system that the Military History in-crowd stringently defends from any suggestion for improvement. So I guess I got what I asked for.
 * By the way, is there any mention anywhere of the new requirement for screen reading code being a necessity for promotion? Or is it being held in reserve to clobber some other unwitting soul?

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a requirement laid down by the WP:FLC delegates for tables and the like, AFAIK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I followed the link and re-read the page. There is no mention of a requirement for screen reading code, which verifies my point that this is a hidden requirement. As are many others. In other words, more assessment by ambush.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Update, update, damn bot!
The damn bot has yet to update the FAC promotion of Mucho Macho Man. Can you go kick it in the fender or something? You promoted it 9 days ago... Thanks! ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See latest comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
Hello Ian. Just noticed that this talkpage is absolutely huge, 370k or more. Have you given up on archiving :) ?  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, you know how it is: whenever you think of it you don't have time, and whenever you have time you don't think of it...! Just now the stars aligned and I got it over with -- a whole two months before I have to do it again... ;-) Cheeers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper peer review
Hi, Ian Rose. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and since I noticed that you had done some substantial contributing there a few years back I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article in preparation for FAC. Cheers! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  16:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks, I think I just tried to revert vandalism but I'd be happy to take a look at PR if I get time (no promises I'm afraid). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible op-ed
G'day Ian, no doubt controversial, I would appreciate your input on my proffered op-ed, here. Happy to edit as required. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's great, mate -- tks for putting it together! The only possible change that came to mind was that the Shakespeare quote seemed a natural final sentence to me; the next one, though a valid point in itself, seemed to deflate things a bit. Pls ask for a second opinion if you feel strongly about it though! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop it if it works for you. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot delay
Seems an incredibly long delay! Perhaps it's time the bot creator updated/fixed it or something? It shouldn't take longer than a few hours at most.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my latest comment at WT:FAC, did you gather that LegoBot has started on the backlog (though with suspect closing timestamp, admittedly)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Still hasn't hit my FAC. Just FYI. Can this be done manually by someone?  Montanabw (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free -- the instructions are right here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, can you make sure I didn't screw anything up? Thanks!   Montanabw (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FAC page and article talk page/history look okay to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK
Hi, congratulations on the recent GA, Operation Overlord! I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Overlord. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed myself from the article credit as Diannaa was GA nominator and major editor while I just copyedited/reviewed, but thank you for thinking of me and I will keep an eye on the page. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

 * Many tks, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

FACs question
Hi Ian, I had a question concerning FACs that I'm hoping you can answer for me. I'm new to the FAC process, having recently nominated an article and reviewed two others, and I understand that FAC entries require a "source review" to be promoted. From what you've said on various FACs, I've gathered that a source review involves a "spot check" of sources for reliability and formatting, and if the FAC is the nominator's first FAC, also for accuracy and close paraphrasing. I'm interested in trying to help review some FACs by conducting source reviews, especially for some of the older nominations, but I'm not sure what counts as a sufficient "spot check". Are there any formal or informal guidelines on how many sources must be checked (50%, 2/3rds, etc.)? Thanks for your help! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Prototime, tks for stopping by here, and for offering to help out with reviewing. I have to admit I don't recall if we have guidelines on source spotchecks, but I'm sure Nikkimaria has written something on source reviews... For now, the "source review" for formatting and reliability is a thorough review, in that every citation and bibliographic source should be checked to see it follows consistent and MOS-compliant layout, and that the sources used are in keeping with WP reliability guidelines. The "source spotcheck", where we check that information in sources is used accurately and without plagiarism or close paraphrasing, is not exhaustive (hence the term "spotcheck") but should be thorough enough to give you a feeling of comfort (or otherwise!). For a short article, spotchecking half a dozen citations may be enough to accomplish that, whereas for a longer article a dozen or more might be necessary. Of course there are practical issues as well, in that you may only have easy access to online sources used in an article, rather than any books. My personal advice on source spotchecking is (assuming you have access to the references cited) to concentrate on any "big claims" or opinions for accuracy, and any language that seems out of place compared to the rest of the article as far as copying or close paraphrasing goes. If those pass the test, the article is probably in decent shape. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Nikkimaria/How to spotcheck, User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing_featured_article_candidates, and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You might all be helpful here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There you go, Nikki has it all... Tks as always! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both! This has been very helpful and informative. I'll try to conduct some source reviews / spot checks this week. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Albert Ball
I only added it because the MID is (from what I can tell), in the photo graph of his medals on the page - File:Albert ball medals.jpg. I am happy to leave it off though if I am wrong. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it looks like an MiD but we should be able to cite to some documentation. There's no mention of it in the biography by Chaz Bowyer, which has a chapter devoted to Ball's awards. If we managed to find it in the London Gazette then we could use that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The two major sources for the article, Bowyer and Pengelly, neither mention a MiD. Consider, also, that before Ball rose to prominence, aces were not publicized by the British brass. A Mention in Despatches would definitely be publicity. These are strong reasons for documentation via text. I might add, that I did check the Gazette for Ball's awards.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you consider the harv ref anchors as errors and removed them?
 * ― Lgfcd (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See response on article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Slammiversary (2008)/archive1
Expected, I was wondering when it was gonna be closed. I had only gotten one review and had no more issues to fix. I'll renominate it in two weeks, I'll have more time then. I'll try to review some other FAs and try to get reviews in return.-- Will C  10:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the unfortunate lack of feedback for the last review, I'd normally waive the two-week rule but it may be better to do it the way you've suggested. We don't necessarily encourage quid pro quo reviewing (for fear it may lead to quid pro quo supporting/opposing) but there's no doubt that thoughtful reviewing is a way to get yourself (and hence, your articles) better known in the FAC world. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I generally review 3 to 5 articles per FAC I nominate — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a good ratio to aim at, given that the last time I averaged it out, promoted FACs were receiving around four comprehensive reviews/supports (not including dedicated image or source reviews). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the main reason I don't review much is I don't want to be that guy that is advertising the article he has nominated on other nominations. Plus, not exactly sure who would even consider reading a pro wrestling event. I've gotten two FAs in the past, kind of the normal people review them. I haven't seen any of the old reviewers around. I'll most likely review a couple of articles prior to nominating it and then dropping the name by just as a suggestion. Maybe get some responses. I would have liked to reviewed some this time but college got in the way.-- Will C  20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC spot check
Hello Ian

I've asked Dirac66 if he could do a spot check. Is it OK for me to have done so?

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Done and posted at Talk:Metalloid.   Dirac66 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will look over the FAC in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yellowhammer
...has four supports, images and sources checked, nothing outstanding at present. Can I start Invisible Rail on the rocky road to international fame please?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Desperate fellow! Sure, go ahead, I think we were just waiting on the source review and I see Brian's done that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Email
-  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Fire Controlman
Hello Ian. I would like to help edit the Fire Controlman page on the Military Project. My dad is a retired US Navy sailor and worked on various Fire Control systems during his twenty two year career in the military. He also invented a portmanteau or neologism on March 9th, 20ll along with my Uncle Marko. What can I do to help? I am new WikipediA iteratee and can be a quick study with the proper mentor. I look forward to being someone's protégé. Daniel "Dan the Entertainer" (I am a VJ/DJ to earn enough beans to make me a burrito once in a while :)) — Preceding unsigned brend added by brender Danielhighberger (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel, just to let you know I have read your message and will try to talk further with you during the week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Contact the Complaining Party Current f8 Parse Best Practice May 18th, 2014
This is one of many examples of how our work is oppressed. This is not a rant please do not comment on this work. It's here for me to use for future development of f8 Parse $30,000 grant application pending for a World Wide Service project at World Wide Locations named Project InterClub in 1999. #facts #only #nodramazone Facebook is not in a position to adjudicate disputes between third parties. If you believe that this content should not have been removed from Facebook, you can contact the complaining party directly to resolve your issue: Notice #: 727980400586310 Contact Information: Name: Chip Redacted, Kiwanis International Email: Removed If an agreement is reached to restore the reported content, please have the complaining party email us with their consent and include the original reference number. We will not be able to restore this content to Facebook unless we receive explicit notice of consent from the complaining party. Please note that the complaining party is not required to respond to your request. Danielhighberger (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Frederick Browning
I am afraid I left a rather high and mighty edit summary in reinstating the edit you reverted. From my previous summary it was not obvious that the present-day Royal Military Academy Sandhurst was established in 1947, while the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, were the older institutions which were merged to form it. This is worth noticing. Also, the reason why Eton does not have graduates: I believe people do "graduate" from high schools in the United States, but in the British Isles the word "graduates" is never used for people leaving secondary schools, and that is what Eton is. Best wishes, Moonraker (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your reasoning (which I don't necessarily accept as justifying all the changes to text), I think BRD should apply here, particularly as this is a Featured Article that's had quite a few eyes on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

FAC closing
I raised this point at the FAC page, but no-one seems to care very much! (Maybe it's me, and I need to get out more!) We currently have no bots at all closing the FACs and doing all the housekeeping. The Legobot request seems stagnant (I've no idea how long these usually take) and therefore the bot is yet doing that job (and I don't know if the trial edits have been completed). To me, this is rather irritating and leaves us looking unprofessional as we have a lot of "open" FACs which have ended and several FAs with no "star". I did a manual run last month, but I'm reluctant to unilaterally do this again when no-one seems to be all that bothered but me (and the sadly absent ). So, in short, what do you and want to do until this is all resolved? I don't mind doing a few more manual closes of the FACs myself if that would be helpful but don't want to interfere if you'd rather I didn't. And after this, I'll get back in my box and stop worrying about it! (I've also left this rather rambling post on Graham's talk page, and either of you may tell me to go away...) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the fly right now but your efforts manually closing were very welcome before and would be again (as would others' of course). Briefly, Legobot did run on some FACs and did all the right things, I believe, except it got the promotion date wrong on the FAC page itself. I left a note that was acknowledged but perhaps they're still working on it. Will follow up soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi et al—I've been watching and waiting for any action on the bot request, but figured I had no business pushing it myself, since I'm inactive these days and nobody else seemed overly concerned. I will have a big block of free time on Sunday and can help with manual closes then if needed. Maralia (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Maralia, naturally I'm hoping that Legobot will get started again shortly -- promotion-time fix included -- and further manual closes won't be necessary but if come Sunday there's been no action then of course further help closing some manually would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not holding my breath about the bot;, if you could do some closes that would be great. I've done quite a lot of the promotions but haven't touched the archived ones yet. For the record, I just spotted another little issue with the FACs that Legobot did; for example here, the link at the top of the archive does not go to the diff where that article was promoted. I think it is a variation on the problem with the wrong date being used. I think there are a couple of the April FACs with this issue. I mention it here as I'm not getting a response anywhere else! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A-Class medal with Diamonds

 * Many tks, Peace! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

More Mail
-  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 12:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko
No fixes to prose yet in response to my request; I'll oppose at the end of the week if nothing has happened by then. Thanks for your comments on this one, and all the rest of them. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna: Article or List?
As you are a FA admin/delegate, if you get a chance, can you please opine here? I would like to take it up for GA/FA if its an article or to FL if its a list. -  Vivvt  ( Talk ) 14:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Opined there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF

 * Tks Tony -- I'd genuinely forgotten that I created this article, so it's a pleasant surprise! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Scots
Hy how are you, frankly I don 't understand why you revert me on Mary ,I was only pointing to the most important article about the plot who caused her death, like there is an article about the casket letters two sections previously, the first editor who revert me told me very gently and I thanked him that this is the wrong section ,so please can you tell me what wrong did I do by putting this information in the section he pointed to me, giving the readers who consult this article information which could not be added because this article is very long as many editors said in the talk page of this article, I hope to talk with you before opening a debate on the Talk page of this article, thank you.aubmnAubmn (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies on one count -- I thought you had merely re-edited the same section, which you had not (I know you used an edit summary but it didn't explain the difference between two similar-looking edits). That said, I think those main article lines break the flow of an article and the Babington Plot seems to be linked in the first sentence of the section where you put it. So I still think we don't need it, but of course feel free to ask for opinions on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about an FAC of mine
Hi. I recently got four consecutive supports from editors within the same time span at my FAC here. I hope I'm wrong, but the last two supporters have contribution histories that make me feel suspicious (for instance, how would a user find their way to supporting an FAC after only making these edits in their one day of editing a few weeks ago?, which coincided with the account creation of the other of the last two supporters--especially this edit history). Not that I don't appreciate the supports lol, but I don't want the FAC undermined if it does turn out to be something. Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry but I haven't had a chance to look it over yet. Will ping Graham in any case so he's also aware. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had already seen this. Rather than make a fuss, I will leave a comment about superficial supports and how they do not help us in reaching a consensus. Graham Colm (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek FAC
Would you mind reconsidering your archival? The nomination is still quite active; in fact I was just about to respond to the remaining issues there. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 14:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you were but in any case I couldn't see consensus to promote developing soon. Of course you're welcome to get a second opinion from Graham but for myself I'll stand by the archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I'll continue working on this and put it through FAC one last time in a month or so. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 16:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Przevalski's nuthatch
Hey Ian. Thanks for the review and promotion. I had downcased all bird names in the article text per the recent consensus, but as I noted in the FAC nomination, I held off on moving to the lowercase title (from Przevalski's Nuthatch to Przevalski's nuthatch) because I didn't know if that would play well with the FAC closing bot. Someone else moved it however. Do you know if that is going to cause a problem with the closing? Should I maybe move the nomination to the lowercase title, change its header, and change its name at the talk page template?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks for alerting me, I've done it now. Yeah, while the FAC page is still awaiting closure (ideally by a bot, though that's been problematic lately) everything has to be brought in line with the new article name. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations (again)
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 18:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Bench, there's no anniversaries for its establishment or disbandment until early next year so feel free to use this one whenever you have a spare slot -- I might even add it to my Prospective TFAs list as a reminder... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

William Bostock
Hi, this was brought to mind by your recent revert here (which I don't disagree with). I've been a bit concerned for a while about how little coverage his political career has in this article, actually, for an FA. He was a federal MP for nine years, a fair chunk, but this only gets less than one paragraph in the article. Was there a lack of sources on this? If so, I'm happy to go digging. I agree that his military achievements outstripped his political ones, but I think his political career warrants a couple of paragraphs at least. Frickeg (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I actually had to check Hansard to flesh out coverage of his political career so, no, there wasn't much around. That said, one source I could check that I wasn't aware of when I wrote the article is Coulthard-Clark's Soldiers in Politics, which I did use in a couple of subsequent articles -- I have access to a copy so I'd be happy to comb it to see if there's more to add. That said, I have found that when you compare a lot of soldiers-turned-politicians' military careers to their parliamentary ones, there's often little in the latter and what there is is usually pretty nondescript... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I will keep an eye out for anything. And while many soldiers have gone on to careers of comparatively little importance, I can think of a couple for whom you could argue the opposite. Frickeg (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

New nom?
Ian, Russian battleship Peresvet looks about ready to be promoted, so can I nominate another article in the meantime?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Purely because I've recused from delegate duties to review/support, I'll defer to Graham here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we are just waiting for a source review; so another nom will not be a problem. Graham Colm (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd thought that Ian had requested one, but I can't find any mention of a review on the FAC talk page or the review page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, that must've been another Russian battleship FAC, I think... ;-) FWIW, I did give the source formatting/reliability a rudimentary check during Peresvet's A-Class Review, but it's probably better if Nikki or someone has another look during the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ping Nikki and see if she can do what she does so well so we can put it to bed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment/closure an FA nomination of mine
Hello Ian. Since there is no activity at Megadeth's FA page in a week, can you leave your comment/opinion on the topic? If not, I think it's about time the nomination is closed, since I've contacted the parties involved and I think they wouldn't be making any more comments. See you.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally Graham Colm or I try to look over open FACs mid-week so we should be able to check it reasonably soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Overlord
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Ian. How are you mate. I wanted to bring something to your attention. I've been away off and on for the past years, and have since seen the FACs go through the hands of several delegates. I noticed that a few pop music articles were promoted during my absence. After further review, I noticed many of them received support from only fellow pop music contributors (many of which are young and don't necessarily uphold the very demanding level of quality expected here at FAC). I won't go into name-picking, but please, in the future, (as Sandy had done) also look into the reviewers/their credibility/involvement in the actual project or field etc. Main issues that persist in those kinds of articles are, of course, lack of third-party reviewers/weaker than acceptable prose, possibly not up-to-par references and worst of all, NPOV and biased fan writing. It's something near impossible not to fall prey to when its regarding a topic or artist you are fond of, hence why this issue is so prevalent. Cheers mate. Hope to hear your thoughts.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   16:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Without going through all the pop music articles promoted (and, for that matter, archived) in the last couple of years, I acknowledge that the risk of fannish supports is there and all I can say is that it's something that Graham and I try to guard against, just as we try to be wary of such support for articles on TV shows, video games, etc. Even in cases where fandom is not such an obvious issue, such as roads or military history articles, we try to hold out for reviews from outside the relevant projects to balance those from within. Ultimately we're reliant on as broad a range of reviewers as possible getting involved in the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request
Hi Ian, for happy reasons I'll be retiring from wiki in a few weeks, but want to push things in the meantime. I'm asking if Pope Paul III and His Grandsons is either promoted/archived, would it be ok if i nominated 2nd article almost straight away. I realise the pressure on both reviewers and delegates; but asking anyway. Ceoil (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on a quick look at the current FAC, I agree it's probably close to promotion so I have no issue with a you nominating another before it's closed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I did say I was in a rush. Head VI has four supports, no objections and one leaning that is dependant on a new section and expansion of exising material, both of which were added today. I might go for one last splash nom if that is ok. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've had an eye on that one for some time and I know it's pretty well there, so go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sound as always Ian. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

1940 Field Marshal Ceremony
G'day Mr. Rose. I was wondering if you would care to take a glance over 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony article and maybe share your thoughts on the talk page on what should be done in order to get it to GA status. Kind regards. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not replying sooner. I can't promise anything but if I get time, I will. I've watchlisted the article to try and keep it on my radar. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ECWackett1958.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ECWackett1958.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn FAC not closing
I tried to start a peer review for Sega Saturn last week, but PRBot closed it because Saturn is still technically at FAC despite being closed over a week ago. Seems like something is up with the FAC bot. Could you look into this? Indrian (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Requests have been placed for the old FAC bot to be repaired/restarted, or a new one created. In the meantime, people are closing open FACs using this procedure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured content
Hey Ian, could I interest you in helping out with the Signpost's featured content page? You won't be alone; is already active there and will at the least do the featured pictures, as those are his specialty. I'm hoping to land you for your experience with featured articles. Think you might want to take the plunge? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, can't really guarantee my availability on a long-term basis but happy to help out with the coming issue at least. I take it the set of FAs in question is from the last Goings-on here? I'll assume you guys just want an abbreviated lead for each article, per recent Signpost issues, rather than the brief and somewhat more quirky style we now employ for in the Bugle... ;-) Let me know where to deposit the blurbs, I'll work in a sandbox or something in the meantime... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, draft is here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we've been moving towards more of a quirky style, so if you'd like to quirk, quirk away. ;-) I'll move your draft over to the Signpost page later today. Thanks, Ian! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is now here. Thanks again! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ian! I don't know if you read the featured content, but I've been using the lead image to promote a creator of excellent content on occasion. However, I work mainly with featured pictures, and I think, therefore, I tend to lean towards those creators. Outside of Parsecboy, who I already know is amazing (I do picture restorations for him, and he's hard to keep up with), any featured article people in the current set of FAs that you'd like to say a few sentences about, and whose article has a suitable image? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ed, glad to hear you'd be happy with a slightly different style for the blurbs. Naturally enough I like the way we do them in the Bugle now, essentially just a one- or two-liner about the article subject, augmented by something interesting about the nominator or from the nomination statement. Oddly enough I took this style from an issue of the Signpost, a format that doesn't seem to have been used there for quite some time. Anyway, being pragmatic, I think for this week I'd rather just leave them as is but maybe look at something different next week. Adam, there are many worthy long-time FA nominators this week but in terms of one where there's a great picture to go with it I don't think you can go past the Kelpie one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We could easily say a bit more about the Kelpie article as well because it's part of a series the nominators are doing on Scottish mythology -- let me know what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ended up going for Parsecboy, simply because the illustrations in Kelpie - while really, really good art, are actually not very typical of the subject. Not a huge problem for the article, of course - ya takes what ya get - but I think I'll save him for next time, at which point he jumps to the top of the queue. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC bot
Is it okay if I take over bot duties for a month or so? See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. —Designate (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Hilda Rix Nicholas/archive1
Hi Ian. Just a note to say that Crisco and I have now worked through the image review that you noted was needed for Hilda Rix Nicholas. Hopefully you'll be happy with the FAC but if still waiting on anything, let me know. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks, was planning to walk through recent updates and try and close a few tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Soeara Berbisa/archive1

 * Hi Ian, Brian got the source review and so it looks like this is closing up. Do you mind if I nom Harta Berdarah a little early? I doubt there will be many issues with the other nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:ECWackett1958.jpg
Ian, I've closed the PUF discussion as keep. I was not convinced by the arguement that the source country was the UK because it was a British published book that you got the image from. Sub clause E of PD-Australia is very clear on the image having been made there, not published there. If a photo of an Australian, taken by an official of the Australian government in Australia isn't Australian then I don't know what is. I know there has been a lot of debate at Commons about Australian images and URAA copyrights being restored and it's unfortunate that the Australian government haven't followed the lead set by the British and, more recently, the Candian Governments and made it clear that expiry of Crown Copyright is worldwide - that would solve a lot of the problems. Until then the only answer is, as Sfan00 IMG did here, to add a fair use rationale to get past the lack of PD status in the US. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks for all that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Anachronox/archive1
So I took care of the Citation Needed that was on the article. However, on the issue of sourcing, HamiltonStone remarked how he wasn't sure about what to make with the footnotes and that "the delegates probably do". So I guess there's need of an opinion by the delegates. Whatever gets the nomination done with is fine by me. GamerPro64 18:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Of_Human_Feelings/archive5
You may find this interesting given your previous assessment of it.--Froglich (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Froglich has apparently been so easily offended by any of my responses to his "review" of that FAC that he's attempted to contact an editor who opposed once before . This is getting ridiculous--he's unwilling to be civil or understanding this entire process (or admit that his competence and understanding of WP guidelines and FA criteria is questionable) and is entirely out of bounds here. High-strung to say the least. Dan56 (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)