User talk:Iazyges/Archives/2020/May

Your input
Hey, I would appreciate your insight about the end date of the Assyrian Empire. As far as i know, the Asyrians were defeated by the combined armies of the Babylonians and the Medes at the battle of Nineveh, in 612 BC, then, a certain Ashur-Uballit II ascended the throne at Harran, but was defeated by the same Medo-Babylonian coalition in 610 BC and thus, escaped with the remnants of his army to the Egyptian city of Karkemish. At this point, i.e. after the fall of Harran, Assyria was no longer a state entity and as such, already destroyed, the final attempt to reconquer Harran (in 609 BC) was in fact made by a stateless king with the help of the Egyptian troops. That being said, shouldn't we put the end date of the Assyrian Empire at 610 BC instead of 609 BC ? Thanks in advance for your help. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Several sources (A Companion to Assyria: p. 192; The Cambridge Ancient History "The fall of Assyria (635–609 B.C.)"; Encyclopaedia Britannica "The Median army took part in the final defeat of the Assyrians in northern Mesopotamia (612–609) and, when the territory of Assyria was divided between Media and Babylonia, Media took Assyria with Harran.) seem to state that Harlan was besieged in 610 but only actually fell in 609; for most ancient and classical civilizations a premium is placed upon a capital city being lost and never recovered, much as the Byzantine Empire is considered "dead" in 1453, even as rump states, like the Principality of Theodoro lived on for another quarter century. IMO the 609 dating is appropriate if most sources state that 609 was the downfall of Harran. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your reply. So, if i get you well, we can consider that the Neo-Asyyrian Empire was dead after the fall of Harran (and thus not only after the siege of Harran) ? The sources you mentioned support that Harran fell in 610 BC, the 609 BC date was that of an Egypto-Assyrian attempt to reconquer the city. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes; while the Assyrians weren't in a fantastic place in 610 when the siege began, they only "died" as a country in 609 when the capital actually fell. The citations are used to support the statement around Harran which finally fell in 609 BC. as well as The same year, Ashur-uballit II besieged Harran with the help of the Egyptian army,; the sources cited there mention the second part but not the first, but not to the exclusion of 609 as the date Harran actually fell. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah Under Babylonian Rule p.19 states that the Babylonian/Mede siege began in Winter 610, and ended in early 609 with Babylonian victory. It seems odd that sources don't mention the date the city fell directly, but the sources as are don't contradict the 610 siege and 609 actual fall dating. I'd say work should be done to explain this in articles surrounding the issue and on the Assyria page itself, but it does appear that the siege began in 610, and Harran and the Assyrian Empire fell in 609. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and precious insight. I'll make some further research in order to edit the relevant articles and make them clearer for our readers. Wish you a great rest of your day. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
 * Royal standard of England (1406–1603).svg Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
 * Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Blason Gondor.svg Hog Farm with 801, 🇻🇪 Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 🇲🇽 MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news
 * Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
 * Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news
 * The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
 * created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous
 * A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Note re possible topics for input
Hi. As you know, we spoke a while back about you adopting me on a semi-official basis. based on that, could you please have a look around WP:History, and let me know what you think of it? I would welcome any input. by the way, I also have mentor/mentee relationship with user CaptainEek as well. however, based on my current role at that WikiProject, I would be glad to seek input from multiple individuals. and since you said that your particular interest here is history, I thought it might be worthwhile to at least initiate this topic for some general possible discussion. please feel free to take a look around. since you edit in this area, is there anything you would like to see added there? or also, are there any ideas, editing activities, possible group efforts, etc, that you might like to bring up on the talk page?? Please feel free to express any thoughts, input, etc to me that you may have. If you reply here, please ping me. thanks! --- Sm8900★ 🌎 03:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've done a fantastic job. I don't have any real input in particular, but I will comment that WP:H is mostly inactive these days, as the active people generally focus their attention upon specified topics; I for instance edit almost exclusively about Roman and Byzantine people, mostly emperors. That said, it could be brought back. I wish you luck with the endeavor and kudos on the work. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks so much!! based on that could I please make you my official mentor? I am in need of one. we can approach this collaboration in any way you like. but yes, this would be an official full-fledged mentorship. I hope that's okay? thanks so much!! --- Sm8900★ 🌎 15:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I'd be happy to. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that's truly terrific. thanks so much!! that will be very helpful. I will be glad to approach you from time to time, at periodic intervals, just to let you know what I happen to be up to, and to get any advice, feedback, or input that you may have. to begin with, the page for WP:History was the main page that I wanted you to look over and to review, so I'm glad that we covered that right at the outset. the page itself is highly stable; I don't really edit there a lot, as I would rather create a collaborative environment there. So I have been mostly leaving the project page alone recently.


 * however, as you can see, I did set up a few sections, features, structures, etc there, just to make the page more inviting and more accessible to all. for instance, I moved the list of members for all working groups and task forces out to the main project page. basically, the projects itself is partially inactive. it functions mainly as a forum for occasional talk page posts and discussions, but that's about it. so the working groups themselves overall have basically no members. however, by posting this members lists more publicly, I wanted to encourage any visitors to join up more readily, if they wish to do so.


 * as far as my other editing activities, I have provided a list of links below, just of some items I have been working on recently, as well as some items that I worked on more in the past than I do currently. it so happens that I was just mentioning this data to another editor here, so this list is copied and pasted largely from my discussion with them at their talk page. anyway, you are welcome to look aver any of these that you may wish, and to share any comments, feedback or ideas that you may have. alternately, if you don't have any comments, that's totally fine as well. I am just providing this information, just to give you brief initial capsule overview of sorts, just to let you know some of the areas that I have worked on over the years. I really appreciate your openness to a working dialogue. thanks!!
 * current.
 * 2020s in political history. I have tried to create a whole new type of article with this entry. basically, I feel that Wikipedia could benefits by finding some news ways to cover contemporary history, with as much breadth and depth as we have always covered past history. in that vein, here are some other articles that I have created that are actually good examples of this, as these articles have been embraced by various groups of editors, and have been the subject of edits and updates by a diverse groups of editors.
 * 2010s in United Kingdom political history
 * 2020s in United Kingdom political history
 * also, here is another set of articles that I initiated. this series of articles had originally been created prior to any efforts of mine. however, they had fallen into disuse. I came along and re-established the article for 2018, which had just been a redirect, and then created the subsequent articles for 2019 and 2020. so far, these seem to be doing okay.
 * 2018 in politics and government
 * 2019 in politics and government
 * 2020 in politics and government
 * also, here are some past articles that I worked on, of which I'm particularly proud. I created these articles, and filled in the data as best as I could. some of the broader topics below have since been edited by a multitude of editors, of course.
 * Valley of Peace Initiative
 * parole camp
 * Sono arsenic filter
 * Exploration of North America
 * Also categories are a particular interest of mine. here are some of the ones I enjoyed setting up.
 * category: timelines by year
 * Category: diplomatic conferences
 * Category: political charters
 * well, that's about it for now. Just thought I'd give you a brief nutshell look at some of my activities here. if you want to discuss any of the above, feel free to do so. And yes, I am always open to input. I appreciate all your help . thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Idea for WP roles
hey, since you are already a coordinator at WP:MILHIST, would you be interested in helping out and taking on some role at WP:History? the truth is that your knowledge of editing and historical topics is probably greater than my own. we could make you a coordinator at WP:History. this would not entail any time commitment on your part; you do not need to run the WikiProject in any way, or maintain the page, unless you want to. your main role there would be to be available to any editors who might happen by with specific questions, requests, ideas, etc etc.

the project itself is semi-inactive; our main role is to serve as a talk page and forum for editors who occasionally happen to come by, with various individual questions, requests, ideas, etc etc, of their own, that they might wish to discuss briefly.

the wikiproject can only increase its credibility if we involve more highly-experienced, knowledgable editors like you. If you wish, we could create a task force there for the general area of Military History, and make you the Coordinator for that Task Force. I could post a talk page notice to let people know, and ask for group support for this. there are some people who occasionally disagree with some aspects of my approach to project organization here. by adding a highly credible editor like yourself, we could vastly increase the usefulness, credibility, and broad role for WP:History.

anyway, if you are not sure about adopting this idea, feel free to look around, and think on your own about any role that you might wish to have. I am sure the whole editing community would benefit from any role that you might wish to take on there. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the project coordinator thing is a good idea, but I will add that such roles are usually elected. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sure, I understand. basically, due to the fact that the WikiProject is inactive, I voilunteered myself to be a Lead Coordinator there. I got messages of support from several people, and no one objected. and based on that, since the project itself is inactive, I have leaned towards a collaborative model for the project as a whole as much as possible. that is why I made it easier for any individuals to add themselves to any teams, task forces or working groups that they may wish.


 * if you wish, and if you are interested in this role, then I would suggest that you simply go to the project talk page, introduce yourself, explain your current experiences and your current role at WP:MILHIST, and then tell them that you received a suggestion from me, that you become one of the project coordinators there. you can allow some time to go by if you wish, just to see what response you get, and if anyone objects. and based on that, if no one objects after some reasonable time period, then you can take a role there as project coordinator. I hope that sounds okay? you are free to phrase this any way you wish, or to adopt any other steps that you might prefer. feel free to let me know.


 * by the way, I consider WP:MILHIST to be the most similar and the mostly closely aligned with WP:History. the reason is simple; due to its very nature, military history intrinsically and inherently covers all eras, all societies, all civilizations, all nations, and all cultural and ethnic groups throughout all of human history. it basically almost as comprehensive as general history itself. so anyone who is a coordinator at MILHIST can probably play a positive role at WP:History as well. so that is why I would be very open to and interested in involving you there, in any role thaat you may wish.


 * does that sound ok? if so, how do you wish to proceed? feel free to let me know, or alternately, to indicate here any steps you may prefer, or that you deem to be worthwhile for this process. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll make a post on the talk page. One piece of advice: try to make one edit on someone's talk page when leaving a message instead of multiple; the notifications system automatically alerts people to every edit on their talk page, so it can spam it up quite a bit if you leave a series of edits. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Re your post, that’s great. Thanks!! Re the multiple edits, that is a good point. I’ll try to be more careful. Thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

article to take a look at
Hi. could you please take a look at this article, when you have a chance? The article is: 2020s in political history. As you can see, this article is one that I have created, in the hopes of providing it as a way for Wikipedia to continuously provide an overview and a chronicle of contemporary history, as events happen. so far, the Wikipedia community seems to have accepted this new type of article for the most part. I would like to do everything I can to make sure this article is formatted logically, and can continue to develop and to be updated periodically.

If you have ideas or comments on the format used, or the content, or the basic article structure, feel free to let know. obviously I am hoping that new articles continue to be created on this basis, for each successive decade as time passes. so that is one reason that I would welcome any input on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"adoptee"
Hi, I suddenly find myself with a lot of free time, and I want to become more adept at Wikipedia contributing. My interests are mostly around business history and military history. I have no experience or skills in coding, but I do have a journalism degree from a "prestigious" program. Thanks in advance, I have a lot of questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davetheirishguy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be delighted. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

some basic questions
Hi Iazyges! Okay, I have a number of basic questions that I would like to ask your help with. hopefully, I can learn a lot from you about these topics, and increase my knowledge over time.

I notice that you have edited a number of articles pertaining to ancient history, including various rulers, as well as other historical topics. I have very little experience with editing this area, and would like to learn more. How are you able to edit this area? In other words, how do you perform the basic research needed? I do not have any particular expertise with these areas of history, so generally I leave this to those who are knowledgeable. I am eager to learn some of the basics though.

Okay, so where do you acquire your basic knowledge on this topic as a whole, and what are some of the correct or effective ways to do research in areas of ancient history? or similarly, other past eras like medieval times, etc? do you have a shelf full of in-depth historical books and other works? or do you simply utilize online electronic resources; if so which ones? by the way, do you have some sort of professional training in this area; in other words, are you an educator or researcher, or alternately, do you have formal training in history? (I hope you don't mind me asking.

I hope you will pardon these basic questions. there are some areas of history where I feel very comfortable, and others where I would like to just learn the basics. when it comes to modern history, research seems easy enough; there are numerous online digital archives that provide knowledge on historical figures of modern times. when it comes to ancient times, I am a bit in awe of the editors who display such knowledge and erudition in these areas. Someone had to write articles on topics like ancient Greece, Babylonia, Sumer, etc etc. I am sure I could write an article with a basic average understanding of these topics. but I would like to know how the people who habitually edit these areas are able to do so. Are they all utilizing a collection of scholarly historical books that delve into these areas? Or are there online resources for these eras that are fully sufficient for in-depth research? Or generally, is it usually better if editors of these topics have already received some formal academic training on these topics, in order to approach them sufficiently in-depth?

I truly admire the numerous well-written articles on Wikipedia on these scholarly topics. I know someone had to write these articles; I simply want to learn more about how they were generally able to do so. any information that you can provide will be greatly appreciated. As the lead coordinator, my goal is to get WP:History moving again. since I do not have any major expertise in these areas, perhaps the best and most beneficial role for me is from the opposite perspective; I can speak for all the editors who approach this area with a desire to learn more and to help to edit, but would like to gain some knowledge before doing so. Once you and I have set up a dialogue to help me increase my knowledge, perhaps we will set up some resources at the WikiProject to provide some similar information, including perhaps an FAQ, in order to help any editors who similarly wish to increase their basic knowledge on the right way to approach these topical areas. I appreciate any help that you could provide. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It really depends; I can really only give answers for the Roman and Byzantine parts because I don't edit much at all in other periods. I have several books on the subject of Roman and Byzantine history; I also use JSTOR for more information; often you can find a significant amount of information from simply using google books. I don't have any professional training on the subject, I'm a Sophmore in college majoring in Accounting and Finance. A FAQ page sounds like a great idea. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * HI Iazyges. ok, that is really good to know. and also, very impressive!! if you're a college sophomore now, then were you in high school when you became a coordinator? I assume you were. that is truly impressive. I'd be interested to hear more about that sometime. perhaps I may email you sometime, just to ask about some details, and let you know some details about my own experiences. I'm very glad to hear that.


 * re your historical work, that is very helpful. this is helping me to understand the editing and research process a little better. what you wrote above is very helpful to me. that is very interested. okay, so another question I had was;
 * how do you find the articles in need of editing? do you simply review them one by one, or do you have some systematic method?


 * re your work in that historical era, it seems highly impressive. I had a look at some of your article links. you really have some extensive experience, which will be really valuable.


 * also, I notice that you have major experience with article improvement and review. based on that, perhaps we could make you the head of those departments at WP:History? you would not need to do ANY additional work. the truth is.... you are ALREADY working extensively in that area!! so based on that, the whole project might benefit from you taking that role.


 * I am going to allow seven days to elapse from the date that you stated your desire to serve as a coordinator there. After that, I expect to be able to add you as a coordinator. I have a few other ideas on some directions for the WikiProject to go in. I will be glad to b in touch with you about any and all ideas where we might move ahead. I appreciate all your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles I edit are Roman or Byzantine emperors or people related to them. I tend to randomly pick which emperor I feel like working on, to be fully honest. Let me know how I can help. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Roll Call - Action Required
There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of CVU Member \ Chat Me Up at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: NOTWEBHOST
You probably know this already, but these can be tagged for speedy deletion under U5. When reviewing spam logs, I found there'd been a couple ones that you had blanked under NOTWEBHOST. Best,  Spencer T• C 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

updates
Hi! Okay, time to move ahead with things. I will be adding you officially as a coordinator at WP:History today. After that, I will have a few items relating to this project to discuss with you. for the time being, we can discuss some topics here at your talk page, just to make things easier. however, we will have some discussions at the talk page for the project itself, to make it more visible for others. when I do that, I will usually ping you during the discussion, to let you know whenever there is a comment or question there that is addressed to you. I appreciated your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

update re your roles, and some possible steps
Hi! Okay, I have now added you. you are now a coordinator at WP:History. also you are now the sole member of the newly-restored working groups for article assessment, and for article review.

could you please go to the talk page at WP:History, and provide a brief introduction for your work here? or it can be lengthy, if you want. please feel free to tell them; a) what topics you have edited, b) your specific interests and work with ancient history topics. that is highly important. I really want to find ways to open that topic up for newcomers, and to use your existing editing skills and experience to help to shepherd others into finding ways to edit this topic in meaningful ways. c) your work and experience as a coordinator at Milhist. d) some of the things you've seen or learned about successful editing of history, through your role at Milhist. e) anything else you may choose, in order to enable the members to get to know you better, and to hear more about your editing approach.

I hope that sounds good. I'm looking forward to our future efforts. we can proceed incrementally, and step by step, but I think of a few ways that we can move ahead to help make wp:history more of a resource, slowly but surely. I truly appreciate your help, your knowledge, and your support. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * hi. could you please reply when you get a chance? I greatly appreciate it. you can feel free to let me know if you do or don't want to leave a note such as I have described above. if you prefer not to, that's totally fine; simply please let me know your preference, whenever you get a chance. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I introduced myself pretty well when I put myself up for Coordinator candidacy; I don't think further introduction is necessary. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is totally fine. I'm very glad to have you there in that role now. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

May
Thank you for article improvements in May! - DYK our list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles? - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

GA mentoring request
Hi there, I hope you're well

I've just completed my first ever GA review and would love to have someone far more experienced in GA than me take a look at it - if you have the time, would you mind looking it over and seeing if there's any pointers you can give me, or anything I've missed? I'd really appreciate the help!

The review is over at Talk:Keith Sebelius/GA1 if you're able to take a look.

Thanks so much, Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 20:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You did a fine job; the only issue I see that wasn't addressed is that some of the collapsed Electoral History sections lack citations. I would also suggest to the nominator that they expand the lede section and that they archive the websites with the Wayback Machine. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Iazyges - I really appreciate it! I didn't mention the lack of in-text citations for the collapsed sections because the information in them is technically cited elsewhere in the article (albeit to the same OurCampaigns.com source that I raised the concern about reliability of) - would it be necessary in this context to have them inline there? I didn't think on first glance it was required per WP:MINREF, although it was very frustrating reviewing it without them there, but I read a GA review guide that said not to bring that sort of personal preference up!Re expanding the lead, is that similarly apt for a GA review - or is that just a recommendation separate to the GA requirements? Just want to make sure I'm following the review guidance as best I can!Thanks again for your help, and for your amazingly fast response Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It probably isn't strictly required for Minref for them to be cited, but this policy is a minimum standard for all articles, not the much more rigorous standards for GAN. I don't think there is a firm decision on exactly how much of the text needs to be cited, other than that scientific/math articles are exempt from in-line citations in certain places, but the opinion that all paragraphs/items should bear at least one citation seems to be acceptable and is the one I personally set stock in. Usually, if the sourcing of an uncited part is obvious I'll simply extend the citation myself. In this case, as the OurCampaigns source needs to be replaced, it seems to have some form of moderation, but it doesn't seem to pass the peer-review requirements.The lede length is subject to MOS:LEDE, and not strictly related to whether or not the article can pass GAN; although Good articles are supposed to be generally compliant to the MOS, there are some MOS guides so specific that most featured articles probably do not fully follow them. At 6,000 characters, one or two paragraphs is appropriate; the article would be fine to pass GAN without expanded lede, although it would probably do better for the article. Let me know if you have any more questions. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

got hit by a tag bomber
Yesterday, I wrote American Spaces and an editor, which I think was unfair. I but the editor involved only edits a couple times a year and likely isn't going to be back. I have a DYK nom and a GA nom in process so I don't want these templates to cause a quickfail and I ought not be the one to remove these templates. I'd appreciate a third person to take a look at it and let me know what needs done. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewed the article and I have to agree with you; I have removed the templates. The article seemed to cover the subject in a global sense about as well as it could considering that it is an American program, in spite of its global physical existence; it does a good job of covering the local politics of the locations about as well as it can without going off-topic, as far as I am concerned. I think the peacock template also makes little sense; the subject itself is essentially a soft-power projection exercise by and for the US Government, so that may have caused it, although the subject being inherently pro-American Government does not mean the article itself is; the articles makes no pretenses that the institutions are primarily focused on education, openly stating that their primary purpose. Wish you the best of luck with your DYK and GAN nominations. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)