User talk:Iry-Hor/Archive 11

FAC Mentorship
Hi, I've been trying to promote Mahavira to FA, but my efforts were not good enough. Recently, I was referred to FAC mentorship program, and hence I am posting this to seek your guidance for the same. Capankajsmilyo(Talk 06:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to help you if I can. I will take a look at the article and tell you whatever I can find that could make the article better. Note however that I am not a specialist of this particulr subject and would not be able to tell you if some infos are missing and things like this.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Mail
- and technically so do I because I e-mailed myself a copy. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! I have sent the translations by email, I hope they will suit you. You are quite lucky to have this precious book!Iry-Hor (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, one of the reviewers of my submission at FA lives near enough to the Bonn Institute of Egyptology to have been able to acquire it (and then send it through to me). The nearest locale to me that has a copy of it is very nearly 1,000km away. I tried putting it in German terms so that they'd be clear on why I don't have it: If I lived in München I'd have to drive to Aarhus to get the nearest copy, and to Göteborg for the one after that. Thank you very much for taking the time to translate those passages. I've sent you a reply by e-mail as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pdf copy, it is amazing to have it. It is the kind of book you never get as a wikipedia contributor. There are plenty like this e.g. on Userkaf's pyramid. A whole world mostly out of reach for us.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Checking in
Just checking in to see if you're OK, and whether you're able to participate at the moment. You haven't edited the FAC for Userkaf, or anything else, since mid-January. I'm afraid that without further responses from you it won't be able to pass. A. Parrot (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebka
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nebka 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 Khruner -- Khruner (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nebka
The article Nebka you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nebka for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khruner -- Khruner (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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 (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts
Hello, Iry-Hor. I gather you're busy these days, but I'd be interested in your input, if you have the time. I'm planning on a rewrite of decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts, and I've written up a draft of what's going to be the central section at User:A. Parrot/sandbox. The final article will cover the nature of the scripts, the pre-Rosetta efforts on hieroglyphs, and the work done after the mid-1820s, but as this is the section that addresses everything from the discovery of the Rosetta Stone to Champollion's Précis, it's the crucial one. I think I've managed a pretty careful examination of which scholar accomplished what and when, and an even-handed treatment of the priority dispute between Young and Champollion, but I'm seeking second opinions. Given that you worked on the article on Champollion, your opinion would be valuable.

Please ignore anything contained between percent signs; I use them to denote text I'm unsure of, or notes to myself.

One particular question—should Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy be called "Silvestre de Sacy", "de Sacy", or "Sacy" when referring to him by his surname? The sources I'm using can't seem to agree! A. Parrot (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Parrot for thinking about me regarding this task. I will now read the article to see if I can think of something to add. Concerning Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, he should be called "de Sacy".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A. Parrot (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While I am reading through, I have a question regarding the following statement: "His brother Jacques Joseph, a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in Paris", implying that Jacques Joseph was a member of the academy in the first few years of the 19th century (fromt he context). But the complete list of all members of the Academy since 1663 is maintained online by the institution itself here and while Jean-François Champollion is listed as member from 1830 until his death, Jacques-Joseph isn't at all. I think he wasn't a member of the Academy, perhaps a correspondent? In any case, I would trust the Academy itself as a very solid primary source on the matter.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hm. The page I cited said Champollion-Figeac had an office at the Académie, and I assumed that meant he was a member. Elsewhere Robinson says Champollion-Figeac was "the right-hand man of Bon-Joseph Dacier" (p. 113). Perhaps the article should say he was Dacier's "assistant"? A. Parrot (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bon-Joseph Dacier is indeed listed as a member of the Academy and he held an important position, being a "Secrétaire perpétuel" (perpetual secretary) from 1803 to 1833, a position that would have come with considerable benefits such as employing people in his service (possibly Champollion's brother). Here, in this short bio of Dacier dated 1912, it is also interestingly stated that Dacier helped Champollion the younger (Jean-François) directly and encouraged his research from very early on. Concerning Jacques-Joseph: I found this here stating explicitely the following: "Jacques-Joseph devient à l’Institut le secrétaire particulier de Dacier [...] qui lui fait octroyer une rétribution annuelle de 2 400 francs" meaning that Jacques-Joseph was made the personal secretary (i.e. assistant) of Dacier at the "Institut" (not entirely clear from the context, but almost certainly the Academy), with a tidy income of 2400 francs a year, which I guess Jacques-Joseph could have used for his brother. Note in comparison the GDP per capita of France one decade earlier was c. 220 livres a year (see here). From 1803 onwards, 1 francs = 1 livres = 0.29gr of pure gold so the salary is some 10 times the GDP per capita of France (perhaps a bit less owing to the decade of difference), the equivalent of earning ~350,000 dollars a year today... No date is given for this appointment, but we can guess a date no earlier than 1803 when Dacier became perpetual secretary. The source is an excellent reference from the Revue de la BNF (a journal, its name meaning "Review of the National Library of France") which you can cite to justify the position of Jacques-Joseph as assistant. It states also what happened next to Jacques-Joseph: Élu membre correspondant de l’Institut le 22 juin 1814. Il démissionne de cette charge en 1829, installé dans les lieux par Dacier, Champollion-Figeac pouvait devenir membre de l’Institut. Mais l’instabilité de ses opinions politiques, et quelques jalousies personnelles, dont celles, tenaces, de ses futurs collègues Jomard et Raoul-Rochette, l’en empêchent : ses trois tentatives, en 1820, 1824 et 1828 restent infructueuses – alors que son frère Jean-François, également protégé de Dacier, y est élu en 1831. Dacier s’emploie à faire entrer son secrétaire à la Bibliothèque redevenue royale." This means that in 1814 Jacques-Joseph was elected a correspondent of the Academy opening the path for him to become a member but in spite of trying 3 times, his candidacy failed because of political reasons (he was seen as a supporter of Napoleon). So Jacques-Joseph really never was a member of the Academy. Instead Dacier worked to have him become a member of the French Royal Library (the future BNF).Iry-Hor (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for digging up all those details! I think it should be enough to rely on Robinson, adjust the wording, and tweak the citation to include another page. A. Parrot (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! 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 (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, 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). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment
I don't know if you've seen it, but decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts is now fully rewritten. If you have free time, I encourage you to see what you think of it. A. Parrot (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wonderful and it is one hell of a page-turner! You hav to put it up for FAC.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FAC is the plan, although there are a few small tweaks I want to make first. A. Parrot (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations on getting the Atlanersa article to featured article status! Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thank you for your review which participated in getting this article over the line. Watch out for Userkaf coming to FAC within a few days; and later for Sahure.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the nominations! It is always nice to see a lot of activity in the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, John and I both really like that blurb. (We don't want to say that at TFAR because it's serving as the blurb review ... that is, we don't want to bias the commenters there ... but it's close to perfect.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well thanks I had no idea there could really be good and bad blurbs!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that there can be bad ones :) - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help add citations. Thanks you. 115.78.230.128 (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks this has to be the weirdest message I ever received on Wikipedia, and I have been around since 2012!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rue Sainte-Catherine Roundup
Hello! Your submission of Rue Sainte-Catherine Roundup 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! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Iry-Hor, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AIry-Hor added] the " " permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sahure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biennial ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sahure check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sahure?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Atlanersa scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Atlanersa has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 13 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/November 13, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for the "Kushite king of the kingdom of Napata in Nubia (modern day Sudan), ruling in the mid 7th century BC. The impetus for working on this article was provided by the visit to Sudan of a photograph, M. Gehricke, who then proposed to upload his pictures to wikicommons. I hope this will be the first FA article pertaining to the antiquity of a poorly covered area of Africa ..."! - Yes, great! - I have a FAC open but am still writing the article ... ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for your kind words and good luck for your FAC. I am no expert in music but I think certain reviewers might like to look at your FAC, see e.g. Tim Riley.12:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rue Sainte-Catherine Roundup
Hello! Your submission of Rue Sainte-Catherine Roundup 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Rue Sainte-Catherine Roundup
--valereee (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Cantor at FAC
Hi Iry-Hor, Thank you for volunteering to be my featured article mentor for "Georg Cantor's first set theory article". I look forward to working with you. You have already compiled an excellent list of items for me to start work on. It will take me awhile to get through the entire list, but I will be informing you of my progress and I will continue to do my work at User:RJGray/Sandbox100. —RJGray (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iry-Hor, Thank you very much for your excellent lists of things that need fixing in the article. I have responded to all items except the ones that can be delayed. I have made responses on my Talk page after each item and implemented them in User:RJGray/Sandbox100. I've enjoyed going back and making the article better. My reasons for wanting to nominate the article for Featured Article go far beyond this one article. I believe that going through the Featured Article process will help me write better Wikipedia articles and this has already started! I was also motivated to read more of the MOS and check out what others have done in Featured Articles. I look forward to more lists of things to fix. —RJGray (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your article is really excellent. You can confidently propose it at FAC now! Write a very short blurb to present it at FAC and go for it. I will support the article and I am sure plenty of other people will do so too. As I said, once this is FA (FAC can take a couple of months so it will be next year), I strongly suggest you propose it at Today's Features Article Candidates.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iry-Hor, That was fast! I didn't realize I was so close to a FA. I was going to ask you for an example blurb, but I've found them myself. For example, I found one that you were involved with at the beginning of Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2019. With the holiday season approaching, I'm going to be very busy so I won't have that much time to fix things. I have no idea of what kind of response time they expect on a FAC. Should I wait or go ahead? Of course, I first have to write the blurb. I'm getting ideas now by reading some blurbs and then I have some writing and rewriting to do. Thanks again for the work you have done in making excellent suggestions for the article. —RJGray (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it was fast because your article was already in great shape ! So a few advises concerning FAC:
 * 1) On the FAC blurb: the idea is not so much to summarize the article, but rather to motivate people into reviewing it. Indeed, to pass FAC you need at least an image review, a source review and spot checks, and 3 supports with prose reviews. It happens from time to time that an article fails at FAC for lack of reviews (this is rare but you want to avoid this disappointment)! Thus, your blurb can include, beyond a short non-comprehensive summary, a few sentences about the importance of reviewing the article. For example I observe that FA maths article on wikipedia are very rare: there are less 20 maths-related FA articles on a total of nearly 6000 FA. In other words ~0.3% of all FA articles pertain to maths. This is catastrophically low, especially knowing that FA articles themselves represent ~0.1% of all wikipedia articles.
 * 2) Once you have put up the article at FAC, you need to watch for reviews daily or so, because once people have started reviewing the article they will wait for your responses and discussions can ensue. Thus you cannot fail to respond for long times as otherwise the reviews won't be completed and the article will have failed. Thus, if you feel like you will be busy during the upcoming Christmas period and won't be able to respond quickly at FAC, it is better to post the article at FAC in January, i.e. when you are sure that you will be responsive on short time scales.
 * 3) The FAC process is long (a couple of months is typical) with short bursts of activities (when someone reviews the article) with periods of nothing in between. This is normal.
 * 4) The blurb is crucial after FAC if you want to be candidate at Today's Featured Article. At this point you will need to sit down and write a really good blurb summarizing the article comprehensively with tight constraints on the number of words. We will see this together if you want, once the time comes.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iry-Hor, below is my FAC blurb. I've rewritten it several times and I need feedback on it.

This article is about Cantor's first article on infinite sets, which contains his discovery of two kinds of infinite sets: countable sets and uncountable sets. The members of a countable set, such as the fractions between 0 and 1, can be written as the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, …. The members of a uncountable set, such as the real numbers between 0 and 1, cannot be written as a sequence. The significant developments in mathematics that came from the use of countable and uncountable sets justify the importance of this article. Also, it would be good to have another featured article on mathematics: of the nearly 6,000 featured articles, only 18 (about 0.3%) are on mathematics.

This Wikipedia article passed its GA review in August 2018 and its DYK review in December 2018. Since this is my first time nominating an article, I contacted a FAC mentor, Iry-Hor, whose excellent advice led to further improvements. I look forward to more advice that will hopefully lead to a featured article.

Thanks for your help, RJGray (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice blurb, perhaps the sentence "The members of a countable set, such as the fractions between 0 and 1, can be written as the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4," could make clearer that while the observation on sequences is generally true for countable sets, the precise sequence given refers only to the example, e.g. "The members of a countable set, such as the fractions between 0 and 1, can be written as a sequence, for example 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4,". Also is it not "an uncountable" rather than "a uncountable"? Other than that I think this blurb is quite sufficient for FAC. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Iry-Hor, Thanks for spotting the problems with my blurb. Its first paragraph now reads:

This article is about Cantor's first article on infinite sets, which contains his discovery of two kinds of infinite sets: countable sets and uncountable sets. The members of a countable set can be written as a sequence; for example, the fractions between 0 and 1 can be written as the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, …. The members of an uncountable set cannot be written as a sequence; for example, the real numbers between 0 and 1 cannot be written as a sequence. The significant developments in mathematics that came from the use of countable and uncountable sets justify the importance of this article. Also, it would be good to have another featured article on mathematics: of the nearly 6,000 featured articles, only 18 (about 0.3%) are on mathematics. RJGray (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice and good luck at FAC! Let me know when your article is up there so I can support the nomination.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratz
Congratulations are in order for bringing all 9 biographical articles of the Fifth Dynasty pharaohs to FA status. I've been near entirely absent for the past couple months, and wasn't able to devote the time to help out at Userkaf's article, my apologies about that. Hope you're well, regards Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! How are you ? I have been quite absent too recently. I will now concentrate on bringing the article on the Fifth Dynasty itself to FA status, which represents a lot of work. Once done, we will have a huge featured topic with the Fifth Dynasty article, all 9 on the pharaohs plus your featured articles on their pyramids. Actually this will be the largest featured topic of wikipedia in terms of number of articles.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

FA candidate?
Hi, do you think there is enough ground for Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus to be FA? I think I've found every source possible, but there are usually only a few mentions in the sources. All biographic FA are on people with some notability, but this man is really unknown. Oups, j'avais pas vu mais on peut parler français.:) T8612  (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Niveau notabilité je ne vois pas où est le soucis: quelqu'un dont on parle encore (même peu) plus de 2000 ans après sa mort est notable. Par contre l'article n'est pas au niveau pour FA: la lead est beaucoup trop courte et tu mets toi même en doute le fait que l'article soit complet. Une recherche sur JSTOR donne 58 publications scientifiques en accès libre parlant de lui ici dont certaines sont cependent déjà dans tes sources. Il faudrait les parcourir une à une en regardant ce qu'elles disent sur lui. C'est plus rapide à faire que ce qu'il n'y paraît: tu ouvres l'article et tu fais une recherche sur son nom dans l'article. Tu verras rapidement ce qui est dit. Pour être vraiment sûr je te conseille de regarder ce qu'une recherche avec son nom sur Google Books peut donner. Finalement, cela vaut toujours le coup de jeter un coup d'oeil sur Wikipedia dans d'autres langues pour voir si il semble y avoir plus de matériel, puis, le cas échéant, de le traduire avec google translate pour voir grosso modo de quoi il s'agit. Si quelque chose d'interessant ressort, il faut retrouver la source etc.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merci pour le retour. En fait, la plupart des résultats sur JSTOR ou Google Books désignent des homonymes ou l'ami de Cicéron qui s'appelait Atticus, si tu cherches "Torquatus Atticus" (avec les guillemets) sur JSTOR, tu n'as plus que 6 résultats... Idem pour Google Books (beaucoup de résultats renvoient en fait à de simples listes de consuls). Par contre, je ne mets pas en doute le fait que l'article soit complet ; je pense qu'il l'est. Pour le lead, je viens de développer un peu. T8612  (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok pafait donc dans ce cas, il te reste juste à mettre en forme pour FA: vérifies que la lead synthétise chaque section de l'article; essaye de mettre les images sur le même format, vérifies que chacune à son alt-text etc. Bonne chance en FAC! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Neferefre scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Neferefre has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 18 February 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/February 18, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about "a short lived pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the mid 25th century BC. There is nothing special about his reign, however his unexpected death meant two important things. First, it caused a bit of turmoil in the dynastic succession, and second his pyramid and mortuary temple were far from finished. Because of this, the pyramid was left relatively unscathed by grave robers, allowing us to uncover more statues of Neferefre than of any other king of the Fifth Dynasty. In addition, his mummy survived the centuries and reached us, showing that he died in his youth."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
 * 🇺🇸 Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
 * Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
 * Pirate Flag.svg CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
 * The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included 🇺🇸 L293D, 🇻🇪 Kingsif, 🇦🇶 Enwebb, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski and 🇳🇵 CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 🇺🇸 L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Userkaf scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Userkaf article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 20, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 20, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about the "founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th Century BC. Userkaf's reign heralded a period of ascendancy for the cult of Ra over that of the other Egyptian gods. Epochal, paradigmatic shifts in the conception of kingship that held sway during the previous Fourth Dynasty took place under Userkaf. These changes are perhaps best manifested in the small size of his pyramid as well as the parallel construction of the first Sun Temple. Egypt's military might and trade relations seemed to have flourished at the time."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your always present kind words !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone Award

 * Thank you very much, it's my pleasure to contribute to wikipedia ! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including one week dedicated to the top half of Africa, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius  11:15, 28 April 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)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember 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. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Hello. I see that you haven't edited Wikipedia in nearly two months; I hope everything is all right with you, and that you'll be back sometime soon. When you do come back, there's major work going on at Hyksos that I think you could contribute to. I'm not very knowledgeable about the Second Intermediate Period, but I know you are.

Hope to talk with you again. A. Parrot (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello ! I am fine thank you, a bit overwhelmed with work coming back from lock-down. I will take a close look at Hyksos today! Then back to Pepi I ! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Nyuserre Ini scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Nyuserre Ini has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 12 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 12, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Woah nice !Iry-Hor (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Re FAC
Following your comments on the FAC for Pepi I Meryre, I have heard of the youtube channel – seen a couple of their videos – but was unfamiliar with the website, all though it does seem to have some very valuable databases! The only extensive archive online for early music (Or as I like to call it "Pre-Bach music", just to remind people that music didn't start with Bach!) is the The Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music which I am actually currently working with another user on creating a template for. Anyways, indeed the musicology is unbelievably messey, especially before around the 1150s where anonymous troubadours roamed the world, polyphony didn't really exist, and so many composers were semi mythical or a composer among many other occupations. I'm still trying to untangle many of the categorizations and composers for the Medieval and Renaissance eras, working on some smaller composers like Grimace and Ellis Gibbons before moving up the ladder to people like Landini or Machaut. Jacopo da Bologna – who I agree is a lovely composer – does have an article that needs some work and he's definitely on my list. Most of the current early music composer articles are the result of two users (who are less active now but still hanging in there), one of which who used to favor the intext citation style, so unfortunately some articles, like Jacopo and even Renaissance music, are riddled with that mess of a citation style (Maybe that new proposal will get rid of them once and for all?). Anyways I hope to begin reviewing your FAC in the next one or two days, just waiting for a good time where I can sit down and focus on it. Aza24 (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I am glad to see all this progress on pre-Bach music ! I didn't even know that Grimace and Ellis Gibbons existed... Of course there is much left to do on wikipedia (that's true for all topics), but it's part of the pleasure of editing !Iry-Hor (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the fact that there's so much to do is what makes Wikipedia so overwhelming but also so exciting! I'm assuming you're planning to work on the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt soon for that featured topic your user page mentions? Now that is exciting :) Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I want to, I hesitated before starting Pepi I and felt a bit overwhelmed by the sheer work required by this page. But it really needs to be done and with 9 pharaohs FA and I think 4 of their pyramids also FA, it will be one of the largest FA topic of wikipedia if completed! That said, I was asked recently to help on Khyan, the most powerful of the Hyksos with an article the size of a dime.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)