User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 8

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved images into Signpost article
Hi Jez, I've moved the images from your comment on Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/News and notes into the article itself. I was looking for pics like that when putting the article together so thanks for free licensing them and putting them on Commons! —Tom Morris (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs, sorry I didn't upload them earlier. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me?
Yuor comments on Whitewater World/GA2 are very mean. I should be allowed to trout you. Mike  2  8  9  20:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but they are true. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * at least be a LITTLE bit nicer about it? Mike  2  8  9  20:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessments
Hi. I see that you kept Bomarillu as a GA, while the other two were delisted by someone else. Probably the right call. I have just nominated an article for GA that I have worked on a lot, Shriya Saran. I would be interested to know what you think of it. BollyJeff ||  talk  17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I was wondering whether you'd be able to do additional GA review for International Street (Canada's Wonderland), continuing this thread here. I've addressed your concerns, many valid, but some that I would like to contest with my rationale. It was unfortunate that my article was nominated so quickly (I intended to wait at least until after it appeared in DYK, which it as of yet hasn't, before making sure that things were solid enough to try for a GA. Needless to say, I was beyond surprised when logging in, in the afternoon, returning home from work, finding out that my article had not only been nominated but passed in GA. I'm used to close scrutiny, and I've been working on an article about another theme park for at least half a year now; that GAN took about three months, which was not entirely unexpected.) If you could take a look at the revisions, and see how it stacks up now, that would be appreciated. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Page number for Clifton Suspension Bridge
Hi, I wondered if you had a copy (or access to one) of Vaughan, Adrian: Isambard Kingdom Brunel — Engineering Knight Errant, John Murray, 1991, ISBN 0-7195-5748-8.? It is used (3 times) on Clifton Suspension Bridge but lacking page numbers. I was considering trying for GA again with that article & wondered if you had any thoughts or could help?&mdash; Rod talk 15:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check out the library next week. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The History of British Political Parties
Jez, I know you often complain about the low prose standards at GAN, but were you aware of that you passed the above article with this sentence: "Nicholas Whyte commented on the book on the page on Northern Ireland Political Parties on the website Northern Ireland Access Research Knowledge (ARK)?" No less than four 'on's. -- Eisfbnore  &bull; talk  18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good spot - I have copy-edited that. I expect have made mistakes in several reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hi Jez, I would appreciate it if you would give your input here on the GA re-assessment page. Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you - what is this for? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuckism GA Review
Hi Jez, Thanks for your Stuckism GA Review. I added all requested refrences and made some other changes to the article. But I need more time to make other changes, I'm not home this week. I wanted to know is it possible to put it on hold for another 7 days? (14 days with previous 7 days). Thanks. lapsking (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. lapsking (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jez, I almost made all changes you requested, except these 2: "The lead does not fully summarise the article."
 * Could you help me with this one (English is not my native language)??

"The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow."
 * And could you help me with this one too??

Thank you, lapsking (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Using the note parameter of the GAN nom template
Hi, Jezhotwells. I agree with your "Please don't edit the WP:GAN page directly, if you wish to leave a note, please use the note parameter" - but the subst:GAN, quoted in GAN, AFAIK doesn't describe this parameter. Perhaps someone should document this and other parameters. --Philcha (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America
Thanks for the clean up! Please watchlist the article, as it has a persistent crufter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Burge GA
I have corrected all of the issues you pointed out in your review and now feel the article is ready to be passed. Thanks,  Liam Taylor  20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

RE:A belated welcome!
Thanks. I'm glad atleast someone is noticing me. Nobody really knows all the effort I've done round here. I've re-/assessed a couple of thousands of articles for WPBeatles, when I should've been doing important school work! All that hard work I've put into WPBeatles. :L --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the problem is that you are not taking note of the problems that you have been causing. Please read the  notes on your talk page.  If you don't understand them then ask the person who posted them. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

ARKive
Hi,

Thanks for your participation in our event last week. I see you haven't done any project editing since - though you have been busy! Please do try and improve one or two of the articles in the project list. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Smiley Versus Karla
Please see my talk, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Abraham_Isaac_Kook_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have already been answered there, please sort this out on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks that was over a year ago!! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Byrds
Hi - I noticed Talk:The_Byrds/GA1 through the NFCC overuse report. The article has no less than 25 non-free media files in it - the 9th most of any of our 3,000,000+ articles. It's undoubtedly well-written but I can't see any reason how it can pass GA with this amount of overuse - no band article needs 18 music samples and it would be rejected straight away at FA. Sure, the media files have rationales, but that many clearly can't pass WP:NFCC. I think this has to go to GAR and I'll probably drop a note at WT:NFC, but I thought you'd like to comment first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Beef Jerky
As the original WP:PRODder, you may be interested in WP:Articles for deletion/Beef Jerky. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominations
Yes, I see, the rules were changed since my last nomination. It was too long break. On every wiki the rules are different. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehha of East Anglia
Hi there, just to let you know I amended Wehha of East Anglia according to your comments. Thanks for them. Hel-hama (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Prior Park
No I didn't.. I suspect it was Prior Park College where the article is fairly dire. I wanted to focus on the building etc with Prior Park. Would welcome any input as I'd like to take this one to GA.&mdash; Rod talk 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors
I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hotwells pics
I see you are working on Hotwells. If you want any old pictures you might like to take a look at this set at a site I found recently.&mdash; Rod talk 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, great site, but on a closer look the British Library is claiming copyright on these. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There has already been some case (I can't remember the details I think it was with BL or British Museum) & if the artist died over 100 yrs ago under US law (which governs wiki servers) then it is public domain. I have uploaded several from 17 & 18th century without any problems.&mdash; Rod talk 17:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have uploaded one to commons with the public domain license. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lapot
Thank you for your reversal. If I may inquire why do you maintain that lapot was a legendary practice, when the sources state that it was an "unconfirmed legend"? There is a big difference between legend and legendary:

legendary
 * "adj. so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a legend"
 * "adj. celebrated in fable or legend"

Would you agree that the sources imply or explicitly state that "The legend of Lapot" is something so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a legend? With no other intention than due diligence and neutrality, i sincerely look for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.182.5 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that you need to read all of the sources more carefully. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen the documentary and read some of the sources, and they all deal with a legend, a myth.
 * eg. "the disturbing short “The Legend of Lapot” (1972), which describes a particularly brutal method of disposing of the elderly, adopted from Serbian myth."


 * There is a difference between a legend and "legendary". Beatles are legendary, this practice is a legend, a myth, but certainly not legendary. These may be nuances of language, but the word "legendary" is misleading, implying a connotation of fame for a practice that is rather arcane, mostly unknown to the very inhabitants of eastern Serbia, let alone other parts of Serbia. Do you understand my concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.182.5 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly you do not understand English. Legendary id=s an adjective derived from the noun legend so its use in the article is correct. Thank you and good night. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I understand English very well, and that is why I'm concerned with a word like "legendary" that conveys additional meaning which may misrepresent the source's intent. The dictionary entry for "legendary" states:


 * legendary (ˈlɛdʒəndərɪ, -drɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
 * — adj
 * 1. 	of or relating to legend
 * 2. 	celebrated or described in a legend or legends
 * 3. 	very famous or notorious

If you are unwilling to discuss whether that the use of "legendary" to denote a myth may be misleading I must surmise that you are not acting in good faith. Do correct me if I'm wrong. 79.101.182.5 (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am acting in perfectly good faith. The dictionary definition you give above says legendary is an adjective of or relating to legend.  You appear to have no understanding of English as you cannot even interpret a dictionary and your substitution of the legendary with apocryphal demonstrates this eloquently.  Thank you and good night again. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You can resort to Ad hominem and berate my English all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that "legendary" has a meaning that is misleading. Furthermore, I'm not the only one to point this out. But you seem to think we all don't know English. The praxis of Lapot is a myth, unproven, not widely known, not praised and hard to believe. Which is why I chose "apocryphal". Anyway, since you are "guarding" the article, I opened this discussion in order to find a more suitable word that correctly describes the practice. But why do you insist that legendary doesn't have additional meaning?
 * Legendary (3.) 	very famous or notorious
 * "Beatles were a legendary Band"
 * "Her dinner parties were legendary"
 * "Lapot is the legendary practice of senicide" 109.93.18.94 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest that you look up the meaning of praxis before your next English class. This discussion is pointless as you don't have enough knowledge of the English language to understand what you are being told. End of conversation. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.
 * why do you insist that legendary doesn't have additional meaning?
 * you don't have enough knowledge of the English language to understand what you are being told

109.93.18.94 (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== Word "legendary" is deemed as a word that may introduce bias by the Wikipedia manual of style WP:W2W. Would you care to reconsider whether the use of this word to describe lapot is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.18.94 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hever Golf Rose
Hello Jez I have added a phrase explaining the term "sprinter" to the lead of Hever Golf Rose. I think that must have been the reason for the context tag. Please let me know as I want the article to be at least C class.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the context tag was because it is not until well down in the article that we discover in which country the horse was based. Please read and apply WP:LEAD.  The country of the horse should be in the first sentence. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll fix that, and check that I have done so in all my other articles. Thanks for raising this issue.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks
Thanks for your review and support. I've taken the liberty of moving your bolded support to the start of the line; The delegates prefer this since it makes it easier to spot. Hope you don't mind  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs, mate. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx for the Review!
Hi, Jez. Thanks for the great review! Actually, I did notice the backlog for GAN and I have been thinking about possibly tackling a review or two. I'm going to try to see about trying to fit in the time sometime in the near future. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Jez, I second that emotion - as Smokey Robinson used to sing. Many thanx for GAR. FA here we come. I'd love to help with backlog but current pressures... Your labours at coal face of GAN are much appreciated. Mick gold (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Magistrates of England and Wales
Hi - No problem, thanks for the nudge - as the nominator appears to be inactive, if no one steps up to do the required edits I will assist if I can. Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting the subtopic for The Walking Dead (TV series) for the GA nominee. I didn't know which topic to file it under. Again, thank you. --   Luke      (Talk)   00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Norman E. Rosenthal
Thank you for your review. I have fulfilled all of your requests. Please have a look when you have time. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
Really? Cause I've read and re-read the "instructions" and fail to see anything I did wrong, but it didn't work. So unless you are assuming bad faith on my part, then quite clearly the instructions are not clear to me.

Now, either offer to help me, or keep your "helpful" comments to yourself Jasonfward (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you list the reasons here, I will nominate for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer, someone else has already fixed the nomination for me, and I have now added my reason for nomination Jasonfward (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Scott Joplin/GA1
Can I just say that I think it is really unfair that you chose to review this GAN just 42 minutes after it was nominated. 1). You should let more time go by, in case other people want to review it. 2) There are some GANs which are over 2 months old, yet you review one which is 42 minutes old. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon! 10:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You can say what you like, but I choose to review articles that interest me. I no interest in many pop artists and songs of the 90s and 2000s. Those I have reviewed have often been poorly written, badly sourced and some verge on failing notability guidelines. When this is pointed out, nominators have frequently reacted like petulant teenagers, so I have stopped reviewing them.  Fairness doesn't come into it. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it does, because there has been a very long discussion about it, and I was told off for reviewing articles near enough as soon as they come up. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go and review some then? I have reviewed 513 GANs and 164 GA sweeps in 2 and a half years across all topics. The list is here. I have found it a very useful way of learning how to write good articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done. I reviewed 24 between GANs July 5 and August 10 of this year (Equivalent to six a week for four weeks). But I was advised to discontinue reviewing for what you are doing, which is reviewing articles as soon as they come up. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  23:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who told you off and where, and about which reviews? Please provide diffs. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the nature of how GANs are chosen. However, many thanks Jezhotwells for the prompt review - it has given me (and I am sure other editors who have had an input into the Joplin page) a good guide on how to improve it. The Peer Review done fairly recently didn't pick up many of the issues you have highlighed. Thanks again. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't remember the link, but about 10 or 15 people were involved. And it was because I was reviewing a lot of Mariah Carey reviews, look on my user page. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  01:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your advice
I suggest you check up on the facts before giving assistance here edit warring over the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland is covered by the AE sanctions doesn't matter what article it appears on be it sport or any other article. Mo ainm ~Talk  11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: GA Nomination "90210"
Hey Jezhotwells, thank you for taking the time to read the article. I haven't nominated an article before, so I'm wandering if commenting beneath it on the 90210 discussion page was the correct thing to do? Also, I don't know how frequent you edit TV articles, but TVLine is the most reliable source for TV news and TVbytheNumbers is the only source for TV ratings and extremely reliable. I would request that you remove those two sites from the fail criteria. Jayy008 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * TVbytheNumbers is not deemed reliable at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49, TVline doesn't look RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All old discussions. I will try and find a new discussion that says they're reliable. If we can't use TVbytheNumbers, then we can't use anything. No other sites posts final numbers. Jayy008 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Educational GAN
FYI. Much improved, but something to be aware of. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - the one I was looking at was the non-US specific one. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dorival Caymmi
Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for reviewing Dorival Caymmi! I've begun to make the changes you suggested on the review page. I have also left a question there for you. I've got to take care of some off-Wiki things right now, but I will be back within the next few days to continue working on the article. Armadillopteryxtalk 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the passing review! Your suggestions really improved the article. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review copied under your name
Hi! FYI: Relapse (album)/GA1. Also Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes i have been following the saga, I think all is sorted now. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Thank you very much for the review. I've done what you have asked for. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Romances
Hi

I am trying to look at points that need addressing in the FA. I think you said that "No." needed to be changed to "number". I have pointed out on the FA page that MoS says to use the abbreviation "No." (MOS:NUMBERSIGN). It seems a little strange that we could wind up using "number one" and "No. 68" throughout these articles.

Is it possible there has been some crossover in MoS recommendations? I cannot see where the use of No. is suggested to be changed. The abbreviations section seems to only apply to full titles which are commonly abbreviated rather than this instance.

I understand that MoS recommends using "one" rather than "1", and here "No. one" would obviously not make sense :¬) I did wonder if this was one of those cases where "No. 1" would be considered a 'general' exception "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" (Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers) when talking about chart positions - or more specifically "Proper names, formal numerical designations, and other idioms comply with common usage;"

The issue for me is that so many music related articles have this in them that I need to ensure this is addressed in my future copy-edits. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Romances GAN
I've cleared up some issues and I left some questions on the GAN. Thanks for the review. Erick (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So is everything else taken care of? Chaosdruid has finished the copy-edit. Erick (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West
I see that the article has been promoted. Well done on the extra work! Jaguar (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Princeton University Chapel GA nomination
Lagrange613 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a response to what I've said at the review. Thanks. Lagrange613 16:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Lagrange613 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

King Creole
-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for GA review.
Hi Jezhotwells,

First,

Thanks for your lightning fast and thorough review. I have never nominated an article and this helps give those of us working on the page a baseline to work from.

Second,

I respect your analysis (need to add more references though that will be hard to find as this is a bit of a niche topic, ISBN number needs fixing, Lead needs to do a better job of directly reflecting each subtopic).

Third,

I do have one question about your POV analysis. In fact coming in neutrally (I think I own and enjoy gear from most of the manufacturers out there) I took on the job of fixing one potential bias favoring one of the manufacturers (DD Hammocks). What do you see needs fixing?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

-- Canad iandy  talk  03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)