User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 76

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of K2-18b
The article K2-18b you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:K2-18b for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peinado, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crust and Cordillera Occidental.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll handle them at the end. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lake Tauca, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Amazon and Lipez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Advice needed
Since you're an extremely experienced editor when it comes to GA, I'd like your informal advice on Samuel Dexter Lecompte. I recently expanded the article from a stub, and I'm wondering if it would be sufficient for me to nominate it for GA. I've never done this before, and so I need guidance here. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  11:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hrmm. This topic is well outside of my specialty, but one thing I wonder is whether the formulation in the lead - which mentions his views on slavery first - should be supplanted with a mention of his pro-slavery actions. Because currently there is more in the article about his actions than his views. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good observation, I'll look into that. Thanks for your time. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  15:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1

 * Jo-jo, sorry, I think I'm going to bail on reviewing TRAPPIST-1. The problem is that there's nothing wrong with the material; to help improve it I have to read (parts of) the papers and understand them, in order to figure out how it can be rephrased without losing accuracy.  It's extremely time consuming and although I'd love to see the article promoted to FA I don't want to put that much time into a single article.  Best of luck with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Thanks for the offer, anyway. So I guess I'll need to ask again to see if they think that the concerns they noted on the past FACses have been addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I should be able to help and there may possibly be a delay before I'm able to have a look again at the article. Sandbh (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandbh, ping me when you finish and I'll give it a copy edit, assuming that Jo-Jo is happy with that? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, that would be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at the lede and section 1. I do not know what is going on but the standard of grammar appears to have deteriorated since I last saw the article at FAC. I have adjusted where possible. There are too many technically obtuse terms. I noticed some instances of things being said about Trappist-1 that it was not such as it is not a variable star. Why does this need to be said? To my non-astronomical mind it says nothing. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Such dwarf stars are often variable, and variability is a common trait in stars; I thought the mention was warranted for completeness sake.
 * Regarding technical terms, here's where I have to ask a FAC-policy question (also ) - when you have particular terms, is it better to link the explanation or to footnote it? In most cases, it can't be easily explained in-text w/o either oversimplifying or making it overlong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion a couple of months ago captures my thoughts, which I summarize there as "if knowledgeable readers feel that the flow is being broken up too much by inline explanations, non-knowledgeable readers should accept that, and be willing to accept links instead, or, if absolutely necessary, an explanatory note".  gives an amusing example of what a baseball article would be like if we demanded explanations similar to those often requested for technical articles.  It's a judgement call, because every reader has a sense of what's obscure, but I think putting in too much inline explanation and too many footnotes risks making an article unreadable for experts *and* non-experts.  The example I gave in that discussion, Laplace transform, is a good one, because it's not esoteric, but to someone unfamiliar with that sort of mathematical tool the article will be completely incomprehensible.  Trying to solve that with parenthetical explanations and footnotes would be a mistake. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See, my thinking is that footnotes are a relatively reader-friendly way to explain stuff that can't be taken in a link. I've added some to terms flagged by Sandbh, but don't take this as a definitive decision on how to explain them; I mostly put them in because removing a footnote (if we decide to do that) is easier than to readd one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandbh, I've taken care of some of the notes you made. That said, I now have to ask if the grammar was better in this version, since it was substantially altered afterwards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Jo-Jo; thanks for the ping. We demand that the lead simultaneously be a summary of the entire article and digestible to a layperson, yet doing both on a highly complex topic might not be achievable. Or, more simply stated, the lead might have to be dumbed down more than a level. The NASA page I offer has not a single term or sentence I don't understand and I don't need to go clicking elsewhere for readability. I often suspect our problem is a) the English, not the topic, and b) the result of trying to do too much in the lead, paradoxically, to (over)comply with LEAD. We most often find this in Wikipedia's math articles, where you can go to any math textbook and find a completely readable explanation of a given topic, but Wikipedia makes the leads so impenetrable in terms of the English that one is left with no idea what the thing actually is. I am still somewhat there with TRAPPIST-1. I don't believe the problem in such cases is the highly technical subject matter, rather instead, what the writer has chosen to include in the lead and how proficient the English/grammar is at doing that. Sometimes our knowledge of the technical gets in the way of our ability to cut through to what the average reader wants or needs to know, and they have to be able to read at least the lead. The question is not whether to use wikilinks or footnotes; it should be instead how to write a lead that requires the reader to do neither (click out to another article or click to a footnote). It is more important to my mind that the lead be digestible to anyone who clicks on the article than it is for it to completely summarize all points raised in the body (in particular, the highly technical points). We don't want the reader to give up and go elsewhere after the first paragraph. And then, how much we have to force a reader to click out varies depending on how deep we get in to the article body sections, and how likely someone not familiar with the topic is to read that section. Taking a medical example, I wouldn't worry about forcing a reader to click out in the Pathophysiology or Causes section as much as I would in Signs and symptoms, which any casual reader might be reading. So, looking at TRAPPIST-1 with all that in mind, we still don't have a lead that is accessible to any reader. The lead itself needs two footnotes (and is still hard to understand), while I can understand everything at the NASA page above suggests we may be trying to cover too much in the lead, and that if we rethink what needs to be stated in the lead, we might find that it can be done without going all technical. Starting over might help -- forget about everything you know and making the lead a concise summary of that, and think instead of what the layreader, who knows nothing of the topic, will want to discover. They don't want to learn the entire field of astronomy in all of its technical glory; they only want a basic understanding, and the NASA page I gave you does that without ever confusing the reader. We are trying to do too much, and not succeeding at that means the reader will want to go elsewhere after reading only the lead. On a sidenote, we have an expert on Wikipedia at dealing with exactly this sort of thing (it's what he does for a living), and yet he was chased off of FAC-- to our great loss. If I wanted this article to be brought to FA status, I'd be over at User talk:Tony1 on my knees, begging him to help in spite of past issues at FAC, because teaching you how and leading you through fixing this article is within his capability. (THere's a grammatical error in the second sentence by the way: With a mass is about 9% of the Sun's, it has a slightly larger radius than Jupiter ... ). Good luck, Jo-Jo; I admire your tenacity. By the way, I would never risk asking the GOCE to copyedit an article of this nature; Mike Christie was wise to decline to do so for the reasoning he gave. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This page from NASA might be helpful in understanding some of our Wikipedia problems.


 * Jo-Jo Emereus: Re, "Such dwarf stars are often variable, and variability is a common trait in stars; I thought the mention was warranted for completeness sake."


 * Yes, that works fine if you already know that such dwarf stars are often variable. But if you don't know, like me, then I could not work out the point of saying something that Trappist-1 was not. The context for the statement was missing IOW. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hrmm, yeah, I see, that lead could be simplified a bit. I've done so at the moment. I see that the GOCE thing may have been a mistake, too. I'll see if Tony1 is interested., seems like the article does not say anything about variability anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for TRAPPIST-1
Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Salar de Pajonales
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Cerro Tuzgle
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 June 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Galán, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tambo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1
JJ I've completed my first copy edit sweep. Tomorrow afternoon my time I expect to be able to complete the second sweep. The article should be gtg (good to go) after that. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks in advance! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Second sweep completed. I left some "eh?" 's or equivalent and some sources are now in red. Thereafter you should be gtg for FAC. There may still be some tiny blips which the FAC reviewers will pick up. A word of caution in that some reviewers may feel the article is still too technical for an FA article, which may be its undoing. I happen to disagree. Sandbh (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not forgetting to ping God the Mild who offered a ce when I finished! Sandbh (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Already did so on their talk page. I've processed the remaining comments; I'll need to think more on some of the unused sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Fupa" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fupa&redirect=no Fupa] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:SpaceX Starship&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Template talk:Infobox settlement&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Image reviews
Hey, I saw your second image reviews on this nomination and this one. Thank you so much for your work, the volume at which you are doing reviews is truly remarkable! I wanted to ask if there is something in my image reviews that requires improvement, since you're doing second ones after them. My own FAC currently requires a source review if you are interested. Regards.--NØ 08:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Did a source review there. Gonna warn folks however that I don't plan to keep up with this tempo for long - currently I am waiting for TRAPPIST-1 to get FAC-ready so I don't have much else to do, but when it is I'll probably be returning to my normal article writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at User talk:Ivanvector&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted your reversion of Rarotonga hotspot
Sorry about using the not peer reviewed yet article as reference but I had believed it and contents of which is peer reviewed and you are aware of, meet the criteria, perhaps not. Happy to wait till published however. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this one is published so we can use it. Although you should probably use the sfn template (Template:Sfn) if you need more than one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing
Hello Jo-Jo, I'm curious if you have had any problems with using only one source per paragraph at FAC. The reason I ask is because I'm currently in the process of rewriting and expanding text for an article that I plan on bringing to FA. Some information is just not widely published so there may be several paragraphs with only one source. Thanks. Volcanoguy 23:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have any problems with one source per paragraph, although I still expect that the source backs the paragraph text. Also, unless you can easily find the required information with Ctrl+F, I'd be a bit bothered if the source is a hundred pages document with no indication of which pagenumber to search under. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, the source I'm using is a hundred pages document but Ctrl+F can be used to find the cited information. The article in question is gonna be one of the largest I've ever wrote so I'm gonna list it for peer review when I'm done with it. Volcanoguy 17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, which article is it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Mount Edziza volcanic complex but the text I'm working on is currently in my sandbox. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 20:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salar de Gorbea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023
<div class="hlist" 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 * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Herzl Kabilio
, Can you please draftify my article you deleted without any warning, Herzl Kabilio, into Draft:Herzl Kabilio here I can improve the article? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's now at User:Das osmnezz/Herzl Kabilio Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)