User talk:LavaBaron/Archive 1

DYK nomination of Aroma of Tacoma
Hello! Your submission of Aroma of Tacoma 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! George Ho (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political positions of Lincoln Chafee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second Amendment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Aroma of Tacoma
Allen3 talk 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
I did not mean to publish the article. I was creating a draft and accidentally published it before I was finished. I will complete the article in the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtkapler (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Political positions of Lincoln Chafee


The article Political positions of Lincoln Chafee has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unencyclopedic content

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

E-mail
I have send you an e-mail. An answer would be apreciated.Anders Wennersten (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Al Bayan radio logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Al Bayan radio logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Bayan (radio station) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Institute of Continuing Education
Hi LavaBaron. I put some time into this article today. Could you please take a look, and comment at AfD? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks very much for the barnstar. I love those things.  :-)  The barnstar inspired me to edit the article a bit more.  It's now over 2.5 kb of readable prose, which seems enough to escape AfD, assuming that the whole 2.5 kb is quality material (of course).  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For an entity more than a century old I think the stuff about garden history is UNDUE. But I'll give you another barnstar for the effort. LavaBaron (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Political positions of Lincoln Chafee
Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:UK Independence Party
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:UK Independence Party. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Review issues
LavaBaron, you seem to be plunging into GA reviewing with great enthusiasm, but I'm concerned that you're also being too quick in your reviews, coming to positive or negative conclusions too speedily.

Typically, if there are issues with a nomination that can reasonably be fixed in a week's time, you are expected to give the nominator the opportunity to do this. The George Washington Truett article, which you seemed to review and attempt to fail almost immediately, does not list the sort of major problems on the review page that would preclude such fixing. There are limits to what sorts of structural issues should qualify an article for a quick fail. Five points about inadequate references are not enough, though if better references cannot be found after a week on hold, then you can consider failing the nomination then. (You have not properly closed the nomination per the GA instructions, which is probably a good thing, as it shouldn't be closed/failed yet.)

By the same token, you appear to have listed Public Storage too quickly. Just a quick look through finds basic punctuation errors (which should not appear in any GA, and should be enumerated in the review), and the fact that this is a submission by a someone with a Conflict of Interest (COI) means that extra care needs to be taken. The article sentence in the last section, "Public Storage is the largest of four publicly traded self-storage REITs.", should not have been allowed to pass without comment, as it's cited to a 2008 source, and this is 2015: it might no longer be the largest, or the number of publicly traded self-storage REITs might be more or fewer at present. I'm rather surprised that you took it on as one of your first reviews, and more so that you finished so very quickly. This one may well have to be reassessed to be sure there aren't any other issues waiting; if there are, the GA listing could be revoked. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The very specific nature of the claim makes the fact the source is dated 2008 entirely unremarkable. I'm unaware of what "basic punctuation errors" to which you're referring. If you'd like to point them out, I'd be happy to consider your counsel with greater gravitas. As for George Washington Truett, the sheer volume of unsourced, or poorly sourced (e.g. comments sections), statements justifies an immediate failure. I'm surprised and perplexed you would think that article is in a position to be easily brought-up to GA standards when the editor is liberally sourcing comments sections. LavaBaron (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the very specific nature of the claim in the present tense ("is") that has its sole support from a 2008 source makes it suspect in 2015: in this age of mergers and acquisitions (Public Storage made a major one only a couple of years earlier, before which point the four may well have been five), it could easily be outdated. As for the punctuation errors, there are quite a number. The phrase "real estate" is mostly not hyphenated but is sometimes, including places where it should not be. There's an "Inc..", and no comma after "California" following "El Cajon, California", "mid 1980's", both "U.S." and "US" used in the same article, and more besides. You didn't notice any of these? For the Truett, a problem I saw with your review is that it wasn't at all clear to me, when reading it, why this wasn't fixable. You list five things, each of which would seem to have a straightforward solution:
 * a source might be found for the first statement you mention (or it could be removed or modified to something that has support in a reliable source),
 * the interment is actually mentioned in FN6 and that source could be substituted for the unacceptable one,
 * sources could be found for namesakes or they could be deleted,
 * the "took several weeks" could be changed to "spent a week" to fit FN6, and
 * Paget's disease, if it can't be sourced, can be deleted.
 * I've seen far worse than these five be fixed in the course of a successful review. It does sound like you found more than this, however, and it would help the nominator to point out more of these, along with some general issues in other areas, so the article doesn't keep coming back and being failed again and again. When a GA nomination is reviewed and then failed, the instructions for failing mention, among other things, Leave instructions on the review page indicating what needs further improvement.
 * Having looked at the one example you give of sourcing a comment section, which is clearly unreliable and shouldn't have been used, I'm frankly more concerned about the close paraphrasing of FN6's comment (it's clear from the source article, which is itself reliable, that Truett did preach to cowboys in western Texas every summer for decades). If one source is closely paraphrased, then others might have been, and this is important to identify and point out as a severe problem in any article on Wikipedia, much less one nominated for GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As described in my review, I did not review for style issues due to the overarching sourcing problem. I'm perplexed and surprised you did not notice that, BlueMoonset. Did you even read my review? LavaBaron (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I noticed it. I'm perplexed and dismayed that you failed to consider (or was it just that you didn't notice?), when discovering the source of the "weeks" information was a comment, the fact that the article nearly copied that comment was not so serious an issue that it was imperative for you to mention. It's further evidence of the problematic nature of your review that you didn't highlight this the second you saw it. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, BlueMoonset! LavaBaron (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend that you seek out a mentor before doing additional GA reviews, given the issues with your first two, and to hold off from doing further ones with issues like COI until you have gained more experience in the GA space. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge, and respectfully decline, your recommendation, BlueMoonset. I do not acknowledge there were any issues with my previous two. You are free to bring this up at ANI or COIN if you are not satisfied with this outcome. LavaBaron (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I add my concerns here. In my opinion, your GA review of Public Storage is shockingly inadequate, and I encourage you to desist. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge, and respectfully decline, your encouragement for me to desist from participating in the GA review process. If you would like to describe why my contribution is "shockingly inadequate" instead of just firing that rather melodramatic and non-GF phrase off to see where it lands, I would probably be more inclined to consider your concerns. You are free to bring this up at ANI or COIN if you are not satisfied with this outcome. LavaBaron (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you persist with this type of GA review, then I most certainly will bring your reviewing to a broader community venue of my choosing. But before escalating, I implore you to consider the feedback your first reviews have received here. In my six years of editing, I have immediately reconsidered and tried to learn whenever another editor has criticized any aspect of my work. And I have been quick to apologize and conduct myself differently when the criticisms were offered in good faith. That is the case here. I encourage you to reconsider rather than digging in your heels. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your feedback is not GF. Entering another editor's Talk page to simply declare their contributions "shockingly inadequate" with no elaboration, and then to follow it with overt threats, is the pinnacle of incivility and is the underlying reason your comments are not being better received by me. I would suggest you spend a moment of reflection on how you can present yourself in such a way that would elicit a better response from those with whom you choose to interact. As this does not appear to be a productive dialog, I'm afraid I will have to request you desist from posting to my Talk page. Any further concerns you have should be addressed in one of the "venues of your choosing" (but, perhaps, not this venue) you mentioned. Thank you. LavaBaron (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)