User talk:Nicholas Perkins/Archive/2008/Mar

My RfA
Thank you very much for your support for my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup   (deal)  22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven 2004
For the wiki-links, do you just want me to link them once, for example Triple H to be in the Background and not continue to link his name throughout the article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:MOS suggests that once per section is enough, and generally towards the beginning of the section. So you could have Triple H linked in the lead, the background section, the event section, etc. That way the reader doesn't have to go too far to find a link for each section they are reading. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just needed to know. And, thank you for reviewing Unforgiven. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. It's a pleasure to review an article which is being maintained by dedicated editors - your (and others) quick response to the review shows that. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 03:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll try my best to answer your criteria. I have one more question, do you want me to reverse the date from August 16 2004 to 16 August 2004? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I have my date preferences set correctly and the dates are linked, I see the same format (see MOSNUM. However I would recommend staying consistent throughout the article. Also since this is an article on an American subject, August 16 makes more sense. (see MOSNUM for more on this). Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 06:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, just wanted to know and see if that was going to become an issue of the article not passing. Thank you for explaining it to me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm suppose to notify you here or at the article's talk page, but have we met your criteria or do we still need improvements? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Review completed at Talk:Unforgiven (2004) Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. We got some of the issues that needed to be clear. I'm not sure if there's more. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now listed this as a Good Article. Thanks for working with the process to make it a success. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And thank YOU, for taking your time to review the article. On behalf of the PW community, we thank YOU. Have a nice day. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review on Unforgiven (2004)
I've looked over your review, and it seems to me you've done a pretty thorough job. I don't have any real problem with the article qualifying as a GA, although personally I would have held off passing it until the lead had been expanded slightly to fully summarise the article, and the prose had recieved some attention. This sentence in particular made me cringe a bit: "'Flair retaliated Orton's comments, as he stated that individuals like Shawn Michaels and Mick Foley are not legends, therefore Orton isn't a Legend Killer, as to Orton's previous feuds with Michaels and Foley in a 'Legend versus Legend Killer' match.'"

However, the referencing, NPOV, images and other criteria are fine. Article leads may be something to watch for in the future; experience has shown that it's one of the most commonly overlooked review areas, especially with new reviewers. Overall though, nice work. Your review is detailed, specifies the problems without being critical or accusative, and you've collaborated with the editors to get things fixed... and they're happy too, so hopefully they'll be back ;)

Thank you for being willing to chip in - it is much appreciated. Looking forward to seeing you around GA! All the best, EyeSerene TALK 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help in review the.. err review. I'll keep your comments re: lead in mind during my next review. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit in D.Huttons page
In your reference to the change you made "While the Queensland Greens do not have an official leader, Hutton is generally considered to fill that role."

Cited another reference for it...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/02/07/1040227.htm

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)