User talk:Ovinus/Archive 2

Worry
I have tried to follow your advice on not posting more to the AN discussion. I posted 2 specific times to profusely apologize for a specific mistake I made. Now someone has changed it into a proposal to ban me from editing Wikipedia for at least a year. This seems to be a very unfair proposal, expecially as a punishment for merely asking for a topic ban to be lifted. No one warned me that asking for a topic ban to be lifted could be grounds for punishing me more. The whole thing has gone sideways. This is really worrying and distressing me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Two more times is greater than zero, I'm afraid; you should not have said any more. Formally withdraw the request (just say you no longer will petition for a lifted topic ban—the discussion itself can no longer be halted) and take a long, self-imposed break from Wikipedia. That is, install WP:BREAKENF, which will prevent you from logging in, and set an end date of one month from now. If you are unable to voluntarily keep yourself from editing, that suggests this project bad for your health, which is infinitely more important than editing. I can sympathize with that. But if you can't follow that advice, I simply cannot help you. I wish you the best. Ovinus (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989
Hello, Ovinus,

I thought I'd let you know that seconds before I was about to delete this PROD'd article, the page creator removed the PROD tag. I don't know why they waited all week until the last possible second (literally) to do so but I thought you'd want to know in case you want to pursue other forms of deletion. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Metal–organic biohybrid
Hi,

I declined the copyvio revdel request for Metal–organic biohybrid. The source paper from which the text was copied is available under a free license. The only thing missing was proper attribution which I've now added after restoring the text. Regards. Whpq (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I had no clue. Thank you for your diligence, and I will be more careful going forward. Ovinus (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Just in case you don't have pings enabled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your edit of transistor count – why?
Hi, I spotted your edit of the article and since I haven't seen you contribute there before, I guess you don't watch changes.

I reverted your edit, as it's beyond my understanding how it can possibly be misleading (nor did anyone else raise such concern before), but feel free to explain why you think so. 188.66.34.3 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (See Special:Diff/1115110665.) Ovinus (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Discussions of questionable edits belong to talk pages of their respective authors, so please don't transfer it to mine.

"Thanks for bringing up the revert to me; I won't contest it, although I'd suggest it be converted to prose (in fact, the paragraph immediately above it contains almost the same information). My concern was that the table compares chips in a haphazard manner: it varies across years and chip types, and doesn't provide information on the transistor size/density. I feel that text is more appropriate for giving context, for example the currently un-elaborated meaning of 'wafer' and 'stack'. Cheers, Ovinus(talk) 21:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)"


 * There's no point in converting it to prose, as it's a tabellization of text just before it for ease of reading, so labeling the table as "misleading" doesn't make any sense at all.


 * Regarding "haphazard" manner: there's absolutely nothing haphazard about it; the table aims to give a broad view of transistor-count landscape at a glance, and this is best served by a table like what we currently have. Variation in years is due to the fact that DRAM, NAND and logic processes and respective products have significantly different update cycles. "Wafer" and "stack" remarks are in place to give a bit of explanation behind more than order-of-magnitude difference in transistor count vs. "regular" chips. It's perfectly clear to those familiar with semiconductor tech, and, I would fully agree, cryptic to non-experts, but it's a heavily technology-oriented article, and any interested reader can refer to main articles for more information.


 * In future, you should *never* jump at conclusions as to whether some fragment is misleading and delete it as you have done without doing some research or consulting first, especially when you're neither an expert, nor a regular contributor to an article, as you can easily be wrong in your judgment. It's not just about information, you have implicitly accused people who maintain this article of placing or keeping misleading information in Wikipedia – for no real reason. And even though implicit, it's a serious accusation, as misleading info doesn't belong in WP, and when it comes to *intentional* misleading (i.e. not due to obsolence, typo, lack of expertise, or some other honest mistake), the best course of action, in case you have evidence, is not just to edit, but to report the case to AN so the article is reviewed by an expert and the fragment's original contributor, along with article maintainers, are scrutinized for other cases of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.34.32 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I posted to your talk instead of replying here because IPs don't receive pings, although I could have just used talkback. And yes, I should have used a word like "confusing" or "misleading"; noted for future reference. Thanks for the constructive criticism, and I agree with most of your points about the article itself. I still believe that the table is best presented as prose, at least in the lead, but I'll leave it to more-knowledgeable folk like yourself. Ovinus (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons del nomination: Please review
Good evening. I have just written a detailed analysis that aims to address every key point you've raised in the Commons deletion nomination you've raised a few days ago. Would you mind taking a thorough look, and address any important points that I may have missed? Cheers in advance, -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I have time. Thanks for your civil and intelligent discussion. Ovinus (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi!
Ovinus,

I just thought I would say hi because I noticed you left a message on my talk page almost two years ago (sorry for the delayed response!). I stopped editing Wikipedia but picked it back up recently. I hope you are doing well; you gave me a warm welcome when I was new here back in September 2020. mossypiglet (talk) Go blue! 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you! Not much has transpired in two years, it seems... business as usual. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Commendation
Just wanted to commend you on your handling of a perhaps slightly awkward situation at Talk:Trans woman. There's no prejudice for asking a question or being confused about something, and when it was pointed out, you understood, and graciously went beyond the call of duty, first striking part of your post, and then boxing it as o/t. That demonstrated a lot of good faith and good etiquette, but you probably didn't need to go that far. In any case, I look forward to collaborating with you on that or any other article. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I found your treatment refreshing; after some unpleasant overtures a year ago, I've generally stayed away from WP:GENSEX, both because of the acrimony and my unfamiliarity with the subject (as you found). There's still a woefully naïve part of me that wonders why we can't all get along, but I suppose if title capitalization can piss off editors enough to warrant DS, then topics of genuine social importance won't be much better. Ovinus (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Roads4117 Mentorship
FYI I have finished the exercises. Roads4117 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I have finished paraphrasing, and apparently it is 89 words long. Is that OK, or does it need to be slightly shorter? Speaking on a BBC programme, Ms Kelly said that the hard-shoulder extension could be used for the M1 and M6, and that tolls could be introduced to tackle congestion, like the M6 Toll in Birmingham. She went on to say that "there will always be a need for road widening" and "there is a huge and severe congestion problem". Her main point, however, was whether the M1 and M6 need an active traffic management approach to "get more people using the motorway network and improve reliability on the road". Roads4117 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Will check it out. Ovinus (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Don't worry about the delay. Roads4117 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have redone the paraphrasing exercise. This time it is around 77 words. Ms Kelly said that the hard-shoulder extension should be used on both the M1 and the M6. To tackle congestion on Britain's roads, tolls could be introduced, like the M6 Toll near Birmingham. She continued to say that there will always be a need for road widening where there is severe congestion problems. Her main point however, was whether the M1 and M6 need an active traffic management approach system, to improve reliability on Britain's road network. Roads4117 (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have completed the second paraphrasing exercise, however I have copied a couple of words from the article. The length is just under your deadline of 40 words (38 words to be exact), so if you want me to redo the exercise to make it slightly shorter, and/or not to copy any of the original article, then please let me know. Except the M6 Preston Bypass, the M1 was Britain's first major motorway. It was a new type of road - with dual carriageways, three lanes in each direction, a continuous ‘hard shoulder’, no speed limit, and flyover junctions. Roads4117 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Also Ovinus, if you don't want me to put mentorship stuff on your userpage, and keep it on our designated shared userpage, then please let me know. Roads4117 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, please keep it on the shared page; I receive notifications for it. Ovinus (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, cool Roads4117 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus, sorry to put mentorship stuff on your userpage but do you have any more exercises for me, or have I finished them all? I put this on the shared userpage, but you probably didn't see it. Thanks again, Roads4117 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, and apologies, I've been really busy with school. This will probably continue till the beginning of December. I'll put something quick to do. Ovinus (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ovinus Thanks for that, and don't worry about being busy at school. Roads4117 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
... for reviewing Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Early end of the backlog drive
A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Pinging you since you did comment on the second FAC, in case you have suggestions for resolving the issues noted there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

ROGD Rfc and MEDRS
Thanks for your comments about MEDRS at the ROGD Rfc. The timing of your comments was a bit ironic, and perhaps you aren't aware of the extent to which we are in agreement about the basic issues of source compliance, esp. where MEDRS is involved. I also can't help wondering if you were unaware of the Rfc subsection at the time you cast your original !vote relying heavily on MEDRS, and then in your follow-up comments with about it. (See in particular, subsection .) I find the voting in that Rfc chaotic and based largely on opinion rather than policy or on actual data, and I created that subsection in order to attempt to put it on a solid footing with respect to both. The data gathering and reporting is still ongoing (and the analysis portion not even begun), and if you wish to help with data gaterhing, that would be appreciated. I'll just add that it's been over a month since the Rfc began, so in theory someone might try to close it at any point, although normally with the quantity of continuing responses, and clear indications (such as my "more coming..." notes) they wouldn't close an active discussion. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for alerting me to it. Guess I should have skimmed the discussion a bit more completely (admittedly it seems the futility of RfCs increases logarithmically with the length in bytes), and I'll take a look at sources I can access through WP:TWL. Agreed about the feelings-based voting and I appreciate your willingness to undertake a thorough source review.
 * I think I got quickly sidetracked from the main question of whether "pseudoscience" should be in the lead, mainly because my vision for the article is much shorter and tighter than how it is currently. I worry that so much emphasis on various individual studies, and the commentary of humanities scholars—who don't have nearly as much relevant expertise as, say, pediatricians—actually "legitimizes" the dispute rather than debunking it with clinical (in both senses of the word) exactness. IDK.
 * I'm a bit confused as to why my comments' timing was "ironic", so I'd appreciate clarification there. Regardless, thanks for your continued civility. Ovinus (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The irony was only that, here it is, over a month since the Rfc started, and I finally got fed up and started searching Scholar and books for actual sources (including some MEDRS-compliant ones) just a couple days ago, and around the same time, you got fed up with the non-compliance of the state of the article and mentioned it in your !vote, without having seen the new section (or so I suspected). Not that the Rfc section vitiates the problems in the article, but the coincidence of timing was ironic, I thought, as you were basically attacking the same problem I was, only from another angle, not aware that I was motivated by the same underlying principles as you. That's all I meant by it.
 * As far as your 2nd paragraph, I agree, and think it's a bit tricky, because not being strictly a MED topic&mdash;although it is partly that&mdash;but per the title a "controversy" article, in its latter guise, humanities articles and even Bozos quoted or reported in reliable sources (let's suppose WaPo or Newsweek or somebody reports on some nutcase like Alex Jones or other loony weighing in) are appropriate in the article, regardless how many light-years their theories are from MEDRS, as it wouldn't apply to the "controversy" aspect, whereas it would apply to Littman's claims or other MEDRS sources talking about the alleged syndrome, rather than the controversy.
 * It's tricky, because of the intersection of what could be a MEDRS issue, but clearly has plenty of tentacles into sociopolitical aspects that are part of the culture wars. Such situations are not unprecedented; consider an article like Beginning of pregnancy controversy, which has plenty of medical references ostensibly, but is entitled with the "controversy" title, making it clear that the central topic here is about the controversy, not the medical aspect, which nevertheless is part of the issue. There's no way to divorce culture war abortion debates from that article, which clearly don't need to be MEDRS; and yet, underneath, there's a MEDRS core around which the controversy was built, or perhaps one should say, "hung" as on a coatrack. The ROGD controversy article seems somewhat analogous to me. Another such is the Water fluoridation controversy, which has a clearly different topical focus than Water fluoridation does, and different requirements for sourcing. Hope this helps as a framework for considering what kind of sourcing we would need at the ROGDc article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, which I find convincing. Beyond medical information like time of viability, effects of having an abortion (or not) on mothers, etc., medicine can't directly weigh in on the philosophy and ethics, and so it would be unreasonably restrictive to require reviews and clinical guidelines. I guess we need a nuanced view. I would be hesitant to include information sourced to primary sources on conflicting results on the efficacy of some new drug, because I think that can be deeply misleading, versus just saying, "The efficacy of xyz is not firmly established." Most readers cannot weigh the evidence as well as scientists; the usually useful maxim of "let them observe the dispute and decide" doesn't make sense to me there. (Anecdotally, I know some people who—much to my chagrin—make medical decisions from stuff they read on Wikipedia. WP:Content disclaimer notwithstanding, that's part of why I care a lot about accuracy.) I think the ROGD issue lies somewhere in the middle: There are absolutely objective answers to the question of whether young transgender or queer people's identity is so fundamentally influenced by the Internet, but there are also broader philosophical concerns over, say, the appropriate role of technology in our psychosocial development, that require opinionated answers.
 * Thanks again. Ovinus (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Tips for reviewing GA
@Ovinus Hello. I've seen you have much more experience in reviewing GA Mathematics articles. I am still new, and I have no idea what to do. Any tips? Honestly, I don't mean to request a second opinion in Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1, but I would like to question for tips just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey! First of all, don't sweat it; it's just an article review. You can always ask for a second opinion, and David's articles are usually excellent, so there's little risk of rubber stamping something problematic. I think the way I review depends on the article. For something like Triaugmented triangular prism, where in principle some of the material should be accessible to a high schooler, my main focus is accessibility. Obviously, you can't make everything super simple. But if there's something that you understand that could be said clearer, note that.
 * Writing Wikipedia math articles is very hard; most general encyclopedias shy away from any equation involving more than a dozen symbols, while many specialist encyclopedias throw accessibility to the wind (c.f. Encyclopedia of Mathematics). Reviewing them is similarly tricky, especially if you're missing a lot of background—that's often me.
 * You can also consider images. For example, one image that comes to mind which would enliven that article would be a picture of that decomposition of the shape into a prism and three pyramids; that can be tricky to visualize. If I could remember how to use Blender I'd make one myself.... You can drive-by comment on existing GANs—for example, Unit distance graph. And of course, next time you can always try easier articles, especially ones which are in topics you are already familiar with. That's why the sorting GANs by topic exists.
 * Happy editing! Ovinus (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ovinus Thanks for the tips. However, I am not 100% sure can understand lots of technical, since I can only and try to understand it. Isn't that my mistake while reviewing? Beside, what do you mean accessability here? And how is it related to high schooler? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you feel you can't give a complete review, you can mark it for a second opinion. Ovinus (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Am I still allowed to ask during the second opinion? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can comment as you please, of course. (By "accessibility" I mean "readability": Can a high school senior who likes math understand what's going on? If not, can the material be explained in reasonable space, at that level? Or is it simply too recondite?) Ovinus (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a reviewer like you, does a reviewer have to be expert in any mathematical fields before reviewing? I can only tell that I am actually not expert in it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not an expert in any (sub)field. Ovinus (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks a lot. I have request the second opinion in Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1. I will put secnod opinion in talk page as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retired Editor Question
Hi. My name is Amber and I work for Yelp. I disclosed a conflict of interest and proposed a few changes at Talk:Yelp. I was hoping you might be willing to take a look. It appears as though in prior years Yelp collaborated with, who did the GA review of a prior version of the page. However, Protonk appears to have retired a few months back. Alalbrech (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Also, you might want to put the checks and crosses in your reply, aka using {{subst:ESp}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it ok if I add {{subst:ESp}} to the start of your replies? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; someone has to clean up the barn. Format my replies however you like, although I don't think that's too important. Ovinus (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of El Palo Alto
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article El Palo Alto 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of El Palo Alto
The article El Palo Alto you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:El Palo Alto for comments about the article, and Talk:El Palo Alto/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ovinus!


Happy New Year! Ovinus, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ovinus (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of El Palo Alto
Hello! Your submission of El Palo Alto 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 09:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for El Palo Alto
BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yelp edits
Hi Ovinus. Thanks for chipping in at Talk:Yelp. I wanted to check-in to see if you saw my post asking for a few more edits and if you had time to review/consider them. Let me know and thanks again. Best regards. Alalbrech (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Coronary artery bypass surgery c/e
Hi Ovinus, thanks for your work at the above article; have you finished copy-editing it? I ask because the sub-section on the GOCE Requests page still has your working tag on it. If you're finished, please mark the request with either done or partly done; if you plan to continue the c/e, please let me know, otherwise I'll mark it "partly done" so someone else can continue the c/e. I'll ensure you get a co-credit in the archives. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the total lack of communication (and I think this is the second time this has happened with GOCE). I worked through the article except the Results and History sections. Due to some urgent real-life events I'll need to be offline for maybe a month or two, so please mark it for someone else to review. Again, sorry. Ovinus (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply; no problem, sorry I've only just seen your reply after checking back (I don't see pings). When I checked on 1 February, you were still working on it. Thank you for your work there; I'll post a link to this section at the Requests page and make sure you are co-credited in the archive. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  06:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

GA history
Hi -- not sure if you're planning to go back to the code you wrote to piece together GA history, but I ran into another oddity that is likely to cause problems if you do. See Talk:Staffa; I hadn't realized there were old GA reviews that were simply sections on a talk page. In that case there's articlehistory, but that probably won't always be the case. And it also occurs to me that a few GAs have been deleted, which will also screw things up -- though I would guess most have left redirects behind so that would make them traceable at least. I am starting to think the task may be impossible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's on the back burner behind school and WP obligations than I really shouldn't have taken on. Thank you for the link. The article is still categorized as a good article, so presumably we could go through discrepancies between the category, and the set of review pages, by hand, and just once. Talk-page-section reviews which ended in a fail, and which no one categorized, would fall through ... but meh, I doubt those are common. Ovinus (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)