User talk:Philcha/Archives/2011/December

GA review
Hi Philcha, I'm heading off to try and find some snow, so won't be able to carry on the review for the next week or so. I've left a little note there again. Hopefully when I'm back it'll be ready! Cheers SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness
Your edit to Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness significantly screwed up the references, I have reverted.Naraht (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup drive?
Hi Philcha - I saw the note that you left at Talk:Arabian horse and was interested in one of your comments. You said "A drive to clean up old GAS is going on". Is there a documentation page for this cleanup drive? I haven't seen any discussion of it anywhere. I am also a little interested in your decision to start cleanup with the Arabian horse article, which has tags for one source of questionable reliability and two citation needed tags, when there are articles out there with so many more or more important tags. We will of course work on resolving those three tags, but I would be interested to know your rationale behind starting with this article. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dana boomer. I've asked the Cleanup drive authorities for 1 doc that links to other ones, but so far to luck. I chose articles with apparent problems with sources as I good find them guickly, and then work on another case. I hope this hepls. --Philcha (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What cleanup drive authorities? Can you provide a link to their page, please? If you're looking for a list of good articles with cleanup tags, that list is here. I'm curious if there is an official good article cleanup drive going on, as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. It might be something useful to post to the WT:GAN page. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also found it hard to find the root page, and use WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. Hope this helps. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But that page (the backlog elimination page) is for reducing the number of articles on the WP:GAN page, not for cleaning up old GAs. Which is why I'm confused with your talking about a GA cleanup drive, when the only drive that I've heard of is the one for reviewing current GA nominations. Dana boomer (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011 is the only source I have. --05:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "source"? In all of this I'm not saying that you're doing a bad thing in trying to get people to cleanup old GAs that have cleanup banners and tags, I'm just trying to figure out what "drive" you're talking about. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Philcha, you misunderstood the process. Do you mean WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, maybe?-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I wanted to help with the WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. I've found it very diffilutly to identify articles for receive, and tried articles with soucing problems. As a result of thes problems, I'm afraid I've lost my interested in the Drive, and am pulling out. --Philcha (talk)

Dragon's egg Characterization
You say in your undo reason "see main text, w citation", however the section reverted has no citations. Can you explain? Peryeat (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Plot summary has no or very few citations, as independent commentators don't seldom reproduce chunks of text. Note the GA reviewer not no issue about this. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble parsing much of this response ... perhaps it's a language barrier. I had editted the article, removing the objective-sounding claim that Dragon's egg has minimal characterization. I strongly disagreed with that assesment, and explained why I felt so in the Article's discussion. If you could defend your reversion, in the talk page, we may avoid a silly editting war. As of this moment, I can't understand your reversion -- something about citations? Peryeat (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See "cardboard" personalises in the section about reception. --Philcha (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)