User talk:Pyrotec/Archive13Q2

Marie Lloyd
Hello Pyrotec, hope you are well. I wondered whether I could I bother you for a GA review of the above? I am in no hurry as I'm not quite done yet at the peer review, but I thought I would get an early indication now to see if you could oblige in the next few weeks. All the best! --  Cassianto Talk    11:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cassianto, I could do it in that timescale. I've got one GAN review to just finish and another one that I've signed up to do but not yet started. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is good news! Could you pencil me in after the second one? --   Cassianto Talk    19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well joint second. I promised to give a "second opinion", as the nominator was having problems with the reviewer's comments (or lack of responses). I've just noticed that the nominator has subsequently closed that review and renominated, so I feel I aught to sign up for that one as well. I can do two nominations together, it just takes a bit more effort/time. 19:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm easy with that. I don't mind waiting third, (Lloyd is pretty lengthy at 64,000 bytes), but if you think you could combine, then I certainly won't object.  I just don't want to impose by taking too much of your time.  As I said, I'm in no rush at all so I will happily fit around you.--   Cassianto Talk    20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I often choose long articles to review, but I find its quite relaxing to switch to a shorter article when I need a break. I've got two fairly short ones signed up at present (a UK-geography and a USA- judge), so the first article's review could be finished by Monday/Tuesday, depending what I find, but Marie Lloyd does not seem to have been nominated yet. I'm not likely touch it this week, but it needs to be nominated first. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, It will be. I am just waiting for  to finish his review which I shall then close and nominate.  The peer review should last no more than two to three days.  I will drop you a line when its been listed. --   Cassianto Talk    23:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now featuring at a GAN near you. All the best! --   Cassianto Talk    00:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I'm going on holiday (booked this morning), so its going to be the end of the month (possibly 28th) before I start. Pyrotec (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Happy Holidays! --  Cassianto Talk    11:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't go until Thursday and if there is time I'll make a start on the review, but if it does "pan out" that way, there will be a gap of about 10 days in the middle. Pyrotec (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Would it be worth putting your name against it, even if it is the end of the month. I would hate the thought of anybody else reviewing. --   Cassianto Talk    11:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good article reviewing
Thank you for your review of the London Symphony Orchestra article. I occasionally do GAN reviews myself, and will try to learn from your focused and constructive approach. I am in your debt - as, I have no doubt at all, are numerous other editors. Tim riley (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments. Pyrotec (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

GAN
You have previously reviewed articles at GAN with an architectural content, and I wonder if you might be interested in having a look at Sharpe, Paley and Austin. This was a practice that existed for over a century under different titles; it was the major architectural firm in northwest England, and IMO has been under-recognised. The article's a bit long, but I am in no hurry, and would understand if you do not want to take it on. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, I'm happy to review at, but I have one review almost finished, another two that I'm going to start today and I've promised to do a fourth one as well. On top of that I may be Norway for a week or so starting very soon. That is not meant as a discouragement in anyway, just an explanation why I'm not likely to look at in April, but if you don't mind waiting until May, I'll happily do it. Pyrotec (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm willing to wait. I know that I will get a reliable review from you (rather than some silly ones I've had to suffer).  I want the article to be good as it is part of a series of articles and lists I am creating for the practice.  If you would like to put a "hold" or whatever on the nomination, that's fine by me.  Hope Norway goes well.  Many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Peter. Actually the cruise leaves on Thursday but the "availability" of some late bookings appeared in yesterday's local papers, I tried to make a provision booking this morning but I won't know until tomorrow whether I'm going, or not. I'm taking a "positive" view of the situation - my late August holiday in Portugal just having be cancelled due to "lack of demand". Pyrotec (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a holiday. If so, I hope it goes well.  So much depends on the weather.  We went in June and were very lucky.  We had two days in Bergen, it did not rain, and the locals said it was a miracle.  And in early June we were too early for the "summer season", so not all the ferries were running! Nevertheless a fabulous country. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Eh?
Good_article_nominations/Instructions are not the instructions for Good article nominations? I was just told they were. If those aren't the instructions, where are they? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is the same link as the third link at Good_articles on the right side, where it says, "Good article instructions" ...? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for admitting their your revert was wrong and that the instructions for GA review is indeed located where I linked originally. I have therefore restored the link to the article in question.


 * I'm not sure how you concluded that I hadn't read Good_article_nominations/Instructions. Perhaps you think this edit and this edit were just lucky coincidences?  And I'm not sure how you can conclude that I had never read Good_article_criteria after I just made an edit to it.  But I guess actually reviewing my contributions and diffs would take more time and hastily responding with a condescending, inaccurate, and unwelcoming message simply can't wait!


 * I had already reviewed the page before the GA nomination process began, which was the meaning of the "top to bottom" comment. And I had worked with Arildnordby on issues that I thought were pressing, as can still be seen on the article talk page.  As you may or may not know, this is part of the GA nomination process, "If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself."


 * I'm glad you were able to observe that this was my first time doing a GA review, after I had repeated it in multiple posts in multiple locations. I'm not sure why you're choosing to "forgive" me rather than "thank" me for my contributions.  If you want to complain about anything, that the process was done out of order seems to be the only part that was done wrong.  Which is why I left the nomination open for over a week, a good faith effort on my part to allow other editors to contribute or dispute my reasoning.  Since other users had already given Arildnorby several commendations for his work on the article, I was confident that I was being objective.  You have not disputed this.  I'm not sure what you're upset about, but your hostility is certainly unwarranted.


 * If you want more out of a review than "pass" or "fail" why don't you consider specifying it in the instructions. As far as I can tell, since only one editor is involved, documentation is not needed in any particular place in any particular format.  If you're not satisfied with this, you need to change the instructions, not attack me for following them. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol, child, if you think you're fooling anyone by saying this message lacks hostility, you are mistaken. Little known fact about Wikipedia editors: we are not stupid.  You may think you are supremely clever by skirting around the rules at WP:CIVILITY, but the intent is clear.


 * Tell you what, you go ahead and report me to the GAN review police and slap me with the worst penalties that their authority will allow. Lol.


 * "| topic = Socsci" was not copied from anywhere. Even on careful review of my edits you're overlooking things to serve whatever vendetta it is you're serving.  But this is besides the point, I did infact read each of the articles mentioned, even going so far as visiting Template:Article_history to make sure my use of the template was correct.  But please, tell me how I did not read what I did read because that will accomplish something.


 * You are correct that forgive is my word. You're probably only used to conversing with other kids your age, but on Wikipedia, editors can often infer meaning that is not explicitly stated.  When you say, "although I'm fully prepared to accept that you did what you did for all the best of reasons" it is clear that you are implying forgiveness for some imagined transgression.


 * I do not consider your words "condensing", but that they are condescending is obvious. It is telling that you consider simply initiating a discussion with another editor an act of hostility.


 * Could you explain to me how you were aware of my history of edits and fixes to the article, and yet claimed that "there is no evidence that you have reviewed it, or even reviewed it against WP:WIAGA" ?


 * I messaged you to ask why you had reverted me at Good_article_criteria. You accidentally admitted that you were wrong in your resulting rant about my scandalous abuse of the GA process.  As I said before, I left the nomination active for a week to let editors who might have a problem with it contribute.  If you think you've discovered something wrong, feel free to re-open the nomination and prove your point, otherwise, spare me your empty threats and e-peen flaunting.  I'm not interested in whatever crusade you're on. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you are critical, Pyrotec!
But, is it really worth hassling PraetorianFury over this? If you think the Impalement article ought to have a more thorough review, then send it to reassessmentArildnordby (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As for previous quickfail
It is true that the previous quickfail was !due to lack of citations". However, as I pointed out then, was that those were provided in the main text below, so that "unclear citation style" would be a more correct assessment, as you can see for yourself. Old impalement, 29th JanuaryArildnordby (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * REmoved comment was WAY beyond acceptable, I'm extremely sorry I was pissed off for a moment.Arildnordby (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem With Lead section
I make the following observations in the lead: 1. "Impalement is the penetration of an organism by an elongated foreign object such as a stake, pole, or spear, and this usually implies complete perforation of the central mass of the impaled body." Is this the point you have problems with?

2. " In particular, techniques designed to effect penetration merely of extremities like hands or feet are excluded from this article (for such cases, see, for example, crucifixion)." Is this delimiting what you have problems with?

3. "While the term "impalement" may be used in reference to an accident, this article has a primary focus on .." Is this delimiting what you have problems with?

4. " has a primary focus on impalement as a form of execution, " Surely not this? It summarizes the main focus of the article

5. "how it was performed" The article contains many such forms of impalement, thus the lead description

6. "highlighting some places where it was used" Is this problematic? If so, why?

7. "In particular, the article surveys impalement as a form capital punishment meted out by the judiciary," Here, I point to the central core. Is that wrong?

8. "but also, secondarily, some examples from generalized massacres within the context of war, rebellion or persecution have been included" Is this misrepresentative of the article?

9. "Furthermore, examples of sacrificial customs where impalement of either humans or animals has been a central element in the ritual have been included." Was this wrong to mention in the lead?

10. "Impalement has also been used as a way of inflicting post mortem indignities " OR this?

11. " been used as a means to prevent the dead from rising from the graves" Or this?

12. " Impalement has also figured in myths, legends, literature and films," Or this?

13. " Finally, a few examples are given of impalement in context of animals, as in animals using impalement on prey" OR this?

14. "hunting and preservation techniques in which impalement is a central element" OR this?

These are the 14 distinguishable classes of content I chose to include in the lead. Are any of them wrong to include? Or are there other classes of content I ought to have included.

As yet, you haven't made any specific points of criticism, feel free to do so.Arildnordby (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for tips on lead!
I'll work on those as my next project. I had just finished a more informative addition to the Lead, when I saw your message. Basically, I include there inferrable conclusions (i.e, inferable from main body) of temporal and geographical extent of the practice, along with "Main Classes" of impalement techniques surveyed, and something on survival time and the two sources of pain consistently reported that the impaled suffered from (pain by involuntary movement, or just having the damn stake in the body, and secomndly, an extreme sense of thirst). Those elements are important enough, I think for Read-Lead-Only-readers to be given.Arildnordby (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd
Great news about Lloyds new GA status, thank you very much for reviewing. See you on the next one hopefully! -- Cassianto Talk   08:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No slight intended
I hold a view that every article should be a GA, not just those that happen to be. GAs themselves encourage that in other articles, and yes, it can be used as a tool to ensure no slipping of standards. We do not diverge at all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your review of Sharpe, Paley and Austin and your helpful comments about the lead, which I accept. I doubt that I shall take it to the firing squad of FAC, but time will tell. Meanwhile I am very pleased that it is a GA. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Petroleum Warfare Department
I thought that you might like to know that I have moved my Petroleum Warfare Department article to the main space. Based on our discussions of the past, I think it may be of some interest to you. The article is now nominated for DYK. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the update, Gaius Cornelius. I've not be active for on wikipedia for a couple of weeks now, so I have a back-log of things to do (including a GAN review), but I'll try and look at the article either this comming weekend or the one afterwards. I also promised to do something for you at The National Archives, which I think involved looking at the Official Histories of World War One, I did do it late last year and my notes (in pencil) are logged in a note book, somewhere, but it's buried in a pile of papers. I'll also try and dig that one. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks. 14:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Dualin
FYI I stated a stub last month.  Volcano guy  21:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Palm Beach Post article
While looking at the Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations archives, I found your post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 19. I tried to find the article at NewsBank, which has a copy at http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/11492D534E68CFF0/0D0CB57AB53DF815. I added to Tracy Thorne-Begland a link to The Palm Beach Post article. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. Pyrotec (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

GA
I have let User:EEng know of your offer of reviewing Phineas Gage if it is renominated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Fyi, the Gospel of the Ebionites article is currently under review for WP:FAC if you are interested in helping out. Ignocrates (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pyrotec. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to review and comment on WP:Featured_article_candidates/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites/archive1. I'm concerned the FAC nomination is going to fail from a lack of reviewer participation. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ignocrates. The problem for me is that I'm going on holiday and I shall not be back until 29th May. I can make a contribution then, but not before. I will add a note to the review, and I hope that it is still open when I return. Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on FAC review. The nomination is going to expire within the next day or two, so if you have any further comments, you may want to add them to the FAC page soon before it archives. Ignocrates (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was promoted to FA today. Thanks for weighing in with your support. I should have another article in the GA pipeline soon. I have been waiting for FAC to close to make sure the reference format I chose is acceptable at the FA level. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Marrakesh
Hi, any chance that you could review this one for me? I'm looking for a high quality reviewer...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dr. Blofeld, I certainly could review it, but I've got two reviews already open, I'm keeping an eye on a contentious GAR, and I've promised to review another GAN, if its renominated. So, it likely to be early to mid July before I'm likely to look at it. Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR comments
Since I didn't want to fill the GAR with petty squabble, I'm going to comment here.

I was quite taken offended by your comments. On the basis of one strongly worded comment about Mensdorff-Pouilly's acquittal (a very specific aspect of the bribery issue), you made the far-fetched assumption that I wanted my talkpage comment included in article space. When I replied by specifying that the conviction has been reported as a formality (even the presiding judge openly criticized Mensdorff-Pouilly at the trial), you didn't bother to comment on it. Neither did you seem to want to actually discuss my attempt to explain what some of the most notable political controversies are.

Instead, you gave me a pretty heavy-handed lecture about WP:BLP and U.S. libel laws. And this despite acknowledging you have no background knowledge of the factual issues. Can you please tell me why you chose to make such presumptuous comments in a GAR?

Peter Isotalo 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've not looked at your talkpage or even made any comments on it. However, in respect of the GAR, I'm not convinced that it was a GAR, as there was no proper review of the article against WP:WIAGA, no clear statement of what the non-compliances were, and no clear statement of what was needed to be make the article compliant. It appear to be used merely a talkpage to express your comments about controversies, some of which seems to have been made in controversial language not supported by the references given. I did comment specifically on your new information about the criticism by the judge: I specifically wrote in that page: " Firstly, in the light of new information given above, a neutral encyclopaedic statement might be: "Mensdorff-Pouilly was acquitted of bribery, but was convicted for falsifying evidence and was heavily criticised by the judge" (or words to that effect); and whatever words are used must be fully verifiable by citation(s)". Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That I involved "my talkpage" is something you came up with. I don't know where you got the idea, so please give it a rest, please. I described the GAR as the equivalent of a talkpage, though. I'm sure we can debate that idea forever, but the point is that you still started accusing me of POV because, slander and what not because of a single sentence of discussion. A discussion that was about article improvement. I didn't falsify or warp any facts, but merely chose strong language to summarize. I didn't claim that I wanted any such wording included in article space, nor have I tried to introduce such language in the article myself.
 * Yet you focused entirely on this one matter. You ignored or scoffed at the other issues I attempted to clarify. Why did you choose to focus on this one detail rather than discuss the merits of the facts I brought up?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter, on the GAR page you opened, on the 25 June you commented the following "Actually, given that you chose to take a talkpage quote of mine" - that is the first mention between either Peter or Pyrotec's edits. I believe that is what he is referring and responding to. Kyteto (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really odd that anyone would misinterpret "a talkpage quote of mine" as meaning "a quote on my talkpage" and at the same time claim that I was (ab)using a GAR as "merely a talkpage". As I understand it, a GAR is a metaspace for editors to comment and disuss article quality specifically in relation to GA status, ei a specializded form of talkpage. I tried giving examples and pointing out that neutrality and coverage was off, but since the content relating this issue was completely absent, the comments were also fairly general in nature. When asked, I also tried to specify more precisely what was missing by giving more examples and pointing to specific GA-criteria.
 * So what exactly is a GAR supposed to be? In this case it the issue was entirely one of missing information. In such a case, is it really the responsibility of a reviewer to specify exact wording, content placing and sourcing?
 * Peter Isotalo 18:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall making any claims that it's "the responsibility of a reviewer to specify exact wording, content placing and sourcing". The words seem to be yours alone. Furthermore, I made no comment about your point about crashes, I considered it uncontroversial, so no further comment was needed from me, and I also made no comments about:
 * "The article still doesn't contain an accurate summary of how the project came about. For example, it fails to note that the entire left wing, including the Social Democrats, of the Riksdag voted against the project. The project was pushed through the Riksdag with a tiny five-vote marginal. During the floor debate, Olof Palme described it as something that "smacks of a coup, and is a serious democratic setback". There's nothing about the controversial and unrealistic fixed price contract, nor the cost overruns. The €1.84 billion for R&D stated in the current version of the article doesn't even come close to the estimated 132 billion kronor in total expenses (minus weapons) reported in Swedish media.[5] I don't know the cost issues in detail, but I've heard of even higher estimates, some of them even running up to 200 billion kronor. In essence, highly significant, notable and influential political controversies in Sweden are absent and the entire development phase is presented as fairly uneventful, despite being anything but. Neither 3(a) nor 4 are fulfilled in my view."
 * So now I'm being accused of "ignoring or scoffing" at the other issues I attempted to clarify? Perhaps the problem is one of consistency, now it is being stated that the problem was "entirely one of missing information" but before the problem was "neutrality and coverage was off", perhaps you regard these statements as being equivalent and perhaps its not all that important. Moreover, since you are quick to demand that other editors assume good faith, you aught to do likewise. Pyrotec (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I really have no objections whatsoever to editors improving (and/or trying to improve) the quality of the articles. To use your own words "the GAR seemed to achieve nothing constructive" and I have to agree that GAR was not effective; however, looking at that diffs the article has been improved over the last week. Virtually all of the real discussions took place at Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen and you participated there in some depth. It was your decision to open a GAR as a personal review, and as such you had to manage it. The GAR is now closed and a "result" (your result) "kept" has been determined. I really don't think there is much more to say. Pyrotec (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)