User talk:SuperFlash101/Archive 3

Phineas and Ferb
I'll continue when you tell me that there are no more reference problems anywhere in the article. If I find another section with even half the problems that appeared in "Plot and humor", I'll fail the article immediately - so that I have time for reviewing other articles that hopefully are in better shape, or even for editing articles I'm interested in. Articles submetted for GA review are supposed to be of GA quaolity or very near it, but Phineas and Ferb was nowhere near. A lot of reviewers would have failed the article immediately after reviewing "Plot and humor". I'm hopiing that your enthusiasm for the subject, which is is visible in every sentence, will motivate you to get it right. -Philcha (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree WP's rules are not always as clear as they might be. Re official "reliability" of web sources, for practical purposes:
 * Online extracts of books are usually OK, e.g Google Books' previews of hard-copy books.
 * Online mags or online versions of hard-copy mags are usually OK.
 * Blogs and other self-published sources are OK only if the author already has a good reputation in the field. Otherwise not. And visitor's comments are out.
 * Forum posts and wikis are out, because anyone can edit them and they hardly ever cite sources the way WP does. --Philcha (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IMDB is widely used for release date, studio, cast and other credits, but does not give much coverage of content or critical commentary.
 * With TV.com, the articles and interviews are probably OK, but avoid forums and other reader inputs. --Philcha (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Will resume in a day or two - real life is being annoying, a few side-effects of my recent home-move. :-( --Philcha (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry real-life issues have delayed my resumption. You've made huge improvements, well done! I've reviewed up to and including "Music". There are still a few things to fix, but if the rest is similar to what I've just read, this is well on the way to GA. More later, when I've dealt with more real life. --Philcha (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the rest is not similar to what I've just read - problems about inaccurate use of sources start showing up again in the "Conception" section. Please check every statement in the article agaist the sources and ensure that each is fully supported and contains no embellishments. --Philcha (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through as far as end of "Conception" and it's much better up to that point, although there are still a few things to fix - see edit commments the history of the GA review. The big question is whether you've checked the rest of the article to see that every statement / clause / whatever is supported by what the sources say. This is something you should have done before nomating the artcile for GA review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs)


 * You're wrong about "you can't expect me to have it perfect for the review, that's why you review it, to help it further." In principle a candidate article should already be of GA standard, so the review becomes a formality. See "If you believe an article meets the good article criteria" at Good article nominations (heading "How to nominate an article") and the checklist at Guide_for_nominating_good_articles.
 * Of course it's not quite like that in practice, for example I might think a passage is clear because I know what I was thinking while I wrote it, and it may need a reviewer to point out ambiguities or unclarities. And sometimes one of "my" articles is reviewed by someone who knows the subject pretty well and draws my attention to aspects that are not covered - or even (shock, horror) errors on my part :-/
 * But a GA review of an article that's already very close to GA takes about 3-5 days, and one of "mine" passed instantly - check my user page, it shows the articles I've passed as a GA reviewer and those I've got through GA review as a content editor.
 * GA review is not a "build a GA" service - you need to do the work. --Philcha (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When do you intend to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Phineas_and_Ferb/GA1, plus others I've flagged as unresolved? --Philcha (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've had to repel some barbarians. When will you be finished making sure it's all supported by citations? It's been 3 weeks. --Philcha (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It helps if you leave a message at the GA review page. --Philcha (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I paused it at Talk:Phineas_and_Ferb/GA1, to which I also referred in my message of 17:09, 14 August 2009 above. --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked for second opinions about the use of podcasts, and the responses all supported use of some sort of "how far in" indicator. So I think you need to deal with this. Let me make it clear that I would be delighted if this article passes, as the subject and its creators are engaging, and so is your enthusiasm. --Philcha (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed some of the points for which you cited the podcast are also supported by text surces, e.g. Marsh having been Sales & Marketing VP of a computer accessories company (? in 411?). Wherever a text source can replace the podcast, make the replacement. Then place the rest to the nearest 10th. --Philcha (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant: for points whose only source is the podcast, give the location as tenths of the way through. "Start", "middle" and "end" are too vague. --Philcha (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, how are you getting on with this? Despite our disagreements, I've been enthusiatic about the subject from the start - the unusual theme, the long friendship between the co-creators, the fact that no characters are jerks, etc. - you've always succeeded in communicating your own enthusiasm. I really look forward to passing the article as GA once the quality-control issues are resolved. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you doing any work on this? See signs of impatience at duration of review. --Philcha (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked through again, including stuff added since the review started. This article is now stronger on content than I remembered, nice work! The price, of course, is that I have some comments :-( But I hope to see this GA in 3-4 days. --Philcha (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't clever of you to complain about the duration of this review. This is what one of my GA reviews looks like when the article is in good shape and the editor understands WP's requirements - it has just passed today, which would make it under 3 2 days from the day I signed up for it. I can give you several other examples of similarly quick passes. I could have failed Phineas and Ferb any time after you starting complaining about the inelegibility of some emails from a wiki site, but I prefer to help editors to understand WP's requirements. However, if I review another article where I find that you are the main contributor, I'll bear in mind your preference for quicker reviews. --Philcha (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the following comment: --Philcha (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I, as well, am extremely annoyed by the length of this review. Most of the references to the podcast are found solely there so it's difficult to do so, plus it's a long process, especially when I'm busy with other things and in personal life. I'll try and get done/almost done with it this week. The Flash {talk} 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've checked and only a few points remain. I'm sure we both want to finish the job soon. Despite our disagreements I still like the subject (unusual theme and approach to characters, the long friendship between the creators) and would like to see the article promoted as GA in a few days. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The only remaining issue is that you added another award in the lead, it should also be in "Awards". Then it's a GA. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, how did I miss the 2nd Emmy in the text?
 * But adding the picture gallery under "Cast" was a mistake. --Philcha (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the GA for Dan Povenmire. --Philcha (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking Phineas and Ferb or Dan Povenmire to FAC - or both? --Philcha (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Phineas Flynn
Hey Flash, listen, do you have intentions at all to work on the concerns at Phineas' review? If not, please let me know. Cause, it's been almost thirty days since I did the review and I just got a note saying that if none of the issues are taken care of, I should fail the article, and I'm kinda leading towards that. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:PAF
sorry i looked at it and it looked perfect gor a episode GA as i have seen articals with less things being in GA again sorry for the inconvinence. -- Pedro J. the rookie 01:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No i see you have been working on the artical and you want to make it right, so there is no probleam. -- Pedro J. the rookie 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I began to review an artical that you created, it was Survival of the Fittest (The Spectacular Spider-Man). -- Pedro J. the rookie 01:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

just responed. -- Pedro J. the rookie 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats your artical has just become a GA :D happy editing and congrats for the great work. -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey flash do you have reviewing expirience. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Becuase i nominated family guy to GA and i was wondering that you could review it. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, SuperFlash. I am a new user to Wikipedia, altough I already am familiar with it, and wanted to ask you a question. Since your sandbox contains pages for Phineas and Ferb's first season, and since it is your goal to get this article made, do you think I could use your rough draft and make an article into it, since it already seems to be in pretty good shape. Thanks! --Phil A. Fry (talk) 19:36, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK...
Hello! Your submission of Destination: Imagination at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! &spades; B.s.n.  &hearts; R.N. contribs 04:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Need some work?
Hey, decent work on the Foster's articles (and a few others too) and I'd like to push something your way. Right now, nobody else is creating or even rewriting any of those articles worth a damn (yeah, including myself) and want to see if I can submit some challenges your way. Before I give them to you though a little word of caution regarding FHIF expansion plans; some of the more core episodes might need articles but not all, characters most likely will not, not even Bloo or Mac. Those sort of articles get deleted or redirected once the vandalism workload gets too high, someone notices real-world notability isn't clear or the article simply becomes outdated or stagnant and most times a combination of all three. Keep focus on special and/or signifigant episodes they'll have a better chance of surviving a probable AfD as Store Wars, Cookie Dough and the Season 1 DVD article have a fairly high potential for being put anywhere but in a standalone article, if you want to discuss this further you know where I am.

Right, first off, the main article needs a rework as parts are fairly crufty and need sourcing along with new content. Next, want to try to do something a little more complex? I'll understand if you don't watch or like these shows but if anything that should work in your favour as there's nothing like working outside your comfort zone to test your writing abilities. I want to see if you can do anything about the following articles; The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack, Chowder, The Angry Beavers and Cartoon Network (United States). What's needed for these articles is anything from sourcing to expansion and in some cases basic clipping, I am to a point looking for GA material but only for Chowder, if you can pick out any DYK hooks whilst doing the cleanup then that'll be great.

Of course, there's no obligation on your part to do this, take it or leave it, I'm merely soliciting the work of someone who already in my eyes deserves a editor barnstar and probably a few more so it's upto you if one, none or all get done. Again, like your work, keep it up. treelo radda  09:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for noticing those articles. First off, I think those article might be safe from AFD due to the amount of info and reliable sources in there - that pretty much applies WP:NOTABLE right there. Especially season 1: have you seen all the season pages out there, lol? But now that you bring it to my attention I will have to look at for that and focus more on the specials/important eps. Anyways, second, sorry, but I'm not very familiar with those topics, but I was thinking about helping out the Cartoon Network page - I'll have give that one shot.

So thanks again for the compliment and time to notice my work. Cheers!  The Flash  {talk} 14:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know but yknow that some might not be considered notable, sources or no, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it I guess. If you can you'd be better off creating stubs of the episodes in season one, making sure people know by saying so on the FHIF talkpage and then expanding them from there. If you just kinda go off on random episodes to make articles about it'll look like you're not doing it with any amount of forethought. Still, it's one of the more important shows on Cartoon Network so deserves some attention for once. As for the other articles, I did figure you wouldn't be too likely to do any of the articles I suggested justice well but what are you aware of that you're not doing now? If anything I think working in turf you're not overly familiar with helps to improve your skills and of course I need your help! There's few good article writers around in these parts and when you get one, you kinda just hope to hell they can help you in areas you can't handle so it's why I'm being forward. Tell you what, if you can't help prosewise, can you do a bit of low-level 5 minute research and see what you can pull up? If I have sources, I can incorporate content easily enough. treelo  radda  15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see how people would come to that conclusion. But I don't think doing the stub thing will work out - I'm picking episodes which has production/reception/theme info out there to create and, after all, not all of them do. And you're right, it is best to work on articles I'm not very interested in, but like I said, I'll have to work on the Cartoon Network page, but for now, here's about the biggest source thing I can help you with: check out this and this. Both of them are fantastic for looking up magazine and newspaper articles. The first only gives you a brief stint from the article (you'd have to pay to read the whole thing, so it's best just to use the stint) and the second gives you a much longer stint. You'd have to download something I believe to read the whole thing. But trust me, those have helped me out a lot. Hope that helps for now, I'll try and see if I can get some stuff for Chowder as that article is seriously close to GA status.  The Flash  {talk} 15:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is but we've been short of more sources to push it over the edge into GAville, help there will be vastly appreciated as are those resource links you gave me. The stub idea wasn't a completely serious one but pick your episodes wisely, can't just create an article on some random episode because a source exists as people will think either "hey, this has an article, so should this" and end up creating inferior articles which are plot synopsis heavy and source/content light or "why does this have an article?" rendering all your work kaput once they redirect, merge or delete. Anyway, figure I've bugged you enough today, if you've anything to tell me, drop me a few words! treelo  radda  16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's no bother. I'll be sure to let you know if I spot anything to help in your efforts (especially since I just joined WP:TOON so I'll be trying to help out with the collaboration drive, lol :P)  The Flash  {talk} 16:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wife Hope
Great work on the article!!  The left orium  20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've decided to join the project. :) I'll read through the article soon but it looks close to GA status. I've been working on Homer the Whopper myself, but I haven't had time to finish it.  The left orium  20:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any help would be appreciated. I've been very busy IRL the last week(s).  The left orium  20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FG
HEY FLASH ARE YOU A FAN OF FAMILY GUY.-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry for caps problem this damn key keeps geting mesd up, ok but if you want to help FG tell me. PS:I see left asked you nto help out in Homer the whopper, so if you do not mind, as i am WP:Simpsons as well can i help, wachta say.PSS:I always leave comments of diffrent subjects, youll get used to it.-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you able to go here and room wpsimpsons, conect put your name and wpsimpsons in rooms.-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DOUH!, darn it would be easyer that way to comunicate.PS congrats on phineas and ferb.-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

hey solucion to problem, do you have an msm, thats another way to contact.

yeah you responded pretty darn fast, thats cause your the flash...LOL...well i guess it 's old school. well i chexcked on homer the whopper and i got nothing i do not see how the episode is not an GAN it has inof info on production, recepction, and looked on google and nothing, only thing i cood imagine is a cultural refrence, maybe of the radioactive man eposode or just because it is based on a super hero.-- Pedro J. the rookie 02:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

i am thinking thats as far as recepction goses with athe edits i made but ill keep lookink in the time can you check it.-- Pedro J. the rookie 03:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for cleaning that one out.-- Pedro J. the rookie 03:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

good news HTW is a GAn and your a co-nomienator, with me scorpion and lefty, not bad for a nights work;).-- Pedro J. the rookie 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

i do not now, mabye we should wait till the rest of the episodes premire, ask left to be shore.-- Pedro J. the rookie 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to make lisa simpson a FA would you help me.-- Pedro J. the rookie 00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

hey can you at least review the PR.-- Pedro J. the rookie 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah music did that review, let me see what i can do.-- Pedro J. the rookie 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

did what i can do coment if it is right.-- Pedro J. the rookie 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

reviwed the invisble hand artical.-- Pedro J. the rookie 23:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

also reviewed the dan provenmire.-- Pedro J. the rookie 00:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

congrats on the GAs.-- Pedro J. the rookie 00:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural
Hey, Supernatural (season 1) failed nomination for FA, I think because you were the only one to give support/opposition. It's been renominated, so can you please take a look? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the nomination has since been withdrawn. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I nominated All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural) for featured article. Can you please give your input when you get the chance? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)
Congratulations on the shiny new featured article! Don't forget to feed it healthy food and wash it once in a while. ;) --an odd name 21:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Featured articles are some of the most visible pages on this wiki, so it's pretty much our duty to look over candidates as time allows.  I saw yours and was pleased. --an odd name 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut
Took care of your issues at the GAn of "Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut", could you please revisit.-- Music 26/  11  11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, unrelated to the header of this section, I saw your Dan Povenmire article (nice work by the way), which leads me to the following question: Do you own the Family Guy book? Or how did you have access to it. I'm asking this because I was wondering if it could give me some info on the creation of Peter Griffin and the background of the "Road to..." episodes.-- Music 26/  11  21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

DYK nomination of Phineas and Ferb's Quantum Boogaloo
Hello! Your submission of Phineas and Ferb's Quantum Boogaloo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Why thank you. It's been my pleasure. :)  The Flash  {talk} 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)