User talk:TwilligToves/Archives/2008/May

Dirty Dancing
Hiya, I was wondering if you could help with an article I'm working on? I've taken Dirty Dancing through two peer reviews, GA status, a rejected FA nom, and literally scores of hours of work, but no matter how much time I put into it or who I've asked to look at it, the FA reviewers keep saying "not good enough". I'd still really like to get it to FA, especially before Patrick Swayze dies. :/ If you have time, could you take a look at it and see what magic you could do, to make it more "wiki"? Thanks, --Elonka 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Hi, could you please copyedit The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess per 's statements at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Gary King ( talk ) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See if your FAC requests (but the passive) were fulfilled. igordebraga ≠ 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting
Thanks for the reminder! --Hnsampat (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NeXT FAC
Please review the changes made. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review the changes made before this FAC ends. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 10:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you continuing to ignore this? You posted comments at the FAC, which have been addressed. Please review the changes made. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WT:FAC
I was not implying that you were simply writing that; I was simply stating that "Does the prose truly meet the required professional standard at WP:FACR?" isn't exactly useful; reviewers should provide concrete examples of where, or do it themselves, otherwise it's not helping the nomination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And, like I said, I was not aiming my comments at you, I was just springing off them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 11:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley
You left some good comments on this article's FAC, but there's not that much interest either way. Are there any suggestions that you could make for improvements to this article that might better make it qualified for a Featured Article? If it doesn't get promoted (currently no supports, no objects), I'm looking for things that I could improve so that it would either be worth supporting now or worth a second pass through FAC later. Thanks for your assistance and comments so far. JRP (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a copy-edit
Can the BuddingJournalist have a close look at this article. Thanks, - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response.Though your point about redundancy in the first sentence is valid I am not able to modify the sentence satisfactorily as either the bold heading is lost or the sentence looks awkward. Maybe my mind has got too hooked to the article and is resisting change. Hence you might be able to do a better modification. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, just wanted to inform you that I have modified the first sentence as you said. Thanks. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto Gil
I was wondering if you'd be able to copy edit, or at least look at, Gilberto Gil, an article I'm trying to get up to FA standard. It recently failed the first FAC and one of the primary concerns raised was prose quality. I've seen your excellent comments at other FACs with regard to prose and other issues and your listing here; if you're up to it, drop me a line. Thanks, --Kakofonous (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Facebook
A note to say that I got your message, but since Gary indicated a day or two ago that he's working on, I'm gonna hold out a little longer. Great work on the review. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team
Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)