User talk:Usernameunique/Archive 5

Mike Darr
Changes addressed. You ask a lot of great questions about info not in the article; unfortunately, the answers to all of them weren't always available. I did manage to find Darr's mother's name, info about his brother who was also a minor league baseball player, prospect rankings from his time in the Tigers and Padres systems, and more info on his friend Johnson (who, my mistake, never actually played baseball in the Padres' system). Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out the answers to some of your other questions, like why he suddenly hit 15 home runs one year, why he started losing playing time in 2001 (other than that Bubba Trammell was getting more of the starts), and why he was in the disabled list in 2001 (which is weird, because that source listed why for most players it mentioned but did not list why for Darr - go figure). Anyway, I did find out some more info (which I added) and made changes not relating to unknown info. Hope it looks better now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Added more info on his legacy. Thanks for finding those articles! I couldn't access the pe.com one but found another which talked about his son. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , looks good, I agree that's the right way to handle his legacy—a few lines, not a whole section. The only way I was able to read the pe.com article was by opening it, quickly (i.e., before the paywall hit) selecting ctrl+a and then ctrl+c, and then pasting it into a Word document. There are also some more articles if you just search his name on Google News, but not needed for the purposes of the GA review. Note that there are two comments which are still pending. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Addressed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Latest comment addressed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Latest comment addressed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/1964 European Nations' Cup Final/archive1 source review
Hey, I was wondering if you had time to do a quick source review at the Featured article candidates/1964 European Nations' Cup Final/archive1 nomination? It's relatively straightforward I think, but of course if you don't have time/inclination, not a problem. Would just like to get this one over the line now it's got plenty of support for the content. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to take a look, . --Usernameunique (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Benty Grange hanging bowl
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Benty Grange hanging bowl 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 Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Benty Grange hanging bowl
The article Benty Grange hanging bowl you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Benty Grange hanging bowl for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Benty Grange hanging bowl
The article Benty Grange hanging bowl you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Benty Grange hanging bowl for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Pat Malone
Addressed all comments made thus far! Let me know if anything more is needed, and thank you very much for your review! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, . I still need to take a look at the lead and references, after which I'll turn to your responses. But my impression was that the article is in pretty good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rupert Bruce-Mitford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joachim Werner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

FAC request
Hi Usernameunique,

I'm reaching out to ask if you'd be willing to spot check the sources in Carillon, so that it can be promoted. The spot check is all that remains in the FAC. Please let me know! Thrakkx (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Atlanta Eagle police raid/GA1
Usernameunique, it looks like the nominator has responded to your review. Can you please return to see what, if anything, remains to be done on this GA nomination? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, . I'll turn to it shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Will P. Brady
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Will P. Brady 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Will P. Brady
The article Will P. Brady you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Will P. Brady for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Thanks, ! --Usernameunique (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on a (fake) artifact?
Hi Usernameunique, I have a fairly unique article that I'm curious to hear your thoughts on. I am looking towards bringing this article to FA quality. It's the Pompey stone, an 'artifact' (hoax{ about which a fair deal was written from 200-65 years ago. However, there's hardly any sourcing past 1958. However, I've put a pretty comprehensive article together-- and it's a stone, I'm not sure that super recent sourcing is a necessary requirement. You've done a fair bit on real artifacts-- this might be up your alley. Do you think it could be FAC-able? (the prose isn't there yet, this is more of a "with the present sourcing" question). Your work is really really amazing, by the way. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the note. It's an interesting article—and as you say, right up my alley. My initial thought is that the date of the sourcing shouldn't matter; so long as there are enough sources to establish its notability (which there appears to certainly be), and no major sources are omitted, I don't see a reason why not having many post-1958 sources should hold the article back. I'll try to give the article a close read this week and follow up with any further thoughts. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help-- I really appreciate it! -- Eddie891 Talk Work 23:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the article for a peer review here, if you have any interest in commenting., I'd really appreciate it. No worries if you don't have the time. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Hardcastle
This is an interesting read,. We appear not to have anything beyond Valle dei Templi. Perhaps one for a to-do list? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. - I've done you a little Start for Benwell Dene. I hate a redlink! KJP1 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting read indeed, . I'm largely working on bringing up previous articles to GA/FA status at the moment, but I'll keep that one in mind for the next project. Nice article on Benwell Dene! You're right, red links tend to be some combination of tantalizing and irritating; it's always nice to see them transformed into something solid. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But don’t stay in the hotel. The Tripadvisor reviews are shocking! KJP1 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I saw that! Those photos really take the cake, don't they. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

William B. Jordan
Hello Usernameunique. How are things at your end? After our previous interaction, I got a copy of Hall's translation of Beowulf and it was fascinating. Tolkien's Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary is also another fine translation, if the topic interests you.

I recently finished working on William B. Jordan — a lot of expanding and then pruning. I am used to writing medical research papers and case studies because of my profession, and perhaps that is why I found writing an encyclopediac biography an uphill climb. I did use quite a few of your featured articles as reference points when I was unsure about the article structure and referencing, and they have been immensely helpful. I have never nominated an article for FAC though, and I have this nagging feeling that I am missing something obvious or that the prose is not yet up to the mark. I want to move forward with Jordan's FAC nomination in the near future, but I wished to hear your thoughts on the article before I do that. If you would be so kind as to go through the article and let me know if there are things that could be improved, I would greatly appreciate your feedback.

I believe that I can work on issues once I have been made aware of them (I did away with a lot of fawning language and overdetail after this was pointed out to me). I admire the work you have done on Wikipedia, especially the biographies you have edited, which is why I thought of asking you for advice. Regards. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Gilbert Reaney
Hey Usernameunique, I hope all is well. I've been inspired by your work on academics to pursue a GA for the musicologist Gilbert Reaney (and hopefully others in the future). I used your Colin Robert Chase article as something of a model. Since this is my first attempt at an academic's article, could you take a glance at it to see if it looks like I'm on the right path? I think after adding a complete publications list I'll be relatively good to go, but thought you might have some insight. Aza24 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the delay on getting back to you on this. I've been meaning to take a look, and will do so this week. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries! It doesn't have to be anything comprehensive of course, this is just a new type of bio for me so I want to get it right the first time before I do more like them. Sorry if my revert was passive aggressive—I just didn't want to bother you if you were uninterested. Aza24 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries,, I figured that's what was behind the revert. The article generally looks good. It's a bit on the shorter side, but if there's nothing more in the sources, then such is life. The "Career" section also feels a little disjointed, and I wonder if it could be made more fluid—perhaps by breaking it down into subsections? That's the approach I went for in the article on Robert Kaske, although that was also necessary because there was much in the sources about him. A few line edits follow:
 * Year of his BA (1984) is incorrect.
 * What is the London Medieval Group?
 * Was he a full professor at Hamburg? If so, why did he go from full to associate?
 * The part about the lack of doctoral dissertation feels out of place. Maybe it could go at the end of the previous section?
 * I'm not following the "In the 1940s and 50s the United States" sentence.
 * The "From his 1952 dissertation on Reaney" sentence is unclear as to whether everything (performances, encyclopedia articles, etc.) is about Machaut, or just the formes fixes.
 * "during his lifetime" refers to Reaney's lifetime, but I think you mean Machaut's.
 * "at least ten modern editions" of what?
 * Who is John T. Good?
 * His works which aren't cited should be disarmed with a "ref = none" parameter.
 * Ref 16 has an error, because there are multiple 1959 works.
 * Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Terrifically helpful, thank you! All should be addressed; per your advice, I opted to split the career into two sections, and I think it fits better now. On your comment on coverage, there might be a little more to say about the editions of music he prepared and perhaps some publications I missed, but as far as I can tell it reflects the sources available. I've noticed that in many of your articles you use newspaper sources; I will note that that is a path I haven't really attempted with Reaney, as its not a form of research I am familiar with. I'm probably just going for GA with this one, so presumably there would be no need to do so? Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Relic: Guardians of the Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir Cyril Fox
Evening U, I hope you are keeping well. I wonder if you might be able to help. I am interested in Cyril Fox, primarily for his work, Monmouthshire Houses, rather than his archaeology. Although I have recently got a picture of his Cardiff home, I have drawn a blank on an image of Fox himself. You don’t have any idea where a useable one might be found? They can be located on Google, the NPG has a couple, but none that would pass the copyright police at Commons. I’ve also asked User:Jason.nlw who’s been able to help if the past. It would be odd if they had nothing, given Fox’s lengthy tenure at Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales. No problem if you can’t think of anything, but I thought I’d ask. All the very best for the New Year - it can’t be more challenging than 2020/2021! KJP1 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there . Interesting subject. You probably could get away with a fair-use image (e.g., one of the NPG ones), given that those are normally permitted when the subject is dead. For an out-of-copyright image, did he have something like a festschrift or a Biographical Memoir of Fellows of the British Academy? Either of those would likely include a photo, although it might still be copyrighted. You could also try reaching out to his (grand)children, although finding them is easier in some cases than in others. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of William Chaney
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Chaney 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 Legobot, on behalf of Jburlinson -- Jburlinson (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Bean
Hi there! I have created and improved the article Louis H. Bean to GA status. It is an obscure subject; there are not many sources to expand the article. Although I have nominated few featured articles, I am not sure if Mr. Bean has any chances at FAC. I see that you have taken article Colin Robert Chase, of approximately same length, to FA status. Can you take a look at the article, and let me know if there is anything I can do to improve it. No issues if too busy. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Zahir Raihan
Hi, Usernameunique, this article should be nominated for GA. It has many reliable sources. Thanks. Troyol (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Box District station/GA1
Hi Usernameunique - are you still interested in Talk:Box District station/GA1? It's been nine days since I've heard from you there. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

List of abandoned reviews
Usernameunique, can you please check the two reviews listed in that section of the January 2022 GAN backlog drive and see whether either or both are eligible for the extra half point for being "old"? I think they may qualify, but I'm not sure whether the time involved is from first nomination, when the review itself was opened, or if it's a different metric. Thank you.

Incidentally, it looks like the Report page and the Nominations page are now in agreement as to the total number of nominations and the number of unreviewed nominations. After all the fixes you made, it looks like the reason they might be out of alignment is due to errors on the review page itself (boilerplate section isn't formatted properly), or on an article talk page with a bad GA nominee template, or similar issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, . Checked the reviews as suggested, and agree they qualify. Also, I've found two more reviews with issues (including one which you had previously fixed), which may account for the latest discrepancies. I've started to come around to the view that synchronizing the numbers is a game of Whac-A-Mole: nice to do, but secondary in importance to ensuring that the overall margin of error is relatively small. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Apollo 17
Do you have time to review the above article, which is languishing a bit at FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'll try to get to it (and the remaining Will P. Brady comments) tomorrow; currently dealing with a couple deadlines. By the way, I'd been meaning to thank you for taking on the Brady review. It's a big and dense article, and I was relieved and appreciative to see someone take the plunge. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

SS Eurana (1915)
helllo, you undid my renomination. The first reviewer was extremely immature. So I don't know the process of renomination. so if you can explain how specifically to renominate, please add it here. I found NO instructions on how to do it. Thanks. Crook1 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would post about it at the good article nomination talk page. Although I haven't looked closely at the article, I'm surprised that to see "too much technical language" as a reason for a quick-fail; especially in an article about a ship, I would expect that such language could be ironed out during the course of a review. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rich Hand
Changes addressed; thanks for the review! Let me know if anything else is needed! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments responded to. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 March 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/March 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Chaney
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Chaney 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Martin Rundkvist scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Martin Rundkvist article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 4, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 4, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice, but first today: thank you for The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí), introduced: "The Colossus of Rhodes is a minor but striking painting from Salvador Dalí’s later career. Firmly within the avant-garde in the 1930s, by the 1940s and 1950s Dalí was more interested in the world around him than the world inside him. He also had an expensive lifestyle to maintain, which was no doubt helped by the commissioning of this painting as a movie poster for a film about the Seven Wonders. The painting typifies 1950s Dalí: interested in Hollywood and the historical, taking commissions for cash, and only mildly surrealist. Indeed, the work is influenced by an academic paper by the sculptor Herbert Maryon, whose theory for the construction of the Colossus appeared in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers soon before Dalí picked up his brush."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Martin Rundkvist who "has excavated a Viking boat grave, a sixteenth-century sword, and, last summer, a mead hall from the time of Beowulf, where he discovered nearly two dozen gold figures. And then there were the times he won six games on Jeopardy!, and spent a week at the helm of Sweden's official Twitter account, @sweden.""! - Nice birthday present for him!

Still-open GA reviews
Usernameunique, you have a number of open GA reviews that you have not posted to in a while: Do you plan to continue them soon, or should I be on the lookout for a replacement reviewer for you on these, possibly via a call for a second opinion? Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:PS Keystone State/GA1
 * Talk:SS Manasoo/GA1
 * Talk:Reggie Parks/GA1
 * Talk:Rich Hand/GA1
 * Talk:Robert Wertheim/GA1
 * , yes, will finish up this week. Sorry for the delay. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 1) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
 * 2) 🇨🇽 AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
 * 3) Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
 * 4) Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
 * 5) Vexilloid of the Roman Empire.svg Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
 * 6) Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
 * 7) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Martin Rundkvist
Great to see this article at TFA today. Congratulations! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Chaney
The article William Chaney you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Chaney for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Another academic you might be interested in!
Hi! Congrats on William Chaney passing GA. It's a wonderful article and I enjoyed reading and reviewing it. If you're ever in the mood to write about another engrossing academic personality, check out Allen Walker Read. He was an American linguist and etymologist who, among other things, studied bathroom graffiti and the origin of "ok." I've been intermittently expanding the article and assembled a bunch of high-quality sources on the talk page here. There's tons of material that could be used to expand the article. Happy editing! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Five stalled GA reviews
Usernameunique, I hope you are all right. It's been over a month since I last posted to this talk page, noting that you had five open GA reviews that you had not posted to for a while: When you replied a week later, on March 23, you said that you'd finish them up that week.
 * Talk:PS Keystone State/GA1
 * Talk:SS Manasoo/GA1
 * Talk:Reggie Parks/GA1
 * Talk:Rich Hand/GA1
 * Talk:Robert Wertheim/GA1

It's now over a month later, and you haven't made any progress on any of the reviews; indeed, it's nearly four weeks since you last edited on Wikipedia. I'm sure you have your reasons—real life has a way of intervening—but this situation simply isn't fair to the various nominators. It would have been best if you'd asked for someone to step in for you, so the nominators didn't have to continue waiting: these nominations have all been open for over three months. Under the circumstances, I'm going to allow until the end of April for you to return and resume work on these; as of May 1, I plan to request second opinions for those that have not progressed, noting that a new reviewer is needed to complete the nominations. Thank you for your understanding, and for the work you did in January and February. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , apologies for the delay. I can't get to these today; but (at the risk of rehashing an old line) if you can hold off until Wednesday, I will endeavor to do so by then. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Usernameunique, I'll happily hold off through Wednesday, May 4 (UTC). Hope all is well, and look forward to seeing the review updates. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Will P. Brady
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 June 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Will Brady was not, perhaps, the first person you would want to get a drink with. To start with, he was a prohibitionist—at least when running for reelection as a judge. And then there was the so called "legal lynching" of a 16-year-old Mexican boy, whom Brady extracted a confession from while a mob waited outside the jail; tried; and then guaranteed a date with the gallows, meeting with the governor to foreclose any chance of clemency. (18 years later, when Brady's brother, also a Texas judge, drunkenly killed his mistress and himself was tried for capital murder, Brady promptly joined the defense team.)"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
 * Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

FAC again
You kindly commented in a FAC, Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, back in 2018 - we are now in the next round, and I'd appreciate your input now. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

update: I think enough eyes are now already there - new pics and thoughts on 13 August --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

look at the church where I heard VOCES8 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Request
I see you are not editing much these days, but going to ask anyways as respect your view; would be great to have your opinion on a pre FAC PR for Corp Naomh, before i am slaughtered at FAC :) I do need feedback from content people who know a thing or two about objects from the early medieval period. So here I am. Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
 * Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
 * Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
 * PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
 * Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
 * Pirate Flag of Jack Rackham.svg Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
 * Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
 * Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
 * Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey @Usernameunique, just wanted to say thanks for all the amazing articles you've brought to FA or Good status; I want you to know your effort hasn't gone unnoticed. Your work in articles such as William Chaney and Robert Howard Hodgkin is flawless, and from what I've seen you've brought these articles quietly — you didn't even have a User page until someone made it! Awesome work and keep it up. GuardianH (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kudos, . They're fun articles to research and write. I see you've taken a turn through a number of them, and am glad you appreciated what you saw. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
... for the thorough review of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 in its 2018 first attempt! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, . Glad to see it finally got the star it deserves. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:30, 28 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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Rundkvist papers
Hi, Martin sent me 4 recent papers. After scratching my head a bit I've just added them to the list, but I'm not sure if we want uncited citations to primary sources, nor that I feel like running about trying to catch every publication. feel free to edit or remove as you will, and maybe we'd better decide what we'd like to do when more arrive! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding those, . I'm fairly agnostic on which papers to add. I originally added those that had more citations on Google Scholer plus those that related to topics in the article, but that risks favoring older articles that have simply had more time to rack up citations etc. My general approach would be to add everything under the sun, but as you recall, we shied away from that approach to try to make the article look as presentable as possible in its third iteration. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * All good thoughts. Feel free to remove any papers as you see fit. Best would be to find sources that discuss the papers, but that's a tall order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Colin Robert Chase scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 February 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/February 5, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2021): "Most scholars are known for their conclusions; Colin Chase, by contrast, was known as the driving force behind "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English". In a career cut short after 13 years, Chase nevertheless produced major works including The Dating of Beowulf, which put paid to the idea that the date of that epic poem was settled."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
 * Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
 * 🇺🇸 TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
 * Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna,  Thebiguglyalien,  Sammi Brie,  Trainsandotherthings,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, 🇮🇩 Juxlos,  Unexpectedlydian,  SounderBruce, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack,  BennyOnTheLoose and  PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

 * Perfect, thanks . --Usernameunique (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duffield Memorial
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duffield Memorial 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 KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duffield Memorial
The article Duffield Memorial you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Duffield Memorial and Talk:Duffield Memorial/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Duffield Memorial
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duffield Memorial
The article Duffield Memorial you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Duffield Memorial for comments about the article, and Talk:Duffield Memorial/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 KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
 * Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
 * Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Robert Kaske
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. I'm also selecting Robert Howard Hodgkin for 21 September, the same applies. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article below and above, introduced (in 2021): "On a bomb-shattered Pacific island in the waning days of World War II, Robert Kaske read a story about two professors so engrossed in their conversation that by the time dusk turned to dawn, they had forgotten where they were. The story led Kaske to abandon his intentions of a business career; he instead made his way to Cornell and founded one of the preeminent medieval studies graduate programs in North America, credited with producing the backbone of the discipline's next scholastic generation." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

robert kaske
hello, Usernameunique! i had a question regarding this article and the associated blurb.
 * i am admittedly finding the wording "solving difficult, puzzling passages" in the blurb a bit awkward, as i feel that using the verb "solving" with the object "passages" is a bit unnatural. i admittedly don't know if this is simply because i am not an expert in the subject matter, and am unfamiliar with the terminology commonly used in this context.  the article on literary cruxes consistently uses either "resolve" or "resolved" instead of "solve" or "solved".  would it be more appropriate to replace "solving" with "resolving" in the blurb, or would you consider such a replacement awkward yourself?
 * The source (Kane, Leyerle & Robinson 1990, p. 819) states that Kaske's "favorite stance was as a solver of cruxes". You're right that the article on cruxes uses the term "resolved", although that article is presently fairly short and written fairly casually; at least as I read it, "solving" seems appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * the blurb and article both present the titles of two poems from the exeter book in italics. should they instead be stylized with double quotation marks, as per mos:minorwork?  the article for one of the poems uses double quotation marks in the lead, but mostly uses italics in the body.  the Old English poetry template uses double quotation marks for both poems.  i did notice that pearl, which is also a poem, is presented in italics, but pearl is a significantly longer work, and our article on the poem uses italics in its title, its infobox, its lead, and most of its body, so i assume that the poem is considered either long or epic, and therefore would fall under mos:majorwork.
 * Having read through the relevant MOS and its talk page, I'm still at a loss to understand the reason for the distinction. (Not that I was consistent in using italics in the first place—see .) But, reason or no, your reading of the MOS seems to be correct, and I've changed it as you suggest. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

dying (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in responding,, but thank you again for raising good points. Addressed above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * no worries about the delay, Usernameunique. i do appreciate that you eventually took the time to address these issues.  to be clear, i think "solving cruxes" and "resolving cruxes" both sound natural, but "solving passages" seems a bit awkward to me because passages do not normally require solving.  in any case, as the issue only occurs in the blurb, which has already run, and i appear to be the only editor who finds the wording slightly awkward, this obviously isn't something i am interested in pursuing; i'm mentioning it to make clear that i think the use of "solving cruxes" in the article lead is fine.  thanks for addressing these issues!  dying (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

robert howard hodgkin
hello, Usernameunique! i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.
 * the text "modern history", in the blurb and article lead, both link to the "Human history" article, but are targeting the anchor "Modern history (1500 to the present)", which was removed nearly a year ago with . i was unable to determine, from the featured article alone, whether there is a more appropriate target.  should the target of these links be changed?
 * Good point. It looks like modern era is the appropriate article—note, too, that there is an open discussion about whether to rename that article "modern history". It would be helpful to figure out how Hodgkin/Oxford at the time defined "modern history", although a quick search just now did not turn up useful results. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * i had trouble parsing hodgkin's lists of siblings in the first paragraph of the article body. because there was no "and" before "Ellen", i had initially parsed "followed by George (b. 1880)" as the last element of a six-element list, rather than the only element of a list of younger siblings.  would it be helpful to insert an "and" before "Ellen" to more clearly split the list of six siblings into two smaller lists, one with five older siblings and one with one younger sibling?  admittedly, i am not sure if this is a mos:engvar issue.  feel free to ignore this point if you think the sentence flows better without the additional "and".
 * Another good point, done. I'm not sure that the previous wording was even grammatically correct. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

dying (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments, . I've implemented them both, as indicated above. It occurs to me that I also owe you some responses regarding the article on Robert Kaske; I'll turn to those shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, the "modern era" article is a good target! i was admittedly a bit unsettled about the prospect of simply targeting the "human history" article as a whole, so am glad you chose to target that article instead.  also, thanks for mentioning the requested move discussion.  wp:mpnoredirect mentions that redirects should not be used on the main page, so i have placed the "modern era" article on my watchlist so that i can alert wp:errors if i notice that the article is moved before or while the blurb is on the main page.i also had a few points to raise about the blurb rewrite.
 * "Hodgkin" is misspelt once as "Hogdkin".
 * there should be a space before the TFAFULL template.
 * there is an upper character limit of 1025 for blurbs with images. the blurb is currently 1048 characters long.
 * to me, the blurb strongly suggests that streeter died soon after hodgkin retired, even though the article body states that streeter died before hodgkin's effective retirement date. is there a discrepancy here?
 * there are a few potential issues with the last sentence.
 * phrases in quotes may require attribution. (see, e.g., .)
 * the link to hodgkin's family may violate mos:egg, as readers may follow the link expecting an article discussing quaker dynasties in general, rather than hodgkin's family in particular.
 * the wording may be confusing to readers unfamiliar with quakers and have no reason to believe that "Society of Friends" is another way to refer to them.
 * i am not sure how best to reword the last sentence, but here is what i was able to come up with."A member of the Hodgkin family of Quakers, he was forced to leave the religious society after serving in the Second Boer War."


 * i am also not sure if it is a good idea to end the blurb on the note that hodgkin was forced out of the society of friends. i noticed that the rewrite moved the mention of the second boer war from the middle of the blurb to the end, so if you had deliberately meant to conclude the blurb in this manner, i won't question it.
 * apologies for the lengthy feedback! no worries if you don't see this in time or are too busy to address these issues.  i may end up raising the first two points at wp:errors, as i believe they are uncontroversially errors, but i will let you decide if the others need to be addressed.  dying (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2021): "Robert Howard Hodgkin is best known not for what he accomplished during his career, but for what came at its end. After spending more than a generation writing it, he placed one of the first histories of Anglo-Saxons into the hands of both general and academic readers. Two years later (and five days into retirement), he reemerged to take on the role of provost at Queen's College, Oxford, after the previous officeholder died in a plane crash. In his second retirement, Hodgkin produced his second book: a six-century history of the college. And so did Hodgkin—son of a banker-cum-historian, father-in-law of a Nobel winner, uncle of another—etch his name in the annals of his family's so-called "Quaker dynasty."! - pics of great days in Berlin, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Walter Duffield
certainly prospered down under! Shall drop by the FAC. KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a bad pad, is it? Nice find—looks like the man did himself well. Thanks also for the reviews, . --Usernameunique (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rupert Bruce-Mitford
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rupert Bruce-Mitford 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rupert Bruce-Mitford
The article Rupert Bruce-Mitford you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rupert Bruce-Mitford for comments about the article, and Talk:Rupert Bruce-Mitford/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Guide to Biblical Iran
Hi how i can send my email you? Aharon Erman (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , click the link and enter my username: Special:EmailUser. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter
The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-


 * BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
 * Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
 * Epicgenius with 1518 points
 * MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
 * BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
 * AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
 * Sammi Brie with 520 points
 * Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
 * BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
 * Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
 * LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
 * Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
 * 🇺🇦 Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Statue of Industry
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Statue of Industry 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Statue of Industry
RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Statue of Industry
The article Statue of Industry you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Statue of Industry and Talk:Statue of Industry/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)