User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 5

= wp:FAC = FAC reviewing

Good idea for uncertain newcomers. I assume you saw that at WT:FAC; perhaps the idea should be posted there to gain some input from other FAC regulars?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad you liked it, but if you don't mind I'll hold off posting it to WT:FAC for a couple of days - I'm trying to avoid posting on too many high profile pages this week. In the meantime do you fancy joining in at Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär? Its an interesting story but needs a bit of help on the prose.  Were  Spiel  Chequers  14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally got around to making a quick post at the FAC, where I left a few suggestions. Oh, and congratulations on passing your RfA.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed your reviews lately. Thanks and keep up the good work! This may be of some help to you. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Milk
Thanks kindly for taking the time to look over Harvey Milk at FAC. Please look at my last edit summary in the history; WP:MOS prefers no links inside quotation marks, unless there's a "good reason". There are several ways we might fix the fact that non-American readers may not know what "Wheaties" are. What's your preference? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for pointing out that particular aspect of MOS to me, and sorry for doing a non-MOS edit whilst it was an FAC. I'm relieved that you can think of several ways to fix that as I can't, so please go ahead and use whatever one you see fit (Though I wonder what they count as a good reason because it seemed a neat solution to me). I'd never heard of wheaties so suspect they are not in the UK, which is why I thought some sort of a link would be appropriate.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC) PS Good luck for the FAC.
 * Right, it's a difficult call; I'm tied up with some things now but I'll discuss this at WT:MOS soon. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Please tell me when you raise it at wt:MOS as I may want to join that discussion. Cheers,  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz
Could you please come back to the FAC? Thanks, &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering two of my points. I have watchlisted Featured article candidates/Nevado del Ruiz. I'm entertaining this weekend and plan to be offline for a couple of days but will catch up early next week.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

re Re:Winter Solstice


 * What trouble have you caused me at FAC? Right now the only one giving me a hard time is Avenue, but I have no idea where to find sources for the statements he claims, and he hasn't responded yet. Any ideas? Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Ceran, I'm afraid I can't help - its the wrong end of the Andes for me. I'm interested both in what makes mountains go bang, and how they have been perceived by people in the past, but I suspect we have more vulcanologists here than people who've taken part in services to the Lady of the mountains, so I may move my query about pre-Columbian perceptions of the mountain to the article talk page so it doesn't affect the FAC.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch tank FAC
Hey there! Thanks for the query in the FAC. I think I've answered your query to the best of my ability. Could you take another look and see if you're satisfied? Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1970 Tonghai earthquake
Hi

Could you try to review this? Thanks, ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting read, hope that was useful.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Toa Payoh ritual murders FAC
Thank you for your support. I have narrowed South East Asia to Peninsular Malaysia; is that much better? Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that makes sense to me, good luck in the FAC.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Byron Brown FA
I await your response to my actions on Byron Brown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on Featured article candidates/Byron Brown  Were Spiel  Chequers  23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I have a captive audience, I thought I would ask do you prefer the choice of main images or should I swap with the one of him at the podium?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, I think you've got that right as it is.  Were Spiel  Chequers  10:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, could you return and comment on the FAC discussion page about the 2005 Buffalo Mayoral Results sourcing. This seems to be the only outstanding issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs, replied on the FAC page.  Were Spiel  Chequers  13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a new reviewer that wants a lot of negative stuff added claiming the article is nearly a hagiography. He wants most stuff unrelated to his political career removed.  I have never had a review that wanted all personal stuff except a negative controversy removed before.  Please watch the discussion and comment as appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, I've had a quick look, but this needs something longer and may include bits out of my expertise, if we get snowed in again tomorrow I'll have a proper look then.  Were Spiel  Chequers  17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. When Bryon Brown was unopposed I nominated Saxbe fix, which is facing a lot of opposition. Feel free to help that review. It looks like it may go down. If things don't turn in the next few days, I will withdraw it and renominate it about two weeks from now. I am not sure which one will follow, but maybe I will post Jesse Jackson, Jr.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz
Are you ready to !vote on the FAC? Noticed you were online, so... Ceran →// forge 12:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, now that the dating anomaly is covered I'm happy to support.  Were Spiel  Chequers  13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding Heinrich Bär
I tried to address your questions here Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär. Thanks for your copy editing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär, happy to help.  Were Spiel  Chequers  00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Left a comment on the review page.MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Are all your issues addressed? If not please let me know what else I have to address to get your approval. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi MisterBee, I'm happy that the ambiguities have gone and we have better links both to the to the wider picture of the war he was in, and all of the obscure terms such as the various aircraft mentioned. I'm still not happy with some of the prose, I've been a little distracted with another part of my Wiki life this week, but I hope to be more specific on that in a few days.  Were Spiel  Chequers  14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question Hi, I could you please give me some feedback on how close the article to failure/approval for FAC might be? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time
Should I be waiting for further instruction at Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time or have you been waiting for me to do something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I forgot to watchlist it when I reviewed it. Thanks for the reminder.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked one last place (Its National Register of Historic Places Registration Form) and no comments on vistas for the sculpture. I see nothing unresolved. Am I anywhere near getting your support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, yes you are, but it will be a couple of days before I'm back at FAC.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you participated in the discussion at Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive1, you might want to comment at Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais/archive1
Poke. :-) Thanks for reading through it! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs, hope to come back to it later this week.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Minas Geraes Hiya WSC; long time no talking. This isn't purely social though. :-) I'm here to ask you for another run-through of BRAZILIAN BATTLESHIP Minas Geraes, as I have nominated it at FAC again. Thanks and cheers dude, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!


 * A pleasure, feel free to drop me a hint next time you have something up for FAC, and if you are interested in naval warcraft I have a photo of a DUKW somewhere.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Vauxhall Bridge/archive1
I've removed your additions about the Inner Ring Road, as I think they're misleading. While the A202 road, Vauxhall Bridge Road etc are official designations, there's no such animal as the "inner ring road" – this is an informal nickname that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. While an inner ring road was proposed in the County of London Plan, one was never built, and one can come up with a potential "inner ring road" route using pretty much any bridge between Blackfriars and Kew. If anything, Wandsworth Bridge has the best claim to the title. –  iride scent  16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm not going to make an issue of it, and Inner Ring Road, London is in a wiki that doesn't regard itself as a reliable source; I was fairly sure that this was an official designation with signage and so forth.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairly certain that's not so. A google search on "Inner Ring Road" +London shows up virtually nothing except Wikipedia mirrors, and certainly nothing that looks official (not even examples of the term in casual use). Transport for London only use the term in the context of designating the boundaries of the Congestion Charge zone and not as a road designation in itself. –  iride scent  17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

HMS Endeavour
Hey there. I've no reason to believe this request relates to anything you'd be remotely interested in, but as a regular FAC reviewer I'd be glad to have your opinion on the prose and referencing in HMS Endeavour. It's not at FA level yet, but after dozens of rewrites I've reached the point of not being able to judge for myself what needs doing.

Feel free to say this isn't something you have time for or interest in - it just occurred to me to ask when your distinctive username popped up on my watchlist for another page. Euryalus (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, long time no speak, yes that was an interesting read but "along with a full complement of sailors engaged from among the Cape Town population" I suspect would be closer to "along with sufficient recruits from Cape Town to bring her crew to a full complement". Would you mind having a fresh look at your source for that?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Or at least sort of - the number of crew on Endeavour and when they first boarded the ship is bizarrely variable. It was commissioned to carry 96, and Cook even discharged one man who was the 97th on board. But at least 4 of the 96 were fictitious including Cook's two teenage sons whose names were falsely listed as present so they could qualify for sea time towards future officer exams. And at least two additional people were certainly on board but not mentioned anywhere for the next two years - John Still and Nick Young, both obviously English but first appearing in the ship's log in 1771 when she was on the way back home. They apparently hadn't been fed or paid for the previous two years, but there they were, fit and active when everyone else was dying of malaria. Lastly there was a civilian pilot whose job was to guide Endeavour out of port, but remained on board for four weeks afterward, also apparently unfed and unpaid.


 * There's a clearly referenced list of ten new recruits at Cape Town, but given the evidently relaxed attitude to crew numbers I can't be sure its correct. Still, I've used it because the source says so and its as good a figure as any.


 * Anyway, thanks for having a read through, and for your improvements to the article itself. I've spent too long reading the sources and can't get a perspective on the text anymore or spot clerical errors, so its been very helpful. Euryalus (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks! I noticed that you copyedited Ancient Egyptian literature recently. Any help is appreciated, since it is currently a featured article candidate. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - review is still underway...  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt
Thank you very much for your help and support in getting this article to featured status! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I70
Just in case you have moved on. I have replied to your last concern about Interstate 70 in Colorado. Could you please take a look at the "Legacy" section, where I added a paragraph about the accident at the Mousetrap per your request? Thank you for the review and feedback. Dave (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Started, thanks for taking up those suggestions. But I may not have time for a proper look before Sunday.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dave, you've just made my day.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC2
Thanks for your comments. I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any further thoughts on the pricing issue that you raised? I have been watching the FAC for your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The review is getting quite mature and is starting to look like it could close as promoted any day. I wouldn't want it to close if you have remaining concerns, so I am alerting you that if you would like to comment you may want to do so soon.  This is not the type of article that will get a lot of feedback outside of this process, so I appreciate any thoughts you might have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spending some time with the article today. I meant to link to Toy wagon and have fixed the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now all concerns have been addressed in the discussion assuming you are satisfied with this link change. Comment at your leisure in the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border
I've addressed all of the issues that you raised on Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 - please leave some feedback when you've got a moment! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WSQ, please sign your declarations at FAC. See WT:FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Following feedback about the length of Inner German border, I've revised the article to spin content out into six daughter articles with summary versions in the main article. Please take a look at the results (which are summarised at Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1) and let me know whether you are content to maintain your support for the article being featured. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC review of German Type UB I submarine
You do realize that the FAC was closed a little while ago, right? Malleus Fatuorum

Just as a note: WP:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1 has been closed, and at least a couple of the comments you've added since the close have been reverted by others. You might try the article's or nominator's talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I know that now.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Haruna
Thanks much, good work. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. FAC review on the way.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Type UB I
Hey there. You said in Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1 that: "if you are going to use colours for ownership then ideally the ones that changed ownership should be in both colours either with stripes or diagonally split boxes." How would I do that? I'm not really sure how to make striped or diagonally split boxes. Thanks :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes well remembered. I'm sure I'd seen something along those lines, the left hand of this image was what I was thinking of, but having done a bit of research I'd have to concede it might not be as easy as I thought. I've even trawled the signature galeries, and if it hasn't cropped up there then it probably in't as easy as I thought.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you check the current arrangement and see if it is ok? Is there anything else that needs to be fixed on the table? I plan on re-submitting this to FAC soon :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 15:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mississippi class battleship
Hi,

It was suggested at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mississippi class battleship that I contact you about your typo tool, but it also looks like you enjoy helping people to get articles upto FA quality. Your help would be appreciated if you have time. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey WSC, I'm the one who directed Kevin here – hope you don't mind! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin and Ed, I'm halfway through, not spotted any biggies so far. BTW The typo tool I've got is more wiki-wide - when I review I just read and ponder.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining in. I'll go work somewhere else for a while and let you work.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its OK I'm about done, and its late here.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 * Thanks Rupert, much appreciated.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Maya Stelae
Thanks for taking the time to review the Maya stelae FA nom. Much appreciated, best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing it, and for indulging my pedanticisms.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

John, King, FAC
Thanks for the edit summary that caught my eye:  It looks like a mistake, but I queried Hawkeye7 to check. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'd spent so long reviewing Bad King John that I would have been miffed if I couldn't save the review somewhere. By the way, I sometimes read an FA candidate and don't spot anything worth querying, would my saying that in an FAC be helpful or would that just look like a drive by?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sort of feedback from experienced reviewers is helpful and welcome; it gives other reviewers an incentive to dive in for a closer look, and gives delegates some info that helps us decide whether other reviewers are holding off because they see a lot of problems and are hesitant to dive in, and helps us decide timing on closing. Please do !  ("Drive by" commentary is not a problem; "Drive by" Support from inexperienced reviewers who don't seem to have engaged WP:WIAFA is the issue.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard
Due to concerns expressed by reviewers about the length of the L. Ron Hubbard article, I have reduced the size of the article by about 20%. Could you please confirm on Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2 that you are happy with the updated version? I would appreciate it if you could do this ASAP as the FAC review needs to be concluded very soon. Helatrobus (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the sun is shining outside and I have some real life commitments for the next few days. I will try to make time but may not be able to till after the 9th.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, the FAC has now concluded successfully. Thank you for your participation in the review. You might like to know that the article is currently being considered as a candidate for the day's featured article on March 13, 2011, on the centenary of Hubbard's birth - see Today's featured article/requests. Helatrobus (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lorises
Thank you for your review of Conservation of slow lorises. I have made changes per your requests. If there are any other issues, please let me know. –  VisionHolder « talk » 03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/ARA_Rivadavia/archive1
Replying ... yep, we've got a lot of competent writers at WP:MIL, makes my job(s) much easier. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, hadn't realised you were a coordinator there. I must say if anyone had said to me four years ago that I would windup copyediting articles on battleships I would have been incredulous.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Battleships were the nuclear weapons of their day, both in expense and impact. I'm more and more taken by the viewpoints of military historians, especially in classical and medieval history. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I don't suppose you have some sources re early Carthaginian stuff? I have some stubs there I keep meaning to expand, including one of the key battles of world history, the one where the Carthaginians were held back long enough to give Rome time to grow.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any books here on the Carthaginians, sorry. I'll keep an eye out; I generally grab books that I can get cheap. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, probably best left for a less frenetic time. But if as milhist coordinator you ever come across a milhist person interested in pre punic war Carthage... I could be tempted back into that project if I had a collaborator.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll let you know. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Future of the Earth
Hello WereSpielChequers,

I just wanted to say thank you for your review of the Future of the Earth article. Although the article didn't receive any support, I still plan to try and address all of the points you raised. I didn't include anything about a closer encounter of a stellar object with the Earth because of the minute odds; essentially I was just including those events that have a likelihood of 1% or greater. This ruled out a gamma ray burst, for example. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi RJHall, You're very welcome, it was an interesting and thought provoking read. Sorry to hear it got closed before you had time to resolve my queries. That's a fair point,re 1% risks, was that filter mentioned in the article? If not perhaps you could have a section on other risks reckoned to be less than one percent probability.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC
Hey WSC, thanks as always for your insightful edits and reviews! I've replied to your comments at the article's FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Mr Chequers, would you mind taking a look here? -- Marek. 69  talk  22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK will do.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you WereSpielChequers for your copy edit of the Pope John Paul II article. :-)
 * Kind Regards -- Marek  .  69   talk  20:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC
Hi. An article I've worked on heavily — United States v. Wong Kim Ark — is being considered for possible promotion to Featured Article. The discussion has kind-of stagnated and would benefit from additional input. If you have the time and interest, I'd be grateful if you could take a good look at the article, then go to its FAC page and give whatever feedback you believe is appropriate. Thanks. — Rich wales 05:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just following up on the above request.  Have you ever worked with the Featured Article Candidacy (FAC) process before?  In case you haven't, the FA criteria can be found here.  Thanks again.  —  Rich wales 01:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi RichWales, yes I've reviewed a few articles at FAC - I assumed that was why you approached me. I've been busy in real life and have so far struggled to fit in more than a superficial read through. American legal cases aren't my normal reading material so I haven't yet decided whether or not to write an FAC review. But it is obviously at or about the quality standard for FA with respect to those criteria that I feel competent to give an opinion on.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood. My main worry has been that I don't want anyone deciding to "archive" (close as unsuccessful) because of inactivity — hence my desire to keep some level of activity happening.  —  Rich wales 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Courageous class aircraft carrier
WSC, did Sturm answer your questions at WP:Featured article candidates/Courageous class aircraft carrier/archive1? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Conte di Cavour-class battleship FAC
You took a look at this earlier and made one brief comment. I wonder if you could be kind as to read it a bit more thoroughly and offer a few more comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry your article was promoted before I got back to it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Castell Coch
Hi. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely managed to read it, made a few tweaks and was hoping to come back to it in Mid May when I anticipate having more time, but I see it has already gained a well deserved FA. Maybe next time?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Aptatosaurus
Hello. We recently renominated Apatosaurus for FA. Would you like to look again? LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With pleasure.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry FAC
Hi there, I'm not sure if you received my ping on WP:Featured article candidates/Boys Don't Cry (film)/archive2. Just letting you know. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes but I thought I'd see the film before commenting further.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. You won't regret watching it. It's a wonderful, albeit sobering and dark, film that's beautifully done. Look forward to hearing more comments! :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thank you,, for the helpful copy-edit at From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Were you going to have a look at Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1 ?

Thanks again for stopping by the article and improving it, much appreciated,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Cirt, you're welcome, but I have a few too many spinning plates at the moment and I think I need to focus on finishing some things before going back to FAC reviewing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries, thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

FAC review
Do you have any interest in reviewing Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive2? Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)