User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Windows RT

I have offered to take over the GA review of Windows RT. Feel free to respond on the article talk page. Andrew327 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Eggs

I've been very busy. I'll get straight to work on the egg nomination soon though. I'm almost done with it, should finish it shortly. Abyssal (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finished. Abyssal (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanita dan Satria

Thanks for the comments at

WT:DYK, but the user is now apparently citing it as a reason to edit war (see this edit summary) — Crisco 1492 (talk
) 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. At the very least, the same format note should be used—in the now-reverted edit, it looks like two unrelated citations, one for the first half of the plot and another for the second half—but I really don't see the need for it (as I said). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree, and consensus is currently quite against the view he's promoting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your contributions to the Erving Goffman GA review. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dougal Butler on the main page

I noticed you promoted Dougal Butler to the main page, even though there is a poorly sourced claim focusing negatively on a living individual. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Weakly sourced claim that Pete Townshend did a serious criminal offence currently on Main Page. StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Another hook on an old DYK nom

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/James E. Dull. Shouldn't take but a minute. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Your comment implied it had had a partial review, which it hadn't. I expect you, and others, had thought my own comment was by a reviewer. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I typically say that a full review is needed when no review has been done: it's clear, and although I wasn't confused in that situation, someone else might be (and your nomination comment may well have been why no one had stopped by yet to review it). You'll notice that the reviewer who subsequently came along paid no attention to the "full" part, since no mention was made of article length or age, two typical criteria that need to be covered in any full DYK review, and should have been addressed even though other issues were found. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Well it confused me. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
My apologies; that certainly wasn't my intent. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For some reason, I liked you since I first saw your user name. Maybe because we started here at about the same time. Anyway, I want to thank you for your tireless work at DYK and cooperative attitude. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I hadn't realized we were of the same (clearly excellent) vintage. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sister Christine

After the last 2 DYK hook removal from the queue I stopped nominating articles at DYK. Nvvvchar's very recent joining has brought new life to the 2013/150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda celebration. And September is the most important month of Vivekananda's life. I am explaining in brief— Swami Vivekananda became world famous after success of World's Religion in 1893 (this year is 120th year of his success too). And his first lecture of 11 September is the most famous of all the lectures.

Now, do you remember the Sister Christine article, which you saw as a draft in my user space? The article has been nominated for DYK and 11 September date has been requested. I know we are a bit late. But, actually Nvvchar has joined just today morning. Can you please review the nomination? We are expecting a strict and quick review. You will get other date requests at the DYK page: Template:Did you know nominations/Sister ChristineTito☸Dutta 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I can see you are editing. Can you reply here?? --Tito☸Dutta 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, I'm going to request that you find another reviewer. It isn't an article I'd normally choose to review, and the time frame you've given is unreasonable—DYK special requests are supposed to be made at least five days beforehand, and I can already see that this is a nomination that will require work, including a copyedit. (I'm happy for you that you've gotten Nvvchar on board, but like you, his prose usually needs another editor's assistance to be brought to DYK levels.) I strongly recommend that you reschedule this for later in the month; as there isn't any indication in the Sister Christine article that September 11 is special in her life, this should be easy enough to do. We are already starting to fill prep sets that will run on September 10, and much of September 9 was filled at the time you nominated the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Bluemoonset, frankly, I don't hope to see six out of six DYKs on the main page. There will/might be many hindrance. People may not notice that I requested 2 of the strictest DYK reviewers to review (You first and then Crisco) and asked to do the review strictly (but quickly). Anyway, Please read I don't hope to see more than 2 or maximum 3 DYKs in this month. But, 11 September— the date is the most important, reason a) 150th year of Swami's birth b) 11 September, 1893 is the most remarkable event of his life, c) 120th year of the event d) we have already had DYKs on the two other important dates 12 Jan (birth date), 4 July (death), now only the third one remains. We'll never get such an opportunity The next year when we'll have so many important reasons to celebrate will be 2063. Now if you think the requested Sister Christine article is not ready, we an replace that one with any other article. We have 3 more ready at this moment. Please select anyone from here to review: (MacLeod is ready too, not nominated)
I'll not request anyone to review for more than first 2 DYKs (11th and 15th). If the other articles don't get reviewed, that's just our bad luck. --Tito☸Dutta 22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Tito, I'm very sorry, but I'm not going to select any of these articles to review. I understand that you feel this date is important, and if Crisco is also unavailable you're welcome to make a request at
WT:DYK for a reviewer because you wish this day to be highlighted. But that person will not be me: I am doing other things with my time this weekend. Best of luck in locating reviewers who are available and willing to take on the task. BlueMoonset (talk
) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, as per your request I'm writing here rather than on the review. I've done a further copyedit—there were still some places that needed fixing—and I've added five "citation needed" templates, all for places where you have quotes but no inline source citations at the end of the sentences involved. I imagine it will be pretty straight forward to add the necessary inline citations, but it needs to be done. The Foster bonding section's second paragraph has some factual issues: while Vivekananda sent the nursery rhyme to Christine while she was still in the U.S. before her mother died, the comments to Christine to take care of her health were made after she had come to India and was ill: she arrived, according to the Sarada source, on 7 April 1902, and went to Mayavati to recuperate. The Gallagher source says she spent "some time" with Vivekananda, which I thought could have been months, but he died under three months later on July 4 when she was still (again?) in Mayavati: he'd sent her "a few more letters", but it's not at all clear how much ("some") time she spent with him in those few months. I'd definitely add the date of her arrival here, and move the comments from those "few more letters" from the "Foster bonding" section to the final "Life in India" section. That also has an issue: while Christine died in New York, the source does not say she returned to New York and died there; she returned to the U.S. in 1929, and died in New York the following year. She could have started off somewhere else (Detroit, perhaps?) on her return, and been visiting New York when she died. The source doesn't say. Anyway, if you can take care of these quickly, I think it won't be an issue. However, if you can't, I'll have to post on the review, since the article isn't ready for promotion in its current condition. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually citations were added at the end of the paragraphs. I have added refs after the quotes. I have worked on the first part of the article only, I am pinging @Nvvchar: to see last two questions. Few authors have written biographies of Sister, but the one written by Vrajaprana "A Portrait of Sister Christine" is the most reliable, notable and is an excellent work. I bought a copy of the book to write the article. The book was low priced, only ₹30 (36¢ US). But, the problem is I have to search from that 110 pages biography. If necessary I'll change those portions according to Vrajaprana's book. --Tito☸Dutta 04:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to fix the "Life in India" section. --Tito☸Dutta 04:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • More than 4 editors issue: After your works, you should be given DYK credit too. But, there are already 4 editors there. I can remove my name form credit and add yours if you want or can I add as the fifth editor? Else, I'll manually copy paste the DYK credit on 11 September when it'll be posted to editors' talk pages. --Tito☸Dutta 06:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, I very much appreciate the thought, but all I did was two rounds of copyediting, the second quite minor; I don't feel that's enough for a DYK credit. Please don't add a DYKmake template for me. (I did just fix the nomination so Bgwhite had one of the two DYKmakes listed for Nvvchar, however.) For future reference, it doesn't really matter whether someone's in the initial small listing for DYK credits; what counts is that the person gets a DYKmake credit, since the bot uses that to place the notifications on user talk pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijacking of Rick Harrison GAR

Howdy- SO, can you please explain why you practically took over the GA review for Harrison. I took your comments (and the fact they were there) to be very disrespectful, both to me and nominator. I disagree with much of what you said, and I will add replies shortly, but I am much angrier that, without warning or asking permission from either of us, you went ahead and added those comments. Now, if I had missed a major(!) mistake, and you left a friendly, more civil note about it, that would have been perfectly a' OK. But to practically take the GA review because a few cites disagree by a matter of months, a few grammatical notes and a few personal preferences is unacceptable and pretty rude. I ask that at the very least you give some warning next time you want to leave your own comments and that you remain civil. I will leave more comments on the review page shortly. PrairieKid (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

PrairieKid, as it says on every article talk page where an article has been submitted to GAN and picked up for review:

Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

So I'm quite puzzled that you think someone commenting—the fact that comments were made—is disrespectful: it's a normal part of the GA review process. When you take on a review, it's possible, if not likely, that someone else will come along and add comments. No one needs "permission" to contribute in a GA review, nor is it disrespectful. Indeed, it would be disrespectful to the entire Good Article nomination process to fail to note issues that had been seen. The idea is to come out of this with the article passing all the criteria with flying colors.
In this case, I happened by the review, saw what appeared to be an article that was judged just about ready for approval based on your comments—and in my reading of the article (and as an author of 30 Good Articles myself) it still needed more than a little work: I had other plans for my afternoon, but once I started noting issues in early sections I didn't feel, in good conscience, that I could stop until I'd finished the whole article. If you feel words like "confusing" were rude, I apologize, but that was my honest impression as a reader.
Ultimately, this is your review and your decision, but with all due respect, the article has significant issues—some of which are already being addressed in subsequent edits—and it is not currently ready for Good Article status. I hope it soon will be. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The big problem was not with the comments. I do disagree with much of that part (and I'll explain why in more detail on the review page). My main issue is the fact that you didn't ask either of us, and that the comments really were quite rude. Some overlinking, a few confused cites and a few personal preferences- and you say the article isn't even close to becoming a GA. I really feel you're overstretching here and I felt like you're trying to be superior to us. I feel that was amplified even more in your response. I feel like you're trying to play the "this is policy" and "I didn't realize" card. But, in all 30 of your GA reviews, how many times have you had two editors (when it wasn't requested!) contributing? Beyond that, how many times did the 2 reviewers comment actually lead to your confusion about who was the actual reviewer? Further, when were the 2nd (uninvited, reasonably disrespectful) reviewer's comments go to far away from the original reviewers?
Look, you've written 30 GA articles (which, of course you brought up), and I'm sure you've reviewed quite a vfew as well. Great. I've been reviewing for quite a while too and have written 1 GA article (but it's a really good one), 2 more nominations and over a dozen reviews. I got this. Thanks but no thanks for your help. PrairieKid (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Rather than decide that I'm not only rude but trying to lord it over you, I'd appreciate it if you'd
WP:GAN page entry for the Harrison article. It says, "Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)." Not "you should ask first before commenting", not "you must be invited", but simply "welcome". You say you think I'm "trying to be superior"; all I'm trying to do is make sure all GA-related issues I noticed—and which I thought, by your posted comments, you had missed—were addressed before the review was completed. The making of good articles is a collaborative process from the first edit on an article through edits on it from any number of Wikipedians, and from a GA review that covers all the bases by a minimum of one reviewer but ideally more. (The next level up, Featured Article, requires many reviewers; GA merely encourages others to comment.) If you think my comments only deal with "some overlinking, a few confused cites and a few personal preferences", then you have missed actual prose issues that I highlighted (yes, even problematic commas count, unless the reviewer fixes them rather than mentioning them), and at least a couple of clear factual inaccuracies. They all need to be fixed, and some already have been. BlueMoonset (talk
) 19:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Glee... I Love It

Just writing to say that I love your article you created for Ryder Lynn. And just to say I think it would be good to also have articles for Marley Rose, Kitty Wilde, Wade "Unique" Adams and Jake Puckerman. There is enough info about them, and considering they are to be main characters in the upcoming fifth season, it would be a great idea for them to have their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.212.125 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad you liked the article. I agree that it would also be good to have articles on the other four, but they all require a certain amount of research and I doubt I'll have the time. In particular, I haven't seen much on the background of how the other characters were developed; because Blake came from The Glee Project, there was a lot more there about the kind of character he might play, and the interview with Ulrich was very helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Emergency: Hang on

I have read the first part of your message. Hang on. And if you remove it please replace it with the next hook. Vivekananda film. Let me reead the full message now. --Tito☸Dutta 03:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Please remove the word "Foster", everything else looks fine. I have just gone through Vrajaprana's book once again,. I am going to add it too in support --Tito☸Dutta 03:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's already been removed. I am willing to hang on. However, I can't re-promote the hook until I see what changes are ultimately made to the article, and what sourcing is supporting it. (The first edit, simply removing "foster" from the lede, does not satisfy the issue, so removing the "foster" from the hook is also not going to work.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Vrajaprana is a 110 pages book. I badly need Ctrl F option. I can see details on their at least twice. There might be more. I have added one ref. I have also found this. There is a new post at the DYK discussion. --Tito☸Dutta 04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I knew about the "this" link; it's what I was quoting from (the "father-daughter style" quote). It has occurred to me that Vivekananda was only three years and a few months older than Sister Christine, and she was 27 when they met. I'd expect a spiritual father/daughter relationship, but the "very human sense" that Furke alludes to is the more unusual one that needs the sourcing beyond what Furke can support. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding: as I noted on the template, you need to supply a new hook, and I hope you can briefly quote the relevant passage in the source on the nomination template. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it took some time, it is a paper book, and a s non-native English speaker, my reading speed is lower. I have added few quotes from the book I have found. No, Funke was Furke and Burke was Burke, as you have noted, Burke was born in 1912, 9 years 11 months after Vivekananda's death. Don't include her here. 11 Sept's slot timing is running away. Have you added Swami Vivekananda? Do not add the image there. New reply at Template:Did you know nominations/Sister Christine --Tito☸Dutta 05:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • here is details on Funke. --Tito☸Dutta 05:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The film hook is now leading prep 1. It looks like Sister Christine will have to wait for another day to be approved. I'll finish my post on the nomination page and then call it a night. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Thanks for your note on my talk page - I have revisited the article and responded to Orlady's suggestions. Paul W (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Love and Glamour

Hey BlueMoonset. I completely forgot about this DYK (I wasn't the nominator, but I was involved in the article's creation.) Would it be alright if I did the QPQ review? Cheers, — Status (talk · contribs) 00:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Status, I'm afraid not. Since you're one of the creators and made significant contributions to the article, you'd have a conflict of interest if you reviewed it, not least because you'll get a DYK credit when it runs on the main page. I'm afraid it'll have to wait for another reviewer to come along. However, it would be great if you could monitor the nomination and be ready to pitch in if the review turns up issues that need to be addressed: Arre 9 hasn't been good at monitoring nominations, or addressing issues in a timely fashion. Thanks for asking! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I think you're confusing this as asking if I could review the DYK. I'm referring to this comment by you: "based on the QPQ tool, Arre 9 has enough previous DYKs that a QPQ review will be required." — Status (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I was confusing the two. My apologies: it says "QPQ review" right there in black and white. Since you're one of the creators, absolutely you can do the QPQ for the nomination. The Rosiestep/Nvvchar/Dr. Blofeld group (before the good doctor stepped away) would routinely supply the review from one of the creators, though not necessarily the one who submitted the nomination. The key is that a QPQ is done. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get on that. Thanks! — Status (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Status, I'm sorry to say that the QPQ you supplied will not count. Reviews really ought to explain what was checked against the DYK criteria: size, newness, hook sourcing, close paraphrasing, image license, image in the article, etc. I took a quick look, and not only did the article fail the most basic of checks (not even a 2x expansion in prose characters, which is what counts), but you didn't notice that your favored ALT1 said the three-cent note was pictured (it wasn't); that was certainly worth a query to see whether this was an error or that they meant also to supply the three-cent image in the nomination as a possibility. Finally, one of the references shows a bare URL, which is also not allowed.
You're welcome to provide a QPQ review, provided it is a complete one that checks against the full range of DYK criteria. I'm afraid I'll be striking the review of Template:Did you know nominations/Fractional currency from Love and Glamour. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, damn... let me just get to doing this tomorrow. Clearly I am too
overtired to be reviewing DYKs right now. For some reason, I was thinking bytes and not characters. How embarrassing. I hope you won't hold it against me. With that said, I'm off to bed! — Status (talk · contribs
) 04:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing. Sweet dreams, Status! Remember, tomorrow is another day. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your work on the Good Article project, and for the reminders to stay on task! Keihatsu talk 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Quarterback