User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 22

DannyMusicEditor, I'm afraid you're going to have to give me links to the various edits you're referring to, because I'm having trouble figuring out what you're talking about except that it probably has something to do with the PR I closed. If you want me to talk about something, I need far more context. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk

) 04:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

He thought

Speak up!

13:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, given the fact that he didn't try to revert me, I imagine he's figured it out now. The instructions are quite clear about PRs being closed once a GAN or FAC is opened.

DannyMusicEditor, now that you've pointed out your closure, I'm going to make it the official one as regards time in the history template. BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and apologies for the cock-up. I hope I've done it correctly now. I'm new to reviewing, however, and would be very grateful if you'd have a look at the page just to check. Much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think things are now as they should be - certainly the green bullet has appeared on the article page. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:GANI#Passing: step 3 was this edit to the article talk page changing the WikiProject classes, while step 6 was adding the article to the list of GAs for that subtopic

.

Perhaps my math is wrong, but when prep 6 will appear at 12 GMT, we are already 13 hours into March 5 in Germany, and how many more hours more in Polynesia? I don't understand the revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, it isn't more hours in Polynesia, it's fewer. You're adding when you should be subtracting.

You can tell from the displacement from UTC time: if it's +10 hours, you're heading 10 hours east, so it's 9 hours later than Germany, which is UTC+1. If it's −10 hours, you're heading 10 hours west, so it's 11 hours earlier than Germany. The United States is always earlier than UTC/GMT: −5 hours for Eastern Standard Time (New York on the handy table on the Queues page), −8 hours for Pacific Standard Time (Los Angeles on that same table). Both Hawaii and French Polynesia are −10 hours, or two hours earlier than the Los Angeles column.

Geographically, French Polynesia is in the Central Pacific, on the American side of the International Date Line, as opposed to New Zealand, Australia, and China in the Western Pacific, which are on the Asian side of the Date Line. New Zealand is 21 hours later than French Polynesia. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RE "(changing hook for the lead article since the one chosen doesn't make sense with the picture...)" it would have been a quirky lead with a catchy hook. Too bad you couldn't see that. HalfGig talk 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

HalfGig, the nomination page specifically said that the image shouldn't have been used with that particular hook because it undercut the whole point of it: No point in having the picture if going with ALT1 since it would ruin the hook. If you'd put it elsewhere in the set I'd have left it alone. Too bad you didn't heed the wishes of the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you for reminding me.  MPJ-DK  17:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, MPJ-DK. Glad I could help, and welcome back to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset--this one was approved too quickly; hook needs a little tweak. Can you put it back please? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) If hook wording is all, you can still do that in prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's done--thank you Gerda. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad it was taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Cblambert is commenting on their GAR at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1 but that page should not exist so I had already nom'ed it for deletion. Looked first at CSD but couldn't figure out which parameter it should have be put in.... anyway, you're the closest person I know of around here who's a GA/GAR guru so wanted you to know what is going on. I did notify Cblambert that they were commenting on the incorrect page here. Shearonink (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to withdraw the nomination you made at MfD, if that's possible. If it is, then once it's undone you can replace what's on the talk page with a notice to discuss the reassessment only on the actual reassessment page, since the talk page is not supposed to be an echo of the actual page. Otherwise, we're stuck with the talk page until the MfD closes; in that case, I'd post a notice that the reassessment discussion belongs on the reassessment page and misplaced comments will be removed from the talk page. Cblambert has made a mess of this from the start, seems to think that GAR will back up his position, and I suspect that this reassessment is going continue to be problematic until it eventually closes months from now, leaving no one satisfied. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Shearonink; forgot to include a ping a minute ago, so pinging you now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, that makes sense - will do. Shearonink (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't figure out what Cblambert's point is with their posts on the GAR and on the article-talkpage... Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset, I have a problem--I slipped up. YoungWizard pinged me a few days ago already that he had a hook ready for the article he's been working on, and I missed it. We moved the article to mainspace on 5 March, with the whole class (this is an educational assignment), and so "technically" I suppose I'm too late with the nomination. So I would like to ask you to let this one slip by and let it ride; it's a fun article (though it still needs some polish), and there's two fun hooks. I'll do you a review as well. Thanks, and please let me know. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr Aaij, it's not fully up to me. My best suggestion is that you make the nomination right away, and in the Comment field, note that this is an educational assignment and you'd missed the ping, so it wasn't nominated on time. Right now it's only three days late, so as long as you point out this out as part of your comment and ask for leniency from the eventual reviewer, I'd say you have a good chance of it being accepted. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hey BlueMoonset, thanks--I did put the nomination up, and Gerda Arendt is willing to review it. No "hisself"? Tsk tsk--I may take this all the way to ArbCom. ;) Thanks again, Dr Aaij (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to sincerely apologize for all of my activities involving good article nominations and assessments. Since I clearly do not understand any of the rules or guidelines for how the process is supposed to work, I hereby promise not to nominate any more articles or review any more articles until I have thoroughly reviewed all of the process guidelines multiple times over. In addition, I will go through and undo all of my edits involving these matters. This includes all of the edits you pointed out on my talk page. I will also remove my good article nomination for the article ancient Greek literature. Since I do not understand the criteria for what makes a good article, there is no reason why I should be nominating any articles at all.

Once again, I feel deeply ashamed over this and will not attempt to become involved in these complicated matters again for a very long time. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have gone through and undone all of my edits involving good article nomination/review. I think that the articles I reviewed deserve the right to be given a proper review by someone who actually understands the review process. I also think that the article I nominated, if it is indeed qualified to be reviewed, should instead be nominated by someone else with a better impression of what a good article is supposed to be like. Once again, I offer my most sincere apologies for this whole misunderstanding and will try to be more cautious in the future. Maybe, someday, after I have grown to understand this process much better, I will return to nominate/review articles once again. For the time being, however, I think it would undoubtedly be infinitely better and more productive for me to simply abstain. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have a problem. The page on peer review nominations states that, for every article one nominates, one ought to review two articles. I am clearly unqualified to peer review articles, which means I cannot nominate any. (By the way, the only reason I attempted to perform the good article reviews to begin with was because I had nominated ancient Greek literature and I wanted to make sure to obey the direction stating that, for every article nominated, one should review two articles.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, that advice varies from page to page; on the one I linked to on your talk page, it says that submitters are "encouraged" to review another article. For the users who are new to such processes, it simply isn't a good idea to give advice in a review because they don't know how the processes work and their advice is more likely to be mistaken. So don't worry about giving back in the form of reviews at present; once you've had a few experiences and feel that you truly understand what is required and, better yet, feel able to identify where an article might be lacking, you can try your hand at giving advice at peer review, but that time is not now. What it is time for it submitting your first peer review request. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you. I figured that the stipulation was probably more of just an advisement than an actual requirement, but I wanted to check with you to make sure. I am trying very carefully to follow all of the rules. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

And well deserved. Dr Aaij (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll pile on here too. :) Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure of CDF's status at this point, and really - I have no proof that the IP-editor was them or not. I would like your GA Maven opinion: Have I done enough? Have I waited long enough? I think the GAN should be failed - the prose issues are simply too pervasive etc. Just respond here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, it's been a week since the IP editor (who I think is likely CDF) made the changes, which scratched the surface of the prose issues. I think you're right that it should be failed, and I kind of think CDF was expecting it to be failed: if its not up to substantial quality, you may take necessary actions. Not that you need CDF's permission, of course. Seven days is the standard time to wait; whether you want to time that to the IP edits or to the responses to them on March 11-13 is up to you, but I see no reason not to use the earlier date. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your thoughts on this, greatly appreciated. I have also posted on the GA Cup Talkpage, pinging all the Cup Judges - I am going to wait for one of them to weigh in before I Fail it. There's no particular hurry it's just that if I don't take care of this now - while I am thinking about it - I am concerned I'll forget to give this article a final status. Shearonink (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, I see that you've failed the review, so I'm glad that's settled. While you're here, thanks for taking on Talk:Bonville–Courtenay feud/GA3. It's one of three reviews Adam Cuerden took on in December and abandoned this year that I put back into the reviewing pool in the past 24 hours—the nominations originally made last June, and are the three oldest nominations still active. You might want to take a look at the abandoned review to see whether the issues raised are ones you might consider relevant, and whether they've been addressed to your satisfaction. I'm so glad you've got this one, since that means it's finally got a reviewer who will finish what they start. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I don't like to have GA Reviews drag on ad infinitum...doesn't do the project any good and can be quite frustrating to all concerned. (The only Review that I am leaving open even if it goes past the GA Cup is Élizabeth Teissier/Talk:Élizabeth Teissier/GA1 - the nominator is swamped with other obligations and I promised them I wouldn't close it until they are able to get back to WP.

It's funny but I have experienced this situation from the other direction - having to chase down nominators or WikiProjects to take on adjustments/corrections per one of my GA Reviews. Thanks for that link - if I have a multi-numbered GA Review I always look at previous Reviews to see what has been done/not done, gives me a sense of if the nominator is willing to make changes and what problems might still be extant in the article. Cheers, see you around, Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure where to report this Review but how can an article be passed to GA status when the Review states the article has 11 broken/invalid/outdated/whatever references?... Shearonink (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I apologize for the intrusion, but I was wondering if you could help with my GA review for the article

WP:GOCER—I'd estimate that it will take a good month before it is edited—I would expect the article to have been failed long before then. I also don't think the article is well-written enough. One example: the final paragraph of Life and career, where three sentences start "In [month] 2016"—this is like a list. There's no coherent assembling of a career narrative, just events. So I don't think it would be useful for me to get in any deeper; I don't see how this article can be improved to even near GA levels absent a great deal of work, much of which will be difficult for a nominator whose abilities in English fall short without assistance (hence GOCE). Sorry I can't be of more help. BlueMoonset (talk

) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I greatly appreciate your input. I always feel a little bit awkward doing reviews on here, even though I am slowly gaining more experience on here. I agree with all of your points actually and believe the prose and overall structure requires further improvement. I actually have requested further work for this in the GA review. I decided to fail the review given the article's weaknesses. I just wanted to confirm this with a more experienced editor before failing a nomination as I wanted to make sure that was looking at everything correctly and not blowing things out of proportion. Thank you again!

Aoba47 (talk

) 04:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, if you'll look at Yash!'s most recent review, Talk:Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort, BWV 126/GA1, it took a while to get started, but it did get finished within a few weeks, and while Yash! hasn't edited on Wikipedia for about a week, I think they'll return and get to work. If you see they have returned but not started reviewing, by all means post a friendly query on their talk page. I'd certainly wait two or three weeks before getting concerned; unfortunately, this kind of delay is not uncommon. Given the backlog at GAN—this nomination, while a couple of months old, is the 195th oldest nomination—it could take quite a while to find a new reviewer. In the case of Bonville-Courtenay feud, it was the oldest nomination, and the GA Cup was ongoing. The Cup concludes on March 31, so there will be less demand for the more "valuable" (points-wise) oldest reviews. BlueMoonset (talk

) 15:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries- thanks for the info. Happy Saturday! —

^{Imperatrix mundi.}

15:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know[1] – I thought the rule only applied to promoting your own hooks. In that case, could I trouble you to move my hook to the picture slot of that prep area? (provided you don't find a better hook for the lead) —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, BlueMoonset. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris troutman. Much appreciated! Tempus fidgets, and all that... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If you could weigh in on a referencing question re: the episode summaries (see the "Reference-bundling" section in my Review). This article is so massive everything is starting to swim together at the moment. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Just checking in - I think that this article's episode summaries can be referenced using the cite-video template (meaning using the film/tape of the show itself to reference the episodes) but am not sure...and can't find the wikilinked-rule about this at the moment - can you tell I haven't done all that many TV show GA reviews? Would welcome your expertise on the

GA Review page. Today I am finishing up going over the summaries for tone/prose issues and am very close to getting this one done. Amazed at all the work these editors have put into it - what a *massive* amount of material to deal with. Cheers, Shearonink (talk

) 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, I'm afraid I don't have time to look into this today. However, I have used the "cite episode" template a great many times for plot events or episode summaries: you don't need to cite a particular tape, just the episode itself: director, writer(s), network, date first aired, etc. Any opinions about the episode, however, require secondary sources. You can also combine multiple sources, if you really need them, into a single reference, but that only works well if you don't need the sources independently as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/What To Do About Them still has issues and I want to ping the nominator, but I can't seem to figure out how to do that. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

SL93, I think the simplest thing to do would be to go to their talk page and add a follow-up comment to your previous DYK notification there. There's no way he'll miss that. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I was just trying to figure it out in general on top of it. I see the answer now though from your response.Things have really changed since I was last active. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SL93:, there's also the ping template and a couple of others. You have to be sure you put the right username into it, and none of the forms of pinging work if you fail to sign your posts with the four tildes. (You can't go back and add the sig later or correct the ping and expect the notification to work; the ping/link and sig need to be added in the same edit.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 18:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've been doing some followup on tardy responses to reviews. Are you aware of this one from February 10? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah, I'm not sure what can be done there. Either we find a new reviewer, or you make a response to his statement, perhaps by marking the review for closure. The idea that only current population figures would be relevant in an article seems odd to me. There is no indication of how large the town is (or was) in terms of territory or population, which strike me as basic, or even when it was founded. The two American deaths seem disproportionate to the coverage in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for looking it over. Yoninah (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think I made the right call on Template:Did you know nominations/Korrika? Rather than being expanded 5x as stated by the nominator, it was actually expanded negative 1x as in the characters were actually reduced. SL93 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

SL93, as far as I can tell, the primary additions to the article were additional sourcing in existing text, plus the large table at the end. (There is indeed an actual decrease in prose characters after the recent edits, even though the size of the article went from 6K to nearly 19K bytes.) I think what the nominator means about "automatically created" is that the designation "5x expanded" on the nomination page was put there by the software when the page-creating template did its work, not by Theklan directly. The problem is that there are three ways to qualify for DYK: creation, expansion, and GA. Since it was a pre-existing article, and it isn't a new GA, that leaves 5x expansion (it isn't an unsourced BLP, so there is no possibility of 2x). The primary expansion in the recent series of edits was the table, and DYK requires prose expansion, so tables don't count. At this point, either another 19 or 20K prose characters need to be added (just about impossible, I should think) or the article needs to be nominated for GA and pass (which would require a new DYK nomination should that happen). It's unfortunate, but that's how DYK works on the English Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset... regarding these edits of yours on the James Oakley nomination, I just want to note (for the record) that I completely understand your action and have no problem with it. I have had more than my share of off-wiki issues lately, and am unsure about my immediate future, but I recognise that you needed to act and allowed me more time than I could have reasonable expected, so thank you for that and your concern. Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be an annoyance, but I have just uploaded a Flickr image of a tattoo for Nevertheless, she persisted. Would it be possible to swap this new image for the one you so kindly added to the nomination for me? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@

KJP1, sometimes the bot has problems correctly determining that an article has passed—as in this case—and never posts a notification to the nominator, nor does it add the GA icon to the article. I've done the latter; I've also added the article to the list of Architecture GAs, which is a step I don't think the bot does. If you wish, you can drop a note to the nominator's talk page, if you think they weren't paying attention when you passed the article, but that's entirely up to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have already let him know. KJP1 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can you help me with something? I saw

Bluesphere, I'm happy to help. Since you did mention the 15th in your last post there, I'll wait until it's the 16th, but if there hasn't been any action by then, I'll put the nomination back in the pool with no loss of seniority. I'm just sorry you've had to wait so long, and will likely have another wait for a new reviewer. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, just merge me to the

sphere

04:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bluesphere, merging isn't an option. You can have either a GAN or a PR going at any one time, but they're separate processes. If you decide to withdraw you GAN you can, but it means you lose your seniority: your nomination is currently over three months old, and is the fifth of the Film nominations (and the fourth that would need a reviewer). There are 25 film nominations at the moment, so you'd drop at least 21 positions, and probably more, if you took time off for a PR. A new GA reviewer should raise anything that might be mentioned in a PR, and should also give you time to fix anything that does come up. I'd advise you to stick with your GAN. The decision is yours, though; let me know your preference. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll stick with the GA nomination.

sphere

05:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bluesphere, I just went to the review page and saw that Famous Hobo just showed up to continue the review, so it doesn't seem appropriate to put it back in the pool. I'm going to leave this alone unless I hear from you again; it would need to be at least a two week gap, I think. Glad this seems to have worked out for the best. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you participate in Good Article processes, I thought I would ask you for help. I want to expand Kingsley, Iowa to Good Article status, but I'm not sure what areas to cover for a small city or where to find that information. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD is one of the GA criteria, so the article will need to be upgraded to meet it. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk

) 02:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I got kind of frustrated because the Good Articles that I looked at are large cities with much more located in them. I will try the cities wikiproject. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I know you take an interest in GA reviews. Please could you look at this review which I came across because I am a judge at the WikiCup. Quite apart from not being properly completed, I am suspicious of it but I won't state here why this is. I disallowed the GA at the WikiCup. I am trying to be discrete, but if you don't understand what I am getting at, you could contact me by email and I will explain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not properly completed. Imagine that. What do we call this review? 10W40 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The one you disqualified is clearly not a valid review: a brand new Wikipedian passing a GA nomination without any issues found? I took a quick look and immediately found something that should have been commented on: the "classic" Max Weber study, mentioned in the lede and the body but never sourced. The Roman Empire section has a single citation in three paragraphs. I don't have time to look any further at the moment, but this is clearly not an adequate review; I'll post to the

GAN talk page, and I imagine the listing will be reversed and the nomination placed back in the pool of those awaiting review with no loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk

) 04:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in GA status outside the contest, and I've already been eliminated. It's more trouble than it's worth, as you can see from the link I gave above. From all the hush-hush stuff, I take it the fix was in all along. 10W40 (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

criteria are met. I'm sorry you had a problematic review earlier—the nomination could have been put on hold while you addressed the lede and beefed up the inline sourcing—and a second is even more unfortunate, even if it was in the other direction. I'm very sorry this has happened; however, the Proconsul review was clearly inadequate, so a proper one needs to be done, and I simply don't have time to take it on myself. A new reviewer will need to be found. BlueMoonset (talk

) 15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blue. Just wondering if this ping reached you. No one has replied yet and I know some are pretty active so am guessing it didn't work, but thought I wouls check before spamming all their talk pages. AIRcorn (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, it did reach me, so I would assume the others got it as well. In my case, since I wasn't involved in actually reassessing the article, I didn't feel I could make an informed comment on the article's current state. Thanks for taking this on, and so many of the other languishing community reassessments. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I realise that (hence why I chose your talk page for a check), but thought I would make sure everyone who commented there got a chance to have there final say. This is a typical GAR where everyone has an opinion, but not to many relate back to the criteria. Will give it another week or so then close it one way or the other. AIRcorn (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, not quite sure what to do about this; Sturmvogel 66 took on Aircraft camouflage on 15 March (50 days ago) but hasn't touched it since, despite a ping, nor has he edited anywhere since 19 April (14 days ago). The same seems to have happened to SMS Meteor (1865), Germanicus, Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430). Not much good pinging further if he's just not about. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, sometimes Sturmvogel 66 takes on reviews that he doesn't get back to for a very long time, which is unfortunate and not fair to the nominator, though they do eventually get done. I've seen them be over a month, though I'm not sure I've seen anything over seven weeks before. The nomination can always be put back into the pool waiting for a reviewer, or it can wait for him to return. Let me know what you'd like me to do, which may be a different thing depending on how long it's been waiting. (In such cases, I don't take action without the concurrence of the nominator.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Well, firstly I'd like it not to happen to anyone again. In this case, if he can be contacted within a week and he confirms he'll get on with it promptly, that'll be fine, otherwise we'd best go back into the pool. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No sign of action over there. Let's move now please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Review has been archived as abandoned, Chiswick Chap. I hope someone else steps up soon, since it's at the top of the Warfare section. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you had responded to my request for a second opinion at the GA Review for Neville–Neville feud - I decided to work on the article based on the advice you gave in your review. The GA review has since been reset—I was wondering if you might want to take a look at the current version. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, thanks for the ping, but I'm not interested in doing a full review of the article. Better for it to wait for a new reviewer to take a crack at it. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Np, since you left such a detailed review, I thought I should let you know it was revised per your suggestions and put back up for review. Of course I haven't done this before, but that's just polite right? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, an editor has indicated [User_talk:Chiswick_Chap#Your_GA_nomination_of_Alternatives_to_Darwinism here] that they had not meant to take on the role of GA reviewer on this article, just to make a comment. I'm happy for you to do whatever may be needed to reset the system, and it seems clear that they feel the same. Perhaps we could move their comments to the article's talk page, and put the article back in its place in the GA queue? Many thanks for your help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I've reset the GA nominee template so that the article isn't under review any more, and when someone opens the review, it will start the GA2 page. Haven't decided whether to archive the GA1 page, but I didn't think it was appropriate to move it to the article talk page; there's too much there, even if it wasn't a full GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks.

Alea jacta est! Chiswick Chap (talk

) 21:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Aaargh. People are adding to the GA1 page. Can it be marked as closed? There's also a discussion of the title going on on the fringe noticeboard, somewhere I've happily never been before. At least it should only be in one place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've archived it as closed, but restored the "GA Review" header and removed your many CLOSED at the bottom; even if it wasn't a proper review, the review page should retain its proper header. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I also noticed that you removed the GA nominee template. Under the circumstances, I'm going to rename the abortive GA1 review to the new article name, so when you do nominate it again in the future, the correct page number is set. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Would welcome your input. Shearonink (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So far it's just some general discussion on the article talkpage but the article some folks have been discussing nominating for a GA is Thomas Jefferson. If you could take a look at the editing stats and give me your opinion, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Robert_J._Cenker/GA1. I am trying not to take it personally, but RadioFan has made (IMHO) non-sequitur comments attempting to torpedo the already approved DYK for this article, including suggesting that the Admins change the hook to point to a different article. (See here.) They even edited the article so that the connection to the approved hook was broken. (I reverted that.) They also started the GA review and seems to be applying a matter of opinion bias against the way I wrote it that has nothing to do with the GA review criteria as you ponted out. So what do I do about this? Am I just at the mercy of a single editor who does not know what they are doing regarding either the DYK or GA review criteria? RobP (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @BlueMoonset: Can you please reply to RadioFan's question for you here? RobP (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody thanked you for your hard work in the last month or so, here's a wiki-kitten to keep you going. Keep up the good job (at DYKs and elsewhere)!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I started an RM discussion at Talk:How I Met Your Music, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for noting, full review needed, at Template:Did you know nominations/Midas Touch (book).

What happens next? Sagecandor (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, at some point a reviewer sees the "review needed" icon and starts reviewing your nomination. Could happen today, might not happen for a week or more. It isn't any different from your other nominations in that regard. The reason I added the icon was to make it clear that the full review was still needed despite the previous edits; sometimes potential reviewers skip over nominations where there has been some prior discussion, thinking that the beginnings of a review may already be under way. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just a quick question about this. Don't think I've seen someone promote on behalf of someone else, and wondering why? Not that I think something fishy is going on, btw — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, AlexShih did the actual promotion—that is to say, he added that hook (and a number of others) to a prep set, but didn't do the also-required step of substituting the nomination's template, which is what causes the "promoted" wording and the closure of the template. So, as does happen sometimes when the promoter forgets that particular step, someone else has to close it so no one else will attempt to promote the same nomination later. That's what I did here; I left a note on AlexShih's talk page, because it's been quite a while since he's worked at DYK, and there have been significant changes since then. It wouldn't have been appropriate for me to leave my name as the promoting editor, since I didn't promote it, but it gets added automatically as part of substituting the template, so I had to correct it to the actual time AlexShih did the promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. There is much that happens in the background of DYK (outside of nomination pages themselves) that I do not know about. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my careless mistakes! I did try to read about new changes but as you pointed out apparently totally missed the final step. Will be more careful. Alex Shih^Talk 06:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Fountainhead was closed because of a faulty GA review. It's now a GA again. What needs to be done to re-activate the nom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, it cannot be reopened, but a new page can be created at a different name, such as Template:Did you know nominations/The Fountainhead 2. If you'd like, I'll be happy to set up the page for you, or you can do it yourself. Let me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I could not promote prep 2 is because I assembled the set. I reshuffled so the special occasion is in order now, thanks. Alex Shih^Talk 23:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I nominated it because someone I was talking to wanted to, but didn't know how to, so I did it as a favor. But I understand and agree with everything you said. Will keep in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.67.62 (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, thank you for pointing it out, the two have been removed. Gryffindor (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Just received a friendly note letting me know that in creating and updating this list, I have have inadvertently taken over something that you have been doing well for some years. My apologies for doing so! I just meant to create a handy tool to track nominations, and did not mean to supersede your contributions. I am happy to let the list pass into the DYK archives, and let you continue with the work afterwards. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique, I had let my own list get archived and not posted a new one; it had seemed to have become redundant since there were so very few truly old nominations (no longer in the Current section) that were unreviewed.

As it's now harder for reviewers to find unreviewed nominations at all, your list is probably the way to go at the moment, so please feel free to continue what you're doing. It strikes me as an important resource for people who need to do a QPQ. Thanks for all the great work you're doing around DYK! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please revisit the GAN? Yashthepunisher (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, please be patient. This is going to take some time, as in days rather than hours. The typical GAN waits for over a month before it is selected for review. I realize that you are used to Jaguar, but as you can see his review was very superficial and missed quite a bit. I have to carefully read not only the article but the sources it is drawn from, something Jaguar simply didn't take the time to do. I don't have a lot of extra spare time, which is one of the reasons I typically don't take on GA reviews—it takes a lot of time to do a proper review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, a reviewer who states frankly they don't know biology (let alone its history) has done a brief, hostile, uninformed, not per GA instructions attempt at review. I've replied but they don't seem to be editing at the moment. Maybe we could have the review removed and the article put back in the queue? I could just close/fail the thing myself but since it's basically nonsense I don't see why I should, honestly. Anything you can do will be gratefully accepted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, let's give this a little time and see what develops. Your reply gave this reviewer resources and a way forward; not everyone edits every day. You are, of course, welcome to pull your nomination at any time, but that means going back to square one with a new nomination date, as happened last time. If the reviewer should voluntarily withdraw, then you don't lose seniority. I don't see any benefit to chopping off the review at the moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's hope they return and do something constructive. They face a steep learning curve - this is not an ideal place for a newbie reviewer to begin. I wonder if we can signpost things in some way. I guess a note could be put on certain GANs but it's probably not where people are really looking. In this case there's a difficulty with the article's title, but short of adding 'The early 20th century theory named the [modern synthesis]' to the title I'm not sure what could be done about it. I'll call back in a couple of weeks if the reviewer hasn't returned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it's got into a mess. They returned but with no change. I was just in the process of stopping the GAN when I got a message that the reviewer had failed it. I've renamed the page and done some other work, and it all got out of synch - the page is now Modern synthesis (20th century) but the GAN page is Talk:Modern synthesis/GA2. Could you relink it and delist the GAN? I'm sorry for the mess, I've sorted out most of it from this end. I think it's now sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, just so you know, the reviewer did not fail the article; the message was sent out by the bot because you moved the article at 08:42, so the bot run at 09:00 didn't see the GA nominee template any more at the original talk page. So it did two things: sent out a failure message because there was no more review at that page (by default, a GA nominee under review is considered failed by the bot if the review template is removed and not replaced by a GA template), and it added in a new entry for the article under its new name, but without a reviewer because there was no review page. This new entry disappeared at the point that you replaced the GA nominee template with the new entry in Article history. (Incidentally, the date/time for Article history is the time the review ended, not when the original nomination took place; I've made the necessary adjustment.)

Under the circumstances, it's probably best that the review has ended, given the reviewer's opinions on what ought to be considered in a good article which do not match the criteria. As it turns out, you did stop the GAN, albeit not as you'd been planning. You may wish to notify the reviewer that you have withdrawn the GAN. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for untangling. I believe the reviewer thought they were doing an instant fail with what they intended to be their one-and-only comment on the article; and I believe they were profoundly mistaken about that. I have tweaked the article and will resubmit it. The GA system is designed to be simple and collegiate: it fails utterly when reviewers don't read the instructions, aren't willing to give their time, and make up their mind in the absence of evidence. Plainly the system is creaking, but I think that all the alternatives to the current system are likely to be worse. I wish we could find a way to bring in people capable of doing some of these more technical reviews, but even an honest, plain, workmanlike approach that goes through the images, the text, and the references as best it can would be a blessing. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Blue, sorry it took me a little to respond, I have not been very active on Wikipedia recently. I agree with your assessment that the article is out of date, more than I realized or would like it to be. How about this, I will take a couple of days and add 2015-2017 to the article, or if I don't get it done in a few days I'll probably delist it as a GA and work on it when I get a chance.  MPJ-DK  01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, thanks for the response. Adding the 2015–2017 material is my preference, if you can; if not, a self-delisting sounds best, since I haven't gotten any response from the reviewer. I definitely prefer a self-delisting to a Good Article Reassessment, which is my least preferred outcome (or second least, since I didn't feel the article could remain a GA in its current form). Do you think you can give me an update here by the end of the weekend? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep I will let you know how it goes, and I agree the GAR process is not needed, if I can't get to it now I will delist it myself.  MPJ-DK  02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate this for the DYK "Spider venoms may be a less polluting alternative to conventional pesticides, as they are deadly to insects but the great majority are harmless to vertebrates" its from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider#Benefits_to_humans Would you be willing to nominate this for me? Fractal618 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset,

Thank you for your message and looking into it, I really appreciate it. You are right, I probably won't be able to expand it 5x. The nomination can be withdrawn. Thank you again for your help. Gryffindor (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you reboot this GAN? It's been grabbed by a non-experienced editor.

First step has been taken: I've requested a Speedy deletion. When that's gone through, I'll finish resetting the article talk page. Thanks for letting me know about this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Slightlymad, the speedy deletion went through, and I've reset the article talk page. The GAN is back in the pool of unreviewed nominations with no loss of seniority, and ready to be selected by another reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: the reviewer of this GAR—

mad

07:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting my computer back today. Will take another look. Thanks.Peter Flass (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now addressed Gerda Arendt's concerns in regards to my DYK? nomination here:

I responded there again. Basically, I want to see an example of a good QPQ.

talk

) 22:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now responded there yet again and tried to follow your advice to me in regards to QPQs on my talk page.

talk

) 06:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it seems to me that this list is completely out of date. Isn't it time to delete it? Yoninah (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Why delete when it could be updated? About half of the admins seem to be around, at least some of the time, for example. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I notice you're involved with GA. This article recently appeared at DYK. It now has been tagged for neutrality and balance. Should it be delisted? Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:GAR. The original GA review seemed to be dealing with the neutrality/balance issue, as far as I can tell, though who knows how well; the subsequent tagging has been done by one editor, who could open a GAR (but at this point it would have to be a community reassessment if that editor wanted to start one, not an individual one). Community reassessments take time, several weeks if not months, and until they're done, the article remains a GA (and, if the issues are addressed during the reassessment, remains one). BlueMoonset (talk

) 16:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. Can you please ask for another reviewer for Template:Did you know nominations/Polity of the Lacedaemonians. Please see also my note to Drmies. Thank you. Dr. K. 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you so much Bluemoonset. Take care. Dr. K. 17:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you be interested in being nominated (or nominating yourself) as a GOCE coordinator? All the best, Miniapolis 00:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Miniapolis, I'm not even a member of the GOCE! I can copyedit, but I haven't yet signed up for a drive or blitz, and while I sometimes copyedit as part of trying to clean up other people's GA nominations when they're being reviewed and the like, I don't even remember if I've ever done a templated article. Are you sure I'm right for the job? (I've been primarily working at DYK, with some GAN thrown in.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you've been involved in the wikiproject, I didn't know that you hadn't formally joined :-). Sounds like you're having fun with DYK and GAN, and I appreciate whatever you want to do here. Thanks for the reply and all the best, Miniapolis 02:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)