User talk:GDuwen/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Good Article

This user helped promote Heartbreak Hotel to good article status.

Well done. Good work. SilkTork *YES! 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the

new page patrollers
. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{
    User wikipedia/autopatrolled
    }} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Nelson

I would say break it up by segment. Start with his early life (before the first single release) and then flesh it out as much as you can. Then work on the first years, middle years, later years, present day. At the very least, all of his major albums and hits should be mentioned by name, and there should be a section comprising sourced info on his musical style. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I'll try to add to it this week. I just woke up so I'm really out of it right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did do ..i will also look at the page...let me find some book sources.Moxy (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your question on my talk page. --Rschmertz (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your
GA nomination of Willie Nelson

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Willie Nelson for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Rachel Weisz

The article is much closer to what I think is proper in terms of

WP:FOUR) 19:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Good job on the article so far. I would definitely recommend addressing the issues currently raised at the FAC. Many of the citations definitely use additional parameters including author, while some of the sources should be removed if not deemed reliable (such as IMDB). Check and see if there are any current biographies that could be used to further source the article. When the article has the complete and more developed citations, I think it'll have a better shop at completing the FAC successfully. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it - also worth dropping a note on the talkpages of the film and actor projects. Lugnuts (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GDuwen. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jennifer Connelly

It probably is in the range of articles that conforms to the general

WP:FOUR) 03:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Good article review help: Netball in the Cook Islands

Hi. I nominated Netball in the Cook Islands for a good article. As you're part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia, I was wondering if you could help review the article. If not, could you do the assessment for article as part of the project, level of importance and if it is at least worth a B? Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback on my talk page. I tried to incorporate the advice where I could. This is the first article I've written from scratch that I'm trying to get into a b article really only the second article that I've put a lot of effort into writing. --LauraHale (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit of Rachel Weisz

I finished going through the article for copy-edits, as you had requested. I didn't have any major issues, though I did trim a few quotes down quite sternly for brevity's sake, and added some direct quotation where applicable. If there's any issue with my revision of the article, let me know, and good luck with the FA nomination.

X 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Jennifer Connelly PR

Sure. Just let me know when you'd like me to take another look. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The layout is looking much better to me down to the top of the "Personal life" section, and I assume you're not done yet. I probably wouldn't have noticed the navbox space if you hadn't pointed it out. Finetooth (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'd just leave it alone unless someone else notices it and grumbles. The grumbler might be able to suggest a work-around. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting it on the top of my to-do list for Tuesday morning. I'm a little too brain-fried just now to trust my judgment. Finetooth (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It looks very good. I posted a brief set of comments to the bottom of the Peer review. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could nominate now. As far as comprehensiveness goes, I'm assuming that you've looked at
WP:FA#Media to assure yourself that you've covered the bases. I think you have, but I don't have any special knowledge about J. Connelly. Almost everything I know about her I learned from reading your article. Finetooth (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Before taking the article to FAC, you'll need to close the peer review. Just follow the instructions at the top of
WP:FAC and follow the instructions there for nominating the article. As you follow the steps in both sets of instructions, related things will happen to the article's talk page either because you do them or because a robot does them. All of this eventually becomes part of the article history without any further action on your part. Just be sure to read the instructions at PR and FAC carefully and follow them exactly. I often keep two screens open when I'm doing this so I can flip back and forth between a page of instructions and the page I am altering. Holler if you run into trouble (but I don't think you will). Finetooth (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You are most welcome, and thank you for the barnstar. Good luck at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GDuwen, I've been caught up in a difficult FLC and have not responded to your last note, about problems with the PR or FAC instructions. I see that you've figured everything out and that the FAC nomination encountered strong headwinds immediately. Please don't be discouraged; the problems noted by the reviewer looked fixable. If you'd like me to have another look at some point, don't hesitate to ask. Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Hi. My thought is to copyedit the article and to make small direct changes rather than making a complete list of small things to pass along to you. If that's OK with you, I'll do that tomorrow (Monday). If I encounter anything complicated or that I'm not pretty sure about, I'll make a list and pass it along. Will that work? Finetooth (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where to look for the recent FAC comments? I read them, but they are no longer at FAC, and I'm not sure where they've gone. Finetooth (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That was very helpful. I started with very first suggestion, that the citations were inconsistent, incomplete, and in some cases unreliable. That turned out to be true, and I'm sorry I missed these things in my hurried peer review. I have gone carefully through the first 12 citations and posted comments about each to the article's talk page (Talk:Jennifer Connelly#Notes about the citations) and suggested that someone look closely at the rest. Please ask if any of my comments don't make sense. Finetooth (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept starpulse as reliable for the mild claim in the article. Starpulse seems to be an entertainment news site that's probably vetted by an editor or editors. It's tabloid-ish but, I think, more reliable than a personal blog or other one-person page. Starpulse credits World Entertainment News Network for the Connelly story, which further supports the idea that the claim is based on research and was vetted by somebody paid to be careful. I'll look at other aspects of the article later today. Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did another proofing and found little to fix beyond an occasional change to punctuation. I see only two remaining problems. The link in Citation 103 has gone dead. It's acceptable in a case like this to cite the paper version rather than the on-line version, but you need the publication date and page number to make the citation complete. The other problem is related to this one. The last paragraph of the "Personal life" section mentions Jeffrey Oing's decision to prevent construction until March 11, 2011. Since that date has come and gone, readers will want to know what happened after that. Maybe you can find a later update in the Wall Street Journal or elsewhere and eliminate Citation 103 by replacing it with a newer citation. Other than that, I don't see any problems. That doesn't mean that other editors won't spot any or ask questions about things I haven't thought of. FAC is always a bit unpredictable, but this article looks solid to me. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I were the nominator, I'd wait until the full two weeks had gone by even if technically it might not be necessary. There's no particular hurry that I know of. And, yes, if you have further questions as things go along, I'll try to answer them. However, I have no special knowledge about Jennifer Connelly; you are the content expert. I might not be able to answer every imaginable question. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you saw, the date formatting problem is solved. I'm sure you also noticed that I plunged ahead and began changing many of the details in the citations. To do that, I had to check them one by one, linking through to the source. Although I had done that earlier with the first 10 citations or so, I did not do it with the rest but simply advised that it should be done. I've been finding the same kinds of small errors in the others as I did in the first 10 and fixing them as I go. A lot of them might seem deeply nitpicky, but the The New York Times is the correct name of that particular newspaper, for example, and New York Times is not. Also, overlinking in the citations tends to occur when anything but the title (automatically linked) is linked; you end up with things like "The New York Times" being linked multiple times and creating an unnecessary sea of blue in the "Reference" section. I removed lots of it. At least two citations are problems, I think, that you will need to address. Citation 47 doesn't seem to connect to the source; I've tried several times to connect, and I don't know what's wrong. Citation 62 links to a blog entry, and I don't think it's a reliable source. I may have more to say later. Finetooth (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With IMDb, I'm not sure. Since the source is only supporting the claim that Time thinks she's beautiful, I think you could safely delete Time from the list and delete the IMDb source as well. If the Time claim is accurate, it should appear in an edition of Time itself. However, spending a lot of time tracking that down seems like time not well spent, at least to me. Others say she is beautiful, and I doubt that anyone will challenge the claim, which has other support. Finetooth (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your
GA nomination of Hank Williams

The article

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm, it seems that the article had some tinkering with, as I reviewed this version (I think). I would suggest re-nominating the article, as I don't have time to review an article very soon, so it will probably be faster to renom it. Sorry about the misunderstanding! :-(
Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Jennifer Connelly

Hi, just to let you know that the copyedit you requested on the Jennifer Connelly article on the GOCE requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Monologue of Love Jennifer Connelly.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 05:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Help Needed - Willie Nelson

Hi, sometime ago (if you remember) you reviewed one of the articles I've worked on (Heartbreak Hotel). Since I know that you're a fine reviewer, I just wanted to know if you would review Willie Nelson's article, currently on GA nominations. In case that you don't have time or any other kind of issue, it's OK. The article has been nominated for a while now and for your work as a reviewer previously, I know that you do it very well. Thanks for your valuable time.--GDuwenTell me! 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SilkTork *YES! 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here We Go Again: Celebrating the Genius of Ray Charles

I noticed that you created

WP:FOUR) 06:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2011/03/album-review-here-we-go-again-celebrating-the-genius-of-ray-charles-with-willie-nelson-wynton-marsal.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/here-we-go-again-celebrating-the-genius-of-ray-charles-20110413
http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2011-04-01/cdrev2
http://www.metacritic.com/music/here-we-go-again-celebrating-the-genius-of-ray-charles

You may want to nominate it at DYK or GAC. I am working on

WP:FOUR) 19:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

All albums have release dates, but they often also have specific release dates for individual singles, but it sounds like you don't know much more about researching those than I. Just to take a random album, look at
WP:FOUR) 21:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Good work on the tracks. I hope you nominated this at DYK. You should probably also link the songwriters and fill in the missing ones.--
WP:FOUR) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I have a copy of the album from the
WP:FOUR) 00:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I also could use an opinion at
WP:FOUR) 03:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added the other sample that you requested.--
WP:FOUR) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
GL at
WP:FOUR) 15:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Why did you withdraw the nomination?--
WP:FOUR) 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I have never done a GA for an album. Take the article to
WP:FOUR) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Talk:Willie Nelson/GA2

Willie Nelson is going through a GAN, and is on hold for an initial seven days to allow issues, mainly prose, to be addressed. Help is requested and welcome. SilkTork *Tea time 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the article to the Guild, and I will try to asses the issues of the article as well. As you said, most likely it will take more than a seven day period. I will do my best to invest my free time working on this (lately my work has been weighting heavy on my time), but still it can be done.--GDuwenTell me! 18:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GD. I will do what I can as well, time permitting. Whatever happens, the article should improve. If the work cannot be done in a reasonable timespace, then the article can be nominated again in the future. The GA project is fairly accommodating. SilkTork *Tea time 18:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hello Walls.ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Here We Go Again: Celebrating the Genius of Ray Charles