User talk:Ealdgyth
 | I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. But if I left a note on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, as I'm watching your page for a bit. |
| If you want me to look at something, either an article or a peer review or a GAN or FAC, please please please include a link. I get a lot of requests for this sort of thing, and it's a lot easier if you include a link. |
|
Archive 1 May 2007 to Jan 2008 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Oxford Seasons
Thanks for the comment. I don't know why FCHD is a reliable source, but the first two seasons articles that are FLC that i have just looked at (York and Gillingham) both included it. Rage Online isn't reliale and i will try to phase that out with TwentiethApril's help. Eddie6705 (talk)#
re deadlinks. I've managed to locate alternatives for most of the deadlinks, but there are a few issues:
I've directly quoted this, and I don't think I'll find a better one. Is it possible to locate this in an internet archive?
ditto [2]. Chicago Tribune appears to have deleted this. I can use the Leaky Cauldron quote as a citation though.
The HP Lexicon What's New section has a link to a 2007 archive but no 2007 archive. I really want this quote, so could it be found in an internet archive?
I've removed the HPANA links, since they're just links to original news sources anyway. As regards Leaky Cauldron that's a bit more difficult. Whenever possible I've tried to use primary news sources, but the editor of Leaky isn't just a reporter, she actually has a role to play in one of the lawsuits, so her site is rather important. Stallman's site is directly referenced in the article, so it's valid, even if it looks out of place in the intro. But people demanded the intro be sourced, so I used Stallman's site as a source. I don't really see any difference between World Socialist News and any other news site, other than their political stance, which isn't relevant. Accio Quote is the best online source for JK Rowling quotes anywhere. I've tried to use original citations where I can, but sometimes that is the only source. Serendipodous 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, that WP:V is policy and needs to be satisfied at FAC. Fan websites are problems for reliability, and all sources used need to be reliable. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a stab at fixing the refs. I've moved the Leaky Cauldron refs to a separate article, and contacted the webmistress of the site to ask for advice. Haven't heard back from her yet. I've done the cosmetic things and fixed most of the dead links. The only exception was the Preventative Maintenance Monthly link, which I can't access. Serendipodous 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Meshuggah FAC
Good day! I dont want to be annoying, but can you have a look on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah please? Thanks.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The nomination was cancelled. I dont dig it. I was about to delete the the About.com sources. The nomination had no opposes and it was suddenly archived by a bot. I just do not understand it. It was almost all fixed and done.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- The bot just follows behind Sandy or Raul and does the clerical work. It's not the bot that closes things, it's Sandy/Raul. Looking at the archive, it hadn't recieved any supports and had been up over a week. When you think you have the sourcing issues sorted out, let me know. I'm still not totally convinced on either rockdetector or fuzz, although it's not a total "unreliable". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good day. I just did some further work on the article. I reduced the usage of the official biography etc. I came up with the Rockdetector on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rockdetector with some new sources. I removed all that About.com /Sputnikmusic stuff as well. I also made some small chages in the text. Could you have a look on it and see if it needs some copy-editing please? Thank you!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I want to nominate the article again, but I need you to look at some things before I do that. Can you please have a look at this. It is the Rockdetector issue. I added also some more sources with feedback to Rockdetector and Garry Sharpe-Young. And the Fuzz.com - the information on that page is added by the band (Fuzz.com "about us") - is that allright if it is used as a primary source (as per WP:PSTS)? This two things are the last issues. Will you help me with them please?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't generally comment on issues at the RS board, because I like to keep that as a 'neutral' third-party check for RS sources. As far as Fuzz.com, I'm still not seeing anything in that that says only the band can edit the page. It's implied, but nothing explicit. That page is a press release and is full of flowery press release language. If indeed the band is the only person who can edit their page, then yes, it would be Primary Source and would be allowable for non-contentious information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- For Fuzz, I think that would depend on what investigation turns up on who can edit the page, and what it being sourced to it if only the band can edit it. If others can edit it, I'd say it falls outside the RS guidelines, as it would resemble a wiki too much. Rockdetector I would have to say is probably unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you said about the Fuzz.com, but all information we have is the Fuzz.com's own "About us" and the two articles on Fuzz (music company). But I absoulutely do not understand why do you think that Rockdetector is not reliable. We have third party sources saying that Rockdetector is a good source:
Blabbermouth "Rockdetector is recognised as the primary and most detailed host of factual data on all things rock and metal", "Rockdetector's staggering array of facts, recordings, line-ups, photos, logos, track lists, archive global gig guide, international chart positions, labels and catalogue numbers the site over 26,000 wholly unique biographies.(..) Many of these, such as METALLICA, NIGHTWISH, JUDAS PRIEST, OZZY OSBOURNE, CRADLE OF FILTH, W.A.S.P. and BLACK SABBATH, are recognized as the most authoritive on the net.", "Besides keeping Rockdetector up to date, Garry has found time to publish 14 rock books, including the acclaimed, ultra-detailed "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" BLACK SABBATH history, with more to come." Blabbermouth in 2006. "Rockdetector is owned by Garry Sharpe-Young, known previously for designing album covers for the likes of SKYCLAD, GRIM REAPER, SAVAGE and QUEENSRŸCHE, journalism for U.K., U.S. and German magazines and numerous A&R credits across more than 30 albums." "Rockdetector went online in December 2000. It has already spawned nine accompanying books. Next up is "Classic British Rock" (info) and "Classic US Rock" (info), the first to see full international distribution across USA and Asia through Helter Skelter Publishing in London." Blabbermouth in 2005. And some others.
- What else is needed to prove the reliability of a source? I do not understand why is this not enough.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you said about the Fuzz.com, but all information we have is the Fuzz.com's own "About us" and the two articles on Fuzz (music company). But I absoulutely do not understand why do you think that Rockdetector is not reliable. We have third party sources saying that Rockdetector is a good source:
- They are all from ONE source, which is itself a pretty borderline source. Blabbermouth's reliability rests on the fact that a record label recognized it, and it's hosted by that same record label. Perhaps something similar can be found for Rockdetector? If we do not know how a site gathers and interprets the information it is putting out (i.e. editorial standards) we can not trust the source to accurately report information. I'm sorry if you think I'm being a pain or unreasonable. You are welcome to go ahead and nominate again, put forth the arguments above about the two sources, and let other editors decide for themselves if those arguments make the sites reliable in their minds. I am not the sole gatekeeper of what is reliable and what isn't, and articles can get promotoed while I still have concerns. There is no "Ealdgyth Seal of Approval", although lately I've begun to think that everyone thinks there is. Sourcing isn't black and white. A site that might be perfectly acceptable for a piece of uncontentious information would not be reliable for something alleging criminal acts or other contentious information. Does that make sense? I get the feeling that you want me to blanket declare these sites "always reliable" which, frankly, I am very unwilling to do, as to do that I feel they must meet the standard that they can be sourcing very contentious BLP material. You've said that in this case, no the information isn't that contentious, so it probably will be okay sourced to these sites in THIS situation. And now, you'll have to excuse me but I'm really very busy in RL. You may link to this discussion when you renom, as it'll spare ME having to retype all of this. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am really sorry that was annoying you. The only thing I want to say is that I asked you so urgently because the FA nomination was cancelled because SandyGeorgia "encouraged the nominators to sort the sourcing issues to better prepare for FAC." The nomination was more than a week about A:"this source is not allright" Response B:"I dont know what to do about it". No help/comments/soultion from anybody else. And now I am about to nominate it with 2 unclear sources again.. But nevermind, thanks for your answers and have a nice day!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for why other reviewers didn't comment, I don't honestly have a clue. I comment on sourcing for all articles at FAC or FLC, and very rarely have time to do a full review of an article. I do know that some folks have felt that FAC is being used as peer review type of service (whether that feeling is valid, I have no clue, and no opinion), and they may have curtailed their reviewing accordingly. Also, it's still summer break in the US so people are scurrying to complete their vacations, get kids in school, etc. User:Burningclean also commented on the article and you might enlist his help with checking it over before renomming. And I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was seriously annoyed or anything, but I am busy, and tired, and was trying to explain WHY I won't say that Rockdetector is a reliable site. Anytime I say "such-and-such" a site is reliable, it's taken as gospel that the WHOLE site is reliable for EVERYTHING on the site. In this case, I am not comfortable saying that, so lest I get told that "Ealdgyth said Rockdetector was reliable for everything", I'm very cautious about saying a site is reliable. In this case, yes, the information is probably as sourced reasonably reliably, but it might not be for every case possible. Do you see the distinction? I did link this discussion over on Sandy's page so she can see it and take it into account with a new FAC nom. I would strongly suggest someone NOT involved with music/band articles do a read-over of the article, just to catch any jargon, etc. Look at some of the more prolific FAC reviewers to see who might be available for such (Don't ask Tony1, he doesn't do that sort of thing). Malleus, BuddingJournalist, Coeil (who I just mispelled I bet), Karanacs, and some others are not involved with bands and might be willing to look it over to make sure it makes sense to a non-metalhead. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Burger King legal issues
Hi,
I was just wondering, did I resolve all of the issues you raised in the FAC? Could you please respond at the peer review I set up.
Thank you for your time,
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again, could you please respond as to whether I resolved the issues you had during the FAC review for this article? I need to know so I can move forward with the peer review and a second FAC nom. Please respond on the PR page. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Quick Source check?
Hey, Ealdgyth. I was wondering if you could take a look at the sources for Raptor Red when you've got the chance. If you have any issues, just post them on the talk page of the article in question. Gratefully yours, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I added a few more refs but they are Entertainment Weekly, Natural History journals so nothing I would find controversial, so you can take it off the watchlist. As for Stigand, I was just surprised you actually have time to edit in between all that FAC junk (it's good, after all we wouldn't want you one day burning out in a fiery cataclysm of reliable sources :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Got a question
You posted on WT:FAC that you won't review road articles because of comprehensiveness. May I ask what your view is of "comprehensive"?Mitch32(UP) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Basically it can be summed up from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 174, where I suggested perhaps a bit about land usage around the roads, and was told this wasn't part of the road. I gave up at that point. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, since we're splitting NYSR from USRD, maybe we can make the change to use some of that, and things can happen. :D. I'm just tired of all these FACs sitting around for me.Mitch32(UP) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have enough to do at FAC (and now FLC) that I really don't do contentious articles for full reviews. I do like to work on my own stuff too! If I'm going to catch a lot of flack from other reviewers and the nominators, I just don't bother with it. (You've never given me any flack though, so don't worry). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, since we're splitting NYSR from USRD, maybe we can make the change to use some of that, and things can happen. :D. I'm just tired of all these FACs sitting around for me.Mitch32(UP) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
All the problems have been fixed. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable?
On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games you brought up this source: japan-gamecharts. This is an email I got back from that site.
Regarding your question, i just take data from regular Enterbrain issues, so all
the numbers you can see on the site are numbers provided from Enterbrain. I don't make any changes, so that's the difference from VGChartz.
So what do you think? « ₣M₣ » 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Given it's not exactly contentious information, it works. Make sure you put that on the FLC page? If I don't get around to it tonight, I'll get to it tomorrow when I do a full sweep of all the FLCs making sure I've dealt with all resolved issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Everything you brought up a while ago in that FAC was taken care of, I'm just making sure this source is ok for that information. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 00:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
αcharts.us @ Mastodon discography
http://acharts.us/ is a reliable source? Also, take a look on MOS:DISCOG—feel free to exclude the non-reliable. Cannibaloki 02:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Cold War FAC
If all your issues have been successfully adressed, would there be anything else to be done in order to gain your support? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article.
- I hope this helps explain things to you. I know you're anxious for supports, and they will come, things move a their own pace at FAC. There are some good suggestions here about dealing with the FAC process. Also, in the future it is helpful, (especially for me) if you put a link to the FAC in your comments, so that I can easily find it. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
FAC comments
Hi, you had some concerns about the formatting of sources here. I have changed that since then. I'm not sure if you still think it's insufficient, or whether you haven't looked at it yet. Thanks. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Thought I'd struck that last one, meant to. Done now! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Guadalcanal Campaign FAC comments
I appreciate your comments on the article. I've responded to them [3]. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Old Trafford FAC
Hey man, I believe I've appropriately dealt with all of the references you mentioned in the Old Trafford FAC. I would appreciate any further comments you can give. – PeeJay 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on the road and probably won't have time to get to this until Tuesday or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Bob Dylan FA reassessment
Hi Ealdgyth, Bob Dylan is currently being reassessed. I have a lot of concerns about the quality of the web links in the article. Could you take a look at the sources and whether or not they are up to FA standard. I'm not sure if your involved with reassessments and it is a big article, but your the best person at these things. — Realist2 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on the road and probably won't have time to get to this until Tuesday or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Stigand bis
Congrats on the excellent Stigand. And now it has a shiny star! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've been on the road, and will be again later this week. After that though, hoping to finally get some more work done on the bishops, it's been a wild summer here! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Odwalla FAC - Reliable Ref?
Hi. Would "Odwalla, Inc." International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 31. St. James Press, 2000. Reproduced in Business and Company Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.:Gale Group. 2008." be a reliable ref? It's from the International Directory of Company Histories. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the sourcing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odwalla should be fine now. If you can find any way to add my comments under any cap, that would be good, but they seem to be all over the FAC, so I couldn't figure out how to join them so they can all be capped. All yours :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
 | Thank you for recently reviewing an FLC candidate that I nominated. Your work is appreciated! from KV5 |
Reliability
Are these sources reliable?
Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, it is being discussed here: Talk:Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song)/GA1. --Efe (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
On contact music: this is thier submission guidelines. I think it would be reliable enough for a review, if what you were quoting was the review itself, not for general facts. On mvdbase, note at the bottom of the page it says "is produced and maintained by Alex S. Garcia" which leads me to believe its is a personal/fan site. This is their submission guidelines, which basically tell me they aren't very picky. Nothing at all about fact checking on there. About.com is covered here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com. Sorry it took a bit of time to get back to you, life has been REALLY hectic. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference Check
Hi there! I'm doing a GA review, where there is a disagreement between myself and the lead editor on what constitutes reliable sources, and I am hoping to get your opinion, if you have a few minutes. The article is USS Triton (SSRN-586). The full GA review is located at Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586)/GA1. The references in question are these:
- USS TRITON SS(R)N 586 - an unofficial Triton website
- Triton message board - a message board for Triton veterans and other interested parties
- Coldwarcomms - a Yahoo group
The argument from the editor is this:
"Regarding citations from the USS Triton Message Board, I submit that the posters are former crew member of the USS Triton, and therefore should be treated as authoritative. It is not some fan site, and its webmaster, Garry Gray, worked closely with the late Captain Tom Thamm, and having known how exacting Tom was, I can assure you that Garry's web site is very thorough and accurate." Marcd30319 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
From what I have seen discussed elsewhere, message boards and Yahoo groups are never considered authoritative, and self-published sites are iffy. Could you let me know what you think about this? Am I being too strict for a GA? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not Ealdgyth, but I am absolutely certain that message boards and Yahoo groups get hammered on GA, major no-nos. I'm more relaxed on self-published sites for GA when there is not much else out there, but it depends on whether the self-published site itself sounds like a "rah-rah" advertising thing or appears itself to be well-researched, albeit with poor or no citation. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- The ONLY exceptions on forum postings is if it's a well known expert that's published in multiple third-party references. We're talking Stephen Hawking level of expertise though. And even then, it's ... frowned on. They are welcome to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if they like. That's what I usually do when folks question me at FAC. Sorry it took so long on the reply, I'm in Texas and dealing with pre-TS issues here. We're not in any great danger, just need to help folks out. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you! This was along the lines of what I was thinking, but just wanted a second opinion to tell me if I was way off base. The editor seems fairly reasonable, just a little inexperienced, so it should be OK. I hope everything goes OK with the TS, and congrats on your new horse! (Why yes, yes, I do talkpage-stalk both you and Montana *grin*). Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
|
The Monarch of the Glen Appreciation | |
| Thanks for your assistance in helping Fauna of Scotland to become a Featured Article.
It's much appreciated by Cervus elaphus and myself, Ben MacDui 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
Congratulations and thank you
Hi Ealdgyth, I just saw that Stigand made FA, congratulations! I also was very surprised to learn that you very graciously listed me as a co-nominator on the FAC. I am not sure I deserve the honor, but appreciate your generosity very much. Congratulations again! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I felt you and Ning-ning had done a lot more than usual on that one, so deserved the co-noms. You dragged me kicking and screaming into adding more detail...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
|
<font=3> Thanks again for your reference checks and comments - Hillsgrove Covered Bridge made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|---|
Barnstar
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| Given with respect and admiration to Ealdgyth. Thanks so much for all you do - writing great articles, checking references at FAC and PR, and kindly including me on your FAC for Stigand. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
London Peer Review - Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive5
Hi there,
Thank you for your comments on London's previous peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive4. London is under going another peer review, so please may I ask that, if you get the time, you review the article again and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive5?
Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Lockdown
Hi!, my name is William and it is nice to meet you. I have the article Lockdown (2008) under a peer review so that I can get everything fixed to meet FA standards. Would you be so kind and review it, that is if you have the time.--WillC 10:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
At FAR, three premature Keep delarations, warrants a close look: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Russian Ground Forces. (No hurry; it will be there several weeks.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Horses and storms
Hi Ealdgyth, I hope you and the horses made it through okay. I'm finally back home and have power again! Minimal damage, luckily. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- not only did we make it through fine, we are back home in Illinois with two of the horses. Need to get them settled in but should be back to normal at Wikiland by early next week, hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that you made it home okay. I learned a valuable lesson - don't evacuate to north Houston! The eye passed pretty close to where we were. I don't know that I'll be reviewing hurricane FACs for a while - I am tempted to just oppose on principle. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I totally understand. it is probably my fault you guys got hit, I lived in SW houston for 19 years, and in that time, the only time anything hit near us was when I was out of town (I was gone for Allison and Rita). I leave and two years later, Ike. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that you made it home okay. I learned a valuable lesson - don't evacuate to north Houston! The eye passed pretty close to where we were. I don't know that I'll be reviewing hurricane FACs for a while - I am tempted to just oppose on principle. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw the comment about the questionable ref, and I'm just letting you know that it's been removed. I also noted this on the nom page. Thanks for reviewing it. SandyGeorgia and I have been eagerly awaiting your comments. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- No worries, sorry I was on the road a bit longer than I expected. Ike caught me in Texas and I ended up staying two-three extra days I didn't expect. (I didn't get in danger, just had to suspend some things I needed to do until later than I thought.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to comment on the sources on the above peer review? Thanks.--SRX 22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I know you are busy, so please take a look at this whenever you are free. Steve, one of the reviewers of the nomination, has provided rationales for the five remaining external links that were not confirmed as reliable in the first FAC. I was wondering if you could look over the rationales and determine if the links are now deemed reliable. Thanks again for your help, you really helped to improve the quality of the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I should be able to get to this Monday morning. I'm busy with an art fair and Monday looks like the best chance of me being free. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, whenever it's convenient for you. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Verifying the foundations of an old bridge
Hi, Ealdgyth! It is me again. This time, I would like to pre-FAC check on the sources I used for Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge. It is mostly books (published sources), so I think it mostly should be fine (but just to be safe). If you have the time to go through the article and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1, that would be real super! Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Monday work for you? I really should be doing REAL work not goofing off on Sandy's page... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Anytime within the following two weeks should be fine. It is under peer review now, and Dabomb87 has been finding several prose issues, so the article would not be going to FAC quickly... (but I hope for it to be in tip-top shape when the time comes for nomination). Jappalang (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Horses for courses...
I wouldn't worry about GAR; there is plenty of good feedback coming now to work on, and it all gets the article closer to FAC anyway..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- GA was more a step to get feedback and see what happens. We weren't exactly expecting a quick fail, given that there are three pretty dedicated editors who can and do get things fixed fast when we want to. But, yeah, PR is probably an option soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Chanced upon this conversation & I looked over the article. Everything seems good, but the one thing you need to fix is size - the article is waay too big. Me and Cas had the same problem with Vampire, but left it too late IMHO when the FAC was underway, and it was a big rush/hash/hassle to select text to move to subpages. Don't leave it that long; start chopping now and even consider just leaving the bare essentials of each topic. You'll thank yourself later on when the article comes to FAC and you don't have to make such major changes. Otherwise, the article seems well-referenced and topical - although I did just quickly skim through. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Dr pda is 8400 words for Horse, within WP:SIZE 10,000 guideline. Sheep, 10,000 words for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Barbera FAC
This link is dead: dealinks and I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- If its just an external link, you can cut it since it's dead now. Or you can try to find out where the page has moved on the site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)