User talk:Sainsf/April 2013–February 2014

Hartebeest

Sorry I haven't been back to the review; I've been very busy in real life. I should be able to get back to it tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days! In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00. At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: giant eland

This is a note to let the main editors of giant eland know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 13, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 13, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The giant eland is an open-forest savanna antelope. Although it is the largest species of antelope, with a body length ranging from 220–290 cm (87–114 in), the epithet "giant" refers to its large horns. It is also called "Lord Derby's eland" in honour of Edward Smith-Stanley, 13th Earl of Derby, by whose efforts it was first introduced to England. As a herbivore, it eats grasses, foliage and branches. It usually forms small herds consisting of 15–25 members, both males and females. Giant elands are not territorial, and have large home ranges. They are naturally alert and wary, which makes them difficult to approach and observe. They can run at up to 70 km/h (43 mph) and use speed as a defence against predators. They mostly inhabit broad-leafed savannas, woodlands and glades. The giant eland is native to Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Mali, Senegal, and South Sudan. It is no longer present in Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Togo. Its presence is uncertain in Nigeria, Guinea-Bissau, and Uganda. There are two subspecies, which have been given different conservation statuses by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

content animal
Thank you, welcoming, kind, content and curious happy user cat, for quality articles on animals and plants, such as Giant eland, Amanita thiersii and Hartebeest, for GA reviewing, such as House Sparrow, for "hope, deceitful as it is", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so folks still remember me at Wikipedia! I have disappeared from this wonderful Wikiworld since what seems to be ages, for I am busy at school. But there is no end to my "Thank You"s for such inspiring Wikipedians like you! It's awesome you gave such an attention to the features on my userpage and all (didn't you?). It does make you feel good! What a grief I have turned inactive here, but this award is gonna be a great boost! So would not it be right to say, that teamwork and intelligence wins championships (especially when they have great people as you)? With a loving meow, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your achievements were not for the moment only ;) - thank you! - I am an expert in missing great contributors like you - as you will have noticed on my talk. One of them is the photographer of the precious jewel, but his achievements are also not for the moment only, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Rainbow Trout GAN

@Sainsf - Take a look at it now. I think I've addressed all the issues you raised. Please note there's one exception on the "Length-Weight". Thanks for all your inputs. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Got the last of it done. Thanks for all the comments. It definitely made for a better article. I will apply these types of comments to every article I work on. Thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN for Cutthroat trout

FYI, I just put up Cutthroat trout for GA. I tried to put all your good advice on Rainbow trout to work. We'll see how well I did. Thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. To me, the article does not appear to have many errors. Still, I would leave a few comments on the talkpage. I am busy presently, maybe late in my response. Sasata is an excellent reviewer, we have worked together several times earlier. He is gonna be an excellent help to you, and will leave quality comments and awesome help - which might even be a big push towards FAC! Good luck with the article! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got to all the issues raised. Thanks for all the help. Let me know if anything additional is required. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed all the issues Sasata raised in the article. Let me know if any more is needed. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sasata has, as always, done a very deep review! I don't find any more problems. Let Sasata respond, leave a reminder at his talkpage if he delays for a day or two more. We must know what more the reviewer has to say. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos on this. Plan is to send Cutthroat to peer review as soon as Rainbow is promoted to FA. That should be soon enough. Once Cutthroat is in FAC, I'll have one of these ready for GAN: Brook, Brown or Dolly Varden trout. Been working on all three. Brown is going to be the most challenging as it is just as complex as the rainbow but in different ways, primarily because of its very long, convoluted taxonomic history and the fact that it is one on those species that is both highly valued and at the same time considered invasive in places. Thanks for all your help. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Spix's Macaw article revived

Hello Sainsf,

Some time ago, if you remember, you hosted a GA review of my article Spix's Macaw (well, I nominated it for GA, with appreciation for Snowman, KimVLinde and other editors' efforts). At that time, Dec. 2012, I relocated, and etc. and couldn't finish the article. Since then, I've added a ton of references, so I think that problem (the main one) is ended. One [citation needed] and one [promotion?] inline tags remain, because I don't now how to fix them. Maybe you have some suggestion? I'd be grateful if you could do another read of the article, and see what you think. I'm not going to re-nominate the article for GA until I get a Pass from you, and consensus from other editors I'm consulting that the article will fly through GA. If the article is grossly deficient still, this gives me time to work on it while sparing other editors attention. Regards,Sbalfour (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sbalfour, for remembering me. I am sorry I had to fail your GAN (I might have broken the heart of a newbie as you), but I am very happy that the article has improved superbly after a year! I put my comments after an overall inspection of the article, which you can use before starting a new GAN:

• The lead is very much improved. But, still, you need to devote a para (make it the second one) to the description, diet and reproduction. Try to touch all the relevant aspects of the article (remember this or all the articles you work on in the future) so that it looks a mini-article.
• The taxonomy part is looking great because of the cladogram (take care of the facts, for I am not that knowledgeable to check their accuracy!) I aligned it to the left to avoid squashing.
• Description appears fine to me.
• In the line In the wild, the most commonly ... staples of the diet in Diet you seem to be referring to a study. You must generalize all statements from the findings in a study (why do write were and commonly mentioned?)
• Distribution and habitat, History, Conservation and threats: These are too long sections. The reader may be bored, and I advise you to squeeze the sections 3-4 into concise paragraphs (you also write single statements here, which looks lengthy) You will understand this topic the best. So just put forth the most relevant facts in these sections (esp. the Conservation; instead of recounting the whole history of plans and efforts and all, write only the most important stuff. We must focus on the status, population, present range - where it is extinct or has been introduced - and most important efforts in the conservation) I mentioned this in the earlier review as well.
• Can you do anything about Aviculture? This is very small in size, even some part is unsourced. Popular culture looks fine.

About [citation needed] and [promotion?], the former can be easily repaired by either deleting that portion or providing a source for it. I would recommend Sasata, who is a good editor of Wikipedia (basically a mycologist, but as he has access to literature, he might help you with his opinion of the article). He has helped me with my first articles, and if you contact him, he may help you expand Aviculture, or provide more data for Diet and Reproduction and so on. For Promotion?, you must understand that it might be improper to name a particular organization here. Just write ...was called "Neumann", after veterinarian Daniel Neumann, who performed this insemination. I appreciate your sincere efforts for improving this article. Don't be tensed, it is not at all very hard to make a GA. The formula is to assemble proper and relevant facts, making sure of their verifiability (as you have done by adding more references), and then writing precisely. Take the examples of other successful GAs (like House Sparrow that I have reviewed). I am sure that with the advice of other good editors here (don't forget Sasata) this article will become a GA, and, why can't it be that, an FA eventually! Good luck, and a happy new year, to you! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think an issue is what looks to me to be rather amorphous sections; "History", "Conservation and threats", "Threats", and "Captive population". Snowman (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Black wildebeest

Hello Sainsf, I see you are working on the Black wildebeest article. What are your plans for it? I am interested because I expanded it from a stub last summer but had not particularly thought of taking it any further. Do you fancy a co-operative effort? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, amiable Wikipedian! Thanks for recognizing my efforts. I have been working on various mammal articles (as you can see, mostly on antelopes), and presently I want to make Black wildebeest and, later on, Blue wildebeest GAs (maybe FA later). I don't want you to expand it when I am doing it, may create confusion. Let me make it as comprehensive as I can, but meanwhile please recommend if you can any nice journal articles or books whose facts can be added here. I can access them online, and if they are interesting and relevant, why not add it! Also, some interesting images are also needed to go with the article. It will take me a few more days to complete my work, then we can work together on adding the last few touches before GAN. May I ask in my turn about your plans for WikiCup 2014? Congrats for your win last year! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't got any books about wildebeest, black or blue, nor do I have access to journal articles other than free access ones, so I will leave that to you. When you are through, I will be happy to give the article a good going over to improve the flow of the text etc. I stayed at a private game reserve in South Africa a few years ago. There were no large predators on the reserve which made the zebra, blue wildebeest etc less wary than they might otherwise have been. Apparently all the animals had owners, and the large herbivores needed to be culled periodically to prevent overcrowding. So the "owners" sell their surplus animals to other parks like the Kruger National Park. The management of the Kruger want to attract tourists and tourists like to see lions at their kill. Consequently they have a shortage of large herbivores and choose to introduce some nice easy prey for the big cats! As to the WikiCup 2014, there is no problem scoring enough points in the earlier rounds, and in the later rounds I am considering Camel, for which I have got a useful book, plus one or two other ideas. I prefer GAs to FAs as the latter seem to necessitate such a fuss over trivial detail such as the format and punctuation of the citations. I have set myself a challenge of doing one GA a month during 2014 on a higher level taxon, most likely to be a marine vertebrate order or phylum or suchlike, but starting with Salamander this month. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, that would do. Nice anecdote, that! You could work on the article Wildebeest which is a genus article. Please help me at this if you can, because I don't know how to develop it, my experience is only of species articles. If this article, Blue Wildebeest and Black wildebeest can be made GAs, we could co-nominate the three for Good Topic! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will see what I can do with Wildebeest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I just finished working on Black wildebeest. Now you can fix things in it. I am not interested in nominating it for GAN just now, because I shall be busy preparing for exams in the coming weeks-so I am not sure if I would be able to attend to the review. I am afraid I would not be remaining so active here these days, work on Blue wildebeest may be delayed. We can nominate them later on, when we would have them ready. Meanwhile, could you just guide me as to what should be included in Wildebeest, and in what order should the sections be arranged? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I.m not sure that a genus article is much different from a species article. I guess it should describe what the species have in common and point out the differences. Its probably easier to do the genus article after the species articles as most research is at the species level. Anyway, there's no hurry, and the wildebeest will still be around when you have more time later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have gone through the article pretty thoroughly, polishing up the prose, removing some duplication, sorting out some contradictions, moving some passages to more logical positions etc. I have not done anything with the lead (which mentions Kenya, not mentioned elsewhere in the article) nor have I dealt with the section "Diseases and parasites" which is just a jumble of facts and lacks a cohesive structure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I would use this improved article as reference when I edit in the future. I am going to delete Kenya, as we do not have any source for its verification here. I have tried to summarize all the main points of the article in the lead, just as I have done in articles that I have succeeded in making GAs. As for "Diseases and parasites", what are your ideas for organizing it? I tried to use the style of Giant eland here, but I divided it into two paragraphs - one for diseases and the other for parasites. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Natural History Shield

	The Natural History Shield
	For first-class Natural History work, most recently on Wildebeests. Congratulations! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A thousand thanks! It certainly is a great encouragement! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black wildebeest

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black wildebeest you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you've mixed up threats to individuals with the threat of extinction. Apart from that, all the points are minor and I shan't worry about them. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the IUCN page on threats, and it says clearly that hybridisation is the only one, so I removed the others from the conservation section. It would be fine to add a mention somewhere of a) natural threats to individuals (predation is already covered), and b) historic threats, no longer current, to the population, but these are more of a matter for FA than GA in my view, so I'm satisfied the article meets the GA standard. I enjoyed reading it and would again like to congratulate you on an excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black wildebeest

The article Black wildebeest you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black wildebeest for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well done! It had become a GA before I even realised a reviewer was in place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to you as well; your contribs are most significant! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)