User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Master of Orion II GA review

Hi, Dabomb87, thanks for closing this (as a pass). I've left a message at the original reviewer's Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rumford Prize

Can you explain your oppose a little? I'm going on vacation, doubtful I can access the Internet; I've asked Ceranthor to finish the FLC, if he accepts can you please send him the same PDFs you send me? Thank you.ResMar 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept here, for convenience sake. ceranthor 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I've resolved all the non-content concerns, could you send me the e-mail, too? ceranthor 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll send you a Wikipedia email first. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes

Hey Dabomb, I withdrew nomination of 4 minutes and applied for a PR. Well can you give your inputs there regarding what more can be improved? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for transluding that one. I completely forgot! :) iMatthew ^talk at  22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Incentive system for reviewers, again

For WT:FAR. To be frank, I think there is 0% chance that the average detail of reviews will decrease. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably busy, but...

...do you have anything else for the FLCs for Pritzker Prize and/or Mercury Prize? Both reviews have somewhat stalled. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to work my way up the FLC list. I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. Have a good weekend, don't "work" too hard! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pritzker (besides the redirects which are fine) done. Thanks for your quick review. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done your pesky redirects dude! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done your peskier repeated refs duderino! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Too kind! Enjoy your weekend. Get on the Mercury comments when you get a few moments! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I doubt that day will ever come. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Akureyri

See User:User F203/sandbox/Iceland for explanation and checklist.

The article is much improved. I have avoided adding fluff to make the article longer as is the case with some articles, yet the article is 80% of the recommended maximum for some browsers (26kb now versus 32 kb limit for some browsers). All the sections found in other GA city articles are covered. It would be nice of you if you can confirm the GA status because there would still be time to do last minute corrections during the weekend. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a look this afternoon. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for a small town, you'll have to admit that there's a lot written in the article! User F203 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"This afternoon" was yesterday. Did you have a look at it? If it passes your review, then I will enjoy the weekend and slowly improve it. If not, I will make the final push this weekend and work on it like there is no tomorrow. See the top link (sandbox) for an analysis. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you did not reply, I'm going to take the weekend off. I was hoping that if it did not pass but was almost there that I could make the final push this weekend. By not replying, I can't make the final revisions to meet the July 5 deadline. So could you either pass it, say the article is complete rubbish, or let me know that it's almost there. User F203 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Based on what you wrote, I think the article is almost GA for a small town and that a weekend's work can fix it. Your understanding is appreciated and will not go unrewarded. Furthermore, I'll even remind you myself that the deadline is over once I work on it another weekend (this weekend, I'm away from the computer most of the time).

Some of the things that need sources actually do have sources but the source covered much of the paragraph. For example. Sentence 1. Sentence 2. Sentence 3. Reference number. The reference covered sentence 1,2, and 3. I didn't add any facts from my personal knowledge. In fact, I kept some personal knowledge out of the article to avoid OR.

Will write back to you soon after I get a chance to do the final revisions! Of course, minor revisions will be done for months to come as our work is never done! User F203 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discography FLCs

Regarding your comment at the albums project, These aren't strictly under the scope of this project, but if someone could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dream Theater discography/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Devin Townsend discography/archive2, that would be great. While discogs are of interest to most members of the albums project, there is a project specifically related to them: WP:DISCOGRAPHY. -Freekee (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I posted there, but in the past, there are times when we still haven't gotten eyes even when I posted there. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No problem, just trying to help out. It's tough getting help on tasks like that. Everyone seems to have their own areas of interest. -Freekee (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

RE

Ok. I think that you are right. I can nominate for the featured list the List of awards and nominations received by 30 Seconds to Mars? It is a great page. What do you think?--Matthew Riva (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean you want to withdraw the discography FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I am improving the page.--Matthew Riva (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

see barnstar page 17:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not often I disagee with you...

...but I've just declined a speedy for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of skin-related conditions/archive1. Over 200 pages (mostly talk) link to it, which actually brings up slight canvassing concerns. At the moment, seeing as the FLC is an current active nomination I think that, at least until the nom is finished, keeping the redirect is practical and convenient for some users. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, did not notice those. Mind if I retag it after the FLC concludes? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, be my guest. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A query

Thanks for commenting on the Ruff FAC. I just wanted to ask about the origins of the which/that guidelines. I've never come across this particular rule before, either in my dozen or so previous FACs or elsewhere, and I'm old enough to have attended a UK school that taught that sort of stuff, and I don't remember it.

Now, this isn't a complaint, your Google search link made it clear you are correct, and I accept that. I just wondered how it had slipped under my radar. Is it a relatively recent formalisation, or something that's primarily American (I note MS Word's grammar check has a tendency to query which on every conceivable occasion), or is it just something I've totally missed in the decades since I left school? As I say, this isn't a whinge, I'm just curious. You may well not know the answer, so I don't necessarily expect a reply, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that it seems to be a British tendency to use "which" instead of "that", but I've seen and heard Americans use them interchangeably too. In informal English (especially spoken), many use either which in lieu of that regardless of circumstance, and it is considered acceptable to do so in most instances. In more formal encyclopedic prose though, I think the grammatical precision is necessary. I hope someone who has more knowledge in this area can help me out here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style puts it very well, and is a lesson for all English-speakers. It goes something like this: because "that" and "which" can both be used without comma to indicate a subset rather than the whole, but ", which" indicates only the whole, it's good to avoid any sense that the writer might have got it wrong, which is common enough. "The funding that will enable construction" (a specific subset of funding) leaves no doubt that the writer might have meant "The funding, which will enable construction" (all of the funding). If you write "The funding which will enable construction", the comma might just have inadvertently left out, which could be disastrous. The optional "which" is thought to be elegant by some English-speakers (including David Attenbrough), but I got over that long ago, emboldened by the plain English movement, which started in the 70s. Tony (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the detailed replies. I'm sure you are right about the usage being less formalised in BE, which at least partially explains my former ignorance. jimfbleak (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Essex FLC

Thanks. The only reason I asked TRM, as the bot had run and there was no FLC promotions, so I got a little worried.Mitch/HC32 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Article prose size

I was interested in the comparison of article prose sizes, as compared to overall size, for the various FAs on cities. How does one calculate that? Sunray (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much. Sunray (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cardinal-nephews

Hey dude. Reviewing this list and can't get my head round why the table cols change width from 13th to 17th Century tables. The nominator is setting every col of every table to 200 but those tables in the middle of the list are clearly not equally spaced out. Any ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about a list

I am considering creating a couple of new list articles. The first one is regarding the aireal victories of Eddie Rickenbacker, there are 26 for WWI but I am not sure if this would be enough to warrant a list, any suggestions? The other involves the Medal of Honor recipients (bix surprise huh, lol). I am thinking about creating a couple of new lists, 1 for Buarials at Arlington Cemetery (there are about 340+ recipents buried there) and in regards to the American Civil War lists, I have continued to struggle with how to deal with these from the standpoint of getting featured and I think I am going to breakthem up by Battle, about half can be easily aligned to a battle (Gettysburg, Chancleorsville, Frederickburg, Spotsycourthouse, etc) and I was wondering if that would be appropriate? Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem with NBA FLs

Since you guys are checking copyright problems for FLs, I am just wondering if there are NBA featured lists that have copyright problems.—Chris! _ct 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I only checked for obvious copyright problems (e.g. many instances of close paraphrasing and excessive usage of quotation of copyrighted info). There may be individual sentences or phrases that could be rephrased in the NBA lists, but I saw nothing blatant. Since many of those lists are mostly statistics or lists of entities, you needn't worry much. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, also for catching my mistake :)—Chris! _ct 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you help copyedit 2009 NBA All-Star Game when you have time? I've appreciated it. Thanks—Chris! _ct 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you asked for it........

Some comments - got the feeling you had an easy run from the other reviewers! Wouldn't want you to feel cheated! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for. I'll get on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Akeuryri, semi-finished for now

Thank you for your flexibility. I have addressed all of your concerns. If it can remain a GA, let me know. If there are small issues that prevent it from being GA, then I'd like to use that weekend gift (allowance to work on it this weekend) that you granted. If it is hopeless, then you can declare it BA (bad article). Please note that even if you let the article remain GA, I will continue to improve it slowly.

Please also consider that it is a small town with little written about it. The WP article could be the most comprehensive resource for Akureyri on the internet now! User F203 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is such thing as a "bad article"; some articles are just better than others. I can give you the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is unclear. If it can retain the GA in it's present form, let me know. I've complied with all of the suggestions. The weekend allowance is just to do some more corrections and look for more references to expand the article. In other words, I'd like your re-evaluation now. If it fails but is almost there, then the few extra days will help to salvage it. If it passes now, then that's a relief but will not mean that I will stop editing. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Runcorn lists

Just to say thanks for your positive comments here. It all got off to a bad start with the comment about combining lists, which would IMO not be a good idea, for geographical, historical and cultural reasons - surely these are more important than the mere numbers of items in a list. The whole nomination seemed to have got stuck up a blind alley, so I hope your involvement will move things on a bit. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I personally like the lists separate too. FLC has gone in a funk recently about content forking and "short lists" because in the past editors could pass ten-item musician's awards lists (which could have easily been integrated into the main article) through FLC and call them our "best work". However, your buildings list does not qualify as such, and, as you said, numbers aren't everything; there are other things to be considered in stand-alone lists, such as those you mentioned above. Keep up the good work on the lists and good luck on whatever topic plans you may have. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Sorry about the gender thing - I should have looked at your user boxes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Athletic Club

I think an article could survive WP:AFD, but do not expect an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl of Poker

DaBomb could you take a look at this article. I want to nom it for FL, but I don't want you to lambast me again for noming an article that needs alot of help. Engrish grammer hath alweys me problim b.  ;-) (The problem with learning to spell phonetically when you had a childhood speech impediment.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)