User talk:Ian Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
    Hi and welcome to Ian's Talk. Please leave new comments at the end of the page. Unless requested otherwise, I will reply to you here to keep the conversation thread in one place. Cheers, Ian.

Archives: 2006 * Jan-Jun 2007 * Jul-Dec 2007 * Jan-Jun 2008 * Jul-Dec 2008 * Jan-Jun 2009 * Jul-Dec 2009 * Jan-Jun 2010 * Jul-Dec 2010 * Jan-Jun 2011 * Jul-Dec 2011 * Jan-Jun 2012 * Jul-Dec 2012 * Jan-Jun 2013 * Jul-Dec 2013 * Jan-Jun 2014


ADF Ranks[edit]

G'day Sunshine! I hope you're surviving winter better in Sinny than I am in Adlaid!!

I've had a request from a wiki-colleague that is outside of my area of experience. (I hesitate to say "expertise".) I'm fairly confident that you can point the requester in the direction of someone who can give him a reliable answer and good advice, so I humbly request that you do so.

Here's the request. (The thread is User talk:Nford24#Re: ADF Ranks)

Hey! I am just after an opinion. A graphic designer has done the various RAN/RAAF & ANC/AAFC/AAC ranks using his awesome skill and I have been given access to the originals and permission to use them on WP. I have added the flag rank hardboards to the RAN page and was wondering (in your opinion) if I should replace the sleeve lace with the SRI (soft rank insignia) versions then add the hard board's as well. I will (in the coming days) add the OR/WO ranks and the WON special insignia to complete the section. Cheers Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. It's time for you to do a talk page archive. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, no-one in particular comes to mind. I realise I probably sound like a broken record but I'd just recommend posting a query at the MilHist talk page. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Tks for the reminder!

advice needed and your help is appreciated[edit]

hello. thank you for your valuable input and help in this discussion, may I ask you though: is the article a suitable candidate to be -at least- a "good article"? thank you again. best regards Grandia01 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think the suggestions I made at the FAC page probably apply even if going for Good Article status, though it would take less effort to address them for GA than for FA. My suggestion is to try Peer Review even before GA, so you have a chance of more than one editor's opinion (and PR is less stressful as it's not an assessment, just a chance for people to offer constructive comments). I can't guarantee you'll get many people stopping by but it's worth a try. If you go for Peer Review, let me know when it's there and I'll try to stop by myself to offer further comments as well. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
ok, I did just that. I am anxious to know of your more-detailed comments on this project. thank you much for all your valuable help *hat tip to you sir* Grandia01 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Grandia01, just to let you know I haven't forgotten this, I will try and get to the Peer Review this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
no worries, absolutely whenever you can. and thank you again Grandia01 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
*whistles* Grandia01 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, I can see I've missed out on the PR now. Sorry things have been busy lately -- I'll at least put some comments on the article talk page tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
excellent!! thanks again Ian Grandia01 (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Eo et redeo[edit]

A good motto, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And again, Frank Headlam, amazing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again, Gerda -- I was surprised myself to see two appear in such quick succession! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I was not surprised, because we (QAI) monitor the scheduling rather than bot messages (my own also came without a notice, it didn't even have TFA date until well after the event) ;) - I was recently asked to create an infobox about the infobox war. A bit more seriously (than my answer "you don't want to know what you ask"): what does a milhist person think of it and its battles? Approaching the anniversary of the arbcom case with the same name but not dealing with the topic, I am curious. My impression, re-reading some statements ("redeo"), is that they picture the battles of a former time (when I didn't even know what an infobox is because project Classical music where I am most active lets you not see many), not the situation of 2013. The last time that a TFA was "attacked" by an infobox was in 2012, and it was a book, not a composer of classical music. A more up-to-date picture of who stands where and for what would be desirable, the last (promising) exchange of ideas was Chopin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah-ha, the dreaded infobox question...! I generally use them because I've always understood them to be a standard part of a military article, and they do seem a logical repository for the lists of commands and awards (in bios), belligerents (in battles) and so on that we associate with such subjects. I am not, however, a warrior for infoboxes, and have never sought to impose them in non-military articles where the main editor has decided not to employ them. Unless there is a clear consensus for their use, I would always defer to the main editor's preference because while I appreciate the wikignomes who tidy up formatting in articles, the people I respect most are those who put in the hard yards researching, writing, and shepherding an article through reviews. Another example: medal ribbons in military articles. Many people have strong feelings for and against the use of images of medal ribbons to augment lists of honours and awards. I am strongly against them but the fact is that, after many discussions, no consensus on whether they should be used or not has been established in MilHist. By default, therefore, many of us leave the decision to the main editor. I try to show the editors who like their ribbons that courtesy in "their" articles, and I expect them to show me the same courtesy in "my" articles. I'll also tend to revert people adding ribbons to others' articles in which they've had no real hand editing. OTOH I don't go looking for medal farms in articles and deleting them. As I say, I'm not a warrior for particular formats or elements and I tend to get a little bit uncomfortable with those who are. For me that's not really what WP is about. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel that I am not a warrior either, but I have been labelled a member of the "infobox warrior club" (whatever that may be). I don't think the Chopin discussion is a battle, what do you think? An new editor asked why no infobox? - They can restrict many editors who go for accessibility, but the question will come again. And yes, why not? An infobox doesn't "damage" the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
ps: (after looking closer) There are cases with the question on the talk (Bizet, for example), but here, a new user had added an infobox, was reverted with a cryptic edit summary, simply reverted that, was reverted by a different editor. I hope that will not happen again, that treatment of a newbie who has no way of knowing that classical composers are a different category, unlike writers and scientists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland FAC[edit]

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

Peter Isotalo 05:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks, will stop by if I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)



Your "front page" appearance is a modest recognition of the intense efforts you have put into Wikipedia. Well done!

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to hear from you, George, and many thanks for your kind words. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook 14 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG I don't know whether you like coffee or not, but it is to show my appreciation to you for promoting Gemini (2002 Tamil film). BTW, why no closing comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Tks, I do like coffee and in fact missed my usual mocha today so this kind of makes up for it... ;-) Promoting the article when there's consensus and all checks are complete is just doing the job, and then I don't always add closing comments. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Roy Phillipps[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Roy Phillipps. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the second wikipedian to receive the WP:FOUR Award 25 ribbon. This award recognizes your successful promotion of 25 FOUR awarded articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Tks for both of those, Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blue men of the Minch[edit]

Hi Ian, I have some concerns about the Blue men of the Minch article which I see was promoted to featured article status by you a few days ago. My initial concern regarded some apparent geographical confusion in the article but on further investigation discovered that the rationale for the inclusion of a significant section of the material was questionable and any connection to the subject matter of the article was based on synthesis of different parts of a source and a source which does not mention the blue men. On raising the matters on the talk page, I was met solely by abuse by one of the main contributors, with none of the concerns being addressed in factual terms. Any edits I made to the article were reverted to add back the questionable material. I also raised it at the Scotland project's talk page, by the way. I'm concerned that the issues in the article be addressed before it might come to be featured on the main page. Can you help please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not being an admin (nor wanting to be), I don't have any special authority when it comes to edit wars or volatile discussions. As far as Featured status goes, the article and the review had stabilised with the requisite support and checks for a while prior to promotion. We do depend on people to take part and raise issues if we're to delay promotion in such cases, so once that's happened the talk page is where consensus should be gained to make substantial changes. There is the Featured Article Review process for articles that may no longer meet FA criteria, but that's usually only a consideration after quite some time has passed since promotion. As far as a possible main page appearance goes, you can object if the article is nominated at WP:TFAR, or on the TFAR talk page prior to that if you want to preempt things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative reply and sorry for not responding earlier (I've had an enforced wikibreak, slung at me by the real world, in the interim). Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

The article No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

FAC questions[edit]

Hello Ian, I noticed that—before I could leave input—you closed the FAC for Ulysses S. Grant after six weeks without consensus for promotion. It got me thinking: is that perhaps the average time FAC's last (both successful and unsuccessful)? Just figured I'd ask for an idea of what to expect for articles I nominate for FA myself. I've also asked other editors who have experience in taking articles to FA, and heard it optimally would take roughly a month for an article to be promoted, but figured it would help to ask an FAC coordinator as well. Also, how did you manage to become a coordinator yourself? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! To answer the last question first, I was asked to do it by the original FA Director, Raul, after he consulted with other delegates/coordinators of the Featured Content processes. I hadn't lobbied for it, in fact I was surprised to be asked, but I assume my extensive experience writing and reviewing FAs had something to do with it. This leads me to my responses to your other questions which, I'm afraid, is that it depends! If a nom has a good deal of commentary and support from experienced reviewers, and had its source and image checks, then we might promote it in a week or two. If OTOH it's taking a while to reach consensus but the review is active and there appear to be no major stumbling blocks then we might well let it go on for more than six weeks. I tend to see a month as around average for consensus to become apparent, remembering that noms with little or no activity for a few weeks can be archived for that reason alone. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It does help, thank you :). One FAC I participated in, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, was closed as successful one week after nomination. Definitely the quickest promotion I've seen. Others I've seen take 4–6 weeks. Hoping I can get quick promotion for my nominations! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Try not to be discouraged if it takes a while. The subject -- to say nothing of the quality -- of an article has an impact on the process. A well-known subject may gain more reviews faster than a less popular subject, OTOH the popular subject may attract such a divergence of opinions that it takes longer to gain consensus. My advice is always to seek as many reviews as possible prior to FAC -- e.g. GAN, PR, or A-Class Review if applicable -- to try and iron out potential problems at the earliest opportunity, especially with well-known subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Echo that last point. If you write about less-known subjects (like, say, films that pretty much nobody alive has seen), getting interest early on is key. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't take an article to FAC before PR and GAN- it would be rather unprepared. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 10:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I mention this not only from a quality stand-point (my current FAC didn't have a PR, and quality-wise it's pretty prepared), but also in drumming up interest for future reviews. Usually the people who PR articles I've written will drop by the FAC as well... though, of course, they expect me to provide comments at their PRs and drop by their FACs as well. Getting some interest can mean the difference between a quick pass (like Si Ronda) and a long haul (like 1740 Batavia massacre; see the first nom). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well gentlemen, I launched my first FA nomination yesterday, fingers crossed. As the top contributor the Katy Perry, I'm hoping to have this be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. You are both welcome to leave comments. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • KP? Yeah, you're not going to be short of reviewers. Face-smile.svg — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sure she'll get lots of input, Crisco, but am not sure when their comments shall first come in. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ian, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Katy's FAC has so far gotten six supports just three days after nomination! I've asked IndianBio to do an image review, though I'm not sure when he'll get to that. In any case, could you have a look and see if she's ready for promotion once the image review is complete? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer review[edit]

Thanks for the mail! A short hospital stay put me out of commission for a bit, but I plan getting back to the review soon. Regards! Pendright (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear the stay was short and you'll be back soon! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

FAC promotion[edit]

Hi Ian, not sure which of you have the promotion queue at the moment, but I have three support votes on California Chrome and knowing that you like to do your own review as well before promoting, thought I'd give you a heads up. I have three other reviewers there still outstanding, but one (Go Phitins!) seems to have dropped the review, the second is Blofeld, who I think is pretty close to support (I've chopped over 1000 words from the article, just for him!), and the third is Nikkimaria - I don't know what to think there because I was one of the people involved in an unrelated mess she was in that ended badly for her last week, so I'm not sure if she's abandoned the review also or not. Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't, but I don't support on just a source review - you fixed the last two dead links and I fixed everything else, so that's the end of that. Looking at the review though, it seems you're missing an image licensing review yet. I can do that later tonight if no one else gets to it. Ian, did you want spotchecks on Montana too? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool beans. @Nikkimaria: If you are OK with doing the image review, that would be good, no one else seems inclined to do so. I also chopped quite a bit of stuff so it's possible some sources got separated from material (I chopped the sources that were no longer used, don't think I dumped anything necessary). Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. Sources getting split from the text is something that's very hard for me to find without doing full spotchecks - is it possible for you to go back and look for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I was extremely careful not to separate sources from material i kept, as far as I know but there were a few loose cites that no longer had anything to be sourced to. I think I got them all. Basically, the ownership section took the hardest hit because it was spun off to DAP Racing, so maybe focus your spotchecks there, then various random stuff. The Belmont section was last written and had the roughest chop because a lot of material became irrelevant when the horse didn't win, so if you want to check that bit, it had the fewest rewrites. Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Tks Nikki, I'd never knock back the offer of a spotcheck on anyone's article (including mine!) but everyone's time is limited so I tend to restrict my requests to articles by FAC first-timers, or more experienced editors who haven't been around FAC for a while. IOW I wouldn't be hanging out for one on this particular article but there may be nominations by newbies or returning old-timers out there that I haven't picked up on as yet and spotchecks would be very welcome in those cases. Montana, I will probably take another walk through the FAC list for potential promotions mid-week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Groovy Ian. I'm fine with Nikki running the usual checks, the one thing I don't know quite how to do and I don't do well running scripts (they honestly flummox me completely) is to check for over-wikilinking. I suspect I have a few, but the eyes, the eyes... if there are other worker bees I can ping so you and Nikki aren't stuck with all the routine checks, I'd be glad to get others. Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with doing most of the checks, usually, but I was rather surprised to see my most recent FAC passed with no source review at all ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't want to give away trade secrets but there are times when the list is so long, the FAC has been open a while, there's clear consensus to promote, and the risk seems minimal, so you just say hang it and promote without the dedicated source check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: and pinging Ian, I believe all reviewers now support this FAC, so is anything missing other than Nikki's final word? Be nice to have this FAC done before the horse races again, which is probably going to be in about a month. Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to take a whack at this before promotion if that's okay, Montana. I'm working on a couple of tough ones now but I shouldn't be too long.
Sure, but FYI the supports to date are the pros: Crisco 1492, Dr. Blofeld, Gerda Arendt and Fuhghettaboutit (Also Go Phightins! reviewed but never finished). That said, it's been worked on for almost a month now, so... do what ya gotta do, but don't forget us here...  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I probably won't find anyth ... oh damn. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Heh, by the way, you know about Dank (horse) don't you? She kicks butt from time to time...  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know. The weird thing is, one of her siblings is Harbinger, which is a username my partner John had considered because his middle name is Harbin. Btw, he's a great copyeditor and wanted to read your article ... he liked the whole thing, so there's no need for me to do more than I did already. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Scharnhorst FAC[edit]

Hey Ian, is there any problem with me running this for another FAC? I seem to recall there being a mandatory waiting period after a failed nomination unless one gets approval from one of the delegates first. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the std time is two weeks after archiving but we can waive that when there's been practically no commentary on the original nom, as in this case. If you could wait though until mid-week when I go through and hopefully close a few more, that might be better all round, 'cos the list is pretty long at the moment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that's no problem - there's no rush since I have until December for the date I want to run the article. Thanks Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Sorry to pester you. I have only ever done a very minor edit to a wiki article in the past and it wasn't a biography, so I got a bit lost. The subject is Horst Kopkow, a Nazi SS officer in WWII. I was interested in adding a "In Popular Culture" section, based on an interview I saw with Anthony Horowitz. Horowitz is the creator / writer behind Foyle's War and he indicated the character Karl Strasser (played by Lars Eldinger) in Series 7, Episode 3 was based on Kopkow. Too obscure / trivial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22syme5 (talkcontribs) 12:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Personally I think it's an interesting enough tidbit, as long as it can be cited properly. I'm not sure that I'd create an "In popular culture" section just for that, though. Such sections do put some WP editors off, as they look like a trivia magnet. That aside, I think that if one wanted to really improve this article the best thing to do would be to cite the biographical information already in there. Hope this helps a bit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]


I was suspecting someone might want to close the review of Briarcliff Manor. It has been slow-going, but there were more comments than just about images. I don't believe the review should have been closed. The page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates describes that reviews can only be closed if objections haven't been resolved (not true in this case), consensus between editors hasn't been reached (there wasn't much disagreement between editors in the first place), the reviewers haven't given a sufficient review (which, mind you, does not state a time limit or state how regular replies should be, or how long it has to be since the last comment), or if a reviewer suggests that the review be withdrawn (which hasn't happened in this case). Clearly I'm missing something, which means that the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page needs specific detail into when the coordinators will close a review. When I submitted the article as a candidate for this, I had no thought that you all would close such a review just for taking some time. I don't believe that a slow review should be closed anyway, the fact that it can be closed for being slow is biased against larger, more in-depth articles, and if the review takes time, it doesn't at all mean that the article's not ready (which is the point of this whole process). I think that the bias if anything should be towards longer articles, because of the amount of research put in (I spent countless hours scanning over webpages and archives, newspapers, books and pamphlets, maps, and photographs for that article). Anyway, I also very recently posted to WikiProjects asking for help; I'll be reaching out to more places.

You mentioned submitting it to peer review. I already had numerous editors do a thorough sweep of the article (quite a few when it was in my sandbox), in addition to a large copy edit by a GOCE member and administator. I don't believe the article needs a peer review. It is ready for nomination as a featured article, but it seems few are willing to assist, perhaps because they don't want to review a long article like the page is. I know that many will prefer to review GA candidates if the articles are short; that's why the longest articles are always among the last reviewed. So if I believe it is ready, what's the next step? Renominate it and hope for reviewers?

Regards, --ɱ (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, suggesting putting the article to PR doesn't imply it needs much more work for FAC but, generally, the more reviews an article undergoes the more chance it has of gathering a pool of interested people who could comment at FAC. This particularly applies to articles on less popular subjects, or more in-depth articles such as you've described. Reaching out to relevant Wikiprojects, as you also mention, is another way. Admittedly there are no guarantees. As far as the duration of reviews goes, the instructions do mention that the timing is determined by the coordinators. There are no hard and fast rules on that and never have been -- in the past, the FAC community hasn't shown much keenness for precisely timed reviews. In practice, it's rare for a FAC without several comprehensive reviews to remain open for over a month. Now the instructions state that once a FAC is archived, the nominator can't bring it (or any other article) to FAC in less than two weeks, but this can be waived when the archived review had little commentary. Your FAC fits into that category so I have no objections to you renominating in less than two weeks, although I repeat my recommendation for PR if only to see if you can get a few reviewers who might 'carry over' to a FAC, in concert with your pinging relevant Wikiprojects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That's fair, although I think there should be much more transparency as to when coordinators will usually close down a review, even if you all won't want to decide on an absolute limit. And I would normally just re-nominate the article, but nothing's going to happen unless I really bug some people. The four WikiProject requests that I wrote four days ago didn't spur anyone to comment on the review yet, and I even asked some Wikipedians in person at a NYC meetup, and no luck. It seems the hardest challenge in working on Wikipedia is not learning the markup, the style guide, the policies, or even finding/taking images; it's trying to work independently on a collaborative project. I never received significant assistance on any of my sixteen Briarcliff articles, and what assistance I did get was on formatting and writing, none were text or image additions. And for this FA review that requires collaboration, there's nearly none to be found. Do you know anyone who's dedicated and motivated, or some other way of helping? Certainly if kindly asking Wikipedians in person doesn't help, then no PR ever will.--ɱ (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I sympathise, you sound like you're trying to do the right things (I assume by the way that when you say "collaboration" you mean in the sense of reviewing during the various assessment processes rather than actively helping write the article prior to nomination). Have you had a chance to review anyone else's articles at PR or FAC? Although we discourage quid-pro-quo reviewing per se, the more one reviews the more one gets known in the process, and that can lead people to stop by an article you nominate. Again, it's not foolproof, and it can take some time, but it seems to help. Also if any of the Wikiprojects that might be interested in this article have A-Class Review programs, that's usually a good thing to try. I know that not many do have such a process though. The last thing I can suggest is to look at similar articles that have reached FA in the last couple of years, inspect their FACs (linked under Article History on the relevant talk pages) and see if any of the reviewers there might like to participate in a future review of your article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs[edit]

Hey, Ian, how's it going! I was wondering if you could help me with Sleeping Dogs (video game) since I really need help with it. Ever since I joined Wiki I have been trying to tackle the article alone but I can't seem to do it by myself wit the amount of experience I have. Is there any way you could help me take it to GA? I know you usually only edit Military related articles, but this one is rated B class so it should be an easy thing for both of us. What do you think? Thanks for everything in advance, URDNEXT (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't promise anything definite yet but I will try and have a look at the article this weekend. Feel free to ping me if I don't! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man! I really appreciate since you are the best editor on the site in my opinion. Just looking at your work gives me chills. URDNEXT (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Amphetamine FAC[edit]

I was checking my watchlist today when I saw that amphetamine had been archived once again. I understand why; sometimes you just need a fresh start, but your last sentence left me a little confused: "I hope that AmericanLemming does indeed go through the article but, given the time this has been active, it will need to be outside the FAC process." What about the instructions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates that say "Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions" to the two week cooling-off rule?

Anyway, if I understand you correctly, Seppi333 can't renominate right away? I think that means you're suggesting that I peer-review the article, which I'm fine with. As far as getting the article promoted, a support from someone who peer-reviewed the article is worth as much as someone who supports promotion after reviewing the article at FAC, right? Just want to make sure I understand exactly what your recommendations are in this case. AmericanLemming (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what I meant. It's true that nominators whose articles received little feedback during FAC can be given exceptions to the two-week rule but ideally (!) extensive commentary on an article should take place prior to FAC. Several of our most successful FAC editors such as Brianboulton, Wehwalt, and Schrocat go through PR before FAC, and their PR commentators follow the article to FAC and support based on their knowledge of the article from PR. This is perfectly legit so long as the article hasn't undergone significant change since the PR. MilHist people (like me) use the MilHist A-Class Review process in a similar manner. In this case, the article doesn't necessarily need another PR for you to make comprehensive pre-FAC comments; that can be on the talk page and when it next comes to FAC you're free to say you support based on your informal peer review. That might be the kick it needs to attract some further comments and, hopefully, support to get it over the line. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Dont forget the sleeping dogs article! Just a reminder, thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Ian? URDNEXT (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just remember, assuming you're in the US as I gather from your user page, that I'm on the other side of the world and it's still the weekend... ;-) Anyway, I've had a quick look. There certainly seems to be plenty of detail in the article, so unless it's excessive in places you don't have a problem from that perspective. Understand however that I'm not a gamer so I can't speak with any particular expertise on the content. I can see some 'citation needed' tags, and other paragraphs that aren't fully referenced (e.g. under Setting, Development and Music) so you'll have to find reliable sources to cite those. I notice from the failed GAN that prose was considered an issue, so I can help you with a copyedit, and my lack of familiarity with the subject should help ensure that any jargon or comprehension issues are ironed out. Let me know when everything is fully sourced -- perhaps ask some other video game editors if you need help there -- and then I'll try and get started on the copyedit for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks buddy! I'll make sure to contact you when the rest is done! URDNEXT (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible promotion[edit]

Could you perhaps take a look at this and see if Katy Perry is ready to become FA? I'm hoping to have her be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think some further routine or semi-routine checks are still needed -- see notes on FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I knew there'd be no lack of reviewers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I had downshifted my standard disclaimer for several months, I was reading fast and just offering copyediting notes, no longer supporting ... but the work I'm doing now at FAC requires careful reading, and some writers are likely to want more, so now my standard disclaimer offers "support on prose" again. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Ian, do you happen to know why VeblenBot (at User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates) breaks all the links to review pages when they get around a month old, so that the last 15 or 20 review pages are always redlinked? It seems like the fix would be relatively simple ... if Carl could just make VeblenBot leave those links alone after it creates them, we'd be golden. I'll ask him, unless you already know what's going on here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't a clue, Dan, so pls feel free to ask him -- I do use WP:FACL and had noticed this issue but was probably more focussed on getting fixes to the FAC closing bots than this one so hadn't raised a concern. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops ... his away message makes it clear he's gone, for now. I'll ask when he gets back. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The number is name is Bond, James Bond[edit]

A number of good edits Ian, thanks for that! Cassiantotalk 19:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tks mate. I think I copyedited/reviewed when it was a FAC but I've lately been taking a closer look at expressions like "a number of", "in addition to" and "in order to" in my own articles as well as others... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

James Chadwick[edit]

Sorry to be a pest, but I added two colour images of buildings to replace the ones that had been removed. If you could check them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, sorry it took me a while -- they look fine, will post to FAC page accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Ian, it looks like we are working at the same time. Sorry. I'll finish off Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus, Berlin),Fluorine and Development of Grand Theft Auto V, and then keep out your way. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all, two heads are better than one... ;-) I'll take care of the others I've closed just lately. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 5 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 5 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi there! Thanks for your promotion of the article - but now more than 48 hrs, and the bot has not upgraded to FA yet- any problem? Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. The bot has been down for some time and efforts to develop another are taking a while. The good news is that anyone can manually complete the closure of a promoted (or archived) FAC by following these instructions. We do have a small team of people who do this on a fairly regular basis but they can always use help... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, will study this carefully and effect if I believe myself competent.--Smerus (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done this now, hope it's all in order. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The closure tag has to go at the very top of the FAC page, above the article name/header (I've taken care of that now) but apart from that it looks great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Permission to add a new FAC?[edit]

Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nagato-class battleship/archive1 has received its source review and look ready to be promoted, may I nominate another article now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll probably get round to promoting it tomorrow anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Hi. I've noticed that the talk page for Temperatures Rising is still showing it listed as an FAC even though you archived it five days ago. Does the bot really take that long? Jimknut (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

See above ... the bot isn't running at all, but a volunteer should be along any day now to handle it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Flying Training Schools (capitalised)[edit]

I specifically set the category up to include things that were (capitalised) Flying Training Schools, as they are a particular type of Commonwealth air force unit comparable in their own way to ..cavalry regiments or destroyer squadrons. The only things that are going to get into that category are Training Schools RAAF/SAAF/RAF/RNZAF/RCAF etc.. Thus I am going to move the category back; hope I explain myself here Buckshot06 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Was there any discussion of this new category? WP seems rife with categories and subcategories, some of apparently dubious merit, and it's always good to know the justification for them. What for instance will go into this category? Just the units specifically known as "No. nn Flying Training School" or basic flying training schools, elementary flying training schools, service flying training schools, etc? I'd also be interested in knowing how FTSs are considered comparable to cavalry regiments or destroyer squadrons, because I've never seem such a comparison in all my reading of RAAF history. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thanks for being a great featured article promoter! URDNEXT (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks -- it's the reviewers whose comprehensive comments allow us to judge consensus who really deserve the kudos though...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

URDNEXT (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 5 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

The article No. 5 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 5 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death on the Rock/archive2[edit]

Hi Ian, I've renominated Death on the Rock at FAC. I think I've fixed most of the stuff that was outstanding from the first time round, and now real life is slightly less chaotic I should be able to fix anything else that comes up. I'd appreciate your input. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tks mate, great to see you back, will try and have a look over the next week or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-FAs in the list[edit]

Hey Ian, I'm updating my lists of featured articles by wiki text and prose size, and the two smallest (Sharon Tregenza and Delhi Public School, Dharan, the latter since 2 July[!!]) had {{Featured article}} added. Is no one auditing the FAs to make sure people don't sneak the stars onto articles? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Obviously myself, Graham and several others have WP:FA watchlisted so we'd know if people were adding or removing entries without authorisation, but admittedly I don't know off the top of my head of a process to audit all articles to ensure no stars are being added incorrectly -- how did you spot these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You can use this search (and its opposite) to find discrepancies between the template use and the listings at WP:FA. From there you have to figure out what exactly the problem is - sometimes someone has added the template without going through FAC, or a FAR hasn't been completely processed, or someone at Featured Lists has used the wrong template, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I only found them because they were extremely short articles at User:The ed17/Featured articles by wiki text, and I routinely check them for this sort of thing. The problem is that a medium-sized article could get the star, and I'd never know it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, tks for pointing that out, Ed, and tks Nikki for highlighting that useful tool -- running it just now I found a couple of other little things to tidy in WP:FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As we're looking for discrepancies, a comparison of Featured articles and Wikipedia featured articles shows one remaining problem:

Is the answer with 2nd C(I)D to have an FAR, or to undo last year's merge? BencherliteTalk 10:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tks Bench. Yes, I started the discussion but hadn't followed up in a long time. Looking at it again, the consensus appears to me to favour de-merging, so unless anyone reads it differently I think we should do that rather than initiate a FAR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Impossible Princess FAC closure[edit]

Is it usual for an FAC to be closed while the first reviewer is still in the process of providing a critique of the candidate?

I was still working on Criterion 1a, which was indicated in my sub-section, Review status, at point 3 where I wrote: "per Criterion 1a: more to follow". Article history shows my last edit was four hours before your "Closing cmt" edit. You archived it two minutes later.

Since I can not finish my review due to its closure, I am asking for clarification of your rationale.

Furthermore: In order not to lose my suggestions could those comments, sans Comments box, be transcluded to the article's talkpage? They could act as a copy editorial: I dealt with the Lead to Commercial performance. I was about to continue into Accolades when I noticed your closure.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't unusual when there are so many issues identified to close the nomination as premature. Your comments will not be lost to the world anyway, at some stage soon one of our FAC gnomes will add a link to the review under article history on the article's talk page. However I did advise the nominator to work through your (and Nick-D's, and my) comments, so you could transclude the lot to the article talk page to more easily allow yourself and the nominator to continue to work on them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Its more than 48 hours since your closure, should the bots be done by now?–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the current situation is that the bot/bots that used to carry out the post-closing steps for promoted and archived FACs have either stopped working completely or only work occasionally. Instead, Ian and his fellow FAC coordinators are either having to do this work themselves or rely on a human volunteer. Instructions are at User:Maralia/FA bot for anyone who wants to help. Another bot that helps out at FAC/FA/TFA/FANMP (Ucuchabot) is no longer working because it ran on the now-closed Toolserver - Ucucha has said by email that he's looking to find another server to run it from, so hopefully this will be back in action before too much longer. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks Bench. Yes, Shaidar, when I said gnomes I meant the volunteers who work from Maralia's instructions -- and we can always use more... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Frank Bladin[edit]

Apologies for this. The article is on a work list I prepared about a week ago. I think I managed to spot at least one other on the list that had been tagged after the list was created, there may be others. Could you look at it please, and take out any that you work on? Thanks, -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, tks -- done that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor[edit]

Hi again Ian,

So upon renomination of the Briarcliff article, a few more people have given their input. Having never before nominated an article for FA, I'm not quite sure what level of activity the coordinators would look for to pass an article. There are extensive reviews for this one. One of the copyeditors still dislikes the prose and article length enough to not give her support, although I do believe that her standards are unnaturally high. Most of the other reviewers have expressed general approval of the article. Should I still seek out Wikipedians to give their input, and if so, should I try to get one or ten?

Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The FAC has been open a bit under three weeks and has attracted a fair bit of commentary so I think you can let it ride a bit longer without going out and seeking reviewers -- it's certainly not in imminent danger of being archived for lack of activity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Chandralekha FA[edit]

I have nominated Chandralekha (1948 film) for FA on 29 August 2014, but it is yet to gain any response. As a FA admin, is there anything you can do to help it gain any? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's early days. I have read the article and if it does not attract any reviews over the next few days, I will write one. Be patient. Graham Colm (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Likewise. I've known nominations not to receive a single review for a month up until now. I will be over in the next few days, although this isn't strictly my line of expertise. I'll give it a go though... Cassiantotalk 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks guys. I'd be surprised if some of our regular Indian film editors/reviewers don't show up at the review before long. That said, it's always preferred if some people not closely involved with the subject area (e.g. people like Graham or Cass) also review to help ensure the highest standards for comprehension, accessibility, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

FAC advice[edit]

Hi Ian, I have seen that you are involved with FAC. I had nominated an article at FAC, and the page was recently archived, I feel wrongly, but that is another matter. I was wondering if you could give me some advice on improvements to make to the article to reach FA status, as I have had lackluster input on my FA nomination, thus making it difficult to make necessary corrections, rewrites, etc. Thanks.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for No. 5 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A question about MILHIST - image checks for A-class?[edit]

Hello Ian, thanks for your kind welcome (back) at FAC :). I am just curious, are image checks part of the MILHIST A-class requirements and/or did the project ever plan to include them? I seem to remember a discussion in the past about image checks in various A-class assessments, but am not really sure. GermanJoe (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point, Joe. I've always checked image licensing as a matter of course when reviewing articles, unless it's clear someone else has already. After all these years I took it as read that image checks were part of the A-Class criteria but now I look again, it doesn't specifically mention "appropriately licensed" media at all, does it? Even though I think we'd generally find that someone has made a check during the course of an ACR, we really should be specific about it. I'll mention on the MilHist Coords talk page that I think the criteria needs tweaking... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I've chimed in there with a question for you regarding cross-review arena standard checks. I haven't really been following your (collective) practices - do you tend to accept image and source reviews or spotchecks from "lower" review processes for the purposes of passing standard checks at FAC? If you do, please be aware that my standard reviews at least are almost always less stringent elsewhere than at FAC... Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, tks for that, I've commented again under my original post at the coord page. I've tended not to take image checks from 'lower' reviews in place of ones at FAC. At the very least, I'd check them at FAC myself, but I always prefer someone like yourself or Crisco or Joe to do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing this issue, Ian. Making sure, that the images are checked pre-FAC, will be a great help for future nominations (i wish, we had more active projects with A-class reviews to further such ideas). GermanJoe (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A-Class medal with Diamonds[edit]

WPMH ACR (Diamonds).png The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class medal with Diamonds to recognise your fine work in developing the 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision, Garnet Malley, and Les Holden articles to A-class status. Anotherclown (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Grigory Rasputin[edit]

Hello Ian, could you take a look at Grigori Rasputin? I worked on the article for a year and a half and I think it needs to be reevaluated. It has only C-class status now. It would help if the article could become at least B, may A-status? (Recently I added to Stephen Spender. That article is bad and has a B-status.) As I am not a native speaker I need some help to get the article reviewed. The article is popular and read at least 3,000 times a day. It needs more credibility. If you have any suggestions how to improve its status, I would be glad. Thank you in advance. Taksen (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, tough subject, I admire you for taking it on. Normally I'd like to collaborate on something like this, since I have read a little on Rasputin, or at least work directly on the structure and copyedit the prose. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to dedicate myself to it. I will however take a look and try to offer some advice for improving it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ian, after reading the requirements I changed its status to B-class as nobody else seem to have the courage. The article is ready for further reviews and probably a candidate for more upgrading? Many people looked at it and helped organizing the references, improved my English and the lead. The content is almost completely mine, except the last the section on SIS, since I began changing in January 2013, removed non sense and replaced it with more accurate information. I also added to many internal links, especially on (prime-) ministers. P.S. The article has a lot of hidden information to check which author said what. This is how I started. They are still important to me to check the chronology when I add new information. But, most of the work is done I suppose. Hope to hear from you.Taksen (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations and a forthcoming TFA[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Henry Burrell (admiral) to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks.

And, to save Brianboulton the trouble as I'm here anyway, you may have spotted that I've lined up the 1940 RAAF Formation Dancing Display Team article to be the TFA on 29th September. Hope that's OK. Cheers, BencherliteTalk 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, tks, you must've noticed my nom statement where I said I thought it'd be ideal main page fodder... :-) The only reason I didn't nominate it myself was because I realised next year would the 75th anniversary but if you're happy to run it on the day this year, why wait? I walked through the blurb and noticed you had to pad it out with some details from the main body -- it's easily the shortest article I've put up for FA, and the shortest lead too. I may tweak the blurb a bit but I think it's pretty good and there's plenty of time for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Henry Burrell (admiral)[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Henry Burrell (admiral). TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Franklin Pierce FAC[edit]

Ian, I see that you plan on promoting this article soon though saw I had opposed the nomination. However, before you promote, please take note that I'm much closer to supporting the promotion now, just several comments that need to be addressed before promotion. Rather fail the FAC, I feel its closure should (for now) be delayed. As soon as my remaining points have been addressed by one or both of the nominators, it can have full support for promotion. Do you mind just waiting for a bit? Depending on when they respond, this shouldn't be longer than a few days, a week at most. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Snuggums, with due respect, when nobody else is agreeing with your comments (and in fact, some very experienced FA writers / FAC reviewers are openly disagreeing with them), there's no need for Ian to hold off promoting for up to a week just to get your support on board. Are you seriously suggesting that promotion should be delayed because of an allegedly missing comma (check again, it was in there at the time of your last edit to the article on 1st September!) or because you prefer "enthusiastically" to "vigorously"? And as for Hitler not having a "legacy", I suggest that a quick search through Google Books will show you that you're in the minority here as well e.g. "The Burden of Hitler's Legacy", "Hitler's Legacy: West Germany Confronts the Aftermath of the Third Reich" and "A German tale: a girl surviving Hitler's legacy", just to give three titles that use it! BencherliteTalk 00:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ucucha's Harv error script[edit]

Hi Ian. I am just starting the GAN review of Goh Keng Swee and the script is showing errors in the bibliography because the citation template is used without harv refs. Is it just a disadvantage of the script that it wrongly gives errors in this situation or should {{citation|.. not be used without harv refs? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) {{Citation}} automatically includes ref=harv, which is why the script is showing errors. I would personally use Cite book, but I don't think there are any technical reasons why citation can't be used in a situation like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) (#2) You can add '|ref=""' or '|ref=none' to disable the anchor function, when it is not needed ('|ref =' does not work, the citation template and/or its documentation are wrong in this point). But as Crisco mentioned, switching to the more specific alternatives is also a good way to avoid this issue. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks guys, all good advice. Never use Harv citation myself but many do so I've learnt to deal with its foibles... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much for the advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Nearly done. Just need to describe Gazelle and Seeadler a bit more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And done. Publish at will. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks Adam. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Actually, I have been waiting for a reply from you or Nick regarding a proposal concerning WWI, which is why I haven't made a move on an op-ed piece yet. If you guys would like to weigh on my proposal I'd have a better idea where to tune my editorial fork here. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I knew I’d seen something about that pop up on my watchlist but when I went to look for it last night I couldn't think where I’d seen it… Anyway, replied there now. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Hasn't the Bugle published yet? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There was another item to get in (see thread immediately above). As I think that's complete now I should be able to send it out shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, right. Sorry. By the way, the FPs for Sepember - that is, the ones we're going to put into October - are going to cluster heavily towards the end of the month (I was very busy in the end of August/early September, then came back with five finished milhist images in a few days. Think I was spending 18 hours a day on restoration for a couple days there) but I can probably have it ready for pretty early October. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That'd be fine, we don't usually get the Bugle out before mid-month. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

FA closures and Featured Topics[edit]

I'm wondering when exactly some of the FACs are going to be closed. I was informed that Flight Unlimited III got promoted, which means the topic its part of will go from Good Topic to Featured Topic. I would like to get it processed before weeks end but the nomination has to be closed and its article history needs to be updated so the changing of status can happen. This affecting Featured Topics kinda makes promotions a bit difficult overall. GamerPro64 02:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We haven't had a working bot to close FACs for some time, although I've arranged with one of my MilHist colleagues experienced in this sort of thing to create a new one. In the meantime, members of the community are helping out by closing promoted and archived noms manually using these instructions. If you'd like to use them to expedite closure of your FAC, pls go ahead and feel free to ping me afterwards to double-check it's all good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I followed the instructions to close Flight Unlimited's FAC. I believe I got it all taken care of. GamerPro64 15:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think so -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Youknow, I've noticed a lot of FAs have really poor documentation on their images, to the poin of copyright concerns arising from this. Could we do anything? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you referring to older FAs Adam? Nominations started in the last few years generally received an image check, though of course sometimes dodgy images get added post-FAC. Nick-D (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I should probably have said "FACs". Though there was a mislicenced photo on the main page recently. It wasn't even fixed. See: Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well there's two issues here, one about the concern not being acted upon when raised, which was a long time after FAC, and the image being in the article when the FAC was closed. As far as the second goes, checking the FAC page vs. the article history in this particular instance, the image in question was added the same day the nom was promoted, slipping through the crack between image review (which was the last significant check on the nom) and the promotion. I don't think Graham or I have ever promoted an article without an image check, but all of us may need to police more closely images added or changed after a formal check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case, I mainly meant FACs - rather a number of articles coming through GA, and even A-level reviews with major image documentation issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Ian, that you would be wrong, as Graham just closed an FAC as promoted while having a quite-likely copyvio in the lead image pointed out, but not resolved. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Chadwick/archive1, see comments at bottom. While it technically had an image review, the image review failed, and never actually reached a conclusion. I'm actually really annoyed - image reviews take at least an hour or two to do right, and if they're just going to be ignored, I don't see why I bother. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam, as this is a volunteer project, I'm sure no-one likes to waste their time, and that includes Graham and me. Looking over the FAC page, the level of concern you're now demonstrating re. that image doesn't seem quite that obvious based on your last comment on 17 September; you weren't opposing the nom based on the image review, nor did you use the term "copyvio" until after it was promoted. Now I would like to see your concern addressed but can I suggest that in future if you want to make clear that you don't think an article should be promoted on the basis of the image review, opposing is the best way to do it. You can always change to support, or at least strike the oppose, when the issues have been dealt with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I said it failed the review, and didn't strike the comment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, but again the latest comments on individual images suggested low risk. I mean, I can say it would've been better for you to outright oppose, and you can say it would've been better to ask you if your concerns had been satisfied enough to be okay with promotion. It's not an exact science, we're always learning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I suppose, it just seems aggressive to always be shouting "This must be done, rawr!", particularly when there's only the last step - albeit a necessary last step - to be done to confirm the status. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting 2 OCU and 77 Squadron story[edit]

Not sure if you've seen it, but this story in Trove provides interesting details on 2 OCU and No. 77 Squadron during the Korean War. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tks mate, I had so much info on 2OCU from various sources that I didn't spend much time trawling Trove for more, and with 77SQN the situation's even more pronounced, but it is a good story. I might add some of it to the 2OCU article at least. What it doesn't seem to mention in relation to Korea is that 2OCU was hurriedly re-formed in 1952 owing to what 77SQN commanders saw as the poor quality of the replacement pilots they were being sent... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the story was a bit of a triumph for the RAAF press officer who arranged it ;) I found the details on the training program at the time to be interesting. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FA-closign Bot[edit]

Doesn't seem to be adding to WP:GO or Template:Announcements/New_featured_content - can that be added to the bot? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't even aware of Template:Announcements/New_featured_content, so I don't know how that's been updated in the past. As for Goings-On, that's something the delegates have always done manually when they promote an article, it wasn't done by a bot. It could be, I suppose, but for now I think we just stick to automating the instructions on Maralia's page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X[edit]

Hey, I remember you asking Dank if he could field this FAC, but he replied with a negative as (1) he was sick and (2) video games aren't an area he's comfortable reviewing, so it's kind of up in the air now. Would you mind taking a look and closing if appropriate? The image and source reviews have passed and there are plenty of supports. Tezero (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I generally try to walk through the FAC list mid-week so perhaps tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


G'day Ian, congratulations on being elected lead coord for the coming year. We're in good hands. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations Ian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
+1, why don't we have an t-shirt yet? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't we? I actually printed a couple T-shirts with FPs I have [with some minor tweaks to add a transparency layer instead of a solid border around the image]. Why don't all of you select a decently high-res image from the Library of Congress [World War I for preference], and I'll get you a T-shirt ready file once it passes FP, with whatever text you prefer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations also from me Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Congrats from me too. Good luck for the coming year. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
And from me. Great to have you as lead coord. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been great working with you on the Bugle; I think we're in quite safe hands. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it was close, and I can honestly say that I neither expected nor coveted the top spot in the tally, so feel quite humbled -- it's a great team to be part of. Thanks guys, and good luck to all of you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Congrats Ian! You'll make a great lead coord. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks Harry! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Congrats Ian! (Phenomenal Name I must Say) --Molestash (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Please help me with the Sleeping Dogs FAC. I have o idea what to do now. URDNEXT (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FTR, based on recent comments at the nom I've archived and suggested that further editing take place outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Lead Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2014 – September 2015

Ian, I'm awarding you these stars on your successful election as Lead Coordinator of the Military History Project for the next year. Best of luck, and well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the stars. Good luck as our new lead, and may the next 12 months be peaceful and prosperous. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks guys, much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bugle FPs[edit]

I've finished up October. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tks Adam! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)