User talk:Laser brain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Enthiran FAC[edit]

Hi Laser Brain. I have nominated the article for FAC. It has received a neutral, two supports and one big oppose from SandyGeorgia (mainly relating to MOSNUM and Citation issues) Many editors requsted me to withdraw the FAC to better shape it. Please state your opinion on whether I should continue the FAC or withdraw it. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: It's tough to say—it definitely wasn't ready at the time you posted the nomination, but it looks like a lot of work has already been done. I personally think you'll have a better experience if you withdraw it, spend two weeks hammering on it, and come back with a fresh slate. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to withdraw an FAC. Can you close it? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Looks like Ian got it. Thanks for handling this situation so well—hopefully you aren't discouraged by the withdrawal. I think you'll be in fine shape when you renominate after some work-shopping. --Laser brain (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a learning experience for me. By the way, do let me know if you would like to leave comments at the article's 2nd PRSsven2 Speak 2 me 04:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran FAC 2.0[edit]

Hi there. As you said, I have spent two (in fact, three) weeks hammering on it, and have now come back with a fresh slate. Do let me know if you would like to leave comments at the article's 2nd FAC. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thanks for the note! I've been really busy but I will try to find my way over there. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski progress[edit]

How are you feeling about Marian Rejewski? I'm wondering if we will get to a point where a non-specialist (like me) can take over and just do some copyediting and cleanup. Do you feel like there are remaining sourcing and comprehensiveness issues? --Laser brain (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do. As potentially unclear or awkward passages have been pointed out, I have tried to rectify them. You may well be able to identify more of them. Thanks for your generous offer. Nihil novi (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the information in the "Marian Rejewski" article, and the sourcing, are pretty complete. What is needed, actually, is review by a patient general reader who might spot passages that could benefit from additional background information or from simple copy-editing. Thanks again. Nihil novi (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: I am traveling but will be home Monday and able to get back into the swing of things. I will look at it then. --Laser brain (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Holy cow, I see the issues you had. How is the lead now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Looks good! The narrative is clear—that much is certain. Can "encrypted" and "enciphered" be used interchangeably? --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
My edits introduced some changes in meaning, and then Nihil went through to fix them, and reintroduced prose issues. I don't think we have an FA here, and I could work for hours and hours more trying to fix it. Too much info is better stated in the article about the machine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be better to just delist it, in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Now it's become a challenge for me, but I don't think it's the best use of my time. I'm not sure what the current philosophy at FAR is. And I'm just now getting in to the meat of the content, and am doubtful about how much I will be able to fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Taj Mahal[edit]

Hi, LB - first I want to apologize for not going thru the proper procedures when I withdrew this nomination on Friday, 8 May 2015. Following are the actions I took:

  1. [1] removed template
  2. [2] stated so on the TP
  3. [3] removed it from the candidates list
  4. I think I also requested a speedy delete as well but can't find a diff. Was my initial nomination deleted? Could you provide the link that details the procedures for withdrawal?

I just discovered The Herald nominated it again today. I have not had a chance to review it but it appears there are still quite a few issues that need to be addressed. [4]

  1. You and a few others said citations are needed for some of the statements. I did not see any citation templates, so is it possible for those who take issue over the need for sources to please add the citation templates where they feel it's needed?
  2. I am aware about the need for higher quality sources and uniformity in citing the material and we are working on that now.
  3. You mentioned issues with MOS. Would you be so kind as to elaborate with a little more detail regarding what you believe to be at issue?
  4. One criticism was that the prose was too dry. My initial thought is to what degree can we embellish prose without being noncompliant with NPOV; i.e. dispassionate tone? Thank you for your time. AtsmeConsult 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, thanks for the note. Your earlier withdrawal was fine. Opabinia regalis came along and deleted it—though G7 doesn't really apply and we struggle with well-meaning admins deleting these pages. We prefer to handle withdrawals among the FAC coordinators so we can determine if feedback is present that should be recorded and archived, as was the case there. In the case of the second nomination by The Herald, I initiated a proper "archive" so the feedback you got could be captured and the FAC could be captured in the article history template. Other items:

  • FA criteria requires everything to be cited. That doesn't mean you necessarily need a citation after every single sentence, but it should be clear what citations belong to what statements. Generally if a reviewer scans the article and sees sentences without citations, they will make that comment. The best thing to do is make sure everything is cited. If people still want clarification, they can tag individual sentences.
  • MOS: I happened to notice problems with image captions, but I didn't look for other things. Image captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't usually have periods. See MOS:CAPTION.
  • On the prose, I didn't read enough to comment on that. Who said it was dry? I mean, this is an encyclopedia.. but you can sometimes address a concern like that by having an interesting, compelling narrative and good variety in your prose.

Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • It does help, thank you!! The user who thinks it's dry is ·maunus · snunɐɯ·, "with the well known context of the love story that inspired its building is cursory, and extremely dry", [5]. Back to the drawing board. 8-) AtsmeConsult 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, since the only other contributor explicitly endorsed deletion and had posted their commentary elsewhere, I assumed this page wasn't useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: Not a problem at all, and I would have done the same thing. I only say we "struggle" because some nominators tag their pages for speedy and there's no good way to flag down the reviewing admin to say we might want to keep the feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Korolev[edit]

Yes, I was looking for which book I got the reference from, I couldn't remember exactly, I've read a few about him and that time period. Could refer to a talk I gave about him at a convention, I suppose.

More importantly, you messed up the link to "rehabilitation" I added later in the article, it seems to have been lost altogether now... the word doesn't appear... I'm not sure if you rolled back each version of changes I made or made an edit, but things are all messed up now, please try to fix it, I don't have time to mess with the article more right now, late for a meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnibal (talkcontribs) 15:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)