User talk:Squeamish Ossifrage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Squeamish Ossifrage, communication, and you:

Whenever possible, I will ensure that talk page communications are threaded. This means that I will continue conversations on the talk page they begin, whether that be here or somewhere else. I watchlist talk pages where I am involved in conversation. If you are involved in conversation on my talk page, please consider either temporarily adding it to your watchlist, or at least checking in regularly while the conversation is ongoing. Communication, after all, is what makes this project possible!

A page you started (The Carpet from Bagdad) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating The Carpet from Bagdad, Squeamish Ossifrage!

Wikipedia editor Tritario just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very nice page!

To reply, leave a comment on Tritario's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


I filled the red links on your St. Elmo, but I cannot do much more without the books on Vitagraph's organization and operation. I've run into a problem... I have 50 good article nominations and I've tried to polish up some other films and found a still for Thanhouser's St. Elmo and others in the process... I've even been busying myself with identifying film stills, but I am starting to worry about the number of articles I have up at once. I've compiled a list of several thousand films by release date and I think I should try and get some featured lists for Wikipedia's silent film section. I just do not know what to do next since I am going to crush the process if I keep working like I am now... I even have complete articles ready to drop at a moment's notice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I hear you there. I'm not nearly so backlogged at GAC as you are, but I've been trying to push the articles I have through their various review processes before dumping out more. I've got new articles or major rewrites for most of J. Gordon Edwards's directorial credits nearly ready to at least see daylight. I've been trying to pace myself on these, just because I know silent film is a tough topic to get people interested in, which does not help review speed! In the meantime, I've been distracting myself by attempting a Core Contest revision (of Land, specifically, because wow that is an awful excuse for content). That said, your work on Thanhouser has been nothing but amazing. And thanks for bluelinking Balboa; I've been meaning to get around to that for months, but kept putting it off... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't suppose you'd take some of the reviews? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course! I've got a couple other things I've promised to look in on, but I'll make sure to find time to hit up the GA backlog soon. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I need to do some featured lists... since the silent era has almost no lists. I've made three recently, but the List of Thanhouser films released in 1910 is the most important. I could really use some suggestions and formatting tips from you on getting this to FA-level. All the dates and the status are covered in two easy cites, but the "notes" is probably going to be difficult. As is the leading prose. Could you advise on this? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Tower House[edit]

Do you have any intention of retracting your oppose once all of your points have been addressed? It's rare that editors will agree on every point but a significant effort has been made here to address them. It would be good to reach a point where you are satisfied with the article, they don't have to be perfect, whether FAs should be professional or of a high standard or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Actually, I probably need to cull resolved issues to the talk page per recommendations. Obviously, some of my concerns are more significant than others. As the big ones go away, my view with regard to promotion obviously improves. At this point, I'm most concerned about some of the reference issues (because I spend a good bit of my time being a reference-section pedant) and the furniture capitalization issue, as it's very inconsistent. At the current rate, all the copyediting-level comments should be dealt with before the weekend! Not only would I like the article to pass, I'd like it to be the best that it can be. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

You clearly have a keen eye for detail, so I wanted to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Irataba/archive1. I'll understand if you are too busy or disinterested. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we were planning on taking Irataba to FAC in the near future, it would certainly be a good idea if you could give it a grilling before the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, biographies are rough. I've got one I've been putting off even starting for over a year now. But I'll see what I can do in the next couple days, instead of just surprising you at FAC. Again. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There's not a terrible amount of detail written about him biographically. I think it's nearing as comprehensive as it's going to get. I suppose in a way that makes the scale of the task an easier one, but it just needs "several pairs of fresh eyes" as Indopug would say looking at it and giving the prose and content a degree of scrutiny.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me have at this one before FAC. Odds are pretty good that I wouldn't have reviewed it there because I mostly avoid biographies. But there's a lot to be done, and if I had, I probably would have outright opposed on the state of the references. The good news is, should be an easy run to the bronze star once this peer review is done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You've been extremely helpful there, so thanks a million not just for the suggestions but also for doing so much of the work! If there is ever anything I can help you with please don't hesitate to ask. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I was going to close the PR, but I noticed that your prose comments do not span the entire article. Are you done making suggestions there, or do you have some more for us? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit] The Attention to Detail Barnstar
For your consistently excellent reviews at FAC. It just goes to show that despite a thorough peer review, things can still be improved. Many thanks! CassiantoTalk 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth Featured Article Review[edit]

Hey there, I made several of the changes you had suggested. Please review my changes and let me know what else you think needs to be done.--The lorax (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Thankyou for your input at the peer review. Irataba is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran PR[edit]

Hi, I am Ssven2. I had recently taken this film article starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai to GA status and nominated it for FAC, but it was withdrwan due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, most of which have been resolved. Do let me know if you are interested in leaving additional comments at the article's 2nd PR. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter![edit]

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Castell Coch[edit]

Hi. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)