User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2015

Archive Archives:

2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Hawkeye7/Archive 2015! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Invite

You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January in Canberra. see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

GA J. Robert Oppenheimer

I regret the delay that you have experienced in getting a review in response to your GA nomination. I have taken over the review and placed the article on hold. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I need to know if you are planning to pursue the GA review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. I apologize; I had not noticed that it had been reviewed. I will get working on the suggested corrections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your excellent changes. We still have a few concerns but are very close to finishing. Racepacket (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't want to step out of my role as a fair arbiter of just the GA criteria, but have you considered my suggestion of moving the four grad students to the Security panel section and attributing it to the accusers instead of speaking in the voice of Wikipedia? Whatever you think is best, I will not hold up the article on this point. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Horace Robertson

Hello! Your submission of Horace Robertson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Singapore Strategy GA Review

Hi mate, just letting you know in case you hadn't noticed that I completed the review, awaiting your response to a few fairly minor points when you get a chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Bismarck Sea

Hi, Hawkeye, I've made an attempt to copy edit the Battle of the Bismarck Sea article to address Wikicopter's concerns on the GA review page. I'm not sure how to expand the lead, though, sorry. Are you able to address this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I was going to provide a longer lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers, it looks good. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Horace Robertson

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Battle of Sio

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Battle of Sio.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Sio

You reverted the Fix bunching template back in. Does it actually bunch for you or anyone else? Please have a look at Template_talk:Fix_bunching#Change the documentation. Looks bad with the the template here. So unless there is an actual problem I'd say leave it out. Cheers 217.235.23.141 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• It always looked okay on my screen, but another editor had problems and put the fixbunching in. Therefore, I am not taking it out. It is supposed to make things looked better, so if there is a problem with it, we need to get the fixbunching templates fixed instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Going forward

I was hoping for some input from others in MILHIST; I generally prefer for others to make the "big" calls, I try to stay focused on getting a relatively technical and boring job done. But it looks like we're not going to get it, so I'll make a suggestion. Going forward, I have no trouble with leaving your A-class articles alone ... I already generally leave the non-AmEng articles alone, because I'm really in no position to make judgments on English other than American English (and arguably Canadian English; Chicago has been influential in Canada for 100 years, and Canadians tend to follow the American model that favors conformity). Concerning Manhattan Project, I've got concerns, and since I've put a lot of work into it, I'd rather the problems be fixed before it gets promoted, and AustralianRupert indicated that we were out of time. FAC is another story; maintaining goodwill at FAC by giving them a standard they can rely on will help all our FAC writers, so I tend to get involved in all the articles there, AmEng or not. I'd appreciate it if you (and everyone) would give me a shout before taking articles to FAC if I haven't already reviewed them for A-class ... generally, my reaction will be to do any work myself that needs doing, although if it looks like a tough slog, I'll say so. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I accept that you have your concerns and am willing to work through them. The A-class reviewers should be focusing on factual issues related to military history (and in this case, nuclear physics). FAC is another story. Changes based on style have to be based upon the MOS. Changes based upon grammar are always welcome. My next step with the article will probably be a pruning process to reduce it in size a bit without reducing the factual content. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leslie_Groves/archive1

Please remove the text you have interspersed into my review of this article Fasach Nua (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a common way of responding to comments in FAC's and Hawkeye has signed his comments... Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi mate, before I get on to my main point, I'm sorry I didn't get in and review Manhatten Project when I had the chance but if/when you renom I'll try and make a better effort to do so -- I continue to be impressed with your willingness to take on big and controversial subjects. Now the question... I'm working on the article I threatened recently re. former Duntroon cadets who joined the RAAF in 1923-30 but I'd be interested in your opinion on an appropiate title. I'm not calling it "List of Duntroon graduates in the RAAF" because one of the whole points of creating such a list rather than relying on the current "Duntroon graduates" category is that some of the key people went into the RAAF without graduating. "List of Duntroon alumni in the RAAF" would cover everyone but are we in the habit of using "alumni" in the Australian military? Do you think "List of former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF" is more appropriate or a bit of a mouthful? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've never heard "alumni" used in the Australian Army, only "graduates". I would go with "List of former Duntroon cadets in the RAAF". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate -- actually looking at Moore's book on the college and its list of cadets, it sounds like some still go into the Air Force as "Ground Defenders", so I may even want to put "pilots" in the title as in "Duntroon-educated pilots in the RAAF" or some such, or put a year range in -- but I'll definitely leave out "alumni"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article.

This user helped promote Manhattan Project to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Groves

Two quick things about this article. First, it seems a bit short. Do you have access to The General and the Bomb? It seems like there's some good stuff to add. If you don't have access, I can easily get a copy to look through. Second, I'm of the entirely personal opinion that "was in charge of" is rather clunky and imprecise. I think it would be more forceful and concise if you could substitute an action verb, such as directed, led, supervised, oversaw (which obviously doesn't work given that you use it for the Pentagon), etc. Sir Nils (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I do, but Norris is generally better. What points/issues do you think it should also cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just checking

You didn't intend to remove John, King, right? [1] WSC reinstated it with an edit summary that it was probably just a mistake, so I'm just checking in case I missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was a mistake. Early in the morning here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks, just wanted to be sure. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Gareth Kirkham

Hi id like to view an article that was deleted in 2009. The article in question is Gareth Kirkham. can you help?82.3.203.127 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• It was just a stub. All it said was; "Gareth Kirkham is a rugby union player who currently is under contract for the London Wasps." Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dwarves and dwarfs

Apologies for the misunderstanding at FAC about that spelling. I've struck that part and said I will raise it elsewhere as it relates to more than just this article. One thing, though, when you reverted my change you may have gone back a little bit too far. Could you double-check the diff here and see whether the other edits I made (it was some minor copyediting I did) should be reinstated? Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FAR notifications

Hi Hawkeye - Last fall, a new requirement was put into place at FAR that necessitates a notification on the article's talk page prior to FAR. This requirement was neglected on your recent nomination of Association football at FAR. Due to this, I have placed the review on hold and made the notification on the talk page. If at least a week goes by with no work being done on the article, the article can be relisted at FAR - you are free to do it yourself or let me know and I will do it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, I am willing to tackle any issues you have with the article. I think it is somewhat unfair to say that it has "few references" it has over 50. I am also not seeing any outstanding issues from the last review, they were all tackled and hence why it was closed as kept. Can you note any specific areas which you think need referencing? Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Woody. Unreferenced sections include:

• The first and fourth paragraphs of "History"
• The first, third and fourth paragraphs of "Duration and tie-breaking methods"
• Last paragraph in "Misconduct"
• The whole "Governing bodies" section
• The middle paragraph in "International competitions"
• The first and second paragraphs of "Domestic competitions"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those Hawkeye7. I've had a run through just now and added references in where I thought they were missing based on what you noted above. Could you please have another look and see if there are any more areas you think are under-referenced. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've copied this discussion over to the talkpage, probably best to carry on the discussion over there so anyone else can get involved. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Interim Committee

I removed section head "Post-war legislation" as not descriptive of the content of the paragraph, which is about the actual dropping of the atomic bombs. If you're planning to extend the article to include the committee's work on post-war control, that's another matter, so good luck with it. Cheers, Cuppysfriend (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

Just wanted to express my admiration for the great job you've been doing bring the Oppie story up to FA standards, almost singlehandedly. Sorry I wimped out on the GA review. Figureofnine (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• No worries. Best of luck with the article on Opje's hearing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball

I've waded in with my 2 pence as well. No idea what he is doing. no wonder why people loose their temper with some of the reviewers. Personally I don't see why that user is so poor at English since he is apparently Indian. Most people in India have a good grasp of English right? KnowIG (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)