User talk:Gog the Mild

To Do List

Bling

Articles

FACs needing feedback view •
2023 World Snooker Championship	Review it now
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945	Review it now

Map of Roman Africa

Hi Gog, I've made a map of Roman Africa in 146 BC, if you want to add it to the articles on the PW. T8612 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Purple barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Tyrian purple barnstar, for your successful Punic Wars franchise (a bit obscure reference, but "Phoenicia" supposedly relates to Greek for purple)! FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you FunkMonk, I feel approproatly porphyrogénnētos Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

High-level topic

I've always appreciated your and other editors abilities to work on high-level topics like whole wars and campaigns and the really major battles. My limitations keeping me on brief cavalry skirmishes and obscure artillery batteries makes me almost feel like I'm not pulling my weight. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. You need to pull your socks up. Enough of this shilly shallying around, it's time to take War to FA!

It is easier with earlier periods. A day's worth of actions might be five separate skirmishes in the ACW, maybe a one small battle in the 100 YW and not get mentioned in the PWs. There is probably more information available on the ACW than on all conflicts combined before 1500. Perversely, that lack of source material makes it easier for us earlier period types.

Note that as I write on more recent conflicts I choose smaller events: a regimental one day fight in 1945; a regimental one week combat in 1941. I am working up to Battle of Crete, but even that was over in a week and only just gets over divisional level.

Plus I have got good at summary style. A natural bent reinforced by practice. You want to give me a hand with the TFA blurbs? After boiling a 6,000 word article down to under 1,025 characters including spaces, while keeping the prose up to main page standard, normal summary style is easy. Eg, The ACW: stuff happened, the good guys won. See?

You have already written articles on whole campaigns. If you want to expand, goodness knows there is plenty to go at, I assume even within the ACW. Eg the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War is only C class. Etc. Or specialise in something completely different. You have the skills; you do not, so far as I can tell, have limitations re the size of conflict you do or could tackle. In my first year of activity I managed 4 ACRs and 1 FAC - and that last only by a week. So you are doing much better than my first year.

Or pick a completely different time and place to write on. I knew next to nothing about the 100 YW or the PWs three and two years ago. There must be something other than ACW skirmishes in Kansas which interests you. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm hoping to do something ambitious soon, but not sure what. And short-lived CSA units and cleaning up NN geography stubs don't quite cut ambitious for me. Might take a crack at Battle of Champion Hill or some orbats. If you really need help with TFA blurbs I can help out sometimes, but my prose is probably too dry to be overly useful. Also, the closest thing I've actually got to covering a whole campaign is the aftermath and background sections of battle articles. I generally only have one or two sources about a single campaign (exceptions being Price's Raid and Vicksburg) so I don't quite feel like that's enough to build a campaign GA on. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, how about the Vicksburg campaign? No lack of sources there. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Third Macedonian War

Hello Gog, would you be interested in writing the articles related to the Third Macedonian War (171-167 BC), with the battles of Callinicus and Pydna? The current articles are just paraphrases of Livy, but I have in pdf a very good and recent source: Paul Burton Rome and the Third Macedonian War (2017). There were four battles at most during the war so it may be easier to promote it to a featured topic that the Second Punic War. Unfortunately, the main sources for the the first two Macedonian Wars are the very expensive History of Macedonia by NGL Hammond and the Commentaries on Livy by John Briscoe. Both are also useful for the 3rd MW, but aren't as detailed (Hammond) or consistent (Briscoe) as Burton's book. T8612 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

T8612, oof! I see what you mean. I would quite like to, but I have no sources on this conflict which would be useful past GAN, and I have plenty of other things on my To Do list. Let me put them on my "Thinking About It" list and have a hunt to see what usable sources there are on line. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at Burton's book. T8612 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

T8612: OK, that's on my to do list, but it may take a while to work its way to the top. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, nothing urgent though. Take your time. T8612 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry December

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great time over the holidays. Keep up the good work in all that you do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lee Vilenski, and a very merry Christmas to you too. Keep those improvemens coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

'Tis the season

The battle of Calais, from Froissart's Chronicles. On Christmas Eve, Geoffrey de Charney's treachery was revealed to Edward III, leading to the Battle of Calais. Hopefully your Christmas eve is calmer

Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. It's been a wild year, and I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your contributions and for the role you play in making Wikipedia as good as it can be. Gog, you really are one of my favorite users here, and I've benefited greatly from your advisement on countless articles. I have great respect for the sheer amount and quality of work you do. It was a pleasure interacting with you this year. I wish you and your loved ones all the best this December and in the years to come. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC) PS: Do you remember the Battle of Calais? One of our first interactions, If memory serves-- the bit about it being around Christmas has always stood out to me-- it's a christmas battle, like Die Hard is a Christmas movie.

Hello there Eddie, and a very festive holiday season to you and to yours. Thank you for the the kind thought and you have me blushing with your generous comments. You shouldn't forget all of the input you make into Wikipedia.

Yes, I remember you picking up the GAN and making what I thought were unusually insightful and helpful comments. Then being first up at FAC with a whole list of further useful suggestions for improvement. Your subsequent claims to feel that you weren't up to FAC assessment level had me giggling, rolling my eyes and shaking my head.

I have never see the film, and always associate the phrase with Colonel William Inglis. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Frugal Christmas message

No images, fancy backgrounds or fancy code in those curly bracket things. Just a boring old plain text note wishing you a very peaceful Christmas season, and a Better New Year. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, and a very merry Yuletide to you too. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC source reviews

@Buidhe, Nikkimaria, Ian Rose, and Ealdgyth:, SandyGeorgia has flagged up an issue at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Northern France campaign/archive1 which I think could do with some further discussion away from that FAC, and possibly, initially, away from FAC altogether - at least initially. (Obviously, if itis agreed that there is an issue worth community discussion it needs to be posted there.) Sandy, re the ACR issue, can you hold fire on that? Once we have got somewhere with this discussion, we can discuss it in detail on the MilHist talk page. I will wish to do this anyway, but would prefer one thing at a time.

Sandy has developed qualms about various aspects of the sourcing of an experienced nominator. Far from the first time this has happened, eg see my very own Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Punic War/archive1. Specifically, as I understand it, questions are being raised as to:

• Should there be at least some source spot checking even for nominations by repeat nominators? If so, how much? (As a minimum)
• To what extent should source reviews be expected to cover whether an article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, as opposed to a more limited, and so potentially PoV, coverage?

Comments are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No prob, but two things: a) I moved the continuation of the discussion to talk, and b) concerned this is the third time I have had to dig in when there were obvious red flags (and that is a rather unpleasant position to be in :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I always try to check as many sources as I can, and if possible look for additional sources. Not all source reviewers (at either FAC or MILHIST ACR), however, are equally thorough and in some cases you get "I don't know anything about this subject, but the formatting is correct and I don't see anything obviously unreliable being cited, so I'll give it a pass". Overall, we would be better off spending more time on sourcing and content than fiddling with prose and MOS issues, in my opinion. And while MILHIST ACR is often a good gauge of quality, there's no infallible review process. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding directly to my concern, Buidhe, but I am going to respect Gog's request that I "hold fire" until he tells me it's my turn :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also support making source checks a requirement for all FACs, not just first time nominations. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, that was just re the ACR issues. Feel free to chip in here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I always do at least a limited spot check when I do a source review. (Not that I do that many.) Even if I know nothing at all about the topic. And regardless of how much faith I have in the nominators. Eg with Buidhe's Greek case or SusunW's Women's poll tax capmpaign. I would encourage this, or even consider making it mandatory for all source reviews. Possibly we could consider an RFC if we agree and can come up with some suitable wording?
• I am aware that source reviews are something of a bottleneck at FAC, and that anything which deters reviewers from starting one or increases the time of each one and so reduces the total number done, means that otherwise deserving nominations are likely to be archived. So regardless of what the potential benefits might be perceived to be re changes in this area, I am always wary.
• I think that the lack of "an article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is something we are going to have to live with. If we made this a requirement, I feel sure that a large number of FACs would never receive source reviews at all. IMO it would require a source reviewer to have a better grasp of the potential sources than a nominator, and that is just not going to happen in a lot of cases.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality issues specifically with regards to sourcing are unlikely to be caught by source reviewers who do not specialize in the subject area, because without that background it would take a heck of a lot of research to flag non-obvious issues. While I don't think it would be a bad thing to spotcheck more often than we do, I'm not convinced that that would typically address this particular problem - IME more often the issue in this area is choice of sources rather than text-source integrity. Plus currently we do not, and I do not think it is feasible, check every single source as part of a spotcheck, so non-widespread problems of that type are not guaranteed to be caught even in cases where a spotcheck is performed.

On 1c more generally: the answer to Gog's question will vary depending on the breadth of the topic area. For a narrow topic where only three or four sources exist, if published sources that have not been cited exist a source reviewer has a good shot at finding them, assuming they are decently indexed. For a broad topic, the question is never going to be "do other sources exist", it's going to be "do other sources that should be included exist", and that's much harder to evaluate. Again, if the source reviewer doesn't have a background in the topic area, this would take them a heck of a lot of research.

For a related case study, take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beaver/archive2. This is a 1c question more related to comprehensiveness/coverage than neutrality, but highlights similar issues. There are sources out there that have not been cited. Should they be cited? There is disagreement on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging Iridescent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As I've said before (although I can't remember where), I think strict compliance with "everything needs a full source review" would be counter-productive. A lot of FAs form natural series that are all written by the same author(s) using the same sources; if Star Trek, Star Trek 2, Star Trek 3 and Star Trek 4 all check out, I'm not going to lose too much sleep worrying that the same author is trying to pull a fast one when they submit Star Trek 5 and Star Trek 6. Given the limited number of people who are able and willing to do source reviews (a very specialist skill, since to do it well you need both to know where to find often very obscure sources, but to know how to spot potentially contentious claims even when you know nothing about the topic), trying to enforce "everything needs to be fully reviewed" would just lead to the FAC backlog ballooning to unworkable lengths. There are also purely practical issues, particularly on more obscure topics. For a surprising number of FAs, the main sources are either in foreign languages or are extremely hard to find (for instance, my William Etty series is all about a person whose most important biography has been out of print since 1955); there are ways to check an obscure source when it's necessary, but if it has to be done every time then the handful of people with full access to copyright libraries are going to get very fed up, very quickly. ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(adding) I think and always have thought that 1c is completely meaningless on all but the most niche of topics. It would literally be impossible for anyone to conduct "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" on any large topic. (The example I usually use is that the Bibliography of British Railway History—which covers a single topic in a single country and only goes up to 1995—comes in at 1884 pages and lists a little over 20,000 significant books. Even for an ultra-niche railway article like Brill Tramway there are no doubt significant sources that I omitted; for a broader topic like London Underground there are probably easily over a thousand directly relevant books, and that's before we even consider the academic journals, popular magazines, and websites.) In my opinion, whatever the good intent behind it WIAFA 1c is just a mechanism by which the FAC regulars can gatekeep against editors or topics who are wikipolitically out of favor. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, personally I agree with you re the balance between getting source reviews done at all and just how thoroughly non-first nominations are source reviewed. And that currently we get it more or less right. But just because I like the status quo didn't/doesn't mean that it may not be appropriate to seek broader input. So thanks for your detailed comments.

Re 1c: I don't think that I had previously engaged my brain over it, but having done so am inclined to agree with you. We could always endeavour to have it changed, if we had a suggested wording to change it to. Possibly it just needs "thorough and" removing? Or the equivalent at A class is "The article is comprehensive ... it neglects no major facts or details" "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That A-class equivalent is 1b, not 1c. I would suggest determining an answer to your first question (spotchecking frequency) independent of this whole discussion, since the issues most likely to be caught there are not these ones. And then for your second question, look at changing criteria and/or changing expectations for source reviewers vs content experts. (As I said, personally I feel the kinds of issues prompted by this discussion are most likely to be caught by the latter). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) From my experience with content promotion, how the spirit of the FA criteria seems to be is that the most significant sources need to be included for FA (but not for GA) and that all relevant viewpoints and details should be included, but not that all sources need to be used. There's always going to be some editorial decision-making, and it does make some difficulty as determining if there are any have-to-use sources (such as Ed Bearss for the Vicksburg campaign requires some background knowledge. I personally think that spot checks should be strongly encouraged, as even articles that appear to be okay can have massive source-text integrity issues - look at the talk page of Battle of Tippecanoe, an old FA being sent through FAR. I don't think its feasible to include a hardcoded requirement that source checks should always be done, but I think there should be an expectation for nominators that reviewers may request scans of paywalled or offline sources. One recommendation for determining source comprehensiveness would be to also check the bibliographies of the sources you're spot-checking - if all of the cited sources include a specific source, then it's likely that that source is needed for FA comprehensiveness. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Outdenting because I can and I'm bouncing through Kentucky in a semi truck... so I'm not even going to try to figure out where to stick this). I have long complained (quietly but... still complained) about the over emphasis on prose and under emphasis on sourcing at FAC. To be utterly frank.. I burned out on source reviewing and the few times I've tried to get back to it... it's only gotten worse. There's not much support for "higher" sourcing standards from other reviewers (I often would bring up serious issues with sourcing and then have other reviewers waltz in and support when there were glaring sourcing problems brought up in the review... talk about demoralizing!) or nominators. And the trend towards expecting the reviewres to bring the article up to standards in the FAC is .. concerning. On the other hand, without more reviewers willing to stick to their guns and oppose, as a coord, I can't exactly supervote and not promote an article with numerous supports and no opposes. I am all for stricter source reviews... but it'll burn you out without support from the coords (i'm willing!) and other reviewers. ANd it certainly won't make you friends. I'll try to get to some these coming weeks while out on the road - assuming that I can keep internet access and that the elderly laptop survives the bouncing. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I don't see why the coordinators shouldn't be supportive. What did you have in mind by way of "support"? I am not over-surprised that subsequent reviewers support after a source oppose or similar - they will probably be looking at different aspects of the criteria. But the coordinators and the more experienced reviewers know that all of them need to be met. Meeting 95% to a high standard but, say, PoVing by being selective with your sourcing still gets you archived.

well, to take a concern I've had and expressed to you - the Classical WikiProject's fascination with using and sourcing things to ancient sources - that's something that just gets excused at FAC. They genuinely don't seem to think they are using primary sources like historians would, instead of being encyclopedia editors and using secondary sources. So if you try to get that brought up in a source review - you get no where because you get piled up on by all the folks saying "but this is how we do it at the Classical project". I've also run into issues with more pop culture articles where folks seem to think that interviews on unreliable/dodgy websites have to be reliable because they are "just interviews". And a LOT of time there's not really any effort to evaluate sources against the actual "high quality" criteria and sources that barely meet the regular WP:RS requirement for the entire site are considered "good enough" for FAC. Want more whining? Heh. It's not fun to be a source reviewer if you're doing your job right. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth: primary sources for classical articles - you flagged this up with me a while ago - before I was a coordinator - and I have been watching for it since. I don't recall seeing any instances this year - if I had, I can't imagine why I didn't oppose. As someone who has recently had a round dozen classical FACs without - I think - a single primary source, direct any such cases to me. Primary sources of course do have their, limited, role; but I take a dim view of them. If people have rubbish sourcing then I am happy to go power mad and say I don't care what is "how we do it", but in this case anyone who wishes to argue the toss with an editor who has more classical FACs this year than the rest of Wikipedia put together is welcome to try. More than a bare handful of "Polybius" and we should archive first and listen to their bleating when the body has cooled.

Can a similar attitude to obviously naff websites and interviews not be used? We're not their mothers; it's not our job to take them by the hand and make them move their lips while they read through the MoS! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elagabalus/archive2. (Not a classical editor, not a historian, and don't know what to make of that mess.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't noticed any this year but I'm mostly referring to past situations. There's also issues with too much reliance on newspapers to source historical articles, some usage of archival sources for information, too much "close to doing a historians job" with using primary sources, etc. All these are from 2018 or earlier ... the moving kinda took out me keeping a close eye on FAC until this spring when I took up coord duties. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, so it looks as if we may have beaten the classical primary sources into submission. Archives - I remember using some in my first ever GAN, but don't think I have since. It is well established that they are not allowed. There are occasional cases where personally I might let one go though. Newspapers: less clear cut. I do take your point of editors wanting to play at being historians - I can relate to that. The idea of "tertiary source" seems to be elusive.

What we can do is exchange information among ourselves, be tough when we find it, and flag up clearly to the community that it is not going to be accepted. And if you don't like it, don't whine at us, go get the MoS changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume that the answer, or at least a partial solution, to nominations being dragged up to scratch during FAC is to encourage formal Opposes - I can think of a number of ways of doing this - and the coordinators rapidly archiving when this happens. Beaver and Die Hard seem cases in point. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue with hesitation to do source reviewers can be addressed by encouraging splitting it up. E.g. one person addresses the print sources, another person does source checks, a third looks at web sources. That way, people who maybe don't have the time or confidence to complete the entire thing can still contribute. This might also encourage more thoroughness rather than superficial checking it off. (t · c) buidhe 18:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I like this idea. When first timers get the spot checking and the formatting done by different reviewers it seems to work well. Does your proposed split mean that those "address[ing] ... the print sources [and] ... look[ing] at web sources" won't be "do[ing] source checks"? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. I do not like this idea. Often you can't get an idea of if there are problems with the sourcing without looking at the totality of them. And to be frank, you kinda almost have to be immersed IN sourcing to get good at source reviews. It's a constant failing that too many folks aren't concerned with source integrity - i.e. with keeping a source WITH the information it supports. Copyediting is notorious for moving stuff around and away from its sources as well as well-meant-but-unhelpful rewordings that change the meaning away from what the source supports. So you'll have a bit of information that is cited to a book, but maybe it originally was from a website - if you split up the source reviews this way - you end up with stuff left in limbo. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like everything above is missing the issue which brought this to concern, which is missing or unrepresented sources leading to an imbalance and POV. No amount of checking sources that are used will turn those up. You have to go out and look for them. C.J. Dick's POV was that "Eisenhower was wrong"; scores of other sources have other opinions. I notice Buidhe makes reviews to that effect, at least at FAR. In the three POV FACs I have encountered, it was the lack of viewpoints that created the POV problem. I think a lot of this comes down to reviewers being hesitant these days to do anything more than a cursory look at prose nitpicking because of some past treatment of reviewers who did more. I am also concerned that once a nominator hits a certain number of FAs, their nominations are no longer closely scrutinized; we assume they know their stuff, and don't dig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, that's two (both good, but IMO separate) points. I for one have addressed both above. On the first I wrote:

• I think that the lack of "an article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is something we are going to have to live with. If we made this a requirement, I feel sure that a large number of FACs would never receive source reviews at all. IMO it would require a source reviewer to have a better grasp of the potential sources than a nominator, and that is just not going to happen in a lot of cases.

On the second:

• Personally I always do at least a limited spot check when I do a source review. (Not that I do that many.) Even if I know nothing at all about the topic. And regardless of how much faith I have in the nominators. Eg with Buidhe's Greek case or SusunW's Women's poll tax capmpaign. I would encourage this, or even consider making it mandatory for all source reviews. Possibly we could consider an RFC if we agree and can come up with some suitable wording?

But then threw in a proviso which I won't bore everyone by repeating. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's all intertwined for me :) The fundamental failure in the three MILHIST POV articles I have encountered was 1c: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. They each took one book (Dinges) or one POV (Dick) and crafted entire premises around them. They each overlooked scores of high quality sources easily found (in one case, by my knowledge of where to look re Noriega, and in the most recent, by simply going to the books at hand in my basement). Spotchecking for source-to-text integrity is a separate but related matter. I will never accept that we should roll over on 1c: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. That is where we find POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't thing that thee and me are far apart on this, if at all. The current system is ad hoc and subject to missing a lot of potential 1c breaches, but I don't hear any mention of a "better", or even different, system to replace it. If you have a suggestion, I am all ears. (Which is an unfortunate image.)

Contrariwise, perhaps we could incrementally improve things by reinforcing/supporting reviewers who do identify such issues and by, as coordinators, being ready to promptly archive when well founded cases of non-1c'ness (is that the correct technical term?) are identified and formal Opposes made. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no "rule" that only first-time noms get spotchecks; if coords could find enough people to do spotchecks (a big "if"), they could ask for one on every single nom, no RfC required. But as Sandy notes, that won't deal with 1c. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of all ears :) Agree with Nikki, and wish I could offer more solutions instead of complaints. OK, what if ... evidence of one instance of serious sourcing problems led to Coords asking for a spotcheck AND 1c check on even repeat nominators for that nomination? Not wedded to that idea, but just something to get discussion started. Because I found repeat instances of same problems occurring at Noriega.

I have additionally been frustrated that current nominators don't really understand how we use the different terms referring to citation consistency/formatting, source spotcheck for text-to-source integrity and plagiarism, and 1c, thorough representation of the literature. That was a particular issue at Biblical criticism, which was possibly never understood by the nominator, who seemed to become more and frustrated at not understanding what limited checks different editors had done. We never even got to 1c, where I had serious questions about unrepresented sources.

Generally, I always agree with faster archival ... and I have done my best to do my part to get Peer review going so we have a place to send them for rapid turnaround, we hope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Mike says I have done 24 source reviews. I don't think that I have not done at least some level of spot checking on all of them. (I shall no doubt be proven wrong on that, ah well.) If a lack of bodies to spot check every FAC is an issue - and it is - then what can we do to encourage more than currently? Are there any incremental steps which could edge us in that direction? There seems to be a consensus that we would like to be doing more spot checking of established nominators

A random thought: perhaps an editor's freedom from spot checks has a time limit? Or is only good for so many FACs? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have shirked my spot-checking duties. Because I came from the era where I simply had the luxury of relying on Ealdgyth, who became a poor abused soul as now is Nikkimaria. Gog, when you come across one within my capabilities (no Jstor), ping me to the FAC, and I will start to do my part as I am able. The other things I wanted to get off the ground are somewhat (eeeek) under control. But first I have to submit some ArbCom evidence, which I have put off 'til the last few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

On the idea of "only so many FACs", or a time limit, I regretfully inform you that anything that is set in hard-and-fast terms at FAC will eventually be gamed. BTDT. Keep it vague, within Coord discretion. (Which reminds me, WikiCup is about to start up again so we must discuss what to do about appalling quid-pro-quo review advertising that took hold per 2020 WikiCup.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, you have free access to JSTOR. Go here.

Gog, naively I wonder if making spotchecking more common might encourage more people to get comfortable doing them. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Why Nikkimaria, how Machiavellian of you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

List of History FAs

Hi Gog, do you think I can reorganise the list of History FAs here? It is difficult to look for something in that wall of blue. I'm thinking of four sections (Ancient, Medieval, Early Modern, Modern). Strangely, Paleocene is in History, while it should go in Geology. T8612 (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That kind of concern belongs at the talk page of WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

T8612, I could, after asking if there was community consensus for it, but I imagine that whatever you are after could be tracked down more easily at MilHist. Go to most MilHist pages, click on "Task Forces" in the navigation box to the right, select the/a one of interest, and scroll to the FAs for that task force in alphabetical order. Eg here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, albeit it's only about the military history FAs. T8612 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC

Would I be able to re-nominate in less than two weeks? Say, in one week? LittleJerry (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

LittleJerry, that would depend on the circumstances. If you could demonstrate that you had arguably addressed all of the issues which caused it to be archived, then a coordinator may agree to an earlier re-nomination. But I can't judge that until I see why an article was archived and what work has been done to it since.

I assume that you have beaver in mind? Given that its nomination is still open and fresh comments are being posted, thinking of re-nominating seems premature; it is still live. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

• News and notes: Year-end legal surprises cause concern, but Public Domain Day is imminent

• In the media: Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds

• Arbitration report: 2020 election results

• Opinion: How to make your factory's safety and labor issues disappear

• Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.

• Traffic report: 2020 wraps up

• News from the WMF: What Wikipedia saw during election week in the U.S., and what we’re doing next

• Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions

• Essay: Subjective importance

• Op-Ed: An unforgettable year we might wish to forget

• Gallery: Angels in the architecture

• Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

2020 Military Historian of the Year

		2020 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Silver Wiki for coming in second place in the 2020 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions throughout the year. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Replacing deleted articles?

Thanks for the barnstar - always good for morale! Perhaps you can give me some advice since my former mentor Buckshot06 seems to have gone off the grid? Firstly, on three occasions recently I have been preparing to add some material on artillery regiments, only to find that the pages on the parent units have been deleted. These were: 1st Dumbartonshire Rifle Volunteers, 3rd (Ulster) Searchlight Regiment, Royal Artillery, and 6th Cyclist Battalion, Suffolk Regiment. From what I can discover, these were deleted because of serious copyright offences by the author, not because of quality. I have sufficient material to provide new articles on these units, but what is the protocol: should I go ahead, or wait a certain length of time in case the original articles might be reinstated on appeal?

Conversely, I have found that someone has posted an article on 102nd (Ulster) Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery (incorrect title) when there was an existing article on 102nd Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery (correct title, and linked into other articles and categories). How do I flag this up for possible merger?

I'm happy to go on quietly filling gaps in wiki's coverage, but these are murky waters! RegardsRickfive (talk)

Hi Rickfive, no problem - you certainly earned it. I am far from knowledgeable on these matters, so I shall copy in a couple of wiser heads than mine - Girth Summit and Harrias. I also note that you may get more informed assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Re the previously deleted articles, if it were me, I would simply recreate them, adding a brief note on the talk page.

Re the duplicates, they sound to my ignorant ears as if they need either merging or speedily deleting under A10. Which would depend, it seems to me, on how much, if any, new, RSed, content the new article contains.

Hopefully this gives you pointers in the right direction, but never having flagged an article for either merge or SD I am reluctant to go much further with any suggestions.

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiser head than yours? Don't know about that Gog, but I guess I at least have the advantage of x-ray specs that let me see deleted stuff.

Rickfive, the Dumbartonshire Rifles and the Ulster Searchlight articles were deleted because they were created by a banned user - see WP:G5. Don't know about the copyright concerns, but I don't know the history of the case. There would be no problem with you recreating articles on those subjects if you have the interest and sources. I can't see an old article for the Cyclists, perhaps I'm looking at the wrong address? Again though, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't recreate the articles.

Regarding the merge, if we have two articles about the same subject then merging is the right course of action; it's not something I've ever been involved in, but I bet if I type WP:MERGE the link will be blue... Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

		The Guidance Barnstar
		You know that there are many things I would not even attempt without your mentoring and guidance. I truly appreciate the effort you put in and the humor you bring to stressful situations, which lighten the load considerably. I will never be able to adequately express my gratitude, just know that I am beholden to you. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Gog

So I guess you thought it prudent to overlook my comment here, which was probably a kindness on your part, so thank you. I was pretty crushed at the time. Do you still want to work with me on your article, or have you changed your mind? I still feel the same way about working with you, I would be honored, but I understand if you'd rather not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I must have offended you more deeply than I have understood. I am genuinely sorry for that as it was not my intention. I know that you do not deserve that. Please forgive my bull-in-the-china-shop ways. I am often socially inept and clueless. Feel free to yell at me all I deserve. I'm sure I would benefit from being yelled at by you. I am truly sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

Oops. It is I who owe you an apology. I saw the red bell and clicked through to your message. Decided that it would need more than an off the cuff response so I would just finish what I was doing. Then one thing led to another and I forgot. I have got myself over-committed on Wikipedia and non-routine things keep slipping through the cracks. Sorry.

Re the article. Yes, I would still like to work with with you on it, if you would still like to work with me after my carelessness. I have done little work on it since we last spoke, and that mostly on the religious side. I do have some sources lined up for "my" side of things though. It is now bedtime, my time, and I have RL commitments for much of tomorrow. I shall try to make a start on it tomorrow evening, and either way I shall let you know how I am doing. If I don't, a firm smack round the head with that olive branch should gain my attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank goodness! I understand real life interfering with online life and vice versa. My mother is ill and I am probably going to have to fly up there and take care of her, so I will not have tons of time for WP for the next few weeks. I can read up though. I'll work on that. I don't know much about the Byzantine empire, so this will be a good opportunity for me to learn more. Thanx Gog. I'm glad you are still speaking to me. You and Mike Christie were two of the good things to come out of my debacle. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 33 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congrats for the upcoming Mercenary war FA main page appearance and thank you for all your work. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Someone cares. Thank you Elias Ziade, much appreciated.

[shameless plug] If you feel like helping to improve an article, then Battle of the Saw is currently at FAC. [/shameless plug]. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Belated Holiday Greetings to you and yours. You are next in line for an Eddy (next week) but I was hoping you would relinquish your place in the Q for those from last year. A couple of new ones were added today which eased my mind. New noms are always welcome. Thanks for all you do!!! ―Buster7 ☎ 18:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buster7 and the same to you. As I had been told not to peek at Editor Retention I haven't been making any nominations, although I could see that noms were getting short. I shall see if I can top the list up. I'm not sure that I understand your second point, but I am happy to relinquish my place if it helps the project or you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Gog. Much appreciated!!!!―Buster7 ☎ 22:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Siege of Guines

Hi Gog, I noticed that the disambiguation article I created yesterday is linked to your task page. Which siege were you referring to as a potential article? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Newm30, the first. French unsuccessfully besieging the English. I have created it as a stub. I'll tidy it up when I get the chance. And have added a link to it in one of my FACs. Nice work by the way. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Wishing you a Happy New Year. Always happy to help out where our spheres of interest overlap. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dreamsnake

This has had two source reviews - if you're still looking for something in that regard, would you be able to specify what that is? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My error. Removed. Thanks Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Erpingham

Hi, I'm probably going to close the review and nominate the article for FA, do you want time to add any more comments? Amitchell125 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125, I was waiting for things to quieten down a bit before chipping in. Plus I have been pretty busy with other stuff. If you think that it is ready, nominate it and I'll give it an early review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Bloody good effort!

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		In recognition of the 128 incredibly incisive and helpful Milhist GAN, ACR, PR and FA reviews you did in 2020, I hereby award you the Premium Reviewer Barnstar. Bloody good effort! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Mercenary War

Hi Gog! Can you pls check the minor tweaks I just did on Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) - if they are OK I'll do same for tomorrow's TFA? JennyOz (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

They look fine Jen, how could you doubt yourself? "materiel" is definitely going to get 'corrected' tomorrow! Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Done! If it gets corrected often, I'll link it! ( I've been a bit despondent about doing reviews lately ... so many discussions in so many places about so many problems. Might get back on the horse on the weekend!) Regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jen. I know just what you mean. Personally I more or less ignore them until and unless they generate an actual change. It would be great to have some of your superb reviews at FAC. I have recently been on a FAC reviewing run, and on my 22nd from the past 17 days, despite now being a FAC coordinator. Or perhaps because of. I dunno. As you have just looked at a couple of Mercenary War articles, you might want to cast an eye over my current FAC: Battle of the Saw - you generously reviewed it at ACR.

How are you keeping anyway? How is the brave new virus-ridden world treating you? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I saw Saw note a few days ago. (You're a good salesperson.) I'll check the noms page. I know there's one there for ND and another for PM I am keen to do too.

I am keeping well, thanks for asking. Australia has done relatively well - a combination of island nation, common sense compliance and leaders listening to medical experts. A little bit of political bickering re state border shutdowns but it seems every breakout is quickly dealt with. So, so glad as always to be in the Lucky Country. I shudder when I see stats from elsewhere. Wherever you are, keep safe. See you at FAC! JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article Mercenary War, introduced: "The First Punic War ended after 23 years with a Carthaginian defeat. Still a great power, Carthage arranged to pay off its army and ship its members home. One botched attempt to shortchange the troops later and the army was blockading Carthage and its African vassals had risen in revolt to join the mutineers with 70,000 volunteers. The war was fought with unusual savagery, even for the time." - That's what we see on Wikipedia's 20 birthday ;) - I have a director to offer for DYK (next set), had a conductor 5 years ago, and the complete works by Bach 10 years ago, all less bloody. Today's intention: not to end the day without a FAC nom. I'm procrastinating, but Jerome Kohl, the effort of many, was worth it, - more help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

please expain

this edit you made on the Exersice tiger page.

Your reference wasn't clear as to what it was, article, book etc but I found it here.

It mentions Operation Tiger 11 pages after the page you reference but says "The incident passed without repercussions." The document does not connect Tiger to that one sentence on page 259 saying he had an increased interest in Normany in any fashion. It makes no judgment at all on the reason. The document does not connect the to things at all. This is the problem with people using sources that are hard to check, like you saying what you wrote was on that page. Actually what you wrote was a total fabrication on your part and i want to know why you did it. If I missed something point it out. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC).

References

Hi Jackhammer111. Firstly can I suggest that you reread WP:AGF, and then WP:NPA. Secondly, as I made that edit more than three years ago, you won't be surprised to hear that I have no recollection of it. You are entirely correct that the source given does not support the text; apologies for that and thank you for pointing it out. Going back through the sources I have to hand, I suspect that I should have given Ambrose (D-Day, 2002). I also should probably have been less emphatic, but I was a newbie editor then. I have rephrased and reattributed. See what you think. If it is not to your taste, feel entirely free to change or revert. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Less empathetic? Previously you used one sentence in a 450 page document and fabricated a connection between Slapton Sands and the Cotentin beach and that one sentence. Now you come back and use that one sentence about Hitler's insistence and you use essentially the same words that you used before. And here's where it gets dicey. I found the reference in the book that you used. And this brings up a sensitive topic. Popular historians are not infallible. Check the reference the author uses to draw that conclusion. There is what I might call an incestuous relationship between the source you used before and the source you're using now, and its author using the same one you used...it's the Harrison book cross-channel invasion and even references the same page that you have admitted does not support what you wrote. It doesn't support what he wrote either and it doesn't matter That he put it in a book. The cross-channel Invasion book does not claim any connection between exercise tiger and Hitler shifting priorities and doesn't even claim that Hitler knew about exercise tiger. I'll quote back the sentence "Whether Hitler saw and reacted to these naval estimates or whether he had access to other information, in late April his interest in Normandy increased and he began to insist strongly on the need to reinforce the defense there. " that comes after there's a discussion about the naval estimates and If you read the naval estimates there is no mention of exercise tiger or its location in those Naval estimates. For the sake of discussion, I want to point out something else I noticed that Ambrose did that I find disturbing. He added the word "lower" to Normandy. The cross-channel Invasion book doesn't say lower Normandy. Normandy is a large area that includes the entire Cotentin peninsula. In March Hitler concludes that it will be on the Cotentin and Brittany peninsulas. Then it says in April he says, Normandy. It looks to me like they are in exactly the state of confusion but the Allies Intended them to be in. I believe I have read elsewhere that Hitler did reinforce the upper peninsula thinking it would be Cherbourg and even diverted troops to the Brittany peninsula. We know in reality he did very little to reinforce the lower Normandy. If you recall Rangers were surprised when they scaled The Cliffs at Pointe du hoc find the big guns were gone and there weren't a lot of troops there. The only guns that needed silencing at Pointe du hoc where's some 88 about three or four hundred yards inland that were firing east Southeast across the peninsula at Omaha which was four or five miles away. I've been there. Something else Ambrose did disturbs me. Remember, he's using the same source you did which doesn't even conclude that he ever knew anything about exercise tiger yet Ambrose goes on to praise Hitler saying he had an amazing ability to store topographical information. Talk about unsupported bologna. It's a good thing for us Hitler had no special genius and that he acted like he was a military genius despite having no military education having never risen above Lance corporal when he was in the military And yet here is Ambrose claiming without evidence that Hitler recognized the similarity and reinforced "lower" Normandy of which he did such a lousy job of that it becomes where we succeed. I think it's clear that if the Germans hadn't guessed wrong they would have thrown us back into the sea. Look up what Ambrose writes on the rest of the page and the next. He hasn't got a clue as to what Hitler knew or didn't know

While what I wrote to you before and I'm writing to you now is sternly worded I don't consider it a personal attack. If you're objecting to the word fabrication and I stand by the word because you reach the conclusion that you put on that page that was not supported by your reference. I'm sure you know Wikipedia policy on original research. A lot of men died needlessly in this rehearsal. We shouldn't be saying that this caused more needless deaths on D-Day unless that's really what happened. I'd appreciate it if you were the one that removes this instead of me so it doesn't look like I've taken the second step towards an edit War. We can continue to discuss it if you like. By the way oh, this was a pain in the ass for me to research. I found a copy of the ebook that I downloaded from my library but my eReader doesn't show page numbers.. Slow and bulky. I kind of blew my day. I'm just bitching, I'm not blaming you.Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Rethymno

The article Battle of Rethymno you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Rethymno for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ancient sources in FAs

Hey Gog, I'm helping out with WP:URFA/2020, and there are some very old FAs (promoted around 2006) that use Xenophon/Thucydides/etc. rather uncritically and directly as sources for historical events, rather than modern secondary sources. I have a suspiscion that heavy direct usage of the ancient writers may not be a good thing for FAs, but I thought you and @T8612: might have more experience with this area and subject, so I'd like to know y'all's opinions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm, soon to be Sir Hog Farm. They are primary sources, and come with all of the usual warnings re primary sources. Ideally these shouldn't be directly cited to at all. I have managed a dozen ancient FAs without, I think, a single cite to a primary source, so it is not as if it is difficult. The occasional cite for a non-controversial fact, OK. More than that and a nom wouldn't get past FAC. How much in an existing FA is enough to bring an article to FAR if it isn't re-cited is a bit subjective - those that are mostly primary sourced are obviously headed there. If you would care to point me at some specific examples I could give you a horseback opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thrasybulus is the first one that comes to mind. It also has some OR and lack of citation issues, so it's probably FAR-bound anyway. I think Theramenes also is another one that needs attention. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Whole paragraphs not referenced at all. Theramenes is a decent C class and needs putting out of its misery. Thrasybulus might be saved if someone were to put a lot of TLC into re-citing. Given the other issues it would probably be easier to rewrite it. I like to give existing FAs a big benefit of the doubt, but those two look hopeless cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Gog's already got an inkling of my opinion on using ancient primary sources for articles ... and I know I gave poor T8612 an earful/eyeful the other day. The short bit is .. it's a bad idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll be nominating one of the two for FAR when it turns to the 17th, as that is when my next one is open. I'd say they both need it, sadly. I know you may not want to, but you're always welcome to join any discussions over at FAR, as well. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I've told Sandy I just don't have the time. I'm stretched thin enough as it is. (I SHOULD be working on non-wiki-horse research... not poking my nose in here) Ealdgyth (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm Unlike Gog, I don't think that primary sources shouldn't be used at all, there's even a policy on this WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, but they should not be "alone", eg. it's fine to have a reference to Thucydides, who is a very important source, but there should be at least another reference to a modern source next to it. The best way to check whether primary sources are used correctly is to jump to the references section. If you see—as with Thrasyboulos—four successive references to Thucydides and then one to Xenophon (notes 11-15), you can be sure that it's not going to be good enough for FA. I think I told you that you can also nominate Pericles, Aspasia, Alcibiades, and Demosthenes for the same reason.T8612 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@T8612: I'm not opposed to use of primary sources either; I've even used official ACW military reports lightly in all four of my FAs. However, since ancient history was often of a quite different stripe than modern history (for instance Josephus, I've read his entire Jewish Antiquities), I also think the ancient sources should be used sparingly, and in conjunction with modern assessments when used. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC Mentoring Follow-Up

Hello! I contacted you a little over a month ago about getting Ted Kaczynski to FA. I've gone through your suggestions and had a Copyedit done by the GOCE, and I think the article may be ready for FAC. Twofingered Typist's edit was wonderful, and they ironed out quite a few issues in the article. Let me know what you think as far as how to proceed. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 17:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AviationFreak, it looks in decent shape on a skim. (Neo-luddite is dup-linked.) If it were me, I would put it in for Wikipedia:Peer review. If you do, I will give it another look over for copy edit, proof read, MoS, adherence to source etc. But the main object will be to get a broader view on breadth, undue, range, section order etc, and to see if any one flags up additional sources. PR has changed a little recently, so I am pinging the inestimable SandyGeorgia in case there is anything else you need to need to know and a general all round good person to assist with this stage. (The subject of the article has some unfortunate resonances for her, so don't push if she is unresponsive - query me instead.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the PR idea. Will avoid the parts that make me see red ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Listed at PR and added to the PR FAC Sidebar. Thank you! AviationFreak💬 19:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it to the sidebar, AviationFreak! That will help me remember to get to it. I am so far behind right now that I despair, so if I am not there within a few weeks, please pester me at my talk page. PS, have you read User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content? It is mostly oriented at medical editors, but lays out some basics for everyone. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Guines (1352)

On 19 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Guines (1352), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1352 Siege of Guines reignited the Hundred Years' War after six years of uneasy truce? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Guines (1352). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Guines (1352)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Jupiter

Hi Gog, are you still copy-editing Jupiter for the GOCE? The request at REQ has been marked as working since 6 January. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies Baffle gab1978, two weeks! My goodness, that's bad. I reserved this, and also flagged up my involvement at PR, with all good intentions. But now that I am a FAC coordinator, and given my new role at TFA, my Wikipedia time just seems to evaporate. I think that, after copy editing 500,000 words over three years for GOCE, it is time for me to admit that I can no longer maintain my active involvement. I have struck my "Working" at GOCE R, and apologies again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries Gog, and thanks for striking. It's a big planet to copy-edit; far too much gravity to get sucked into (and watch out for that Great Red Spot!). :D I miss seeing your name on the requests page; thanks for all of the work you've done there and I hope you enjoy your new wiki-niches. I'm working at making myself scarce for a while... not really working, is it? ;) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at FAC

Hi. I originally brought this up to Ian Rose (here at their talk page) after being advised to consult one of the project coordinators. An editor from the jazz project appears to have hijacked my nomination of this article with relentless, disparaging, uncivil comments with the intention of removing references to the genre (to which reliable sources are attributed). Their comments section has become bloated, intractable, and unapproachable, and I am worried it's a blight on the nomination and might alienate serious reviewers from taking on the article. I've cited issues with their comments at Ian Rose's talk page, and this latest comment shows the editor will not back down. So I am now here. isento (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I even tried to distinguish the entirely genre/jazz-focused section by titling it "Genre comments by...", and the editor reverted me with the edit summary "these comments transcend genre" ([1]). The editor is indulging, escalating, and imploding with each comment. It is disturbing. I can't recall ever encountering such a singular resistance and personalized determination to force one's agenda or ideology at an FAC. Maybe in general. isento (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

He referred to one reliably sourced statement as "a bullshit statement in a bullshit article" ([2]) isento (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've perused a few of the FA-reviewing guidelines, including this one, which says comments must be actionable, otherwise they won't be considered in determining a nomination's promotion. Their comments are not even approachable. I hesitated to respond again to that editor, because they can't seem to control their aggression and attitude. I feel some kind of intervention is necessary at this point. isento (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

An antagonistic soliloquy. That is the best way of describing what they've turned the section into. isento (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Isento: Apologies for the delayed response. The repetition of the same point and the inappropriate way in which this has been done has been noted. I understand that nominating a FAC is a stressful time - at least, mine always are - and that this sort of raising the temperature doesn't help. Let the comments made to date lie. If the reviewer makes further comments on other points respond to them normally - either editing the article or explaining why you don't. And if there is further repetition of inappropriately forceful language, please do flag it up here. @FAC coordinators: for information. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Flag it at the FAC talk page or at your talk page? Here's more since then: "If I played basketball as a kid, does that make me a basketball player for life? Or does it have a clear definition? I'm supposed to accept these mushy-headed statements as reliable sources regarding facts? That's wishful thinking, an article of faith. The will and desire to make something true although it really isn't. ... It matters to people with integrity who know how to use words properly and whose first interest is the reader. It matters because words matter. And if it's not a big deal, then why not remove it? Why fight it so hard? Therefore it must be a big deal, right? I don't know how many times I have to say this: 'elements of jazz' is not identical to jazz, and it's such a vague statement as to be meaningless. What specifically does it mean? Just like 'forays into jazz'. It allows the writer to sound elevated while saying nothing, a common tactic in music journalism. Puffery, in other words. And since when does one person's feelings determine the quality of an article? Are we done with facts?" isento (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Isento, on it. Please ignore it, hard as that may be. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to closed FAN

"Was "Cyrenaica Command" the formal and official title?"

I just wanted to follow-up about this point. Yes, it was the formal and official title. Am I missing something in the article about that, or need to tweak something?

@EnigmaMcmxc: I had not personally come across this expression before, so I just wanted to check that it wasn't a - perfectly sensible - informal phrase. If it were, the second C needed to be lower case, that was all. As it is a proper noun, no problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	You have certainly had your hand in what I would consider an insane amount of FAs and GAs. As that meme goes, "Just take my [barnstar]!" Hoping to add to your 2021 bling TheSandDoctor Talk 05:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor Thank you, much appreciated. For still being in January my 2021 Bling Bar is accumulating nicely. I try to keep my total of GAs and FAs ticking over. Not that I'm obsessed. Oh no. I can give it up any time I want to. Any time. Yes. Any time at all. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of the Saw

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of the Saw, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Job! -- Panini^🥪 12:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

• News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021

• Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection

• In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades

• Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation

• In the media: The world's press says "Happy Birthday!" with a few twists

• Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically

• Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years

• News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world

• Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers

• Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia

• Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020

• Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ian Ross Campbell (cropped).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ian Ross Campbell (cropped).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Treaty of Guînes

On 3 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Treaty of Guînes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English and French agreed to a draft treaty in 1354 to end what was to become the Hundred Years' War, but the French reneged and the war continued for a further 101 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of Guînes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Treaty of Guînes), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Kinghorn

On 5 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kinghorn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after losing the Battle of Kinghorn in 1332, the Earl of Fife was "full of shame" at being defeated by such a small force? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Kinghorn. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Kinghorn), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for Battle of the Saw, Spendius, and Battle of Heraklion. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)